Micah S.

Camp
G19C0061

Anthropology 3
Research Task 1
Word Count: 1670

Gay y Blasco and Wardle (2007) aim to provide instruction and explanations that aid new
anthropologists in understanding ethnographies. How to Read Ethnography (2007) provides
information and activities that allow for the reader to comprehend ethnographical terms and
approaches in order to fully understand and critically analyse ethnographic research. The
book provides detailed analysis of ethnographies as a method of instruction - teaching readers
how anthropological thought is presented in ethnographies. This style allows the reader to
learn to analyse ethnographies anthropologically. The chapters discussed in this writing focus
on the process of comparison and how arguments are constructed and presented within
ethnographies.

Chapter one, titled Comparison: The ethnographic outlook, (Gay y Blasco & Wardle,
2007a:13-33) focuses on the anthropologist’s use of comparison as a fundamental and
instinctive process of conducting ethnographic studies. The chapter begins with a discussion
around how anthropologists are in a space that is vastly different from their known culture
and norms and considers how anthropologists instinctively contrast their experiences in the
field against what they are familiar with (Gay y Blasco & Wardle, 2007a:15). This
comparison, according to Gay y Blasco and Wardle (2007a:16), can cause a “misapplied
Western distinction” wherein assumptions are made based on the researcher’s own culture,
which can serve a dual purpose. The assumptions made by the researcher can result in an
insight into the researcher’s unconscious bias or approach, or an inadequate, potentially
incorrect description of an observation; for example, seeing something as impolite because it
is considered so in the researcher’s home culture, but is not necessarily so in the context
wherein the observation is made (Gay y Blasco & Wardle, 2007a:16). This is not, however, a
bad practice as “all ethnographers approach the people they study with other groups in mind”
(Gay y Blasco & Wardle, 2007a:19). An important point of interest presents itself in the
quote by Richard Fardon, wherein he writes that ethnographic accounts are enabled “by the
terms on which members of a host culture allowed the ethnographer to know them” (Gay y
Blasco & Wardle,2007a:19). This raises an interesting point, as ethnographers typically hold

1
an etic perspective within their research, and ethnographic research is restricted by the degree
of involvement of the participants. The information mentioned in this quote encapsulates the
notion of comparison: the ethnographer (us) versus the subjects in the study (them) (Gay y
Blasco & Wardle,2007a:19).

The chapter also includes a discussion of the role comparison plays within ethnographies. As
“not all ethnographic texts are comparative in the same way” (Gay y Blasco & Wardle,
2007a:20), one can gauge the authors aims and approach. Comparison can be used explicitly
or more often implicitly (Gay y Blasco & Wardle, 2007a:26). Typically, the role of
comparison is to highlight and demonstrate differences, and to aid in generalisation (Gay y
Blasco & Wardle, 2007a:23). Comparison between societies can develop a more in depth
understanding of the institutions and inner workings of the societies (Gay Y Blasco and
Wardle, 2007a:21). The way in which comparison is used aids the reader in determining the
ultimate goal of the ethnographer - to describe, contrast, or generalise. Concepts that have
been developed through ethnographies become solidified in the “anthropological
imagination” and provide a basis for later research; the use of comparative ethnographical
research contributes to anthropological knowledge, allowing for new material and theories to
develop that can be applied to various geographical regions (Gay y Blasco & Wardle,
2007a:25-26). This is discussed further in chapter five, Ethnography as argument, in which
the authors state that: “concepts can float free of the ethnographic modelling and evidence
that gave rise to them and be used in quite different contexts of argument” (Gay y Blasco &
Wardle, 2007b:109). The authors employ multiple examples to demonstrate the previously
discussed points and focus on how comparison is used throughout ethnographic research -
from the foundational research that forms a starting point for the ethnographer’s approach, to
the methods used during fieldwork, and the further solidifying of ethnographic concepts.
This chapter provides a detailed explanation thanks to the extensive use of examples and the
links described between the selected examples.

Gay y Blasco and Wardle’s (2007) fifth chapter, Ethnography as argument, holds a central
argument that ethnography is an attempt to convince readers of the anthropologist’s claims,
using evidence through their fieldwork (Gay y Blasco & Wardle, 2007b:98). Ethnographies
are framed to demonstrate the ethnographer’s argument: “the act of writing forces the telling
of ethnographic experience into a particular shape” (Gay y Blasco & Wardle, 2007b:101).
This is an intriguing point, as one questions what has been discounted from the fieldwork

2
observations in order to make room for more supportive evidence. This point is furthered by
the statement that “the kind of argument pursued in the ethnography will shape the kind of
evidence presented and vice-versa” (Gay y Blasco & Wardle, 2007b:102). Gay y Blasco and
Wardle (2007b:100-101) note that there is conflict between the readers’ way of thinking, and
potentially their understanding of the content discussed, and those of the people written
about. Using the example of Peter Lawrence’s 1984 research on the structure of Garia
society, this conflict is illustrated by the statement that “to know anything about the Garia
inevitably involves careful reformation of what the Garia say and do in terms other than those
the Garia themselves use” (Gay y Blasco & Wardle, 2007b:101). The resolution of this
conflict, the awareness of the challenges of “the bridging different life worlds” is described as
being one of the most enduring and invaluable contributions ethnographies makes towards
general intellectual thought (Gay y Blasco & Wardle, 2007b:101).

