“Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun," "... and that
analysis of [culture] to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but
an interpretive one in search of meaning.” (Max Weber cited in Geertz)
As participant observers we can learn the culture
or subculture of the people we are studying. We can come to interpret the world
in the same way that they do. (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1989, p. 7)
Discussion Question:
1.
Explain the difference between case study and ethnography?
2.
What is Culture for you? How do you explain or define culture? Explain if you consider cultural interpretation as science or not?
3.
How important is to have a prior knowledge of your area of
research when you do fieldwork research?
4.
How different is Erving Goffman’s view of participant observation
from Robert Emerson and Melvin Pollner’s in their document on ‘Constructing
Participant / Observation Relations?’
5. Ethical concerns are
inevitable and therefore render participant / observation an invalid method for
data collection. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
6.
What are the qualities of an Ethnographer?
7.
To what extent should a field researcher come close to those being
studied?
8.
Why
do advocates of interpretive approaches reject the three positivists'
assumptions of dualist ontology, objectivist epistemology, and language as an
accurate representation of objective reality?
9. To what extent
should ethical considerations guide the work of an ethnographer?
10. Is ethnographic work merely
a constructed reality of the ethnographer?
4. How important is to have a prior knowledge of your area of research when you do fieldwork research?
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned by D. Lawrence Wieder, on one hand, it is useful not to have any prior knowledge of your area of research. If you go into the field, having studied everything that has been written about your topic of research, chances are that the acquired knowledge will skew your research in a similar direction. The researcher will gain certain assumptions, biases, expect certain things to happen in the fieldwork. Prior knowledge might limit the opportunity for a researcher to be an independent observer and accurately record and reflect the reality. There is a risk that once in the field a researcher will look for patterns outlined by previous studies, while omitting other “evidence”.
On the other hand, not having prior knowledge at all also poses a risk. If a researcher is not familiar with the culture or with the environment he has to operate in, he might fail to understand certain practices and “penetrate the society,” misinterpret things and be “rejected” by his objects of study.
Therefore, I think finding a good balance between the two options is the key to doing excellent fieldwork research.
7. What are the qualities of an Ethnographer?
Many of readings discussed the qualities of a good ethnographer. Some of them are: attention to details, sharp memory, good language skills, excellent writing and analytical skills. The job of the ethnographer is to “observe, record and analyze”. Therefore, the ability to observe and accurately record without adding your own opinion is essential. A good ethnographer should be able both to penetrate the environment that he has to operate in and also distance himself from his objects of study in order to observe and produce systematic analysis.
8. To what extent should a field researcher come close to those being studied?
As discussed in the “Telling the Convict Code” story, a field researcher should refrain from getting too close with his objects of study. In that story, the purpose of a researcher was to observe the interaction between residents of the house and the staff. If a researcher spent too much time with the residents, he could take the side of the residents, make friends and develop sympathy toward them, while failing to understand the staff. A field researcher should try to understand the positions of all sides involved, without taking anybody’s side. Of course, in the real word it is almost impossible to be a 100% independent observer, but this is what a good field researcher should strive for.
3. Explain if you consider cultural interpretation as science or not?
ReplyDeleteIf we consider science in the broad sense of simply being a knowledge producing activity, then yes I do consider cultural interpretation as a science. Ethnography is the close study of cultural phenomena, and the social processes in which they are embedded. If we instead consider science to only be the creation and testing of general hypothesis, then it may be more difficult to claim that ethnography is a science. For while our reading this week discuss how ethnographies do have the ability to create theories, it is not the main goal of these theories to be applicable on a general scales. The first goal is to essentially see the world through the eyes of those being studies, and from there to create theoretical interpretations of why groups and individual act the way that they do. No two groups study will be exactly the same. The book makes clear, though, that researchers should still be familiar with prior theories that may be relevant to their field of study, as there is always the potential older theories to be able to explain phenomena’s in a new study
8. To what extent should a field researcher come close to those being studied?
There is a delicate balance necessary here. While most discuss the difficulties of being able to penetrate a group and convince them to trust you enough to be able to conduct your study, the reading for this week argues that it can be just as troublesome when a group become too eager to bring you’re in. The want of the researchers resources by the group being studied can distract the researcher form there work, or becoming too integrated with the culture you are studying may cause a researcher to forget why they are there and forgo their research objectives all together. This process is sometimes referred to as “going native”, and though the term may seem outdated and cliché, it seems as if it remains a real phenomenon.
