PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only.

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's

prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

From David E. Gray (2014). Doing Research in the

Real World (3rd ed.) London, UK: Sage.

17
ETHNOGRAPHY AND PARTICIPANT
OBSERVATION

Chapter outline
• The origins of ethnography
• Guidelines for fieldwork
• Gathering data: participative observation and field notes
• Gathering data: interviewing
• Gathering data: digital media
• Ethical principles in ethnography
• The ethnographic self
• Feminist ethnography
• Critical ethnography
• Sculpting the truth in ethnographic accounts
• Recording the miracle

Keywords
• Ethnography
• Participant observation
• Fieldwork
• Reflexivity
• Natural settings

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

• Postmodernism
• Feminist ethnography
• Critical ethnography
• Positionalities

Chapter objectives

After reading this chapter you will be able to:

• Describe the origins of ethnography as a data gathering method.

• Distinguish between ethnography and structured observational methods.
• Outline the circumstances when ethnography is the most appropriate approach.
• Plan and conduct ethnographic fieldwork, selecting the field, gaining access, building
rapport and getting out.
• Conduct ethnographic research ethically.
• Handle identity and know when and how to weave ‘the self’ into ethnographic
accounts.
• Write an ethnographic account that is authentic and credible.

Ethnography is a qualitative research method that seeks to understand cultural

phenomena that reflect the knowledge and meanings that guide the life of
cultural groups within their own environment. While the origins of ethnography lie
in the socio-cultural anthropology of the nineteenth century, it is now widely used
in sociology, communications studies, educational and medical research, and history –
subjects where the intention is to study people, ethnic groups and cultures. However,
ethnography remains a contested and, in the view of Jordan and Yeomans (1995), an often
loosely used term. Hammersley and Atkinson (2007: 1) see ethnography as:

… a particular method or sets of methods. In its most characteristic form it involves the
ethnographer participating, overtly or covertly, in people’s lives for an extended period of time,
watching what happens, listening to what is said, asking questions….

For Willis and Trondman (2000: 5) it is

... a family of methods involving sustained social contact with agents, and richly writing up the
encounter, respecting, recording, representing at least partly in its own terms, the irreducibility of
human experience.

Ethnographers, then, as participant observers, look at and record people’s way of life and
take an emic (folk or inside) and etic (analytic or outside) approach to describing
communities and cultures. The research is carried out in natural settings and is sympathetic
to those settings. Traditionally those involved in ethnographic research spend long periods
of time in the place of study, and are able to produce thick written cultural descriptions that
communicate the information found in the field, or, in the words of Fetterman (2010: 1) ‘a
credible, rigorous and authentic story’. While in the past, ethnographers may have travelled
to distant places to study ‘exotic’ tribes or groups, contemporary ethnography can concern

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

itself with more mundane locations such as shopping malls, libraries, parks, workplaces,
households, communities, cities and even information systems and cyberspace.

Image 17.1 The old and the new – both are legitimate sites for ethnography

Ethnographic accounts seek to be both descriptive and interpretive. Description is important

because a high level of detail is essential. Interpretation is equally important because the
ethnographer must determine the significance of what he or she observes. Ethnographic
research typically employs three kinds of data collection methods: observation, interviews
and documents, often employing all three methods in a single study. These in turn produce
three kinds of data: quotations, descriptions and excerpts of documents. The aim of
ethnographic research is to produce narrative descriptions that help to tell ‘the
story’ (Hammersley, 1990). Ethnographic methods can help in the development of
constructs, themes or variables, but ethnography is also used to test theory. Indeed no
study, ethnographic or otherwise, can be conducted without recourse to theory whether
scholarly or personal (Fetterman, 2010).

One of the key decisions at an early stage is the extent to which the researcher is
going to be a participant in the study, which can vary from complete immersion
alongside those being observed, or complete detachment (or at least an attempt
at detachment) with the role of spectator. Participation helps the researcher to
develop an insider’s perspective on what is happening. However, the researcher
must also observe what is happening (whilst reflecting on their own involvement
and biases). The key to ethnographic research, then, is skilfully combining the role of
participant and observer.

THE ORIGINS OF ETHNOGRAPHY

The origins of ethnography are often attributed to the pioneering fieldwork of
Polish anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski. Published in 1914, in his seminal
work, The Argonauts of the Western Pacific, Malinowski devotes a whole section
of the book to explaining the process of gathering data through meticulously
documented observations and interviews. He explained that, to have a thorough
understanding of a different culture, anthropologists must have daily contact with their
informants and become immersed in the culture which they are studying. The goal, then,

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

was to understand the ‘native’s point of view’. To achieve this, not only must the
anthropologist collect data, there needs to be an emphasis on interpretation. The link
between data collection and the writing of ethnographic monographs is meticulous field
notes. According to Roldan (2002), Malinowski increased the validity of his ethnography by
including in the text fieldwork data, information about the research process and theoretical
assumptions.

Although its origins lie in the field of anthropology, ethnography was soon taken up by
sociologists, a move pioneered by the Chicago School at the University of Chicago in the
1920s, 1930s and 1940s. The primary assumption for the Chicago School was that
qualitative methodologies, especially those used in naturalistic observation (such as
ethnography), were best suited for the study of urban, social phenomena. It was through the
Chicago School that ethnography and symbolic interactionism became closely associated.
The phrase symbolic interactionism was first coined in 1937 by Blumer (1969), although the
approach to social analysis is largely credited to the work of George Hubert Mead during his
time at the University of Chicago. Blumer (1969) argued that, in essence, humans act
towards things (including fellow humans) according to subjectively attributed meanings
which are interpreted reflexively and subjectively. The combination of ethnography and
symbolic interactionism led to the writing of several classic texts such as W.F. Whyte’s
Street Corner Society (1943) and E. Goffman’s Asylums (1961). Ironically, the teaching of
fieldwork methods at the University of Chicago was limited, with ways of organizing
ethnographic research being largely acquired ‘on the hoof’ (Shaffir, 1999).

