Are ethnography and discourse analysis compatible?

Transcription

1 Are ethnography and discourse analysis compatible? Chris Lima, Open University March 2010 INTRODUCTION The answer to the question posed by the title of this paper is, Yes, and No. Researchers working on both fields have a number of positions on the issue, from the ones who defend traditional forms of ethnography (Walford, 2009) to the ones who attempt to integrate both ethnography and discourse analysis in their practices (Rampton et al, 2006). Some, pragmatically, would answer, It depends. Before trying to answer such a question perhaps it would be advisable to consider a number of factors on which the answer depends. First of all, it depends largely on one s understanding of the theoretical principles and acceptable practices within both traditions. Secondly, it may depend on what your research questions are and the social phenomena you want to investigate. Last but not least, we have to consider that whatever answers individual researchers may give to this question in the process of carrying out their studies, their answer will be assessed and evaluated by their own research communities and the traditions within which they work. Thus, it also depends on historical developments in the field of academic research as a whole. It is very unlikely that there will ever be a single, unified answer to such a question. In this paper I compare and contrast some principles and practices that characterise more traditional forms of ethnographic research to the theoretical and practical notions that inform discourse analysis. I then briefly examine the work of researchers who seek to actively combine both methods under what they name linguistic ethnography. 1. WHAT IS ETHNOGRAPHY? Ethnography has its roots in classical anthropology and for many years it had to struggle to assert its own identity, especially because the first ethnographers very much followed on the steps of anthropologists (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). Most ethnographic studies written in the 20 th century still had researchers, usually white, male and Western, moving into isolated communities in developing countries and/or remote 1

2 regions of the planet to study culturally exotic and ethically different groups. The 20-30s saw the birth of urban ethnography with the advent of the Chicago School, with its researchers focusing on the study of human behaviour as determined by social structures and by the physical environment. Ethnographers then replaced journeys to the jungle by trips to deprived neighbourhoods in urban areas in their own countries (Chapouli, 2007). From the middle of the twentieth century anthropologists increasingly studied urban contexts as well as more rural ones, and also started to study communities in Western societies. Although, many ethnographic studies are still done in deprived and/or marginal communities, ethnographic studies nowadays also include investigations in schools, hospitals, companies, and institutions with the main focus on the character and effects of urbanisation, and the social processes this involved. Although most ethnographers aim to locate the setting they are studying within a wider social context, they are, by and large, interested in the complex relationships between individuals in a particular social setting, When ethnographers move into the field, they do so with the objective of observing attitudes, linguistic and cultural manifestations, relationships and conflicts that may cast light a specific social problem or puzzle (Emerson, 2009). It is at the core of ethnography that understanding what happens in a specific group or social context may be potentially useful and helpful to help us to understand similar or larger social realities. To achieve their objectives, ethnographers employ a wide range of methods of data collection and analysis. It would be a gross mistake to equate ethnography with qualitative research since some ethnographic studies may make good use of surveys and statistical data to complement interviews, field notes and participants observation. However, most ethnographic studies clearly show a tendency to follow the qualitative research tradition and participant observation and/or relatively informal conversations are usually the main tools ( Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007: 3) What distinguished ethnography from other forms of qualitative research, which make use only of data collected thought interviews or focus groups for example, is the fact that the ethnographers are always people who, to lesser or larger degree, are immersed in the community they are studying. Moreover, for ethnographers all data is important. It may consist of direct observation, participants voices and behaviours, documents, and/or cultural artefacts, but one does not have a privileged position in relation to others. It 2

3 seems to me that this is a crucial point because on it rests, perhaps, one of the most important differences between ethnography and discourse analysis. 2. WHAT IS DISCOURSE ANALYSIS? There is not a single answer to this question either. Wetherell et al (2002: ii) list five core traditions inside the discourse analysis field, namely, sociolinguistics, conversation analysis, discursive psychology, critical discourse analysis and Foucauldian analysis. It would be far beyond the scope of this paper to discuss all these traditions and there is no shortage of literature in the field (Jorgersen and Philips, 202; Schiffin et all, 2003, Rogers, 2004). For the purposes of this paper, I have decided to focus on Foucauldian analysis because it is, in principle at least, the one which differs the most from mainstream ethnography, both from epistemological and methodological points of view. However, once again, distinction is not clear-cut and some ethnographers do work under the influence of Foucault s ideas and, strictly speaking nothing could prevent Foucauldian discourse analysts of going into the field and make use of some ethnographic tools in their research. Foucauldian discourse analysis stems from Foucault s understanding of language, which fundamentally differs from the notion of language as a system of representation (Hall, 2001:72). For him, it is through discourse that meaning and knowledge are produced. The way we see the world is shaped and defined by the way we talk about it. It is language that creates what we understand as real and meaningful. It is language that defines categories and establishes boundaries in social relationships (Foucault, 2002: 38-46). For example, the notion of identity, which is central to my own research, is a discursive formation that only makes sense to us now because it was constructed and developed historically by people talking and writing about it. Identity, as we understand it nowadays, would probably make less sense, say, in medieval times when notions of individuality and selfhood would be less in tune with the ways of conducting yourself in a society still profoundly bound together, with strong links to the natural environment and with a hierarchical metaphysical understanding of Being. Identity was generated by discourses about it along our history in the West and now this subjective identity permeates our later discourses about it. 3

4 Ethnographers concern with the geographically and temporarily distinct phenomena observed in the research field would only make sense to Foucauldian oriented researchers if such data was considered in relation to a much larger historical and discursive investigation. For instance, ethnographers who wanted to study Pakistani immigrants and their descendants notions of national identity would, probably, go to live in a Pakistani neighbourhood in an UK large city to observe how such understanding of national selfhood is influenced by their everyday contacts with other sectors of British society. Foucauldian discourse analysts, on the other hand, would probably go to the British Library Reading Rooms to bend over policy documents, parliamentary papers, the House of Common speeches, cartoons, photographs, newspapers and all sorts of media to find out how the concepts of national identity/ Pakistani/ British are being generated in the discourses of UK society. Foucauldian discourse analysis aims to produce genealogies of how current understandings of things and the meaning we give to subjects and to social interactions came into being through the historical interplay between language, power and knowledge (Hall, 2001: 75-8). 3. COMBINING ETHNOGRAPHY AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Ethnography and discourse analysis research are not mutually exclusive, but the epistemological and methodological principles that are at the roots of both traditions greatly differ. Nonetheless, there are researchers who try to combine them in a novel way. In a manifesto document for linguistic ethnography Creese (2008: 232) argues for a socially constituted linguistics and defends the integration between both arguing that, Ethnography provides linguistics with a close reading of context not necessarily represented in some kinds of interactional analysis, while linguistics provides an authoritative analysis of language use not typically available through participant observation and the taking of fieldnotes. (232) Linguistic ethnography draws on a broad range of influences, from sociolinguistic interaction to critical discourse analysis, from Vygostkian concepts of language and socio-cognitive development to post-structuralism (Rampton et al, 2006). Maybin s 4

5 (2005) investigation of children s use of informal language to construct knowledge and identity as they move from childhood to adolescent is a very good example of linguistic ethnography drawing on Bakhtin (1982). In it, the researcher s field work was done with a group of year-old children in two monolingual white working-class schools. Transcripts of children s conversations were analysed in order to find intertextual and frame-switching instances in the discourse, but such linguistic analysis was always informed by the researcher s understanding of the importance of the social world within which the students were placed. For Maybin (2003), linguistic ethnography is, ethnographically grounded detailed analyses of communicative practices in specific contexts, which produce various kinds of insights about social life. Language use is seen as a social and cultural phenomenon which needs to be analysed both in its own detail and in relation to other social and cultural phenomena. (online) This may sound like an oversimplification, but for didactic purposes we could perhaps say that one of the distinguishing factors between ethnography and linguistic ethnography is that mainstream ethnographers may use discourse as a way to understand participants social context, whereas linguist ethnographers use participants social context as a way to understand their discourses. It is, in fact, what originally distinguished sociolinguistics from sociology. It is a difference that becomes somewhat blurred once discourse is treated as constituting social reality, so that it can be claimed (mistakenly in my view) that by studying discursive practices we are simultaneously studying the social institutions which, it is claimed, they constitute. CONCLUSION My answer, at the moment, to the question of compatibility between ethnography and discourse analysis is also, It depends. Instead of rigidly defined research categories, I prefer to see things in a continuum, with traditional ethnography at one end of the spectrum and Foucauldian discourse analysis at the other; with linguist ethnography perhaps falling more or less in between. However, the capacity to easily move along this line depends a great deal on how confident you are about the ontological, epistemological underpinnings of your research and on how confidently you feel you 5

6 are able to integrate such different methodologies. As I see it, this is very shifting ground and requires a high degree of reflexivity and experience on the researcher s part. For novice researchers, the sheer diversity one can find in approaches to social research can be a bit overwhelming. Having a clear idea where approaches to research come from is fundamental to help us adopt an approach to our own investigations which is coherent with our understanding of the world and of the social phenomena we want to study. For me, comparing, contrasting and reflecting on different researchers positions is crucial to situate myself in my future research community. Furthermore, it is fundamental in the process of deciding how to conduct a particular piece of research. Above all, we should be open to novel forms of research, as long as they are theoretically grounded, seriously conducted and ethically and morally responsible. REFERENCES Bakhtin, M. M. (1982). The dialogic imagination (trans. by Michael Holquist.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Blaxter, L., C. Hughes and M. Tight (2006) How to Research. 3 rd Edition. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford University Press. Carabine, J. (2001) Unmarried motherhood : a genealogical analysis. In Wetherell, M., S. Taylor and S. J. Yates (Eds) Discourse as Data. London: Sage. Chapoulie, J. (2004). Using the History of the Chicago Tradition of Sociology for Empirical Research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 595, Creese, A. (2008). Linguistic ethnography: introduction. UK Linguistic Ethnography Forum. 6

7 Foucault, M. (2001) The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. London: Routledge. 2 nd edition. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next. London: British Council. Hall, S. (2001) Foucault: power, knowledge and discourse. In Wetherell, M., S. Taylor and S. J.Yates (Eds) Discourse Theory and Practice. London: Sage. Hammersley, M. (1997) Educational Research and Teaching: A Response to David Hargreaves' TTA Lecture. British Educational Research Journal, 23, Hammersley, M. (2000). The Relevance of Qualitative Research. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3/4), Hammersley, M. and P. Atkinson (2007) Ethnography. Principles in Practice. 3 rd Edition. London: Routledge. Hargreaves, A. (1996). Transforming Knowledge: Blurring the Boundaries between Research, Policy, and Practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(2), Holstein, J.A. and J. F. Gubrium (2005) Interpretive practice and social action. In Denzin, N. and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. SAGE. Lewis, C. and J. Ketter (2004) Learning as social interaction: interdiscursivity in a teacher and researcher study group. In Rogers, R. (Ed) An introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. London: Routledge. Mandelker, A. (1995) Bakhtin in contexts: across the disciplines. Evanston, Il: Northwestern University Press. Maybin, J. (2003). The potential contribution of linguistics ethnography to Vygostskian studies of talk and learning in education. UK Linguistic Ethnography Forum. Maybin, J. (2005). 'Speech gentres' and 'evaluation' is socialisation and identity:older children's lanagueg practices. UK Linguistic Ethnography Forum. Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. Routledge. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press. 7

8 Rampton, B., Tusting, K., Maybin, J., Barwell, R., Creese, A., & Lytra, V. (2006). UK Linguistic ethnography: a discussion paper. UK Linguistic Ethnography Forum. Retrieved from Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Routledge. Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (2003). The handbook of discourse analysis. Wiley-Blackwell. Walford, G. (2009) For ethnography. Ethnography and Education, 4/3, Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wetherell, M., S. Taylor and S. J. Yates (2001) Discourse as Data. London: Sage 8