Ethnography, the word means Writing Culture. It is therefore rooted in the notion of description of a particular society, culture, group or social context. The most common conception of the descriptive character of ethnographic accounts is that they map the morphology of some area of the social world. Thus, an ethnography is a specific kind of written observational science which provides an account of a particular culture, society, or community. A typical ethnography attempts to be holistic and typically follows an outline to include a brief history of the culture in question, an analysis of the physical geography or terrain inhabited by the people under study, including climate, and often including what biological anthropologists call habitat. The fieldwork usually involves spending a year or more in another society, living with the local people and learning about their ways of life.
For example, if within a group of people, winking is a communicative gesture, it is first sought to determine what kinds of things a wink might mean. The next step is to determine in what contexts winks are used, and whether, as one moved about a region, winks remained meaningful in the same way. In this way, cultural boundaries of communication can be explored, as opposed to using linguistic boundaries or notions about residence.
There are three central ideas in Ethnography– Induction, Context and Unfamiliarity. Ethnographers think of everything in the context of the subject under consideration. Ethnographers tend to be context driven, not only their research but also their research questions and methodological practice.
Invention of the Ethnographic Method
Bronislaw Malinowski, a Polish expatriate at the London School of Economics, was researching in A ustralia in 1914, when war broke out. As a Pole, he was technically an enemy citizen, but rather than being incarcerated, he was allowed to spend the war years in the
Design Ethnography
Design ethnography is thought of as being a way of understanding the particulars of daily life in such a way so as to increase the success probability of a new product or service or, more appropriately, to reduce the probability of failure specifically due to a lack of understanding of the basic behaviours and framework of consumers. Businesses, too, have found ethnographers helpful for understanding how people use products and services, as indicated in the increasing use of ethnographic methods to understand consumers and consumption, or for new product development. Ethnographers' systematic and holistic approach to real life experience is valued by product developers, who use the method to understand unstated desires or cultural practices that surround products. Where focus groups fail to inform marketers about what people really do, ethnography links what people say to what they actually do, avoiding the pitfalls that come from relying only on self focus group data. Design ethnography deviates from formal and idealistic rules or ethics that have come to be widely accepted in qualitative and quantitative approaches to research.
How does an Ethnographer work?
The ethnographer has to first select a culture and review the literature pertaining to the culture and identify a few variables of interest. The next thing he has to do is try and gain an entrance into the culture. Then comes the cultural immersion which involves understanding the culture thoroughly. Data analysis and theory development come as the last stage of the study.
Seven principles to be considered for observing, recording and sampling data
1. The groups should combine symbolic meanings with patterns of interaction.
2. Observe the world from the point of view of the subject, while maintaining the distinction between everyday and scientific perceptions of reality.
3. Link the group’s symbols and their meanings with the social relationships.
4. Record all behaviour.
5. Methodology should highlight phases of process, change and stability.
6. The act should be a type of symbolic interaction.
7. Use concepts that would avoid casual explanations.
Different Kinds of Ethnographers:
“The kindly ethnographer” – Most ethnographers present themselves as being more sympathetic than they actually are, which aids in the research process, but is also deceptive. The identity that we present to subjects is different from who we are in other circumstances.
“The friendly ethnographer” – Ethnographers operate under the assumption that they should not dislike anyone. In actuality, when hated individuals are found within research, ethnographers often crop them out of the findings.
“The honest ethnographer” – If research participants know the research goals, their responses are likely to be skewed. Therefore, ethnographers often conceal what they know in order to increase the likelihood of acceptance.
“The Precise Ethnographer” – Ethnographers often create the illusion that field notes are data and reflect what “really” happened. They engage in the opposite of plagiarism, giving credit to those undeserving by not using precise words but rather loose interpretations and paraphrasing. Researchers take near fictions and turn them into claims of fact. The closest ethnographers can ever really get to reality is an approximate truth.
