Week 6 prompt: people
8May 4, 2012 by jfenn@uoregon.edu
Picture of Bronislaw Malinowski with natives on Trobriand Islands, ca 1918. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This week we’ll shift our conversation slightly from the concept of “where” toward the concept of “who,” as in: who does digital ethnography? We’ve discussed disciplinary boundaries and designations in the past few weeks, and this week we’ll focus on the idea of “practitioners” when it comes to the role of ethnographer in, around, and through digital phenomena.
Below are the three items from our reading list for this week, but don’t forget to peruse the resources tagged “week6” in our Diigo group as well.
Helsinki Design Lab. “Ethnography Fieldguide”, n.d. http://www.helsinkidesignlab.org/dossiers/design-ethnography
Flewitt, R. “Bringing Ethnography to a Multimodal Investigation of Early Literacy in a Digital Age.” Qualitative Reasearch 11, no. 3 (2011): 293–310. http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/11/3/293
Whitehead, Tony. “What Is Ethnography? Methodological, Ontological, and Epistemological Attributes”. Ethnographically Informed Community and Cultural Assessment Research Systems (EICCARS) Working Paper Series, March 7, 2004. http://www.cusag.umd.edu/documents/WorkingPapers/EpiOntAttrib.pdf
Category discussion prompt, Spr2012 | Tags: disciplines, people, reading
Vanessa Paech (A Method for the Times from week 3) mentioned Benedict Anderson’s “imagined communities” in her discussion of community boundaries. Paech states communities are what we make them and their boundaries are arbitrarily imposed by external forces, such as an ethnographer’ fieldwork project. Although a discussion of Anderson might be most applicable to the idea of community boundaries or how to frame a methodological stance, this idea of “imagined communities” becomes a question of the individual people who make up these communities. It becomes a question of the positionally of the individual ethnographer as well and the extent to which they are reflective about the way the community they are studying is defined. In Henry Jenkin’s analysis of online expression in a Twin Peaks fansite in 1990, he points out the benefits of doing ethnographic research on the site. He states, “Ethnographic research has often been criticized for its construction of the very audience it seeks to examine, via the organization and structuring of focus groups, rather than engaging with the activity of pre-existing cultural communities as they conduct their daily lives… the computer net groups allow us to observe a self-defined and ongoing interpretive community.” (Jenkins Fans, Bloggers and Gamers 118) But, I would argue, the same construction of communities that Jenkins saw being criticized in ethnography before it was online continues in online forums. Users do still self-define their communities and ethnographers still construct a set of boundaries to define and construct borders around those communities in order to suit their research. Anderson argues, in the context of the imagined communities of nationality, “communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined.” (Anderson Imagined Communities 49) There are difficulties in defining the boundaries of communities online, but this was also true before ethnography was being conducted in digital realms. Anderson’s suggestion that we focus on the style used to imagine a community might help an ethnographer consider how their participants are constructing communities.
Within the context of ‘who’ does digital ethnography comes the idea of the ever-inspirational multi-modality. Multi-modal forms of representation seem to transcend traditional occupational technology, appealing towards anyone who can justify the method. Digital ethnology has become accessible to nearly everyone, and usable by those in many fields.
Geertz’s notion of cultural as “essentially semiotic, constituting ‘webs of significance’ that man has spun around himself,” (Flewitt 294) suggests that contemporary culture existing in a transcendental sphere of internet-based activities is not unprecedented, or as ridiculous as it first sounds. Because of the easy-access to technology on an almost global level, multi-modal representation of ethnographic themes in digital forms has become almost second nature to those willing to present their findings. “…Detailed and holistic insights into literacy as social practice, revealing how micro-moments of multimodal meaning making unfold in a complex network of socially-situated norms and practices…” (Flewitt 298).
Should only those who specifically label themselves as purposeful ethnographers be considered when determining the ‘who’ of ethnography? Digitally, this makes Google searching for ethnographers quite simple (and only half a million results). However, as I stated before, the multi-modality and vague defining terms related to ethnography make it possible for a whole range of practitioners to be left out of such a search, or the actual label of ethnographer to be incorrect (or at least questionable in many instances).
