Research Student Seminar with Anna Robinson-Pant - 'Ethnography and participant observation'
This week's seminar focused on participant observation and ethnography. The opening photograph was from my recent visit to a village in Nepal where I had conducted ethnographic research for my PhD twelve years ago ˆ a relaxing moment eating sugar cane in the sun with my former neighbours. The photo captures the movement between Œparticipation‚ and Œobservation‚ for me ˆ as you can also see the shadow of the photographer (the observer). It also brings back memories of how difficult it is to capture ethnographic observation (through written text or other forms) precisely because you are so involved in everyday life and interactions. These are some of the aspects of participant observation that I aimed to bring out in this session.
I began with a presentation about the early origins of ethnography and the changing definitions, identifying differences between the UK and US traditions. In British colonial times, ethnography had a functional aspect for colonial administrators Œto understand the native mind‚. The aims of such research were pragmatic in that it was believed Œstudy of culture contact could provide practical solutions to problems faced by both Africans and Europeans‚ (Ellen 1984). Under Haddon (a marine biologist), early British anthropologists went on expeditions with teams of different specialists ˆ including photographers, kinship experts, linguists - to the colonies, collecting Œethnographic facts‚, tabulating and classifying information. They were concerned with the comparison of cultures, viewing other cultures as Œobjects to be recorded by scientific method as if ethnographic facts could be as easily assembled as natural history specimens‚ (Ellen 1984: 40). Malinowski‚s experiences on the Trobiand Islands established the idea of ethnography involving an extended period of living alone to Œgrasp the native‚s point of view, his relation to life, to realise his vision of his world‚ (Malinowski 1922). His concept of fieldwork as a rite of passage for anthropologists has continued to this day.
In the US, researchers did not need to travel to exotic lands on expeditions as American Indians were living on their doorstep. They collected detailed information about the indigenous languages (word lists, indigenous texts, grammatical analysis). Boas (who was of German origin but worked in US/Canada), worked collaboratively with Indians as research assistants collecting such data. His aim was to (Boas, 1906) Œproduce material which reflected the Œmind‚ of the people studied‚ through ethnographic accounts which show what Œthe people∑ speak about, what they think and what they do‚, recorded by the ethnographer Œin their own words‚. Whereas British anthropologists learned local languages in order to communicate with the communities where they lived, US anthropologists focused on the analysis of texts (both spoken and written) and tended to have better training in linguistics. There was however some interaction between US and UK approaches ˆ Mead had started working with Boas in the US but later moved over to Malinowski‚s approach.
The two meanings of ethnography ˆ as both a text (the product) and the process (i.e. Œsomething you may do, study, use, read or write‚ (Ellen, 1984:8)) can be traced back to these early beginnings. Central to Malinowski‚s theory of ethnographic fieldwork was the practice of participant observation which could enable the researcher to analyse data, develop new theoretical concepts and create an ethnography. Evans Pritchard (1954) discussed the special skills needed for both these tasks: Œhe must also have intuitive powers∑ imaginative insight of the artist and literary skill necessary to translate a foreign culture‚. This idea that writing up ethnography could be Œartistry‚ can be seen in the variety of genres that ethnography can take ˆ even resembling a novel.
The societies where anthropologists studied became increasingly complex ˆ bringing great changes to the discipline. There was a shift from studying Œcultures‚ (which had been assumed to be self-contained, like the Trobiand Islanders) to studying cultural processes. Assumptions that ethnographers studied Œdown‚ (believing themselves to be superior to those they studied) were shifting too ˆ and today‚s anthropologists are just as likely to study Œup‚, to analyse elite institutions or those in power (see for instance, David Mosse on the World Bank). New groups of people were also becoming ethnographers ˆ particularly women and the Œnatives‚ who had previously been the object of study ˆ questioning the bias of methods and the texts produced.
Most significant was the publication in 1967 of Malinowski‚s diaries, which revealed that he was racist and imperialist. The recognition that ethnographic observations could not be considered as Œfacts‚ but were shaped by the researcher and their biases, led ethnographers to focus on the ways in which such research was translated into text. In Writing Culture, Clifford developed these earlier interests in the discursive aspects of cultural representation: ŒThe writing and reading of ethnography are overdetermined by forces ultimately beyond the control of either an author or an interpretive community. These contingencies ˆ of language, rhetoric, power and history ˆ must now be openly confronted in the process of writing‚ (Clifford, 1984: 25).
Moving on to look at participant observation, I suggested that you do not need to be an anthropologist to use this research method. Street‚s discussion (in Byram et al 2001) of the Œethnographic experience‚ as involving Œepistemological relativity, reflexivity and critical consciousness‚ gives an insight into how other researchers can draw on these elements. ŒEpistemological relativity‚ involves recognising your own assumptions about knowledge and Œhow it is legitimised in your own society so as to be able to view knowledge of other societies with an open mind‚ (Byram et al 2001: 93) ˆ illustrated in this book through language teachers studying the practice of tipping in a restaurant (e.g. what does it mean to leave a coin under a plate?). ŒReflexivity‚ relates to how your own culture influences how you interpret a scene, event or other cultures and Œcritical consciousness‚ points to the need to see ethnography as a Œproduct of particular dominant societies at a particular time‚. Through carrying out participant observation, it is possible to make your own culture Œethnographically strange‚ ˆ as illustrated in a thesis by a former CARE student, Paul Bezzina. Paul includes an account of how he walked around the hospital where he worked and analysed it through the eyes of a patient.
