“Ethnography consists of the observation and analysis of human groups
considered as individual entities (the groups are often selected, for practical
and theoretical reasons unrelated to the nature of the research involved, from
those societies that differ most from our own). Ethnography thus aims at
recording as accurately as possible the perspective modes of life of various
groups.”
- Structural
Anthropology (1963), by Claude
Lévi-Strauss.
“[Ethnography has a] goal, of which an Ethnographer should never lose
sight. This goal is, briefly, to grasp the native's point of view, his relation
to life, to realise his vision of his world. We have to study man, and we must
study what concerns him most intimately, that is, the hold life has on him. In
each culture, the values are slightly different; people aspire after different
aims, follow different impulses, yearn after a different form of happiness. In
each culture, we find different institutions in which man pursues his
life-interest, different customs by which he satisfies his aspirations,
different codes of law and morality which reward his virtues or punish his
defections. To study the institutions, customs, and codes or to study the
behaviour and mentality without the subjective desire of feeling by what these
people live, of realising the substance of their happiness—is, in my opinion,
to miss the greatest reward which we can hope to obtain from the study of man.”
- Argonauts
of the Western Pacific (1922) by Bronislaw
Malinowski.
This definition given by Claude Levi-Strauss, to me,
is the most straightforward of the 7 listed at http://www.americanethnography.com/ethnography.php,
but also gives some details as to what an ethnography’s aim is. However, the definition given by Bronislaw
Malinowski, in my opinion, is the most meaningful and detailed. It seems to be
defined from an emotional standpoint because the words used appear to try and
provoke emotions from the reader and it has a much deeper meaning than the
others. I think a combination of the two definitions would give the best
description of an ethnography because of the deepness of Malinowski’s and the
straightforwardness of Levi-Strauss’.
From the reading of:
Ethnographies appear to be almost like debates between ethnographers. An
ethnography is supposed to be an unbiased study of a culture, but somehow
results seem to get skewed. In the Wikipedia article, Coming of Age in Samoa,
Derek Freeman and Margaret Mead butted heads on the data collected from a
Samoan tribe (Freeman started the head butting and waited for Mead to die
before he started talking crap!). I don’t think Freeman was wrong for trying to
disprove Mead’s results. If he tried to disprove without talking so much crap
and instead just conducted his own ethnography (which he later did) then he
would’ve been cool with me. He went about it the wrong way by calling her out
and just saying that she was plain wrong; he seemed to have his own intentions
in mind. With that being said, I think it’s hard for any ethnography to be
conducted without getting some results wrong. People react differently with
different people. I react differently with my computer science classmates than
I do with my roommate and close friends. So Margaret Mead’s results may have
been the results of Samoan’s reacting to a woman and Derek Freeman’s results
may have come from reactions of him being a man. There is no accurate way to
determine whether or not a person will act the same way with different people,
so results can sometimes be skewed. The best way, I think is to set up hidden
cameras and watch without knowing, that way genuine interactions can be
recorded and looked at (there is the issue of privacy though).
In short, I
think an ethnography conducted on the same culture with ethnographers of
different race, gender, age, etc., would produce differing results. People
react differently to different people so the results would differ depending on
the ethnographer.
Ethics plays a big role in ethnographies, too. There is an 8 page code of ethics that ethnographers are required to abide by when conducting research, teaching, applying a study, and disseminating results. Here are brief guidelines for them:- Conducting Research-When conducting research Anthropologists need to be aware of the potential impacts of the research on the people and animals they study. If the seeking of new knowledge will negatively impact the people and animals they will be studying they may not undertake the study according to the code of ethics.
- Teaching-When teaching the discipline of anthropology, instructors are required to inform students of the ethical dilemmas of conducting ethnographies and field work.
- Application-When conducting an ethnography Anthropologists must be "open with funders, colleagues, persons studied or providing information, and relevant parties affected by the work about the purpose(s), potential impacts, and source(s) of support for the work."
- Dissemination of Results-When disseminating results of an ethnography the code notes that "[a]nthropologists have an ethical obligation to consider the potential impact of both their research and the communication or dissemination of the results of their research on all directly or indirectly involved." Research results of ethnographies should not be withheld from participants in the research if that research is being observed by other people.
There are also many types of ethnographers:
- "The kindly ethnographer" – Most ethnographers present themselves as being more sympathetic than they actually are, which aids in the research process, but is also deceptive. The identity that we present to subjects is different from who we are in other circumstances.
- "The friendly ethnographer" – Ethnographers operate under the
assumption that they should not dislike anyone. In actuality, when hated
individuals are found within research, ethnographers often crop them
out of the findings.
- "The honest ethnographer" – If research participants know the research goals, their responses will likely be skewed. Therefore, ethnographers often conceal what they know in order to increase the likelihood of acceptance.
- "The Precise Ethnographer" – Ethnographers often create the illusion that field notes are data and reflect what "really" happened. They engage in the opposite of plagiarism, giving credit to those undeserving by not using precise words but rather loose interpretations and paraphrasing. Researchers take near-fictions and turn them into claims of fact. The closest ethnographers can ever really get to reality is an approximate truth.
- "The Observant Ethnographer" – Readers of ethnography are often led to assume the report of a scene is complete – that little of importance was missed. In reality, an ethnographer will always miss some aspect because they are not omniscient. Everything is open to multiple interpretations and misunderstandings. The ability of the ethnographer to take notes and observe varies, and therefore, what is depicted in ethnography is not the whole picture.
- "The Unobtrusive Ethnographer" – As a "participant" in the scene, the researcher will always have an effect on the communication that occurs within the research site. The degree to which one is an "active member" affects the extent to which sympathetic understanding is possible.
- "The Candid Ethnographer" – Where the researcher situates themselves within the ethnography is ethically problematic. There is an illusion that everything reported has actually happened because the researcher has been directly exposed to it.
- "The Chaste Ethnographer" – When ethnographers participate within the field, they invariably develop relationships with research subjects/participants. These relationships are sometimes not accounted for within the reporting of the ethnography despite the fact that they seemingly would influence the research findings.
- "The Fair Ethnographer" – Fine claims that objectivity is an illusion and that everything in ethnography is known from a perspective. Therefore, it is unethical for a researcher to report fairness in their findings.
- "The Literary Ethnographer" – Representation is a balancing act of determining what to "show" through poetic/prosaic language and style versus what to "tell" via straightforward, ‘factual’ reporting. The idiosyncratic skill of the ethnographer influences the face-value of the research.