In recent years, ethnography has witnessed great diversification with different approaches
being adopted, guided by different epistemological concerns and ethnographic practice,
including long-term in-depth studies, through to condensed fieldwork, consultancy work or
participation in political struggles (Atkinson and Hammersley, 1994). There has also been a
growing application of ethnography beyond anthropology and sociology into applied fields
such as education, health and social policy. Sometimes associated with these more applied
forms of ethnography have been moves towards collaborative research, stemming not just
from a desire for engagement with practice, but also from an epistemological concern that
ethnography has privileged the researcher – as the implied Narrator – over the Other, the
object of the ethnographer’s gaze. Hence, the accounts produced by researchers are
viewed as constructions that reflect the presuppositions and the socio-historical conditions
in which they were produced. Under the influence of various forms of antirealism such as
constructivism (Guba, 1990) or poststructuralism (Denzin, 1990; Lather, 1991), claims for
ethnographic accounts have become more sceptical. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, for
example, a postmodern turn in anthropology challenged anthropologists to question their
own assumptions and write more reflexively. An example here is auto-ethnography (Reed-
Danahay, 1997) which has been encouraged by postmodern theory to draw out the
narrative of participant observation and relationships in the field through personal stories (of
the researcher) as a reliable mode of expressing findings from the field (Coffey, 1999) and
as a credible, adjunct data source (Possick, 2009).

Anderson (1999: 456), however, is sceptical of what he terms the nihilist excesses of the
postmodern turn, its hyper-reflexivity, and its ‘clever, self-absorbed and evasive writing’,
serving to undermine empirical ethnographic work. He does, though, claim that some of its
more positive insights will eventually be absorbed into what he calls analytic ethnography,
an empirical approach linked to ethnomethodological traditions. He is also optimistic about
the future of ethnography, pointing to the growth of ethnographic research in the 1990s,
within a broader range of academic disciplines. Hence, it is possible, for the first time, to talk
about educational ethnography, medical ethnography, policy-oriented ethnography and

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

even performance ethnography. Denzin and Lincoln (1994) also talk about the flowering of
ethnographic ‘moments’ through which US social science has passed or is passing.
Anderson (1999), however, sees this less as a succession of movements, but more of a
diversification of ethnography. Indeed, ethnography remains a highly complex and
contentious discursive field (Atkinson and Hammersley, 1994) at the ‘intersections of
communication, culture and identity’ (Berry, 2011: 169).

GUIDELINES FOR FIELDWORK

It is fieldwork that is the most defining characteristic of ethnographic research
(Fetterman, 2010). While classic ethnography could involve from six months to
two years or more in the field, modern ethnography can involve studies where
the researcher visits a site for, say, a two-week period every few months or so
during a study lasting two or three years. Fieldwork involves an outsider angling
for insider knowledge. Hence, fieldworkers ride the lines between and across multiple
boundaries, with the result that the journey can be emotionally uncomfortable or in the
words of Irwin (2006: 160) ‘exceedingly edgy’. Doing fieldwork involves a number of stages
including deciding what field or context in which to conduct the research, getting access and
gaining acceptance within the field, conducting the fieldwork itself and leaving the field
(getting out) in as ethical and acceptable a way as possible.

TOP TIP 17.1

If ethnographic studies can involve immersion in the field for long periods, even several
years, you need to think carefully before you embark on this type of research. It might be
appropriate, say, for someone undertaking research as part of their employment, or as part
of a doctorate. Indeed, as we shall see in some of the case studies that follow, some have
been implemented as part of a PhD. However, for those studying, say, at Masters level the
long periods required would normally rule out this kind of research undertaking.

Selecting the field

The nature of the setting chosen for the study may be decided before the research problem
has been fully resolved. In some studies, however, the collection of ethnographic data may
itself help in the definition of the research problem. Data collection and analysis may also
lead to the identification of new themes that require different and additional sites for study.
Settings contain cases for study but the two are not necessarily synonymous. Hence, cases
may be studied in a particular setting, but researchers may have to study aspects of a case
across multiple settings (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). For example, youth gangs could
be studied in street settings, but a study might also need to explore their links with other
outside groupings such as social workers and the police. How and why cases are chosen
(sampled) will be determined by the kinds of criteria discussed in Chapter 9. So, given the
qualitative and intensive nature of most ethnographic research, and the use of only a few
sites, sampling design will be mostly based upon typical sites (Schneider, 2006a).

As Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) point out, sampling decisions must also be taken
within cases, particularly in relation to time, people and context. For time sampling, it is
obvious that the researcher cannot be in the field for 24 hours a day; so some choices have
to be made in terms of when to enter the field. In a factory setting, for example, this could

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

be sampling during day shifts, evening shifts and night shifts. Time phases are also an
issue. Schneider (2006a) recommends that, for applied ethnographic studies (for example,
studies that evaluate projects or programmes) observations should continue through at
least one cycle related to the research problem. So, a study of the effects of government
funding on agency programmes might observe the impact through a complete budget year.
Sampling within a case (for example a study within an organization) will also involve
selecting among people, which could involve ensuring different categories, based on
gender, race, educational qualifications or social class, were all represented in the study.
Within a setting, people may act differently according to the context. So, for example, within
the setting of a university, students may act differently depending on whether they are
attending a lecture, studying in the library or socializing with friends. Sampling design, then,
will have to take this into account.