I concluded by looking at the different positions that a researcher can take between participation and observation ˆ from complete participant (Œgoing native‚) to complete observer (where the researcher has no interaction with the observed and may even be behind a one-way mirror, as in the EDU children‚s room in past decades). In between these extremes, a researcher may shift roles and identities constantly ˆ and this has been identified as the essence of ethnography ˆ Œthe tension between distance and proximity‚ (Todarov). We looked at extracts from Robert Burgess‚ ethnography of a Catholic secondary school where he analyses how his roles changed (eg newcomer, provisional acceptance, imminent migrant) in relation to the different people working in the school. He also lists the kind of data collected ˆ including non-verbal as well as verbal interactions.
Within ethnography, decisions around ethics and sampling are often quite complex. Though an ethnographer may decide to conduct overt rather than covert observation, if they are living in a community for an extended period of time, there are inevitably times where people are not aware that their interactions are part of the research data. Sampling issues are not just about which groups or how many people to research, but around time and context. For instance, when I was conducting research in a small community in Nepal, I realised that I had rarely observed everyday life from 7 to 9 am in the morning as this was the only time when the electricity came on and I could type up notes on my computer!
For the second part of the seminar, the group went to various parts of UEA to conduct participant observation for 20 minutes: the library, the EDU vending machine, the post office, the shopping area and a café. When we reconvened and shared fieldnotes, the following points emerged:
- Most people had conducted covert observation, so there was no opportunity to interact with the people they observed. The exception was somebody whose friend worked in the café, so she was able to let her know what she was doing and ask some questions. One of our group commented that though she had thought it would be easy to conduct covert observation (sitting in the library), she had felt uncomfortable and was aware of missing different dimensions because of not interacting with people.
- It was easy to take notes in certain situations ˆ such as in the post office where people had pen and paper, so Œit didn‚t look strange‚.
- The kinds of observational data that people collected varied greatly ˆ from counting the number of people entering a shop or using the vending machine and analysing their activities by gender, to using a research question (such as Œwhy and when do people decide to leave the café door open on a cold day?‚ or Œwhat kind of work do the receptionists in the library do, since much of the system is now self service?‚) to structure their observation.
- We were aware of making assumptions about what we observed ˆ such as that the large numbers of girls going into the post office was due to it being Valentine‚s day! Observation in itself was not enough to explain situations and several people commented that they needed to collect interview data to triangulate findings or would have to conduct research for longer (e.g. following a librarian for a day to see what kinds of work the receptionists in the library did)
We ended with a short discussion on how participant observation might be used in individual‚s research. Several people suggested that it would be good to start with participant observation in order to Œawake your curiosity‚ and get starting questions. One of our group had also overheard interesting observations from students about their teachers (at the vending machine) which she felt you could then build on to explore teaching and learning issues.
Next week‚s seminar will be a workshop on Action Research. Dheeba Moosa will be starting the discussion with a presentation based on a paper she has been writing about the historical development of different approaches to action research. If you are coming to this seminar, please let me know in advance - everyone will be contributing to the discussion through reading and analysing a paper about a specific action research study/project.
References
Burgess, R. (1984) ŒMethods of field research 1: Participant Observation‚, In the field: an introduction to field research, London, Routledge
This is an accessible introduction to methods of participant observation ˆ particularly good on ways of analysing the researcher‚s varying roles.
Burgess, R. (1983) Experiencing Comprehensive Education: a study of Bishop McGregor School, Methuen, London
Bryman, A. (2004) ŒEthnography and participant observation‚ (Chapter 14), Social Research Methods(2nd edition), Oxford, Oxford University Press
A practical overview of issues around access and sampling, as well as a more detailed account of different kinds of fieldnotes.
Clifford, J. and Marcus, G. (1986, eds) Writing Culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography, University of California Press
Ellen, R.F. (1984) Ethnographic Research: A guide to general conduct, San Diego: Academic Press
One of the first attempts to provide a Œhandbook‚ for anthropologists, with a detailed section on Œdoing‚ participant observation.
Malinowski, B. (1922) Argonauts of the western Pacific: an account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea, Dutton, New York
Mason, J. (2002) ŒObserving and Participating‚ (Chapter 5), Qualitative Researching (2nd Edition), London, Sage Publications
Useful series of questions intended to help you decided why and how you might use participant observation in your research, as well as working out the practicalities about access, identity etc.
Roberts, C., Byram, M. Barro, A., Jordan, S. and Street, B. (2001) Language Learners as Ethnographers, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters Ltd. [Discusses a project where language students learned ethnographic methods for investigating communication practices & includes detailed accounts of the approaches used]
Sanjek, R. (1990) ŒA vocabulary for fieldnotes‚ in Sanjek, R. (ed.) Fieldnotes: the makings of anthropology, Ithaca and London: Cornell University
This article, and others in this book, analyse the textual practices associated with participant observation, particularly the Œtranslation‚ issues involved in the process of moving from Œhead notes‚ to Œfield notes‚ to Œwriting up‚.
Tedlock, B. (2003) ŒEthnography and Ethnographic Representation‚ in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Sage Publications
Trinh, T. M. (1989) Women, native, other: writing postcoloniality and feminism, Bloomington: Indiana University Press
Wright, S. and Nelson, N. (1995) ŒParticipatory research and participant observation: two incompatible approaches‚, in Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (eds), Power and Participatory Development, London, IT Publications
This article provides a brief history of the origins of participant observation, and raises debate about the very different meanings of the word Œparticipant‚ within ethnographic and participatory research.
Yang, M. (1945) A Chinese Village, New York, Columbia University Press
