▲ 11 points
back
6 comments
There is a place for ethnography, fieldwork, and other gonzo social science. So much of anthropology, history, literary criticism, etc. has beeen buried in critical-theoretical cruft that many practitioners have made careers from writing only referentially inside a circle of theorists, almost to the point of the absurdity Tom Wolfe observed in contemporary art: "without a theory to go with it, I can't see a painting." [1]
"You can’t read Goffman’s study or mine and not conclude that we sympathized and empathized with our subjects. I came away from my years with uniformed police officers deeply respecting their very difficult job and the many sacrifices they make to serve and protect us. I witnessed no police brutality but observed much aggression and vulgarity against and provocations of the police. I also appreciated how much they cared about many of the people they were arresting. I think not a few officers, if they read her book and met Goffman, might say to her something like, "You got it partly right. But there’s another side to the story.""
I can't help but wonder if knowing that they were being watched didn't affect their behavior.
For example, I'm a pretty competent programmer. I don't usually do very well on a whiteboard or someone else's computer during an interview. But day-to-day I turn out plenty of code.
To presume that observation has no effect on the outcome seems a little naive to me. Stranger still that an academic seemingly doesn't realize that.
I think the academics are well aware of that - but the alternative is to never study groups in this way.
Also consider that such people are typically integrated with the community they are studying for months, even close to a year. We are certainly different when observed, but we also get used to a new presence, eventually consider them "one of us", and will resume (mostly) normal behavior.
They're not technically academic works, but I consider David Simon's books "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets" and "The Corner: A Year in the Life of an Inner-City Neighborhood" (co-written with Edward Burns) to be in the category of such studies. The first book was the inspiration of the television series of the same name, and both were inspiration for The Wire.
"The Corner", by the way, is one of the most emotionally devastating books I've read, and I tend to pick very unhappy topics.
I think this is good insight. You can pull off a ruse or change in behavior for a month or two, but you can't act unlike yourself for too long, and especially not a diverse group. So if they were faking things, there would eventually be signs pointing to faked behavior.
Point taken!
Ethnography is a valuable tool. But it is not science. Science is about prediction, reproduction, an falsifiability. Ethnography lacks these and thus it is not science.
I have no issues with ethnography being used to broaden our understanding, but the understanding should be there that this is not science (and should not be called science) and the biases of the author have more of a chance to come into play.