Ethnography as Epistemology

Words (text, without readings and references) 5647 Words (text plus further reading) 6041 Words (total with references) 7835 Words (sections 1 and 2; 1 and 2 with references) 3579 (5421)

Ethnography As Epistemology: An Introduction To Educational Ethnography

Judith L. Green University of California, Santa Barbara

Audra Skukauskaite University of Texas, Brownsville

W. Douglas Baker Eastern Michigan University

What makes a study ethnographic? How do researchers engage in ethnographic inquiry? In this chapter, we provide an introduction to ethnography as epistemology; that is, as a way of knowing (Agar, 2006b), or, as Anderson-Levitt (2006) argues, as a philosophy of research, not a method. Viewed in this way, ethnography is a recursive, iterative and abductive reasoning process (logic), a logic-in-use (Agar, 2006b; Kaplan, 1964) not a predefined set of steps or fieldwork methods. Although the specific theories or disciplinary perspectives guiding a particular study differ across traditions, ethnographers across traditions share a common goal: to learn from the people (the insiders) what counts as cultural knowledge (insider meanings). This goal guides ethnographers, whether they are constructing a study of a whole society, a family, a social group, a classroom event, a social process (e.g., literacy, science, or learning), or tracing an individual (Mitchell, 1984). To identify cultural knowledge that members need to know, understand, predict and produce (Heath, 1982), the ethnographer engages in a range of decisions, including : • selecting a phenomenon to study ethnographically, • constructing an orienting framework to guide participant observation processes (full participation to passive participation), • selecting methods and resources (e.g., interviewing, writing fieldnotes, video recording, audio recording, collecting artifacts and documents, and taking photographs), • identifying angles of recording (e.g., teacher's, student(s)’, particular group's, or a particular individual's), • examining how factors outside of observed spaces impact what is happening, • archiving records collected (present and historical), • identifying rich points as an anchors for analysis, • constructing a data set from archive for a particular analysis (i.e., producing data),

• constructing grounded accounts to develop explanations of observed events and phenomena, • making transparent the logic of inquiry in published accounts. The particular way that the ethnographer will engage in each process will depend on the theoretical and disciplinary perspectives guiding their logic-in-use.

Section One On Ethnography As A Logic-In-Use In arguing tht ethnography is not a method but is a logic-in-use, we draw on Agar’s conceptualization of ethnography as a non-linear system, guided by an iterative, recursive, and abductive logic. The ethnographer constructs this system in order to learn what members of a particular social group need to know, understand, produce and predict as they participate in the events of everyday life within the group. That is, the ethnographer strives to identify the patterned ways of perceiving, believing, acting and evaluating that members of social groups develop within and across the events of everyday life (Agar, 1996; Anderson-Levitt, 2006; Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont, Lofland, & Lofland, 2007; Heath & Street, 2008; Troman, Jeffrey, & Walford, 2005; Walford, 2008b). From this perspective, cultural knowledge is socially constructed in and through the languaculture of particular social groups (Agar, 1994, 2006a). For, as Agar (1994) argues, language is imbued with culture and culture is constructed through language in use by insiders. The two are interdependent and cannot be separated. In education, studies of insider (i.e., languacultural) knowledge have been undertaken by ethnographers in schools, classrooms and other educational settings. In entering a classroom, school,

family group, or community setting, the ethnographer strives to identify insider knowledge, by asking questions such as: •

What is happening here?

•

What is being accomplished, by and with whom, how and in what ways, when and where, under what conditions, for what purposes, drawing on what historical or current knowledge and resources (e.g., artifacts, tools), with what outcomes or consequences for individual members or the group itself?

•

To what do individual members of sustaining groups have access, orient, and hold each other accountable?

•

What makes someone an insider or an outsider of particular groups (e.g., class, group within a class, peer group, playground social group, social network)?

•

What counts as disciplinary knowledge, i.e., as knowing mathematics, science, literacy, art, or other disciplinary subject matter in this particular group or classroom?