The authors of How to Read Ethnography (2007) hold a clear position in viewing
ethnography as a fundamental aspect of anthropology but make note of some dilemmas that
arise within the field of anthropology. It is noted that the degree to which narratives created
from fieldwork observations can be considered evidence is an area of contention within the
study of anthropology (Gay y Blasco & Wardle, 2007b:102). As interesting as this first part
of chapter five is, it is more technical than Comparison: The ethnographic outlook (Gay y
Blasco & Wardle, 2007a) due to the intensity of the provided sources; in chapter one,
numerous, in depth examples greatly aided the discussion. In this chapter however, it creates
a slightly overwhelming nature to the discussion. In saying this, the examples are again, well
selected and analysed in detail in order to reinforce the stance of Gay y Blasco and Wardle
(2007).

Gay y Blasco and Wardle (2007b:102) consider, in this chapter, the different ways evidence
and argument are combined in ethnographies. One of these methods is the use of jargon,
which the authors note can be “one of the most frustrating hurdles to understanding
ethnography” (Gay y Blasco & Wardle, 2007b:105). A fundamental jargon term is
‘relational’, which is described in the context of ethnographer’s intellectual relationships with
other ethnographers in debates over shared concepts - how ethnographers shape their
arguments in response to the arguments of other ethnographers (Gay y Blasco & Wardle,
2007b:105). Concepts are sustained through these relationships, they are maintained and
given relevance because of these connections (Gay y Blasco & Wardle, 2007b:7);

3
“ethnography-as-argument can only be appreciated within a larger relational web of
anthropological debate” (Gay y Blasco & Wardle, 2007b:105). Continuing the emphasised
consideration of the relational nature of ethnography, Gay y Blasco and Wardle (2007b:109)
declare that “an ethnography is never a free-standing intellectual entity”. The authors make
mention of the expectation that readers of ethnography have background knowledge of the
process a concept has gone through before its use in a particular ethnography (Gay y Blasco
& Wardle, 2007b:109).

Returning to the work of Lawrence (1984), the researcher found it impossible to make his
ethnography comprehensible in both conventional ethnographical terms, and the terms of the
Garia, having to orientate his research to the most commonly recognised methods of analysis
in order for it to be accessible and conceivable by a majority of scholars (Gay y Blasco &
Wardle, 2007b:100). Gay y Blasco and Wardle (2007b:110) acknowledge that this demand of
prior knowledge on the reader is one of the most difficult obstacles in being able to
effectively comprehend ethnographic writing. This assumption of what amounts to a great
deal of extensive background information, has the potential to make some concepts almost
inaccessible to less knowledgeable readers. While it is understandable that a researcher would
not desire to ‘dumb-down’ or obey conventions which inadequately describe their research, it
is important that anthropological conventions exist, to both fit into debates and to remain
accessible for readers who do not have a detailed understanding of the particular focus of a
specific ethnography.

How to Read Ethnography (Gay y Blasco & Wardle, 2007) explains the reasons behind
ethnographical styles of writing, and addresses concerns and issues with certain
anthropological conventions. The publication concisely concludes its major discussion points
with bullet points summarising the key aspects of each of the subchapters. Furthermore, the
text addresses and instructs readers on how to anthropologically analyse the provided
examples. At the end of the chapters, Comparison: The ethnographic outlook and
Ethnography as argument, activities are provided which give step-by-step questions that
allow the reader to learn how to critically comprehend ethnographies. This instructional text
is detailed without being extremely difficult to understand, and it is appreciated that they
address concerns and potential difficulties that a reader inexperienced with ethnographical
reading would encounter. While questions were raised, they were predominantly ones that

4
focused on points the chapters did not focus on. For all intents and purposes, the chapters
addressed their main goals and points in an understandable manner.

5
Reference List:

Gay Y Blasco, P.G. & Wardle, H. (2007a). Comparison: The ethnographic outlook. How to
Read Ethnography: p13-33. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis

Gay Y Blasco, P.G. & Wardle, H. (2007b). Ethnography as argument. How to Read
Ethnography: p96-116. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis