S H I R L E Y I B R I C E HEATH

Ethnography in education:
DeFining
the essentials

I n t h e play Travesties by Tom S t o p p a r d , a character makes t h e

following comment about the meaning of t h e words art and artist:' "Doing
t h e t h i n g s by which 'is meant Art i s no longer considered t h e p r o p e r con-
cern of t h e a r t i s t . I n fact i t is frowned upon. Nowadays, an a r t i s t is
someone who makes a r t mean t h e t h i n g s he does. " This article s u g g e s t s
that t h e s t a t e of t h e a r t of ethnography may have come to t h e point where
anthropologists can echo Stoppard's character to d e s c r i b e t h e change in
t h e meaning of t h e word ethnography : "Doing t h e things b y which i s
meant Ethnography i s no longer considered t h e p r o p e r concern of t h e an-
thropologist. I n fact it is frowned upon. Nowadays, an ethnographer i s
someone who makes ethnography mean t h e things he does."
Recently, r e s e a r c h e r s in t h e field of education have been particularly
prone to use t h e terms ethnography o r ethnographic to d e s c r i b e studies
using participant observation, naturalistic i n q u i r y , and open-ended re-
search designs ( e . g . , Wilson 1977; Rist 1975). T h u s ethnography in edu-
cation has become a s e t of techniques i n s e a r c h of a discipline within t h e
social sciences. A variety of r e s e a r c h e r s , many nonanthropologists, either
"do ethnography" o r critique ethnographic methods without reflecting t h e
historical, methodological, and theoretical links of ethnography to cultural
anthropology. Numerous methods and approaches, described a s qualita-
tive, naturalistic, ecological, and holistic, a r e identified a s ethnographic,
characteristic of o r having t h e form of ethnography. Though i t i s not
necessary to claim t h a t only anthropologists can do ethnographic r e s e a r c h ,
it i s important t o recognize that many of t h e methods, rationales for open-
ended research techniques, and theoretical guides to interpretation of
data gathered b y these means derive in l a r g e p a r t from anthropology.
Therefore, i t seems necessary to define t h e fundamental character-
istics of ethnography as t h e y derive from anthropology, and alço to clarify
t h e difference between a full-scale ethnography and- ethnographic s t u d i e s
that use some essential rnethods of ethnography. An u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
ethnography depends on linking i t to i t s traditional disciplinary base in
anthropology and i t s role in t h e anthropologist's s t u d y of human behavior
in cross-cultural perspective. T o grasp t h e distinctions of methodology
frequently said to characterize ethnographic r e s e a r c h in education, one
 must recognize t h e similarities and differences between these research
techniques and those found in social psychology , sociology , and o t h e r
disciplines t h a t have focused on t h e s t u d y of human behavior i n formal
institutional settings of complex societies. I n essence, if t h e t e m e t h -
nographic i s to have a consistent identity i n educational s t u d i e s , re-
searchers must be able to identify what it i s that makes a particular
s t u d y ethnographic. For example, they should b e able to distinguish an
ethnographic s t u d y frorn ethological work, from field s t u d i e s , from s y s -
tems analysis interpretations, and from case studies. Only in so doing
can ethnographers rneet t h e challenge of specificity of procedures, clarity
of goals, and relevante of interpretations to theoretical considerations de-
rnanded in t h e numerous institutions now sponsoring ethnographic research
in education.
This article considers: ( a ) rnethods of ethnography and an expla-
nation of how some of these rnight be applied i n ethnographic research i n
education; (b) some weaknesses and s t r e n g t h s of ethnography; and ( c )
suggestions on how some "essentials" of ethnographic research might be
carried out in a community-to-school s t u d y with a topical focus on literacy.

E T H N O G R A P H Y : WHAT A & E
T H E E S S E N T I A L S ?

T h e goal of ethnography i s to describe the ways of living of a

I
social group, a group i n which t h e r e i s in-group recognition of the indi-
*'
v i d u a l ~living and w o r k n g together a s a social unit. By becoming a
participant i n t h e social group, a n ethnographer atternpts to record and
describe the o v e r t , rnanifest, and explicit behaviors and values and tangi-
ble items of culture. By long residence, t h e ethnographer learns the lan-
guage of the society and s t r u c t u r e s and functions of cultural components,
before atternpting to recognize patterns of behavior that may be covert,
ideal, and implicit to members of t h e culture. Ethnographers attempt to
learn the conceptual framework of members of t h e society and to organize
materiais on the basis of boundaries understood by those being observed
instead of using a predetermined system of categories established before
lhe participant-observation.
T h e range of techniques t h e ethnographer uses includes mapping;
charting kinship and o t h e r patterns of interaction; interviewing; collecting
life histories; studying written docwnents relevant to t h e history of the
group; and recording folklore of all types--narratives, songs, myths,
n d d l e s , rhymes, and provcrbs. If used at all, s u r v e y d a t a , question-
naires, and experimental methods play a much less significant role t h a n
participant-observation. T h e ethnographer's description will, ideally,
deal with t h e totality of existente of a particular social group in i t s
natural setting. Laboratory experi.ncnts, or any noncontextualized b e
haviors, t e n d , in t h e ethnographer's view, not to yield substantive con-
clusions generalizable to these same participants in their natural environ-
rnent. Moreover, a priori hypotheses taken with t h e o b s e r v e r into a
group a r e believed by ethnographers to reflect more t h e conceptual frame-
work of the investigator than t h a t of those being observed.
T h e concept of culture a s holistic--more than the sum of t h e p a r t s ,
both material and tioninaterial--forces ethnographers to place their de-
scriptioris in t h e context o i l a r g e r purposes. Of major irnportance a r e
knowledge of the universals in human e x p e n e n c e and recognition of t h e
unique aspects of human p a t t e r n s of behavior that may develop within a
group. Most frequently, t h e ethnographer's descriptive data will gener-
ate a cultural grammar, an abstract theory that provides t h c rules indi-
v i d u a l ~within t h e society have to know to produce, predict, i n t e r p r e t ,
and evaluate behaviors in given settings o r social interactions.
 HEATH / Ethnography in education / 35

Simply p u t , the ethnogrspher's task is to describe t h e culture of the

group being studied, and to identify specific cultural patterns and struc-
tural regularities within the processes of both continuity and change. For
example, the ethnographer attempts to answer t h e question of what are
the constraints on the system that contribute to predictable patterns of
behavior? The ethnographer works with the following principles of oper-
ation:

1 Fieldworkers should attempt to uphold the ideal of leaving aside

ethnocentricism and maintaining an open acceptance of t h e behaviors
of a11 members of the group being studied.

2 When participation in and adequate description of the full round of

activities of t h e group i s no, possible, fieldworkers should make a
principl('d decision to learn and to describe a s completely as possible
what is happening in selected activities, settings, or groups of
participants.
3 Data obtained from study of pieces of the culture should be related
to existing knowledge about other rorn~orlpntsof t h * whole of t h e
culture or similar pieces studied in other cultures.

Ethnography, perhaps more than any other social science, strives for a
comparative perspective. Research conducted in one social groiip shouid
be accessible for comparison with that conducted in other social groups.
As ethnographers in the past two decades have moved auray from t h e
study those social groups located far away from centers of modernization,
and easily identifiable as bands, tribes, or villages, these methods and
ideals of ethnography have been difficult to maintain. Many new tech-
niques, theoretical perspectives, and comparative procedures have de-
veloped. Therefore, the array qf diverse and often contradictory methods
now subsumed under the term ethnography make it seem necessary to ask,
"What is ethnography?" Alfred Kroeber, a figure prominent in the de-
velopment of anthropology in the UNted States, asked this question in
1957 when anthropologists had begun their first major moves tov'ard study-
ing groups and institutions in complex societies. Kroeber noted that t h e
shift of interest away from remote and less technologically advar,ced peo-
ples to communities at home seemed to occasion neglect of "old-fishioned
ethnography" (1957: 196). For example, background ethnohistor.cal re-
search carried out in libraries and supplemented by oral intervi*':ws and
documentary evidence in the field formed an essential part of mEny of the
ethnographies of cultures of Africa, Asia, and islands of t h e S o l t h Pacific.
Ethnographers working iri complex societies, however, often seeined to see
no neeL for ethnohistorical research. In addition , Kroeber char,ged that
anthropologists working in the communities of con Jex cultures c'ften failed
to elicit data beyond the "expectable obviousnesses" (1957: 196). Too often,
these studies focused on hotv the "different," e.g. the ?oor, etlinic groups,
and Amencan Indians became more like the mainstream, t h e power groqp of
the nation. i Thus, Kroeber charged that ethnographers were leaving aside
the longstanding maxim of anthropology to deny ethnocentric interests.
Kroeber warined that the s t u d y of an Indian tribe in earlier times and in
its self-identified status as a group in relative isolation required methods
no different' from those used to study the assimilation of the current de-
scendants of that tribe in an urban community.
Methods proposed by Kroeber as typical of "old-fashioned ethnogra-
phy" warrant consideration for ethnography in education research. How
might the m :thods and ideals used by anthropologists in the s t u d y of an
36 1 CHILDREN IN AND OUT OF SCHOOL

Indian tribe o r an African village be applied in education r e s e a r c h ? Eth-

nographies, i.e., descriptive studies of a culture a s a whole, a r e not
usually written with a focus on formal education, b u t ethnographic methods
characteristic of those used in preparing full ethnographies may b e used
in particular settings of formal education o r o t h e r institutions. I n severai
critica1 ways, ethnographic methods a r e distinct from o t h e r methods often
termed ethnographic. though t h e y may s h a r e philosophic bases with other
research approaches (cf. Magoon 1977; Iannaccone 1975). For example, a
case-study approach--the collection of intensive histories of individual
units made from t h e perspective of development with relation t o environ-
mental factors (Smith 1978)--in and of itself does not constitute ethno-
graphic research. Ethnographic studies involve more t h a n simple
participant-observation o r naturaiistic research in noncontrived s e t t i n g s
(Furlong and Edwards 1977). What distinguishes ethnographic studies
(whether carried out in formal education o r other institutional s e t t i n g s ,
s u c h as a hospital, b a r ) is consideration by t h e researcher of t h e appiica-
bility of methods and theories used by anthropologists (Wolcott 1975).
Those discussed here a r e ethnohistorical r e s e a r c h , attention to definition
of t h e unit of s t u d y , microethnographic work, linguistic investigations,
and analysis of artifacts. Many "old-fashioned" ethnographies ( e . g., Evans-
Pritchard 1940; Malinowski 1932; Radcliffe-Brown 1933; Leighton and Kluck-
holn 1946) exempiify some or a11 of these essentiais, and t h e y a r e dis-
cussed in numerous descnptions of t h e science of ethnography ( e . g. ,
Lowie 1960; Kroeber 1957). T h u s , their use in education research may be
said to help establish t h e ethnographic character of specific studies.