Again, balance is important, and from what I can garner from this week’s readings, opinion varies on just how integrated one should become with the field. The chapter we read on the transcription of a professors speech argued that one should become se enmeshed in the local ways that you start to forget your “other word” and that you start to become attracted to the opposite sex of the people you are working with. After all, as an ethnographer you are trying to see the world through another’s eyes, so the more you can forget your own world, the better you may be able to understand how cultural processes shape local behavior and institutions. In the end, it seems to me that a researcher really has to be able to decide what works best for their own approach in each given context. If research is being done on social workers in the United States, a removed approach is probably best, if you are trying to understand the cosmologies of a remote Amazonian tribe, the closer you can mimic their lifestyle without forgetting why you are there in the first place, the more successful you will be
2) Culture is a way of life that encompasses language, food, customs, and tradition. It is a collective identity created by a community and passed down through generations. Further, culture is a mindset and the starting point for how we interact with the world. Every new thing we encounter is initially compared to our learned cultural norm. I also think one’s own culture becomes more recognizable as a distinct entity when we encounter a different culture. For instance, despite being born and raised in the United States, I didn’t strongly identify as American until I lived overseas and realized how everything from the way I held a fork to my political views was strongly influenced by my native culture. In other words, I think a culture defines itself by being distinct from another.
ReplyDelete3) This question goes back to our class discussion last week. In order to say whether or not cultural interpretation is a science, we must first define what science is. In my opinion, science is simply a methodical study. Rules and processes do not have to be uniform across research, as long as the study is conducted in a systematic fashion that aims to create knowledge. I do think that the best science strives for objectivity, simply because it will be accessible to more people. Yet I also realize that complete objectivity is impossible, especially when we study human interaction. There will certainly be a higher degree of subjectivity in ethnography, simply because, as noted in my previous response, we never approach another culture without preconceived notions. But if the study is conducted with a clear method and acknowledges it is influenced by subjective interpretation, I believe that we can call it science.
Difference between Case Study and Ethnography:
ReplyDeleteIn in Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, George and Benett basically argue for a case study approach in social research. A case study approach is a detailed examination of an aspect of a historical episode to develop or test historical explanations that may be generalizable to other events. (George and Benett, 5) So, researchers can more or less determine the cause of certain events by studying them in detail and in comparison with some selected alternative examples. They describe the method as ““structured” in that the researcher writes general questions that reflect the research objective and that these questions are asked of each case under study to guide and standardize data collection, thereby making systematic comparison and cumulation of the findings of the cases possible.” (George and Benett, 67) Ethnography would fall under process tracing work (carried out in case studies). George and Bennett describe process tracing as that which attempts to trace the links between possible causes and observed outcomes (George and Benett, 6). In this, histories and archival documents are examined and interviews conducted to get a better understanding of whether the causal pattern leading to the event is in fact responsible (is an intervening variable) for the evident sequence of events.
What is culture to me?
A quick google search of the term culture reveals various definitions. However, two of the various definitions, appealed to me the most. They were “Culture consists of the derivatives of experience, more or less organized, learned or created by the individuals of a population, including those images or encodements and their interpretations transmitted from past generations, from contemporaries, or formed by individuals themselves,” (T.Schwartz 1992) and the other definition was “the set of attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors shared by a group of people, but different for each individual, communicated from one generation to the next” (Matsumoto 1996). Having said that, I am an Indian and it is very complicated for an Indian to answer this question. If I consider my nationalistic culture, it is varied and diverse with multiple religions, languages and traditions. However, I personally identify with a Hindu south Indian culture. For me, culture is the beliefs and practices that my parents and grandparents have passed on to me. It is something that I have internalized through instruction and observation. Of course, while these practices and way of living in general, may have been passed on through generations, and through ancestors who promoted different ways of living, the culture I practice today is a much-evolved version, which may have taken a new form but retains the core beliefs.
