Appears to me that Danny locates the nature of his problem in his last post. With all due respect, I don't believe that Danny and ethnographers share basic assumptions: On Feb 18, 2004, at 6:03 AM, Danny Butt wrote:
So I just don't see the point of denying (as I feel Maximillian is) or eliding (as I feel Don was) the power dynamic intrinsic in ethnographic research (and other social research as Ed suggested). The model is:
1) There's a question, framed in an academic context, which I as a researcher don't have the answer to (the answer is therefore exotic)
The point I'm pressing becomes more obvious if I outline another way of conceiving of cross-cultural research:
1) There are issues identified by people who are excluded from knowledge infrastructures (and associated academic salaries) such as Universities
When I was trained in qualitative methods, an absolute commandment was that relevant questions about meaning-in-use emerge from the research as part and parcel of interaction with the subject cohort. I would agree with Danny's assessment that when researchers bring in pre-ordained constructs, qualitative work does not develop sensitive findings. However, I would strongly disagree in Danny's claim that this is the way (good) ethnography proceeds. Quite the opposite: it is the sort of thing that scientific qualitative work is supposed to guard against. The claim Danny makes against ethnography, from my view as evidenced by his characterization of it, is false. Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Director, Multimedia Program and New Media Center Associate Professor, Speech Communication 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378