Ethnography

Once the basic boundaries of ethnography are established, it becomes apparent that the concept of "culture" must also be considered; this leads to an examination of "context" as well as three basic concepts: ontology, epistemology, and methodology. The three most common research paradigms for ethnography, that of positivism, post-positivism, and critical theory, are discussed, and these paradigms are applied to the performance of ethnographic research. The paper then examines in more detail the relationship of the observer to the participant. After explaining the ethnographer's position as that of performing dual roles whenever engaged in ethnographic research, a few of the problems that can arise from this inherent need to perform dual roles is examined.

Keywords Association of Social Anthropologists (ASA); Behaviorism; Department for International Development (DFID); Epistemology; Ethnographic Exit; Indo-British Rainfed Farming Project (IBRFP); Methodology; Ontology; Positivism; Post-positivism; Critical Theory

Overview

Defining Ethnography

In recent years, it has become more difficult to create a definition of ethnography that is concise and at the same time agreed upon by a majority of scholars and scientists. As Hammersley (2006) notes, there is "a degree of eclecticism on the part of many who call themselves ethnographers" (p. 4). Nevertheless, Hammersley tries to create a broad definition that will pass the test. In his recent work he writes that he considers the term "ethnography" to refer to "a form of social and educational research that emphasizes the importance of studying at first hand what people do and say in particular contexts" (Hammersley, 2006, p. 4). Thus, ethnography is essentially a form of scientific fieldwork in which we have an observer making first hand observations and taking notes about a participant or participants.

To piece together a tenable definition for the term, we should also look at other ethnographers' ideas on what comprises ethnography, and thereby gather a description that might help us understand the theoretical underpinnings as well as the functions of ethnography. Simmons (2007) notes that ethnography originated in anthropology, and she asserts that the researcher needs to become "immersed in the culture being studied in order to study the social world." The author then explains that ethnographers usually gather information by using "in-depth interviews and participant observation, commonly known as fieldwork" (Simmons, 2007, p. 7). Participant observation is at the center of ethnographic data collection, and through observation the ethnographer tries to accurately understand "the cultural rules and expectations from the perspective of an insider" Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995, as cited in Simmons, 2007, p. 10). Simmons then elaborates by asserting that an ethnographer should engage in "appropriate social activity" so as to become "immersed in and established as a temporary member of the group in order to learn its culture" (p. 10). The author points out that ethnographers must not only become in some way socially accepted by the group being studied, but that ethnographers must also simultaneously carry out the additional conceptual and operational responsibilities that comprise ethnographic fieldwork (Simmons, 2007). This dual role can be one of the biggest problems the ethnographer may face.

The Importance of Culture

Dumas' (2007) simple but important idea on what ethnography should also be considered, and relating to this, a definition of "culture" is also necessary since most ethnographers seem to agree that this is at the heart of all ethnography. Dumas observes,

Ethnography is the study of culture. Not individuals (psychology) or populations (demography) or nations (politics/history) or trends (cool-hunting). And why should we care about culture? Think of it as the basic software we all need to navigate the world - the operating systems that we carry around in our heads and use without really being aware that we're doing any such thing (Dumas, 2007, ¶ 9).

Thus, we should be aware that ethnography is essentially a study of culture, but we should not assume we all possess the same clear definition for the word "culture." Above, Dumas provides a good metaphor for the meaning of culture (the human equivalent to a computer's operating system software), while her definition also points out the difficulty in examining culture. If we are not aware of our own cultural point of view, if we can never truly step completely outside our own "operating systems," then it is obviously quite difficult to perform "objective" ethnographic studies. This is a central problem that all ethnographers face, and many academics touch on this problem, in one way or another, in their scholarly works.

Considering Context

Beaulieu (2004), who writes about Internet ethnography - and who therefore must consider the term "culture" in relation to the Internet - takes on the task of dissecting the word "culture" yet further. Her definition is similar to Dumas' "operating system", while it also develops Hammersley's idea of studying people in "particular contexts". Beaulieu simultaneously takes on the above-mentioned problem wherein ethnography is generally understood as observing real informants in a real location, a notion that calls into question the validity of performing ethnography through the Internet. Beaulieu argues that while "the field" as site, method and location in anthropology is essential in defining ethnography, even more central to the ethnographic approach is "the concern to provide accounts of what activities mean to people who do them, and the circumstances that give rise to those meanings" (Beaulieu, 2004, p. 159). Thus, she argues that while field notes or description is the basic method used to create the output of ethnography, this fieldwork is actually "subsumed to a partnered understanding of context," and this search for context behind the observations is essential to creating a clearer definition for the word "culture."

