Positivism
includes the assumptions that research should follow experimental guidelines,
it should produce universal or statistical laws, and all knowledge is rooted in
observation.
Naturalism
refers to the belief that knowledge comes from the study of the social world in
its natural state—without researcher interference.
Both
positivism and naturalism lack reflexivity; they rely on situated observation
but do not acknowledge the role of the researcher. In ethnography, reflexivity
is the basis of knowledge.
Hammersly
& Atkinson Ch. 2
In
ethnography, researchers usually enter with some degree of foreshadowed
problems, but they need to be careful not to let their ideas of problems define
what they observe in the field. Furthermore, entering the field in hopes of
testing a particular theory can be problematic for the same reason. As the
researcher spends time in the field, they will most likely change or refine
their research questions, being sure to pursue what is already there, not what
they are trying to see. Part of this work can be described as either moving
from the formal to substantive (theory -> observation) or substantive to
formal/generic (observation -> theory/generalization).
The setting
of the research also plays a large role in deciding the research question. It
is a good idea to check out places being considered for an ethnography before
choosing settings. After all, there are usually many settings to choose from to
address the kinds of questions that you want to address. Ethnographers do not,
technically, study settings—their work is in studying the populations in the
settings. It is impossible to account for everything within the setting.
Sampling in
ethnography refers to the choice of cases and cases within cases in a study.
Sampling should aim to be representative of the culture studied. The act of
sampling is the implicit choice of what is and is not relevant to the topic
studied. Sampling can be decided on the basis of time (when to sample), people
(who to sample), and context (where to sample).
Hammersly
& Atkinson Ch. 3
Access is a
major issue that ethnographers have to deal with. It can involve having to create
or use interpersonal relationships with people of power in order to be able to
visit or observe certain sites. Even the act of negotiating access can teach
the ethnographer a great deal about the culture. Access also brings up issues
of ethics (who can grant access isn’t always who ought to grant access) and
behavior (just because you are present does not make you a welcome part of the
scene).
The people
who have the power to let you into a particular setting or scene are known as
gatekeepers. They can have formal (clearance) or informal (integral member of
culture) roles that give them this power. Sometimes gatekeepers are not the
sole individuals needed to gain access to a site. They can be constrained by
other individuals, rules, or laws.
When
researchers cannot gain access to a field through gatekeepers, it is sometimes
possible to do covert research in which the study is not announced to anyone.
This can be a constraint on the research, limiting the kinds of data collection
you can do. It is also a significant ethical issue.
Hammersly
& Atkinson Ch. 4
For most
participants, the ethnographer will initially be treated with suspicion, but
this will dissipate as contact increases. However, this is not always the case.
Sometimes participants misjudge the intentions of the ethnographer or assume
that they are ignorant of the practices of the culture. As a result, the
researcher has to engage in impression management by doing things like dressing
like the people studied. Expertise and specialist knowledge can be useful in
structuring relationships with participants in the field. Researchers must also
decide on what level of self-disclosure is appropriate and whether or not they
are trading friendship for data.
Researchers
should be aware of their unmanageable characteristics (gender, age, ethnicity,
etc.) that can have effects on how they relate to people in the field. Women
can have trouble gaining access to certain areas (either because of actual
rules or just established norms), and men can have trouble gaining access to
settings and situations usually reserved for women. By the same token, these
characteristics can make it easier to gain access to those areas that privilege
such characteristics.
The early
stages of research often involve learning the basic competencies for
participating in the culture. During this time, the researcher is often granted
the same grace as any new member of a culture—“acceptable incompetence.” This
leads to one of the problems of studying a culture that you are already a part
of—you cannot hold a novice position, and thus you miss all of the knowledge
learned about the status of being a novice.
Hammersly
& Atkinson Ch. 5
Because the ‘objects’
that ethnographers study are actually ‘subjects,’ collecting accounts becomes a
hugely important part of research. Accounts can be both unsolicited and solicited.
The former is generally thought to be more natural or more purposeful, which
could be considered a naturalist perspective. We cannot be too heavily
concerned with the influence of the researcher asking for accounts because
there is no way to ever know if the data is compromised, including unsolicited accounts.
The act of
choosing who to interview can have several effects on the research. Simply
choosing those that are interesting to the researcher can be, in some ways,
biased. Using a gatekeeper to select the respondents gives them the power to
direct the results. Allowing the participants to self-select guarantees that
the only perspectives heard are those that would want to be heard. The
interview itself can be seen as a new site of participation—a “resource rather
than a problem.”
Interviews
are structured both by the ethnographer and the respondent. Using non-directive
interviews requires the researcher to be an active listener, following up on
important or interesting details to make the interview worthwhile.
Hammersly
& Atkinson Ch. 6
It is important
to pay attention to documents, physical objects, and various modes of
communication. They can provide a source of information that does not come out
in interviews or participation about the setting and context of the
observation. They can also be a starting point for analytic ideas. Documents
can be either solicited or unsolicited. The former can take the form of diaries
or written accounts.
Hammersly
& Atkinson Ch. 7
Researcher
should try to record as much as they can. Memory is faulty, and it should not
be the basis for analysis. Recording anything means that the researcher is
choosing not to record something at the same time. It is selective, and
something will always be left out. This alone is not reason to abandon
recording data. This means that there will also always be interpretation,
because recording cannot capture every bit of meaning attached to anything.
Choosing to record can also have effects on the participants, and we need to
account for this in our interpretations.
Ethnographers
should use a reflexive eye when considering recorded data. Recorded data can be
useful, not just for capturing specific data, but for use in determining what
is usual or unusual in the field or for testing out conceptual links. The
recordings can also provide information about the researcher and how the
participants react to the researcher.
Hammersly
& Atkinson Ch. 8
Data
analysis occurs at every stage of ethnographic work. However, there are no
guaranteed ways of doing data analysis that will make an ethnography
successful. Using data to theorize should be an iterative process, emerging as
analysis occurs.
Ethnography
work can be largely descriptive, using techniques such as making the strange
familiar/making the familiar strange. It can also attempt to explain or create
theoretical models. In analysis, ethnographers should search for concepts or
theories that help make sense of the cases in the data. One way of analyzing
unstructured data can be to use theoretical concepts as categories and to begin
sorting data into those categories. As this work continues, the researcher can
find data that calls for new categories or that strikes interesting comparisons
with existing categories. This can also lead to the establishment of
relationships between constructs.
Other
systems for working with data can be creating conceptual maps, working up
grounded theory, and creating typologies. It is important to find concrete
indicators within the data that link to the concepts you are using to theorize.
The links can take the form of social context, time, or personnel (who
does/says what). When finished, the researcher should seek respondent
validation. The conclusions should seem correct/intuitive to those within the
population studied.
Hammersly
& Atkinson Ch. 9
Ethnography
is produced through writing, and the production is just as much writing as it
is the data collection. Depending on how the ethnography is written up, it will
emphasize different facets of the study. The particular theories or concepts
used in the ethnography will dictate what should be focused on. The
ethnographer generally writes as a storyteller; because experience is data, the
experience must somehow be conveyed. The writing will be read by an audience,
and so the narrative must be compelling (or at least readable).
Writing up
an ethnography can take either thematic or chronological arrangements. The
former is useful for explaining constructs that are ordered in term of
importance. The researcher should be careful when using metaphor and
synecdoche. While they shouldn’t be eliminated, they can be used in ways that
mislead or over-simplify. They should also consider the role of narrative,
irony, and topos. When appropriate, or when writing for a digital form, the
ethnographer can include extra data such as photos or recordings, though doing
so may raise certain ethical issues.
Hammersly
& Atkinson Ch. 10
There are
many issues that ethnographers have to make ethical choices about. These can
include informed consent (how/to what degree does the ethnographer attain
consent from participants?), privacy (how is privacy guaranteed and where is it
expected?), harm (does the ethnographer do any harm either in their
participation or publishing of information?), exploitation (to what degree is
the ethnographic work exploiting a community, and can the ethnographer do
anything to give back?), and consequences for future research (does the
ethnographer’s work preclude further studies?).
No comments:
Post a Comment