In search for the essence of ethnography* Hany F Walevii™ This is the story ebout an anthropological search. Nota dramatic search of the Indiana Jones type, but a search, nonetheless. My search was for the exsence of ethnography, I culminated withthe publication af my book Ethnography: A Blay of Seeing. published in 1999, Today | am going to calk about my search: How Tent shows it ond what found The idea fer writing « book about ethnography came at-a lunck meeting in November 1995, almost ‘eight years ago. [ had just published & book with Mitea Allen, editor and publisher of AltaMin: Press, I thought ‘our hinch was to be a celebration of that event, Instead, Mitch beyan our conversation with fis usual question, “What are you going to write for us next?" Mitch Allen bas besa respon- sible for the last five books T have written. His question is always the aie, He waits about five seconds Tor ‘my answer,and, ifTdon*tcome up with anidea, he presents the idea he already has in mind. Since my earlier books dealt with aspects of qualitative research in genoral, ko jumped in with the suggestion that this time L waite specifically sbout I Liked the i challenge, began learsing about and doing ethnograthy more than 40 years SUMMARY 1 june 18, 2003 Harry Wolcott gave “The Bornemouth talk revisited for Medellin” lecture, The talk deais with tho search for the essence of ethnography and enswers the question ‘whet maxes a study ethnographic?” ‘The lecturer in his carrer has identified twelve attributes that can reasonably be expected in 9 ethnographic report. Therefore ethnography is holisiic, comparative, of first-hand experience, conducted in natural settng, requires intimate and long-term acquaintarce, is non evaluative, basically descriptive, specific, adaptive, corroborative and finally idiosyncratic and individualiatic. All those attributes are discussed in the lecture with the waming that tare is no absolute set of attributes, Then he coulé conclude that anyone: cen borrow the research techniques, and we all draw our data from ‘everyday experience, both our own and of olhers, The result is far more likely to produce ettnocrapny when a resoarcher sets out to create: ethnography and has a clear idea of what is involved Keywords: Ethogvaphy, Context Fiimogropers, Qualtuative Research * Conferencia dicta encdesarralie del seminario— taller sobre “Etnogiatia Organize por !as Facultades de Enfevmeria, Naciowal de Salud Publica y Clenctas Soctudes v Har dela Cravorstaul de Ar enire el ity et LF de yun de2093 = Anirandioge. Magister en antrepolegia. PAD en Anerspologia, Profers Emer de drurrpologia y Béewucion ona Universidad de Oregon, Estados Unidos? zrofesor y consiltar ue diferentes universidades de dixtintos coniinentes: Amévien, Attia, Asia y Eiwopa, Imvestigaior en ef cainpo de Aniropologia » aur de momarnsas puhlicaciones ceadémieas. Ditcctor facadémcu del Seminano talles sore: Eunogralia.a que se hace referenc Fe mote anterior Wolcott HF In search lor the essence of ethrography. Invest. Educ. Enferm, 2003; 21 108 121 Reoibico: 12 de hmio de 20038 Meeprtado® 24 de jumia de 2003RESUMEN 116 Ge junio de 2003 Hany Wolcott dicté su version pare Medellin de la conferancia originalmente presentada en Bournemouth. La charla traté sobre la biscusda de la esen- Cia de la etnografia y responde pregunias como, equ hace lun estudio emograntco? E|conforenclants, en su carrera, ha idenbficado doce atribuies que pueden ‘esperarse razonablermente en un reporta etnogréfico, Es asi como nos dice que le etnogratia es holistica, comparativa. basada en experiencias ropias, realizaca en escenarios naturales y que requiere una familiar zacién intima y prolongada con el tema; no es evaluativa, es bésicamente escrptiva, espeoffica, adaptativa, corroborntiva y finalmente, idiasinerésica individualista, Todos y cada une de estes altibulos se disculen en la conterendla con a agvertencia de que no hay un conjunio absoiuto de ellos que pueda oporer fen todas las investigaciones. Wolcott concluye que eualcuiera de nosotros puede ulllizar las técnicas de la investicacién y tomar los datos de le emperiencia de cada dia, tanto los propios como los que se refleren a lfos, Desde Iuego, para la groduccion de etnografia, es mée propicio cuando éste ha Sido el pronéatto de un investigador que ademas bene lara c6mo lograrlo, Palabraselaye Investigactén Cualitativa, Etnografia, Etndgrafos, Comex ago, and T have been writing about and tesehing about it for almost tha: long. Wiring a book would give me a chanee to share what Chad leamed, and would belp to further a cause 1 share with otors: te keep etbnography distin, « clearly identifiable style of research, rether that I watch it become just anotiersynanyin for qualative research in general, Toward that end T have been goaded by comments made by colleagues so anxious to make ethnography “user friendly” ‘anttbey simply toss it in with ll the other forms of qualitative research. They fail f appreciate, and thus icy to preserve, what is Unique about it, shat Contribution as to make. I chink the fisst person to treat its “just another synonym for quaitativ ‘eeacel” was my colleague Louis M, Smith, professor of edueationel psychology at Washington University, St. Louis. His remarks alone would have served as my inspitation, had not the sare idea reappeared often in the words of oller qualitative researcher: ia other ficlds. Louis Senith wrote, in 1978, abows, quote, te genve of reseureh that is coming to be known by such varied labels ax educational ethnography, participant observation, qualitative observation, caxe study, ox fietd study. For the most part, I will uve ties Terms as synonvras. En busqueda de la esencia de la etnografia Harey F Wotcoit Lou Smith wanted researchers to el comfortable with the sicuilariies among quahiativeapproaches. | guess my reaction has been ta keep colleagues from becoming too comfortable, I have worked toward 2 different, though not totally incompe Aible goal, o preserve whatever unique ceontribarion ethnography has tomale, conceptual as well as niethedological This isstilla concern today, for inthe carliost draft of Ethnography: A av of Sveing editor Mitch Allea too me to task for writing that seemed to render ethnography inaccessible for all but a sclect few, a group he estimated at about "30. people worldwide.” Mitch wanted me to help readers 10 earn more abour ethnogtapkry, not to tell them that they vreren’t really doing it In revising the draft, [hope I suceoetied in shit task without losing sight of my original objective, to show that there is something specia| and particular about etinography. I have tried ta present ethnography as special but not inaccessible But whe: is it shat makes ethnography special? What is it that fone can rightfully expect witen the claim isto do