E T l i N O H I S T O R I C A L R E S E A R C H

For any particular social group s t u d i e d , ethnographers have at-

ternpted to relate t h e origins and history of t h e group through time to
consider t h e social past as well a s t h e social present. Fieldworkers study-
ing a t r i b e o r village in Africa, for example, collected data on t h e group
before t h e arrival of Europenn influences. Records of early travelers who
contacted t h e group and oral accounts from older t r i b e members helped
build this history. In addition, t h e s t o r y of European contact and t h e
development of European influence in cultural values and behaviors was
needed. Research for this portion was often done in iibraries t h r o u g h
records of European officials and missionaries, official correspondence,
proceedings of specific councils, biographies of tribal chiefs, and news-
paper accounts of European policies with respect to African cultures.
Many ethnographers supplemented t h e published materials with unpub-
lished accounts,' s u c h as t h e correspondence of missionaries, travelers,
and rnerchants (cf. Schapera 1962).
Ethnographic research in formal education s e t t i n g s need not b e differ-
ent in type from that collected for t h e African t r i b e o r village. An eth-
riographer writing about a particular school may, for example, learn much
from documentary sourccs and unpublished a c c o u n t s o f t h e school. The
n a t u r e , e x t e n t , and accessibility of these materials will v a r y according to
factors s u c h a s t h e time, purpose, and agents of their preparation.
Many o t h e r relevant rnaterials a r e in t h e public domain: superintendents'
r e p o r t s , proceedings of local school board meetings, biographies of indi-
v i d u a l ~influential in t h c development of t h e school o r i t s system, and
newspaper accounts. Evaluation studies of curricula, student psrform-
ance, and labor relations a r e often less accessible, but failure to obtain
these can often be partially compensated for through oral interviews and
examinations of curricular materials at district libraries.
Ethnohistorical research i s particularly relevant for deterrnining the
background o f particular t h a n e s , such as citizen education, back-to-
 IJEATH I E t h n o g r a ~ h yi n education / 37

.basics movements, morals education, in a p a r t i c ~ l - r school. Documents

describing t h e rationales for t h e s e movements often contain specific goals
and aspirations for s t u d e n t s , as well as notions of how knowledge, skills,
- and dispositions help create t h e I' good" student.
Few "ethnographic" studies of education have included ethnohistorical
research, such as histories of the school, communities past and present
that make up the s t u d e n t population, and special interest groups (such as
labor unions, local businesses, and voluntary associations) that influenced
school policies and programs. The need for an ethnohistorical component
in t h e s t u d y of education i s underscored b y t h e work of historians of
education ( e . g . , Katz 1968; Tyack 1974) whose works emphasize the strong
effects institutions such as t h e school have had on what were formerly
private primary groups, such as t h e family. T h e Paul and Jean Hanna
Collection, begun in 1977 at t h e Hoover I n s t i t u t i ~ ndt Stanford University,
contains materials frorn severa1 nations that will help researchers answer
such questions as what role textbooks play in political socialization and
how ties between publishers and scholars, teachers _and administrators,
affect school curricula.

A T T E N T I O N T O D E F I N I T I O N
O F U N I T S O F S T U D Y

Every anthropologist who undertakes a field s t u d y of a com-

munity o r tribe, as well as those who engage i n education research, must
make a decision a s to the specific social group, s e t t i n g , and focus he o r
she will treat. Early sections of traditional ethnographies a r e often de-
voted to a definition of what is being studied--band, t r i b e , o r village--
and t h e reasons for t h e choice of the group. If an ethnographer chooses
to c a r r y out ethnographic research within a school o r classroom, problems
of definition seem simple; problems of reason for t h c choice are more corn-
plex. Often a particular classroom or school i s studied because it was
accessible, a friend was on the s t a f f , or t h e local district was fairly lax
about access of researchers to t h e school. Rarel, a r e reasons for t h e
choice made clear. Types of schools o r classrooms are also often left
unspecified, so t h a t comparison of research across schools o r classrooms
is difficult. T h e particular categories chosen to describe schools or class-
roorns raise problems; for example, if the ethnographer chooses to work
in classrooms of a particular subject o r teacher style, will t h e ethnogra-
pher follow native usage (i. e . , t h a t of local teachers and administrators) ,
or will new terms be devised in accordance with the p a t t e r n s t h a t evolve
in the course of t h e s t u d y ? There i s no standardization across districts
and states for many components of formal schooling.
Another problem of definition arises for t h e ethnographer, because
within anthropology, education refers to t h e process of cultural trans-
rnission (which extends throughout life); formal schooling i s only one as-
pect of this process. Therefore, when formal schooling is t h e focus of
research, antk:ropologists attempt to s t u d y i t i n relation to t h e broader
cultural and community context in which i t exists. For example, t h e be-
haviors of pupils a r e ideally viewed not only in relation to fit o r contrast
with those of teacher, typical s t u d e n t , o r successful pupil, but also with
respect to home and community enculturation p a t t e r n s of pupils and teach-
ers. T h u s , the ethnographer must b e concerned with a definition of com-
munity if the s t u d y is to follow s t u d e n t s into their home environments, o r
even if communities served by the school a r e viewed as background for
developrnent of t h e school. Communities served b y schools may have one
designation used in official maps, another known and used b y c u r r e n t
residents, and yet another known to former residents of that area who
have now moved to other locations in t h e same city. Communities rnay
38 1 CHILDREN I N A N D OUT OF SCHOOL

also be defined only with respect to neighborhoods in which s t u d e n t s live,

o r they may also be used to r e f e r to institutions that may o r may not be
locality-based ( e . g . , t h e Kiwanis Club) and yet e x e r t a s t r o n g influence
on particular school activities. Many of t h e community institutions may not
be structurally interrelated; yet ai1 impinge on t h e school.

M I C R O E T H N O G R A P H I C WORK

Since the beginning of anthropology, t h e r e has been an emphasis

on t h e holistic nature of culture and t h e need of t h e ethnographer to deal
"with t h e total range of human activity as socially determinedo' (Lowie 1960:
485). As anthropologists came to admit that t h e y could not do justice to
t h e whole r a n g e of t h e s e phenomena, t h e y urged collaboration, first with
biologists, chemists, and o t h e r s i n the " p u r e sciences" and gradually, with
o t h e r social scientists. For some anthropologists, a better way to repre-
s e n t t h e whole was to devise new techniques appropriate for t h e s t u d y of
t h e minutiae of parts of culture. Linguistics, t h e scientific s t u d y of lan-
guage, developed increasingly rigorous and precise techniques for describ-
ing t h e s t r u c t u r e s of languages. Anthropologists and o t h e r social scientists
have attempted to devise systems of description and anaiysis of equal rigor
and precision for other aspects of culture, s u c h as nonverbal communica-
tion, and social interaction. (For d-scussions of t h e s e methods, s e e Frake
1976; McDermott and Aron 1978; Erickson 1976.)
This need for finer and finer distinctions of what makes u p t h e whole
of culture for any social group haç led anthropologists to observe new
units of behavior and to deal separately with these in an effort to provide
adequate descriptions. Ideally, these pieces, s u c h as a lesson within a
classroom o r a conversation between teacher and principal, a r e so discrimi-
nated that resynthesis may at sonie point be possible to provide a com-
posite view of t h e whole. For t h e r e s e a r c h e r , however, these pieces a r e
"wholes," in that they have a s t r u c t u r e and rules of their own, and justi-
fication for revealing details of their composition, participants, s e t t i n g s ,
and rules lies in their shedding light on s u c h broader issues a s t h e rule-
governed n a t u r e of social behavior and questions of covert patterns of
exclusion.
Interactions within t h e school, s u c h as t h e lessons, athletic games,
composing activities, and reading Qrcles a r e t h e interdependent pieces
that go toward making up t h e cultural phenomena of t h e school. Each of
these activities has an organization and s e t s of r u l e s , overt and covert
( e . g . , McDermott 1977; Mehan 1978; articles by McDermott; by Mehan;
and b y Shultz, Florio, and Erickson, this volume). Often one group of
actors has one set of rules and operates according to this s e t ; other par-
ticipants have different s e t s of r u l e s and operate accordingly. Neither
recognizes that two s e t s of rules a r e in operation. In a11 situations, a
p a t t e r n of interaction and rules for roles played by t h e actors emerges
from a detailed account of the situation preserved in fieldnotes (and some-
times supplemented by videotape), so that t h e ethnographer can r e t u r n
again and again to the data for analysis. In traditionai field s e t t i n g s ,
anthropologists often gave descriptive accounts of tribal leaders' orations,
interaction of villagers in t h e marketplace, o r t h e reaction of community
members to t h e performance of medicine men. Recording these events for
dctailed analysis is no different from rccording analogous events in formal
educational s e t t i n g s , except that current methods make descriptions more
detailed t h a n before.
A critica1 point of microethiiographic work i s t h a t it be linked with
other typcs of research on schools o r classrooms. Ideally, microethno-
graphic work can contribute to comparative analyses of classrooms of t h e
same o r different t y p e s , to studies of schools of varying kinds, so that
- -
HEATH / Ethnooraphy in education 1 39

some reasonable sense of wholeness or comparison may emerge. The les-

çon, peer teaching interaction, composition class, o r any of the . . m e r o s
types of teaching situations (Stebbins 1975) suitable for analysisshould
not be separated in concept and in practice from ways this knowledge can
relate to other components of ethnographic research. 1s the lesson to b e
viewed as a field, that i s , simply a setting for research, or i s it a sample,
an illustration of a type; and if so, are the latter definitions carefully
established (cf. Arensberg 1961)?
To gain a dynamic view of education, we need to coordinate micro-
ethnography in the classroom with the s t u d y of communities and other
institutions related to the school. The continuum frorn cornmunity to
school, from school boards to schools past and present, shouid be units
of s t u d y that reveal processes of change. Without special attent on to the
need for a diachronic perspective, there i s the danger that resc:.r-h that
focuses on the minutiae of streams of behavior will seem to portray be-
havior in closed, fixed, repetitive frames. A given mod 3 of a c t i . ~ i t ywill
be viewed as reinforcing others in such a way a s to perpetuate i,tself with-
in the social organization of behavior. ExclÜsive focus on this t'ipe of
research reinforces the "fallacy of the ethnographic present" (Sn i t h 1962:
77). that i s , the belief that observed conditions are static and n,)t subject
to influences from beyond the immediacy of t h e social organizatioli of the
institutiinalized moments , e. g. , the lesson, space o r time routinr s , or
other teaching situations.

L I ~ N G U I S T I C I N V E S T I G A T I O N S '
~ t h n o ~ r a ~ h contemplating
ers work among tribes o r villages in
faraway placi?s usually did not speak t h e language of those they proposed
to study. T.herefore, they had to learn t h e language, and often they re-
corded it in 'written form for the first time. I n the s t u d y of forma1 edu-
cation in o u r own society, ethnographers would seem to speak the same
language and to s h a r e basic concepts and categories with t h e participants.
Yet, t h e specific terminology of schools and t h e ways of thought of teach-
ers and admhistrators enculturated through t h e rites of passage of
teacher1admi:iistrator training are often more different from those of daily
usage than would be expected. Many of the words a r e t h e same as those
used in normal discourse, yet their uses and meanings differ. For ex-
ample, t h e t e m "E designate" is used i n some schools to refer to students
who by standardized test performance have no prornise of successful aca-
demic achievement. In other schools, "E" i s a grade of excellent. The
ethnographer's task is to understand the practical dimensions of daily
language use in the school setting.
Classroom language is characterized b y a special "register" o r style
appropriate to teaching o r caregiving. As a conventional way of.speaking
used in particular situations, a register differs in intonation, vocabulary,
g r a m a t i c a l s t r u c t u r e , and accompanying nonverbal features frorn other
ways of speaking. The connected units that make up the "discourse" or
flow of speech in interactions in school settings often have particular
characteristics, especially as they occur in certain situations, s u c h as
lessons. Interpretation of the units of language is highly dependent on
the setting, social relations between speakers, and expectations of each
party. For example, many directives used in classrooms are either state-
ments ( " I can't talk until you're ready to quiet down") o r questions ("Why
don't you check t h e encyclopedia?"). AI1 of these, however, function not
a s isolated sentences, but as connected units dependent on prior and
subsequent units.
Folklore studies, traditionally a component of many ethnographies,
and in rnany cases, an extension, Iiave had the goal of recovering the
lore of t h e ?c?:<. jo::? verbal expressions and ways of integrating uses of
these e q r e s s i o n s into other aspects of behavior. Traditional tales, games,
myths, legends, songs, c h a n t s , v e r s e s , p r o v e r b s , riddles, and mnemonic
devices have been collected b y anthropologists. Many of these genres
exist in schools and a r e used by people across t h e boundaries of social
role and social situations. Schools often have a s e t of folklore typically
identified with t h e school, and legends, myths, riddles, jokes, and s o n g s
a r e carried on generation after generation. Some of these a r e known to
a11 members of the school, e . g . , t h e school song o r cheers; others a r e
known only t o certain groups within t h e school. For example, s t u d e n t s
usually pass on mnemonic devices and riddles unknown to teachers. T h e
use of these genres in connection with specific subject areas is particularly
important, since they often reflect values and dispositions unspecified in
written materials.
T h e organization and uses of written materials a r e particularly im-
portant for analysis by t h e ethnographer, since t h e y often contain hidden
expectations held for s t u d e n t s . For example, t h e relationship between
text and illustrations in textbooks across- subject areas varies greatly.
Reading texts at t h e primary leve1 usually contain illustrations that te11
more about what is happening than the text does. Children attuned to
studying pictures do better a t inferencing than s t u d e n t s not s o attuned.
Teachers a r e often unaware of the cues given i n illustrations for infer-
encing. Social studies texts often have "floating" illustrations, pictures
t h a t have no specific relationship t o the t e x t o t h e r t h a n providing a de-
tail that can be subsumed under a genaraiization proposed in t h e t e x t .
I n a chapter on industrialization, for exarnple, a picture of a steamboat
may appear; yet t h e r e i s no discussion of steamboats per se. I n another
c u l t u r e , ethnographers would be certain to note that in certain written
materials, illustrations repeated t h e text's message; in o t h e r s , they did
not. Because ethnographers s t u d y i n g formal educational systems in o u r
own society a r e familiar with textbooks, and they themselves adjust un-
knowingly to t h e discrepancies in text-illustration iinks across subjects,
they a r e unlikely to analyze t e x t s with t h e eye of a s t r a n g e r .

A N A L Y S I S O F A R T I F A C T S

One of t h e first s t e p s of ethnography is t o inventory t h e tangi-

ble objects used i n the range of activities of a social group. T h e forms
of these a r e described, and observations allow t h e ethnographer to deter-
mine their functions, particular aesthetic p a t t e r n s , spatial distribution,
and relationships t o s t a t u s rnaintenance and role behaviors. Ethnographic
studies in familiar settings of complex societies often given little attention
to artifacts, since t h e material items of a rnodern technological society a r e
so easily taken for granted by those socialized into that society.
Every school room i s filled with material culture, some old, some new.
Many of these artifacts may well be similar to those found in school rooms
decades ago. Other artifacts a r e more recent and some a r e similar to
itcms found in other institutions. Yet t h e artifacts and their arrangement
are often unfamiliar to many children entering school in t h e first grade.
These children must learn not only t h e names of these iterns, but also
rules for their use in specifically designated time and space blocks. Stu-
derits rarely question t h e function of these artifacts o r their arrangement
in time and space. For example, school d e s k s have a n appearance distinct
from a11 o t h e r desks. They a r e also arranged in many classrooms in
straiglit rows, and t h e d c s k of tlie teacher (not specifically a "school"
desk) i s placed at t h e front of a11 o t h e r desks. The functions of t h e desk
in this particular space a r e not clear: teachers rarely sit a t these desks
and talk t o t h e class as a whole. Instead. t h e teachers use the desk mos!
 HEATH / Ethnography i n educ* 1 41

often when s t u d e n t s a r e engaged i n s e a t work o r s t u d e n t s a r e not present

in t h e room. If t h e function of t h e d e s k at t h e front of t h e room i s to
s e e s t u d e n t s ( f o r example, to watch them d u r i n g a t e s t ) t h i s position for
this practice i s highly unusual. In o t h e r situations when one wants to
watch o t h e r s , o b s e r v e r s place themselves s o as not t o be s e e n b y those
being o b s e r v e d , o r , at t h e v e r y least, to b e as unobtrusive a s possible.
Placing t h e teacher's d e s k at t h e back of t h e room with s t u d e n t s ' desks
facing forward seems logical if one expects t h a t knowledge used i n similar
situations i s relevant to teachers observing s t u d e n t s i n t h e classroom.
This i s just one example of an occasion when rules for t h e use and p l a c e
rnent of material objects i n t h e world outside t h e classroom do not apply
i n t h e classroom. If an ethnographer were describing a group whose cul-
t u r e was unknown to him o r h e r , s u c h incongruities in behavior frorn one
setting to another would be noted.

W E A K N E S S E S A N D S T R E N G T H S
O F E T H N O C R A P H Y

T h e foregoing a r e only some of t h e techniques used in prepar-

ing full ethnograp;lies t h a t can b e adapted for ethnographic research in
formal education. Some methods of ethnography have been s u r r o u n d e d by
debates throughout t h e history of anthropology, and most of these debates
have pointed out particular weaknesses and s t r e n g t h s inherent in t h e
anthropologist's approach to ethnography.
"So what?" i s a question sometimes asked of t h e detailed descriptions
provided by anthropologists of minutiae. To what extent i s t h e material
and t h e s e n s e of a particular phenomenon developed for one social group
generalizable to other social g r o u p s ? T h e same question can certainly be
asked of studies of a single school o r classroom o r situation within a formal
education setting. How can classrooms, schools, o r situations for compari-
son b e determined? I n t h e selection of one school a s opposed to o t h e r
schools, t h e ethnographer must consider how what one finds i n that setting
is representative of what occurs in o t h e r schools, and how t h e results of
one ethnographic s t u d y can lead t h e ethnographer to explain t h e relation
of this school to o t h e r s .
This problem i s not unique to t h e s t u d y of formal education by
ethnographers o r social scientists. Those who c a r r y out community studies
have not yet determined a satisfactory typology of communities or expla-
nations of how t h e s t u d y of one community can b e generalized to others
(cf. Arensbeyg and Kimball 1965). Recent arguments revolve around ways
of locating community boundaries (Seiler and Summers 1974) and distin-
guishing community studies from locality studies (Stacey 1969). For t h e
community, t h e r e a r e often no recognizable boundaries; a community may
b e known by various names, and any one geographic t e r r i t o r y within a
specific community rnay be known as a community t o o t h e r groups.
Schools, on t h e other hand, do have geographic boundaries, and it is
predictable that numerous groups wiil be consistent i n t h e i r identification
of a school. T h e identification of p a r t s o r units of a single school and
constellations of schools i s much more uncertain, however. What is i t t h a t
we have to s e e to know what a school i s a11 a b o u t ? What can eth-logra-
phers report that will help them identify o t h e r schools of a similar t y p e
as well as describe a particular school? How much new information does
each ethnographic s t u d y of a school provide t h a t can be related to t h e
expenences of t h e past and provide any predictive value for t h e f u t u r e ?
Most social scientists agree that evaluation i n education r e s e a r c h has had
much more prominence than have process s t u d i e s detailing innovations
and other t y p e s of changes. Therefore, what can ethnography contribute
to estimations of social change processes i n formal education? These a r e
 42 / CHILDKEN 1N AND OUT OF SCHOOL

r all questions related to the issue of the generalizability of ethnographic

studies.
Another seemingly inherent weakness of ethnography i s that it has
traditionally claimed to d o everything and to do i t with objectivity. In
actuality, a11 anthropologists know that no completely holistic s t u d y of a
culture exists and that by definitior , ;uch a s t u d y i s impossible. One
cannot recreate the whole of a culture i n an ethnography; therefore, t h e
concept of holism i s a guiding concept, one t h a t holds out for anthro-
pologists t h e constant reminder of t h e interdependent n a t u r e of c u l t u r e ,
which is indeed greater than thc sum of i t s p a r t s . Similarly, anthro-
pologists cannot be eiitirely objective in their studies. T h e constant goal
of leaving aside value judginents i s again a guiding principle, one that
forces ethnographers to evaluate both t h e methods and t h e content of
their studies in terms of this ideal. T h e ever-present cal1 to value-free
research has created, ironically, yet another weakness in ethnography--
the absence of detailed attention to values, ethics, and morality i n de-
scriptions of cultures. Relatively few ethnographies provide descriptions
of these topics that can be used in comparaTive analyses (Bidney 1953;
Edel 1962).
T h e comparative perspective of anthropology, particularly of eth-
nology, i s yet another guiding rationale of anthropology. I t , too, has
not produced as much a s it has promised. Ethnology feeds on ethnogra-
p h y , because i t has to do with t h e description and interpretive analysis
of t h e cultural characteristics of diverse human groups. Ethnologists
analyze the ethnographies of cultures (generally those of a particular
region), and attempt to explain similarities a n d differences, to point out
the distinct paths leading to comparable behavior traits in different social
groups. Principles of borrowing, invention, diffusion, and other methods
of social change a r e drawn from the comparative s t u d y of cultures.
Ethnology, through i t s broad comparative s u r v e y s of human cultures,
past and p r e s e n t , is often said to help explain processes of change a n d
ways i n which c u r r e n t complex diversities evolved.
T h e r e i s , however, relatively little ethnology for present-day cul-
t u r e s of t h e United States. Ethnographies of communities a r e not
abundant enough to permit the development of ethnologies. Ethnographic
studies of schools and classrooms a r e neither nurnerous nor consistent
cnough to allow comparative analyses.
A relatively recent rnethodological and theoretical trend in ethnogra-
phy may show the same divergence between ideal and real that the goals
of holism, objectivity, and cross-cultural comparison have shown. This
i s t h e tendency among anthropologists to break apart portions of t h e field
of cthnography, to develop new terms, and to apply these to t h e s t u d y
of specific aspects of culture. Anthropologists have proposed s u c h terms
as ethnography of speaking (Hymes 1964), ethnography of writing (Basso
19741, and ethnography o í literacy (Szwed 1981). What has not been
realized by subsequent researchers using these titles to describe their
studies i s that t h e original proposers coined these terms to emphasize t h e
nccd to include spcaking, writing. and literacy in ethnographies, not to
u r g e an exclusivc focus on these aspects of culture. Anthropologists
proposing tliese tcrins urgcd a n cxtension of research by ethnographers
and linguists, not a restriction. T h e explanation used for proposing t h e
ethnography of communication often seems forgotten in t h e pieces of lan-
guage behavior described as "ethnographies of speaking":

T h e needed term must be one not only for coordinating lan-

guage with other t h i n g s , o r for suggesting a portion of t h e
range of problerns, but one of general scope. For anthro-
pologists and anthropologically minded investigators from
 HEATH 1 Ethnography in education 1 4 3

o t h e r disciplines, ethnography of communication seems L est to

indicate t h e necessary scope, and to convey and encoulage t h e
fundamental contribution t h e y best can make: studies c thno-
graphic in basis, and of communication i n t h e scope anc kind
of patterned complexity with which t h e y deal.