Gaining access
Central to gaining access to a site is the attitude of gatekeepers who can help or hinder the
research depending upon their views as to the validity of the research and its impact on the
welfare of people they work with. Reeves (2010) distinguishes between formal and informal
gatekeepers. In her study of sex offenders within a probation hostel, the main formal
gatekeeper was the hostel manager and his immediate line manager within the Probation
Service. As Reeves (2010) notes, she was fortunate in that she was able to make initial
contact through a friend (her informal contact) who had worked with this manager. Duke
(2002) supports this view, asserting that gaining access to sites is much easier when
personal contacts can smooth the path and where the researcher is known to have some
knowledge or experience of the area. Zaman (2008) for example, relates how he decided to
undertake his research at the teaching hospital where he trained as a physician, using his
identity as an ex-student to gain access. However, even once access has been negotiated,
further informal gatekeepers also need to be approached before site members will fully
participate in a study (Reeves, 2010).

It will certainly be easier to gain entry if the researcher has empathy with those being
studied. This does not mean necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with them, but it does
mean avoiding the adoption of judgemental attitudes. Patton (2002) suggests that a
reciprocity model of gaining entry is valuable, where both researcher and participants come
to see mutual advantages emerging from the observational process. This, of course, may
be a pious hope. As Hall (2000) points out, especially when working with disadvantaged
groups (for example street gangs), an outsider’s curiosity might be construed as
objectionable and patronizing – the first few weeks of fieldwork can sometimes be a
miserable experience for the researcher.

The issue of gender may be significant to gaining access. Gurney (2002) comments that
being a female researcher in a male-dominated environment may aid not only formal but
also informal access as women are regarded as ‘warmer’ and less threatening than men.
Hence, gatekeepers may not demand the same level of assurances from women
researchers prior to granting formal access. Conversely, women may find entry problematic
because of a perceived lack of professionalism or credibility (Gurney, 2002). However, as
Mulhall (2003) asserts, an effort can be made to rectify this position by dressing for the
occasion, and deferring (within limits) to the authority and cultural expectations of
gatekeepers.

TOP TIP 17.2

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Negotiating access may take longer than you anticipate. As part of your research planning,
make sure that you give yourself sufficient ‘lead time’ in setting up your observation.

Gaining informed consent

Informing people in the research setting of what you are doing, and eliciting their consent, is
seen as good practice by most researchers. Diener and Crandall (1978) suggest that fully
informed consent should include:

• Describing the overall purpose of the research.

• Telling the participants about their role in the study.
• Stating why they have been chosen.
• Explaining the procedures, including the amount of time required.
• Clearly stating the risks and discomforts.
• Stating that the participants may withdraw at any time.

As we saw in Chapter 15 (recall Figure 15.1), getting participants to sign a consent

form is also prudent. This, of course, implies that covert observation cannot be
undertaken. Bailey (2007) argues that achieving a cooperative relationship with a
group more than compensates for what is lost through reactivity (between
researcher and those being researched). However, the impact of the researcher’s
presence and interactions needs to be reflected in field notes and analysis. Note that even
after permission has been granted it can be withdrawn at any time and that this must be
respected. Of course, there are often circumstances when informed consent is simply
impractical. Burgess (1984) notes that in research in public settings (sports events, parents’
evenings, church services, etc.) access cannot be negotiated with every participant.

Becoming invisible
The researcher may become ‘invisible’ due to the length of time they are involved in the
project, by immersing themselves into the norms and behaviours of the group being studied,
or simply by hiding the fact that they are researchers. Young researchers, for example,
would have greater success in integrating themselves as workers/researchers in a fast food
retail outlet than, say, researching the activities of a rambling club where membership tends
to be much older. As Berg (2006) points out, however, there are reasons why invisibility is a
danger. If, for example, you go ‘undercover’ to research, say, criminal activities within an
organization, you need to ensure that you do not become implicated yourself! On the whole,
though, invisibility means that participants cease to be consciously aware of the
researcher’s presence, and therefore act more naturally.

Building rapport
Rapport is concerned with ‘getting there’ and ‘being there’ and is often associated with
themes such as empathy, immersion, participation, friendship, honesty, collaboration, trust
and loyalty (Springwood and King, 2001). In the field, researchers seek to develop close
interpersonal relationships with key informants based upon mutual respect and shared

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

understandings. Berger (2001), for example, describes how she shared her personal stories
with those engaged in her fieldwork studies, generating relationship formation and
exchange between them. However, while this may appear simple at a surface level, in
practice the achievement of rapport may be challenged where researchers find themselves
having to hide their identities, or where their views and values clash with those they are
researching. Westmarland (2001) for example, reports on her ethnographic study of the
police where she witnessed a number of examples of police violence against an attempted
suicide victim, a drug addict and others. As Reeves (2010) notes, while the researcher may
be anxious to establish and maintain rapport in order to generate good quality data,
respondents do not have these concerns. Hence, in her study of convicted criminals living in
a probation hostel, even though respondents were comfortable with her presence, they
continued to tell her half-truths, lies and stories in order to give her an image they wanted to
portray. Achieving rapport then, does not necessarily lead to honest responses.

