[Air-l] re: ethnography

[Danny Butt]

Thanks all for the comments... against my better judgement I'll clarify some
points:

I'm not anti-ethnography. Don posted, with understandable impatience, a
"rant" which essentially said "stop working yourself up over this or that
method or conceptual framework for new media and find out what happens and
start there", which is an excellent point and one pretty well rehearsed
since cultural studies in old media theory. Rhiannon raised some excellent
issues around the position of researchers in that framework, and Don once
again responded with some useful commentary, but one I didn't feel paid much
attention to a whole lot of dialogue happening (among First nations peoples
in particular, who have a lot of experience as ethnographic subjects) which
questions the power dynamic in this kind of research.

I'm not saying that Don isn't aware of these issues, and as he notes, the
real experience of "being there" raises all sorts of questions that can't be
foreclosed "in theory". But as a methodological practice I tend to notice
what we say when we're not being entirely "considered", as this says a lot
about our overall approach to being in situations (something ethnographers
know well). [And as Mary suggests, my own "improving the world" quote, while
not serious, also raises interesting discussions around my positioning :7].

So I just don't see the point of denying (as I feel Maximillian is) or
eliding (as I feel Don was) the power dynamic intrinsic in ethnographic
research (and other social research as Ed suggested). The model is:

1) There's a question, framed in an academic context, which I as a
researcher don't have the answer to (the answer is therefore exotic)

2) The answer is held by others, who will surrender it (or something like
it, but altered by my "experience") under observation

3) I will, more or less depending on my positioning, take responsibility for
this answer's circulation in an environment where it will be "meaningful"
but not controlled by those who held the answer.

Who controls what's important here? I don't see any value in contrasting the
"experience" of having a gun to your head in a particular situation where
you might not have been in control, to the very different temporality of
control which comes from "deciding" to go somewhere for an "ethnographic
encounter". The ethnographer can, after all, always go home from the
research situation. All I'm asking for from those privileging ethnography as
a research method is some sensible dialogue around those issues, and being
honest about what we want.

The point I'm pressing becomes more obvious if I outline another way of
conceiving of cross-cultural research:

1) There are issues identified by people who are excluded from knowledge
infrastructures (and associated academic salaries) such as Universities

2) A researcher is engaged by those people as a way of gaining access to
particular forms of knowledge, money, and representation that might address
these issues

3) Reporting on the "results" of this quest for knowledge, money, and
representation goes back to the people (but there may also, for "ethical or
pragmatic reasons" be a report given to the institutions which are the home
of the researcher).

I am not saying that all the cross-cultural interaction and research I'm
associated with follows the second model (and, to be honest, I couldn't
handle it if it was). But it seems to me that this way of conceiving of
"ethnography" is worthy of consideration, and it might also helpfully muddy
the methodological waters a little to disrupt the "Read chapter 6 to
discover the 'ethnography' method which might be appropriate for *your*
project" line, which is altogether too routine in our academic systems.

So to Jon's suggestion that I "need to suggest an alternative research
strategy without these problems" , I would say: the desire for no problems
is the problem.

[Or, perhaps, "Hey, ditch that problematic old ethnography, and sign-up for
a one-year license of the DannyButt research method, pre-approved for your
convenience by 756 global NGOs representing severely disadvantaged groups,
and through our affiliate network covering 96% of groups worldwide claiming
potential damage through research. Speed up those tiresome ethics
committees, and get to the *real research* faster!"]

As Haraway puts it, ethnography should not be seen as a "method" to be
"applied" but a way of being radically open to the forces structuring a
situation. My perception  - which is significantly influenced by ongoing
conversations with those not defining research situations - is that research
situations are generally dominated by our basic assumptions as researchers,
and the only way of really dealing with this is to be as clear as possible
about what these assumptions are (which is to say, if you're confident about
the benefits of your research for your subjects, and your immunity from the
historical forces that shaped your methods, you probably need to spend some
more time in the library before heading out).

I don't know if anyone cares about this stuff and I've got that feeling like
I misread the dress code for the party, so I'll finish up there.

Big thanks to Mary for the Visweswaran reference which I didn't know about!

x.d

-- 
http://www.dannybutt.net

------ Forwarded Message
From: Ed Lamoureux <ell at hilltop.bradley.edu>

Strikes me that the key issue/question here is about what one is
studying. If one is studying the meanings-in-use-for-subjects,

------ Forwarded Message
From: Mary Bryson <mary.bryson at ubc.ca>

Dunno about the goal of "improving the world". I very much appreciate the
ongoing discussion about ethnography and media studies. I have found Kamala

------ End of Forwarded Message

------ Forwarded Message
From: Maximilian Forte <mcforte at kacike.org>
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:58:07 -0400
To: air-l at aoir.org
Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: ethnography

(A) there is nothing inherently "colonial" about the practice of
ethnography. How ethnography is done, by which agents, in which historical
contexts, and for what purposes is what matters. I think we risk confusing
the histortical origins of anthropology with field methods.

(B) There is no law, that I know of, that will convince me that unintended
consequences are more likely than intended ones. What is the basis for the
assertion?

Finally, the issue of power differentials has been hammered to death and I
was never really impressed by the lack of realism of these arguments. I have
conducted research with people who could buy and sell me at a whim, other
who could have snuffed me out at the snap of the fingers, and  others that
had over three decades of experience in dealing with the media, politicians,
ministries, or who were themselves political leaders. I was some kid getting
an "anthro" degree. There are power differentials, sure, but not necessarily
in the single direction you suggest.
------ End of Forwarded Message

------ Forwarded Message
From: Jonathan Marshall <Jonathan.Marshall at uts.edu.au>
Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:09:42 +1100
To: air-l at aoir.org
Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: ethnography

Fair enough :)  but ethnography tends to bring you face
to face with these issues in a way in which other techniques,
to my knowledge do not.

It is all very well to argue ethnography is not perfect, and
i certainly agree, it can't be - this is what doing ethnography
has 'taught' us - but perhaps you need to suggest an alternative
research strategy which does not have these problems.

------ End of Forwarded Message