Danny Butt <db@dannybutt.net> writes:

> 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)

Well i guess it beats being in the office with all your 
answers all ready :)

I'd say that without ethnography you frequently do not 
know what the 'real questions' are. Your questions are likely generated
by the office, without modification.  

Thats why the ethnographers tended to be a bit sus about the 'armchair
theorists' - who i'd defend in another context :)

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

So we should not observe anything other than our selves.. ?
My self is pretty uniformative to me, i'm afraid.

Further, the answer may not be *held* by anyone... 
Thats partially the point.  

Although the answers provided by other people, may be interesting
and informative, and may provoke thought and investigation, 
but i don't get this without talking to those other people.  
I'm not that creative.

or am i missing something here?

> 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.

yep like all social research, unless its a 'partnership' of some kind.
and even then its probable that different groups will get different kinds 
feedback and uses.
The work can serve more than one function.
At the moment i read you as seeming to be seeing societies as monliths,
rather than as possibly having competing values and factions.
There may be no *one* outcome anywhere.
 
> 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.

Well no problem there, but it would be nice to have it from others
about their research methods as well.
 
> 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).

That can happen in ethnography too, you know :)

indeed it is closer to what
you would expect from ethnography.
Something like it arises during most ethnographies (not in mine'
i confess, although my advice has been asked on oaccassions)

I see heaps of research projects which don't have these features 
and which are not ethnographic. why single out ethnography?

It seems to be a hell of a lot easier to get approval to do research
were people sign forms allowing you to inject posions into them,
than it does to produce ethnographic work which might embarass some 
unknown reader not connected to the research.
(This is a personal bitch, here of dubious relevance :)

But in any case this point is not about research methods or tools, 
this is about the responsibilities of the researcher. And if you 
have no interaction with people, how is this kind of application 
going to arise? 

If you have some interaction and its relevant then you are 
approaching ethnography.  

Again you need to know the conflicts of the society, otherwise
you may simply be aiding one side in a power struggle and thinking
you're pure.

> I would say: the desire for no  problems is the problem.

But no one is saying that ethnography is without problems....

But we might be trying to find out where it has problems not shared
by other methodologies - or not worse in other methodologies.

> 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. 

sure.... But isn't that what the ethnographers are saying?

> 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).

Same with all social research or research on humans...

> 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.

No but i'm a bit puzzeled as to why its ethnography in particular 
that calls forth these strictures. 

jon




UTS CRICOS Provider Code:  00099F

DISCLAIMER
========================================================================
This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not
read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views the University of
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.
========================================================================