“The ethnographer should employ any and all means necessary and prudent to create the most holistic understanding of the cultural system or group being studies, including qualitative, quantitative, classical and non-classical ethnographic methods…” (Whitehead 6). If that is the case, couldn’t it be argued that most bloggers are ethnographers? Actually, I just wanted an excuse to include the Paleofuture Blog, because it is cool. (www.paleofuture.com)
Ever since Franz Boas, the father of American anthropology, developed his field approach and began looking at cultures through an ethnographic lens, there has been an emphasis on the immersive process of ethnography and a clear notion that to understand any culture one must view them firsthand in their natural habitats. With the digital world that has emerged in recent years, the concept of natural habitats and where researchers can immerse themselves might now more often be in question. However, according to the Finnish Ethnographic Field Study Guide, there is a constant quality for who can actually conduct ethnographies, whether online or offline, and that is having a curious nature.
While there is no distinct title for who should be considered a proper ethnographer, as medical workers, detectives, social workers, journalists, and the like all seem to function in various modes of inquiry similar to that of ethnographers. What they all have in common, though, is curiosity. Their intents and outcomes may differ, but they are all trying to understand human behavior through observation and inquiry. So while there are distinctions, to be certain, the process of trying to understand human thought and action through careful investigation can reveal broad or distinct categories of cultural traits, context, and meaning. Having the curiosity to question and investigate another’s experience is what makes them similar and applicable for being considered ethnographers. Thus, ethnography is not solely limited to academics in the anthropological field. One just needs to be willing to engage in the process of discovery through investigation.
As pointed out in the Whitehead article, however, there is the challenge for anyone conducting ethnographic work to minimize specific research orientations to avoid preconceptions and bias in the study of cultural systems, socio-cultural processes, contexts, and meanings. As Whitehead puts it, since “ethnography is an interpretive, reflexive, and constructivist process,” it is not so much who is conducting the ethnography as what they do with the findings from investigating cultural systems. There will always be conflicting strands of thought as to whether conclusions that are drawn are relativistic or generalizable across populations, but it is the interpretation that holds the most value, not so much who is doing the interpretation. Put another way, I suppose that there are many characteristics and titles of who can actually perform an ethnography, but as long as they are curious enough to immerse themselves in the process and are willing to interpret what they actually find, as opposed to what they want to find, then their assessments could lead to key understanding. So when it comes to ethnography, it is the job description that is more important than the job title.
While multimodal analysis captured something of the communicative complexity of the studied field, ethnographic approaches to data collection and interpretation helped to situate that complexity in particular social, cultural and historical contexts (Flewitt, 307). What is the difference between using ethnographic methods/appraches and being and “true” ethnographer?
From my understanding of what Educational and Community Supports (http://www.uoecs.org/) does is an ethnographic study of students within their school environment using digital tools. Developers create software to collect and code the data, teachers at participating school collect qualitative and quantitative data as incidents occur (usually types behavioral episodes, including which students were involved, where the incident occurred, what time of day it happened, as well as the history of involved students, spaces, and times—suggesting a multimodal approach), a team of teachers and administrators analyze the data, and researchers at ECS also study trends and analyze the data collected. Talk of creating a mobile application for teachers to be able to collect data more efficiently has also been suggested. Although the behavioral patterns of students is being studied within a defined physical environment—keeping in mind socio-cultural contexts and relationships—who is the ethnographer? Teachers are keeping an equivalency of “field notes” in the digital systems created by ECS, but they are not necessarily the ones making meaning from the collected data. I am inclined to think some digital ethnographic work within the field of education is being done here, but disinclined to label any individual as the ethnographer. Can collaborative ethnography happen without any one person being labeled the “practitioner?” Or would that not be considered ethnography because the people collecting the data aren’t exactly the ones analyzing it?
I agree with Brant’s closing statement, as well as Savanna’s argument for considering bloggers as ethnographers. Maybe we should take a look at Matthew Inman’s ethnographic interpretation of professionals working from home. (Pretty accurate depiction if you ask me.) http://theoatmeal.com/comics/working_home
Who does digital ethnography? Aside from the usual suspects, I think that we’ll see more and more commercial activity in the field of digital ethnography. Digital ethnography seems to be an ideal practice for getting to know your customer and the things that really matter to him or her (i.e. culture). Facebook operates one of the richest webs of cultural data and is continually looking for ways to best profile its users’ cultures and shared artifacts to bring a higher value to its advertisements through precise advertising based on a users interests, friends, environment – the various objects of culture. I suppose Facebook could be considered the perfect platform for conducting multimodal research, should Facebook ever really open up its internal network to academia and public research groups.