eihnography, rather than to use some other conceptual scheme (Conversation analysis, symbolic interactionism, ethromcthodology), oF20 a genetic name that docs not implicate # particular disciplinary link-term participant observarion study, ease study, or naturalistic study What makes a study ethoographic? When does that question matter? And i!’ you wuat t inake a study “more ethnogenphio,” what do you have to do? I hive never felt that f had ally “pinnod down” the essence of ethnography so that I vould explain wat any particular study had, o> lacked, that qualified it for the label. Writing the proposed book allowec, encourages, im a way, forced me to tease ont an ethnographic essence. | accepted Mitch’s challenge as a way to think through and fine! the “taye" ethnography. ‘Thar is more or less what 1 wes up to during those years, fleshing out 2 proposed outline for the book, thea building an inventory of critical attcibutes 2s I went along, [begin hore by reviewing this List of attributes as [started identifying them and adding them to my espanding inventory, It all, [identified a dozen attributes one can reusenably expeet 19 find in ethnographic reporting. The list ‘could be shorter or longer, but formy purposes, 12 seemed enough, (And anyway, J like things in 38 or mnitiples of 3.) intend fo say a bit about each of them and show how it fits inte the overall picture, This is not #iechoveal lit | think you will hardly hearn unfamiliar tern or Unexpected idea. In one sense we all are doing, all the tine, whet ethnographers dosome ofthe time, except that we do it to accomplish individual purposes rather that to render descriptions of the collective social behavior of others. And let me suggest a very straightforward purpose: for ethnography, We eunduct our stucies motderto examine how others lead their lives, and thus to get a clearer pierre of our own, It is one way, but of course not the only way, to study human petential For te moment I will not address the problenss that some of those att-ihutes raise for he fieldworker. I will revs the list later in these remarks todo that. Noristhereany pas tieular order in the way [ discuss them. It's just 2 collection of attribures- reasonable expectations about what we expect in. an ethnography. I real) an anthro: pologist once summarizing that anthropology is folksy cross-cultural, and compa wre. Since ethnography is the field arm ef cultural anthsapelogy, ethnography. cought to exbibit those same qualities, so | begin my inventory with those three amtributes, In one sense we all are doing, all the time, what ethnographers do some of the time, except that we do it to accomplish individual purposes rather than to render descriptions of the collective social behavior of others. And let me suggest a very straightforward purpose for ethnography. We conduct our studies in order to exa- mine how others lead their lives, and thusto geta clearer picture of our own. It is one way, outof course not the only way, to study human potential,Fieldwork is sometimes described as “living one’s way into a culture.” The ethnographer takes himself or herself to be the primary “instrument” for data collection. And what could possibly be a betler instrument for observing ‘human behavior? True, we are chided by colleagues in other disciplines who wonder at us for making up our own data. But isn’t that preferable to depending entirely on data made up by someone else? 1. Ethnography is holistic. Perhaps the term holistic is no longer in vague Better, perhaps is the ideo that ethnogemphy is especially sensitive to contest and to muiple contents, | am greatly influenced by the idea tha human behavior js"overdetecmined,” that there are always multipe factors. a: work in. our every behavior And therefore, we should slways consider multiple eau- ses and nniple infleness for nctions 2. Ethnography is eross-eultural, Ethnography is the study of The Other, another way of Lil, Hard (© argue with that a a general descriptor. 3. Ethnogrephy is comparative. Everything we do and undetstard is based on. vomparison, Being cross-cultural is one way of providing comparison. But ethnography is comparative in multiple ways, not endlessly isting simiiasties snd differenees, but, as anthropologist Clifford Geen states it, looking Zor “systematic relationships among divesse phenemicna, not for substantive identities among similar ones With those three, points to establish « base, it was eolatively easy to idenity others as the waiting progressed, I identified nine additional attributes that collectively scented to encapsulate the essence of ethnography. Indeed, initially it seemed! hard to imagine ethnography without each andl every one of them. So, 10 continue ta develop my lis: 4, Ethnography reposts first-hand experience. The etiographer bas been there, the reporting 's personal snd frst hand. Fieldwork is sometimes described a5 “living one’s way into culture." The ethnographer tekes himscif or herself to be the primary "instrument" for data collection. And what could possibly bea better instrument for observing ‘human behavior! True, we are chided by colleagues inother disciplines who wenclerat us for making up our awn data But isn't that preferehle to depending entirely on data macs up by someone else? 4. Ethnography is eondueted in natural settings. There is nothing contsived in the behavior ethnographers observe and recard, no control groups, no hypothetical situations: seal geaple acting as they act in everyday settigs. How poople really set, as well as how they say they axt, and haw they say they showid ser, are the data one works with 6. Elhnograplyy requises intimate, long-term acquaintance, Time works its advantage for the ethnographer No ane ean Keep up an appearance forever, 80 the ethnographer eventually sees things as they really are, James Clifford describes ethnography as “an especially deep, extended, and interactive research encounter". I have also see it deserived more modestly as “deep hanging ow” 7. sthnograp hy is mon-evaluative. clerred judgment is the orderof the day. The etinogrphier wants 0 s2e how things are and how they fit together to oem patterns. The ethnographer is not there 10 judge. 