. ..! s u c h an approach ...

must t a k e a s context a cc'mmunity
invtstigating i t s communicative habits a s a whole, so t h ~ any t
giv2n use of channel and code t a k e s i t s place a s but p a r t of
thel resources upon which t h e members of t h e cornrnunity draw.

F a c r t s of the cultural values and beliefs, social institutions and

forms, roles and personalities, history and ecology of a com-
munity must be examined together in relation t o communicative
events and p a t t e r n s as focus of s t u d y ( j u s t a s e v e r y aspect of
a cc>mmunity's life may b e brought selectively t o bear on t h e
s t u l y of a focus s u c h a s kinship, s e x , o r conflict). (Hymes
1964:2-3)

Thus f a r , ethnographies of speaking have not achieved t h e goals of com-

prehensiveness o r consideration of holistic context proposed h e r e . They
have tended to cover specific a c t s , e v e n t s , and situations within specific
interactions, and t h e r e a r e as yet only programmatic statements on t h e
methodology of t h e ethnography of communication.
I £ ethnography has a11 these weaknesses, what a r e i t s s t r e n g t h s ?
Why a r e educators interested in having ethnographic methods applied in
education r e s e a r c h ? Much traditional r e s e a r c h i n education has been
quantitative, global, sociodemographic, and dependent on large-scale
comparisons of rnany different schools, o r i t has been experimental,
based on studies of selected groups operating in controlled s e t t i n g s .
Terms s u c h as i n p u t , o u t p u t , accountability, and management have
characterized many of these reports. I n p u t factors (independent vari-
ables) have been said to influence, predict, o r determine o u t p u t factors
(dependent variables). Pieces of data about social g r o u p s , s u c h a s num-
ber of siblings, income of p a r e n t s , time of mother-child interactions in
pre-school experiences, have been correlated with t h e o u t p u t of s t u d e n t s
expressed in test s c o r e s , subsequent income, and continued schooiing.
T h e efíects of formal instruction have been evaluated by correlating these
input factors with educational o u t p u t . Gradually, many educators have
bcgun to realize that large-scale s u r v e y s , correlational s t u d i e s , and ex-
clusively quantitative studies do not provide actual d a t a about e v e n t s
either in t h e classroorn o r t h e communities of s t u d e n t s and t e a c h e r s .
Moreover, their findings a r e often used to predict t h e acadernic f u t u r e of
certain groups of s t u d e n t s . Used in these ways, t h e y reinforce stereo-
types and easy generalizations about abilities of s t u d e n t s , t h e inability of
"others" to f i t , and t h e disintegration of family and community life. They
often allow already overworked teachers and principals to have "reasons"
for closing off innovations and options i n instructional methods and evalu-
ation techniques.
Recognizing these limitations of traditional methods of educational re-
s e a r c h , some educators have begun to s e e t h e merits of ethnographic
research in supplementing o t h e r t y p e s of research. T h e major emphasis
from within education circles has been to use ethnographic methods in
evaluating programs. Some groups involved in education r e s e a r c h , s u c h
as education laboratories and research c e n t e r s , a r e somewhat cautious
about ethnographic research in education because t h e y recognize t h a t in
4 4 / CHILDREN IN AND OUT OF SCHOOL

addition to t h e weaknesses noted above, ethnographic methods offer o t h e r

problems in comparison to traditional methods of education research. Eth-
nographic methods to be used i n a s t u d y cannot be specifically spelled out
i n research proposals; p a r t of t h e s t r e n g t h of ethnography depends on i t s
interactive-adaptive nature. T h e r e s e a r c h e r , interacting with t h e group
being s t u d i e d , acquires d a t a that enable t h e adaptation of methods of in-
q u i r y to t h e situation. Ethnographic r e s e a r c h does not lend itself to being
categorized, tabulated, o r correlated, and i t will not necessarily identify
specific indicators that predict success of either progrâms o r s t u d e n t s .
I n s h o r t , ethnographic research does not ni2et t h e criteria of traditional
research i n education in either methodology, format, o r r e s u l t s . I t cannot
be carried out i n a brief time period. I t does not generalize t h e findings
from one setting to another without comparable work elsewhere. I t does
not fit neatly into c u r r e n t calls for efficient, business-like approaches to
education, and i t will not specify discrete noncontextualized factors t h a t
may lead t o improving either schools o r - s t u d e n t s .
From t h e point of view of anthropology and e t h n o g r a p h y , these weak-
nesses a r e t h e s t r e n g t h s of ethnographic methods. T h e validity of ab-
s t r a c t representations of human behavior must r e s t on reality founded on
disciplined observation and analysis. Ethnography provides an empirical
d a t a base, obtained t h r o u g h immersion of t h e r e s e a r c h e r i n t h e ways of
living of t h e group. This irnmersion allows perception of t h e interde-
pendence of p a r t s and also permits frequent r e t u r n s to t h e data. T h e
descriptive power, t h e abiiity to incorporate in d a t a t h e form, function,
and context of t h e behavior of a specific social g r o u p , and retention of
t h e data for considered and repetitive analysis a r e t h e major s t r e n g t h s of
ethnography. Ethnographic data can often help provide t h e context for
expanded interpretations of s t u d i e s done by o t h e r researchers.
Correlational studies ( e . g . , low scores on reading t e s t s and low
socioeconomic class) can be amplified b y ethnographic work. For exarnple,
an ethnographic s t u d y of a specific low socioeconomic group may reveal
that reading scores correlate not only with economic level, but also with
the d e g r e e to which reading i s relevant to group membership, s t a t u s
achievement, work opportunities, and retention of cultural values for t h e
group as a whole. Ideally s u c h contextual evidence for specific communi-
ties helps educators reexamine school values for literacy i n terms of how
they can be related to home and community values. Another explanation
of the correlation might be found in an ethnographic s t u d y of reading
circles done through videotape analysis ( c f . McDermott and Cospodinoff
1979). If certain s t u d e n t s have less eye contact, verbal interaction, and
time of dii-ect reading instruction than o t h e r s , t h e s e factors may contribute
more to reading failure than socioeconomic factors.
I n essence, ethnography i s t h e background tapestry--busily detailed,
secmingly chaotic; however, upon closer look, i t reveals p a t t e r n s , and
with repeated s c r u t i n y , i t may reveal yet o t h e r p a t t e r n s . Upon this
t a p e s t r y may be placed t h e s t u d i e s of o t h e r s , psychologists, political
scientists, and sociologists, i n an effort to explain as fully a s possible
factors that help determine educational success o r failure. Perhaps more
important than an emphasis on success o r failure i s t h e power of ethno-
graphic s t u d i e s to ,provide d a t a from w!ich we may determine t h e princi-
ples that explain t h e processes of stability and change. Only by knowing
the context provided by t h e ethnohistorical p a s t , and by having a n ade-
quate accounting of t h e individuals, activities, and relationships involved
in t h e events of formal education can r e s e a r c h e r s know t h e interna1 and
externa1 conditions that relate to processes of change.
Ethnography , because it i s descriptive, has a highly individualized
and particularistic cluality about it that provides vivid details and con-
c r e t e n e s s , and allows readcrs to identify with situations described.
 HEATH I Ethnography in education 1 45

Unlike correlational o r experimental s t u d i e s t h a t provide hypotheses and

predictions, ethnographic descriptions have t h e quality of reaiity and un-
deniability. If one i s a member of a group being d e s c r i b e d , a n d actions
that have not before been recognized a r e d e s c r i b e d , o n e i s forced t o ad-
mit actions, to d r o p rationalizations, and to challenge t h e conflict between
ideals and realities of behavior (Heath 1978). T h e s e characteristics a r e
particularly irnportant when education r e s e a r c h i s being considered by
state s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s , district s u p e r v i s o r s , principais , a n d teachers i n
the formulation of programs o r in new considerations of past practices.
Those i n t h e day-to-day action of teaching a n d providing environments
for learning need detailed descriptions of those practices and programs
that worked o r failed to work, and t h e conditions o r contexts t h a t
created change for s t u d e n t s and programs. Kroeber (1957) a s s e r t e d :

What t h e ethnographer i s alone i n doing within t h e "social

sciences," and almost alone i n anthropology ...
i s two
things. He t e n d s to envisage his problems o r objectives
holistically; and h e p r e f e r s to acquire his d a t a b y holistic
contact, person to p e r s o n , face t o face, b y word of mouth
plus 'his own observations. ( : 193)

. .. t h e e t h n o g r a p h e r makes h i s documents a s h e works.

He knows their occasion and context, h e can more o r less
judge their bias, he can extend o r r e d u c e t h e scope of his
i n q u i r y , he can r e t u r n with f r e s h i n s i g h t to recommence
i t . (:194)

These s t r e n g t h s a r e of immense importance to educators wt.0, because t h e y

must make decisions for practice in t h e r e a l world, need descriptivc n a r r a -
tives and analyses derived from d a t a t h a t may help r e s e a r c h e r s answer as
completely a s possible t h e question "what i s happening?" (McDermott and
Aron 1978).