Handling identity – reflexive positioning

In undertaking participant observation one of the challenges is to maintain a
balance between ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ status. To gain a deep understanding of
people’s lives it is essential that the researcher gets not only physically but also
emotionally close to them – but how then does the researcher maintain a
professional ‘distance’? Achieving this is often affected by issues such as the
gender, race, social class and the education of the researcher compared to that of the
people being researched. Burgess (1984) also adds that age can sometimes be an issue –
is it practical for researchers of more advanced years to observe youth gangs, for example?
As one set of researchers put it:

The more one is like the participants in terms of culture, gender, race, socio-economic class and
so on, the more it is assumed that access will be granted, meanings shared, and validity of
findings assured. (Merriam et al., 2001: 406)

To remain an ‘outsider’ would be to fail to gain the kind of rapport that is needed to make
this method a success. The participant observer, in a sense, needs to be both inside and
outside the setting. Indeed, Merriam et al. (2001) argue that the boundaries between the
two positions are not simple or clearly delineated. Being inside or outside is relative to a
whole host of cultural and social characteristics and is a position that can shift over time.
According to Hall (2000), the best the ethnographer can achieve is to negotiate a position in
which one is in some way ‘at home’ and considered as ‘one of us’ without becoming
completely immersed.

Positioning is a concept used in the analysis of narratives that allows researchers to explore
how people make sense of themselves and construct their own identities (Possick, 2009).
Using processes such as self-reflection, self-criticism and agency, participants can choose
a position among the variety of positions available and/or generate new positions by
performing narratives with the audience. One position is that of the autobiographical, an
approach that seeks to acknowledge the effects of the researcher’s personal and
intellectual biography on all stages of research through the process of reflexivity (Hugill,
2012; Mickelson, 2011). According to Possick (2009) while many researchers engage in
reflection, much remains unpublished or separate from the main data analysis. In cases of
research on sensitive topics, where there are strong emotional reactions and ethical
dangers, this self-censorship is particularly glaring. Possick (2009) urges that auto-
biographical elements be included in the foreground of research not the background. This,
then, is one aspect of positioning. The personal account includes thoughts and feelings

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

about the informants, the physical elements in the field, relevant autobiographical events
and a variety of ‘unstructured musings about the research experience’ (Possick, 2009: 862).

Getting out
While ethnographers have written quite extensively on entering a field of study and on
developing rapport with participants, less is known about leaving the field (Lofland and
Lofland, 1995). When to leave may have been planned early on in the project or it might
result from the ‘Things to do’ portion of field notes getting ever smaller, or when fewer
insights are emerging. Leaving the field of observation involves both the physical and
emotional disengagement of the researcher. This is particularly the case if the observation
has been conducted over a lengthy period of time and the researcher has developed
empathy and commitment to the inhabitants. Prior to disengagement, the researcher should
warn the community of members that this exit is imminent. The withdrawal is probably best
handled in a series of stages. Rock (2001) agrees that quitting the field is never easy.
Ethnographic research involves ‘emotional enmeshment’ (Possick, 2009: 868). For one
thing, the researcher will have invested a considerable portion of themselves cultivating
relationships and even friendships but these are now to be shed.

The ethnographer who courted others, who had seemingly limitless time to listen, is now revealed
as a person who can no longer be bothered and is in a hurry to be off. (Rock, 2001: 36)

To make matters worse, the ethnographer is off to expose what has been learned to the
whole world. No wonder people can feel used. In leaving the field, you might like to consider
paying attention to the following elements:

• Make the fact that you will leave the field explicit at the start (that is, your project has a
finite length)
• Indicate the date of your leaving several weeks before the event so there are no
surprises
• Remind respondents of your leaving date several days before it arrives
• Hold a leaving ‘event’ to celebrate the project (but also remind others of your imminent
departure)
• Organize emotional support for yourself (see next)

TOP TIP 17.3

If undertaking insider participant research (especially if it is covert), consider

using either your supervisor or another confidante as an adviser or ‘critical friend’.
Use this person to discuss any problems you may be having, particularly in
maintaining your sense of detachment and objectivity. You may also want to
discuss any issues or incidents that raise ethical considerations.

CASE STUDY 17.1

Ethnography, reciprocity and getting too close?

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Ortiz (2004) describes an ethnographic study in which he researched the isolated world
of the wives of professional athletes using sequential interviewing, participant
observation, personal documents and print media accounts. He travelled thousands of
miles across the USA during the process. As a result

I necessarily minimized involvement in other areas of my personal life. As a result, their world
was my world for more than three years. (p. 470)

His impression management style was one of ‘muted masculinity’, offered in direct
contrast to the hegemonic masculinity so common in the sports world. Hence, he
became regarded as a man of a ‘different kind’ by many of the women whose lives were
socially isolated. The establishment of reciprocity in his collaborative relationship with the
women included babysitting, hanging curtains, running errands, shopping with them and
even house-hunting. Over time, this closeness generated data that included secrets,
gossip and occupationally relevant information (about their husbands).

Through sequential interviewing, critical topics were constantly emerging, but each new
tantalizing piece of information became critical data that he felt he had to follow up with
more interviews. Thus he got himself into an endless cycle of compulsive data collection.
Even when he terminated a relationship he agreed to keep in touch with the respondent.
He discovered, however, that staying in touch served to open up a Pandora’s box of new
information. The therapeutic nature of the interview sessions also seemed to act as an
added incentive for the wives to stay in touch with the researcher. Hence, although he
knew he needed to make an effort to distance himself ‘constant reminders of the wives
and their marriages continued to pull me back into their isolated world’ (Ortiz, 2004: 479).
He finally arrived at a point where he began to feel emotionally exhausted and trapped
and terminated contact. Although this process left him with feelings of guilt, he concludes
that ‘going native’ is not always a mistake, especially if collaborative relationships are
mutually beneficial.

ACTIVITY 17.1

How does Ortiz (2004) justify his ‘compulsive data collection’? Can/should the researcher
be both an ethnographer and an informal therapist? What steps should be taken to maintain
ethical boundaries?

