ETHNOGRAPHY AND TRUE ACCOUNTS
Ethnography is a term that has earned its place in the world of research and knowledge development; particularly about human life and interactions. The term has since been equated to virtually any if not all study projects that are qualitative in nature with the main focus being to unveil an in-depth and detailed depiction of everyday ways of life and practices. This description according to anthropologist Geertz (1994) is considered a thick description of what ethnography is basing on his thought of interpretive conjecture of civilization in the early 1970s. The term qualitative when describing ethnography is meant to throw a thick line between this class of societal science research from the more numerical, statistical and quantitative research. In more anthropological inclination, Malinowski (1944) suggests that ethnography can therefore be looked at as both the qualitative research process and the product of the process with the main aim of the two being cultural interpretation. A researcher is therefore not only a reporter of findings from his or her study, but he or she goes ahead to create what Geertz (1994) calls webs of meaning. The researcher attempts to derive explanations from his findings that seek to justify cultural constructions of a people, and ultimately the society that we live in. Ethnographers thus, should be able to utilize what is referred to as emic perspective or insider’s view in order to generate an appreciative understanding of a people’s culture, which is in line with Marcus (1995) insinuation that ethnography is culture put into perspective by the mind of the researcher.
This paper seeks to substantiate the fact that ethnography cannot produce true accounts as it is a subjective process of examining cultures and phenomena. The fieldwork that characterizes ethnography is shaped and greatly influenced by personal and to some extend professional identities. More often than not, both the two identities are inevitably influenced by individuals’ experiences and rational decisions during ethnographic fieldworks. Consequentially, accounts that can be produced through ethnographic studies are presented with indicating how such accounts can be recorded and presented as findings. Through close examination of different literatures, this paper is an affirmation that though unfortunate, the autobiographical facet of ethnography has been watered down through history if not completely discounted on the whole.
Fetterman (2010), a modern ethnographer, acknowledges that ethnography as a practice and an expression is as old as the human race whose historical past is characterized by not only aesthetic elements but also saintly, political and idealistic elements. These elements have shaped people lives, they have defined and distinguished cultures and named people and to a large extend defined and foreshadowed what people would become in the future. In a nutshell, Geertz (1984) insists that ethnography came to being courtesy of the unstoppable discourse and interaction; colonization. The history of ethnography can be traced back to the land of the fathers of history, the ancient Greece. In the third century B.C, Herodotus popularly known far and wide as the father of history dedicated his life to travelling and studying the culture and traditions of different communities and documenting them (Hartog 1988). Through his tireless exploration of the Middle East that was believed to be the center of the world due to competing civilizations from the east and the west, Herodotus compiled a tome which he called History. Hartog (1988) notes that Herodotus recorded the culture and way of life of the people in Middle East alongside their political history. He travelled across the ancient world not just collecting stories but also artifacts that uniquely express the cultures of different people. Neumann (1992) insists that ethnography is not just a travel but also a means of collecting ourselves as this speaks to the center of existence of the heart.
Since then ethnography has evolved with the wheel of time taking new shapes and acquiring new dimension. It got its way to the united states in the 20th century with Lewis Morgan who was an American scientist being among the pioneers of social and cultural dimensions (Carneiro 2003, Clair 2003). Few years down the line several American researchers including Franz Boaz, Malinowski, R. Benedict and Margaret Mead injected the idea of cultural relativism to the school of ethnography (Hillyard 2010). Malionwski’s contribution that an ethnographer should be flexible and patient enough to undertake his work in the field for long periods of time, be willing to live with the informant and actively observe the way of life of the informant by experiencing his way of life changed completely the people’s perspective of what ethnography was. Post colonialism came with its changes with anthropology shifting towards post-modernism, modernism and feminism consequentially leading to the development of the social science discipline (Daft, Griffin and Yates, 1987).
Forms of Ethnography
Ethnography as a methodology of qualitative research has various forms that are used in the field of anthropology. The two most common forms of ethnography include the realist and critical ethnography although there are other forms which are less common or less emphasized (Ellen 1984). They include the confessional ethnography, life history ethnography and the controversial feminist ethnography that Sanders (1999) calls a postmodern prospect of ethnography.
