In part, Danny Butt wrote: the bottom line is that Don comes and

talks to us about Ghanaians without them necessarily being present.

Ed responds: Yes, ethnographers often (re)represent (something about) their subjects, to others, outside of the presence of those subjects. But gee . . . we could pretty much say that about reports of any or all social scientific research data. The subjects aren't there; their data is used to represent them. Strikes me that the key issue/question here is about what one is studying. If one is studying the meanings-in-use-for-subjects, then (in my view) ethnographic methods are going to do a better job at representing (to others) those meanings in use than are other (perhaps more quantitative) techniques that overlay received wisdom and concepts on the observed behaviors. And in the end, being "true" to actual meanings-in-use seems to me to be MORE, not less, true to the native culture than are re-representations of imposed constructs. I fully agree in the need for LOTS of professional protection for subjects . . . I'm strong with the desire that subjects should benefit as much (or more) from the research than does either the researcher or the audience. On Feb 17, 2004, at 1:46 PM, Danny Butt wrote:

But the bottom line for me is that if the goal is to improve the world, and not just ourselves, we need to find a way of negotiating between the needs and desires of those under study and our own desires for knowledge - and the power imbalances between these. In some cases there's alignment between those two desires, which makes things easier - both 'me' and the 'others/subjects' are working toward explicitly the same thing. Like Don, there are also situations where I think the 'others' are wrong, but I'd add an important consideration to the idea that we can just "tell each other" about the wrongness: the bottom line is that Don comes and talks to us about Ghanaians without them necessarily being present. The effects of the circulation of this knowledge in western academia (and related appendages e.g. into development policy), away from explicit dialogue with the research subjects, can have a far greater impact on the subjects' community than their dialogue without us present can have on us. No first world ethnographer ever lost their job for their informants not being happy with how they are represented, but there are plenty of examples of such impacts (and worse) happening in researched communities due to research publications (e.g. in this part of the world, Cook's mapping practices).

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

Thanks all for the comments... against my better judgement I'll clarify some points: I'm not anti-ethnography. Don posted, with understandable impatience, a "rant" which essentially said "stop working yourself up over this or that method or conceptual framework for new media and find out what happens and start there", which is an excellent point and one pretty well rehearsed since cultural studies in old media theory. Rhiannon raised some excellent issues around the position of researchers in that framework, and Don once again responded with some useful commentary, but one I didn't feel paid much attention to a whole lot of dialogue happening (among First nations peoples in particular, who have a lot of experience as ethnographic subjects) which questions the power dynamic in this kind of research. I'm not saying that Don isn't aware of these issues, and as he notes, the real experience of "being there" raises all sorts of questions that can't be foreclosed "in theory". But as a methodological practice I tend to notice what we say when we're not being entirely "considered", as this says a lot about our overall approach to being in situations (something ethnographers know well). [And as Mary suggests, my own "improving the world" quote, while not serious, also raises interesting discussions around my positioning :7]. 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) 2) The answer is held by others, who will surrender it (or something like it, but altered by my "experience") under observation 3) I will, more or less depending on my positioning, take responsibility for this answer's circulation in an environment where it will be "meaningful" but not controlled by those who held the answer. Who controls what's important here? I don't see any value in contrasting the "experience" of having a gun to your head in a particular situation where you might not have been in control, to the very different temporality of control which comes from "deciding" to go somewhere for an "ethnographic encounter". The ethnographer can, after all, always go home from the research situation. All I'm asking for from those privileging ethnography as a research method is some sensible dialogue around those issues, and being honest about what we want. 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 2) A researcher is engaged by those people as a way of gaining access to particular forms of knowledge, money, and representation that might address these issues 3) Reporting on the "results" of this quest for knowledge, money, and representation goes back to the people (but there may also, for "ethical or pragmatic reasons" be a report given to the institutions which are the home of the researcher). I am not saying that all the cross-cultural interaction and research I'm associated with follows the second model (and, to be honest, I couldn't handle it if it was). But it seems to me that this way of conceiving of "ethnography" is worthy of consideration, and it might also helpfully muddy the methodological waters a little to disrupt the "Read chapter 6 to discover the 'ethnography' method which might be appropriate for *your* project" line, which is altogether too routine in our academic systems. So to Jon's suggestion that I "need to suggest an alternative research strategy without these problems" , I would say: the desire for no problems is the problem. [Or, perhaps, "Hey, ditch that problematic old ethnography, and sign-up for a one-year license of the DannyButt research method, pre-approved for your convenience by 756 global NGOs representing severely disadvantaged groups, and through our affiliate network covering 96% of groups worldwide claiming potential damage through research. Speed up those tiresome ethics committees, and get to the *real research* faster!"] As Haraway puts it, ethnography should not be seen as a "method" to be "applied" but a way of being radically open to the forces structuring a situation. My perception - which is significantly influenced by ongoing conversations with those not defining research situations - is that research situations are generally dominated by our basic assumptions as researchers, and the only way of really dealing with this is to be as clear as possible about what these assumptions are (which is to say, if you're confident about the benefits of your research for your subjects, and your immunity from the historical forces that shaped your methods, you probably need to spend some more time in the library before heading out). I don't know if anyone cares about this stuff and I've got that feeling like I misread the dress code for the party, so I'll finish up there. Big thanks to Mary for the Visweswaran reference which I didn't know about! x.d -- http://www.dannybutt.net ------ Forwarded Message From: Ed Lamoureux <ell@hilltop.bradley.edu> Strikes me that the key issue/question here is about what one is studying. If one is studying the meanings-in-use-for-subjects, ------ Forwarded Message From: Mary Bryson <mary.bryson@ubc.ca> Dunno about the goal of "improving the world". I very much appreciate the ongoing discussion about ethnography and media studies. I have found Kamala ------ End of Forwarded Message ------ Forwarded Message From: Maximilian Forte <mcforte@kacike.org> Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:58:07 -0400 To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: ethnography (A) there is nothing inherently "colonial" about the practice of ethnography. How ethnography is done, by which agents, in which historical contexts, and for what purposes is what matters. I think we risk confusing the histortical origins of anthropology with field methods. (B) There is no law, that I know of, that will convince me that unintended consequences are more likely than intended ones. What is the basis for the assertion? Finally, the issue of power differentials has been hammered to death and I was never really impressed by the lack of realism of these arguments. I have conducted research with people who could buy and sell me at a whim, other who could have snuffed me out at the snap of the fingers, and others that had over three decades of experience in dealing with the media, politicians, ministries, or who were themselves political leaders. I was some kid getting an "anthro" degree. There are power differentials, sure, but not necessarily in the single direction you suggest. ------ End of Forwarded Message ------ Forwarded Message From: Jonathan Marshall <Jonathan.Marshall@uts.edu.au> Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:09:42 +1100 To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Re: ethnography Fair enough :) but ethnography tends to bring you face to face with these issues in a way in which other techniques, to my knowledge do not. It is all very well to argue ethnography is not perfect, and i certainly agree, it can't be - this is what doing ethnography has 'taught' us - but perhaps you need to suggest an alternative research strategy which does not have these problems. ------ End of Forwarded Message

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). I don't feel that I was denying power relations--I was actually expanding on them. What I did say is that power relations are not just uni-directional, except in simplistic and conspiratorial critiques that themselves deny a voice to those whose experiences suggest something very different. It all depends on what kind of indviduals and groups you are working with: if they are hapless little children, then I could see why we would be concerned about the presumed omnipotence of the ethnographer. If you are working against such subjects, or with the aim of getting data and then dumping them as soon as possible, then again I could see where research subjects may be marginalized, excluded, etc--but they may also be very relieved to be rid of you. They may also be realists and realize that whatever is written about them in academia matters little because, after all, reports buried in specialist journals can almost be considered "private" discussions given the general population's lack of interest in these publications. There is also ethnography in the action research mode, strong forms of collaboration, etc., that simply make rubbish of the sometimes overwrought critiques of ethnography. The answers are not to be found in libraries "before you head out there": it's a matter of not being too naive--we are not these overwhelmingly important, omnipotent centres of the universe that we believe ourselves to be, a view which is perhaps flattering to ourselves. I am concerned about anyone thinking in patronizing or condescending terms of our so-called informants, ignoring their own actual power. If one of the main questions you ask yourself as researchers while engaged in field work is "am I an oppressor" (instead of "am I a pawn"), then I would go as far as saying that you are deluding yourself, or that you should quit the research and pick on someone your own size :) Cheers, Dr Maximilian C. Forte Assistant Professor in Anthropology Department of Anthropology and Sociology University College of Cape Breton P.O. Box 5300, Sydney, NS, Canada, B1N 1A3 Tel: 902-563-1947 Fax: 902-563-1247 E-mail: max_forte@uccb.ca Website: http://faculty.uccb.ns.ca/mforte/

It's worth holding in mind a) the inextricability of the ethnographic mode with the colonial missionary project and b) the likelihood of unintended consequences over intended ones, and the very different positions of power which are held in the ethnographic encounter.

(A) there is nothing inherently "colonial" about the practice of ethnography. How ethnography is done, by which agents, in which historical contexts, and for what purposes is what matters. I think we risk confusing the histortical origins of anthropology with field methods. (B) There is no law, that I know of, that will convince me that unintended consequences are more likely than intended ones. What is the basis for the assertion? Finally, the issue of power differentials has been hammered to death and I was never really impressed by the lack of realism of these arguments. I have conducted research with people who could buy and sell me at a whim, other who could have snuffed me out at the snap of the fingers, and others that had over three decades of experience in dealing with the media, politicians, ministries, or who were themselves political leaders. I was some kid getting an "anthro" degree. There are power differentials, sure, but not necessarily in the single direction you suggest. Cheers, Dr Maximilian C. Forte Assistant Professor in Anthropology Department of Anthropology and Sociology University College of Cape Breton P.O. Box 5300, Sydney, NS, Canada, B1N 1A3 Tel: 902-563-1947 Fax: 902-563-1247 E-mail: max_forte@uccb.ca Website: http://faculty.uccb.ns.ca/mforte/