The Nature of Ethnography
This chapter promotes what might be called a traditional form of ethnography. It recognizes that all traditions change, but puts forward a view that, for an activity or product to be regarded as ethnographic, there is a need for some strong and recognizable continuity with what was regarded as ethnography for most of the last century. This is not straightforward as the term has broadened in usage in the last few decades. For some researchers, the term has now become almost synonymous with all forms of qualitative research, but this shears it of any independent meaning. Indeed, it actually misrepresents traditional ethnography as early practitioners hardly recognized any distinction between qualitative and quantitative methods. While ethnographers were unlikely to use sophisticated statistical analysis, they often generated quantitative data as well as qualitative field notes and descriptions. Some of the classic educational ethnographies (such as Becker et al. 1961; Hargreaves 1967; Lacey 1970; Ball 1981) presented a considerable amount of quantitative data to support their arguments.
Quantitative claims, which are frequently made in ethnographies, require quantitative data, so the use of structured observation, time sampling, and even surveys may be required in addition to more openâended participant observation and interviewing. The methods used depend upon the research questions that the study eventually tries to answer. Thus, one very noticeable feature of early sociology of education such as Ballâs (1981) study of a comprehensive school is the diversity of different ways of generating data that were used. Observations were made in a multitude of contexts: in classrooms, while accompanying groups on school visits, during invigilation of examinations, while playing cricket, in the wider community, and so on. Interviews were conducted with pupils and teachers, smallâscale questionnaires were circulated including sociometric questionnaires, pupil diaries were kept, school records and registers were examined. The results of the research were presented in a similar variety of ways with figures, diagrams, and charts alongside quotations from interviews and observed naturally occurring conversations.
There have been many attempts to describe the nature of ethnography. Hammersley and Atkinson (2007: 3), for example, start their discussion in the following way:
Another description is that by Fetterman (1998: 1) who states:
Alternatively, some writers favor lists. One example, with which I was involved, was put forward by the editors of Ethnography and Education who listed in the first issue what they saw as the seven main features of ethnography.
- the focus on the study of cultural formation and maintenance;
- the use of multiple methods and thus the generation of rich and diverse forms of data;
- the direct involvement and longâterm engagement of the researcher(s);
- the recognition that the researcher is the main research instrument;
- the high status given to the accounts of participantsâ perspectives and understandings;
- the engagement in a spiral of data collection, hypothesis building and theory testing â leading to further data collection; and
- the focus on a particular case in depth, but providing the basis for theoretical generalization. (Troman et al. 2006: 1)
While there are some differences between the descriptions and lists provided, the writers above claim that there is a set of specific criteria that have to be met before a study can be considered to be ethnographic. There needs to be longâterm engagement, the use of multiple research methods, and the generation of rich data. The research process also needs to be theory led and systematic. Understanding is not achieved through chaotic or biased processes, but by systematic and wellâordered generation of data appropriate to the task.
There are several analogies that are commonly used for the task of doing ethnography. One is of the ethnographer as spy â someone who âhangs aroundâ and makes notes on what is seen and heard. There are certainly similarities between the ethnographer and the spy (except that few ethnographies are now conducted covertly). The ethnographer takes great care with the selection of case study sites in which to âhang around.â Sites need to be appropriate for the particular theoretical and empirical tasks, and chosen for particular purposes rather than just convenience of access (Walford 2008). Once in the site, she or he will take care with presentation of self and will adopt a particular role, or a series of roles, that will enable relevant and reliable data to be generated. This means not simply observing those members of the culture who are conveniently available or seem to be âinteresting,â but searching out those who are difficult to find and who may seem unpleasant or unlikeable. Observation does not occur just once; activities are observed at different times of the day, week, and year. Where interviews are conducted, the informants are chosen purposely to test or extend particular growing hunches or understandings. Care is taken about who to associate with, and time is taken to listen to everyone within any hierarchy of power or prestige. Different views are sought and a variety of different forms of data are generated.
A second analogy is that of the news reporter. Again, there are some similarities, but a news reporter will look for the unusual, the scandalous, the ânewsworthy.â People involved will be named and what they say attributed to them. The more well known the people involved, the more likely it is that their activities and statements will be reported. In contrast, ethnographers are often more interested in the mundane than the unusual. The identity of the individuals involved does not usually matter. What matters is a greater understanding of how this particular culture works â how it maintains itself and adapts to changing circumstances. News reporters care greatly about topicality. Their work has to be reported fast to qualify as news; better to get a slightly inaccurate article out today than a more accurate one tomorrow. Ethnographers are far more interested in accuracy of descriptions and analysis than the rapidity of publication. They take pains to ensure that they have sufficient evidence for all the claims that are made (Hammersley 1990).
A third, and persuasive, analogy is that ethnographers are simply doing what everyone does when they enter a new situation. It is certainly correct that when anyone enters a new culture they have to learn the formal and informal rules about âthe way we do things around hereâ (Deal 1985). But the ethnographer works much harder at the process. She or he tries to suspend any judgment until there is sufficient evidence to make one, and selfâconsciously looks for potentially contradictory evidence before accepting initial guesses. Most importantly, an ethnographer systematically generates data and records those data for future analysis. When involved in analysis and writing they do not rely on memory of events that may have occurred many months before, but refer to field notes that were written as soon after the events as possible. A teacher joining a new school will make many assumptions about the similarity of this workplace to others she has been in. Different people might see these assumptions as using intuition, experience, or prejudice. The ethnographer tries to make as few assumptions as possible and is only ready to describe and make claims about what goes on after months of observation, interviewing, document gathering, systematic recording, and systematic analysis of all the data generated.
The Pervasiveness of Interviewing
What is very clear from all of these discussions is that multiple methods are at the center of ethnography, and that ethnography involves more than just interviewing. Yet, as Atkinson (2015) has recently reminded us, there are now many studies that call themselves ethnographic that rely on interviews alone. Even within studies that are based on a wider range of ways of generating data, the interview often predominates and the use of quantitative data and analysis based on field notes of observations of naturally occurring incidents has declined. It is worth considering why this may have happened, and why so many current ethnographic studies are so limited in their methodological focus.
There are, of course, several reasons for the change, including perceived increased time pressures on researchers which lead to ethnographies being conducted in shorter periods of time. But one of the main reasons for the change is changes in technology. The traditional anthropologists of the early twentieth century simply could not record interviews word for word. They had to rely on notes taken at the time of the interview and then amplified after the event. Although sound recording machines were available as early as the 1870s, magnetic tape recording only developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s. These machines were bulky and expensive. The cassette tape recorder was first put into production in the midâ1960s. Expensive at first, it was so...