|
Created by EJ Belcher
Last updated December 2003 
http://www.imdb.com applying objectivity in ethnographies In the field of ethnographic research, an interesting angle may add some pizzazz to fieldnotes, but it does not take precedence over the need to capture the ordinary, mundane details of daily life. “Ethnographers are committed to going out and getting close to the activities and everyday experiences of other people” (Emerson, Fretz and Shaw, 1). “Ethnography is the art and science of describing a group or culture” (Fetterman, 11). So what exactly is a culture? While Organizational Culture did not offer any insight into ethnographic work, it did provide a good definition for the term “culture.” Author Edgar H. Schein defines it as “what a group learns over a period of time as that group solves its problems of survival in an external environment and its problems of internal integration” (111). Ethnographers attempt to be objective by describing as much as possible about the culture, in order to construct a complete, comprehensive picture of the group of people they are studying. At first, they mingle with everyone they can, becoming more selective as the study progresses. In Ethnography: Step by Step, David M. Fetterman refers to the method of capturing as many different points of view as possible as the “big net approach.” I see this as a way to prevent preconceived notions or biases, such as studying one aspect of the culture while refusing to look at another. Writing Ethnographic Settings discusses the different types of ethnographers. The "complete observer" is the most objective, because he or she is simply sitting back and recording what occurs. This takes me back to the idea of sacrificing quality for objectivity, because it would stand to reason that the fieldnotes by a complete observer would be a flat read, lacking the personal connection that most audiences want in a story. Of course, there is always more than one way to tell a story, and in this particular field the notion is known as triangulation. Alan Bryman, a professor of Social Research at Loughborough University, describes triangulation as "the use of more than one approach to the investigation of a research question in order to enhance confidence in the ensuing findings" (1). In a sense, it is not all that different from the multiple approaches a critic might take when reviewing a film. Looking at it from
the point of view of those being observed, a non-participatory ethnographer
might make them uneasy and wonder that if the researcher is truly interested
in their culture, why he or she is not willing to be immersed into it.
Therefore, I hold with the participant-as-observer
method: Writing Ethnographic
Fieldnotes says, “Prolonged immersion into a culture can turn the remarkable
into the ordinary” (Emerson, Fretz and Shaw, 26-27). One way for the
ethnographer to ensure that the "ordinary" remains "remarkable" is to always
judge people’s statements and actions by the culture’s values and beliefs,
rather than his or her own. However, Robert M. Emerson, Rachel I. Fretz
and Linda L. Shaw also warn against overcompensation for objectivity’s sake:
|