©2005,TonyL.Whitehead.Ifquoted,pleasecite.Donotduplicateordistributewithoutpermission.Contact:twhitehe@anth.umd.edu,or301‑405‑1419

ETHNOGRAPHICALLYINFORMEDCOMMUNITYANDCULTURALASSESSMENTRESEARCHSYSTEMS(EICCARS)WORKINGPAPERSERIES

BasicClassicalEthnographicResearchMethodsSecondaryDataAnalysis,Fieldwork,Observation/ParticipantObservation,andInformalandSemi‑structuredInterviewing

TonyL.Whitehead,Ph.D.,MS.Hyg.ProfessorofAnthropologyandDirector,TheCulturalSystemsAnalysisGroup(CuSAG)DepartmentofAnthropologyUniversityofMarylandCollegePark,Maryland20742

July17,2005

1

TableofContents

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 2

1. SECONDARYDATAANALYSIS.................................................................................................... 3

2. FIELDWORKISANESSENTIALATTRIBUTEOFETHNOGRAPHY ..................................... 3

3. ACONCEPTUALMODELFORTHEETHNOGRAPHICSTUDYOFCULTURALSYSTEM:THECULTURALSYSTEMSPARADIGM(THECSP) .................................................................. 7

4. BASICCLASSICALETHNOGRAPHICFIELDMETHODS:ETHNOGRAPHICOBSERVATION,INTERVIEWING,ANDINTERPRETATIONASCYCLICITERATIVEPROCESSES ........................................................................................................................................ 9

4.1. THENATURALCULTURALLEARNINGPROCESS:THECHILDASANETHNOGRAPHICMODEL . 9

4.2. DESCRIPTIVEOBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................................ 10

4.3. STUDYCOMMUNITYENTRÉANDINITIALETHNOGRAPHICTOURS ........................................... 14

4.4. SELECTINGSOCIALSETTINGSFORETHNOGRAPHICSTUDY........................................................ 14

4.5. FROM“GRANDTOUR”TO“MINI‑TOUR”OBSERVATIONSTOINFORMAL,UNSTRUCTURED,CONVERSATIONAL,ANDDESCRIPTIVEINTERVIEWS .................................................................... 15

4.6. FROMDESCRIPTIVETOSEMI‑STRUCTURED,TOSTRUCTUREDINTERVIEWS............................... 16

4.7. EXPLORINGTHESTRUCTUREOFCULTUREDOMAINS:FOCUSEDANDSELECTOBSERVATIONSANDSEMI‑STRUCTUREDANDSTRUCTUREDINTERVIEWS ........................................................... 17

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 20

TABLES...................................................................................................................................................... 21

TABLE1:SPRADLEY’SDESCRIPTIVEQUESTIONMATRIX ..................................................................... 21

TABLE2:SPRADLEYʹSPROPOSEDUNIVERSALSEMANTICRELATIONSHIPSFORUSEINDOMAINANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................ 22

FIGURES.................................................................................................................................................... 23

FIGURE1:NATURALCULTURALLEARNINGPROCESSASAMODELFORBASICETHNOGRAPHY .... 23

FIGURE2:THECULTURALSYSTEMSPARADIGM.................................................................................. 24

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 25

APPENDIXI:WORKBOOKFORRECORDINGDESCRIPTIVEOBSERVATIONS ........................................ 25

APPENDIXII:CONTACTSUMMARYFORM(MODIFICATIONOFMILESANDHUBERMAN,1994:51‑54).................................................................................................................................................... 26

2

IntroductionThis document is another in the Ethnographically Informed Community and Cultural Assessment ResearchSystems (the EICCARS) Working Paper Series. In another of these working papers, titled What isEthnography?Methodological,andEpistemologicalAttributes,Iposittwooftheattributesas:(1)ethnographyincludesbothqualitativeandquantitativemethods;and(2)ethnographyincludesbothclassicalandnon‑classicalethnographic approaches.Theargument for the first is supportedby the fact thatwhilemethods that areconsidered to be qualitative have long been the dominant methods paradigm in ethnography, manyethnographers trained in anthropology have also long used quantitative methods as well, as theanthropologicalethnographerlearnstobeopenedtoanyandallmethodsthatcanhelphimorherbestunderstandtheculturalsysteminwhichheorsheisstudying.

Arguments for these twoattributesweremade toaddress first theperspectiveamonganthropologists,that the primary difference in ethnographic approaches is qualitative versus quantitative. Secondly,however, because of thedebate in anthropology, inwhich somemethods arediscussed as being trulyethnographicandothersasnot,Ihavefounddiscussionsofclassical,non‑classical,andcoreethnographicmethods as helpful indifferentiating the types ofmethods suitable to various ethnographic situations,whilenotexcludinganyfromtherangeofmethodsthatanethnographyshouldfeel freetousesothatthey can adequately study the range of social setting to which ethnography is appropriate. For me,classical ethnographicmethods are those thathavebeen traditionallyusedbyanthropologists, suchassecondary data analysis, fieldwork, observing activities of interest, recording fieldnotes and observations,participating in activities during observations (participant observation), and carrying out various forms ofinformalandsemi‑structuredethnographic interviewing. Ialsorefer to theseasBasicClassicalethnographicmethods, to distinguish them from other classical ethnographic methods long employed byanthropologists, including the physical mapping of the study setting, conducting household censuses andgenealogies,assessingnetworkties,andusingphotographyandotheraudio/visualmethods.

Thedifferencebetween the larger categoryof classicalmethods,and the subcategoryofBasicClassicalmethods is associated with the social setting to be studied. The full range of classical ethnographicmethodshavebeenfrequentlyassociatedwiththestudyofcommunitiesorpopulations,whiletheBasicClassical methods are those that are administered not only to human residential communities andpopulations,butalsoapplied toother social settings, suchasorganizations, institutions,meetings, andjustaboutanysettinginwhichhumansareinteracting.ThisapplicationofBasicClassicalethnographicmethodtoanyhumansocialsettinghasbeenanasteadygrowingtrendinethnographyoverthepast40years, increasingwith a steady growing trend of anthropologists and ethnographersworking in non‑academic or applied settings. This is a characteristic (recently increasing trend) that Basic Classicalethnographic methods share with non‑classical ethnographic methods. Another trend in non‑classicalethnographic methods is their adoption by researchers outside of the disciplines of ethnography andanthropology.Includedamongsuchasnon‑classicalethnographicmethodsare;(1)focusandothergroupinterviews;(2)computerassistedtechnologies,someusedtoenhanceclassicalethnographictechniques,suchasGeographic InformationSystems (GIS)used to enhance the ethnographers ability tomap theirhost communities; (3)highly structured interview techniques, someofwhichhavepsychometric scalesandothercognitiveelicitationandmeasurementmethods.Thereisoneformofstructuredinterviewingthat has also grown in popularity among anthropological ethnographers over the last 20 years, and isnowassociatedwiththatdiscipline,althoughitisnowbeingadoptedbythoseoutsideofthedisciplinetowhomthemethodhasbeenintroduced.Thistechniqueistheassessmentofculturaldomainsorunitsofcultural meaning. Why included here as a non‑classical ethnographic method, domain analysis is acontemporary approach of a classical interest in ethnography, and that is exploring cultural meaningthrough the analysis of language, or ethnosemantics. Of the three categories of ethnographicmethodological orientations that have been discussed in this introduction, the present working paperwill,however,focusonlyonthoseclassicalethnographicmethods,thatarecategorizedascore.

3

1. SecondaryDataAnalysisSecondarydataissimplyareferencetoexistingdata,ascomparedtonewdatathatarebeingcollected,orhavebeenrecentlycollected.Ethnography,similartoanyothertypeofresearchusuallybeginswiththeresearcheravailinghimorherselfof therangeof informationthatalreadyexistsonthetopicorpeoplebeingstudied.Inmorepositivistorquantitativeapproaches,itissuchknowledgethathelpstodevelophypothesis to be tested in the new research process. In themore open‑ended and discovery orientedapproachestoethnographyandqualitativemethods,secondarydataanalysisareimportantinexploringresearch assumptions (which some researchers refer to as early hypothesis), or to generate researchquestionstobefurtherexplored.Forallresearchapproaches,secondarydataanalyseshelpinidentifyinggapsinwhatisknownaboutparticularresearchtopics,andsuggestingthespecificmethodsthatmightbeusedtosecurethemostvaliddatarelatedtothequestionsortopicsofinterest.InanotherEICCARSWorkingPapertitled,IntroductiontoCommunityandCulturalResearchSystems,Ihavelistedthefollowingsecondarydatasourcesonthepopulationorsettingbeingstudied:

Scholarlyandpopular(includingmedia)publicationsandproducts.

Archivalandstatisticaldatafoundinvariousadministrativesourcesatthenational,stateand local levels (e.g., national censuses, government agencies, state and local planningoffices,policestations,cityandtownhallledgers,budgets,salesrecords).

Otherarchivaldocuments,suchasmaps,atlases,abstractsoftitles,andtitledeeds;

Records and data collected by business, educational, health, social services, labor andprofessional associations, church records, and other entities that collect data for theirparticularmissions;

Data collected in various types of directories, including telephone, local businessdirectories,specialethnicpublications;

Personal and Individual data, such as diaries, family histories, biographies andautobiographies,tombstones,etc.

Itishighlyrecommendedthatethnographersshouldexploreallthattheycanabouttheirtopicorstudypopulationbeforemovingontothecollectionofprimarydata.Withregardstoexistingstatisticaldata,and other secondary sources, many agencies, organizations, and associations may have relevant dataavailableonline.ThusItisalsohighlyrecommendedthatethnographersfirstexploreonlinesources,priortoengaging inmore traditionaland labor intensivemethodsof contactingagenciesandorganizations for theirhardcopydatadocuments.

2. FieldworkisanEssentialAttributeofEthnographyIn ethnography, primary data collection is carried out primarily through fieldwork. In fact for manyanthropologists fieldwork is almost synonymouswith ethnography1. My position is that fieldwork isessential to ethnography. Sowhat is fieldwork, andwhydo anthropologists consider it so essential towhat we call ethnography? Wolcott (1995) defines fieldwork as a form of inquiry that requires aresearcher to be immersed personally in the ongoing social activities of some individual or groupcarrying out the research. For classical ethnographers, who primarily studied local communities, itmeant the total immersion of the researcher in the field setting 24 hours per day, 7 days perweek, anddifferentseasonsoftheyear,foranextendedperiodoftime(e.g.,oneyear).Inthiswaytheethnographernotonlybecomes familiarwith thespatialdimensionsof theresearchsetting,and itssocio‑culturaldynamics,butalsohowthosedynamicsmaychangeatcertaintimesoftheday,weekoryear.Ofcourse,ethnographers

1Forexample,asAgar(1980)putsit,“theverynamefor“doingethnography”isfieldwork.“

4

workinsettingsotherthansimplylocalcommunitiestoday,wheresuch24‑‑7immersionisnotpossible,andunnecessary(e.g.,aworksetting).Buttheimportanceofspendingconsiderabletimewheremembersthosebeing studied carry out routines and activities relevant to the topic of study is still to relevant to theethnographyperspectives,regardlessofthestudysetting(moreonthislater).

Thesignificanceoffieldworktoethnographyisrelatedtowhatethnographyis,whichisexploredinanotherEICCARS Working Paper titled, What is Ethnography?: Methodological, Ontological and EpistemologicalAttributes.Myargumentthereisthatethnography,similartoanyotherresearchparadigm,isaboutmorethansimplymethods,butisalsogroundedcertainontologicalandepistemologicalperspectives.HereIuseGubaandLincoln’sdefinitionofontologyasoneperspectiveonthenatureofwhatisbeingstudied,whether itexistassomeobjectivefactofreality,ordoes thenatureof thatbeingstudiedvaryduetoarangeofpossible factors, including social, economic,political, situational, or experiential/personal; andtheirdefinitionofepistemologyasperceptionsofresearchfindingsasanobjectiveproductoftheneutralobserver,orasanintersubjectiveproductconstructedbytherelationshipbetweentheresearcherandthestudypopulation.Inthecaseofbothontologicalandepistemologicalperspectives,Iargue,ethnographytendstosharewithotherqualitativeresearcherstheideaofontologicalviewofwhattheyarestudyingvaryingbasedonenvironmentalfactors,andtheirfindingsasanintersubjectiveproductoftheresearcherand the research. These ontological and epistemological orientations of ethnography provide thefoundationsforthevariousattributesofethnography,includingfieldwork,andhelpstounderstandwhyfieldworkisessentialtotheseotherattributes,andthustoethnographyitself.TheotherattributesthatIconsiderassociatedwithethnography,includethefollowing:

Ethnographyisaholisticapproachtothestudyofculturalsystems.

Ethnography is the study of the socio‑cultural contexts, processes, and meanings withinculturalsystems.

Ethnographyisthestudyofculturalsystemsfrombothemicandeticperspectives.

Ethnography is a process of discovery, making inferences, and continuing inquiries in anattempttoachieveemicvalidity.

Ethnographyisaniterativeprocessoflearningepisodes.

Ethnography is an open‑ended emergent learning process, and not a rigid investigatorcontrolledexperiment.

Ethnographyisahighlyflexibleandcreative2process.

Ethnographyisaninterpretive,reflexive,andconstructivistprocess.

Ethnographyrequiresthedailyandcontinuousrecordingoffieldnotes.

Ethnography presents the world of its host population3 in human contexts of thickly

2Acaveathereisthatthislistofethnographicattributesshouldnotbeconsideredtobeexhaustive.Otherethnographersmayseeotherattributesthatarenotlistedhere,andmaybeevendisagreewiththese.Theremainderofthispaper,however,willconsistofbriefdiscussionsofeachofthesefourteenattributes.

3Inwritingthisessay,Ihaveadoptedthephraseof“hostpopulations”or“ethnographichosts”torefertothemembersoftheculturalsystembeingstudiedbytheethnographer.Ipreferthewordhostsratherthanthetraditionalethnographictermof“informant”becauseinmyworkininnercitycommunitiesIfoundthewordinformanttobequiteawkwardbecauseoftheuseofthesamewordtorefertopolicesnitches,whoaregreatlydisliked.Thewordhostalsofitstheepistemologicalorientationsbeingdiscussedinthepresentpaperofmovingawayfromanyconnotationoftheresearcherbeingthedominantactorintheresearcher‑researcheddyad.Assuch,Ipreferthewordhostsoverthepsychologicalresearchuseofstudysubjects,orthesociologistsuseofrespondentsorstudypopulations,becausethesetermscanalsoimplyahigherstatusintheresearcherresearchedrelationshipfortheresearcher.Iselectedthewordhostsalso,tofurtherconfirmtheroleoffieldworkintheethnographicprocess,whereintheethnographerislivingintheworldofhisorherhosts.

5

describedcasestudies.

IntheWhatisEthnography? Paper,I introducetheconceptofemicvalidity,andsuggestthataprimaryreasonforfieldworkinethnographyistoachievetheemicvaliditythatethnographypromises.Idefineemicvaliditysimplyasunderstandingthestudyhost(s)fromtheirownsystemofmeanings.Iarguethatthiscanbeachievedonlybybeinginthehostcommunityandcomingtoathoroughunderstandingofthedaily lives of the study hosts. As Malinowski pointed out more than 80 years ago, the goal ofethnographyis“tograspthenative’spointofview…torealizehisvisionoftheworld”(1922:25).Moreover,assuggestedbyGubaandLincoln(1997:198),thevarioushypotheses,theories,andinterpretiveframeworksbroughtbyoutside investigators“mayhave little ornomeaningwithin the emicviewof studied individuals,groups, societies, or cultures.” Fieldwork allows the researcher to observe and examine all aspects of aculturalsystem,especiallythosethatcouldnotbeaddressedthroughlaboratoryorsurveyresearchalone.Spendinglongperiodsoftimeinthefieldisconsideredthecrucialaspectoftheclassicalethnographer’sabilitytocomprehensivelydescribecomponentsofaculturalsystemasaccuratelyandwithaslittlebiasaspossible.Insummary,fromanepistemologicalperspective,theclassicalethnographerbelievesthattheonlywaytogainanative’sviewofhisorherownworldistospendconsiderabletimeinthatworld.Thispoint will become clearer as we discuss the role of fieldwork in the achievement of several otherattributesofethnography.

IntheWhatisEthnography?paper,InotonlypointoutthatEthnographyisaholisticapproachtothestudyofculturalsystems,butdefinecultureasa“holistic”flexibleandnon‑constantsystemwithcontinuitiesbetweenitsinterrelatedcomponents.Isuggestthattheseinterrelatedcomponentstobesharedideationalsystems (knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, values and othermental predispositions), and preferred behaviorsandstructural(social)relationships.Orstatedinanotherway,humanindividualslivetheirlivesinwidersocialcontexts (e.g., family,peers,etc.)of shared ideationalsystems (beliefs,attitudes,values,etc.)andpreferred behaviors, that help tomeet a range of humanneeds, and that are influenced by significanthistorical events and processes. Thus the specific ideas and behaviors of an individualmember of thecultural system can be influenced by any of these components of that system (social structure, sharedideas,andpreferredbehaviors),andthebroaderissuesthathavesomeinfluenceonthatsystem(physicalenvironment,history,andrealandperceivedhumanneeds).Whileonecaninterviewculturalmembersoutside of those contexts, and may secure somewhat emically answers, again the strongest means toachieving the greatest validity regarding the system is through fieldwork, and the opportunity forrepetitive,iterative,andsituationalobservationsandinterviewsthatsuchfieldworkallows.

With regards to ethnography as the study of the socio‑cultural contexts, processes, andmeanings withinculturalsystems, Idefine: (1)socio‑culturalcontextsasofseveral types:socialcontextsasrepresentedinthe social systems discussed (households and families, formal and informal networks, organizations,groups, dyads, institutions and relationships of thewider community, society, inter‑societal linkages),thatcaninfluencebehavior,ofwhichindividualsaremembers,of thephysicalenvironmentsoccupiedby individualsand their significantsocial systems,andofsignificant individualandsharedhistoricalpatterns;(2)thesocio‑culturalprocessesincludedintheinteractionsofindividualswithandwithintheirsignificant social systems, with and within the physical environments that individuals and theirsignificantsocialsystemsoccupy,andinindividualandsharedhistoriesandpatternsofindividualandgrouphumanneeds fulfillment;and(3)thesocio‑culturalmeanings that individualsandtheirsignificantsocialsystemsapplytosocialsystemicrelationships,thephysicalenvironmentstheyoccupy,individualandsharedhistoricalpatterns,andpatternsofbasichumanneedfulfillment4. Bythesedefinitions,onecan see that achieving the greatest emic validity in terms of socio‑cultural contexts, processes and4TherearethreecategoriesofhumanneedsoutlinedintheCSP,notonlythebasicorbiological/organicneedsasoutlinedbyMaslov,butalsosocialneedssuchaseducation,andexpressiveneedssuchastheneedforhavinganorderlyviewofthephysical,social,andmetaphysicalworlds.ThethreecategoriesofhumanneedsarediscussedinmoredetailintheCEHCWorkingpaper,“TheCulturalSystemsParadigm.”

6

meaningscanonlycomefromfieldwork. Itisthroughobserving,interactingwith,andparticipatingintheiractivitiesthattheethnographerisabletoplacehisorherstudyparticipantsintosocio‑culturalcontextsthat have meaning for them. It is through repeated observations, conversations, and more structuredinterviewing that the ethnographer gets an emically valid understanding of the sociocultural contexts,processes,andmeaningsystemsthatareofsignificancetothestudyparticipants.

There is oneotherpointon the significanceofmeaning systems to ethnographers, and the importanceoffieldwork to the understanding them. Ontologically, anthropological ethnographers have long criticizedpositivistapproaches tosocial researchbecauseof their lackofattention tomeaningsystems,and the factthat humans, as the primary object of study, constructmultiple realities that are complex,multifaceted,differently expressed in specific situations (context), and continually undergoing change (process).Epistemologically, tograspanunderstandingof such realities, the classic ethnographicenterprisedoesnotbeginwithpredeterminedhypothesestobeprovedordisprovedasobjectivesocial fact,butbeginswithopen‑endedexploratoryattemptstolearnasmuchaspossibleaboutthoserealities.Intheend,thisprocess enables theethnographer todescribe these realities and the connectionsbetween themwithasmuchemicvalidityaspossible.

In my discussion of cultural systems in theWhat is Ethnography? paper I also discuss the concept ofcultureashavinganumberofattributes,includingthefactthatculturalexpressionsmayexistasrealforitspractitioners,ormayrepresentsimplyanideal(ofwhattheythinkorwouldlikesomethingtobe),ormay exist as explicit or tacit.Here I followSpradley’s (1979:8‑9) definitions of explicit culture asculturalknowledgethatpeoplecaneasilytalkaboutinadirectfashion,andtacitcultureasknowledgethatmotivatesparticular ideationalorbehavioralpatterns,but aboutwhichpeoplemaynotbeable todirectlyspeak.Theseconceptsareveryimportantinthediscussionofemicvaliditybecausewhatmaybepickedup inan interviewtakenfromoutsideof thenaturalcontextsof thestudyparticipant’sculturalcontextscanresultinresponsesthatrepresenttheidealratherthanthereal,ormaynotrepresentwhatistruly important because “the truth” might be tacit rather than explicit. Here again ethnographicfieldwork,throughtheopportunitiesforrepetitive,iterative,andsituationalobservationsandinterviewsthatsuchfieldworkallows.

Another of the attributes of ethnography that I discuss in the What is Ethnography? paper is thatethnographyisnotarigidinvestigatorcontrolexperiment,butintheattempttoachievethehighestemicvalidity possible, ethnography is rather, a processof discovery,making inferences, and continuing inquiry.Because fieldwork places the ethnographer in theworld of his host community, it is difficult to haveinvestigatorcontrol,which is thehallmarkof thedominantpositivistparadigm. However, this lackofinvestigator control is sometime very valuable in the ethnographic attribute of discovering culturalphenomenathatmaybemostmeaningfultothehostcommunityregardingthetopicofstudy,butwouldhavebeenmissediftheresearchwouldhavefollowedapositivistorientationofinvestigatorcontrol.

This process of discovery often occurs when the ethnographer experiences what Agar refers to asethnographic breakdown, a “disjunction between worlds”—the ethnographer’s world and the hostculture’sworld.Thatis,theethnographerdoesnothaveaframeworkformakingsenseofwhatheorsheisobserving,ashisorherassumptionofcoherencehasbeenviolated.Themotivationtofindcoherenceormeaning will often time contribute to an acceleration of the ethnographic processes of focusedobservations and interviewing until this breakdown is resolved and coherence (understanding) isachieved.Thisprocessofbreakdown‑resolution‑occurencealsoaccentuatesthe importanceof fieldwork,assuch processes will occur more frequently in those environments in which ethnographic hosts spendmostoftheirtime,butwhichisarelativelynewerculturalsystemfortheethnographer.

Ethnographic discovery is not only about uncovering heretofore unknown phenomena, but in manyinstances,discoveringtherightquestionstoasktounderstandtheemicmeaningofknownphenomena,aswellasnewlydiscoveredphenomena.Assuch,ethnographyisthendefinedasanopen‑endedemergentprocess of learning episodes that is facilitated through iterativeprocessesof continualobservations,asking

7

questions (interviewing),making inferences, andcontinuing theseprocessesuntil thosequestionshavebeenansweredwiththegreatestemicvaliditypossible.Thisprocessofopen‑endedemergentlearningisfacilitatedthroughanotherdeparturefromthepositivistapproachoffollowingarigidmethodology,andthat is the ethnographer must be ontologically, epistemologically, and methodologically flexible andcreativeintheuseofarangeofmethodologiesthatwillhelpinunderstandingthepeopleandthestudytopicwith thegreatestemicvaliditypossible. Emicvalidity isalsoachievedduringethnographic fieldwork through the daily and continuous recording of fieldnotes. The daily recording of fieldnotes isimportanttotheethnographicprocesssothatvariouscomponentswillnotbeforgotten.Thisprocessofrecording fieldnotes facilitates the iterative process in ethnography, as questions emerge from thefindings that are then viewed as important, and can help in the formulation of new or supplementalquestionsthatfurtherstheassuranceofemicallyvalidproducts.Thecontinuousrecordingoffieldnotesis also important because of the ethnographer’s perspective that his or her product (findings) isinterpretive,andthose interpretationswilloftenchangeoverthedurationof thefieldworkprocess.Thisoccursbecauseearlyinterpretationsareoftencoloredbyparadigmsthattheethnographerbringstothefield.Asheorshegoesthroughtheprocessofemicallylearningtheculturalsystembeingstudied,theyoftenfindthatlaterinterpretationsofthesamephenomenadifferfromthoseearlierinterpretations.

Inrecordingfieldnotes,ethnographersnotonlycontinuouslyrecordtheirnotesonthehostcommunity,buttheyalsoneedtokeeprecordsonhisorherreactionsandfeelingsregardingtheirfieldexperiences.These personal notes should be periodically analyzed in relationship to interpretations about the hostcommunity,ortheOther.Thisprocessisreferredtoasreflexivity,isimportantinovercomingwhatthosein more positivist paradigms refer to as investigator bias. In ethnography, however, we know thatemicallyvalidrepresentationsoftheseothers,orsocalledobjectivityinpositivistparadigms,isenhancedbymoving away from themorepositivist orientation of the so‑called objective neutral investigator, toacceptingandanalyzingourownhumansubjectivity in thisprocess. Theethnographer thencomes tounderstandthathisorherproductrepresentingthehostcommunityisindeedaconstructivistproductoftheintersubjectivitybetweentheresearcherandtheresearched.

Inconclusion,itmustbepointedoutthatachievingemicvaliditydoesnotmeanthatethnographers“gonative,”ordiscardall of theknowledgeparadigms that theybring to the fieldwith them. Oneof theattributes of ethnography discussed in the What is Ethnography? Paper is the ethnographer shouldmaintainboth emicand eticperspectives in their studiesof cultural systems..That is inaddition to theemicapproachoftryingtounderstandcomponentsofaculturalsystemfromtheperspectiveofthegroupbeingstudied,theethnogrphermustalsoutilize,whereappropriate,thetheoretical,methodological,andotherknowledgesystemsthatwillhelp incarryingoutanemicallyvalidresearchproduct. Becauseofsuch issues as multiple realities, and ideal and tacit cultural phenomena, discussed earlier, eticknowledgehelpsinunderstandingwhatistrulyemic,or“true”inthestudyofaculturalsystem.

3. AConceptualModelfortheEthnographicStudyofCulturalSystem:TheCulturalSystemsParadigm(TheCSP)

One of the attributes of ethnographydiscussed in theWhat is Ethnography?WorkingPaper that needsfurtherdiscussionhereistheideathatethnographyistheholisticstudyofculturalsystems.Atthecenterofthis attribute is the concept of culture, and the problemswith there being a lack of any agreed upondefinitionoftheconcept.Becauseofmylongcareerasaculturalanthropologistsworkinginthefieldofpublichealth,IfoundthatIneededtooperationalizetheconceptsothatitcouldbeunderstoodbynon‑anthropologists (aswell asmyself), and couldbeused to inform thework inwhich Iwas involved inadoptedfield.TheresultofthisoperationalizationoftheconceptofculturehasbeentheCulturalSystemsParadigm(theCSP), to facilitate theholisticstudyofculturalsystems. IwillonlybrieflydescribedtheCSP here as a more detailed discussion of its origins and characteristics can be found in the CEHCWorkingPapers,WhatisEthnography?andTheCulturalSystemsParadigm.

8

TheCSPbegan to emerge in the early1980s to respond to twomethodologicalneeds that Ihadat thetime:

thelackofadequatemodelsforinterpretingthecomplexdatageneratedbyethnographicapproachesinamannerappropriateforappliedsettings(Peltoetal,1980);and

the frequency with which ethnographic inquiry yielded narrative answers frominformantswhich expressed a range of concerns outside of the research questions butwhichappearedtobeofextremeimportancetothosebeingstudied.

IncreasinglyIfoundthatthedatathatIwascollectingfromstudyafterstudyprovidedtheanswertomydilemmaandgaverisetothreeunderlyingethnographicprincipleswhicharebuilt intotheCSP.FirstIfoundthatmydatafrommostofmystudiescouldbeorganizedintoninebroadcategories,withmultiplesubcategoriesineach(SeeFigure2).ThemajorcategoriesoftheCSPare:

(1) The individual human organism and its biological status, psychological makeup,personality and idiosyncratic tendencies (including agency), “intelligence,” skill levels,etc.

(2) Thesocialsystemsorunitsofsocialrelationshipswhichindividualsinteractwithin,areinfluencedby,andhaveaninfluenceon(residentialunits,extra‑residentialnetworksanddyads,andcommunityorsocietalorganizationsandagencies).

(3) Individualandshared(withothersinselectsocialsystems)behavioralpatterns.(4) Thesignificant“idea”systems(knowledge,attitudes,beliefs,values,andsymbolismsor

“unitsofmeaning”)heldbyindividualsandsocialsystems.(5) ExpressiveCultureasrepresentedinsuchformsaslanguage,music,art,etc.(6) Technologiesandhumanmadematerialobjects,ormaterialculture.(7) Thephysicalenvironmentsinwhichhumansinteract.(8) Needs that humans must meet in order to achieve the level of physical functioning

necessarytothesurvivaloftheindividualandgroup.(9) Thehumangroupʹssharedhistoryofsignificanteventsandprocesses.

ThesenineethnographiccategoriesgaverisetothefirstethnographicprincipleoftheCSP,ThePrincipleofUniversalHumanCulturalCategories.Thisprincipleholdsthattherearecertaincategoriesofphenomenawhichareuniversallyrelevanttohumancommunities,thoughthesecommunitiesdifferintermsofhowthesephenomenaareexpressed(culture).Thisassumptionsuggeststhatwelookforwaysthathumansandtheir cultures are similar before we began to look for how they vary. However, very important to thisparticularorientationisthatwhiletheCSPsuggestsbroaduniversalculturalcategories,itmustbenotedthathumancommunitiesandtheirindividualmembersvaryintermsofhowthosecomponentsareexpressed.Thejob of ethnographer, then, is to decipher the specific cultural and individual expressions within these datacategories.

ThesecondethnographicprincipleoftheCSPiswhatIcallthePrincipleofParadigmaticFlexibility,whichstatesthatbecauseofthedifferencesinbehavioralandideationalexpressionsacrosshumangroupsandindividuals,conceptualframeworksthatinformthestudyofculturalsystemsmustbeflexible.Asaconsequenceof variations in expression, while the categories of the CSP provide a framework for initiatingethnographicstudyandstoringethnographicdata,theboundariesofthesecategoriesarenotrigid.DatathatarestoredinoneCSPcategoryatonepointintheethnographicprocessmaybemovedtoorsharedwithanothercategoryastheethnographercontinuestolearnabouthisorherhostculture.ThecategoriesoftheCSParenotnecessarilypermanent.IndeedtheCSP’scategoriesandsubcategorieshavechangedagreatdealsincetheparadigmwasfirstconceptualized—aprocessofevolvingconceptualizationthatwillcontinueasconceptionsofhumanculturalandindividualvariationsalsoevolve.

ThethirdethnographicprincipleoftheCSPiswhatIcallthePrincipleoftheInterrelationshipbetweenSocio‑cultural Contexts, Processes, andMeaning Systems.This principle holds that in order to understandwhy

9

certainbehaviorsemergeandpersist,includinghealthriskandresiliencybehaviors,wemustunderstandthe socio‑cultural contexts in which these behaviors occur, the socio‑cultural processes of behavioralcontexts,andthesocio‑culturalmeaningsthatthesecontextsandprocesseshaveforthosewhopracticethem.Morespecifically,theCSPallowsustoholisticallystudy:

(1) the socio‑cultural contexts of the social systems (households and families, formal andinformal networks, organizations, groups, dyads, institutions and relationships of thewidercommunity,society,inter‑societallinkages),ofwhichindividualsaremembers,ofthephysicalenvironmentsoccupiedbyindividualsandtheirsignificantsocialsystems,andofsignificantindividualandsharedhistoricalpatterns;

(2) the socio‑cultural processes included in the interactions of individualswith andwithintheir significant social systems, with and within the physical environments thatindividuals and their significant social systems occupy, and in individual and sharedhistoriesandpatternsofindividualandgrouphumanneedsfulfillment;and

(3) the socio‑culturalmeanings that individuals and their significant social systems apply tosocial systemic relationships, the physical environments they occupy, individual andsharedhistoricalpatterns,andpatternsofbasichumanneedfulfillment5.

4. BasicClassicalEthnographicFieldMethods:EthnographicObservation,Interviewing,andInterpretationasCyclicIterativeProcesses

4.1. TheNaturalCulturalLearningProcess:TheChildasanEthnographicModelUsually,discussionsofethnographicobservations,interviewing,anddatainterpretationarepresentedinseparate sections of a document, separate chapters in books, or as separate books. However, becauseethnography is a cyclic iterative process, wherein the ethnographer, moves back and forth betweenobservations, interviewing,and interpretation. In this sense, theethnographer trying to learn the rules,routines,andmeaningsofanewculturalsystemissimilartotheyoungchildfirstlearningthecultureofwhichhewillbecomeamember.Anynewparents,orotherswhohavespenttimewithhumaninfants,one will notice that they learn their culture through the following processes of observations, askingquestions, interpretation, and participant observation, the primary methods used in Basic Classicalethnographic fieldmethods.As such I refer to thesemethods as thenatural cultural learning process,orNCLP.

I came to use the young child an ethnographic model, and NCLP terminology, because of myinvolvement in introducingethnographytoaudienceswhohavenobackgroundineitheranthropologyorethnography,Anyonewhohastakencareoftoddlers,andhastositthechilddownwhiledoingotherthings,mightnoticehowthechildeyesfollowyou,takenineverythingthatyouaredoing.Thisisthewaythechildbeginstolearntherulesandroutinesthatareassociatedwiththefirstculturalsystemthattheyareconsciouslyawareof. As the toddlerbegins to talk,andto formulatequestions, thequestionsthen come continuously. The child then experiments, or participates in the various activities he hasobserved, aswell as attempt new ones.As he or she begins towalk, themethods of experimentationbroadens, and parents are kept busy, tomake sure that he doesn’t injure him or herself. Parents arehelpingthechildlearntheboundaries,rulesandroutinesofthisearlyculturalsystem.Witheachofthesecultural learning processes, the child ismaking interpretations, refining these interpretationswith every

5TherearethreecategoriesofhumanneedsoutlinedintheCSP,notonlythebasicorbiological/organicneedsasoutlinedbyMaslov,butalsosocialneedssuchaseducation,andexpressiveneedssuchastheneedforhavinganorderlyviewofthephysical,social,andmetaphysicalworlds.ThethreecategoriesofhumanneedsarediscussedinmoredetailintheCEHCWorkingpaper,“TheCulturalSystemsParadigm.”

10

phaseoftheprocess.Aschildrengrowolder,theyuseothersinnewsocio‑culturalsystemsastheyusedtheirparents, includingolder siblings,peers, teachers, andsoon, in learning thevarious socio‑culturalsystemsthatthesepersonsrepresent.

Themethodsusedby children in learning thevarious socio‑cultural systems that they interact, are thesame methods that are used by the ethnographer in learning a new cultural system: observation,interviewing,participating,andmakinginterpretations.Intermsofobservation,onemightnoticethatasthetoddlercontinuouslywatchesparentsandoldersiblings in learning itsearliest socio‑cultural system, itlifts its other senses to the highest level of awareness as well, hearing, smell, touch, and taste. Theethnographerdoes thesame,asethnographicobservationnotonlymeans thecollectionof informationthroughelevateduseofthesenseofsight,butthroughallofhisorhersenses.Thisisthemeaningoftheethnographer’sfrequentuseoftheconceptoftheethnographerashisorherprimaryresearchinstrument.

The child’s use of members of specific cultural systems as sources of information is similar to theethnographers’useofcultural“informants,”throughobservationsandinterviews,aswellaswithwhomtoparticipateinexperiencingcomponentsofthatsystem.Asthechildgoesthroughthedifferentphasesof informationgathering (observations, interviewing,participation/experimentation), therearedifferentphases of interpretations regarding the information collected, until the child achieves a level ofsatisfactory coherence regarding the phenomena about which data were collected. This is the sameprocess used by ethnographers as they moved towards a sense of emic validity, as discussed in theprecedingsection.

Figure 1 illustrates the iterative nature of the NCLP. The bottom of the figure suggests that theethnographer uses similar skills in resolving breakdowns leading to the coherence of new culturalsystems. During initial periods of cultural learning, human infants can be viewed in somewhatcontrastingwayswithregardstothebreakdown‑resolution‑coherenceprocess.Firsttheyinitiallydonotsufferbreakdown,becausetheyhavenoexistingframeworkthatneedsdeconstructing,inordertomoveontonewculturallearning;orbreakdowncouldbeviewedastheonlystatethattheyknowforthesamereason.Whatevertheirstate,itisonethatacceleratestheprocessofresolution‑theycouldbeviewedasina continued aswould an adult learning anew culture, because there is a constant state of breakdownbecauseisalsoanillustrationoftheethnogrqapher,goingthroughtheprocessesofbreakdown,resolution,andcoherencediscussedearlier. For,while theethnographerusesskills to learnanewculture, thataresimilar to those of the child learning his or her native culture, iterative observational, interviewing,interpretation,andparticipation/experimentation.

IbegantousethechildasmodelinprovidingtraininginbasicorBasicClassicalethnographicmethodstonovicestoethnographytoalsodemonstratethatthereisnothingmysticalabouttheconcept;butthatthesewereskillsthatwelearnedearlierinlife,andthatwecontinuetouseasadults,butwithdecreasingefficiency, as we learn the various aspect of our own indigenous socio‑cultural systems. Infants andtoddlersareveryefficient at cultural learningbecause theydon’thaveanexisting cultural framework,whichmight act as a barrier to interpreting a particular thing or actionwithin its own socio‑culturalcontext.Withoutsucha framework,allof thechild’ssenses (sight,hearing,smell, touch,andtaste)arehighly tuned to environmental stimuli. As we get older, we are not as efficient in cultural learningbecauseweenculturatethevariousaspectsofourownsocio‑culturalsystem,andnolongerhavetouseour senses at such a level. Wemake interpretations base on existing frameworks, and over time losesomeournatural cultural learningskills.BasicClassicalethnographic training then isabouthelping torestoresomeoftheseskills,andtomovebeyondnaturalculturallearningskillsofchildrenandeverydaypeople,tothemoresystematic,purposive,andstructuredskillsofethnography.

4.2. DescriptiveObservationsAs stated earlier, there are many forms of ethnographic observations and interviewing. Firstethnographersgenerallyviewethnographicobservationsasgenerallybeingoftwotypes:

11

(1)observationswithouttheethnographerparticipatingintheactivitiesbeingobserved;andobservationswithparticipation in the community activities in addition to observation, a concept deemed participantobservationinethnography.

Thetermobservationisusuallyassociatedwiththesenseofsight.ButInthepurestformofobservationswithout participation, ethnographers raises all of their senses, sight, hearing, smell, taste, and feel, tolevelshigherthannormal,andtakeinstimulifromallsourcesoftheculturalenvironmentinwhichtheyarestudyingandliving.Inotherwords,theethnographerʹswholebodybecomesahighlychargeddata‑collecting instrument to take in and process stimuli thatmight havemeaning for themembers of thecommunity,orthatprovideinsightregardingtheirlifeways.Someethnographersoftenviewthisprocessasoneinwhichtheyarerespondingtoinquiriesaboutthestudycommunityfromthemselves,althoughsometimestheymightnotconsciouslybeawareofanyquestionsthattheyarepursuingresponsesto.AsSpradleycomments,everythingthattheethnographerobservesareactuallyanswers,andtheprocessofobservationisactuallyfindingquestionstothoseanswers.

Ethnographic observations inwhich the ethnographer participates during social activities he or she isobserving (participant observation), help the ethnographer or ethnographic team to gain an emic orindigenous sense of the social setting being studied. This usually happens during involvement incarryingoutroleswithinthatsetting,andexperiencingthesocio‑culturaldynamicsofsuchparticipation6.Someethnographersviewethnographicfieldworkandparticipantobservationassynonymous,becausefieldwork(livinginthestudycommunity)foranyperiodoftimeisimpossiblewithoutparticipation,andmoving beyond interviewing, to ask questions, even if such questions are unstructured and a part ofnormalconversation.

IalsouseSpradley’s(1980)observationalscategoriesofasdescriptive, focused,andselect. Spradleysaysthatoneusuallystartethnographicfieldworkconductingdescriptiveobservations,whichusuallymeansentering the field setting or situationwith a goal of recording asmuch information as possible. Thischaracterizes the open‑ended approach to ethnography discussed earlier. Descriptive observations areusually carried out observing everything, through the heightened awareness of the senses, discussedearlier, and by, according to Spradley (1980:73), “approaching the activity in process without anyparticularorientationinmind,butonlythegeneralquestion,“Whatisgoingonhere?”

There are other questions however, that ethnographersmight usewhen not being quite sure ofwhatshouldbeobserved in social settings, and those arewhat I called thenatural inquiries. In additions toquestions ofwhat, when people are observing or learning about new settings or situations, naturally,althoughperhapssubconsciouslyaskthemselvesthequestions,who,how,where,whenandwhy.Irefertotheseasnaturalinquiriesalsobecausethesearequestionthathumansnormallyaskwhenfacedwithanissueaboutwhichtheyarenotsureofthecorrectanswer,andcontinuallyaskedbyyoungchildrenwhenlearningaspectsoftheirownculture.Thuswhenoneiscarryingoutone’sfirstethnographicobservationsof a social setting, but is not surewhat he or she should be observing, these natural cultural learningprocessinquiriesshouldbekeptinmind.

IncontinuingtoreadSpradley,onebecomesawarethatthequestion,“whatisgoingonhere?”isnottheonly one that he asks when carrying out descriptive observations. He presents nine (9 categories) ofphenomenathatmightoccurinanysettingofhumaninteraction,andthoseare:

Theactorsinthesetting.

6ItshouldbenotedthatSpradleydelineatesfourlevelsofparticipation:(1)passiveparticipation,whereintheobserverispresentatthesetting,butparticipationisverylimited;(2)moderateparticipation,whereinthereisgreaterparticipationthaninpassive,butstillsomewhatlimitedbecausetheobserverattemptstomaintainabalancebetweenemicandeticexperiences;(3)activiteparticipation,whereintheobservernotonlyseekstodowhatothersaredoing,notonlytogainacceptanceinthesettingbutalsotomorefullylearn the cultural rules for behavior; and (4) complete participation,wherein the observe is fully involved in every aspect of thesettinginwhichhisorherroleallows.

12

Thebehaviorsthatarebeingcarriedoutbytheseactorsintermsofacts(smallestunitsofbehavior), activities (a set of related acts), and events (a set of related events—morediscussiononthesewillbeprovidedlater)

Thespaceoccupiedbytheseactors,andhowtheseactorsaresituatedinthespace.

Theobjectsinthatspace,andhowtheseobjectsaresituatedorarranged.

Thetimeofobservations(hoursof theday,daysofweek,specificmonthsorseasonsoftheyear)

Whetherthereseemstobeanygoalsassociatedwiththebehavioroftheactors?

Dobehaviorsseemtobecarriedoutwithanylevelofemotions,orfeelings?

ThereadermightnotethatImentionedSpradley’ssuggestionofnineobservationalcategories,butIonlyhave seven bullets. The reason for what seems to be a discrepancy is that I combined three of hiscategories,acts,activities,andeventsintoonecategory,behavior.Iwanttopointouthowever,thatwhileIcombinehisthreecategoriesintothelargercategoryinwhichhisthreecanbegrouped,behavior,inthecollectionandanalysisofethnographicdata,Imaintainhisninecategories.

Spradley suggests these categories of phenomena for observation because they represent the range ofwhat might be observed in any specific social setting, and because phenomena within any of thesecategoriesmay carry (cultural)meaning for the participants in the setting. I always found Spradley’scategoriesusefulintheirpotentialforgeneratingquestionsforethnographerstolookforwhileobservingsocialsettings.Heprovidesamatrixbasedonjusttheseninecategoriestoshowtherangeofquestionsthat the observer might use, in using him or herself as an interviewee (See Spradley’s descriptiveobservationmatrixinTable1).

IfounditnecessarytoaddfourothercategoriestothoseofsuggestedbySpradley,thatalsooverlapwithhis,becausetheyarealsosourcesofmeaning,andtheyare:

Thelanguageusedbytheactorsinthesetting. Theinteractivepatternsbetweentheactorsinthesetting. DiscourseContentthatappearstoinfluencetheactorsinthesetting. ThepresenceofActorGroupsinthesetting,orpersonsthatcanbedifferentiatedbysome

sharedsimilarity,suchasbysex,age,kinship,vocationalorsomeothertypeofaffiliation(such as persons in a hospital settingdifferentiated by administration, doctors, nurses,non‑medicalstaff,patients,etc.)