Realist ethnography is one of the oldest forms of ethnography in the field of ethnography that employs an objective point of view. The researcher takes a particular position and conducts a study on a particular group of people (Malinowski 1944). The ethnographer assumes a third person’s perspective and continuously collects data from the members of the community under research. The researcher is considered or possesses an omniscient personality about all the happenings that are out of his or her sight (Blandón‐Gitlin et al 2009). In the end, the researcher gives a comprehensive report about the way of life of the people in a style that is measurable and free from individual contamination by religion, political inclination or personal judgment. This form of ethnography utilizes standard categories that describe human interactions, for example family, communication and much more (Clair 2003). In the end the ethnographer presents a framework on how a people’s culture that was being studied should be analyzed and interpreted.
Critical ethnography refers to a type of ethnographic study in which the researchers vehemently advocate for the emancipation of the groups that are considered to be sidelined and marginalized in the society (Blandón‐Gitlin et al. 2009). Carspecken (1996) implies that this form of ethnography is typically politically considering that its researchers seek to find and take a position of opposition to inequalities and dominance. In a classical example, a critical researcher might decide to study institutions that practice preferential treatment to a certain group or clique of students or engage in practices that in the end undermine and frustrate the rights of the underrepresented groups. A critical ethnography seeks to empower people, challenge an oppressive or unfair status quo, address different thorny issues and it usually focuses on changing something in the group of study. A critical ethnography seeks to study issues that revolve around power, leadership, empowerment, victimization, liberation and politics.
For so many years, researchers have harbored the idea that quantitative research is more accurate and representative as compared to qualitative research. However, proponents of ethnography and qualitative research have criticized quantitative research claiming that it has failed in the many years that it has been in existence to incarcerate certain human social behaviors (Ellen 1984, Marshall 1996). The argument is that quantitative research rely solely on what people who are being studied say and also dependents on the synthetic settings and not what people actually do on the ground. Carneiro (2003) assets that ethnography focuses on reducing what can be said to what is observable and what can be experienced by those who carry out the research.
First, naturalism as a principle of ethnography set it apart and makes the study of human social behaviors and culture practical and tangible. Naturalism is a view that the aim of social research is mainly to collect information and character about humans and their life in their natural setting first hand (Atkinson 2001). As opposed to quantitative research where artificial settings such as experiments or interviews are made, naturalism as a principle of ethnography holds that by studying humans in their natural setting minimizes the chances of affecting or influencing their character and behavior (Barker 2003). The major aim of studying people in their natural setting is to increase the tendency of generalizing the results obtained in the study to other similar settings that might not be researched on but have the same natural setting.
Discovery is another principle that governs ethnographic thinking which insists that the study of human social behavior and culture is an inductive process rather than a deductive process. Ethnography is meant to discover new information of parameters rather than to test a hypothesis (Blandón‐Gitlin et al. 2009). It is always argued that if one approaches such studies with preformed mind, the likelihood that he or she will learn new things is minute. Hypotheses narrow the focus of the study, or even worse changes the focus completely as the study proceeds. Discovery guides ethnographer to develop knowledge, generate theoretical ideas that seeks to describe and explain what us observe and appreciated during interaction in the field (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007).
Finally, the principle of understanding in ethnographic studies argues that human beings behave different from other physical objects or even other animals. This means that people’s reactions are not conditioned or fixed to respond in a particular way to a certain stimuli, but involve elucidation of the stimuli and edification of responses. Many scholars have argue that this explanation in the study of the social world refutes the idea of causality as it insists on the freedom of human character. Barker (2003) in his book Cultural studies: Theory and practice writes that based on understanding, if researchers are to effectively explain human action, then an in-depth understanding of culture and its basis is imperative. Ethnographic researchers argue that since human behavior is dynamic depending on various factors, it is inarguably important to understand the culture of a people before finding and developing valid explanations ton certain actions or behaviors within their interactions.
True Accounts in Research
Ethnography as a method of qualitative data collection has various features and characteristics that limit its ability to produce valid and replicable results in the field. True accounts in any research means that the information or results obtained has validity guaranteed, the results are transferable, dependable and confirmable (Seale 1999). Validity as Amit (2003) suggests means that data or information obtained can be trusted and that the inquiry was conducted as per the set standards with the subject being accurately identified and described. The account has transferability if the findings can be applicable to another different setting or people. However, transferability is ethnography lies more with researcher who seeks to make the transfer rather than the original researcher. Dependability of findings refers to the ability of a result to replicate in the same context with the same subjects if the study is repeated (Geertz 1984). The ethnographer endeavors to account for dynamism in the phenomena of choice as well as variation in the design that was created through increased understanding of the setting. Conformability seeks to find out the relevance of the information obtained by examining the whether the findings are a reflection of the social life of the people under study and the inquiry rather than the imaginations, conceptions and prejudices of the investigator (Ellen 1984). Nonetheless, it is important to note that qualitative data is not always replicable owing to the fact that the social world is always under construction making the concept problematic.
There is variation in the observer or ethnographer involvement during fieldwork (Amit 2003). Ethnography involves staying and being part of the culture of the target group in order to study their sociality effectively. Ethnographic studies call for participation from the researcher which leaves a question of how much one should involve himself or herself as an investigator in the activities of the people being studied. The extent of participation creates a rift between ethnographers with others arguing that an investigator should not entirely dissolve in the activities of the people and thus should remain an observer, other hold that an investigator should also be a participant in order to understand the social rubrics of the people being studied (Daft, Griffin and Yates, 1987). Spradley (2016) believes that the extent to which a researcher can infiltrate and become a full participant in an expedition is dependent partly on the temperament of the setting and the nature of the inquiry. It might be hard for an ethnographer who wishes to study the social behaviors of young children scholars to become a scholar so as to experience the setting as a youngster. The dilemma on whether to become an observer or a participant lies solely on the ethnographer, the setting and the inquiry. A researcher who chooses to become a passive observer will most likely have different results from a full participant regarding a similar inquiry. The Martian perspective comes in and the accounts from such ethnographers might have disparities rendering them statistically invalid (Seale 1999).
Ethnography involves the study of human social behaviors in a specific natural setting in everyday contexts unlike in quantitative research that involves experimental and investigational conditions that are created and developed by the researcher. Human beings have been known to be creatures that tend to behave and react to a particular situation according how they interpret and understand situation (Atkinson 2001). Social interactions in similar communities or people with a common origin that occupy different natural setting tend to differ significantly. Motivations that drive human character according to social anthropologists vary according to dominating beliefs about what is right and wrong. The ultimate goal is always to find joy and meaning, thus emotions are a central driving force that define social interaction. Shennan (2000) examines the dynamics of culture and connotes that the ability to study behavior and effectively describe them as findings is an ability that depends entirely on individual abilities of the ethnographer. The accounts on human social behaviors studied over a period of time cannot be replicable or transferrable since the same exact behaviors do not repeat throughout the periods as well as in the entire population.
The main sources of data in ethnography include observation and to a large extend informal conversations. The fact culture and social behavior cannot be measured on a scale or experimentally quantified forces the ethnographer to take an active or a passive role in the activities and life of the people under the research (Sherzer 1992). The ability to initiate conversations and blend with the target population depends on a range of factors but individual attributes play a larger role. Findings on the subject of inquiry utilizing informal conversations between two or more ethnographers might differ significantly as communication skills vary across people. The choice of observational methods to use in the process of gathering information is usually the first step in the complex process of studying human interactions and behaviors (Shennan 2000). The actual employment of the decision on the method to use in the field entails making a commitment to get closer to subjects under observation in their natural setting. The observational method to use varies according to the ethnographer which in the end affects the findings of the study. The accounts of an ethnographic study on the same population by different researchers utilizing different observational methods and conversational skills are likely to differ sharply making the account unreliable (Lofland 1976).