As Beaulieu sees it, beneath field notes or descriptions should lie the analysis of context, and such analyses should always be used as an attempt to discover what events mean to participants, and also how the "possibilities for meaning are themselves organised." This analysis of context is like perceiving an operational system from the outside to better examine it. Beaulieu provides a definition of culture that encompasses Internet ethnography:

Ethnographic methods therefore focus on observing and analysing a variety of 'patterned interactions' and provide an understanding of how and why these are meaningful. Taken together, these interactions and the conditions that make them meaningful, can be labelled 'culture' (Beaulieu, 2004, p. 159).

Though Dumas (2007) does not concentrate on defining the term "culture", she does seem quite aware that analysis of context during observation is key to ethnography. Thus, she points out the complexity of performing accurate and well-considered fieldwork when an unconscious, a priori cultural standpoint is lurking behind every observation. She writes,

The trouble is, lots of observational research basically stops right here [at simply recording observations]. We've observed the target in their natural habitat! We've recorded their rituals! We've coded their video diaries! But observation alone is dangerously inadequate. To see is not always to understand. Cultures need prodding to reveal themselves... (Dumas, 2007, 12).

Dumas also clarifies exactly what needs cultural prodding. She says this is frequently a set of diverse and often contradictory value systems, and a set of behaviors and rewards that can cause conflict with those values systems. In essence, our operational systems or contexts from which we observe the outer world is a complex web of cultural values and meanings that Dumas claims "will never come to light if all we do is listen to people's explicit statements" (Dumas, 2007, ¶ 15).

Applications

Research Paradigms

However, an ethnographer's exploration of culture, or the uncovering of contexts, produces its own inherent problems, as Hammersley wisely points out. The first problem he sees is that of accurately determining the "appropriate wider context in which to situate what we are studying," and the second issue is a question of how we are to "gain the knowledge we need about that context" (Hammersley, 2006, p. 6). Three relevant areas to examine are: ontology, epistemology and methodology. Ontology and epistemology are actually what Hammersley is referring to above, though he avoids using these terms by formulating his intriguing questions. Bransford (2006) offers concise definitions for these three concepts, and reviews the most fundamental research paradigms within ethnography. According to Bransford, ontology is an examination of the nature of reality and how it is understood to exist, epistemology examines the nature of knowledge, or the relationship between what can be known and the knower, and methodology is how the ethnographer goes about finding out whatever she believes can be known (Bransford, 2006, p. 178).

Whether conscious or not of this fact, ethnographers are nevertheless carrying out their research based on particular research paradigms. The three that are most common are:

• Positivism,

• Post-positivism, and

• Critical theory.

It is important that ethnographers look at these paradigms so that they are fully aware of the approach they are taking.

Positivism

In the positivist paradigm, the ontological view on reality is that reality is completely external and can be fully apprehended and discovered. This then relates to the epistemological assumption that an ethnographer can be completely neutral and objective when gaining knowledge. This belief in turn means that good ethnographic research can be value-free, and that methodological procedures can reduce or eliminate bias in order to ensure the validity of data. As Bransford puts it, a positivist approach means that, methodologically, "cause and effect relationships between variables are verified through experimental procedures and empirical tests" (Bransford, 2006, p. 178). Behaviorism would seem to best complement this research paradigm, but most ethnographic researchers would readily agree that ethnography and the study of culture should not be so easily reduced to a series of obvious cause and effect relationships.

Post-Positivism

The post-positivist paradigm, in relation to ontology, also holds that reality exists in an absolute form, but that an ultimate and completely objective reality can never be uncovered or understood by an ethnographer because of the "fallibilities and imperfections of human processes of apprehension." This also means that, epistemologically, an ethnographer simply does not have the ability to be completely neutral or value-free. Bransford notes that, in this paradigm, objectivity is more of an ideal that the ethnographer must always strive toward, but nevertheless understands that it will never be fully achieved in the ethnographic output (Bransford, 2006, p. 179).

Critical Theory

The third paradigm, critical theory, holds that reality can be apprehended, but what we perceive as "objective reality" is, in reality, a changing reality that is influenced by many factors. Critical theory views our contemporary place in history - which is itself a reality shaped by social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender factors - as something crystallized into a context that society assumes is "reality." An obvious indication of the truth of this is that it seems quite clear that the reality of people who lived in the twelfth century is by no means the same reality of people who lived in the seventeenth century, or the reality that people perceive today.

