Understanding Research (32 page)

Some may ask, why go this far? Research projects that explore phenomena from the point of view of those closest to the action, those that wish to get a sense of how people, in groups or communities, make sense of their world in their own terms, those that examine how cultural practices are created and expressed by their indigenous actors, or projects with a socio-political engagement, engage in participation-observation from
within
. Because of its efficacy in exploring research questions that require close-up, longer-term forms of observation (for example, those following people’s attitudes over time, minority groups or subcultures) this approach has become popular across the disciplinary spectrum. Indeed at times the term ‘ethnographic’, not unlike references to ‘qualitative’ research, is more suggestive than elucidating.

Intradisciplinary debates aside, researchers differ on the respective amount of participation that may be entailed, by default, or requisite to the inquiry. In this respect, we return to the notion of varying degrees of participation as active or passive, depending on the research question.

A corollary to this preconception is that no matter how passive your initial participation may be, spending time in the company of others as a researcher involves a more interpersonal level of interaction, requires more attention to ethical implications: your responsibility to others – your research subjects on the one hand and, on the other, where your presence may expose you to legal or physical precariousness. This level of close-up observation may not serve your inquiry; at the very least it can result in some fundamental reconsiderations of the research question you entered the field with. One of the strengths here of this approach is that it is acceptable to change, and so chart this journey. Indeed, in many respects this is what the ethnographic encounter is; one between researcher and researched where both sides are affected (for better or worse).

Finally, given the depth and range of what counts as ethnographic, and also the intensity of ongoing debates within anthropology and elsewhere about the influence of computer-mediated research encounters, the following points can serve as both caveats and orientation points.

1. Because this term derives from anthropology’s early days, at the height of colonial rule (the mid-nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century), its central aim – the ‘primitive other’ (Besnier 2011) – has been thoroughly critiqued and revised in the wake of decolonization and twentieth-century social movements (feminism, civil rights). This is why we need to be clear about the distinction between ethnography and research in which participant-observation may play a role. Nonetheless both entail a research design that ‘places researchers in the midst of whatever it is they study’ (Berg 2009: 191).
   
2. Whilst the empirical material gathered under these conditions can cover various combinations of quantitative and qualitative data, a key characteristic of the eventual study is its emphasis on generating a written narrative. Diagrams and other graphical representations play a role, but the primary characteristic of fieldwork-based projects in this mode is their textuality; narrative is a stylistic feature wherein both researcher and researched are protagonists. I have noted these issues already above. The implications for the eventual product is that the time it takes to write up the research can be as long as time spent in the field; there is another dimension to this sort of research that only really takes place afterwards that is particularly acute for ethnographic inquiries.
   
3. What the above point means in practice is that a researcher engaged in an ethnographic project even outside anthropological codes of conduct, enters the field in a different state of mind, and intention, to one they would have in the administration of a survey, focus group, or experiment. In particular, informed consent, gaining and maintaining access, and exiting in sustainable ways are paramount, which is why anthropological codes of ethics are so detailed. Bottom line is that you are there as a guest, and the local conventions of hospitality, including ‘netiquette’, govern what you can achieve.
   
4. This very proximity at the time and the distance taken to produce the ‘rich description’ mode of analysis, and the shades of participation the researcher engages in, can create disconnects. It is natural for student researchers, even the more experienced, to iron out these in the course of the narrative, as if the account is of a smooth journey. If undertaking this sort of work in settings where objectivity in its strictest sense, observational forms of data-gathering where ‘observer bias’ is to be avoided, and statistical forms of analysis are all privileged, then this close-up account may be received with scepticism, indeed hostility. This embracing of a micro-level, interpersonal take on data-gathering is still a contested one in some parts of social research.
   
5. In short, the uptake of fieldwork-based immersed observations by other disciplines, and ongoing debates within anthropology about the pros and cons of ‘multi-sited ethnography’ (see Marcus 1995), or studies of virtual worlds, gaming, or the everyday practices of internet communities, has meant that the term ethnographic works these days as a shorthand for research designs that emphasize reflexivity – whereby researchers ‘embrace the challenge of revealing and correcting their own mediation’ (Abdelal et al. 2009: 7). The upshot is that: ‘researchers can believe themselves to be doing ethnographic research when they are not. Students often have a stereotype of ethnography that is any form of participant observation, or any form of qualitative research that involves being a bit “touchy feely” . . .’ (Jones and Watt 2010: 4).
   

Whilst participant-observation is integral to ethnographic modes of research, the latter is more than ‘a form of participant observation (which it is) that entails a bit of reflexivity’ (Jones and Watt 2010: 4). In other words, the effectiveness of the analysis brought to bear on data gathered cannot be reduced simply to having gained access mindful of codes of ethics and reassurances that the researcher spent time ‘being there’ (Marcus 1995: 114).

Traditionally, ethnographic research was by western anthropologists, intent upon ‘capturing’, studying non-western societies and their cultural practices. Nowadays anthropologists also study their own societies, neighbourhoods, and even family groups (see Berg 2009: 192–4). Moreover, in a digital age there is a burgeoning field of ‘virtual’ or ‘digital’ forms of ethnographic research: participation-observation in either fully-immersed or combined online/offline worlds and communities (Franklin 2004, Hine 2000).

Designing an ethnographic research project is distinct from incorporating empirical material collected through participant-observation alone; the research question and underlying assumptions about the nature of knowledge and observation bring with them particular obligations. Ethnography ‘involves the scholar being situated within a social context [the field] to become part of its discourse – its language and practices – the research that results has the advantage of conveying social meanings as they are experienced’ (Abdelal et al. 2009: 7).

The basic premise, in distinction to content analysis conducted within shorter time-windows, is that the sort of in-depth data – and trust – built up with respondents and local contacts, provides an unrivalled degree of insight, giving rise to studies rich in detail, nuance, and insights for projects focusing on the particular and infinite variations of human experience and practices.

Berg 2009: ch. 6: 190
passim
; on analysis of fieldwork material see also 2009: 228
passim
; M. Davies 2007: 168
passim
; Gray 2009: 396
passim
, where he focuses on observational techniques; Jones and Watt (2010) and C. Davies (2007) provide also invaluable suggestions.

For critical interventions about the ethos of ethnographic work during and since the colonial era, see Fabian (1983), Giri (2004), Tuhiwai-Smith (1999), Ulin (1984).

References related to how ethnographic approaches have evolved with the web are listed in the online research section of
Chapter 5
. See also Hakken (1999) and Jones (1999) for constructive and still current observations related to the practicalities of online forms of participant-observation and researching live in cyberspatial fields.