The approach to the collection of data in ethnography is unstructured in that; the processes involved do not follow a systematic laid out plan at the beginning of the exercise. Also the categories employed in the interpretation of what subjects say or do is are not determined prior to the actual fieldwork (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). Usually, research work requires that the whole process right from choosing the research question to presentation of finding be structured and follow a systematic laid out procedure for the accounts to be trustworthy. Ethnography embraces flexibility especially in the process of collection of data since most of the activities and social interactions being studied cannot be influenced by the researcher (Holland and Leander, 2004). The volume of data to be collected each date cannot be predetermined as this depends on the subjects and the nature of the setting. The fact that the research is unstructured does not imply that it is unsystematic, but rather it implies that initially data in the field is collected in a raw as form and wide front as possible (Atkinson 2001). It therefore implies that the amount of data collected might not match the expected amount as it may exceed or hit below bar. True accounts in research usually meet the objectives set at the start of the study in terms of the scope, procedure of collection, reliability and by extension measurability. They have the capacity to meets set and standard structures that are set before the actual process kick off.
Ethnography as method focuses on examination of the social world and human interactions making it imperative to glue its focus of a single setting or group. The scope of the study is usually small scale since following up a large number of individuals interacting in a particular natural setting is not only expensive but also time consuming and tedious (Clifford and Marcus, 1986). In the case of life history ethnography, the ethnographer shifts his or her focus on the life of a single individual and follows it omnisciently over a period of time. The narrow focus that characterizes ethnography makes its findings or accounts rather narrow and might not necessarily represent the entire population from which the sample was drawn. For example, the behaviors picked up and analyzed in life history ethnography of a single individual in a particular setting might not be applicable to another individual in the same setting although their lives and outcomes as social beings might be similar. Furthermore, a study of a people’s culture who occupy a wide and extensive setting by one or quite a small number of ethnographers is likely to give accounts that are bias and unrepresentative of the entire population on inference (Haviland 1996). In this case, the truthfulness of accounts presented is jeopardized by the fact that the accounts are not transferable as it would be in a properly sample quantitative research about a certain phenomena. The higher the number of ethnographers who are willing to be active participants as well as keen observers, the higher the chances of producing reliable and valid accounts that have representativeness; a prospect that is greatly unfeasible (Clifford and Marcus, 1986).
Finally, the analysis of ethnographic data involves the researchers’ interpretation and meaning attachment to human social actions and functions of cultures (Amit 2003). This usually employs the use of verbal descriptions, illustrations and explanations with numerical representation and quantifications playing a significantly minor role in the process most times. Individuals’ understanding of and interpretation of actions is usually different basing on personal experiences, social prejudices, political perspective dimensions, spiritual affiliations among other factors (Mauthner and Doucet, 2003). This variation to a greater extend influence accounts presented as the final findings, a notion that many anthropologists associate with the extent of participation and the nature of the setting during the study. It becomes apparent that different ethnographers who conduct a social interaction study in a common setting cannot give accounts that are absolutely consistent about a certain phenomena due to disparities that are particular in the field, their interpretations and level of understanding. The accounts lose their truthfulness and as such ethnography lacks the capacity to produce true accounts.
Accounts Ethnography Should Aim To Produce.
Over and beyond ethnography being a method of data collection as Johnson (1975) puts it, it is a process that focuses on the creation of knowledge, representation of a society’s experience, culture and life based on the researcher’s own experience. Ethnography might not have the claim that it produces the truthful and objective versions of accounts, but it seeks to offer the researcher’s version of reality about the social world in an honest and credible way possible (Malinowski and Redfield, 1948). It takes into consideration the milieu, consultations and the intersubjectivities that characterize the process of researching about the most dynamic aspect of human life; the social interactions and behavior. Ethnography according to Bourdieu’s concern endangers the private world of a society as it opens it up to the public world. It undoubtedly clear that there is always a moral stake in gathering information about people’s ways of lives and making a revelation of the same. It takes trust and intimacy to be accepted into the life of a community and as it that is not enough, record what goes on.