The field as a construction

In the previous section we explored fieldwork from a practical perspective, the researcher
simply entering the field with an ‘open mind’, similar to Glaser and Strauss’s (1968) notion
of fieldwork as a ‘clean slate’ where the researcher is free of prior experience. However, as
Funder (2005) warns, this notion ignores the degree to which we are socialized and
institutionalized into adopting ways of structuring and labelling the world we explore. For
example, talking about the field of environment and development, we talk of sustainable
resource management practices and unsustainable, so establishing categories of people
who live sustainably or unsustainably.

This framing of the world through our pre-conceived ontologies often takes place through
dichotomies: When addressing the environment and development problems, we frequently

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

approach the world as divided into the poor and the wealthy, the rural and the urban, the
community and the state, the traditional and modern, the natural and the degraded. Although we
may attempt to overcome some such dualisms, they are powerful notions that to a large extent
provide our only means of negotiating the world. (Funder, 2005: 2)

This Western pattern of knowledge production now permeates Asian societies as well
where, in some ways, Western science came to structure and to some extent even create
Asian societies, through the process of giving names to (classifying) ethnic groups, and by
drawing maps (creating national boundaries). In terms of knowledge, ‘modern’ methods of
resource management (i.e. Western) were privileged above ‘traditional’ methods. Funder
(2005) describes his ethnographic study of a coastal zone management project in Thailand
where he first sought to identify community members to interview, dividing them into
‘participants’ and ‘non-participants’ and subsequently developing new categories of
‘fishermen’ and ‘non-fishermen’, ‘Buddhist’ and ‘Muslim’ households. He reflects that this
categorization rested on his own embedded notion of communities as essentially
heterogeneous, stratified entities, steeped in struggles over control of natural resources.
However, this underlying conflict perspective was one into which he had been socialized
through many years of interaction with teachers and peers at his ‘left-leaning’ university.
Similarly, Brunt (2001) raises problematically the notion of community. Communities consist
of people who consider themselves to be part of the same history or destiny, but this notion
is based on symbols and attitudes, not necessarily concrete urban neighbourhoods or
villages. Hence, ethnographers should not necessarily go off in search of a physical
community. People have multiple identities and may regard themselves as members of
multiple communities irrespective of where they work or live.

GATHERING DATA: PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION AND FIELD NOTES

Participant observation involves not only gaining access to the field and building rapport, it
also means producing written accounts and descriptions of what was observed. A vital
stage in this process is the production of field notes, that is, writings that are produced in
close proximity to the field. Proximity may mean geographical closeness, but more
important is temporal proximity, the fact that field notes are written more or less
contemporaneously with the events, experiences and interactions they describe (Emerson,
Fretz and Shaw, 2001). As representations of what they purport to represent, field notes are
necessarily selective. The ethnographer writes about what he or she thinks is important,
omitting what appears to be less significant. Hence, field notes are never a complete record
of what happened (Atkinson, 1992). As Emerson et al. (2001) comment, there are
considerable differences between what different ethnographers write about and the role of
field notes in their research. For some ethnographers, field notes both record what they
observe and also record their own actions, questions and reflections. Others, however,
keep a distinct separation between field notes as recordings (data) and their own reactions
and interpretations.

Emerson et al. (2001) distinguish between several types of field notes that vary in
their purpose and detail. Mental notes, for example, are a conscious attempt to
recall features such as the physical character of a place, who said what to whom,
who moved to where (Lofland and Lofland, 1995). These may lead to jotted notes,
the commitment to writing key words and phrases overheard while the
ethnographer is in or at least very close to the field. These jotted notes may be used later as
memory joggers when it comes to constructing a more detailed account. The timing and
openness of making jotted notes will depend on the relationship between the researcher

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

and his or her subjects. Fieldworkers may need to be sensitive when it comes to jotting
down notes on issues that subjects might regard as confidential or embarrassing.

An important and contested issue is the place of the ethnographer’s personal feelings within
field notes. In the past, ethnographers have tended to confine descriptions of their personal
feelings, reactions and anxieties to personal journals and diaries (see below). From the
1960s, however, most sociological ethnographers have supported the inclusion of personal
accounts within core field notes (Emerson et al., 2001). Recording one’s emotions during a
research project enables the ethnographer to read through field notes and to identify any
biases and prejudices that may have crept in, as well as noticing changing views and
perspectives over time (Lofland and Lofland, 1995). At its most extreme form, in auto-
ethnography, the researcher seeks to integrate their private and social experiences through
personal introspection, their own ‘lived emotional experience’ of events and interactions
(Ellis, 1991: 25). It is a form of ethnography where the researcher radically alters their
positioning by becoming a research subject (Reed-Danahay, 1997).

Before their use in the report writing process, field notes need to be revised and edited,
partly to ensure that extraneous elements are excluded and also that anonymity of those
within the account is preserved. But they are also edited to ensure that they are more
comprehensible to a wider audience (particularly when field notes are later incorporated into
finished texts). Hence, context and background may be added to events (Emerson et al.,
2001). Other ethnographers, however, prefer to retain the sanctity of the original field notes
and will therefore avoid or minimize these editorial changes. Ethnographers, then, integrate
field notes into finished accounts in different ways. What Emerson et al. (2001) call an
excerpt strategy, field notes are separated from commentary and interpretation by indenting
or using italics; field notes, then, are offered as fragments of ‘evidence’ composed close to
the events themselves. An alternative approach is to weave together the field notes and the
interpretation, what Emerson et al. (2001) call an integrative strategy. In this style, field
notes and ideas merge into a flowing prose written with ‘a single authorial voice’ (Emerson
et al., 2001: 364). This voice, however, is not uniform. It contains within it the multiple voices
of local people and the divergent views arising from their different roles and positions.

