Ethnography Refers to the Art and Science - Essay Example

? Ethnography Ethnography refers to the art and science that describes a grouping or culture; therefore, it is a research method of social science that relies substantially on up-close, possible participation and personal experience, rather than mere observation, by researchers that have training in ethnography. In most cases, these ethnographers work within multidisciplinary teams. The focal point of ethnographic might comprise of intensive language, as well as culture learning, thorough study of a sole field, together with a blend of historical, interview and observational interview methods (Brewer 2000, p.105). Normal ethnographic research applies three forms of data collection that is interviews, observation, as well as documents. In turn, this produces three forms of data that is quotations, descriptions, along with excerpts of documents, which results in one product that is a narrative description. In most cases, this narrative comprises of charts, diagrams, along with additional artifacts, which are helpful in telling the story. Ethnographic methods are capable of giving shape to latest constructs, and latest variables, for additional empirical testing within the field, or via traditional, quantitative social science techniques. The roots of ethnography are found in anthropology, as well as sociology fields. Presently, practitioners undertake ethnographies in organizations, as well as communities of all kinds, with ethnographers studying rural and urban development, schooling, consumer and consumer, public health, and any human arena. Although ethnography is specifically suited to exploratory research, it draws on a broad range of qualitative, as well as quantitative methodologies, shifting from learning unto testing, with research problems, perspectives, as well as theories joining and shifting (Brewer 2000, p.109). Methods of ethnographic happen to be a way of tapping local viewpoints, households along with community funds of knowledge, a technique of identifying essential groups of human experience up close, while, at the same time, personal. Ethnography is capable of enhancing, while, at the same time, widening top down views while enriching the inquiry process; it taps bottom-up insights, as well as perspectives of influential policymakers who are at the top, while generating latest analytic insights through the engagement of interactive, team study of often subtle grounds of human difference, along with similarity. Such findings give ethnographers the capability of informing other people of their findings while attempting to derive, for instance, policy decisions or instructional improvements from such a study (Brewer 2000, p.110). Variations within Observational Methods Observational research happens not to be a single thing; rather, the decision of employing field methods when gathering informational data happens to be the initial step within a decision process, which entails a vast number of options, as well as possibilities. When making a choice of employing field methods, this includes a commitment of getting close to the subject under observation with its natural setting, being factual and descriptive when reporting what gets observed, while, at the same time, finding out the viewpoints of participants within the domain observed. Once the researcher makes these basic commitments, it is essential to make more decisions concerning which specific observational approaches are suitable for the research setting at hand (Brewer 2000, p.114). Variation within Observer Involvement The initial yet most significant distinction amongst observational strategies is about the degree to which the observer happens to be a participant within the program activities under study. This is not an easy choice between participation, as well as nonparticipation. The degree of participation happens to be a continuum that varies from complete concentration in the program as a full participant to total separation from the activities under observation thereby assuming a role of a spectator. As a result, there is an enormous variation along the range between these two limits (Brewer 2000, p.117). Participant observation happens to be an omnibus field strategy considering that it simultaneously merges document analysis, respondents interviewing and informants, direct participation with observation, as well as introspection. Throughout participant observation, the researcher gets the opportunity of sharing as personally as possible within the life, as well as activities of those people within the observed setting. The objective of such participation is developing an insider's perception of what is going on. Therefore, the researcher sees what is happening, while, at the same time gets the feeling of being part of the group. Apparently, experiencing a setting as an insider compels the participant part in participant observation, as well as an observer side of this process. However, the biggest challenge lies in combining participation and observation in order to be able to understand the incident as an insider, while at the same time, describing the experience as an outsider. Therefore, the degree to which there is a possibility of a researcher becoming a full participant within an experience is dependent partially on the features of the setting under observation. However, a number of ethnographers do not trust that understanding necessitates that they have to be full members of the group under study. In fact, the majority of them have the perception that this must not happen in instances where there is a need of producing a valid, as well as useful report (Brewer 2000, p.119). These researchers suppose that the ethnographer must attempt being both outsider and insider, thereby remaining on the group’s margins socially, as well as intellectually since there is a need for view of both an outsider while also as an insider. Therefore, there is an emphasis that, apart from seeking understanding, the ethnographer should make an attempt of seeing familiar surrounding as anthropologically strange, the same way someone from another society would see it, thereby adopting the Martian perspective. The Methodological Principles There are three methodological principles used in providing the basis for the nature of the ethnographic method. These principles happen to be the foundation for much of the critique of quantitative research for not being successful in capturing