L I T E R A C Y : C O M M U N I T Y T O
S C H O O L - - P R O P O S A L F O R
A S T U D Y

In what ways might ethnographic s t u d i e s provide an ansuler to

this question for a particular topic i n specific s e t t i n g s ? T h e foregoing
discussion has indicated that t h e r e a r e numerous s e t t i n g s for ethnographic
s t u d i e s , each making contributions to building a compreher.sive viet:, of
education. Therefore, t h e s t u d y proposed h e r e is for illustrative p u r -
poses only, and many o t h e r varieties of ethnographic s t u d i e s a r e pc:>ssible.
The o n e chosen h e r e takes t h e community a s t h e focus, primarily to in-
volve r e a d e r s in considering how knowledge about u s e s of literacy :n
community s e t t i n g s rnay be useful for comparison with d a t a about tf e uses
and functions of reading and writing skills i n schools. Within t h e :Jnited
S t a t e s , community s t u d i e s have r a r e l y been used i n iucation r e s e a r c h ;
t h e focus has been almost e.:clusively o n t h e school a n d i t s s u b u n i t j .
F r e q u e n t l y , t h ~ s eunits have been termed cultures i n a n d of themsctlves;
little attention has been given to t h e fact t h a t t h e s e s o a o c u l t u r a l u-lits
have few charai:teristics of t h e culture-bearing human g r o u p s traditionally
studied by e t h n o g r a p h e r s . Schools and classrooms r a r e l y h a v e cross-
generational sejf-identification, and their " c u l t u r e , " i . e . , a r t i f a c t s , values,
and ways of bc-having, i s largely dependent on external forces (school
b o a r d s , teachei-training institutions, t e x t and t e s t publishers) . The
relative d e g r e e and t y p e of external force on schools a s opposed to
46 / CHILDREN IN AND OUT OF SCHOOL

classrooms has been t h e province of social historians, and a topic ignored

b y ethnographers. Little is known of t h e conditions that define and re-
inforce t h e character of certain classrooms.
Cornmunities , however, a r e specific culture-bearing human groups
with in-group recognition established through cultural transmission across
generations. These a r e appropriate for s t u d y i n g education, both because
they include and interact with the school and because they a r e t h e locus
of enculturation forces (families, churches, voluntary associations) t h a t
exist apart from t h e school. Therefore, cultural transmission within t h e
community involves t h e reciproca1 influences of school and community a s
well as child socialization in primary g r o u p s , s u c h as the family. Much of
t h e relatively recent work in communities has been sociolinguistic ( e . g . ,
Labov 1966, 1972; Wolfram 1969), describing t h e language and ways of
talking these s t u d e n t s brought to school. T h e popular p r e s s and some
teacher-training materials have occasionally overgeneralized conclusions
from these studies to explain how the language forms and functions of
groups included in thesc sociolinguistic studies contributed to the school
failure of a11 members of specific ethnie o r racial groups. T h e growing
emphasis on "multicultural education" has made teachers anxious for
rnaterials on culture differences beyond those of food, music, and holidays.
T h u s , eye contact, t h e pimp walk, ritual i n s u l t s , and characteristics of
intirnate space usage came to be handy additions to teachers' presentations
of the cultural inventories of ethnic and racial groups. T h e r e i s , there-
fore, a need for cornmunity s t u d i e s that will help educators have more data
on culture a s both a r t and artifact, as ways of doing things (such as
learning to read or categorize ideas) a s well a s material items made, ac-
q u i r e d , and used.
Proposed here a r e t h e b a r e outlines of only one type of cross-cultural
longitudinal project s e t in communities of t h e United States. T h e goal i s
to illustrate how ethnographic research can provide data about ways of be-
coming literate, specific areas of knowledge about reading and writing,
and cultural items that a r e employed b y community mernbers in teaching
and using literacy. A group of four ethnographer tearns would meet to
draw up an outline of ethnographic field methods and questions to be di-
rected to literacy. Four communities that had in-group recognition of
themselves a s comrnunities would be selected; ideally, four schools t h a t
mernbers of these communities attend would also be chosen. Each team
would go to one specific community. One member of t h e team in each
site would initially work only i n t h e comrnunity outside t h e school, t h e
o t h e r member would work in t h e selected school. Prior to work i n either
community o r school, ethnographers would s t u d y a11 available documents
and ethnohistorical data. After an initial period in which t h e r e would b e
no contact betwecn teain mcmbers in each s i t e , they would meet to formu-
late new questions by sharing data; following t h a t , team mernbers could
switch positions, t h e ethnographer originally in t h e community now work-
ing in t h e school, and vice versa. This switch would allow team rnernbers
to test perceptions and to verify adequacy of d a t a collection. During
t h e final period of t h c field s t u d y , teams from a11 s i t e s would come to-
gethcr to develop a cornparative framework before returning to the field
for cornpletion of t h c research. The final report would b e prepared by
rncrnbers of each t e m , and sumrnary findings on culture p a t t e r n s in com-
munities and schools would indicate p a t t e r n s that promote o r r e t a r d
motivations for literacy--both i t s acquisition and retention. This kind o f
comparative approach would ideally help contribute to a typology of
schools and a n ethnology of communities.
What kinds of questionç might t h e ethnographers bear in mind a s
they collected d a t a ? What knowledge about literacy would help focus
these cluestions? Traditionril anthropological approaches to literacy a r c
 HEATH / Ethnography in education / 47

iilustrated b y t h e work of Kroeber (19481, who talked of literacy and i t s

spread with respect to distinguishing two t y p e s of societies, preliterate
and literate. Goody (1968, 1977) posited a similar kind of dichotomy be-
tween literate and nonliterate individuals, maintaining t h a t literate indi-
v i d u a l ~have particular ways of knowing, perceiving, and categorizing
reality. T h e functions of literacy implied in t h e s e societal approaches to
literacy have become t h e guiding rationale of educational and ecoxomic
institutions of complex societies. T h e assurnption has been t h a t learning
to read and write does something not just to what people know b u t t o how
they will go about knowing t h i n g s . Coordinate with t h e view t h a t literacy
makes individuals and groups think differently i s t h e view t h a t literacy
brings economic advancement , benevolent attitudes , critical facuities , and
logical thinking. The recent work of social historians ( e . g . , Lockndge
1974; Stone 19691, psychologists ( S c r i b n e r and Cole 1981), and anthro-
pologists (Basso 1974; Szwed 1981; Heath 1981) challenges t h e s e traditional
assuinptions--economic , social and cognitive--about literacy . T h e challenge
of t h e s e scholars ( a n d an overview of r e s e a r c h on-literacy in multilingual
societies in Ferguson 1978) s u g g e s t s that t h e s t u d y of literacy using eth-
nohistorical and ethnographic approaches i s critically needed.
I n t h e hypothetical s t u d y proposed here as one of t h e possible ap-
proaches to an ethnographic s t u d y of iiteracy, a first s t e p would be col-
lection of artifacts of literacy, descriptions of contexts of u s e s , and their
spatial and temporal distribution within t h e life of members of t h e com-
munity. T h e interna1 style of each artifact and t h e abilities of those who
produce these should be considered p a r t of t h i s context. How a r e these
artifacts presented to children? What activities and explanations s u r r o u n d
their use? Do questions directed t o children about t h e s e artifacts empha-
size t h e acquisition of labels and description of d i s c r e t e c h a r a c t e n s t i c s of
items? Are t h e r e links made between t h e s e representations and uses of
their real-world equivalents? An indication of t h e value of observing
interactions with literacy artifacts i s s u g g e s t e d b y t h e difference in adult-
child verbal exchanges which occurred in a community in which pictures
drawn by children in kindergarten and first grade classes were collected
in books for use by adults with young children (Heath, forthcoming).
When adults attempted to relate t o t h e s e "books," t h e y were forced t o a s k
real questions of t h e children about t h e objects, e v e n t s , and a t t i t u d e s de-
picted, because t h e adults could not u n d e r s t a n d t h e children's drawings.
T h e young children responded with lengthy descriptions and n a r r a t i v e s ,
not with jingle-word answers o r labels. When a d u l t s chose books made
by adults for children, and used t h e s e when reading with children, adults
knew a11 t h e answers. However, when adults used books made b y chil-
d r e n , children knew a11 t h e answers, and children's language was much
expanded over t h a t produced when commercially p r e p a r e d books were used
Implications from this kind of detailed observation of t h e uses of
literacy artifacts a r e reinforced in Ninio and B r u n e r (1978) reporting on
labeling in parent-child dialogue cycles. I n t h e introduction t o t h e s t u d y ,
t h e authors make t h e general statement t h a t "book reading is t h e major
acti-vity in which labelling occurs" ( : 3 ) , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t this i s a univer-
sal characteristic among social groups. However, some groups d o not
teach labeling a s an isolated linguistic activity linked with book reading;
their young a r e expected t o learn t h e names of objects and activities
from their use in contexts, and only when children a s k t h e name of
something do parents offer labels (Heath, forthcoming). Schooling d o e s ,
however, make book reading t h e major activity in which labeling occurs.
Therefore, for s t u d e n t s who learn labeling t h r o u g h adult-child interactions
with books, t h e r e is a critical fit promoting t h e acquisition of specific
reading skills. For s t u d e n t s from communities i n which labeling is not
learned in book reading, we need to know how labels a r e learned, what
48 1 CHlLDREN IN AND OUT OF SCHOOL

discourse s u r r o u n d s their introduction, and how inferencing skills a r e

taught. Specifically, in what proportion and i n which circumstances do
labeling o r specific directions for inferencing strategies occur? Are t h e r e
ways of learning labeling that do not relate t o books, which might be
transferred to schools as methods of expanding approaches to instruction
for a11 s t u d e n t s ?
Related questions a r e those asking how t h e cornmunity verifies norms
for producing and using written materials. For example, if an item ap-
pears only in writing i n a community and its topic has not been intro-
duced orally, what will t h e reception of that item be? Will t h e form of
t h e item make a difference? Will t h e r e be a s e a r c h for verification, e. g . ,
contact with individuals o r institutions that might be associated with the
item, o r will community members rely on o t h e r literate sources to verify
i t s usefulness ( e . g . , book reviews)? What a r e t h e ways w n t t e n materials
a r e used, ranging from product names to books? For example, how is t h e
name of a new product unknown to -community members learned? 1 s it
through reading t h e label, television advertising, recommendations b y
other members of the community, o r by analogy to a similar item? When
do oral directions or analogous experience take precedence o v e r written
messages? 1s there discontinuity between adults and children i n t h e use
of product directions? If t h e r e a r e discontinuities, a r e t h e r e rationales
that attempt to explain t h e s e away? For example, if a child attempts to
put a toy together o r play a game without reading t h e directions, does
the parent scold? Yet if t h e parent does not read t h e directions for
putting together a new t y p e of flashlight, and this is pointed out by t h e
child, a r e there appropriate rejoinders by t h e parent s u c h a s "Do a s I
s a y , not a s I d o " ? 1s reading for inforrnation held up as an ideal by t h e
parent, yet not practiced?
O t h e r aspects of t h e purposes of literacy alço involve t h e total
spectrum of t h e ways of living of a group. 1s it appropriate to respond
to reading emotively o r primarily in terms of information? Do community
rnembers talk most frequently about reading done for instrumental pur-
poses ( e . g . , to learn about a job possibility) o r to gain information i n a
broad s e n s e with no specific predetermined purpose (newspaper) o r for
pleasure (comics)? What is the extent of self-conscious knowledge about
literacy in t h e community? When n c s t of tne rnembers of a cornmunity a r e
not literate, what happens to those individuals who do become literate?
Are their services incorporated into community needs, ignored, deprecated,
or seen to relate only to t h a t individual's iife outside the community? 1s
t h e acquisition of literacy by an individual seen prirnarily as a social in-
d e x o r ev'idence of individual efforts?
T h e tools of t h e ethnoscientist (an anthropologist especially i n t e r -
ested in the determination of categories by rnembers of a social group) a r e
cspccially uscful in literacy-rclatcd issucs both within t h e community and
the classroom. For example, taxonomies of reading derived from com-
munity members, from a teacher, and from s t u d e n t s a r e often v e r y differ-
ent. A taxonomy of reading elicited from a teacher may include only read-
ing that has been assigned, is from a textbook, o r is relegated to a spe-
cilic spacc and time ( c .g . , circlc reading, free reading). I n community
s e t t i n g s , children may provide more items in their taxonomy of reading,
and their bases of division may include s u c h headings as materials, pur-
poses, and settings. Materiais ( i . e . , what people r e a d ) rnay include
minds, s i g n s , pictures, t h e s k y , i e t t e r s , books, funnies, house numbers,
prices, etc. Inside a classroorn, children may give only a v e r y restricted
taxonomy of reading, such as books, workbooks, clock, and board, and
purposes related only to tcacher-directed activities. Taxonomies a r e use-
ful primarily as they can be related to ways in which they a r e derived.
T h u s t h e contexts of learning and using terms for categories within t h e
 HEATH I Ethnography i n education / 49

taxonomies would be essential to e t h n o g r a p h e r s a s t h e y o b s e r v e d within

both t h e school and t h e community.

E T H N O C R A P H E R S A N D E D U C A T O R S
a A S R E S E A R C H P A R T N E R S

I t may be helpful to r e a d e r s if I make e x p l i u t t h e experience

out of which t h e view of ethnography p r e s e n t e d h e r e comes, and t h e
audience of r e a d e r s envisioned. T h e experience of being a public school
t e a c h e r , anthropologist, and educator t r y i n g to b r i d g e t h e gap between
t h e world of university training a n d r e s e a r c h a n d t h a t of public education
i s reflected here. With t h e background of being a public school teacher
i n a multicultural s e t t i n g i n t h e United S t a t e s , I d i d anthropological field-
work i n communities and schools of Mexico. Following +hese e x p e r i e n c e s ,
I attempted to bring both roles together a s a n educator p a r t i c i ~ a t i n gi n
training teachers and helping public school personnel develop policies and
practices for multicultural s t u d e n t populations i n t h e United S t a t e s . T h e
audience addressed h e r e i s t h e r e f o r e both educators and anthropologists;
ethnography i n educational r e s e a r c h today should make s e n s e t o both
groups. Anthropologists must not feel t h e y have to c h a n g e o r lower
s t a n d a r d s for educational research. Educators should not have to feel
t h a t anthropology and ethnography a r e too esoteric, detailed, and r e -
moved from reality to b e of use i n t h e i r decision making.
Many of t h e views expressed h e r e a r e d r a w n i n l a r g e p a r t from t h e
experience of tracing t h e footsteps of anthropologists and l i n g ~ : s t si n
Mexico who had w n t t e n ethnographies about communities t h e r e . I n many
cases, either these anthropologists o r t h e i r s t u d e n t s had used information
from t h e s e s t u d i e s to influence educational policy making a t nati,onal and
regional levels. T h e s e ethnographies (cf. Redfield 1930, 1941, 1955; Red-
field and Villa Rojas 1934) traced t h e history of t h e community i n d de-
tailed i n a d e s c n p t i v e account t h e language and c u l t u r e of t h e Zroup.
T h r o u g h a p e n o d of months, and sometimes y e a r s , e t h n o g r a p h e r s came
t o know t h e methods of self-identification held b y t h e g r o u p s arid t h e
values, beliefs, and behaviors of group members of different gc'nerations
and sexes. T h e r e f o r e , when this information wa - used i n deter'mining
educational policies and 3ractices ( c f . Caso, e t ai. 1954, 1964; Aguirre
Beltrán 1957; d e la Fuente 1964), community norms and needs a , e r e re-
flected. ~ l j euses of anthropological and linguistic s t u d i e s i n elucational
planning hajve differed in t h e various administrations of Mexican govern-
ment i n the' p a s t half c e n t u r y (Heath 1972), b u t increasingly since t h e
19401s, edusators have provided for and paid s e r i o u s attention to com-
munity stuciies i n planning education; t e a c h e r s and local commuility per-
sonnel havc often played significant roles i n recommending programs,
practices, and personnel.
T h e multicultural n a t u r e of Mexican schooling has been recognized for
decades. Within t h e United S t a t e s , t h e multicultural n a t u r e of communi-
ties s e r v e d b y public education has only recently become an e x p r e s s e d
concern anc. t h u s a n impetus for change in educational processes. Uni-
versity teacher-training programs , r e s e a r c h laboratories and c e n t e r s , a n d
policy makers a t local and national levels h a v e r e c e n t l y caiied for citizen
advisory b o a r d s , citizen participation, and i n p u t from communities i n a
form t h a t could be used i n planning educational changes. T h e Mexican
experience seemed a useful one for schools and communities of t h e United
States. Therefore, d u n n g t h e past seven y e a r s , a s a n educator and
anthropologist, I worked in schools and communities of t h e Piedmont re-
gion of North and South Carolina, attempting to incorporate t h e most
successful aspects of anthropological and linguistic fieldwork i n Mexico
in educational planning i n this s e t t i n g . T e a c h e r s , administrators,
48 / CHILDREN IN AND OUT OF SCHOOL

discourse s u r r o u n d s their introduction, and how inferencing skills a r e

taught. Specifically, in what proportion and i n which circumstances do
labeiing o r specific directions for inferencing strategies o c c u r ? Are t h e r e
ways of learning labeling t h a t do not relate t o books, which might b e
t r a n s f e r r e d t o schools as methods of expanding approaches to instruction
for a11 s t u d e n t s ?
Related questions a r e those asking how t h e community verifies norms
for producing and using written materials. For example, if an item ap-
pears only in writing in a community and i t s topic has not been intro-
duced orally, what will t h e reception of t h a t item b e ? Will t h e form of
t h e item make a difference? Will t h e r e be a search for verification, e . g . ,
contact with individuals o r institutions t h a t might be associated with t h e
item, o r will community inembers rely on o t h e r iiterate sources to verify
i t s usefulness ( e . g. , book reviews) ? What a r e t h e ways written materialç
a r e used, ranging from product names to books? For example, how i s t h e
name of a new product unknown to community members learned? 1s i t
through reading t h e label, television advertising, recommendations by
o t h e r members of t h e community, o r by analogy to a similar item? When
do oral directions or analogous experience t a k e precedence over written
messages? 1s there discontinuity between adults and children i n t h e use
of product directions? If t h e r e a r e discontinuities, a r e t h e r e rationales
that attempt to explain t h e s e away? For example, if a child attempts to
put a toy together o r play a game without reading t h e directions, does
t h e parent scold? Yet if t h e parent does not read t h e directions for
putting together a new type of flashlight, and this is pointed out by t h e
child, a r e there appropriate rejoinders by t h e parent s u c h a s "Do as I
s a y , not a s I d o " ? 1s reading for information held up as an ideal by t h e
p a r e n t , yet not practiced?
Other aspects of t h e purposes of literacy alço involve t h e total
spectrum of t h e ways of living of a group. 1s it appropriate t o respond
to reading emotively o r primarily in terms of information? Do community
members talk most frequently about reading done for instrumental pur-
poses ( e . g . , to learn about a job possibility) o r to gain information in a
broad s e n s e with no specific predetermined purpose (newspaper) o r for
pleasure (comics)? What i s the extent of self-conscious knowledge about
iiteracy in t h e community? When a c s t of tne members of a community a r e
not literate, what happens to those individuals who do become literate?
Are their services incorporated into community n e e d s , ignored, deprecated,
o r seen to relate only to t h a t individual's life outside t h e community? 1s
t h e acquisition of literacy by an individual seen primarily a s a social in-
dex o r ev'idence of individual efforts?
T h e tools of t h e ethnoscientist ( a n anthropologist especially i n t e r -
ested in t h e determination of categories by members of a social group) a r e
cspccially uscful in literacy-relatcd issues both within t h c community and
the classroom. For example, taxonomies of reading derived from com-
munity members, from a teacher, and from s t u d e n t s a r e often v e r y differ-
ent. A taxonomy of reading elicited from a teacher may include only read-
ing that has been assigned, is from a tcxtbook, o r i s relegated to a spe-
ciíic space and time ( c . g . , circlc reading, free reading) . I n cominunity
s e t t i n g s , children may provide more items in their taxonomy of reading,
and their bases of division may include s u c h headings a s materials, pur-
poses, and settings. Materiais ( i . e . , what people read) may include
minds, s i g n s , pictures, t h e s k y , l e t t e r s , books, funnies, house numbers,
prices, etc. Inside a classroom, children may give only a v e r y restricted
taxonomy of reading, s u c h a s books, workbooks, clock, and board, and
purposes related only to teacher-directed activities. Taxonomies a r e use-
ful primarily as they can be related to ways i n which they a r e derived.
T h u s t h e contexts of learning and using terms for categories within t h e
50 1 CHLLDREN IN AND OUT OF SCHOOL

p a r e n t s , and community leaders became involved in various aspects of t h e

