Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes

In "Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes", Emerson, Fretz and Shaw stress the importance of method in that method cannot be separated from "findings".(p.11). The two go hand in hand, as how we go about finding something determines what we will in fact find. With this in mind, I wonder why teachings in ethnographic method are only now gaining in popularity. So when we realize that we can't separate the two, we realize that it has become crucial to look at the more "personal" entries as part of the process. They do not believe in calling field notes diaries because they think that even the more personal and emotional aspect that some feel should be kept private, are in fact part of how the ethnographer saw what s/he did. They do not believe in the separation between "findings" and "feelings".(p.12). They refer to the "feelings" part as "subjective" findings and what we consider fact as "objective" findings. "...this separation assumes that 'subjective' reactions and perceptions can and should be controlled by being segregated from 'objective', impersonal records".(p.12). The two are simultaneous. The also attribute this need to separate the two to personal feelings acting as 'contaminants'. They believe that the more personal side of the research offers "avenues of insight into significant processes".(p.12).
Emerson, Fretz and Shaw stress the value of cultural relativism in the interpretation of other cultures as well as in the process of writing ethnographic field notes. The ethnographer must stress the importance of finding the "indigenous meaning". They worry about the ethnographer obsessing too much about how the reader will interpret, rather than trying to truthfully convey what life means to the people in the culture. But here we are once again at the kind of interpretation the ethnographer uses. We have to ask if the ethnographer has interpreted the "indigenous meaning" in the best way s/he knew how? Thus field notes are "written accounts that filter".(p.13). They attribute this all to the increasing popularity of the use of recording equipment so the studied culture can speak more for themselves. But most of all field notes help us retain the moment to the best of our ability. Seeing it this way makes it hard for me to believe, at least at this point, why some think they are a hindrance. One last thing on the importance of field notes is: "...the distinctive and unique features of such fieldnotes, brought forward into the final analysis, create texture and variation, avoiding the flatness that comes from generality".(p.14). Very true.
In this book they stress the importance of recording the details of every interaction between the ethnographer and the person being studied. This will ultimately help remember or even just figure out how an interpretation was reached. I think that overall what they are trying to stress is that every detail counts. If we record the interactional detail then we can can interpret the process of evaluation on a much more detailed level than without. I am realizing that it is not just about the end result, it is also very much about documenting process because you can't have one without the other. Here are 5 of the some of the most important terms to remember for ethnographic fieldwork: "inscription", "transcription", "translation", "textualization" and "narration".(p.15-16).
Ultimately, they leave it up to the ethnographer when and where the field notes are written. They do have suggestions however, and here are a few:
-The ethnographer can make mental notes to be remembered and recorded later.
-s/he can just make one-word jottings to be elaborated on later. This can be done with just single words, or as they say, some learn short-hand in order to be able to record the most possible information without having to write a lot.
-s/he can write things down while in the presence of others, or have a pace to run to quickly when something appears relevant. I get the impression that sometimes seeing the ethnographer writing things down can be intimidating to people and possibly change their behavior or responses, which is not a positive effect. This brings me to what they call a "moral issue".(p.21). What this means is that the ethnographer wants to become a trusted person to the people of the said culture. They describe it as a feeling of being "torn between their research commitments and their desire to engage authentically those people whose worlds they have entered".(p.20). So in response to this, some ethnographers keep the actual writing until s/he is behind closed doors. I imagine that this might happen more at the beginning and then the awkwardness might begin to dissipate as more trust ensues. Their recommendation is once again, to be as truthful as possible in all accounts: "openness avoids...risks...and...likely sense of betrayal".(p.21). It seems to me that it is a bit complicated because although these notes are so important, so is the observation and the flow of continuity. So while the ethnographer needs to be observant and let the situations flow naturally, there needs to be a little time, especially for a novice, to write things down. This is where I imagine it becomes a truly delicious thought to be able to have another set of eyes and arms. This might be where a second person could come in? Costly and probably complicated though. They say that the short-hand note taking becomes easier with time. I understand as well that all these techniques vary from situation to situation and as experience increases.
