Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Angrosino, Michael and May de Pérez, Kimberley - Rethinking Observation From Method To Context

    Uploaded by

    maurovazquez
    15 views28 pages

    Original Title

    Angrosino, Michael and May de Pérez, Kimberley - Rethinking observation from method to context

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    15 views28 pages

    Angrosino, Michael and May de Pérez, Kimberley - Rethinking Observation From Method To Context

    Uploaded by

    maurovazquez

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 28
    INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD SECOND EDITION Collecting and | Interpreting . ualitative aterials editors NORMAN University of YVONNA S$. LINCOLN Texas A&M University Copyright © 2003 hy Sage Pu All sights reserved. No part ofthis book may be reproduced or ‘Thoasand Oaks, California 91320 malt ordenaagepub con Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Catalo Colleting and interpreting qualitative mate ceditors.— 2nd ed K. Denzin, 300.723—de21 2002156613 Printed on acid-free paper 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10947654321 Contents Preface Part. Methods of Collecting and Analyzing Empirical Mateciats 2. The Interview: From Structured Questions 4, ‘The {nterpretation of Documents and Material Cultuze 5. Reimagining Visual Methods: Galileo to Neuromancer a7 6 107 15s 176 Suggested Readings 645 '6.» Autocthnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexi Name Index 6s1 7 Data Management and Analysis Methods 259 Subject Index os Gery W. Byun and H. Ruel Bemad Ce About the Authors 675, &. Software and Qualitative Research 310 Eben A. so Research 365 389 i a9 a7 1B. ices and Politics of faterprecaion 458 ‘ Noman K: Denn 4. A Method of Inquity 499 15. sa 16. Understanding Social Programs Through Eval 590 Jenner C. Greve 17. ‘Influencing the Policy Process With Qualitative Research 619 RC R METHODS OF COLLECTING AND ANALYZING EMPIRICAL MATERIALS na Yoruba community. In 3 Rethinking Observation From Method to Context Vaz, KM. (Ed Oaks, CA: Sa ‘Michael V. Angrosino and Kimberly A. Mays de Pérez ‘@ Observation: Basic Assumptions METHODS OF COLLECTING AND ANALYZING EMPIRICAL MATERIALS Rethinking Observation: From Method to Context particularly wh. domestic inner-city sites) colon hips (Gupta & Ferguson, 1996c, p. 6), but the desi fc throughous the literature. In that case, its proper to observation,” oF fieldwork, which is the focus ofthis chapter. Observatic -al settings can be rendered as descrip through open-ended narrative or chrough the use of publ Jd guides (Rossman & Rallis, 1998, p. 1373 see Stocking, 1983a, fora ew ofthis dichotomy). In ether case, n does nor interfere with the peo} Jn. Most social scie gee ry of the observer's affecting what he or she observes, but care ful researchers are nonetheless supposed to adhere to rigorous standards I bias. Even eu Wolcorz, 1995, p. 66), st objectivity. Failure ro do.so would mean thar they ha their work conse 1978, p. 69). The a of the del tion and observation remains che idea of anthro longer “k snains central to the sel-images of most prac chavioral sciences. Objective rigor has most en been associated with quantitative research mrechous, and 50 impor- ( tant has been the harmoni i empathy and detachment that even ¢ dedicated t0 4) to organizing theic e j (ce, the form thatlooks most quapritarive) for analysis ee, €. Altheide \ & Johnson, 19945 Bernard, 198 1993) A ‘Adler and Adler (1994) have, in fact, suggested that in the furure, vational research will be found as bbuc chatin thar spect ° g : rests on "something researchers can xy mean “their own direct knowledge and their own judgment” (p. 389). In social science research, a8 in lega! cases, \ ton servers has been seen as a pare ication (Pelto & Pelto, 1978, p. 69), In ng narrative repé ‘Whatever else may be s rary studies of society and e! lar researchers, with the question being standards of objective scholar diected ar to question whether James the standards chemselves, fn observational object Clifford (19832), wh extensively and critically about the study of culture and sociery, has called into question even the work of t revered Bronislaw Maliaawski, the archetype of the sci ‘observer, who, acco: responsible for the the conception of the ethnographer’ from that of inquirer to that of participant ‘ina way Perhaps more: very influ Geerta to task for suggesting that thro deseribe a culture in terms of the meanings specific ture, In other words, the ethnographer, asa di just as he or she was supposed 10 do in M: istic world. This assessment is echoed by Sewel tz did not