8. Buhnography is hosieally descriptive, and thick description is obviously bester thom thin, Consistent wath deferred judgment, the reporting is hased onwhat is observed, net how the ethnographer feels about it: There is room for that in the final acecunt, but personal views are kept separate, Util rather recently, they were net part of ethnoaraphi reporting, In many of the ckissie cetlinograpiics, the British ones especially, the ethnographer makes no appearance at al 9. Puimozraphy ‘sspeetfie, tis Ioea1 aad particular particular people in partis cular places et a particular time. Iris always grounded in instances of specific jbserved tehasioe. Its about somebort, vot about everybody 16, Exhmagraplny ss flexible, adaptive. The ethnographer works with sn “open! research desian, if, indved, there is any design at all, other than a statement of purpose tat s vontinuully being refined asthe work proceeds. The assemption is that until you are present in the setting, vou may not discover what an appropriate Guestion is oF bow fo inquire int i, For the elhnographer, data shupe the theory, rot the other way around, ‘One sometimes hears the process described as “dialectie,” as in Michael Agar’s' statement that ethnography is “Wialecti, not fineat™ I ann taken with Agar’s description, of elinography as a selective narrowing oF focus, what he calls the “funnel approach” when he writes In ethorgrapia.. You lean something (“eedtect some data”), there vow tre to make sense ou of Canaivsis"S, then you go Back and see if the interpretation makes sense in light of new experiences (“collect more data"), then you refiie your interpretation more anseysis), aneso um. The process ts dialect, not linear’ Ui. Ethnography is corroborative. A canen of good fieldwork is that you don'ticly on any single source of dats, A popular tex for this is tiangulation.” Indeed, triangulation 1s so popular that | have hesrd overly enthusiastic ‘graduate students describe “triangulation’”as the metho they intend to follow. How checking yout data or confirming your sources could ever become a ‘method is beyond me, but that dovsn't mean you don’t check your sources, Ina fieldwork seminar, one might go 50 far as to declare that we would never ‘epost on data thal have not been contirmed. 12, Behnogcaphy i idiosyncratic and individualistic. Theapproach fis right in with the etfos of selireliance ad independence- ethnography is most often accomplished by one person who takes full responsibility for 2 study, froce proposal to final write-up. No two studies are ever exactly alike, and cach study beers the stamp of the pesson who conduets it Since thers sre enhural scenes aplenty, there is no need for anyone to go to the exuct same place to. study the exact same thing at the exact sume time. Ordinarily, even a restudy will be conducted by the same person who did the oriainal one. ‘As niy writing continued and continued to tease out these atiribuies, assumed my list woul! be come more conc:se. Relatively minas poin's would be subsumed to make major ones stronger. Eventually Lassumicd thot the list would be “boiled down” to a few powerful characteristics that } cauld identify ax containing the “essence” of ethnography, “In ethnogrephy... you learn something (‘collect some data’), then you try to make sense out of it (‘analysis’), then you go back and see if the interpretation makes sense in light of new! expe- tiences (“collect more data’), then you refine your Interpretation (‘more analysis"), and so on. The process is dialectic, not linear”sBasically the concern is ‘one of balance in terms of the purposes of the study. This is the classic storyteller's dilemma: how wide a swath to cut? Endeavoring to attend to both focus and periphery, perhaps the best strateay isto do what you feel you do best, For the ethnographer, the haunting words that anthropology could become nothing more than history might make us want to insure thet out accounts are always something more than that. But that is not what happened. As my list grew longer at one end, a shadow o doubt began to form over the qualities | had already idemified. Each characteristic that seemed, essential to hnography hed some special conditions ‘or problems attached to it, a downside or eaution that weakened the case that it ‘wns absobuiely essential as an otribute, Let mc go back ever my list gain, this ‘ime in a more critical light that asks whether each ofthe eharacteristics icentified isu characteristic of every etimography, an whsolute necessity without whieh the ethnographie claim eamnot be made. 41, Ethnography is holistic. This seems @ worthy goal to strive for, sage counsel to ollera fieldworker Butitisnot much ae criterion for evaluating, asiudy. You eam be cautht out either way, Ifyou are 700 focused, you are subject to the evitieism that you have not provided sufficient woatext, And if you attend to0 much to context, you are subject to the erties that you dig not attend suffieientiy to foes Basically the conesen is one of balance in tims of the purposes of the study. This is the classic storytellers dilemima: how wide a swath to cut? Endeavoring to attend to both focus and periphery, perhops the best siralegy 1S 40 do what you foel you do best. For the-cthno grapher, the ‘hauring words that anthropology could becorse nothing more than history might make us want fo ingurs that out azcoumis awe alvas sosnething ‘more then that 2. Ethnography is cross-cultural. We recognize that ethnography got its start in cross-cultural studs, and we recognize that it would be ideal if everyone inferested in pursuing it sither could have priar experience in another cultura geting or cou! i. tially pursue fieldwork in sucha setting, But several things mntivate this ‘# Its not practical for everyone whia wants to do ethnograshy to have prior experience in udramatically different culture © Opportunities for such cross cultural experience are Hirited even for those with time 2nd inclination, and there is resistance in some Broups fo having cthnographers “study them.” + Especially outside she discipline of anthropology, the groups we want study are often groups ia whieh we ourselves hold membership: educetional researchers studying schools, nurses studying hospitals of other health workers, en in-house. ethnographer studying social relations within the firm, et, ‘© With torms like “nuteethnography” floating abort, it might even bbe assume (incorrectly) that these days you cars even do ethnography (or*of} yourselé lua settings may have been where the action was, but today vwe'vo brought thase methods home, Even for anthropologists, the ileal of prior evoss-culbural study, af Jeast in a draciatically different society, remains something of a desirable, but not always obtainable, goal, In the absenee of dramatic cultural differences, todey we make rote of micro-cultural differences, reognizing,‘yithanthropologist Ward Goodenoush thatwe allpartcipate nm multiplecultural systems, shatwwakicuturaisn s the “nor human experience.” Alas, reeognizing thatematoyoes inthe local market, or restaurant, oF firchiouse have “cular” of their own somehow lacks the dramatne aspoetsof the kind af rersacetive that a Margarct Mead cr Branislaw “Malinowski —or Indiana Tones could bring to their work: We console curselves that where ethnographeas once sought (0 muke the strange familiar, today s ethnographer more ofien needs to make the familiar strange (F or