“The Observant Ethnographer” – Readers of ethnography are often led to assume the report of a scene is complete – that little of importance was missed. In reality, an ethnographer will always miss some aspect because they are not omniscient. Everything is open to multiple interpretations and misunderstandings. The ability of the ethnographer to take notes and observe varies, and therefore, what is depicted in ethnography is not the whole picture.
“The Unobtrusive Ethnographer” – As a “participant” in the scene, the researcher will always have an effect on the communication that occurs within the research site. The degree to which one is an “active member” affects the extent to which sympathetic understanding is possible.
“The Candid Ethnographer” – Where the researcher situates themselves within the ethnography is ethically problematic. There is an illusion that everything reported has actually happened because the researcher has been directly exposed to it.
“The Chaste Ethnographer” – When ethnographers participate within the field, they invariably develop relationships with research subjects/participants. These relationships are sometimes not accounted for within the reporting of the ethnography despite the fact that they seemingly would influence the research findings.
“The Fair Ethnographer” – Fine claims that objectivity is an illusion and that everything in ethnography is known from a perspective. Therefore, it is unethical for a researcher to report fairness in their findings.
“The Literary Ethnographer” – Representation is a balancing act of determining what to “show” through poetic/prosaic language and style versus what to “tell” via straightforward, ‘factual’ reporting. The idiosyncratic skill of the ethnographer influences the face value of the research.
Difference between Quantitative methods and Ethnography
Firstly, quantitative methodologies have a set mindset about the structure of the society, thereby over determining results and eliminating the possibility of data emerging from unexpected arenas.
Ethnography, in contrast is often an exercise of serendipity, in which openness to chance finds or unpredictable social and political developments generate new research orientations.
Secondly, quantitative techniques attempt to derive an understanding of what happens in normal social conditions from the decidedly abnormal contexts of the experiment or formal interview.
Third, their reliance on people’s own account of what they do is considered very naive. Ethnographers focus on conducting their research in a normal fashion. As long term participants rather than mere observers, their effect on social life is minimised and they are able to gauge the relationship between what people say about what they do and what they actually do.
Fourth, Quantitative methods were seen to reify social phenomena by treating them as distinct and isolable from the social context in which they emerge, develop and change.
Fifth, they were seen as overly behaviouristic in their assumption that people’s actions are mechanically determined, thereby neglecting to take account human agency.
Ethnographers may also validate findings through conventional archival research, consultation with experts, use of surveys, and other techniques not unique to ethnography. At the same time, ethnographic interviews are far more in depth than survey research.
Ethnographers respond to charges of subjectivity by emphasizing that their approach is all about preconceived frameworks and derives meaning from the community informants themselves, whereas survey instruments often reflect the conceptual categories preconceived by the researcher prior to actual encounter with respondents.
Ethnographers use methods such as Chain Sampling where an informant who has a good idea about what is happening is first selected and he further helps to select the next level informants.
Ethnography is more of a descriptive rather than analytic endeavour.
Some ethnographers advocate the use of structured observation schedules by which one may code observed behaviours or cultural artefacts for purposes of later statistical analysis.
Symbols are of great importance in ethnography. The ethnographer strives to understand the cultural connotations associated with symbols.
Ethnographers also use the theory of Situational Reduction. This involves reducing the situation under observation from the macro level into the micro level. This helps in better understanding.
Ethnography considers the view points of both the members of the non – members of the situation under consideration. This refers to having an emic (member perspective) as also the etic perspective (non member).
One another method used is conceptual mapping, using the terms of members of the culture themselves to relate symbols across varied forms of behaviour and in varied contexts.
Another method is to focus on learning processes, in order to understand how a culture transmits what it perceives to be important across generations.
A third method is to focus on sanctioning processes, in order to understand which cultural elements are formally prescribed or proscribed and which are informally prescribed or proscribed, and of these which are enforced through sanction and which are unenforced.
Interpretations of the deep implications that the culture has in the way a community sees the world is also very important for the ethnographers.
No comments:
Post a Comment