This is a follow-up on my previous article about the difference between anthropology and ethnography. In this article, I discuss recent trends within anthropology to either revitalize ethnography and/or rethink its status as the primary research methodology within the discipline.
We anthropologists should consider expanding beyond the ethnographic toolkit. That could involve redefining what it means to conduct ethnography in such a way that includes other types of practices outside of the traditional ethnographic toolkit and/or rethinking the role of ethnography as our primary methodology.
For context, ethnography has been the primary tool within the discipline for the last several decades. I would define ethnography as a methodological approach that seeks to holistically understand and express the lived experiences of those in a particular sociocultural context(s) (see this article and this paper). Ethnography conventionally entails a specific set of qualitative methodologies that help to understand and analyze these lived experiences, including participant observation, interviews, qualitative coding, and so on. Anthropologists and other ethnographers have built this set of practices because they are excellent at capturing people’s lived experiences, and I agree that they are powerful for that.
I do not, however, believe that these are the only potential ways to do that. For me, ethnography is an orientation, an approach that seeks to make sense of the social world by focusing on the lived experiences of others, not necessarily some collection of qualitative methods. Seeing ethnography as an orientation, for example, would enable ethnographers to use data science and machine learning tools within ethnographies (see this and this).
My perspective here exemplifies the first way some anthropologists have sought to expand beyond the traditional ethnographic toolkit: by redefining ethnography. For us, viewing ethnography as a specific set of qualitative research techniques pigeonholes what ethnography can be. Although these techniques are powerful and useful, their exclusive deployment within anthropology stifles what ethnography can become.
Other anthropologists will seek to expand beyond this toolkit by advocating for non-ethnographic anthropological research. For them, anthropologists should cultivate other research practices in addition to or sometimes instead of ethnography. I am passionate about applying this specifically to data science and machine learning, and Morten Axel Pedersen is a counterpart to me who in this specific area. He thinks anthropologists should move beyond ethnographic research, which could include incorporating data science and machine learning research (see his talk as an example). Similar to me, he wants to see more utilization of data science and machine learning within anthropology, but he presents this as an alternative to doing ethnographic research not as a potential part of ethnographic research like I do.
The difference between the two approaches is subtle: the first advocates for reimaging ethnography and the second for reimagining anthropology and anthropological research while potentially keeping ethnography the same. On a practical level, though, they are not that different. Not only are they not mutually exclusive: one can seek to redefine ethnography and ethnography’s hold within anthropology. But they each also have their place in seeking when encouraging the expansion of the anthropological toolkit. In some situations, the promotion of redefining ethnography beyond its traditional qualitative practices is most beneficial, and other times, advocating for non-ethnographic forms of research would be.
Photo credit #1: StockSnap at https://pixabay.com/photos/people-girls-women-students-2557396/
Photo credit #2: hosny_salah at https://pixabay.com/photos/woman-hijab-worker-factory-worker-5893942/
Photo credit #3: Jack Douglass at https://unsplash.com/photos/ouZAz-3vh7I
Interesting thesis. Clearly ethnography (and anthropology) can benefit from more quantitative methods and analyses, including intensive data analyses. Dr. Pedersen provides examples of this in practice. Even his example require traditional ethnographic analysis (i.e, “was it a good party” is combined with data-driven analysis of proximity to others to provide a quantitative interpretation of a “good party”). It makes me wonder, does using additional tools require so much as a rethinking or just acceptance of various tools, and the imagination to determine when and how to use them?
I agree that an acceptance of various tools and imagination to determine when and how to use them is important. In my experience, and I suspect in Dr. Pedersen’s experience although I do not want to speak on his behalf, within anthropology, such an acceptance and imagination is a rethinking. That’s not how many anthropologists would do currently. That is why I (and I suspect he) are pushing back against the hesitancy within anthropology to accept new tools.