those of you who 100k the workshop, think pf tse peoblem of making: aa schol principal *sirange enough” that [ could see his even. “annul cycle” as different From that of his teachers. Thus making the familiar “strange”), 43. Ethnography is comparative, If ethnography is supposed to be comparative, what is that you are supposed to compare? Cross-cultural companson was once the marching order of the day. Matter oF fact, in an era of armehair anthropology, when dialoguss were based on the first hand reports of someone else, such ds missionaries and adventure:s, tndless comparisons were made of peoples among whom tose scholars had no firsthand expeties That kind of compacison went out of fashion years azo, and precisely how we ean and do employ comparison today baffles me. | advise beginning ‘ieldoriers 9 dos litte comparing as possible ratnerthanas muck. Contparison fends to draw one’s attention away trom what is being observed, In itself, comparison can beeome an cadless 2s well as pointless task In North American authropology, a distinction is often made between ethnography anc! ethnology. B phy is the description of the way of life fof one hurian group, ethnology the comparison of two or mare different groups, Since everything we da is comparative anyway, [think that explicit comparison is best Left to others, Your task as ethnographer is to attend to careful ceseription, at least until you go on to conduct your second or third inguiry: of, to siudy one group over an extended period, as British etlaographers have tended 60 do, | think comparison is given foo much credence in qualitative research, ‘especially to doing comparisons on 2 scale of whet a begiaming student ean accomplish in conducting a desctiptively oxierted mester’s thesis or doctoral dissertation, Tyo often Ihave witnessed Students being urged fo “increase their Ns," that is,t0 do two, three, five “litle” cases instead of testricting their observations 1 ome'sitestuctied in depth, The belicfs that this will make a study stronger or more sclentfie, But what happens instead is that those larger Ns act as denominators. They roduce the time thet can be devoted to each individual ease. Ifyou do three “litle” cases, cach one will get 1:3 as emuch tention as it might have had if you focused on one. That's OK if you want (0 Dok fora range of possible practices -but thete goes context, for you will find thar you are really only conducting a survey. Pthnography is a very ineMicient way to conduct a survey! When it does come time to compare, as it inevitably does even a8 yon try to resist il, you cam be guided by CliTond Gear, who advises us to look for “systematic relationships" rather than yield to the tompcation simply to inventors similatitcs and disioilacites, In North American anthropology, distinction is often made between ethnography and ethnology. Ethnography is the description of the way of life of one human group, ethnology the comparison of two or more different groups Since everything we dois comparative anyway, | think that explicit comparison is best left to others, Yourtask as ethnographer is to attend to careful description, at least until you go on to conduct your second or third inquiry; or, to study one group over an exten- ded petiod, as British ethnographers have tended to do.And even if you are there —on site and in person— your presence hardly guarantees the accuracy or completeness of your data. You can'tbe everywhere at once, your own biases limit and distort what you observe, anc your very presence makes demands on your time and energy when it entails making arrangements for eating, sleeping, attending to personal matters, and even getting away from the people you are there to stucy so that you maintain some perspective of your own So here Lam, trying to explicate ¢ tradition that exhorts you to be holistic, cross-cultural, and comparative, vet coming up instead with questions as to whether these attributes are patt of the solid foundation upon which contemporary ethnography stands. They are among a number of desirable features often found in ethnography but not eritical atinbutes, Their importance seems to ditvinisk as ethnographic research is udapted to present e:teumstanees. We would like to pursue them, but we can't always. accommodate them. To continue examining the list: 4. Ethnography reports first-hand experienee, Well, here at last isa featuce that characteristic of af/ ethnography: the presenee of the ctlinographer sn the scene being reported: That's virtually a must! Except, of course, in situations where “being there” is: impossible, impractical, (egal, and, alas, sometimes just inconvenient. Ethnographers kave oficn gone to rematkale lengths to “be there,” bur we can casily think of limits Where we are satisfied with incerview data and do not insist on firsthand obser- vation, Studies of prison life or prostitution come quickly 10 mind, but even for the ethnohistorian there is no way to get at the past execpt through the memory cultures of elderly infonuants. We may regard this as a recent tum of events, with ethnographers driving to their field sites early in the morning, or ever taking the subway. Yet Franz Boas, the so-called fuiher of Amertean dandivopolog®, is reported te have waited impatiently mm his hatel room at Port Hardy, British Columbia, Canada, for his Kwekiut! informants to show 0 fame when they failed 10 keep their appointments, That was iiore than a hundred years ego! And ever if you are there on site and in person your presence hardly guatantees the accuraey or vompletencss of your data. You can't be everywhere al once, your own biases limit and distort what you observe, and your very Presence makes demands on your time and energy when it eniails making arrangements for eating, sleeping, aitending to personal snstters, ancl even gerting away from the people you are these to study’ se that you maintain some perspective of your own, AP you commute to your site, you lose something of that holistic picture you wan: 10 get, hitif you reside invariably you will be beset by factions and petty jeatousies sitmply because wherever you fare, you can't be somewhere: else: romantic view of how fieldwork sugatc Tees should be conducted, some- uh Mes (anthing we can all agrce on as highly desirable. But tis often impractical, especially in ovr own case, Time alone may preclude the possibility af being these, and there ‘may aot be any “there” there at all, as, for example, studying communities tet exist without face-to-lice in.ctaetion, such as e-mail correspondents ex han radia operators or people engaging in teleahome sex ‘5, Ethnography is conducted in natural settings. [tis certainly true to say that ethnographers do niot contrive the settings or situations which they study, bur it is not so easy to establish exactly what constitutes » “uate ral” Setting, Schools, hospitals. prisons, offices, factories, all are such commonplace settings as to seem “natural” to us, yet there are some ‘natural qualities cbout chem, Perhaps netural settings are themselves part ‘of memory cultuaes, kow things were in““old days” that ae idealized against the realities of the present ‘We would have to say that there is a preference for studying things in their nanural state, bur what we setile for are settings that We as ethrographers do not manipulate and cannot contol, We may at times wish we could contol (teat, to keep out other external influences (like ourselves) and mauntam theme in thet pristine eondition, Our efforis in this regard ore sometimes transparenr, we write abou a people as though they have litle or no eomtset with the “outside world.” or write about them" in third-person way that suggests that nor even we ourselves were there to study thera, 6, Ethnography requires intimate, constitutes an intin Lg fm aequaintacies, Exactly what relationship in fieldwork, however, of how loog an 2oquaintanveship must survive w qualify as “long-term,” seem never to be addressed in discussions of fividwork criteria. So this attribute is something of am abstraction, Yet st has a satisfying ring, “Perhaps in comparison to other styles of research, we could reach agreement tbat eilnogcaphess are simply “more” iatinate, their acquaintance “more” long tem, than thac of any other kind of secial researeh, So, asa broad cesctip‘or. and stated comparatively, this ene is fine ‘But the terms ‘are not readily operationalized. How intimate is intimate, es recent volumes conc aming sex and the foléworker, With tiles like Taboo (Kulick and Willson 1995) o°the commpanioa volumes (by Lewin and Leap, 1996 and 2002) Out In The Field woe Ona in Theory awe asking? Is wlimaacy 1 sei necessarily sirable, when the Threat of Yeteayal rks in every ethnographic report, revealing ‘things told in confidence or inadvertently seporting Something that embarrasses the teller. Further, not all ethnographers andle intimacy well or have ary wish to become intimate with informents. They may be fearful ofthe loss uf objectivity that they feel professionally obliged 10 maintain, They may be lacking ia social skills oftheir own Length of time in the field is offen a two edged sword, Length of stay is itself no guarantee of better fieldwork. It seems reasonable to assume tal Fiekdhvorkers are as ap! to overstay their Welcome as to leave ind soon. In a serse, the longer you stay, the grester chaties to screw up the relationship, antagonize somone, ake a giant misstep. Mistrustis far ensier to achieve than trust. Because Length of time in the field is often a two edged sword. Length of stay is itself no guarantee of better fieldwork. It seems reasonable to assume that fieldworkers are as apt to overstay their welcome as to leave too soon. Ina sense, the longer you stay, the greater chance to screw up the relationship, antagonize someone, take a giant misstep.Thick description is clearly better than thin, but when is enough? And if we recognize attending to context as one of our special strengths, how far should we go, to what level of detail, when any allention we give to context detracts from the focus. ‘we are there 10 gather infotmation, most fieldworkers can “act their best selves,” at least for awhile. But the longer we siay. the less likely we will be able to “keep ‘up a front” or play ouly the researcher role, Porhaps the best way to accomplish long-ienn acquaintance is to spend aap extended period that is not continuous but is achieved through intermittent visits, That is possible in the course of a carver However, itis not the kind of advice one wants 10 hear when setting, out che first time. Arention is directed instead ta the minimum time necessary. But whien such questions become a burning issue, we can worry about efor to short-cireut cthnogeaphie practice ‘How do you answer the question, “How short ean a long-to-m study be?" 7. Eshrography is non-evalustive, The etiaographer ig enjoined not to susi fo judgment, But tis dificult to withhold judgment even under the guise oF leaming about how other people live. We study The Other, no Adsrespee, intended, but we agonize over winat always comes Gown to the privileged position of the observer, We change our language: now we sty wit yous we arc careful nol le eall you our subjecis, Nor do welike calling vou our formants even though you inform s Even ourelativistic stance has become relive, Aa oveasion has arisen fer ethnograpliets to accept assignments specifically to assess or to evaluate, suddonly acimit to being adept 2t evaluating after all, We siuply claim to approach such assignments another way, with a focus on trying ta understand what is rather than whe: should be. And we approach out sties without malice Bat we certainly do not want to be let out if evaluation is where the action is, And regardless of an expected professional steneo, i is human nature to hove preferences, even when it not a. good idea to reveal them. Edsaoraphers have found a way om of the dilemma by contrasting being objective and bemg neutral, taking the position shat one does not need to be neutral in order t be abjcetive. 19 short, we make judgments if chat is what is wanted, we don’t make them if tae is ‘what is wanted. “Deferred jodgment” provesa handy label, conveniensly imprecise, maybe as near es one ean come it iekhwork to having ome Cake and eating i100, 8. Ethnoutypliy is besieally descriptive, The Best way to be non-ovaluative isto be highly descriptive, to attend to what is, and what those in the setting make of it, rather thas become preoccupied with what is wrong, oF wath what ought fo be. Hut descviption is endless. Margaret Mead. and Brunislaw Malinowski, two of our most prominent exemplars, have been accused of “haphazard descriptiveness.” and anyone who has tried to provide 3 complete description of anything reeounizes that potentially 3 is @ nun-away activity. Thick description is clearly better than thin, but when is cnough? Aud if we recognize attending to context as one of our special strengths, how far should we go, to what level of detail, when any attention we give to context detracts fom the focus Furthertaors, a call for description implies that its somehow a pure act, that when we describe, we fies ourselves from judgments or preconceived ideas. Yetas William Jamesonec olnscrved, yeu can't even pickup rocks ina field without a theozy-*, Description requires making chaicesewht is tobe described, at what level of detail, while something else i ignored orGeseribed in less detail, Pure description is sometimes referred to lightheartedly as “inumceulate perception.” Ethnography puts an emphasis ‘on deseriptior: but when you find yuursel?actually “doing it” you may be surprised at how uuneertain you ate ahout how to go shout it, and how impossible it would be to provide cither pure or complete description At the same time, you sii! end up with more deseription than, you ean possibly mclude. And the more thorough you are, the more likely you are to tuncover matters earned personal and private. So the mare you know, the greater the problem you may have in deciding what needs to be reported, what might be ‘omitted, and what definitely should be emitted, “Basic description” is not such im cay path to follow afer al 9, Ethnography is specific, Clifford Geertz* described ethnographic saestceptay inca oak eae ecegontnn aboutus hos hecomes a weak: c instances are single instances. “What can you true for micro-cultures learn from a si we ate asked repeatedly. and National cultures as well. Being particularistic feels “natural” to most What they ware saying It was yeats before I realized a straightforward answer, “All we can.” Nevertheless, our generalizations ae always suspect, our efforts at theory are gigantic leaps ftom what we observe in everyday interaetion to universals ethnographers-but not all describing; human behavior. Ia their efforts to stay rolevant with the times, one ethnographers are alike, hears today of anthrapologists whose specialty is the “ethnography of che stave.” and neither acedheir Lind that a curious effort to havc itboth ways fel mone comforted key Geert"? ahh ‘words om that scare: “It 1s not necessary to know everything in otder to understand ethnographiss: Sern: - approach the groups they comet study as though thers | think the resolution for ethnogzaphers, and far social scientists of every were no individuals in ik, was snmmed up more than $0 years aga by Clyde Kluekholm and Henry them, only “a people” Murray! in their edited collection called Personaluv in Nature, Society, ant Culture when they wxore seeining te-aotin unieDn, (in the gestae nauaaaE Rue aay, while others build their accounts around a single Herma ont inebfitaal eeuap ts ee anthropological life ©, hike no other man, history or “ethnographic autobiography.” What they were saying aboot individuals holds tue for micro-cultures and National cultures #s well. Being particularistic feels “natural” to mast ethnographers-but not al] ethnogrephers are alike, and neither are their ethrographies, Some approsel the groups they study as though there were no individuals in them, only *a people” seeming to act in unison, while others build theicaceounts around » single individual though the anthropological life histary or “ethnographic autobiography,” 10, thnography is flexible, adaptive. Well, if we can't sent to get ethnography (o hold still, perhaps we can commend it for being flex’ le und adaptive, Ard indoed ic is. From the ethnogrepher’s perspective, that ean be one of its finest features, allowing him or her to take advantage of whatever oppoctunities arise. Serendipity, we call itInthe enc, it seems that readers themselves are lefl to decide on the “truth value” of our accounts, assessing them as more- or-less accurate on such qualities as ‘internal validity” that call not for everything to be “true” but {for the plausibility of the total account. As Paul Kutsche® reminds novice anthropolagical fieldworkers, “Remember that you are constructing ‘model of a culture, not telling the truth about your data; there are numerous truths”, ‘But so flexible and adaptive aa approach can leave one in serious doubt as to how to proceed. I: is not unknown ariong the runks of anthropologisis the lesser known enes, J hasten to addthat some are so struck with the limitless possibilities of thmgs thot might be studied that they never actully get around (o studying anything at all. Even for hose who thrive on the opportunities of whatever setting they find themselves in, 10 outsiders it never quite clear what the ethnoycapher will come up vith. If you bite an ethnogranher to work oF a project, or senda student off fora year o*ieldwork, younever know for sure what you are going to get as n result. That makes both the ethnogeapher and cthnogtaphy something of a wild card, Thave seen ethnography defined as what ethnographers do, When you are beginning s study, tha kind of advice ean prove remazkably uohelplul IL, Ethnography is corroborative, One of ethangraphy’s strengths is that we use multiple sources of data, The long-term nature of fieldwork adds immeasurably io the feeling (iat our accounts are reliable. We ourselves can be unaware of how those accounts are efien dependent on few informants-perhaps only one o° Avo individuals willing to talk to us at length and answer our questions. Those long-term stays in the field are also liable Lo ix us into a few channels for gathering daa, to marrow rather than to broaden our soucees of inZoemation AS desirable as triangulation seems wiien talked about in seminar, just how do you go about checking up on what your informants are telling you without creating tension, oven rivaleis in the comeaunity: “Who told you shar?” Weare at the merey of our informants, although we ate not anxious to admit to oue vulnerability and not anxious to suggest the tenuousness of what we ean report. [thas been sugyestod that we dvell a hit more on the “eonfirmability” of what we have to say, bit you ean ovar do the teatativonoss in an account if you begin every statement with the reminder that of cours, tis is but one instance at one particular point in Gnie [nthe et, it scenes that readers themselves are left to decide on the “truth value” of our accounts, assessing them as more-or-less zecurate on such qualities as “terial validity” dt call ot for every thing to be “true” but for the plausibsiy ofthe tata accoumt, As Paul Kutsche* reminds novice antivopological fickdworkers, “Remember that you are constructing a model of a culture, no? telling the truth about your data; there are numerous truths”. 