Diaries are similar to field notes, but are, naturally, structured by date and can be in a
written format or oral (audio recorded). In written format they may include words but also
photographs or diagrams. As Hall (2008) points out, there is no standard format for diaries.
They can be used by the researcher to record events as well as their own personal
reflections, or given to respondents to log events in their lives. For example, a diary could
be given to a newly qualified teacher so they can keep a record of their feelings, critical
incidents and introspective reflections on their own experience as they develop their
professional practice (Bailey, 1983). Given that such diaries will be read by others (for
example fellow practitioners or researchers) it is important ethically that this lack of privacy
is made explicit at the start (Hall, 2008). The following case study provides an example of
an ethnographic diary kept by a researcher investigating opportunities for the Irish dairy
industry in Indonesia and Vietnam by undertaking visits to people’s homes. Note both the
diary entries and also the analytic ‘insights’ as well as the impact that photographs add to
the piece.

ACTIVITY 17.2

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Examine Case Study 17.2. Imagine the diary without the presence of the photograph, then
ask yourself what the photograph adds to the account. Does the use of photographs add
further ethical issues to ethnographic reporting?

CASE STUDY 17.2

Example of an ethnographic diary

content slipped to next page

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Figure 17.1
Source: King, H. (2012) Indonesia and Vietnam: An Ethnographic Study Exploring the Consumer
Landscape and Opportunities for the Irish Dairy Industry. Bord Bia: Dublin.

GATHERING DATA: INTERVIEWING

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Ethnographic interviewing can be distinguished from other forms of interviewing in that it

encourages interviewees to shape the questions being asked and possibly even the focus
of the study, resulting in data being a co-production between interviewer and interviewee
(Heyl, 2001). Rubin and Rubin (2005: 4) refer to this as a conversation in which the
interviewer gently guides a ‘conversational partner’. The key is a concern with the meanings
of actions and events to the interview subjects themselves. Kvale (1996) offers two
alternative metaphors of the research interviewer: one as a miner and the other as a
traveller. The miner gathers up objective data that are ‘out there’ ready to be discovered
and culled. For the traveller, the interview is a journey from which stories will emerge,
stemming from conversations the researcher will have along the way. The route may be
planned ahead of time, but it will inevitably take unexpected twists and turns. What the
traveller elicits in new knowledge depends on his/her ability to connect with people and to
build relationships.

The origins of ethnographic interviewing go back to the Chicago School of sociology in the
1920s and the 1930s and particularly to the work of Robert Park and his call for graduate
students to get out into the city and ‘get the seat of your pants dirty in real
research’ (Bulmer, 1984: 97). What researchers need to know is what goes on behind the
faces of other human beings, the personal secrets that the researcher has to discover to
understand the world in which people live. The Chicago School’s pioneering of informal
interviews and observational techniques stood in sharp contrast to the large scale standard
surveys being used by sociologists at the time (Heyl, 2001). Life history fits within this
tradition because of its focus on the meanings the interviewees give to their life experiences
and circumstances. The data that emerge can be analysed only by paying attention to what
is said, how it is said and by showing ways in which the how and why are interrelated
(Holstein and Gubrium, 1995).

Following what became known as the linguistic, postmodern turn in the 1980s and 1990s,
many feminists and multicultural researchers found ethnographic interviewing particularly
attractive because they allowed for the gathering of data in relationships based upon
empathy and egalitarianism (Stacey, 1988), providing opportunities to hear people’s

Image 17.3 Data gathering in the field

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

ideas, memories and interpretations in their own words, to hear differences among people and
the meanings they construct, and to forge connection over time to the interviewees. (Heyl, 2001:
374)

Fine (1994) takes this a stage further, suggesting that researchers and informants should
take time to check out what is, and is not, happening between them including whose story is
being told and with what interpretation. As we will note in Case Study 17.5 however,
Stacey’s personal experiences have led her to call into question this equality, given the
researcher’s freedom to exit the world they are researching.

So, what does all this mean in practice? In conducting ethnographic interviewing Heyl
(2001) recommends that the interviewer should:

• Listen well and respectfully, developing an ethical engagement with

participants
• Acquire a self-awareness of his/her own role in the construction of meaning
within the interview process
• Be aware of the ways in which both the ongoing relationship and broader
social contexts affect participants, the interview process and potential
outcomes
• Recognize that what emerges from the interview process is only partial knowledge

GATHERING DATA: DIGITAL MEDIA

So far we have looked at quite traditional approaches of gathering data in
ethnography – observation and interviews – but, of course, we now have at our
disposal advanced, technological media that are ideal for data collection and
interacting with social worlds. These include media for capturing images such as
digital cameras and video recorders, and include the use of smart phones since
these also contain digital recording facilities. Proponents of visual-based methods argue
that complex experiences cannot be captured by textual interpretations alone (Pink, 2006)
and help to provide a comprehensive and enriching exploration of the social worlds of both
researcher and participants (Lenette and Boddy, 2013). Ruby (2007) describes an
ethnographic study of Oak Park, an upper-middle class suburb of Chicago renowned for its
success in creating and maintaining diversity. Rather than produce a book, Ruby created an
interactive and nonlinear work with video clips, still photographs and text, and in one case, a
30-minute video on DVD. The work was reflexive in that the subject of his research was his
hometown.

ON THE WEB 17.1

To see the Chicago ethnographic study go to the following link and type Oak Park in the
search box.

http://www.der.org/

At the Documentary Educational Resources you will also see many other examples of
ethnographic film making and recording.

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

However, it is not just ethnographers who make use of digital media. For example, giving
participants digital cameras to take photographs of their daily working lives, Warren (2012)
describes how people are able to document, through this visual medium, ‘how people work
here’ – what is referred to as ‘photo voice’. The researcher then discusses the photographs
with the participant. Ethnographic research does only use digital media to record the field,
digital media are themselves becoming a field of study. In other words, ethnographers have
become increasingly interested in digital media such as blogs, internet forums and social
media sites and the ways in which people use and interact through and within them (McKie
and Ryan, 2012).