Critical theory also holds that there is "no discrete distinction between researcher and researched, both are viewed as mutually influencing the other." The ethnographer can never actually step completely outside her operational system, and cannot separate herself from all the underlying hidden values or biases. Bransford writes that the critical theory paradigm relies upon "dialogue and dialectical relationships that exist between the researcher and research participants," and the central objective of critical theory is "to generate ways to transform consciousness and become more aware of the covert structures that influence consciousness" (Bransford, 2006, p. 179). Thus, the emphasis shifts from defining some neutral, external objective reality to that of examining what influences the internal reality of human consciousness.

Hammersley (2006) suggests that the ethnographer should ask whether context is discovered or constructed, which is essentially asking the ethnographer to examine which basic research paradigm she is using in her ethnographic research. Hammersley also advises the ethnographer to ask - if context is indeed constructed - whether it is constructed by the participants or by the analyst. This question points out the system of dialogue and dialectical relationships between the researcher and research participants. Hammersley writes that, "one approach to context is to argue that it is generated by the people being studied, so that the analyst must discover and document context as this is constituted in and through particular processes of social interaction." He also points out that, from this point of view, "any attempt by an analyst to place actors and their activities in a different, 'external', context can only be an imposition, a matter of analytic act, perhaps even an act of symbolic violence" (Hammersley, 2006, p. 7). Hammersley seems skeptical of the belief that reality is external and objectively attainable, and he warns that such a view could cause an imposition of the ethnographer's context or culture onto the participant's context or culture. Hammersley then offers a lengthy series of problems, or fundamental questions, that challenge whether ethnography is "theoretically neutral, or whether it has an essential affinity with particular theoretical orientations." He concludes that we should be aware that, at various times in history, ethnography "has been closely associated with several quite different approaches, including functionalism, structuralism, interactionism, and Marxism" (Hammersley, 2006, p. 7).

Viewpoints

Problems in Ethnographic Research

Simmons (2007) points out the dual role of the ethnographer, that of "insider" and that of "scientific observer", and that this obligation to perform two roles simultaneously can place the ethnographer in a precarious position. For example, the ethnographer may find that a sense of loyalty to the group is at odds with keeping a sense of detachment for the sake of objectivity to perform the research. Conversely, an ethnographer who has struggled to maintain objectivity, and has thereby increased neutrality, may experience the participants viewing the ethnographic work as an act of betrayal. Related to this problem, Roberts (2007) notes that "personal investment and involvement in the research setting requires an element of self-disclosure, which some researchers might find difficult." Roberts also warns the ethnographer that, as she exits the ethnographic research, "there is the possibility that you will experience what they term an 'ethical hangover' - a persistent sense of guilt or unease over what is viewed as a betrayal of the people under study." She also writes that the more emotional and close is the ethnographer's relationship to the participants, the more the ethnographer will "feel that in leaving the setting and in transforming your personal understanding of it into public knowledge, you have committed a kind of treason" (Roberts, 2007, ¶ 19).

Maintaining Objectivity

Simmons (2007) notes this experience directly during her ethnographic work. She observes that it was important for her to establish rapport and gain trust with the participants so that they would grant her "access to their culture as an insider". Her success in doing this caused her to experience "issues relating to loyalty and conflict in my dual roles as manager and ethnographer as a result of establishing social integration" (Simmons, 2007, ¶ 27). During her fieldwork, this dual role also caused Simmons to experience situations where she felt caught between the interests of strategic stakeholders and nurses. She writes, "When strategic stakeholders or nurse consultants voiced negative sentiments about the other group ... I had to take care to balance being socially accepted as a member of the participant's group, and therefore trusted, and being disloyal to the other group." By way of example, Simmons writes that one of the nurse consultants complained about the lack of resources in their team, while in a similar discussion Simmons had with a manager, the manager complained that the nurse consultant was not managing her time effectively (Simmons, 2007, ¶ 28).

Simmons managed to avoid partisan politics during her research, and she accomplished this by doing as Roberts suggests. Roberts advises the ethnographer that, "while it is clearly important to develop open and honest relationships with research participants, it is equally important to stress that just as a therapeutic nurse-patient relationship is not necessarily based on the concept of friendship, the research relationship should not be either" (Roberts, 2007, ¶ 24). From her experience, Simmons warns ethnographers who are insiders and are performing research in their own institutions that they need to consider the impact that their research work may have on their role and relationships after the study is published (Simmons, 2007, ¶ 32).