As the CSP emerged, I found that it suggested that there were evenmore categories to be added toSpradley’s list fordescriptiveobservations,even thoughanumberof themajoranalytical categoriesofthe CSP seem to overlap with many of Spradley’s. The CSP categories, however, provide greaterinterpretiveoranalyticalstrengththroughitsprovisionofsubcategories.Forexample,theCSP’sMaterialCulturecategoryissimilartoSpradley’sObjectcategory.Similarly,theCSP’sSocialSystemsissimilartoSpradley’sActorcategory,inthatbothareareferencetothepeopleinthesetting.ButSocialSystemsalsorefertosubcategoriesandgroupsofActors,suchasthoseorganizedbydomesticunits,extra‑residentialgroupings, institutional and organizational structures, local communities, societies, and extra‑societalrelationships. These Social Systems subcategories are ever further subcategorized in terms of varyingcharacteristics.

Similarly the CSP category of Behavior overlaps with Spradley’s categories of Acts, Activities, andEvents,buttheCSP’sBehaviorcategoryisfurtherdividedintotwosubcategories,BehavioralActivitiesand the Socio‑cultural Characteristics of such activities. These two behavior subcategories are furthersubcategorized.ForexampleinthecaseofcertaintypesoffoodordrugbehavioralactivitiesinwhichIhaveconductedresearch,Ifounditnecessarytounderstandsuchbehaviorintermsofacquisitionbehavior,

13

processing/preparationbehavior,dispensationordistributionbehavior,andconsumption(includingpre‑andpost)behavior.Similarwiththesocioculturalcharacteristicsofsuchbehavioralactivities,understandingthem in terms of content,method, participation, location, time, and reason. One should note that thesecategories of behavioral socio‑cultural characteristics are the same as the natural inquiries discussedearlier of what (content of the activity, such as what is being acquired), who (the participants in theactivity),how (theparticularmethod for carryingout theactivity),where (the locationof theactivity),when(the timeof theactivity,aswellaswhetherrepetitionsareroutinized),TheCSPhowever,differsfromSpradley’sdescriptiveobservationquestions,inthatintheanswerstothefirstfournaturalinquiries(content,method,participation, location,andtime,canusuallybeansweredthroughtheobservationofbehavior.However,theanswertoquestionsofwhyareprovidedthroughexplorationoftheothermajorCSP categories (i.e., ideational, social systems, history, physical environment, expressive andmaterialculture,andhistory).

Oneof themost extensive categories of theCSP arehumanneeds.Onemight think that this categorymight overlap with Spradley’s category of goals, but as one can see in Figure 2, the CSP has threedifferentcategoriesofhumanneeds,andanumberofsubcategorieswithineachofthethree.Withallofthe additions that I made to Spradley’s original nine, I offer the following to be used in informingdescriptive,focused,andselectiveobservations.

Space:Thenatureofthespaceutilizedinthesocialsetting.

Objects:Thematerialculturefoundinthesocialsetting,andhowthismaterialcultureisorganized.

TheIndividualActorswithinthatsetting,andtheirspecificcharacteristics

TheSocialSystemicContextoftheActorsintheSetting(i.e.ActorGroups

TheBehaviors that are being carried out in a socio‑cultural setting (acts, activities, andevents).

TheLanguageusedbytheactorsinthespace

Other Forms ofExpressive Culture found in the social setting beyond general language(e.g.,music,song,dance,art,architecture,etc.).

PatternsofInteractioncarriedoutbytheactorswithinthesocialsetting.

DiscourseContentoftheSettingasreflectedinthelanguage,expressiveculture,andsocialinteractionstheactorsinthesocialsetting

EmotionalLeveloftheDiscourse

IdeationalElements (Beliefs,Attitudes,Values,significantsymbolisms)thatappeartobepresentinaSocialSetting

BroaderSocial Systems thatmight influence the actor, behaviors, and ideations found inanyspecificsocialsystem.

PhysicalEnvironmentalElementspresentwithinorsurroundingaspecificsocialsetting.

The Goals, Motivations, or Agendas of the various individual and groups of the actorswithinthesocialsetting.

HumanNeedfulfillmentthatisattemptedormetwithinthesocialsettingorinteraction.

Appendix1isasimpleWorkbookforrecordingdescriptiveobservationsusingthesecategories.

14

4.3. StudyCommunityEntréandInitialEthnographicToursThere aremany issues related to entering the community of study, such as issues related to how theethnographer introduces him or herself to the community, as well as how to manage becomingcomfortable with such introductions, as well as with questions, stares, and general curiosity thatcommunitymembershaveoftheethnographer.ButforthetimebeingIwillfocusoninitialethnographictours.An initialethnographic tour isa tourof thecommunityusingbasicethnographicmethods.Suchtoursmayberiding,orwhatiscommonlycalledincommunityhealth,windshieldtoursandwalkingtours,in which one drives through the community making various descriptive observations of variouscommunitysettings. The15ethnographiccategoriesused inSection4.2canbeused tostructure theseobservations. Inmywork, these tours are carried out in teams,wherein one teammember focuses ondriving,while theothers focuson recordingwhat is seen,heard, etc. Wherepossible, the informationcollected during such tours can be enhanced through the use of aKey Community Expert, onewho isindigenousandknowledgeableaboutthecommunity,oronewhohasgainknowledgeofthecommunitythroughsomeothersource(e.g.,longtermworkinorstudyofthecommunity).

Windshieldtoursarecarriedout in largecommunities,whereavehicle isneededtoget toallormajorportions of the community. In rural and/or small communities, however, the initial ethnographic tourmaybeawalking tour. In the largercommunities,walking toursusually followthe initialwindshieldtour.ItisherethatIbegantousefocusedandselectobservationsinadifferentwaythanhowtheywerefirstdescribedbySpradley.InthecommunityassessmentstudiesthatIdo,initialwindshieldorwalkingtoursmayyieldareasofthecommunityuponwhichtheethnographerwanttofocusbecauseofpersoninterests, topical interests (e.g., places of worship if religion is the topic of interest), or theoreticalinterests.Theethnographerwillthenfollowuptheseinitialdescriptivetourswithadditionalwindshieldorwalkingtourstocarryoutmorefocusobservations.Certainpeculiaritiesofthisareaofthecommunitymayleadthentoselectinterviews,astheethnographermovestowardsaninterpretationofwhatisbeingobservedwiththegreatestemicvaliditypossible.

4.4. SelectingSocialSettingsforEthnographicStudyAsstatedintheIntroductionofthispaper,classicalethnographyhastraditionallybeenassociatedwithlocalcommunitiesorpopulations.Ethnographershavehowever,alsostudiedarangeofsocialsettings,suchasorganizations,institutions,meetings,andjustaboutanysettinginwhichhumansareinteracting.Followingaresomedifferentsettingsthathavebeenstudiedbyethnographers.

barschurchesplaygroundsgymnasiumsbeautyparlorsdiscosfarmersmarketssportseventsfoodactivities(dinner,feast)festivalsshoppingmallsjails/prisons

parkscourtroomsafamilysettingshogkillingsindustryorworksettingsslaughterhousesschoolroomscafeteriasswimmingpoolsgrocerystoreshospitals

cityhallsagenciesmainstreetsbusyneighborhoodstownmeetingsofficemeetingspartiesairport/busterminalsbarbershopsmentalinstitutionsAdInfinitum

The ethnographic study of various types of social settings is based in various attributes of humaninteraction,andthoseare:

15

Associo‑culturalbeings,humansareusersandproducersofculture,whichincludethecreationofroutinizedpatternsorrulesofbehaviorandinteraction.

Anyhumansocialsettingorencounter(socialsituations)mayhaveroutinizedpatternsorrulesofbehaviorandinteraction.

Therulesorroutinizedpatternsofsocialsituationsarefunctionallyorientedtowardtheprovisionoforder,regularity,andpredictabilitytosocialinteraction.

Communicationor interactional breakdownsoccurwhenoneormoreof theactors in thesituationdonoknowtherulesforthesituation,ortheactorsareattemptingtointeractutilizingmorethanonesetofrules.

The routines and rules observed in social situation may sometimes provide cluesregardingbroadersocio‑culturalcontexts (e.g.observationsatadiscocouldyieldpatternsofdancingthatreflectbroadersocio‑culturalnormsregardingmale‑femalebehavior).

The routines and rules observed in social situations may sometimes provide cluesregarding deep structural, as well as surface functioning (e.g., a feast may not onlyfunction tomeetnutritionalandeconomicneed– i.e., foodexchange in the caseof thelatter;itmayalsoprovidecluesregardingsocialstatusandnetworkfunctioning).

Observationsasusedherearenotsimplyauseof thesenseofsight,butareference toraisingallone’ssensestoaheightenedlevelofanalysisinordertopickupstimulithatofferinformationaboutthesocio‑culturalpatternsofthesetting.

Whatpeople say theydo andwhat they actuallydo frequentlydiffer. Theobjective offocused observation is to be able to discern the real from the ideal, the tacit from theexplicit,andthebackfromthefront.

4.5. From“GrandTour”to“Mini‑Tour”ObservationstoInformal,Unstructured,Conversational,andDescriptiveInterviews

Thislistofethnographiccategoriesarenotonlyusefulfordescriptiveobservationsbuttheyalsofurtherthe iterative process of ethnography,wherein episodes of are interspersedwith additional episodes ofdata collection. Thus even when Spradley says that descriptive observations begin with observingeverything in the setting, the process quickly moves to one of organizing observed phenomena intocategories for interpretivepurposes, the firstphaseof analysis. Such early categorization facilitates theiterativeprocessoffurtherinquirydevelopment,andmovingfromwhathecallsGrandTourObservationsto Mini‑Tour Observations. Grand Tour observations are those descriptive observations in whicheverything is beinggenerallyobserved in the setting. But evenwhen suchopenendedapproaches asthoseimpliedinSpradley’sGrandTourobservations,theprocessquicklymovestowardscategorization,ifnotthe15above,thentosomeformofcategorization.Forwithoutsometypeofcategorization,neitherinterpretationnoranalysiscanbedone,andtheinformationremainedmeaningless,orincoherent.