expect field-workers pacticipant ’s rol mbers of shat cul- inet persor spraphic research, and whet describe and/or interpret cultures a if those tit the ethnographer’s being part of the action. The postmodernist ol izes the importance of un- derstanding the ethnogeapher’s “situation” (eg., his or her gender, clasp, ethnicity) as part of interpreting the ethnographic product, is particulay 109 METHODS OF COLLECTING AND ANALYZING EMPIRICAL MATERIALS sd out in literate sox By i now carried 04 cation and transportation networks. Like s ” fie. conduct research among elites) pologists now “study up” (Le., condi often as they study the poor and the marginalized. Doing so overcomes 1 of the problems associated wi ist bias of tea- regarding the posit ching, ethnogeaphcrs exe aa lomger sien tbe the ‘edge about the soci om ees, e are inevitably 18 to be conflicting versions of what happened, gin such settings long J were alzeady beginning ming the privilege of objective, 10 many “natives” ready and Soci before the anthcopologists came on the scene, tobe aware of he problems able chalege th hort period of tne mow in ng. A barefoot day show np ony 1m Onford degree and your book in hand” (137). eadtional stmpton, ha the rath cking a ethnographer and i ined to expect differences it chica Seraph eth has come vob seen rvexcludre pi of ehographic re ge thn can be package ne Marus, 1997, p92) Some ctnogzapbes (of arows disciplines) have responded to this new station by esing the ways in which they Condutt abtervaton based esearch and present their analyses. No longer can tbe taken framed will ome insiders’ reports and behavioral scien testimony grounded in gender, Jor easy to mix into a c we factors that are the monologic no Rethinking Observation: From Method to Context here is said t0 be a dialogue between culeures/societies are to be described.? Dis ‘cussions af ethnographers’ own interactions, relationships, and emotional been moved from their traditional acknowledgments or forewords to the centers of the ves. Although this practice has certainly opened up new horizons in ethnograph icraises further issues ofits own, Forexampl the ethnographers who write up (or 9 the Field studies, do they it er 20 claim the ienplicie seacas of arbitersimediators of social/cult ‘alge (Woll, 1992, p. 120)? Exhnographers may asert that they represent ‘the many voices involved in the research, but we st case er refers only to the conduet of mu ams of professional researchers; ic of 1 presui Participation of professional researchers artd theit erstw (Kuhlmann, 1992; D. L. Wolf, 1996, p, 26). Matsumoto 1996), for exam: ‘of questions to the people she was interested in them all thet any ted, The pote invitation to participate As such situations become more co rant that We rethink our seceived notions about “observa role it plays in the generation of To thatend, it might be useful to. observation as a “method” per se toa sizes obsecvation as a context for interaction at he Classic Tradition As a prelude to an exploration of observation-as-c seview the traditions at observa 1 basis of jographers have, in fact, long i, the interaction of researcher and subjects of study can change behaviors in ways that would not bayg, occurred in the absence of s METHODS OF COLLECTING ANO ANALYZING EMPIRICAL MATERIALS sha ts both possible and desirable ro develop standardized procedures eas “maximize observational efficacy, minimize investigator bias and aa or replication and/or veritication to check out the degree 10 whic these procedures have enabled the invest ddata that, when incorporated into bis oF tegarded by peers as objective fini fectvity bas been held tobe ee result of agreement berween partcipanis ser obecrvers aso what is really going on ina given sitvation. Such agres rent has been thought to be attained through the el of feedbad Tram these whose behaviors, were being reported. Ethnography’s “se esgative process” has typically included adequate and ap ate sampling procedures, systematic techniques for gath ving dat, validation of data, avoidance of observer bias and doo ayia of hadings (Clifford, 1983b, p- 129; Gold, 1997, 399). The mnain difference berween sociological overs of mopraphy seems to have been thatthe former have generally fel the a are idave their eyewitness accounts through other forms of docs vacreas the latter have tended to use pasticipant observation, iy unsystematizes may be, as the ultimate reality check Wy other, more refined, research techniques” (Pelto 8¢Pelto, 1978, p.6 “The possibility of “observer bias” Tooms large in the thinking of bor sociologists and anthropoiogsts inthe ethnographic tradition (Werner 8

    You might also like