process. During t h e s e y e a r s , we worked together to use ethnographic
findings from two closed communities (one black, t h e o t h e r transitional
Southern Appalachian) of similar socioeconomic and occupational s t a t u s to
help make formal schooling work for t h e s e groups. My own focus and
methodology in the communities was that of traditional ethnographer:
observerlparticipant interacting with members of t h e communities in a s
many different daily activities as possible. T h e same t y p e of participantl
observation techniques was used in classrooms , schools , comrnunity s e r -
vice c e n t e r s , and vocational s e t t i n ã s d u r i n g portions of t h e s t u d y . T h e
topical focus was language learning and language u s e within t h e communi-
t i e s , schools, and service o r work institutions. Given ethnographic and
linguistic data about t h e s e communities and intensive training i n ethno-
graphic and socioiinguistic field methods, teachers and adrninistrators
collected instances of cultural fit and conflicts in learning s t y l e s , lan-
guage u s e s , respect behaviors, time and s p a c e usage, a n d o t h e r aspects
of culture. T h e teachers applied knowledge gained from t h e ethnographic
data of t h e communities to devise new s t r a t e g i e s of classroom interaction,
to revise t e s t s and instructional materials, and to reorganize s p a c e and
time usage in schools and offices. T h e y rewrote units for reading and
social s t u d i e s , handbooks for school v o l u n t e e r s , and mini-textbooks based
on ethnography of speaking r e s e a r c h they conducted i n their own insti-
tutional s e t t i n g s ( c f . Cuinness and Heath 1974; Holland 1974). T h e y ex-
tended t h e concepts, materials, and methods of ethnography t h r o u g h t h e
workshops and in-service training programs they provided fellow workers
in t h e region.
I n t h e late 1960s and early 1970s, standardized t e s t s and sociodemo-
graphic correlational studies dubbed many of t h e children of t h e Piedmont
Carolinas as low in academic achievement and potential. T h e overriding
concern of t h e educational establishment became knowledge of how home
and community experiences formed t h e linguistic, cognitive, and cultural
behavior p a t t e r n s of children. Initially, t h e focus centered on knowing
how t h e s e p a t t e r n s were formed in pre-school experiences, b u t gradually,
the focus shifted to all out-of-school experiences, as teachers and ad-
ministrators came increasingly to recognize t h e role community iife played
in s u p p o r t i n g o r denying school goals. For example, if s t u d e n t s came
from a community in which 80% of t h e r e s i d e n t s worked in textile mills and
never used writing skills of any t y p e i n their jobs, teachers could not
a r g u e that successful compositions helped guarantee vocational opportuni-
ties. Neither could they a r g u e t h a t successful writing habits would b r i n g
better wages, since many of t h e textile workers earned more than public
school employees ( s e e Heath 1981 for an account of how ethnographic data
from communities were used to alter t h e teaching of composition). Re-
s e a r c h e r s observcd nrid participatcd in various aspects of comrnunity and
school s c t t i n g s wliilc bcaring in rnind some of t h e s e questions. How, and
in what proportioris, did members of t h e closed communities a s k questions
of t h e young? Was t h e greatest amount of question-asking done by par-
e n t s o r by o t h e r familiars, by adults o r by children, by males o r by fe-
malcs? How did community mcmbers construct t h e reality of v i r t u e s and
vices? What value-words were used to e x p r e s s t a s t e and preferences, to
criticize, g r a d e , and evaluate, t o w a r n , p r a i s e , r e p r o v e , and draw atten-
tion to rules and dernands for r e s p e c t ? How widespread was t h e grading
of people, t h e giving of advice, t h e expression of dissatisfaction with dis-
plays of r e s p e c t , and t h e u s e of persuasion and encouragement? What
kinds of references to written rnaterials were expressed by community
members? Did they use writing to seek information, advice, emotional
o u t l e t s , o r verification of their ideas and ideals? How did children learn
 HEATH I Ethnoqraphy in education / 51

t o label iterns, to recognize colors and o t h e r a t t r i b u t e s , and t o relate

knowledge of these objects and t h e i r characteristics to o t h e r situations?
I t should b e emphasized t h a t t h e goal of t h i s ethnographic r e s e a r c h
in t h e comrnunities ( r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of approxirnately 70% of t h e local popu-
lation) was not to catalogue folktales, list local folk heroes and occasions
for celebration, and detail children's games, so t h a t t e a c h e r s could use
this cultural information as content to be t a u g h t i n t h e schools ( s e e Bau-
man, this volume, for a discussion of t h e questionable educational rnerits
of teaching folklore to t h e children frorn whose p a r e n t s t h e folklore has
been collected). T h e emphasis i n t h e Piedmont Carolinas was to have
educators learn t h e ways of teaching a n d learning t h a t were functional
for rnernbers of these cornmunities. Especially critica1 was knowledge about
t h e functions of spoken and written language in community s e t t i n g s .
Throughout t h e curriculum, teachers could t h e n adopt and adapt t h e s e
varied learning processes in t h e i r teaching techniques and materials.
(For a full account of t h e project, s e e Heath, forthcoming.)
Ethnography i n t h i s s e t t i n g was supplemented b y experimental
s t u d i e s , repeated standardized t e s t i n g , and nurnerous o t h e r traditional
rnethods of evaluating educational p r o g r e s s . Data frorn u r b a n planning,
cornrnunity c e n t e r s , and transportation s t u d i e s provided numerous leads
on how and why cornrnunities were shifting in composition, recreational and
work preferences, and associational networks. Many of t h e rnethodological
guidelines were s t r e n g t h e n e d by these cornplernentary data. For exarnple,
when reading scores for groups using a specific basal reading series in
one school rose in a t h r e e - y e a r period, and those i n another school did
not, teachers asked why. Teaching rnethods, in-service practices , socio-
demographic characteristics of t h e populations, and access to audiovisual
rnaterials were ostensibly t h e sarne. A content analysis of t h e s e r i e s was
d o n e , and t h e iterns and certain behaviors used i n t h e s t o r i e s were cata-
logued. Ethnographic d a t a from t h e cornrnunities s e r v e d b y t h e two
schools were checked to determine t h e presence or absence of t h e s e items
and behaviors . In t h e cornrnunities attending t h e school with increased
reading s c o r e s , at least 90% of t h e objects ( s u c h a s elevator, escalator,
apartment buildings) and cultural behaviors ( s u c h a s riding a b u s , i n t e r -
acting with a school-crossing g u a r d d r e s s e d in a policernan's uniforrn) used
in t h e t e x t s were familiar. In those communities w h e r e s c o r e s had not irn-
proved, only approxirnately 60% of t h e objects and behaviors were familiar.
Had e t h n o g r a p h e r s i n t h e communities not considered shopping t r i p s ,
r o u t e s to school, and o t h e r seerningly useless details of daily activities
worthy of recording, this check would not have been possible, and we
could not have obtained an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e context t h a t contributed
to t h e difference i n scores between t h e two schools. Following this check,
we were able to go back and analyze performance on various sections of
t h e t e s t . T h e vocabulary items and specific questions in which under-
s t a n d i n g of certain rneanings of words was critica1 to cornprehension consti-
tuted t h e g r e a t e s t proportion of e r r o r s for s t u d e n t s i n t h e school t h a t had
t h e lower s c o r e s .
In addition to research in cornrnunities of s t u d e n t s , cornrnunities of
teachers and adrninistrators were sitcs for ethnographic s t u d y . Knowledge
about enculturation p a t t e r n s of teachers and adrninistrators helped explain
their " s e t " toward particular school behaviors. Traditionally, t h e relative
d e g r e e of fit between t h e norrns of t e a c h e r s a n d administrators and school
goals has not been analyzed, except in s u c h general terrns a s t h e "middle-
class a u r a " t h e y a r e said to bring to school ( P a y n e and Bennett 1977).
Such des2riptions of these values and behaviors as d o exist a r e not based
on ethnographic analysis o r studies of how t h e p a t t e r n s of behavior of
teachers and principals were actually acquired. I n s t e a d , t h e s e works
speak of a generalized rnainstream o r rniddle-class " t e a c h e r lifestyle."
52 1 CHLLDREN IN AND OUT OF SCHOOL

The answers to questions asking where the appropriate rules for behaving
in school came from and why t h e y a r e used and reinforced by teachers
and administrators should provide information on how and why school
officials acquire "readiness" for promoting school rules. Ethnographic
s t u d y in t h e homes and communities of teachers and administrators reveals
t h e enculturation p a t t e r n s that provide frarnes into which institutional
norms fit and from which t h e y a r e reinforced. I n Bernstein's terms
(19741, classification and framing used by school perconnel a r e only par-
tially the creatior. of the school; they a r e also t h e creation of the socializa-
tion of t h e middle class. I n s h o r t , r e s e a r c h inside t h e classroom and
school, when supplemented by studies of t h e content and process of cul-
tural transmission i n communities of a11 members of t h e school--teachers,
administrators, and students--helps verify t h e s e frames.
Achievement of t h e essentials of ethnographic research suggested
here depends on cooperation between e t h n o g r a p h e r s who focus on t h e
community outside t h e school and t h o s e who focus on t h e classroom and
also on t h e professional p a r t n e r s h i p of anthropologists and educators.
We need to find out what i t is t h a t s t u d e n t s need to know and do to
become acceptable participants in classroorns i n which their membership i s
imposed by o t h e r s , and we also neer' to f i r d out what i t i s they know and
do to be acceptable home and community members. T h r o u g h participaiing
a s research p a r t n e r s , teachers and administrators may gain specific in-
s i g h t s into ways to alter what i t is s t u d e n t s need t o know and do to be
acceptable members of classrooms and still achieve educational goals. T h e
purpose of t h e school as institution i s t o change some aspects of t h e be-
havior of every individual who passes t h r o u g h t h e process of formal edu-
cation. T h e school has t h e t a s k of socializing t h e young to a particular
s e t of behavioral and informational norms characteristic of an idealized
"good citizen." T h e r e a r e , therefore, limits a s to how much t h e school's
methods of operation can change without altering t h e basic purpose of t h e
school. Nevertheless, certain changes in procedures and philosophic s e t s
toward methods and materials can be made. For example, the hierarchical
and sequential s t r u c t u r e of classroom behavior can be changed to include
s t r u c t u r e s that a r e not intrinsic t o either institutionai norms o r encultu-
ration p a t t e r n s of t h e middle-class mainstream teacher o r administrator.
From o u r research in communities, we learned t h a t sequencing, over-
lapping, a n d multiple coding within learning situations outside of class-
rooms were often much more complex than those of t h e classroom. T h e r e
fore, for s t u d e n t s from these communities, t h e classroom slowing and
simplification of interaction and presentation of discrete, specifically se-
quenced units in predetermined hierarchical form were indeed foreign.
Teachers caine to realize that t h e slowdown, b r e a k u p , and careful minimal
layering of classroom interactions were not n e c e s s a r y , if t h e y could adapt
cornmunity teaching and learning interaction s t y l e s to classroom purposes.
Teachers involved in ethnographic r e s e a r c h therefore trained themselves
out o l some of their mainstream middle-class enculturation and institution-
alized norms and learned to u s e some of t h e multiple and complex strategies
einployed i n t h e communities studied.

C O N C L U S I O N S

I n tlie p a s t , emphasis has centered on ways to change indi-

v i d u a l ~t h r o u g h formal schooling. Ethnographic studies should enable
schools to broaden and expand t h e tasks individuals encounter in school-
ing. T h e essentials of ethnographic methods suggested h e r e (ethno-
historical r e s e a r c h , attention to definition of unit of s t u d y , rnicroethno-
graphic work, linguistic investigations, and analysis of artifacts) derive
from t h e anthropological goals of ultimately obtaining holistic comparative
 HEATH / E n o g r a p h y in education 1 53

-studies of communities and schools a s p a r t of those communities. In so

doing, education researchers may r e v e r s e t h e usual t r e n d of being inter-
ested primarily i n t h e influences of large social institutions on t h e cultures
that participate i n them. I n s t e a d , educators may b e able to realize t h e
potential of understanding t h e many p a t t e r n s of c u l t u r e represented in
communities for expanding ways of learning and reflecting knowledge,
skills, and dispositions i n schools.
T h e f u t u r e calls for t h e design of r e s e a r c h projects frorn which we
can proceed to identify other essentials of ethnographic r e s e a r c h i n edu-
cation and perhaps construct a taxonomy of educational s e t t i n g s With
such a taxonomy, we could develop a model i n which tested t y p e s would
figure a s expected results of variable forces at work and t h e processes of
change i n education would b e clarified. I n s h o r t , to r t t u r n to ';toppardfs
character who questioned t h e definition of a r t , we may have a paradigm
through which ethnographic studies in education c a n - b e considel.ed t h e
proper concern of the ethnographer, and we can have an image of whole-
ness t o te11 us what i t i s we a r e doing.