ThenextstageofdatacollectionmaybecontinuedGrandToursuntilthereissomesatisfactionwiththeinformationgeneralinformationcollectedforthelistofanalyticalcategories,suchasthe15thatIuse..OrthedecisionmaybetocarryoutMini‑Toursthatfocusinononespecificcategory.Bothgrandandmini‑tours may be complemented by Informal Unstructured, Conversational and Descriptive EthnographicInterviews.Bernard(2002)talksaboutethnographicinterviewsbeingoffourtypes,basedonthelevelorstructure and/or control that the investigator in able to provide to the interview process. The lessstructuredorethnographercontrolledinterview,hereferstoasinformal,whichhecharacterizesbyatotallackofstructureorcontrol,butthattheethnographersimplytriestorememberandrecordconversationsduringtheday(Bernard2002:204).Thenexttypeofethnographicinterviewintermsofstructure,Bernardsays, is the unstructured interview, which he says is based on a clear plan that the ethnographer

16

constantlykeepsinmind.Atthesametime,hesays,theethnographermaintainsaminimumofcontroloverpeoples’responses,withthepurposeofgettingpeopleto“openupandletthemexpressthemselvesintheirownterms,andat theirownpace”(opcit,p.205).Bernardbelievesthat“a lotofwhat iscalledethnographic interviewing isunstructured,beingused insituationswhere theethnographerhas lotsoftime,asindoinglongterm(classical)fieldworkandcaninterviewpeopleonmanyseparateoccasions”(ibid).

However, because Bernard (ibid) also characterizes the unstructured interview is also where theethnographer“sitsdownwithanotherperson,andholdaninterview….”…withboththeinterviewerandinterviewee know what is going on, without deception and more than “pleasant chitchat,” there isanotherformofethnographic interviewthatI thinkoccursbetweenwhathedescribesas informal,andunstructured. This is the descriptive interview that is conversational in format. I call this format thenaturalconversationalethnographicinterview,becausethediscourseissimilartowhatnaturallyoccursinaconversation,andusuallyoccurswhentheethnographerissimplyanotherparticipantinaconversation.However,ethnographers,havingsomeideaofwhatitisthattheywanttolearninthesetting,aspectsoftheir research concerns are never far from their consciousness, even though the conversation or theactivity maybe primarily social or informal. Because some form of research paradigm is part of anethnographer’sconsciousness,sheorhearenotonlyalertwhensomethingemergesintheconversationinwhichtheydon’tquiteunderstand,butalsowhentheconversationseemstobemovingintoanarearelated to that research paradigm. In such instances, the ethnographermay ask a question to furtherexplore the issue of interest, then become the alert listener, and then insert the appropriate naturalinquiries ofwhat, how,who,where,when, andwhy, thatwerementioned earlier in thediscussionofdescriptiveobservations.

Thepointisthatthenaturalconversationformatmaystartoutasaninformalinterview,asthisgenreisdescribebyBernard,andmaystartwithnoconsciousstructure.Butstructurebegins todevelopas theethnographermaycometoinfluencethedirectionoftheconversationbecauseoftheresearchparadigmthatheorshebringstotheconversationalscene.Theethnographermaythenaddmorestructurearoundthetopicinfutureconversation,butmaintainthenaturalconversationformat,ratherthanholdingasitdown interview, even though theprocessmay eventually lead to the sit down interview that Bernardassociates with the unstructured interview. This again is part of this ongoing iterative process ofethnography,themovementfromlesstomorestructureinethnographicinterviewing.

During walking tours, discussed in 4.3 above, ethnographers can begin unstructured or naturalconversationalinterviews.Thesecanbeopportunistic,insimplysayinghellotopersonswithwhomonecomesincontactwithduringthesewalks.Frequently,communitypersonswillengagetheethnographerin questions, being curious about the new persons in the community. The ethnographer then takesadvantageofsuchcontactbycontinuingtheconversationwithdescriptivequestions,followedbyprobesusingthenaturalinquiries.Throughthisprocess,theethnographermayeventuallyidentifyparticipantsfor further semi‑structured or even structured interviews, as well as meet additional communitymembers. For example, I have found asking a question like “whatdopeople aroundheredo to enjoythemselves,”Igetinvitedtoanothersettingsuchasarumshop,afoodevent,orsomeotheractivity.

4.6. FromDescriptivetoSemi‑Structured,toStructuredInterviewsIn thepreceding section, I referred to natural conversational ethnographic interviews asdescriptive innature, becomingmore structured through the iterativeprocess. Spradley (1979)describesdescriptiveinterviewsashavingthesamepurposeasdescriptiveobservations,beingusedtoelicitbroadcategoriesofinformationasprovidedbymembersofthestudypopulationfromtheirownperspective.Assuch,indescriptiveinterviewsGrandTourandMini‑Tourquestionsarethecounterpartsofdescriptiveobservationswiththesamename. Spradley alsomentions three other types of descriptive questions: example questions, experiencequestions,andnativelanguagequestions.Hecitesanexamplequestionasonethatmightfollowtheanswer

17

toagrandormini‑tourquestion,inwhichthestudyparticipantisaskedtogiveanexampleofsomethingthatwasjustmentioned.Anexperiencequestionisoneinwhichthestudyparticipantisaskedhavetheyeverhadaparticularexperienceofinteresttothestudy.Spradleydescribesnativelanguagequestionsassimply asking a studyparticipant for informationusing the terms andphrasesmost oftenused in thesocio‑culturalsettingbeingstudied.Theseformsofdescriptivequestionsalsorepresentamovefromlesstomorestructureastheethnographermovesfromcollectingmoregeneral informationtogreaterfocusonthedatacollected.

Thenext levelof structured interviewing, is the semi‑structured interview,whichBernarddescribesashaving “much of the freewheeling quality of unstructured interviewing, but is based on theuse of aninterviewguide…awritten list of questions and topics that need to be covered in a particular order”(Bernard2002:205).Semi‑structuredinterviewingfollowstheopen‑endedapproachthatischaracteristicof ethnographicandqualitative research.While the interviewerhas thiswritten listofquestionsandaparticular order to follow, there is not the set list of response possibilities, such as that found in thesurveystyleofstructured interviewing(discussed in thenextsection). Insemi‑structured interviewing,theinterviewerelicitsanswersfullyfromtheperspectiveofthestudyparticipant,andattemptstogainagreaterunderstandingofthecontextandmeaningofthoseresponsesthroughvariousformsofprobing.

Thehighest levelof interviewingintermsofstructureisreferredtoasthestructuredinterview,which,accordingtoBernard(2002:205),“...peopleareaskedtorespondtoasnearlyasidenticalasetofstimuliaspossible.” Bernardgoes on todescribe structured interviews in ethnography as beingof twoprimarytypes.Thefirstisthestructuredinterviewthatusesinterviewschedulesorquestionnaires,whichmaybeadministeredbyaninterviewer,eitherfacetofaceorbytelephone,ormaybeself‑administeredbythestudyparticipant.Thistypeofstructuredinterviewnotonlyaskspeopletorespondtothesamesetofstimuliorquestions in the sameorder, but respondents aregiven the samechoiceof responses to select. Thelogic of such structured techniques,most oftenused in surveys, is that theyprovide against threats toreliability and validity. Ethnographers include them in theirmethodological toolkits, primarily to seehow broadly represented a particular finding among the community or population being studied.However,themostcommonstructuredinterviewtechniquesusedbycontemporaryethnographersisthesecondmentionedbyBernard,whichismoreofacategoryofmultipletypesofstructureinterviewing,isculturaldomainanalysis. Includedamongthestructuredinterviewtechniquesusedinanalyzingculturaldomains,accordingtoBernardarepilesorting, frameelicitations, triadsorting,andratingorrankorderinglistsofthings.Differentfromtheusualwaythatstructuredinterviewingiscarriedoutinsurveyformats,however,inethnography,thesestructuredinterviewformatstorevealthestructureofculturaldomainsarepartoftheiterativeprocessthatcharacterizesethnographicinquirythatmayincludequestionnairesas also part of this process. The structure interviewmethods for exploring cultural domains are usedthemselvesused ina recursiveway inrelationship toeachotherbetween.However, theexplorationofculturaldomainsnotonlyincludesmethodsofinterviews,butalsomethodsofobservation.AndherewereturntotheothertwotypesofobservationsdiscussedbySpradley,focusedandselect.

4.7. ExploringtheStructureofCultureDomains:FocusedandSelectObservationsandSemi‑StructuredandStructuredInterviews

As discussed above the purpose of descriptive observations are to begin to identify themost generalfeaturesofphenomenawithinasocialsetting.Anextstepistobegintoestablishcategoriesordomainsfororganizingandbeginning the earliestprocessesof analysis.To furtherpursueanunderstandingofthesegeneraldomains,theethnographermaymovefromGrandTourdescriptiveobservationstoMini‑Tourobservations.Thisprocessisfurtherfacilitatedthroughtheuseofdescriptiveinterviews,beginningwith themost informalorunstructured interviews, addingmore structure asonemoves further alongthisiterativeprocess.