Prior knowledge of your area of research when you do fieldwork
There are of course various reasons why prior knowledge of the area of research is required, but the one I find most important/interesting is (taking from the above question) the cultural relativism aspect. While there is an underlying human unity that puts each and every individual in the world on equal footing, the problem (not so much a problem) of multiculturalism makes it difficult for people to understand or in fact empathize with each other. With most researchers -- fortunately or unfortunately – coming from the western countries, it is absolutely essential for them to recognize and acknowledge the intricacies of non-western cultures mainly because of how vastly different they are from western cultures. It is important to understand that there is no absolute truth or moral standard in the world and thus there is no meaningful way of judging different cultures because it would vary ethnically. Therefore, a researcher, keeping these facts in mind, has to go into the field with a completely non-biased and non-judgmental mindset if he/she has to produce research that is meaningful and effective.
Explain if you consider cultural interpretation as science or not?
ReplyDeleteTo answer this question, we must first define what the concept of science means for us. As we have seen in the book of Patrick Jackson, there is a long and substantial discussion on what we can call “science” in the field of social sciences. Various writers define the concept by using different parameters, so we have multiple explanations for what science as a term means. We must also not forget that our ontological and epistemological assumptions about the social reality also influences our positions about what we choose to call “science” in the social sciences.
Someone who considers science as simply a systematic and coherent study of the social realty, without attaching a specific method of inquiry to the study, would argue that cultural interpretation would be considered as science. Therefore, I would say that although subjective ontological and epistemological preferences play a huge role in answering this question of whether cultural interpretation constitutes scientific inquiry, I believe that it most certainly adds to the accumulative pool of scientific knowledge we have on social reality, and therefore, should be considered as a scientific method on its own.
Ethical concerns are inevitable and therefore render participant / observation an invalid method for data collection. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
The suggestion that ethical concerns are rendering participant-observations an invalid method of data collection carries in itself, certain meanings ascribed to particular notions, and as a result, they must be first discussed to better answer the question.
Data collection would not be used to describe the same concept when it would be used by a neopositivist or by an ethnographer. An ethnographer might perhaps even choose not to describe what he or she does as data collection in their study. From a neopositivist point of view, data collection would be about a certain phenomenon where particular variables would be gathered by the researcher, who would prefer to remain as “objective” as possible regarding the researched phenomenon. As a result, from this point of view, if the researcher while in the process of data collecting errs and mixes his or her ethical concerns into the process, then, it would not be an “objective” collection of data, and the results would be invalid. Therefore, this view suggests that ethical concerns must be eluded by the researcher, and that can be achieved to certain extent by trying to remain as “objective” as possible.
On the other hand, an ethnographer would look at this matter from the opposite side, stating that it is by immersion of the researcher in the social environment that they can make systematic descriptions of social reality. Ethical concerns of the neopositivist are, therefore, not existent, since the ethical perceptions of the ethnographer are an indivisible and natural part of the study. In this case, it is argued that it is impossible for an ethnographer to separate him or herself from their ethical beliefs, but it does not in any way damage the study that is being done, since the main objectives of a neopositivist researcher and an ethnographer are quite different. This difference lies in the ontological and epistemological assumptions that differ between neopositivist research and ethnographic research. To quote “Rather, as the ethnographer engages in the lives and concerns of the studied, his perspective ‘is intertwined with the phenomenon which does not have objective characteristics independent of the observer’s perspective methods’” (Emerson et al. 1995, 3).
To conclude, an ethnographer would argue that ethical concerns would not damage the data collection or the study, since data collection as it is understood by the neopositivist, is really not what they would try to do in a study, and that it is practically impossible for a researcher to separate him or herself from any ethical belief about the study conducted in any given environment.
1. To me, culture is a way of life. It involves food, music, shared values, and traditions and customs. Culture is shared beliefs and values among a group of people. Culture to me is innate, meaning these beliefs and values are carried out without thinking. Culture is basically a way of life that is passed on through actions - watching other members of the culture for social cues and norms. Culture is passed down from one generation to another.
ReplyDelete4. I think it is important to have some prior knowledge about your area of research prior to conducting field work. If you have some understanding of what you are studying/trying to prove or question you will know what types of questions to ask, what observations to make, and understand causal links between independent and dependent variables. I do not think you need to be an expert field you want to study. However, I believe it is more important to have some knowledge, curiosity, and an interest in what you want to study. If you were to go in blind I think it would be difficult to formulate your research because you would run the potential of missing key aspects of your research.
7. An ethnographer is a person that studies people and cultures. The qualities I would think that are critical to being an effective ethnographer are having a passion for learning about different cultures, keen observation skills, great communication, and attention to detail.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Explain the difference between case study and ethnography.
ReplyDeleteCase study is a method to deeply observe the characteristics of individual units such as a person, a group, or a community, in order to analyze various phenomena in relation to that unit of study. Case studies are more focused on particular experiences that offer evidence, and deal not so much with generalizations.
Ethnography is a firsthand study about what people do and say in a particular context. It is a method of field observation of behavior in a natural setting. Some of the techniques used in an ethnographic study include participant observation, conversation, and use of informants. These are used to study cultural and social characteristics of population.
2. What is culture for you? How do you explain or define culture?
Culture is a collective ideology of human societies. One interesting explanation of culture that I found online: “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one category of people from another.” This definition resonated with me because I often see culture as a defining characteristic of a group of people (whether that be as large as a country or as small as a club). Culture is both big and large. The culture of the “west” is much different of that in the Middle East and causes a lot of the misunderstandings that contemporary society faces. However, there are also cultures such as “Military family” culture, in which I grew up. This culture is much different than that of many of my peers in college.
4. How important is it to have prior knowledge of your area of research when you do fieldwork research?
Establishing a baseline understanding of your research topic is extremely important. Without having an understanding of what you are looking for in your data collection, you risk misunderstanding what is happening during your data collection. With this in mind, I also think it is also important to limit the knowledge you have. It is possible that if you are too knowledgeable about the subject in which you are researching while collecting information you could inadvertently create bias in your observations.
Unrelated to the material directly, this question brings to mind a particular part of the Serial podcast about Adnan Syed. The police conducting the investigation go on a ride-along with a “cell-phone tower expert” to collect data about which cell-towers are pinged when you are located at certain key places. The officers involved only right down the information that is relevant to the case that they are trying to present and ignore the information that does not match their story. The officers on the ride along had prior knowledge of the research area and thus exhibited biases in the information that they wrote down to be included in the case files.
This example is important in demonstrating that there is a fine line between have prior knowledge in order to benefit data collect and having prior knowledge in a way that creates biases.
2) What is culture for you? How do you explain or define culture?
ReplyDeleteThe Miriam Webster Dictionary defines culture as, “ the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time”. This definition is a good starting place for the concept, but it is more of a foundation of what culture is than a complete understanding. In a more grandiose sense, culture is the way a society understands itself and how individuals understand themselves within society. It is the thread that is woven through individuals that creates the fabric of society. This understanding, though, is less surface level than the way the term is commonly used. As a teacher of English as a second language, I’ve heard many a foreign national tell me that America has no culture of its own. If this were true, I believe one might experience a much greater level of social entropy. It is true that the US doesn’t have a national costume, unless you count the cowboy, and we also lack national foods, unless you count fast food, but culture is not limited to such artifacts. Many aspects of culture are intangible and as such are less easy to define. The way in which men and women are expected to interact with one another, the role of education in society, and attitudes toward beauty and what is considered attractive are all aspects of culture. Culture for me is of course, food and art and customs, but more than that, culture is the unwritten guide to interaction within a group of people.
5) How different is Erving Goffman’s view of participant observation from Robert Emerson and Melvin Pollner’s in their document on ‘Constructing Participant / Observation Relations?’