R E F E R E N C E S

Aguirre Beltrán, Gonzalo. 1957. E1 Proceso d e Aculturación. bléxico:

Univerljidad Nacional Autónoma d e México.
Arensberg, /Conrad M. , and Kimball, Solon T . 1965. C u l t u r e and Com-
munity; New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Basso, Keitb H. 1974. T h e ethnography of writing. I n Richard Bau-
man arid Joel S h e r z e r , E d s . , Explorations i n t h e Ethnography of
Speakirig, pp. 425- 432. New York: Cambridge University P r e s s .
Bernstein, Basil. 1974. Class, Codes and Control: Theoretical Studies
Towards a Sociology of Language. New York: Schocken Books.
Bidney, David. 1953. T h e concept of value in modern anthropology.
In A . Kroeber, E d . , Anthropology Today, p p . 682-699. Chicago:
I
Univer ;ity of Chicago P r e s s .
Caso, Alfonso. 1954. Metodos y Resultados d e la Poli'tica Indigenista en
M6xico. (Memorias de1 Instituto Nacional Indigenista, 6 ) . México:
Instituto Nacional Indigenista.
1964. Realidades y Proyectos: 16 Anos d e Trabajo.
(Memorias de1 Instituto Nacional Indigenista, 10). México:
Instituto Nacional Indigenista.
de la Fuente, Julio. 1964. Educación, Antropología y Desarrollo.de la
Comunidad. México: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.
Edel, Abraham. 1962. Anthropology and ethics in common focus.
Journal of t h e Royal. Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland 92: 55-72.
Erickson, Frederick. 1976. Gatekeeping encounters: A social selection
process. I n Peggy Reeves Sanday, E d . , Anthropology and t h e
Public I n t e r e s t : Fieldwork and T h e o r y , pp. 111-145. New York:
Academic Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1940. T h e Nuer. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ferguson, Charles A. 1978. P a t t e r n s of literacy i n multilingual situ-
ations. I n James E. Alatis, E d . , Georgetown University Round
Table on Languages and Linguistics 1978, p p . 582-590. Washington,
D.C. : Georgetown University P r e s s .
F r a k e , Charles 0. 1977. Plying frames can b e dangerous: Some reflec-
tions on methodology in cognjtive anthropology. Q u a r t e r l y Newsletter
of t h e Institute for Comparative Hurnan Development 1.3:l-7.
 54 1 CHILDREN IN AND OUT OF SCHOOL

F u r l o n g , Y. A. , a n d E d w a r d s , A. D. 1977. Language i n classroom i n t e r -

action: T h e o r y and d a t a . Educational R e s e a r c h 19: 122-128.
Coody, J a c k . 1968. Literacy i n Traditional Societies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University P r e s s .
1977. T h e Domestication of t h e S a v a g e Mind. Cambridge:
Cambridge University P r e s s .
G u i n n e s s , Helen, and H e a t h , Shirley B. 1974. Building B r i d g e s to
Language and C u l t u r e . Rock Hill, S . C. : Winthrop College.
[rnimeo. ]
H e a t h , Shirley B. 1972. Telling T o n g u e s : Language Policy i n Mexico,
Colony to Nation. New York: T e a c h e r s College P r e s s .
1978. T e a c h e r talk: Language i n t h e classroorn. ( L a n g u a g e
in Education, 9 ) . Arlington, Va.: C e n t e r f o r Applied Linguistics.
1981. Toward a n e t h n o h i s t o r y of writing i n American educa-
tion. I n Marcia F a r r Whiteman, E d . , Variation i n Writing:
Functional and Linguistic=Cultural Differences. Hillsdale, h'. J . :
Lawrence Erlbaum.
forthcorning. E t h n o g r a p h y : Cornrnunity to classroom.
Holland, Olive. 1974. I n S e a r c h of t h e Catawba. Rock Hill, S . C . :
Winthrop College. [rnimeo. ]
Hyrnes, Dell H. 1964. I n t r o d u c t i o n : Toward e t h n o g r a p h i e s of cornmuni-
cation. I n J o h n J. Cumperz and De11 Hymes, E d s . , T h e E t h n o g r a p h y
of Communication, pp. 1-34. American Anthropologist 66(C), p a r t 2.
Iannaccone, Laurence. 1975. T h e field s t u d y i n educational policy re-
s e a r c h . Education and Urban Society 7(3) : 220-238
Katz, Michael B. 1968. T h e I r o n y of Early School Reforrn: Educational
Innovation in Mid-nineteenth C e n t u r y Massachusetts. C a r n b n d g e ,
Mass. : H a r v a r d University P r e s s .
K r o e b e r , Alfred. 1948. Anthropology. New York: H a r c o u r t , Brace and
Company.
1957. What e t h n o g r a p h y i s . I n E t h n o g r a p h i c I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .
( U n i v e r s i t y of California Publications i n Amencan Archaeology and
Ethnology, 1-6.)
Labov, William. 1966. T h e Social Stratification of English i n New York
City. Washington, D . C . : C e n t e r for Applied Linguistics.
1972. Language i n t h e I n n e r City: S t u d i e s in t h e Black Eng-
lish Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania P r e s s .
Leighton, Dorothea, a n d Kiuckhohn, Clyde. 1946. T h e Navajo. Cam-
b r i d g e , Mass. : H a r v a r d University P r e s s .
Lockridge, Kenneth. 1974. Literacy i n Colonial New England: An
I n q u i r y into t h e Social C o n t e x t of Literacy in t h e Early Modern
West. New York: W . W. Norton.
Lowie, R o b e r t . 1960. Selected P a p e r s i n Anthropology, Cora Du Bois,
Ed. Berkeley : University of California P r e s s .
Magoon, A. J a n . 1977. C o n s t r u c t i v i s t a p p r o a c h e s i n educational r e -
s e a r c h . Review of Educational R e s e a r c h 47:651-693.
Malinowski, B . 1932. A r g o n a u t s of t h e Western Pacific. New York:
E . P . Dutton & Co.
McDermott, R. P . 1977. Social relations a s c o n t e x t s for l e a r n i n g i n
school. H a r v a r d Educational Review 47: 198-213.
McDermott, R . P . , a n d A r o n , J e f f r e y . 1978. Pirandello i n t h e classroom.
I n Maynard C . R e y n o l d s , E d . , F u t u r e s of Education for Exceptional
S t u d e n ~ s : Ernerging S t r u c t u r e s . R e s t o n , Va. : Council for Ex-
ceptional C h i l d r c n .
McDcrmott, R . P. , and Gospodinoff, Kenneth. 1979. Social c o n t e x t s i o r
ethriic b o r d c r s nnd school failure. I n Aaron Woligang, E d . , Non-
verbal Behavior, Applications a n d C u l t u r a l Irnplications, p p . 175- 196.
Ncw York: Acadernic P r e s s .
 HEATH / E t h n o g r a p h y in education 1 55

McDermott, R. P. , Gospodinoff, K . , and Aron, J e f f r e y . 1978. C r i t e r i a

for an ethnographically a d e q u a t e d e s c r i p t i o n of c o n c e r t e d activities
and t h e i r c o n t e x t s . Semiotica 24: 245-275.
Mehan, Hugh. 1978. S t r u c t u r i n g school s t r u c t u r e . H a r v a r d Educational
Review 48: 32-65.
Ninio, A. , and B r u n e r , J . 1978. T h e achievement and a n t e c e d e n t s of
labelling. J o u r n a l of Child L a n g u a g e 5:l-16.
Payne, C h a r l e s , and B e n n e t t , C a r s o n . 1977. 'Middle-class a u r a ' i n
public schools. T h e T e a c h e r Educator 13: 16-26.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1933. T h e Andaman I s l a n d e r s . Cambridee:
Cambridge University P r e s s .
Redfield. R o b e r t . 1930. Tepoztlán: A Mexican Village: A S t u d y of
Folk Life. Chicago: University of Chicago P r e s s .
1941. T h e Folk C u l t u r e of Yucatan. Chicago: University o f
Chicago P r e s s .
1955. A Village t h a t Chose P r o g r e s s . Chicago: University of
Chicago P r e s s .
Redfield, R o b e r t , and Villa Rojas, Alfonso. 1934. C h a n Kom, A Maya
Village. ( C a r n e g i e I n s t i t u t i o n of Washington, Publication no. 448. )
Washington, D . C . : Carnegie I n s t i t u t i o n .
Rist, Ray C . 1975. Ethnog'raphic techniques a n d t h e s t u d y of a n u r b a n
school. U r b a n Education 10: 86-108.
S c h a p e r a , I. 1962. Should anthropologists b e historians ? J o u r n a l of t h e
Roia1 Anthropological I n s t i t u t e of Great Britain a n d I r e l a n d 92: 143-
156.
S c r i b n e r , Sylvia, and Cole, Michael. 1981. Unpackaging l i t e r a c y . I n
Marcia F a r r Whiteman, E d . , Variation i n Writing: Functional and
Linguistic-Cultural Differences. Hillsdale, N. J . : Lawrence Erlbaum.
Seiler, Lauren H . , and Sumrners, Gene F. 1974. Locating cornmunity
boundaries: An integration of t h e o r y a n d ernpirical t e c h n i q u e s .
Sociological Methods and R e s e a r c h 2: 259-280.
Smith, Louis M. 1978. An evolving logic of p a r t i c i p a n t o b s e r v a t i o n ,
educational e t h n o g r a p h y and o t h e r case s t u d i e s . I n L. Shulrnan ,
E d . , Review of Research in Education. Chicago: Peacock P r e s s .
Smith, M. G. 1362. History and social anthropology. J o u r n a l of t h e
Royal Anthropological I n s t i t u t e of Great Britain and Ireland 92:73-85.
Stacey, Margaret. 1969. T h e rnyth of community s t u d i e s . B r i t i s h J o u r -
na1 of Sociology 20: 134- 147.
S t e b b i n s , Robert A. 1975. T e a c h e r s and Meaning: Definitions of Class-
roorn Situations. Leiden: E. J . Brill.
Stone, Lawrence. 1969. Literacy and education i n E n g l a n d , 1640-1900.
P a s t and P r e s e n t 42: 69- 139.
Szwed, J o h n . 1981. T h e e t h n o g r a p h y of literacy. I n Marcia F a r r
Whiteman, E d . , Variation in Writing: Functional a n d Linguistic-
C u l t u r a l Differences. Hillsdale, N . J . : Lawrence Erlbaum.
T y a c k , David. 1974. T h e One B e s t System. C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: Har-
v a r d University P r e s s .
Wilson, Stepklen. 1977. T h e use of e t h n o g r a p h i c t e c h n i q u e s i n educa-
tional r e s e a r c h . Review of Educational R e s e a r c h 47: 245-265.
Wolcott, H a r r y . 1975. C r i t e r i a for a n e t h n o g r a p h i c a p p r o a c h t o r e s e a r c h
i n schools. Human Organization 34: 111-127.
Wolfram, Walt. 1969. A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro
Speech. Washington, D. C . : C e n t e r for Applied Linguistics.