In multimodal studies, all modes are considered to have the potential to contribute equally to meaning making, and the interplay between modes produces an ‘ensemble of meaning’ that goes beyond its constituent modal parts (Flewitt 294).
also…
Among the ontological orientations in which ethnography is grounded is the view that humans […] construct multiple realities that are complex, multifaceted, differently expressed in specific situations, and continually undergoing change. A large part of gaining as much information as possible is through the collection of secondary and existing information on the ethnographic host and their social and physical environments (Whitehead 17).
With the global dominance of Facebook and mainstream paired voyeur/nihilist culture – isn’t every user a part-time digital ethnographer? Facebook seems to operate primarily through reach of cultural connections (friends/places) and the consumption and reflection of shared cultural objects and texts.
In “Bringing ethnography to a multimodal investigation of early literacy in a digital age,” Flewitt provides a overview of Green’s and Bloome’s description of the different approaches to ethnography, distinguishing between 1) doing ethnography, 2) adopting an ethnographic approach, and 3) using ethnographic tools. I found this description helpful for several reasons, perhaps most importantly because it provides a convenient framework for analyzing the genesis of ethnographic content in various projects across different domains. In short, it provides an easy way to class the actions that give rise to ethnographic products; an easy way to describe the ethnographic mode of a project. This framework is perhaps less helpful in analyzing the actors, or the who, in the ethnographic process because it stops short of describing the intentions of those actors in relation to those approaches. This to me seems like an important point of consideration when discussing who does ethnography, when distinguishing practitioners of ethnography, from those who would use ethnographic tools and processes for other ends, such as political mobilization, product development. (to be cont.)
The discussion in class confirmed some of my initial thoughts after doing the readings for this week. Some of the articles discussed how the process of doing ethnography brings in multiple issues of methodology, as described in the article by Tony Whitehead, the ethnographic work does not only imply doing qualitative work with multiple open-ended questions. There is a role for quantitative information to play an important role in the interpretation of behaviors and phenomena. Nonetheless, a topic that kept coming up during my readings and the discussions in class is the fact that the information and the data do not come from a vacuum with no other meanings attached to them, they are not data for the sake of it. This information is generated and gathered in specific context and cultural systems; thus, the activity of observation and gathering information is already been done with the ethnographer’s filters. This data is then interpreted and reflected upon, creating more layers of filtration. One of the questions behind the ethnographic process that can determine how these interpretation are been done, it is the goals and objectives for conducting the ethnographic work. The interpretation of the data would then depend of the goals the individual researcher and the study want to accomplish. Thus, the question of “who is doing what” becomes important, the “who” that is been observed and studied belongs to systems and contexts that build their behavior, and the “who” (the ethnographer) doing the observations needs to take into account these contexts and boundaries.
The articles and discussions helped with the understanding of how the ethnographic process and methodology are developed as a framework that can be transferable to different contexts and expanded in definition. In other words, the ethnographic work is not a single methodology but the possibility to explore into multimodal platforms in order to find and discover the “glitches” of how our behaviors and preconceptions of the world and reality come together in infinite narratives.
I wanted to expand on the idea of blogging ethnography or bloggers as ethnographers. I think blogging is a valuable new research tool for ethnographic fieldwork. For one, blogging enables researchers to reference their work in the moment – it’s a medium that accepts first person accounts. Because blogging is the timestamped capturing of a real moment in time, it enables ethnographers to detail their experiences as they happen, as opposed to tailoring material for delayed publication well after “the fact.” Blogging also enables a conversation and immediate feedback from collaborators, peers, and the community to extends outside of the realm of scholarship. Blogging forces us to produce on a more regular basis, to remain self-reflexive about our work, and offers an opportunity to account for experiential fragments that would potentially be lost in a large collection of field notes.
However, I think blogging has a complicated position in an academic context. There continues to be significant resistance in the academy to open, non-traditional, “peer” un-reviewed content. These works certainly don’t carry significant weight on CVs. While, for some, the age of open collaborative scholarship has come, particularly for feminist and queer theorists, for many blogging and open journals are still regarded with intense skepticism.