So here we are at the problem of what to "jot" down, especially as a novice. They suggest note-taking of "initial impressions", especially words that capture the moment that helps to remember the environment.(p.26). Following this, they suggest "observing key events or incidents", ie: "something that surprises or runs counter to her expectations".(p.27). They suggest that to initially omit things that we might think are not applicable, or possibly a feeling of anger or embarrassment, would be to omit things of importance. We should make this kind of decision at the beginning and only later, when we are pouring over our notes, should we make the decision that something is not relevant enough. Their next suggestion is to move from what we think of as important personal thoughts or reactions and begin to move to what we think are important reactions and actions of the person himself. We need at this point to begin trying to interpret how the other person sees things and leave our own feelings somewhat behind or put them on the back burner, if you will. At this point we need to begin to see "local knowledge and meanings".(p.28). In other words: 'when, where, and according to whom".(p.28).
An important point that they make is that initially it is important for the ethnographer to broaden his/her horizon and try to get the big picture. The ethnographer has no way of telling at this point what will be useful later. They tell us that this enables the ethnographer to record "a series of incidents and interactions of the 'same type' and look for regularities or patterns among them".(p.29). Variations among similar incidents can lead a novice to attempt a better understanding of the situation(s).
They then suggest recording bits of conversation among the people who are being studied. I am going to try out a tape recorder for my final project to see how not only I like it, but if it generally makes others uncomfortable. The most important suggestion so far regarding initial "jottings" is to avoid recording one-word sentences that encourage a typical generalization of the people being studied. If we do, the final ethnographic project will have a generalized air as well.
It is suggested that the "jottings" should be words that "'show', rather than tell about people's behavior".(p.32). "The researcher wants to preserve in as accurate a form as possible".(p.32). It is important to not guess as to why a situation has just happened or is happening and to leave the interpretation to the end.(p.32). Field notes should be recorded if not during the situation, then immediately following it to produce the most accurate account.
Field notes are essentially one of the main ways in which the ethnographer remains an outsider. As I understand it, there is a tendency for an ethnographer to change the way in which s/he write the notes according to how much s/he feels that they are totally immersed in the said culture, maybe even ceasing to write them at all because they recognize this as the action that draws the line between stranger and friend.
Emerson, Fretz and Shaw say that there are many ways in which an ethnographer can organize and write up the ethnography. They suggest "initial writing that is as spontaneously organized as conversation about a day's experiences....as varied in language and sentence patterns as the voices of individual speakers; and as unevenly and loosely phrased as the hurried flow of writing dictates".(p.47). There are also of course many ways in which to organize the notes into writing, but I think that that largely depends on how the mind of ethnographer works and how s/he is used to organizing as well as how the information has unfolded.
They talk about a couple of perspectives from which the final ethnographic project can be written. One way is the third person in which the ethnographer tells the story from the perspective of a person that is tied very closely to the group. Another way is obviously from the perspective of the ethnographer himself. Something that strikes me as interesting is the fact that if the ethnographer already has in mind the perspective from which s/he wants to write at the beginning of the research rather than from the beginning of the writing, this must alter the not only the theme of the entire project, but also the interpretations that are made. I am sure that I have already talked a little about this but perhaps it might be better to stray from deciding too early on which perspective to use, and leave this to the end so as to be as objectively interpretive from the beginning and throughout the entire project. However, they do say that it is important to remember to leave out initial interpretations so as to record exactly what is happening instead. Interpretations can cloud the note taking and can possibly lead the ethnographer in the "wrong" direction.(p.57). They discuss the omniscient point of view as well, which I assume that most ethnographers take, rather than a sense of detached reporting. After all, the reader will assume that the ethnographer is the expert on the subject and is allowed 'privileged access' to to the thoughts and emotions that determine the actions of the said group. To take an omniscient view, however, requires a lot more time devoted to detailed interpretation in the actual research as well as in the writing. They say that whether the ethnographer is to use the first-person, third-person or omniscient view depends largely on how much the ethnographer in "involved" with the said group. For instance, is he or she going to be a detached or very involved person with the group that is being studied?