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES IN ETHNOGRAPHY

Ethnographic research faces particular challenges when it comes to conducting research
ethically. As Chapter 4 sought to demonstrate, the benefits of research should outweigh the
potential harm. Yet, as Murphy and Dingwall (2001) point out, one of the difficulties in
ethnography is that risks are likely to be indirect and also open to interpretation. Research
participants may experience anxiety, stress, damage to self-esteem and feelings of guilt or
a loss of friendship when ethnographers withdraw from a study (as Case Study 17.3, below,
shows). One of the most significant differences between ethnography and, say, risk in pure
science, is temporal positioning. In experimental science, the risk of harm is largely
concentrated in the experiment itself. In ethnography, however, the greatest risk arises at
the time of publication (Murphy and Dingwall, 2001). Research participants may feel
wounded or offended by published ethnographic material, often in ways that were
unanticipated by the ethnographer (Ellis, 1995). Ethnography has particular problems when
it comes to guaranteeing anonymity. As Murphy and Dingwall (2001) state, ethnographic
studies often involve a single setting or a very small number of settings; field notes and
interview transcripts invariably record sufficient detail to make participants identifiable.

While IRBs are almost without exception strict when it comes to the need for the
signing of consent forms, in ethnographic studies this is not always feasible, since
researchers have no control over who enters the field of observation. This is
further complicated by the emergent nature of ethnographic research design
where the objectives and subjects of the research may not be fully formed at the
start. Fassin (2006) is critical of the role of IRBs and particularly their regulation of
ethnographic research, claiming that their rules are more applicable to biomedical
experiments than to social science. According to Fassin (2006), their restrictions reduce the
quality of research and hence the potential of research for social utility. For example, in
researching people dying of AIDS in a South African hospital, discussing the purpose of his
research with someone lying on a stretcher did not seem feasible, let alone humane.
Although Ellis (2007) agrees that the rules of IRBs are helpful, she is critical, arguing that
their rules are grounded on the premise that research is being done on strangers. This is
often not the case in ethnography. The following case study reveals a poignant story of how
the publication of a researcher’s book led to anger and rupture between her and the
community she was reporting.

CASE STUDY 17.3

Challenges in ethnographic research

Carolyn Ellis relates her experiences in conducting an ethnographic study in a place she
calls Fishneck, a small US community about 10 miles from the nearest town and a world

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

she describes as one of oyster shells, fish plants, trailers, crab pots, extended families,
reported violence and speech that combines a rural dialect and old English
provincialisms. On many visits from 1972 up until 1986 she spent much of her time with
one extended family – two parents and 13 children and their immediate families and in-
laws. She was honest with them that she was a researcher, but over time this was
largely forgotten by the community. As Ellis (1995: 71) comments: ‘Who thought about
research when there were funerals to go to, floods to escape, killings to be straightened
out, sick babies to tend, welfare checks that didn’t arrive on time, and doctors (always
doctors) to visit?’ She saw herself as a ‘realist’ ethnographer, seeking to describe the
community ‘as it was’. In doing so, she kept out of the story, especially events that might
reflect badly on herself such as practices that allowed her to get a ‘scoop’ while
pretending to maintain distance. When her book, Fisher Folk (1986) was published, she
didn’t acknowledge to the Fishneckers that there was a book coming out and gave little
thought to the Fishneckers responding to it. In this she was entirely wrong.

Ellis was not the only person researching Fishneck. Another was a sociologist from a
nearby college who she calls Professor Jack. Three years after its publication, she is told
that Professor Jack has got hold of a copy of her book, hated it, and had read portions of
it to Fishneckers who themselves were angry about its contents (and with Ellis). She
decided to make a return visit, and was shocked by her reception. There are accusations
that she made a million dollars from the book (in fact she made nothing), and despite
using pseudonyms, people were able to identify each other. As one person comments:
‘That was a lot of nonsense you wrote. I know you was writin’ ‘bout me’. Flicking through
the book, Ellis reflected, shamefully, that she had written about under-age sexual
impropriety and portrayed their ignorance of contraception and their lack of literacy.
Some people now refused to talk to her, regarding their friendship as over.

Ellis reflected on her return to the field and was able to make three recommendations for
ethnographers:

• Researchers should put more of themselves into the research, showing themselves
in dialogue and tell more stories about their experiences in the community. This
would counter the tendency of social researchers to privilege what they say about
others over what others say about themselves.
• Researchers should pay more attention to emotional responses of themselves and
those they research while they are in field settings and while they write.
• Researchers should take care when using grounded theory to force data into patterns
that may not be there. Although the patterns that emerged had explanatory value,
they presented life as lived more simply than day-to-day experiences warranted.

Ellis concludes by seeing the emerging narrative as not one of difference between
researcher and her subjects, but one of connectedness between Fishneckers and
herself. Indeed, having friends helped ward off feelings of being ‘the lone fieldworker in a
distant land’ (Ellis, 2007: 9). She believes that this might help her to call on the ethics of
care, empathy, personal relationships and community and to embrace personal
accountability to assess her knowledge claims. The problem was not one of being a
friend. It was not living up to the obligations of friendship (Ellis, 2007).

Source: Adapted from Ellis: 1995, 2007

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

ACTIVITY 17.3

Following reflections on her experience, to what extent would it be accurate to call Ellis a
‘realist’ ethnographer? What are the implications of this discussion for the ethics of
ethnographic practice?

