Discuss the relationship between fieldwork and writing in ethnography

Much has been written about the ‘doing’ of fieldwork and ethnography in recent times, discussions have ranged across issues of ethics, representation, factual accounts versus more narrative recordings of social situations and a questioning of the impartiality of the ethnographer. Fieldwork is an essential part of the ethnographer’s research during which they generally immerse themselves as a participant observer in the study of a culture or social group, the resultant writing up process acts as an extension of the research, aiming to provide a representation of the cultural group in question. The term participant observer provides some suggestion of the problematic relationship this can entail. Ordinarily, we engage with our social interactions, to some greater or lesser extent, as a fully participating member, however, the dual role of being both participant and observer can bring tensions, complexity, and even conflict. Unsurprisingly then, there are many different approaches suggested for the effective ethnographer, ranging from the dispassionate and distanced observer to the emotionally and physically committed one. Debate surrounding the correct approach to adopt continues, to a degree these debates are a result of the changing nature of the social and material world in an era of rapid growth in information technology, political upheavals and changes in working patterns. Former methodologies have had to adapt, “it is a recurring aspect of change in the modern world… that old answers prove inadequate” (Spencer 1989, p146). The ethnographer may no longer work in a contained ‘field’, his or her approach may need to link people and places together, making sense of a network of informants due to migration and travel. So, the site under scrutiny may be less a specific locale and more a complex web of sites stretched over space and time.

“The increasing mobility of the people whom anthropologists study has coincided with… a re-evaluation of a number of long-standing conventions and assumptions… anthropologists have… redefined their ethnographic ‘fields’ to explore the multisited, transnational circulation of people”. (Amit 1999, p13)