Potential for Controversy

But can such consideration skew the results of the research? If the researcher fears making individuals angry, then can this cause the ethnographic exit to be dishonest because it managed to avoid stepping on any toes? And if an ethnographer is determined to pursue the most objective output possible, can this in some cases be equivalent to committing professional suicide? A good case in point is that of David Mosse, who spent seven years doing ethnographic research as a consultant for the Department for International Development (DFID) on the Indo-British Rainfed Farming Project (IBRFP). His ethnographic policy study created a lot of turbulence, was dangerous to publish from a professional point of view, and became highly politicized. Mosse's 2005 book, Cultivating development: An ethnography of aid policy and practice, ran into substantial resistance before he even published it - in fact, there seems to have been strong political pressure on Mosse to significantly alter his ethnographic output before he published it, so that the results would be more pleasing to the participants. Sridhar (2005) summarizes Mosse's controversial propositions regarding development projects thus:

[Mosse's] claims include: that policy is used to mobilize and maintain political support, that development interventions are driven by the needs of organizations and the need to maintain relationships, and that development projects work to maintain themselves as systems of representation and operational systems. Mosse ... concludes that donor strategy is overly model-based, in that policies are used to define the local reality rather than being informed by it, that projects have an orientation 'upwards' despite 'local participation' rhetoric, and that success is constructed by establishing a compelling interpretation of events, sustaining a key representation, and enrolling a wide network of 'believers' (Sridhar, 2005, ¶ 1).

According to Sridhar, many of the participants in the Mosse study, who were British consultant colleagues working for DFID, as well as the Indian project managers, were angered by what they considered a 'breach of trust' and unethical research. They argued that his work did not respect the Association of Social Anthropologists (ASA) ethical guidelines. The participants wrote complaints "to his university ethics committee, to his anthropological association and to his publisher stating that the book gave an 'unbalanced and damaging account of the project and will harm the professional reputations of many of those who worked at the project'" (Sridhar, 2005, ¶ 2).

It seems that, as an ethnographer, doing one's best to remain detached and objective in analysis of context can make one quite unpopular. Mosse knew his job was to do academically honest and neutral research, and not to write a PR brochure for the institution, but his efforts to present his analysis as honestly as possible caused a sense of betrayal among the participants he observed during those seven years. Concerning the upset his work caused, Mosse (2006) makes the central observation that his critics refused to react by engaging directly with his text, and essentially chose to use extreme political pressure to force him to change his ethnographic output. Mosse writes that his critics tried to use a socially mediated method that would "re-embed the production of representations (research outputs) into the fields of power, the moral community, or 'the family' of the project" (2006, p. 946). He notes that this was in effect "a moral critique of, and practical challenge to, ethnographic exit," and that if his critics could not change his research through "friendship, loyalty, or obligation" then they chose to do so "by implicit threat (damage and defamation)" (Mosse, 2006, p. 947).

A Fine Line

Mosse (2006) makes an important point about his case when he concludes that, regardless of how ethnographers may try to convince people that they are right, ethnographers must ultimately concede that what they present as evidence is in some ways inseparable from their relationship with their informants. Mosse writes that, "conflicts arise when ... knowing - 'a subtle (epistemological) relationship between subject and object', becomes knowledge - 'a (near-ontological) certainty.'" The Mosse case is also a stern warning to other ethnographers. As Mosse puts it, ethnographers must take into consideration that their "ethnographic representations have the potential to unravel when our informants (as did mine) attempt to unpack our 'evidence' back into relationships with them" (Mosse, 2006, p. 951).

Loss of Trust

Sridhar (2005) writes that he admires Mosse's decision to honestly reveal the inside workings of aid institutions. However, Sridhar also observes that an unfortunate consequence of publications such as Mosse's may be that "influential agencies such as DFID, the World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development become increasingly wary of including anthropologists in their project design, unsure of their intentions and trustworthiness." Thus, it may become increasingly difficult for ethnographers to find participants who will give them access and information, because institutions may fear similar investigations, which they might perceive as unethical even though they are permissible according to current anthropological guidelines (Sridhar, 2005, ¶ 13). This seems to create a paradox: If an ethnographer wishes to maintain access to large institutions - or even to small institutions or communities, then he may need to hold himself back from pursuing, or at least presenting, what he believes is an analysis of the utmost neutrality.

Terms & Concepts

Association of Social Anthropologists (ASA): The shortened name for the Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and Commonwealth. The ASA is an organization that was founded in 1946 to promote the study and teaching of social anthropology, to present the interests of social anthropology and to maintain its professional status. Its aim is to assist in any way possible in planning research, to collate and publish information on social anthropology and to function as a register of social anthropologists (www.theasa.org).