(p.59). I think I might prefer a combination of all three if that is entirely possible. I can see myself getting completely obsessive with the amount of interpretations that I could have as well as the many different styles of writing that inherently dictate how I am to interpret in the first place. Despite whatever perspective I ultimately decide to take, efficient fieldnotes are extremely important and I really like what they say here about such fieldnotes: "In general, descriptively effective fieldnotes will enable a reader to distinguish initial understandings from retrospective reinterpretations".(p.62). Also very important: "An ethnographer may also want to minimize the degree of retrospective reinterpretation in order to highlight his own processes for determining meaning".(p.62). I think this is very important to remember. If the ethnographer relies on retrospective reinterpretation too much, then the initial thoughts, feelings and interpretations by the ethnographer himself can be lost in the final project. Emerson, Fretz and Shaw seem to think that judgements by the ethnographer should be "explicit in written asides".(p.72). This leads me to what i have discussed before about honest ethnographic writing, in the sense of honesty about what lead the ethnographer to this information and conclusions. They talk about how the information goes through many types of "filters" before it is even written on the page, and that the reader has only the final writing to get a sense of "being there". Therefor, if the ethnographer is honest about how s/he came by the information and the reasons they interpreted the information in such a way, the reader has a more "open" way of understanding the information on the page. When considering the importance of such honesty which is apparently a new trend in anthropology, we begin to realize that anthropologists are now admitting to the fact that ethnographic writing is an interpretation and not a 'mirroring' of the culture. I think that it took anthropologists a long time to be able to admit this as a reality instead of a defeat because they relied heavily on the fact that they wanted the world to know that they are experts on the culture. To admit that theirs is merely one interpretation amongst many possible interpretations I think suggested that anyone could do this kind of work with no training or expertise required. This kind of interpretation, they are now realizing, does in fact require much training and expertise.
I see including dialogue as important in ethnographic writing so I think that I will prefer taking a tape recorder on my travels with me. In formal interviews, I imagine that the presence of a recorder won't affect what the person says, however, I am sure that to record something less formal, I will encounter self-consciousness and filtering as well as numerous ethical situations which I am sure every ethnographer loathes.
I feel as if I might eventually be drawn more toward narrative ethnographic writing but as they say in this book the ethnographer must be careful not to dramatize in order to link sequences to create a more flowing story. This would end up altering important information as well as accurate conclusions.(p.89). With narratives also comes a tendency to either omit important details or at the other end of the spectrum, include too much.(p.97). Technique obviously comes with experience, however, I imagine that with each project, new interpretations come to light after much "further thought and analysis".(p.100).
As other authors have stressed as well as Emerson, Fretz and Shaw, "asides, commentaries and memos" are a must. How extensive and numerous they are, however, varies form ethnographer to ethnographer. I imagine that they are used frequently in the beginning as well as in the final ethnographic project. To sum up this section, Emerson, Fretz and Shaw say: "In making writing choices, therefore, HOW ethnographers write fieldnotes becomes as consequential for readers and those depicted as what they write. Whether as privately filed sources or as public excerpts in final documents, fieldnotes persuade".(p.107).
In ethnographic fieldwork we seek to avoid ethnocentric thinking and while constructing the project, we must remember that interpretation based solely on the ethnographer's past socialization will not help us accomplish this, in other words "a standard of what is 'supposed to be'".(p.111). The ethnographer MUST attempt an interpretation as close as possible to the people being studied as if it were their words. In other words s/he "must not lose that commitment to local views when she writes memos or later on...even though she may be tempted to transform members' meanings into analytic concepts more familiar to herself and to her readers".(p.109). In sum, it is important to gear the research in such a way that enables group members to answer in their own words and use their own interpretations. This way, the ethnographer clouds the project less with his or her own "personality".(p.114). The ethnographer should aim to ask questions that can be answered in a way that is revealing and telling of the group member's self. Emerson, Fretz and Shaw believe, however, that the information gathered from this type of research still merits much analyzing and interpretation on behalf of the ethnographer himself, to go beyond the actual responses and actions to determine the thoughts, feeling, emotions and motivations behind the group's answers.(p.126). In their words concerning member's meanings: "...the ethnographer's task is not simply to identify member-recognized terms and categories but also to specify the conditions under which people actually invoke and apply such terms in interaction with others".(p.139). Its about how "members construct meaning through interactions".(p.140). In order to achieve this, ethnographers should rely primarily on participant observation rather than on interviews.