Where at one time research may have been defined by its difference from home and the ethnographer may have enjoyed a sense of immersion and distance from their own everyday life, now, observations and findings may be made using various methods of communication. So that whilst much research is done through face to face contact, it is acceptable to utilise other means of informing the research project, sometimes relying on intermittent or long distance contact, such as telephone conversations or email correspondence. This is not a failure of methodologies, but can involve the researcher in an active form of social interaction due to the “increasing virtualization and distanciation of social life through electronic communications” (Coleman & Collins 2006, p10). Such fieldwork does not detract from authenticity, as the research is merely mirroring contemporary means of living across and between real, spatial localities. “These conflicts are resolved… not by refuge in being a detached anthropological scholar, but in being a sort of ethnographer-activist, renegotiating identities in different sites” (Marcus 1995, p113). This is not, however, to suggest that the ethnographer needs not be present, the necessity for grounded observations and human interaction is still axiomatic in producing sound ethnographies.
As anthropological research has reacted to change, newer methods of viewing and explaining the world have become academically accepted, including feminist and cultural readings that aim to avoid paternalistic accounts and develop a more nuanced and subjective interpretation of cultures and systems. Alongside feminism and cultural studies, postmodern accounts of the world provide an alternative setting for ethnographies to unfold, in which ethnography can no longer be conducted from a singular and simply explained world. Thus, in a climate of multiple viewpoints and approaches, former methods have changed as “a firm sense of a world system framework was replaced by various accounts of dissolution and fragmentation” (Marcus 1995, p98). Not only do findings and the resultant narratives proceed from a less formal and generally agreed setting, so also the researcher may need to admit their own situation as necessarily holding implications for the research process. “The observer ‘filters’ information in the very process of gathering it.” (Coleman & Collins 2006, p9). Not that this renders research invalid, just less readily achieved and more open to complications, “in conducting multi-sited research, one finds oneself with all sorts of cross-cutting and contradictory personal commitments” (Marcus 1995, p113). Ethnography can be a confusing topic to address and understand, however, if it is accepted that the debates are themselves changeable and contingent upon situation, time-scale and the participants involved, then the breadth of methods and approaches can be considered on their own merits to be adopted and adapted as suitable.
A research project is very much dependent upon the researcher and their method of enquiry and production of findings can never be a scientifically pure and unadulterated factual process, we must all start from our own situatedness. Thus, the ethnographic endeavour is influenced, however unwittingly, by the researcher’s own set of beliefs and personal values. This filtering, as already alluded to, is inevitable and unavoidable, and such reflexivity, where the ethnographer admits to their own positionality as best they can, is a necessary part of living as a social being whilst investigating other social beings. The piecing together of fieldwork and the writing up process require an interpretation of the gathered data and, bearing in mind the many contradictions of performing ethnography, authenticity is going to be a variable and elastic component. Individuals may choose to omit certain information, or they may be unsure of the researcher’s motives, the period of interaction, questions and disclosure “is a highly personal encounter that is shaped by the interpersonal exchange between ethnographer and the informant. The speaker will only reveal what he or she wants the researcher to know” (Pack 2006, no page no.). Relationships with respondents and informants may be problematic and discontinuous, questions of power and who has this power may become apparent, querying whether the investigator or the investigated hold more sway. Even the most open and post-modern of ethnographers, keen to immerse themselves in a social setting or web of connections, may happily admit to their own reflexivity, while still, unwittingly bringing their own cultural baggage with them. The outcome of their time studying and observing and participating in fieldwork will inevitably be tainted and influenced by “the conceptual, professional, financial and relational opportunities and resources accessible to the ethnographer” (Amit 1999, p6).
As Pack observes with regard to his participant observation of the Navajo, they exhibited behaviour he found hard to tolerate, spending their dwindling money on expensive items of conspicuous wealth and watching television instead of his preferred recreational habit of reading. In relation to his own privileged existence, a life to which he could return at any time, he realised that it was unrealistic to promote his own values. To do so would be disrespectful, having echoes of colonialism about it. In trying to persuade somebody who has “lived his entire life in poverty about the pathology associated with wealth” (Pack 2006, no page no.) Pack realised he would be criticising those who had confided in him. Ultimately, having spent so long on the fieldwork, he learnt about himself too, “in the course of learning about them, I also learned more about myself” (ibid). To be a good ethnographer, there needs to be openness as to how the participant observer views the culture they are investigating, preconceived ideas may be erroneous, and adhering too closely to methods which may prove inappropriate can hamper the process. Thus, the act of being in the field, whether far from home, or in a known and lived location, means the researcher needs to accept that the unplanned is bound to happen and may change the whole course of the project. “The process of fieldwork is as important as the final written product… the ‘trials’ of field research are as important as the ‘successes'” (Kelly 2005 p3).
Some former approaches to fieldwork, perhaps rather naively, sought to deliver a true account of a cultural setting, often choosing exotic and far-flung places as if these sites rendered themselves as more real or readily open to interpretation. “Anthropological conventions regarding the selection of fieldwork sites have first insisted on cultural, social and spatial distance” (Amit 1999, p4). The emphasis now has less to do with seeking a purist’s approach in forming a bounded and unproblematic study and has more to do with approaching a study, as Kelly has observed above, with a constructive mind set. That rather than seeking out continuities, discontinuities may be every bit as informative and the ethnographer, rather than merely reporting in some impartial way on events that unfold seamlessly before their eyes, is vital in piecing together the observations they make. The writing process becomes a dynamic and active form of observation, where the ethnographer is aware of the fact that “the field as event is constantly in a process of becoming” (Coleman & Collins 2006, p12). This places the ethnographer in a unique position where their own insights and way of asking questions and interacting with those they meet will produce a new and potentially innovative piece of research. Ethnography relies upon a level of trust between researcher and respondent, and is perhaps alone in its mode of “scholarly enquiry in which relationships of intimacy and familiarity between researcher and subject are envisioned as a fundamental medium of investigation” (Amit 1999, p2). Representation and construction, which have been scrutinised and, for some, agonised over in the search for realistic research are not elusive and captured only in specific circumstances. Rather, they are rendered achievable and meaningful when the researcher approaches their project creatively and prepared to be surprised and challenged. Ethnography as performance, an act of drawing together many parts involving much diverse data into a whole which has shape and meaning is no less real than methodologies which work from more formulaic processes. No eternal truth can ever be captured, only partial pieces of the social world may be apparent within the context of a changing and pluralistic era, so methodologies may need adapting to circumstance.
“Perceived in these terms, a metaphor of performance can be deployed to describe the construction of the field… a field is constructed through a play of social relationships established between ethnographers and informants… comprehending embodied as well as visual and verbal interactions.” (Coleman & Collins 2006, p12)
The above quote suggests that a less one-sided attitude to fieldwork must be applied, one where it is expected that informants may act or speak in unexpected ways and where this is not considered detrimental to the fieldwork. Informants, it is posited should be present in the formation of research findings, not as sources of information alone but as “actively involved in their own self-representation (Spencer 1989, p159). Fieldwork, which may have been meticulously planned ahead of time, and sanctioned by a funding body might not turn out the way it was planned. Such outcomes may influence the way data is collected and interpreted, however, such dynamic occurrences should be considered as a vital part of the academic enquiry of social and cultural phenomena. Reality can be nebulous, and individuals will always to some extent see their own reality differently to anyone else, confusing the matter further due to the fact that “people forget. People rationalize what they do… people are not aware of all, or even most of the influences on what they do” (Handwerker 2006, p111). Bearing all these factors in mind, the relationship between fieldwork and writing in ethnography is contingent upon the interplay of data, circumstance, outlook and viewpoint, to name but a few. In writing up, the ethnographer must be aware of their own hand in the piece and of the impossibility of writing impartially, “human understanding of the phenomenal world can never escape personal subjectivity” (Handwerker 2006, p114). Not that this is a detrimental feature, but instead is a valuable tool in providing a rounded research project from a human and humane perspective.