•

What roles and relationships, norms and expectations, and rights and obligations are constructed by and afforded members?

•

How does previously constructed cultural knowledge support or constrain participation in, or create frame clashes with, the local knowledge being constructed in a particular event (or social group)?

•

How do decisions beyond the group (e.g., the classroom walls) support and/or constrain what members can know and do as well as what opportunities for learning and identity construction they are afforded?

Walford (2008a) argues that by asking such questions the “ethnographer tries to make sense of what people are doing...and hopes gradually to come to an understanding of 'the way we do things

around here' (Deal, 1985)” (p.7) . Questions such as these have been used to guide ethnographic research in education, as well as ethnography of education in other disciplines (e.g., anthropology, sociology, applied linguistics, and, more recently, technology-based disciplines) (e.g., Green & Bloome, 1997; Walford, 2008b; Warschauer, 2004). These questions acknowledge the dynamic nature of cultural knowledge construction as well as the social spaces in which common knowledge is being constructed (Edwards & Mercer, 1987). These questions make visible the complex processes of acculturation, in which new cultural knowledge is being constructed against a tapestry of cultural knowledge developed previously by members in other social contexts (e.g., other classrooms, families, peer groups, and community groups) both in and out of schools (e.g., Lima, 1995). Viewed in this way, cultural knowledge in classrooms (and other educational settings) is constantly being constructed. To explore the developing cultural knowledge, the ethnographer uses a non-linear system, guided by an abductive, iterative and recursive logic that provides the ethnographer with a principled approach to developing explanations of meanings that members construct for everyday processes, practices, and knowledge being constructed. From this perspective, as an ethnographer is confronted with surprises, unknown patterns of practice, or roles and relationships, among other social phenomena, the ethnographer makes principled decisions about the records to collect, the pathways to follow to explore the roots or routes associated with a particular meaning, event or cultural process (Heath & Street, 2008), and ways of archiving, selecting, analyzing and reporting accounts of the phenomena studied. The ethnographer also makes decisions about ways of archiving, analyzing and reporting accounts of the phenomena studied. At the center of these processes are moments where the ethnographer is confronted with a surprise, or something that does not go as expected (from his/her point of view). Such moments of frame clash become rich points as the ethnographer strives to shift his/her point of view (POV1) to that of the insiders (POV2) in order to resolve the clash in expectations, frames of reference, or

understanding of what is happening. At such moments, Agar (1994) argues, cultural expectations, meanings and practices are made visible to ethnographers as well as to other members. Rich points, therefore, provide anchors for tracing the roots and routes of cultural knowledge development in order to build grounded warrants for (i.e., explanations of) the knowledge necessary to understand the phenomena from an insider point of view.

Exemplars of Educational Issues, Topics and Directions To make visible the range of topics, issues and directions that have been studied ethnographically in education, we present the following exemplars of programs of research in education. The studies identified for each area represent a sketch map of current programs of research across national contexts: •

Cross-national comparative studies of education and policy-practice relationships (e.g., Alexander, 2001; Anderson-Levitt, 2002; Castanheira, 2004; Kalman & Street, 2010; Rockwell, 1991, 2002; Street, 2005; Tobin, Hsueh, & Karasawa, 2009).

•

Community-based studies of cultural processes and practices (e.g., Brayboy & Deyhle, 2000; Delamont, 2002; Heath, 1983; Philips, 1983; Spindler & Hammond, 2006)

•

Impact of changing policies on opportunities for learning and teaching (Carspecken & Walford, 2001; Green & Heras, forthcoming; Levinson, Cade, Padawer, & Elvir, 2002; Mcneil & Coppola, 2006; Smith, Prunty, & Dwyer, 1984; Smith, Prunty, Dwyer, & Kleine, 1987; Stevick & Levinson, 2007; Troman, Jeffrey, & Beach, 2006)