the realistic nature of human and social behavior considering that it depends on the study of simulated settings, as well as what people say, instead of what they do. It also seeks to reduce significances to what happens to be observable and since it reifies social phenomena through treating them like more clearly described and inert than they are, as well as mechanical products of social, as well as psychological factors. These three principles are (Brewer 2000, p.123): 1. Naturalism: According to this view, the aim of social research is portraying the character of naturally happening human behavior while this is only achievable through first-hand connection with it, rather than by the supposition from what people do within artificial settings such as experiments and from what they say within interviews concerning what they do elsewhere. For this reason, ethnographers perform their research within natural settings, settings that tend to exist separately from the research process, instead of those set up particularly for the intention of the research. Another significant inference of naturalism is that within studying natural surroundings, the researcher must seek to diminish her or his impacts on the deeds of the people under study. The objective of this is increasing the possibilities that what gets discovered within the setting turn out to be generalizable to other comparable settings that have not yet been researched. Consequently, the concept of naturalism signifies that social events, as well as processes, should be explained within terms of their relation to the context within which they happen. 2. Understanding: Human actions tend to vary from the deeds of physical objects, and other animals considering that they do not comprise of fixed responses or learned responses to stimuli; rather, comprise of interpretation of stimuli, as well as the construction of responses. This argument is sometimes a reflection of a complete rebuff of the notion of causality as unsuitable to the social world, as well as persistence on the freely constructed feature of human actions, together with institutions. Although causal relations tend to be found within the social world, they vary from the mechanical causality characteristic of physical phenomena. Owing to this perception, when explaining human actions effectively, it is necessary to gain comprehension of the cultural perspectives whereby they have their basis. This is essential when studying an unfamiliar society since the researcher finds much of what he or she might see and hear puzzling; nonetheless, ethnographers contend that it is similarly indispensable when studying more familiar settings. In fact, when a setting happens to be familiar, the risk of misunderstanding is particularly notable since it is impossible to make assumptions regarding others' viewpoints, even in our very own society since certain groups, as well as individuals some up with distinctive worldviews especially in complex societies. According to ethnographers, it is vital to learn the group’s culture under study before producing valid explanations for the deeds of its members. Therefore, there is a need for the innermost of participant observation, as well as unstructured interviewing in ethnographic method. 3. Discovery: This is another characteristic of ethnographic thinking that is a beginning of the research process which is discovery-based instead of getting restrained to the explicit hypotheses testing. If a researcher approaches a phenomenon along with an array of hypotheses he or she might not be successful in discovering the true character of that phenomenon, due to the blindness caused by the assumptions built within the hypotheses. Instead, they have a common interest in some kinds of social phenomena, as well as in some theoretical subject or practical problem. Therefore, the focal point of the research becomes narrowed and sharpened, and in other instances changed considerably, as it proceeds. Likewise, in parallel, theoretical ideas, which frame descriptions, as well as explanations of what is under observation, get developed during the research. These ideas are a valuable outcome of, and not a research requirement. Ethnography as a Method Ethnography talks about social research, with the following characteristics (Brewer 2000, p.126): 1. People's behavior gets studied within everyday contexts, instead of under experimental conditions brought about by the researcher. 2. Although gathering of data is through a range of sources, observation and/or somewhat informal conversations are in most cases the main ones. 3. Data collection approach happens to be unstructured in that, it avoids following through a comprehensive plan established at the start; nor are the groups employed in the interpretation of what people say or do, while, at the same time, fixed. This means that, initially there is gathering of data in as raw a form, as well as on as wide a frontage, as feasible. 4. The focal point is in most cases, a single group, of pretty small scale while, in research of life history, the focus tend to be on a single individual. 5. Analysis of the data entails interpretation of the meanings, as well as human actions functions and in most cases, takes the shape of verbal descriptions, together with explanations, with quantification, as well as statistical analysis having a subordinate role to play. 6. Apparently, as a group of methods, ethnography happens to be less specialized while less technically sophisticated compared to other approaches such as the experiment or even the social survey; however, all social research methods get their historical sources in the manner in which human beings obtain information concerning their world within everyday life. It is intricate, if not impossible, providing a precise array of rules, along with procedures for undertaking fieldwork. What gets done is dependent on the situation, the study’s purpose, the characteristic of the setting, as well as the observer’s skills, interests, needs, and perception. Fieldwork happens to be a highly personal experience; therefore, the interlocking of fieldwork procedures, individual capabilities along with situational variation is what qualifies fieldwork as a highly private experience (Brewer 2000, p.127). The observer's ability, discipline, as well as perspectives, is what determines the validity together with the meaningfulness of the obtained results; this is the strength with the weakness of observational methods. On the other hand, there is no one appropriate method of interviewing, no particular correct way that is suitable for all circumstances, and no particular manner of wording questions that tends to work always; each particular evaluation situation, the requirements of the interviewee, together with the interviewer’s personal style, all come together in creating a distinctive situation for every interview. There lie the tests of depth interviewing that is situational responsiveness, as well as sensitivity in getting the best data possible; in other words, there is no formula for effectual interviewing (Brewer 2000, p.129). Apart from participant observation and interviews, there is a possibility of ethnographers employing various documents when answering guiding questions. These documents are capable of adding additional information to projects considering that ethnographic interest has been and remains to be concentrated on both literate, as well as non-literate peoples since not all research projects tend to have site documents. There is also a possibility that even research amongst a literate group tends to have irrelevant site documents for consideration; this varies depending on the intention of the research. Careful thinking participants and the manner in which they function while asking questions about informants helps in deciding what types of documents could be accessible. Possible documents comprise of budgets, memos, work descriptions, annual reports, correspondence, newsletters, informational brochures, contracts, websites, posters, menus, and many other types of written items. Ethics in Ethnographic Research Considering that ethnographic research happens amongst real human beings, researchers must clarify their research goals to the community members whereby they perform their research while gaining the informed permission of their consultants to research in advance. It is also essential leaning whether the group prefers to be mentioned in the written description of the research or offered a pseudonym and providing the research results if informants wish to read it. Most importantly, researchers must ensure that the research avoids harming or exploiting this amongst whom the research gets done (Brewer 2000, p.130). The researcher happens to be the detective searching for trends, as well as patterns occurring across the distinctive groups or in individuals. Therefore, the process of analysis, as well as interpretation entails disciplined examination, inventive insight, as well as careful attention to the research study’s purposes. Analysis and interpretation tend to be conceptually separate processes with the analysis process starting with gathering of the raw materials while getting a summary of the full process. The role of the researcher in analysis covers a range with gathering of raw data on one end with interpretative remarks on the other. Therefore, analysis happens to be the process of bringing about the order to the data, classifying what is there in patterns, groups, and basic descriptive units. This process entails putting into consideration of words, big ideas, tone, and specificity of responses, context, intensity, non-verbals, extensiveness, internal consistency and frequency. As a result, data reduction strategies tend to be important in the process of analysis. Thus, interpretation entails attaching meaning, as well as significance to the analysis, elucidating descriptive patterns while looking for relationships, as well as linkages amongst descriptive dimensions. The moment these processes get completed it is necessary for the researcher to report the interpretations, together with the conclusions. Qualitative Description Reports that have their basis on qualitative methods will entail an immense unadulterated description of the program, as well as the experiences of people within the research environment. The objective of this description is letting the reader realize what occurred in the observed environment, what it looked like from the perception of the participants in the setting, along with the events within the setting were like. While reading through field notes, along with interviews, the researcher starts looking for those sections of the data that need polishing for staging as pure description within the research report. The data included depends on what queries the researcher is trying to answer. In most cases, an entire activity will get reported in detail and depth since it represents a typical occurrence. These descriptions get written in the form of narrative thereby providing a whole picture of what has occurred in the reported event (Brewer 2000, p.131). Reporting Findings The authentic content, along with the qualitative report’s format depends on the information requirements of main stakeholders, as well as the intent of the research. Even a detailed report will have to skip massive data collected through the researcher. Apparently, focus happens to be the most essential thing; unfortunately, some analysts trying to incorporate everything end up losing their readers within the sheer quality of the presentation; a process known as an agony of omitting (Brewer 2000, p.135). When considering what to omit, there is a need to make a decision concerning how much description to entail. Detailed description, as well as in-depth quotations, tends to be significant qualities of qualitative accounts. It is necessary to include satisfactory description, together with direct quotations thereby allowing readers the opportunity of understanding the research setting, as well as the perceptions of the people embodied within the narrative. Nonetheless, description must be precise, of becoming trivial, while, at the same time, mundane. It is unnecessary for readers to be familiar with everything done or said. Therefore, description tends to be balanced by analysis, along with interpretation with endless description becoming its own mess. The objective of analysis is organizing the description in a manner that makes it manageable, hence description gets balanced by analysis thereby leading to interpretation. An interesting, as well as readable final account, presents sufficient description thereby allowing the reader to comprehend the analysis, along with sufficient analysis thereby allowing the reader to comprehend the interpretations, as well as explanations presented. References: Brewer, J. D., 2000. Ethnography. Michigan: Open University Press. Read More