After identifying and exploring the most general cultural domains, the next step is to explore the

18

structuralcharacteristicsofthesedomains.Followingontheworkofearlieranthropologistswhotookaethnosemantic approach to their ethnographic explorations, Spradley suggested that such structuralrelationshipscanbefoundinapeople’slanguage,inthewaythathumangroupsstructuretheirlanguageinunderstandingtheirworlds,andincommunicatingthatunderstandingtoothers.Assuchheofferedninecategoriesthathesuggestscovertherangeofdomainstructuresfoundinhumanlanguages.Table2showsSpradley’sninesemanticrelationshipsandexamplesofeach.

Specificculturaldomains tobeexplored inanyethnographicstudymayemergedue to topical interest(e.g., illness and healing systems), theoretical interests (e.g., categories of the theCSP), or concerns orsuggestions of the study participants. The structure of that domain can be fully explored through thegenerationofquestionsfollowingtheseninesemanticrelationshipcategories.Forexampleusingillnessesas a domain, onemight develop questions to explore kinds of illness (strict inclusion),what causes thespecific illnesses (cause‑effect), ways to overcome a specific illness (means‑ends), etc. Such domainstructuresmay first be explored through focused observations,wherein the ethnographic focuses on thedomain anddirect observations towards thediscoveryof such relationships.However, explorationsofcultural domains alone will most likely not yield the full structure of any culture domain, and thusstructural questions are asked of study participants. An example of a structural question based on thecause‑effect semantic relationship might be: “What are some ways of getting sick” (or morespecific…”comingdownwiththeflu.

As one develops the internal structure of a cultural domain, one will often find that there are termswithinthedomainthatareverysimilar.Theethnographerneedstoexplore,however,whetherthereissomedifferencebetween the terms.Suchexplorationsaremade throughselect observations, andcontrastinterview questions. For example, in the ethnographic and qualitative studies during the 1990s, toquestionsofkindsofwomen, studyparticipantswould list “freaks”and“skeezers.”These termswereverycloseinmeaning,bothbeingdefinedasyoungwomenwhowereopentoanytypeofsexualpracticerequested.However,throughtheuseofcontrastquestions,suchaswhatisthedifferencebetweenafreakand a skeezer, is that the skeezer would do anything sexual in exchange for drugs, especially crackcocaine.

Spradley says that the ethnographer may begin to explore contrasts of very similar constructs in adomain through select observations of potential difference. However, interviewing through contrastquestionsInterviewsismostnecessarytoconfirmwhatonethinksoneisobserving.Moreover,contrastquestionsaretheonlysourceofinformationofparticulardomainconstructsthattheethnographermaynotbeabletoobserve.(Forexample,intheexamplegiveninmyownresearchofthedifferencebetweentheskeezerandthefreak,Icouldnotobservethedifferencebetweenthesexualbehaviorsofthetwo.AndevenifIcouldhave,theethicsofsuchobservationswouldhavebeenquestionable).

Therearedifferent interviewprocedures for carryingout theanalysisof structureof culturaldomains.Thefirstinterviewmethod,Free‑listing,isexploratory,whereastudyparticipantmaybeaskedtolistalloftheitemsthattheycanthinkofinadomain.Anexamplemaybe,“Tellmealloftheillnessesthatyouknowabout.“Whilethisisastrictinclusioncategory,onemightdothesamewiththeother8semanticrelationships in Spradley’s categorization. This type of interview method is generally referred to inethnographyaselicitation.OtherformsofethnographicelicitationcitedbyBernard(2002:283)are:

(1) Sentence Frame Elicitations, that may call for direct yes/no or true/false responses toquestions(e.g.,UnprotectedSexcanleadtoAIDS),orfillinginblankspacesinsentences(e.g.Unprotectedsexcanleadtocatching___.);

(2) TriadTests,inwhichpeopleareshownthreethings,andaretoldto“choosetheonethatdoesn’tfit,or“choosethetwothatseemtogotogetherbest”orchoosethetwothatarethesame.”;

19

(3) PileSorts,whichtakestheitemsyieldthroughfreelisting,puteachitemonacard,shufflethecards,and thenask thestudyparticipant toput thecards intopiles,basedonhowsimilarheorshethinksthesethingsare,puttingthemintoasmanypilesastheywouldlike(AlsoseeBorgatti,1999:131).Pilesortsarealsoaneffectivewaytofurtherrevealtheintricacies of a domains structure through the use of creating taxonomic trees ornetworks, by asking studyparticipants to sort the cards into piles based on similarity,andthentocreatenewpilesofsimilarityfromthose,andcontinuerepeatingthisprocess,untiltheysaytheycan’tdothisanymore.

(4) PairedComparisons,inwhicheachitemcollectedforthedomainiscomparedwitheveryother item, togive anumberofpairs.Then the studyparticipant is asked to circle theiteminthepair thatconformstosomecriterion. (Bernardgivestheexample:“Herearetwoanimals.Whichoneisthemore____________?””(2002:293).

(5) Rankings,inwhichpeopleareaskedtoranktheitemsinadomainbasedonsomesortofcriterion(e.g.,onascaleof1to10,with1beingthehighest,and10beingthelowest,orfromthemosttotheleastwithregardstothecriterion).

(6) Ratings,wherepeopleareasktorankitemsinopposingcognitivedirections,eg.,inscaleindicatorsfrequentlyfoundinquestionnairessuchasstronglyagree,agree,noopinion,disagree,stronglydisagree.

20

ReferencesAgar,M.A.(1982).“TowardsanEthnographicLanguage.”84:779‑95

Agar, M.A. (1996). The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. San Diego, CA:AcademicPress.

Bernard,H.Russell (2002).ResearchMethods inAnthropology:QualitativeandQuantitativeApproaches.(3rd.Ed.).WalnutCreek,CA:AltaMiraPr..

Borgatti, S.F., (199). “Elicitation Techniques for Cultural DomainAnalysis. In J.J. Schensul, et al (eds),Enhanced Ethnographic Methods: Audiovisual Techniques, Focused Group Interviews and ElicitationTechniques.(pp.115‑151).).WalnutCreek,CA:AltaMirraPress

Gadamer,H.G.(1975).TruthandMethod.NewYork:Continuum

Geertz,Clifford(1973).TheInterpretationofCultures.NY:BasicBooks.Pp.33‑54.

Guba,EGandYSLincoln(1994),“CompetingParadigmsinQualitativeResearch”inHandbookHandbookofQualitativeResearch.DenzinandLincoln(eds.)ThousandOaks,CA,SagePublications:

Spradley,J.P.,(1979)TheEthnographicInterview.NewYork:Holt.RinehartandWinston.

Spradley,J.P.,(1980)ParticipantObservation.NewYork:Holt.RinehartandWinston.

Whitehead, T.L (2004). “WHAT IS ETHNOGRAPHY? Methodological, Ontological, and EpistemologicalAttributes”EICCARSWorkingPaper.UniversityofMaryland,CuSAG

21

TABLES

Table1:Spradley’sDescriptiveQuestionMatrix

22

Table2:SpradleyʹsProposedUniversalSemanticRelationshipsforUseinDomainAnalysis

TypeofRelationship GeneralNatureofRelationship Example of Relationship inEnglish

1.StrictInclusion XisaKindofY Milkisakindoffood

2.Spatial XisaplaceinY,XisapartofY Akitchenisaroominahouse

3.Cause‑Effect XisaresultofY,XisacauseofY Stoning will result fromadultery

4.Rationale XisareasonfordoingY Needingmoney is a reason forsellingcrackcocaine

5.Location XisaplacefordoingY A gymnasium is a place to getexercise

6.Function XisusedforY Drugsareusedtogetgirls

7.Means‑End XisawaytodoY Working hard is a way to “getahead.”

8.Sequence Xisastep(stage)inY DescriptiveobservationisastepindoingEthnography

9.Attribution Xisanattribute(characteristic)ofY Being touch is anattributeofastrongman

23

Figures

Figure1:NaturalCulturalLearningProcessasaModelforBasicEthnography

24

Figure2:TheCulturalSystemsParadigm

25

APPENDICES

AppendixI:WorkbookforRecordingDescriptiveObservations

26

AppendixII:ContactSummaryForm(ModificationofMilesandHuberman,1994:51‑54).

ContactType(CheckwithX):

Visit:_______________

Phone:_______________

Meeting______________

Other(Specify)_____________

ContactDate:______________

Today’sDate_______________

Writtenby__________________

Sites:________________________________________________________

Inansweringeachofthefollowingquestions,enumerateasneeded,andwriteonbackofsheetifnotenoughspace.

1. Aretherespecificthingsthatyouwouldliketolearnatthiscontact?

2. Whowere theactorspresent at the contact? (Provide realnamesorpseudonyms ifnecessary,affiliation,andtitle)

27

3. Whatwerethemainissuesorthemesthatstruckyouinthiscontact?

4. Were there specific issues that you picked up fromyour observations that youmightwant toexplorefurtheratnextcontact?

5. What newor (or remaining) questions that youhave in considering the next contactwith thissite?

28