3.1 Ethnography step by step by David Fetterman
Fetterman defines ethnography as “the art and science of describing a group or culture” (Fetterman 1998: 1). He himself is an anthropological ethnographer which means that his focus lies on general human behavior rather than linguistic features. Therefore, he includes reports about various journeys and the experiences he has had with people from different cultures or settings. Nonetheless, the book is of interest for our purposes as well, as the “major landmarks every ethnographer encounters” are basically the same regardless of the respective researcher’s specialized field of interest.
According to Fetterman this book is not meant to be “a simple how-to book. It is a companion volume for the practicing ethnographer. Like a travelog, it identifies and discusses the major landmarks every ethnographer and potential ethnographer encounters” (Fetterman 1998: ix). Those “major landmarks” comprise, amongst other things,
In general, Ethnography Step by Step offers a good introduction to ethnography. It is relatively easy-to-read and easy to understand due to many realistic examples. However, the book was published in 1998, and some references to particular software packages or to the Internet may seem a bit out-dated due to technical advancements that have taken place since then.
At the beginning of the Chapter “A Wilderness Guide: Methods and Techniques”, Fetterman addresses an issue regarding participant observation which Clark and Trousdale deal with only cursorily. He states: “The ethnographer is a human instrument. […] [And] the information this tool gathers […] can be subjective and misleading.” (Fetterman 1998: 31) In diagnostics, a field of study in which, much like in the field of ethnography, data is obtained by means of observation, the researcher must always be aware of what is commonly referred to as the observation and judgment bias (cf. Lukesch 1998: 132; Ingenkamp 2005: 77). The same applies to ethnographers. Linguistic ethnographers, for instance, are interested in observing natural language, but, if not taken into consideration, the effects of observation bias may distort their results. Such biases may relate to
Regarding the focus of the study it is essential that the researcher does not investigate too many aspects of behavior or linguistic phenomena as this will make it difficult to record and analyse the data. Clark and Trousdale (Chapter 2) investigated a predefined linguistic feature (i.e. th-fronting) by observing the frequency of its use within a particular community (i.e. West Fife High Pipe Band) in order to reveal the underlying motivational factors. If in contrast to Clark and Trousdale, a researcher were interested in finding linguistic phenomena that are socially motivated, thus approaching the study the other way around, he/she would have to begin with a big-net approach and then narrow the focus to specific aspects (cf. Fetterman 1998: 32). Such an approach would help the researcher to exclude irrelevant aspects, which would lead him/her to a dead end if he/she focused on them at the outset, unknowing of their unimportance.
The place and/or situation where information should be gathered refers to the fact that in order to obtain desired data the researcher must choose a setting that provides for a high probability of occurrence of said data. Consider, for instance, the following example given by Fetterman: “[T]he probability of finding relevant data about the relationship between educational mechanisms, such as teacher expectations, and school success or failure is higher in a classroom than in a board of education meeting.” (1998: 32) In terms of Clark and Trousdale’s study this would imply that since the feature under investigation (i.e. th-fronting) is said to be mainly favored among younger speakers, observing a group consisting solely of older informants would be counterproductive to the purpose of the study.
Choosing the right point in time to gather information is extremely important. This is something that Clark came to find out in the early stages of the participant observation, when she attended practice sessions during the height of competition season and there was only little time for the band members to speak to her (cf. Clark and Trousdale, Chapter 2). Although in this particular case, time in general played only a minor factor due to the project's long duration, in most cases choosing the right point in time to start and conduct ethnographic research should not be underestimated.
With respect to the falsification of data through the level of familiarity it has to be kept in mind that “sometimes a familiar setting is too familiar […] and the researcher takes events for granted, leaving important data unnoticed and unrecorded” (Fetterman 1998: 36). Clark and Trousdale therefore underline the ethnographer's "ability to achieve a reasonable degree of objectivity by 'stepping back' from one's own cultural experiences in order to achieve an 'etic' perspective” and “the ability to identify with the community sufficiently [(cf. level of familiarity)] so as to achieve an 'emic' perspective". (Chapter 2: 37) Ethnographic research and observation is, therefore, nothing less than a tightrope walk between those two perspectives.
One form of observation bias concerning a social situation which is falsified through expectations is described by what is commonly referred to as the “observer's paradox” which is also mentioned in Clark and Trousdale's chapter. It relates to the question of "how much information [we should] give our participants about our research, […] if we give them too much information, they may change their linguistic behavior to suit our (perceived) requirements; not enough information and they cannot make an informed decision about consent" (Chapter 2: 38).
This clearly illustrates that issues of ethics and legality are closely related to the observer’s paradox, which is why Fetterman addresses such aspects as consent etc. in Chapter 7 of his book.
The “halo-effect” also describes a situation where data is distorted due to expectations on the researcher’s part. It describes the fact that “when we consider a person good (or bad) in one category, we are likely to make a similar evaluation in other categories.” (N.N., Changing Minds, 2002-2012, 30.04.2012 http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/halo_effect.htm) This may lead to a blurred perception of the data and the distortion of the research results.
Created with the Personal Edition of HelpNDoc: Free PDF documentation generator