Ethnography major endeavor in a research about the social world should be to explore the connotation of cultural norms and views. An account on the meaning of certain cultural activities and the way people in a given setting choose to behave in a certain way is a classical account that ethnographers might consider and undertake as a study (Haviland 1996). Culture can be looked as an integrated defined pattern of viewpoints, behaviors, and interactions that are more often than not shared among a specific group of people in particular setting. They include ways of interacting with fellow human beings, roles and duties, thoughts, values and virtues, ethical stands, ways of communicating, practices among many other things. Understanding the meaning and purpose of culture through ethnography is important because as humans we usually build up self esteem and distinctiveness within a certain context without which we are abound to fall into confusion and feeling of isolation. Accounts on the meaning of culture cannot be quantified or measured in experimental studies thus necessitating ethnographic studies (Malinowski and Redfield, 1948). Interpreting culture to get the meaning that influence behavior requires that the researcher be part of the setting and alongside being a conversationalist, have a good memory, good documentation skills and poses a descriptive ability. This inquiry might not need much of interviews, but observation and informal conversations.
Accounts on the reasons for rampancy of certain behaviors and practices within a given group of people in a particular setting are best produced through ethnographic research (Haviland 996). Human beings are social and interactive in their nature which implies that behaviors are modifiable and transmissible within a group of people in a particular setting. Through observation and interviews, the research places himself on a favorable path to unravel the motives that define certain conducts within a society (Tedlock 1991). The sociality of people is best understand and later explained through participation in their activities as this breaks the barrier of foreignness of the researcher in the group of interest. This account that illustrates through evidence why certain behaviors occur in a particular group should be written in a prose and descriptive form that is conclusive and convincing. The fact that this account cannot be quantified require that the presenter be well conversant with his findings, rationales and descriptions.
Accounts of social trends, occurrences and instances are best produced by ethnographic studies (Hammersley 1992). Social trends include divorce, marriage patterns, how people react to ailing and illnesses in a particular setting. How people conduct themselves in instances of death or births and what motivates their actions requires that the researcher not only take a participative position in the life of the people but also be observant and seeks to find out reasons why certain activities are done. The researcher religiously assumes the role of a learner unlike in other research studies where the researcher is always the expert (Borgatti, Everett and Johnson, 2013). The endeavor to understand such trends however, needs patience and observation of prevailing cultural norms over them. For example, some cultures do not allow women to participate in settling land disputes and as such a woman ethnographer might be forced to forego such an activity even though it might be one of the objectives of her study. Such accounts allow for conversations that resemble interviews aimed at sourcing for information. Just like most of the accounts in ethnography, the accounts ought to be written in descriptive forms for proper presentation and understanding.
Ethnography becomes utterly important when accounts of the roles and place of families, relationships and organizations is to be understood and presented. The fabrics that knit a community together such as families or clans continue to influence how human relate to each other and thus their behaviors. Most societies are organized into administrative structures that are usually out of standard governmental structures (Borgatti, Everett and Johnson, 2013). Through being part of a people’s way of life in their natural setting, researchers get an opportunity to not only observe but also participate in different activities while seeking clarification about the people’s culture. Accounts on the roles of the family, the functions of local basic organizations and associations between people can best be written in a systematic and structured descriptive prose (Atkinson, Coffey and Delamont, 1999). Through diagrammatic presentation, the roles and functions of critical institutions can be represented for ease of comprehension. Ethnographic researcher’s aim in such an inquiry is to come up with convincing information based on his experience in the field and his interaction with the social world.
Conclusion
Ethnography in itself is a more than just a method of collecting qualitative data in the field. It is a journey that aims at understanding what fuels human sociality and behavior. It is an expedition through what others call life, others civilization and others heritage all in an effort to understand human interactions and cultures that continue to anchor humanity and create identity and distinctiveness among people in different settings. The fact that it does not produce what can be termed as true accounts is not a justification that its usefulness has been outlived. The problems of objectivity that has clearly been illustrated in this paper is goes a long way in supporting some anthropologists’ argument that a completely unbiased ethnographic research is a practical impossibility. Ethnography can hence be regarded as a fiction that deserves to be evaluated both by literary structures as well as scientific philosophies. In the end, ethnographic research might not attain absolute objectiveness, but this should be sought by all means to the extent of approximating it. All scientific standards ought to be upheld in ethnography with the goal being able to achieve an unprejudiced perspective on cultural data at all times.