They go on to suggest many ways of sorting through, coding and organizing fieldnotes which I imagine is a very personal thing and takes much time. I can't imagine that this is the most fun part but all ethnographers must do it. I understand coding as the process by which the ethnographer sorts through and organizes fieldnotes, initiating the process of bringing themes together and attempting to organize the information in ways that might reveal patterns. They stress on page 152, that the focus of the ethnography will change perhaps even several times in the coding process. They also stress the fact that all categories of fieldnotes during the coding process need not all be tied together and that different themes can rest on their own.(p.152). In the end, they say "By the time the ethnographer finishes reading the complete set of fieldnotes, her categories and themes will have fundamentally changed".(p.153). When the ethnographer sees patterns and therefore attempts to develop theory, they ask us to keep in mind that "...it is more accurate to say that the ethnographer creates rather than discovers theory".(p.167). It seems to me that remembering this might help the ethnographer stray from thinking that there is only one analytical approach.
One thing that I wrote in my notes was that this book stresses that the ethnographic project is not necessarily about creating an end result, but rather an "open" interpretation to the questions HOW and WHY? This is something that is extremely important to consider when determining the "reason" for doing the research and writing the ethnography in the first place: "Grasping the continuously analytic character of fieldwork often entails a shift in the ways we often think of the ethnographer's relationship both to the fieldnotes and to the analysis of them".(p.168). And: "Analysis is less a matter of something emerging from the data, of simply finding what is there; it is more fundamentally a process of creating what is there by constantly thinking about the import of previously recorded events and meanings".(p.168).
Emerson, Fretz and Shaw then turn to the process of writing the ethnography. They suggest organizing the data in a "'weblike character', allowing readers to use data offered in support of one idea to confirm or disconfirm other ideas".(p.186). This is another example of honest writing and lets the reader do some sort of confirmation on his or her own and possibly some of their own interpretation as well. There are many ways to perform the actual writing of an ethnography, and John Van Maanen discusses many of these in his book Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography which I have read before and decided I liked the narrative style. I also read Return to Laughter by Elenore Smith Bowen. Her narrative on a small tribe in Africa was one of the first of its kind and was an extremely honest portrayal of not only the tribe and the people who belonged to it, but also about the trials, fears and mistakes that happen during fieldwork. It was a very revealing account of fieldwork "behind the scenes" and she discussed aspects of the process of ethnography that was sort of taboo in the discipline of anthropology.
In the conclusion of this book, Emerson, Fretz and Shaw suggest that the ethnographer take his or her roe very seriously by realizing how much they are handing delicate work. They have the power to manipulate and control everything that they see, record and interpret on the said culture. On the concept of 'reflexivity' they quote Atkinson(1990:7): 'the notion of reflexivity recognizes that texts do not simply and transparantly report an independent order of reality. Rather, the texts themselves are implicated in the work of reality-construction'.(p.213).
As a novice in the business of ethnographies, I find the process of interpretaion to be scary as well as slightly daunting and it is something that I fear I will not be good at. The following quote will be something that I remember always: "The process of forming relationships with specific people subjects the ethnographer to their meaning systems, ones that must be learned and understood, if only in order to get by".(p.214). This makes so much sense and what it means is that the very process of getting to know members of the studied culture will automatically open the ethnographer up to their "menaing systems" and s/he will already be on their way to successful interpretation! And so, to conclude, the authors of this book as well as myself will continue to stress the importance of participant observation in order to not only understand rituals and ways of life but to develop relationships with the very people that make rituals and ways of life come alive: "Hence, through relationships with others, the possibility exists for appreciation and understanding of the interactions the researcher observes in their, not simply his own, terms".(p.216).
I also read "Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative approaches", 4th edition which is a lengthy book. There is a lot on statistics, etc. It is a book which I am sure I will refer to in the years to come but maybe not necessarily a book that is commentary-worthy.
I have read a few other books on Creole Louisiana as well which is the topic for my final project, so let me know what you are interested in hearing!