Erving Goffman’s view of participant observation felt to me in my reading as very much a product of experience. His advice came from a place of having done extensive field work himself and studying himself as he performed fieldwork. He gave advice that was drawn from noticing himself while he studied his subjects. Of particular note for me was his assertion that one should start within a society at the lower end of the social stratum and move up. That those at the top would figure that was always your ‘real’ goal – to talk to them. I feel in his understanding and translation of what made a good participant observer was being keen eyed in one’s conception of the world around them as well as of oneself in that world. In a phrase, it felt a bit more holistic than descriptions and experiences seen in Emerson and Pollner. In Emerson and Pollner’s “Constructing Participant/Observation Relations” there were many valuable points raised, each with stories from fieldwork which served to illustrate points. This advice would serve more as a manual for entering the field. One instance that stood out to me was of a woman who would be looked to as a mediator in disputes and asked her opinion when conflict arose on who was correct. She found making jokes of the situation in a light hearted way or replying with a question that would help the two resolve the conflict on their own helped keep her from alienating herself. This kind of guide would be highly useful to someone entering the field, but would, in my understanding, produce a very different quality of observer than one entering the field having been taught by Goffman. A student of Goffman’s would more readily learn resourcefulness on their own in an exploratory way whereas Emerson and Pollner’s student might approach situations with a catalog of responses to which they try to fit the right answer when put in trying situations.
1. Explain the difference between case study and ethnography?
ReplyDeleteAs explained in class, a case study is a spatially delimited phenomenon (a unit) observed at a single point in time or over some period of time. It comprises the type of phenomenon that a hypothesis attempts to explain. Research done using case studies tests a hypothesis against a single event or series of events.
As explained by our readings, ethnographic research requires the observer to adopt the mindset of a sociologist, and thereby to study and document characteristics and distinctions of human culture toward the exploration of a larger research question. As Martyn Hammersley argues, the ethnographer works to construct a “social world” in which to conduct research.
2. What is Culture for you? How do you explain or define culture?
Culture, as defined by Hofstede (2005), is “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others.” Gary Weaver,
who teaches Intercultural Relations in SIS, defines culture as "the way of life of a group of people passed down from one generation to the next through learning.”
The hard sciences, such as biology and chemistry, tell us that all humans are the same. I think the social sciences teach us to look for cultural distinctions between humans.
Explain the difference between case study and ethnography?
ReplyDeleteEthnographies focus on a longitudinal manifestation of an ethnic, or cultural group; case studies, meanwhile, discuss a certain instance and period in time, like an event. This difference is mirrored in the methods and purpose of both approaches: a case study is explanatory, while an ethnography is investigative. Therefore the manner in which the research is conducted varies as well. An ethnographic researcher’s goal is to mitigate the salience of her own culture in relation to that which she is studying in order to remain neutral as she observes the participants. In case studies, the researcher relies on previous research relating to the theme or topic of the case study, while still building her own conclusions through the specific data garnered from the one instance or event within the larger theme or topic of focus. It merits noting that case studies are broader in scope and definition; furthermore, due to the explanatory nature of a case study, it seeks to establish a cause and effect relationship.
What is Culture for you? How do you explain or define culture?
A set of coordinated beliefs in which I subscribe to through a daily choice. Basically an exclusive coordination game that I choose to participate within. So to break that down, as a woman who attempts to maintain an ethnic and cultural identity of being a Spaniard--despite not having lived in Spain longer than three months, not speaking the language as a native, nor fitting the archetype of what most people imagine a Spanish woman looking like--I consciously decide to identify as such. Don’t misunderstand me, however, some characteristics of ethnic identities are sticky--skin color, or accents, for example. And more so, we cannot simply deny the existence of ethnic identity, rather its importance. However, if I decide to opt out of the set of coordinated beliefs about what it means to be a Spaniard--and stop trying to convince people (haha)--then that identity marker looses its importance in my own self-definition relating to cultural subscriptions.
In a straightforward response to the question posed, it is the history, customs, wisdoms (stories), ways of life, and manners and rules of interacting that create a group to be observed as an organically separate culture.