Bibliography
Amit, V. ed., 2003. Constructing the field: Ethnographic fieldwork in the contemporary world. Routledge.
Atkinson, P. (2001). Handbook of ethnography. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10668450.
Atkinson, P., Coffey, A. and Delamont, S., 1999. ETHNOGRAPHY Post, Past, and Present. Journal of contemporary Ethnography, 28(5), pp.460-471.
Barker, C., 2003. Cultural studies: Theory and practice. Sage.
Blandón‐Gitlin, I., Pezdek, K., Lindsay, D.S. and Hagen, L., 2009. Criteria‐based content analysis of true and suggested accounts of events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(7), pp.901-917.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Johnson, J.C., 2013. Analyzing social networks. SAGE Publications Limited.
Carneiro, R.L., 2003. Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology a Critical History.
Carspecken, P.F., 1996. Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. Psychology Press.
Clair, R.P., 2003. The changing story of ethnography. Expressions of ethnography: Novel approaches to qualitative methods, pp.3-28.
Clifford, J. and Marcus, G.E., 1986. Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography: a School of American Research advanced seminar. Univ of California Press.
Daft, R.L., Griffin, R.W. and Yates, V., 1987. Retrospective accounts of research factors associated with significant and not-so-significant research outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 30(4), pp.763-785.
Ellen, R.F., 1984. Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct (Vol. 1). Academic Pr.
Fetterman, D.M. ed., 2010. Ethnography: Step-by-step (Vol. 17). Sage.
Geertz, C., 1984. Distinguished lecture: anti anti‐relativism. American anthropologist, 86(2), pp.263-278.
Geertz, C., 1994. Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. Readings in the philosophy of social science, pp.213-231.
Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P., 2007. Ethnography: Principles in practice. Routledge.
Hammersley, M., 1992. Some reflections on ethnography and validity 1. Qualitative studies in education, 5(3), pp.195-203.
Hartog, F., 1988. The Mirror of Herodotus: the Representation of the Other in the Writing of History (No. 5). Univ of California Press.
Haviland, W. A. (1996). Cultural anthropology. Fort Worth, Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Hillyard, S. (2010). New Frontiers in Ethnography. Bradford, Emerald Group Pub. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=615844.
Holland, D. and Leander, K., 2004. Ethnographic studies of positioning and subjectivity: An introduction. Ethos, 32(2), pp.127-139.
Johnson, J.M., 1975. Doing field research. Free Press.
Lofland, J., 1976. Doing social life: The qualitative study of human interaction in natural settings. John Wiley & Sons.
Malinowski, B. and Redfield, R., 1948. Magic, science and religion and other essays (Vol. 23). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Malinowski, B., 1944. A Scientific Theory of Culture, and Other Essays.
Marcus, G.E., 1995. Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual review of anthropology, pp.95-117.
Marshall, M.N., 1996. Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), pp.522-526.
Mauthner, N.S. and Doucet, A., 2003. Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis. Sociology, 37(3), pp.413-431.
Sanders, C.R., 1999. Prospects for a post-postmodern ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28(6), pp.669-675.
Seale, C., 1999. Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 5(4), pp.465-478.
Shennan, S., 2000. Population, culture history, and the dynamics of culture change1. Current Anthropology, 41(5), pp.811-835.
Sherzer, J., 1992. Ethnography of speaking. Folklore, cultural performances, and popular entertainments: A communications-centered handbook, pp.76-80.
Spradley, J.P., 2016. Participant observation. Waveland Press.
Tedlock, B., 1991. From participant observation to the observation of participation: The emergence of narrative ethnography. Journal of anthropological research, pp.69-94.
Van Maanen, J., 2011. Ethnography as work: Some rules of engagement. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), pp.218-234
