[Air-l] ethnography and ethics
Ed Lamoureux
ell at bradley.edu
Fri May 14 07:11:05 PDT 2004
On May 14, 2004, at 8:54 AM, Kendall, Lori wrote:
The objection raised by my students is usually that if people know I'm
observing them, they will behave differently, and therefore I won't
really find out "the truth."
Ed notes:
Lori's student to the side, "Labov's Paradox" has been around in the
qual. literature for quite some time. There are LOTS of professional
field researchers who would say, roughly, the same thing as do Lori's
students. And they would back their claim with writing by Labov and
others.
Kendall, Lori wrote:
> While
> you can observe some physical cues for emotional reactions (not
> available
> in many online situations), a better way to find out what things mean
> to
> people is to ask them. This can provide for much richer, more nuanced,
> and yes even *better* data.
Think I'd have to disagree with Lori on this claim that "a better way
to find out what things mean is to people is to ask them."
I don't want to get into a long one on this . . . but I think that
there are a wide range of qualitative approaches to this claim. For
example, from both (some) ethnomethodological AND conversation analytic
perspectives, behavior in context comes, over time, to present (through
the behavior, responses to it, outcomes, etc.) the way that it "means"
quite aside from what people in the cohort would say about it. Further,
there is an extended literature concerning "accounts" and "accounting"
that makes very clear that there are often dramatic differences between
what in situ subjects will SAY something means to them (account) and
the meaning the behavior actually has in context (based on what gets
done with the behavior). Finding out what account actors give is not
the same as finding out what they mean by/in using the behavior.
I'm not, here, arguing that covert observation is always better than
self-identified PA. However, I am taking issue with Lori's claim that
asking people is a better way to find out what things mean. I'm also
most interested in meaning in use and that is why I most often use
qualitative rather than quantitative approaches. But asking for
explanations is NOT always the best way to discover meanings-in-use.
There are circumstances in which unobtrusive observation produces a
lot of high quality data about meaning-in-use.
Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D.
Director, Multimedia Program and New Media Center
Associate Professor, Speech Communication
1501 W. Bradley
Bradley University
Peoria IL 61625
309-677-2378
http://hilltop.bradley.edu/~ell
http://gcc.bradley.edu/mm/
More information about the Air-L
mailing list