•

Linguistic and cultural differences between home and school (Cazden, John, & Hymes, 1972; Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Lee, 1997; Vine, 2003)

•

Literacy and discourse practices in homes, schools and communities (Barton & Tusting, 2005; Bloome, Carter, Christian, Otto, & Shuart-Faris, 2005; Martin-Jones, De Mejia, & Hornberger, 2008; Orellana, 1996; Rex, 2006)

•

Peer culture and social development in school and community contexts (e.g., Corsaro, 1984, 2003; Kantor & Fernie, 2003)

•

Learning and teaching relationships as social constructions in classrooms and other educational settings (e.g., Atkinson, Delamont, & Housley, 2008; Edwards & Mercer, 1987; Green & Wallat, 1981; Jeffrey & Woods, 2003; Mehan, 1979; Rex, 2006; Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group, 1992a, 1992b),

•

Disciplinary knowledge in science (e.g., Brown, Reveles, & Kelly, 2005; Freitas & Castanheira, 2007; Kelly & Chen, 1999; Lemke, 1990), mathematics (e.g.,Street, Baker, & Tomlin, 2005), medicine (e.g., Atkinson, 1995), and literacy (e.g., Bloome, et al., 2005; Cochran-Smith, 1984; Rex, 2006), among other subject matter, as social constructions in educational contexts.

•

The ways in which access to technology in schools is shaped by policy decisions and instructional processes inside and outside of classrooms (e.g., Kitson, Fletcher, & Kearney, 2007; Warschauer, 2004).

These sources demonstrate the value of ethnography in education in addressing a broad range of questions of global, national and local concern that arise in the complex social, cultural, linguistic, economic and political contexts in which education is conducted. Section Two Principles of Operation Guiding Actions of the Ethnographer In this section, we describe a set of principles of operation that guide the principled decisions that ethnographers make in constructing their logic-in-use. To make visible how the proposed principles

of operation guide the decisions and actions in the field and during analysis, we present an if... then... logic that links the principle of operation to conceptual issues and then to actions that are implicated by the principle. This approach to linking principles and actions can be stated as follows: if x is a principle, then y are particular kinds of decisions the ethnographer makes in planning, undertaking, analyzing and constructing warranted accounts using ethnographic records. As part of this process, we refer to the range of tools and methods ethnographers potentially draw on to record everyday life within a group, and to gather insider information about the meanings of the processes and practices, norms and expectations, and roles and relationships constructed, taken up and used by members of a social group.

Principle of Operation One: Ethnography As A Non-Linear System The first principle of operation is framed by Agar's (2006b) conceptualization of ethnography as a nonlinear system guided by abductive, recursive and iterative logic. This conceptualization captures current discussions across disciplines that ethnography is a dynamic and theoretically guided process, not a linear or predefined research method (Atkinson, et al., 2007; Atkinson, et al., 2008; Bloome, et al., 2005; Eisenhart, 2001; Green, Dixon, & Zaharlick, 2003; Heath & Street, 2008; Walford, 2008a). Table 1: Principle One, Ethnography As A Non-Linear System Principle of Operation

Conceptual Issues

Actions Implicated

1. Abductive logic guides

To construct an explanation of

Using abductive logic involves

identification of pieces of a cultural

the cultural processes, practices,

knowledge that are made visible

meanings, and knowledge

(potential rich points) seriously to examine

when the ethnographer identifies a

previously unknown, the

differences in expectations and

surprise, a social phenomena or

ethnographer uses abductive

understandings (points of view) between

meaning that cannot be understood

logic, and recursive and iterative

the ethnographer (outsider) and members

by the ethnographer without further

processes

of the group being studied (insiders)

exploration

•

•

Taking surprises and frame clashes

Following historical and future pathways

(roots and routes) to uncover insider (emic) knowledge through iterative actions and recursive logic and related actions •

Constructing grounded connections among cultural processes, practices, and local knowledge among members to develop explanations of what was previously unknown to the ethnographer (abductive reasoning)

Implicated in this principle is the time needed in the field for a particular ethnographic study. Given the goal of the ethnographer is to follow full cycles of activity (Athanases & Heath, 1995; Wolcott, 2008), in some cases, to develop cultural knowledge, ethnographers have undertaken studies over 10 or more years (e.g., Anderson-Levitt, 2002; Green, Castanheira, & Yeager, in press; Heath, 1983; Smith, et al., 1987). This process often involves the ethnographer in ongoing processes of negotiating entry into particular social spaces, in which members of social groups interact with each other, and at times, with non-members. Although the goal includes extended observations over long periods of time, Green & Bloome (1997) and Heath & Street (2008) have argued that it is possible to do less than a comprehensive ethnography, by adopting an ethnographic logic-in-use to explore smaller segments of life, as well as artifacts and records from life in social groups--e.g., a series of video records, written artifacts (see also Castanheira, Crawford, Dixon, & Green, 2000). From this perspective, ethnographers may trace individual actors across particular social spaces where they are engaged in a particular type of activity (e.g., the man in the principal's office; juggling on the streets of Providence, Rhodes Island) to learn about the cultural knowledge needed to engage in a particular practice (Heath & Street, 2008; Wolcott, 2003). From this perspective, what makes a study ethnographic is not the length of time

involved but the logic-in-use guiding the researcher’s decisions, actions and work across all phases of the study.

Principle of Operation Two: Leaving Aside Ethnocentrism Principles Two through Four were proposed by Heath (1982) in her seminal article, “Ethnography: Defining the Essentials.” Principle Two captures a key stance that the ethnographer takes in order to bracket their own points of view or expectations and interpretations, in order to identify insider knowledge.

Table 2: Principle One, Leaving Ethnocentrism Aside Principle of Operation

Conceptual issues

Actions implicated

Fieldworkers [and analysts]

To suspend belief, the ethnographer strives to

Bracketing one’s expectations about what is, or

should attempt to uphold the

use emic or insider language and references,

should be happening, involves examining:

ideal of leaving aside

whenever possible by

ethnocentrism and

•

identifying insider names (folk terms)

maintaining open acceptance

for particular coordinated or personal

of the behaviors [actions] of

activity (e.g., the Island History

all members of the group

Project; continuous lines; first year

being studied (Heath, p. 35).

students)

•

What members propose to each other,

•

What members orient to, recognize and acknowledge

•

What members are jointly (discursively) constructing

•

What norms and expectations, roles and relationships and rights and obligations

•

Locating verbs (and their objects) to are being constructed, or drawn on in a identify past, present, future actions, developing event and connected activities, (e.g., take out your learning logs; we’ll plan a

•

What members signal to each other as socially (e.g., academically, personally or

fashion show; when we do public collectively) significant critique) • •

Tracing chains of interactional exchanges [not individual behaviors],

What contextualization cues make visible local meanings, knowledge and practices

•

How emic-etic (insider – outsider)

the ethnographer identifies

tensions make the familiar strange, and

individual-collective relationships to

the invisible visible to the ethnographer

explore what counts as local knowledge

As indicated in Table 2, the principle of operation, leaving ethnocentrism aside, is a goal that leads to a range of actions designed to support the ethnographer in uncovering and identifying insider knowledge as proposed by members and made visible in the chains of actions among members. This principle is designed to remind the ethnographer that setting aside her own point of view is critical so that she can

explore the insider points of view. By identifying points of tension between the ethnographer's point of view and the member(s) point(s) of view, the ethnographer creates an anchor for seeking historical or recursive evidence of what members know that she does not. Through this process, the ethnographer constructs connections among processes, events, or meanings to develop grounded accounts and explanations of the knowledge necessary to understand the event from a member's perspective or point of view (not perception).

Principle of Operation Three: Identifying The Boundaries Of What Is Happening A key challenge facing ethnographers is the identification of the boundaries of events. This process often involves considering multiple levels of analytic scale (time, place and actors), given that members, as they communicate and interact, propose intertextual (Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993) and intercontextual (Floriani, 1993; Heras, 1993) relationships between what is happening in an observed moment in time and in previous points in time. The connections may focus on the chain of actions within a developing event, in what Durán & Syzmanski (1996) call a consequential progression, or over long periods of time in which the ties are proposed, recognized, acknowledged, interactionally accomplished, and marked by members as socially significant (Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993).The challenges facing the ethnographer in identifying the boundaries of events, and making them transparent, are presented in Table 3.

Table 3, Identifying The Boundaries Of What Is Happening Principle of Operation

Conceptual issues

Actions implicated

When participation in, and

To make transparent the logic of inquiry

Constructing records for analysis depends on

adequate description of, the

constructed in deciding boundaries of events,

•

How field notes are written as

full round of activities of the

the ethnographer makes principled decisions

•

What is recorded on video, from whose

group is not possible,

about

fieldworkers should make a

•

principled decision to learn

perspective, focusing on what objects or What to observe, examine closely, or trace across times and events,

actors, or activity •

[from the participants] and to describe as completely as

What artifacts, and photographs are collected

•

How boundaries of the field for a particular observation are being

•

possible what is happening in

How event maps of activity are constructed to locate actors in time(s) and

proposed, recognized and selected activities, settings,

space(s) acknowledged,

or groups of participants (Heath, p. 35)

• •

How members of a developing event construct events that contextualize what is said

What interviews, informal or formal are conducted

•

How records from the field are archived to permit search and retrieval of interconnected texts and contexts and events

As indicated in Table 3, central to the chain of reasoning associated with identifying and establishing boundaries, is a conceptual argument that events are constructed by members in and through the discourse and actions among participants in events, and that an event may involve multiple levels of time scale. This conceptualization of events as dynamic and developing, as potentially existing across times, or as interconnected texts or processes means that the ethnographer, as part of fieldwork, needs to make transparent the boundaries of particular events (i.e., units of analysis). The need to trace the cycles of events (Green & Meyer, 1991) supports further the need for ethnographers to remain in the field for

extended, periods of time (Smith, 1978). Through this process the ethnographer identifies the level of analytic scale needed for identifying boundaries and analyzing a particular cycle of events. Principle of Operation Four: Building Connections The fourth principle of building connections captures the ethnographer goal of making connections between one bit of cultural knowledge and others in order to construct warranted claims about what counts as cultural knowledge, and to develop grounded explanations of social phenomena. The ethnographer (or analysts using an ethnographic perspective), whether participating in the field or reconstructing a data set from archived records, selects rich points around which the data set for a particular analysis will be constructed or additional records collected. This final principle, therefore, like the previous ones, involves an iterative, recursive, abductive logic to construct explanations of previously unknown knowledge of cultural activity and meanings that insiders have for everyday events. Table 4 describes the principle and the implicated logic and actions.

Table 4: Principle of Operation Four, Building Connections Principle of Operation

Conceptual issues

Actions implicated

Data obtained from study of pieces

The ethnographer constructs evidence of

For a particular analysis of a particular piece of the

of the culture should be related to

connections among events to develop

culture or bit of cultural knowledge, the

existing knowledge about other

grounded claims and explanations of

ethnographer identifies bounded events necessary

components of the whole of the

cultural phenomena and local knowledge

to trace the developing cultural knowledge,

culture or similar pieces studied in other cultures. (p.35)

processes or practices under study The ethnographer creates an archiving system that permits search and retrieval

Each analysis involves making visible the

of relevant records by including

relationships among:

•

Cross-reference of records by

•

date and place of collection •

•

Questions brought to and identified in situ

Event maps and transcripts of

•

Types and amount of data collected

events, activity, actors

•

Analysis processes/approach used for

Citations to particular bodies of literature guiding the work  

each question and data analyzed •

Literature guiding each dimension of ethnographic work

As indicated in Table 4, the development of an archiving system that supports the ethnographer in searching and retrieving bounded events or bits of life observed in time and space is a critical dimension of ethnographic work. This archive is important given that, while connections may be traced in the field, the analysis most often occurs after the event is concluded and most analysis is undertaken when the ethnographer leaves the field, or between planned fieldwork sessions. The final principle of operation, therefore, lays a foundation for a key aspect of the ethnographer's task, connecting different cultural activities, actions and meanings in order to construct a conceptually framed explanations or accounts of the cultural phenomena under study.

Section Three A Telling Case of a Logic-In-Use: Connecting Three Analyses of Student Performance

The telling case presented in this section makes visible levels of analytic scale needed to explore observed differences in student performance in one key event, public critique. By exploring the relationships between and among analyses for three inter-connected studies, we make visible the logicin-use of each analysis. In presenting these analyses, we strive to demonstrate how grounded accounts of factors that led to the differences in observed performances in each study were necessary to build a more comprehensive theoretical understanding of student performance. Through this telling case, we identify individual-collective issues that have received limited attention in previous work on classroom research that were necessary to understand what counted as cultural knowledge in the studio art class for different actors. Table 5 provides a description of the rich point for each study, the questions asked and the specific archived resources selected for the contrastive analysis of student performance

Table 5: The Interconnected Studies of Student Performance Frame Clash/Rich Points Identified Year Two: 1999-2000

Guiding Research Questions Generated for Each Study

Data RetrievedAnd/Or Generated From Archived Records

Kristen, a fourth year student, who self-selected to be a cultural guide for Baker, told him that if he wanted to understand what was important to know, then he needed to look at public critique (Baker, 2001)

What were the roots of public critique?

Transcription of public critique

What was the connection between public critique and earlier cycles of activity?

Construction of demongraphic information and event maps at different levels of time scale: • Percentage  of  new  students  each   year  entering  and  teacher's  history   • Years  of  program   • Critique  cycles  for  two  years  of   observation   • Construct  detailed  event  map  of  first   day   • Identify  cycles  of  critique  leading  to   public  critique  (roots  and  routes)    

Kristen's performance differs from students with 1, 2, 3 years in program, which surprised Baker (Baker & Green, 2007)

How did students with differing years in the program present their public critique?

What knowledge was necessary to participate in public critique as indicated in ?

Transcript constructed for each student's performance and for Question and Answer segment following performance.

How, and in what ways, was the performance across students similar or different?

Analysis of transcript of teacher feedback to students

What contributed to the difference in the teacher's interpretation of Kristen's performance and Baker's?

Contrastive analysis of student performance and teacher feedback for four students with different amount of time in program Interview with teacher to discuss analysis and to explore observed differences in Kristen's (a 4th year student) in contrast to student's with 1-3 years experience Locate observed performance and contrast in event map of public critique

The teacher responded differently to the performance two first year students suggesting the need for further analysis to identify possible reasons for the differences (Baker, Green & Skukauskaite, 2008)

How did differences in the teacher's response to two first year students create a frame clash for the ethnographers?

Transcript constructed for each student's performance and for Question and Answer segment following performance.

How did the performance of the two first year students differ, when compared to the rubric for presentation?

Teacher role in feedback for all students identified

How was the time of entry socially and academically significant in terms of student performance?

Student performance compared to rubric elements Contrastive analysis of teacher feedback and rubrics for two first year students Backward mapping to identify points of entry and cycles of critique experienced (or not)

As indicated in Table 5, the first study was initiated by Kristen, a fourth-year student, during an informal conversations she engaged in with the ethnographer as his self-selected cultural guide. Her comments led to the identification of public critique, an event that culminated particular areas of study, as an anchor for over-time analysis of connections between and among particular cycles of activity. Figure 1 represents the inter-connected chain of cycles of activity the analysis of the discourse and actions showed were precursors to public critique.