12. Ethnogrophy is idiosyncratic and individualistic. Well finally, a criterion that aolds up. Buc it hardly points she way excepto declare: In thelongrun, we most judge each effort on iisown, There is no standard mold, no absolute way 10 *sses¢ all ethnographies, And what holds true taday was truc even “back then.” Roger Sanjek reports that in 1927 Margaret Mead wanted to ‘write asecond, more scholarly monograph to complement the work she had. just completed, Coming of ége in Samoa, which was aimed at a popular ‘audience, Before beginning, Mead identified and read a handful of whatwe recognize today a§ ethnographic “elassies.”” In her wores, “1 gathered together a pile of the lamous monographs of the périad ond studied their arrangements." And what Mead discovered, os Senjek reports, was that the ‘arangements" in cach of these works was unique, Quoting SanjekyThere wes no single ull-purpase madel to whieh her Samoa date could be aifived aul a manegragh result Bach eather presented a mass ‘of material, and each haul designed an infernat architecture amon whack thas mass was hung: Thess two properties-rich eibiographie detail and Cohesive supporting framework-continue to animate the anthrepalogical aeuhesic®. Well, there you have it, After yearltine [or eihnography’s essence for ‘much oftmy professional Ife, and making aeoncerted effort dating the years Lae ulready spent preparing toe fst deas of Exhaography: A Way of Soeur, | hac finally discovered whai Margaret Mead realized in 1927; There is no single all- purpose definition of, or model for, ethnography. Andy eitera die not poly the firm guidelines Thad been looking for: Most of them were present mast ofthe time; but nota single one seemed to be absolutely essential. Tevided that what 1 needed was a dilfurent analytic. Lan hardly the first penen io go wrong trying to identify che list of eriieal atteibuies oF waits-oF anything. ‘Tam drawn to analogies to help examine und explain things. Analogies are ahancly too! forthe qualitative researcher, They olTera way tu make comparisons \without having to make judgments, What I needed io this ease waas un analouy which allowed for conditions comparable to those | found characteristic of ethnographies in general A number of ingredients usually present, none of which bs absoluredy essential te final product in each particular instance reflecting the unique combunwion of ingredients that went tte it, Serendipity found me at the coumry flr that summer. onda suitable indeed, fortutious analogy presented itself while T took a casual stiol] through the entries at the basing exluibit Whatif | ikened the making of ethnography to the making of bread? Bread has a oumber of customary ingredieats but co single essential ono. Isso mething that takes shape in each instance aceording to the purposes of, and atthe hands of, ve individu who prepares Lam notabouttointroduce yor 1 esc and science of breadmaking. at least heyoned explorins the analogy C have drawn. I have never baked 2 loaf of bread by myself. Anel I hope ‘you don't find serious problems with the analogy, since 1 am now hopelessly committed to it in print You also may wonder why. | want to explore the anzlogy taiur than tell you more about ethrography. [don’t want to give the impression that with this concluding leeiure you have heard everything there is to know about ethnography, (If you're interested, real some ethrouraphies,) Buri you understand the analogy, you may appreciate why cthrography’s at butes na hit ambiguous ead why etanograpiy sel mielides more than simply gathering data. You need t0 imiderstand why evimography is ntare than method, ahough method is past fit. Breadmaking as we keow it usually requires yeast, sugar, sal, ft, and various so-called impravers ‘These ingredients are added to Mours, ‘goimnd flom wheat and ocher starchy seeds, and combined into a workable mass whit the addition ef one or more of any number of suitzble igus, But # you think ebeut it, while these are the customary ingrediems, there is no partiendar ingredient common among ‘our breads, not even the seemingly essential flour ground from a grassMatter of fact, that is, another distinguishing characteristic of mast ethnography. These are not accounts of heroic individuals performing heroic feats, but of ordinary folk going about their ordinary affairs. Itis what is done with the raw material that turns some accounts into ethnography, some into biography, some into the kind of product characteristic of other social sciences or arenas of practice. Itis what’ someone does, with the explicit intent of producing ethnography, that makes ethnography outof sore accounts and not others. seed, since both buckwheat and quinoa (keen wa), starchy seeds as far as the baker is concemed, are not members of the grass family, No single ingredient is common to all the breads oF the world ‘The ethnographer in the field gathers the equivalent of grains, inthe form of ny keme's of “truth” or “perceived tact,” hased on observational daa, often augmented with date already collected by others, The cata-gathering stage involves selectingeamong whats available, with some special purpose in mind, or eollscting whatever is at hand to see what can be made of it. The collected grains, like tiny bits of data, must subsequently he sorted -you can't possibly use all you collect, Soue of them sre discarded, some aut aside Tor possible use anothar da What isto be used is variously rofined accoréing to purpose and preference. As ‘with some bakers, sone ethnozraphers prefer to work with highly refined material (they re the close: quantifiers, as Tike to think of them), Other etamographer lice other bakers- insist that the ingrediems they use be as close to their original, natural Sate as possible leis north materials themselves that are special, either in breadmaking or in ethnography, As Geertz!" cbserves nf the later, Its not thei origins That recommend them” They are rather ordinary, everyday materials, collected in rather ordinary, everytlay ways Matter of fict, that is another distinguishing characteristic of mast ethnography, These ae not accounts of herose individ penfoeming hecoic feats, butof ordinary folk goine about their ordinary affairs, [tis what is done with the raw imaterial that tars some eccounts into ethnography, some into biography, some into the kind of product characteristic ofothcr soeialscionces or areas of practice. Its waar someone does, with the explicit intent of producing ethnography, that makes ethnography out of soime accouints 2nd aot eibets I press the analogy, The grains and other ingredients for breadmaking are formed into workable mass only with the sddition of liquid. L was surprised to. realize the wide variety of liquids that ean be used skim milk, whole milk, or ‘butecrmilk; warers soup ot vegetable water, fruitjuice; sour cream; yoghurt; cottage clcese; coblze of tea; becr, stout, oF slz; in addition te the liquid forms of other possible ingredients such as molasses or honey, melted butter, vegetable shortening er oil, vinegar, eggs, ec It occurred fo me that whatever liquid or liquids are addled to-make it possible 10 combine the otherwise dry ingredients (those lifeless litte bits of observed data) are what distinguish ene approach from the other. That is, all |qualitotive researchers obtain their data fiom conamon, everyday scenes ia human socia] life. How we select among, combine, and shape thase data are what make the difference. That selecting and shaping Is done at the hands of the individual researcher. Vatiation is not so much at consequence of the data themselves but from how they are combined, through the acdlion of something added, that allows them to be formed into a cohesive mass, For the ethnographer -o° forthe ethnographer trom the States, at Lease those data are worked into a cohesive mass with the addition of the concept of culture, Culture is not “there,” wacinus dem arly to be discovered itis something the ethnographer adus because that is one way 0 mtake dia workable. British ethnographer, by contrast, have traditionally achieved comparable sesults ‘with social structure, which, of course, we Americans don't fel works quite as well)In a techniea! sense, a la anthropologist Ward Goodenough, an anthropologist. “attributes” cullure, or social structure, to a group. Otaer social scientists working in related disciplines have theit own preferred concepts for ‘making their accounts “cohere.” They may add a dash or two of culture, just as cethnographers draw on concepts used predominantly by other social scientists, such os “institution” in sociology. Bur ithe end produet is to be ethnography, “culture” or seme equivalent concept such as social structure, worldview, oF Jean Lave's interesting notion of "community of practice”-mustbe there, To data drawn from everyday sources, cconomists, historians, sociologists, tc, add the concepts that characterize their disciplines, They add the same concepts that their colleagues use in order to get comparable results. And they shape them into, the familiar shapes or fois that we expec: in diferent arenas uf practice Although there are quick breads and quick ecanographers, we ordinarily expec! ihe douxh © go through a series of stages, Developing accounts, like developing dough, need to be punched dawa so they area’ full of holes -the analogy invites a host of comparisons. What 1 want to stress is that the ethnographer adds something that makes a study cthnozraphic, the symbolic Interaetion ist orplhenomenologist or fermi: her adds something different to come up with a slighty ¢ifferem result, and so forth. And their aceounts use vatiously seasoned with compassion, humor, insight, to suit the tastes of their various audiences, One oes uot have tobe forrally trained asa buker to bukea loarorbread one does 10: have to be formally tuned as ao ethnographer t come wp with ethnograpiy, But one does need a pretty good idea ofthe enstomary ingredients, the possible substitutions, the improvers, the acceptable range of variatica, and © for, as well asa clear iden of how she end product is supposed to look, The final judgment is reserved for the finished product. There are old fashioned bakers and old- fashioned ethoogtaphers (like wie) who tend te stick to the ole ways, the tried and true recipes, the standard treatment. There are others Who like to experiment or push the limits. Oftem the lines are drawn between enerations. Old timers may become ruther fixed in their wuys ond deery new- Fangled technologies that sein to ignore he character-building qualities associated ‘with the old ways-such as bread-making machites to do the sticky work, oF computer programs to speed up the proesssing of data. Ethnographies traditionally have been, and as circumstances allow, continue to be characterized as studies that are: Cross-culture) Comparative Based on fist-hand experience Conducted in natural settings ‘The result of intimate, long-term acquaintance Non. evaluative Basteally descriptive Specific or “particular” Flexible and adaptive Correborative Idiosyncratic and individualistic One does not have to be formally trained asa baker to bake a loaf of bread; one does not have to be formally trained as an ethnographer lo come up with ethnography. But one does need a prelly good idea of the customary ingredients, the possible substitutions, the improvers, the acceptable range of variation, and so forth, as well as a clear idea of how the end product is ‘supposed to |ook.Yel none of these attribstes seems 0 be indispensable, and satisfying them all dees nor assure ethmograpiay, The person who does ethnography needs 9 bave a feel for which ingredients are appropriate for ‘meeting intended purposes and to havea generalsdea of expectations and Tirnits. Its how one’s data ate drawn together to make a cohesive account that gets at the essence of ethno. raphy. It is something the ethno- srapher puts in, not exotic bits of data themselves but how they are combined into a cohesive whole allowed :9 rest and tse, worked over, ‘ond finally sap int a satsfactony-and identificble-form. Mindworks not field wock {began my’ search by looking fovan absolute set of auribues, Those Tideutitied proved to be eustornary uot inviolable. It is how data are softened and worked into a cobesive ‘mass, and what mustbe acide inet fa Gls to happen. that brings about the intended resuit, Anthropologist Peul Bobannan” summed it up with ‘the observation that “without an ctbnographer these 1s no ethno- graphy” Anyone can barvow the researeh techniques, and we all dow for data ftom everyday experience, both our own and of others, The result Js far nore likely to produce etimo- grapty whoa researcher sets out ereate ethnography and has clcar ‘deg of whatis involved. © REFERENCES, ), Smith LB Am Evolving Logie of Banispant Observation, Educational Ctinography znd Over Case Studies, Rey Res BU 197% 8916377 2, Geer €, The Tnpas: of the Consapt of Cults om tae Conespt of Mass Ea: The ntepreation of Cultuees, Now Vink: Basie-Roaby, 1853. 9.64. ‘Agar MUL The Profesiond Stenger An Informal lnwoduelion to Edography (New York: Academe Prost, 1980. 79 4, Agar M FL The Profesional Stenson An Inforsal Inodusiion 4 Edn ography. Del. San Diego, CA cider Pros, 1956 pl 5. Agar MH. The Professional Steaugee: An informal Introduction to Bthne ttaply.New Yorks Academie Paes: 1980, 7.23, 6 Goons C. This description: Toward an Interpretative Theay 6 Culece. En: Geore (C.The Interpretation of Cultus. New York, Basic Books; 1973, pi Geert C. Thick description: Toward au Lmecpretaive Theory of Calture-n Geertz C. Tho imarprettion of cules, New Vork: Basie Books 1973.p20 1S Klucthohn @. Muriy HA, Personality im Nate, Society and Caltare. New York: Allied A. Koop 1980, ps 9. Roxsehe . Field Ethxogsaphy. A Maual for Doing Cura Amtropatogy. troper Saute Raver, NI: Peeaice Tell 1998.7 96 1D. Sanja R. Whet Lthasgrapixes Leave Que. MOP: Choss-Culhral Pooios, 1998, Vol 5. p99 1), Geertz ©. Islan observed: Religious Developmen’ in Morocco and Tedonesi, (Chicago: University of Chicago Pres: 1868, 12 Dohanay P Mew Caltue Works. New York: Bae Press) 1998. ps7 FURTHER READING = Goovdnongh WH. Mulicutosisn ae the Nesman Hutran Enperiece, Anthropol Fave 1976. 714) 47 + Marcus G. Seki wich Ethnagrephy Through Thick aud Thin. Ba; Marcus 6, Ethcgrpty tough thick and chin. Prtczeton, Ni: Heaeeentow Unvetity Bess; 99 + Sclenst 43, LeCompte 9413, The Einographer's Toetkit. Wallat Creek, CA: Altanira Bess; 1899. Vol7