TOP TIP 17.4

If conducting research which has to be approved by an IRB, be aware that ethnographic

research may prove a challenge in terms of getting ethical approval. Be cautious about
making assurances of gaining consent and achieving reciprocity as these might prove
difficult to keep.

Issues of power also come into play. Some postmodernists, for example, have
rejected the researcher’s right to interpret experience other than their own –
hence, the growth of auto-ethnography. Auto-ethnography, however, does not
escape ethical problems since it presents the actions of others from the author’s
perspective. Ellis (2007) also points out that when writing about oneself, we also
write about others and so run the risk of these people becoming recognizable to readers.
Murphy and Dingwall (2001) ask: what is the basis of the auto-ethnographer’s authority to
represent others, and should the permission of these others be sought? A number of
practical steps are suggested that may increase the likelihood that ethnographic research
will adhere to ethical codes, namely:

• Remove identifying information about respondents at the earliest opportunity

• Use pseudonyms for respondents (recognizing that for small scale communities or
settings, these may not be effective)
• Reduce or eliminate non-relevant details about the setting and individuals (to reduce the
danger of anonymity being breached)
• Consider undertaking ethnographical research in collaboration with research subjects
• Separate out the data from the researcher’s interpretations so that the nature of this
interpretation is open to scrutiny by others
• Consider putting more of the researcher’s own presence into the research, including
own emotional responses (i.e., the ethnographic self)

THE ETHNOGRAPHIC SELF

Conventional ethnography has emphasized the other lives that are being observed,
analysed or produced (Coffey, 1999), the ethnographer serving as a biographer of others.
However, the ethnographer is simultaneously involved in biographical work of their own
because they are part of, and interacting with, the field setting. Hence, it is important to
recognize the reflexive nature of social research, that is, we are part of the social world that
we study (Allen, 1997). As Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) point out, this is not a
methodological commitment – it is an existential fact. So, rather than attempting to eliminate
the effects of the researcher, we should set about understanding them. Fieldwork, then,
cannot be accomplished without attention to the roles of the researcher including their social
roles and relationships and how the identity of the researcher is constructed and recast

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

during the course of the fieldwork (Coffey, 1999). The self is not so much complete and
rounded as partial and multiple which has implications for how the self interconnects with
others in the field. In the end, the choice is probably not between immersion or not, but a
recognition that the self is the product of sets of complex negotiations, influenced by social
norms and expectations of others in the field.

Shaffir (1999) criticizes the formulaic accounts of field research prior to the 1970s with
ethnographers subsequently starting to deviate from the stance that the researcher can
adopt a value-free position. The façade, no matter how neatly construed, prevents the
researcher from examining his or her own cultural assumptions and also from analysing the
personal experiences that inevitably shape research processes and outcomes. Hence,
researchers began to pay attention to their own social and emotional experiences including

the anxieties and frustrations, the exhilaration and pride in achievement, as well as the
disappointments and failures. Such disclosures would provide a richer and more detailed insight
into the world of research. (Shaffir, 1999: 680)

Yet the degree to which the researcher places him or herself within the ethnographic ‘story’
is open to debate. Furthermore, while some support the value of immersion within the field,
Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) sound a note of caution, arguing for the importance of
intellectual distance in order for the researcher to conduct analytical work. But openness
and honesty and worthy goals are not necessarily easy to achieve as Case Study 17.4
shows.

CASE STUDY 17.4

The challenges of ‘getting in’

Shaffir (1999) relates how ethnographic research requires some measure of role playing
and acting involving the presentation of particular images of one’s self. This kind of self-
presentation cannot be calculated completely in advance but often evolves during the
research process. Shaffir describes his ethnographic study among a group of Hasidim
Jews. He was honest in telling them that he was a sociologist and did not pretend that he
wanted to become a Hasid. However, he gradually discovered that deception was
nonetheless inherent in the ethnographic encounter. For example, he began to wear the
black felt yarmulke (skullcap) and donned tefillin (small leather boxes containing scrolls
of parchment inscribed with verses from the Torah) when attending morning prayer
services. But this was not complete dissimulation because he genuinely found himself
being drawn to this community, impressed by their warmth and friendliness. So he was
not a completely calculating observer. He was that and more – his self-presentation
being influenced by both academic and personal considerations. Yet he was always an
outsider, and recognized by the community as one. It is important to recognize that there
is a boundary which it is not possible (despite sometimes personal wishes) to cross.
Whereas previously he thought of this barrier as reflecting his lack of research skills, he
has now come to accept it.

Source: Adapted from Shaffir, 1999

ACTIVITY 17.4

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03
 PRINTED BY: Ted Palys <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's
prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Shaffir reflects on his self-identity within his chosen setting. How much of these reflections
do you think should go into his ethnographic account?

FEMINIST ETHNOGRAPHY
Feminist ethnography is one of the feminist research methodologies (recall Chapter 2) and
is, in fact, considered by some to be particularly appropriate to feminist research (Klein,
1983; Stanley and Wise, 1993). Feminist research is research carried out for women
(Webb, 1993), to confront women’s oppression, which can only be addressed if power
differentials between researchers and the researched are broken down. What makes
ethnography feminist is its explicit concern with reflexivity and the social positioning of the
researcher in relation to research subjects. Reflexivity and self-examination are both
important values in feminist research (Huisman, 2008; McNamara, 2009), as is the idea of
reciprocity – researchers and participants are equal and both should benefit from the
research. However, there are a wide range of perspectives within feminist methodology as
well as tensions and divisions. As Williams (1993) warns, feminist ethnography is diverse in
respect of both topic and method, indicating ontological and epistemological differences.

http://e.pub/7vx8qu8fojswdn3hkpez.vbk/OEBPS/ch0017.xlink-print-1541263572.xhtml 2018-11-03