Behaviorism: A theory of psychology and learning based on the proposition that all organisms’ behavior is brought about by the environment. Behaviorism maintains that all observable action can be described scientifically without consideration of internal physiological events or to hypothetical constructs such as the mind.

Department for International Development (DFID): The branch of the British Government that manages the UK's aid to poor developing countries and works to alleviate extreme poverty. The department is headed by a senior Cabinet minister in the Government.

Epistemology: Concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It addresses the following questions: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "What do people know?"

Ethnographic Exit: The process of leaving the “insider” role as ethnographic observer performing research, and moving to objective analysis of the collected data via creating the scientific reporting of the research results.

Indo-British Rainfed Farming Project (IBRFP): A project under direction of the DFID, which aims to improve the long-term livelihoods of poor farmers in a drought-prone region of western India, through a participatory approach to farming systems development (FSD).

Methodology: The methods, rules and postulates that have been applied within a discipline, or a particular procedure or set of procedures used in a systematic study.

Ontology: In philosophy, ontology is the study of the nature of being and focuses on concepts of reality and existence. It is the science of what is; with its primary interest in relations between objects in all areas of reality.

Positivism: Developed by Auguste Comte, this doctrine contends that our perceptions are the only admissible basis of human knowledge and precise thought; that what is actually sensed and seen takes precedence over the ideal.

Post-Positivism: This theoretical framework has as its main tenet that the knower and the known cannot be separated, and post positivism espouses the absence of a shared, single reality.

Bibliography

Arnold, C., & Brennan, C. (2013). Polyvocal ethnography as a means of developing inter-cultural understanding of pedagogy and practice. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21, 353-369.Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89979995&site=ehost-live

Beaulieu, A. (2004). Mediating ethnography: Objectivity and the making of ethnographies of the internet. Social Epistemology, 18 (2/3), 139-163. Retrieved February 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14974666&site=ehost-live

Bransford, C. (2006). The use of critical ethnography in managed mental health care settings. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare; 33 , 173-191. Retrieved February 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23395262&site=ehost-live

Dumas, A. (2007). The limits of market-research methods. Advertising Age; 78 , 27. Retrieved February 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27002608&site=ehost-live

Frankham, J., & Smears, E. (2012). Choosing not choosing: The indirections of ethnography and educational research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 33, 361-375. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=77441226&site=ehost-live

Hammersley, M. (2006). Ethnography: problems and prospects. Ethnography & Education; 1 , 3-14. Retrieved February 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20535484&site=ehost-live

Hunter, J.E. (2012). Towards a cultural analysis: The need for ethnography in interpretation research. Journal of Interpretation Research, 17, 47-58. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89762237&site=ehost-live

Mosse, D. (Dec. 2006). Anti-social anthropology? Objectivity, objection, and the ethnography of public policy and professional communities. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute; 12 , 935-956. Retrieved February 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22911263&site=ehost-live

Price, F. (2013). Proximal ethnography: ‘Inside-out-inside’ research and the impact of shared metaphors of learning. Teachers & Teaching, 19, 595-609. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90821952&site=ehost-live

Roberts, D. (2007). Ethnography and staying in your own nest. Nurse Researcher; 14 , 15-24. Retrieved February 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24871961&site=ehost-live

Simmons, M. (2007) Insider ethnography: Tinker, tailor, researcher or spy? Nurse Researcher; 14 , 7-17. Retrieved February 11, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26091009&site=ehost-live

Sridhar, D. (2005). Ethics and development: Some concerns with David Mosse's Cultivating Development. Anthropology Today; 21 , 17-19. Retrieved February 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18981230&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Bailey, C. (2007). Practitioner to researcher: reflections on the journey. Nurse Researcher; 14 , 18-26. Retrieved February 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26091010&site=ehost-live

Ben-Zvi, Y. (2008) Ethnography and the production of foreignness in Indian captivity narratives. American Indian Quarterly; 32 , IX-XXXII. Retrieved February 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=28158661&site=ehost-live

Cowlishaw, G. (2007). Introduction: Ethnography and the interpretation of "Cronulla". Australian Journal of Anthropology; 18 , 295-299. Retrieved February 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27627388&site=ehost-live

Suzuki, Y. (2004). Negotiations, concessions, and adaptations during fieldwork in a tribal society. Iranian Studies; 37 , 623-632. Retrieved February 6, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15980428&site=ehost-live