- Citation:
Sheridan, Mary. “Making Ethnography Our Own: Why and How Writing Studies Must Redefine Core Research Practices.” Writing Studies Research in Practice : Methods and Methodologies, Southern Illinois University Press, 2012, pp. 73–82.
- Summary:
Mary Sheridan’s article is a chapter in the larger piece of work Writing Studies Research in Practice : Methods and Methodologies. In her section, Sheridan explores ethnography and ethnographic research methods. The broad goal for this article is to explore this type of research methodology, and examines why people in the writing studies field need to define how ethnography functions for them as a discipline. Furthermore, she argues that this field needs to develop their own ethnographic practices. The first section of the article is an overview of the history of ethnography in order to highlight how ethnographic research “has always been a dynamic methodology responsive to the issues, opportunities, and sponsorships at hand” (74). Bronislaw Malinowski and Franz Boas, the British and American fathers of anthropology, are the examples Sheridan gives to argue that there was an inherent activism at the heart of early ethnography.
Moving away from the historical background, the next area of focus in on how writing studies scholars have grappled with incorporating ethnographic research into their field, while also making the research practice something that feels like their own. The struggle sprouted from the methodology’s link to the anthropologic community which caused early writing studies scholars to feel alienated by the source material that was written for social scientists and anthropologists. This is where Sheridan argues that writing studies scholars must “make ethnography their own”, in order to move forward with their research (76). The general stages of ethnographic research are explained, and then Sheridan offers suggestions on how these practices can be adapted to better fit the needs of the writing studies field. Some of those suggestions include “broadening boundaries” that are set for the initial research question, and a flexibility with negotiations throughout the research process. Through her explanation of her own research concerning preteen girls and their self-confidence, she explores how she adapted her ethnographic process, and saw the presence of activism that is inherently linked to this methodology.
- Quote Bank:
- “Literature reviews provide important background information; surveys offer useful lay-of-the-lands; interviews and case studies go nicely in-depth, generally with a few people for a short period of time. And yet, to understand the perspectives and contexts of those we study across long periods of time and space, ethnography proves uniquely useful as a method (specific practices or ways of doing research) and a methodology (specific justifications for why we do research)” (73).
- “Through long-term research, ethnography highlights the impact of these networks; in the process, ethnography examines perspectives that are often misunderstood, underdeveloped, or occluded in popular understandings of an issue, thereby informing policies and practices that both affect the participants and inform the much-larger networks and structures in which these participants are located” (73).
- “By analyzing how members of different groups meet and defy hidden and overt cultural expectations, Heath encouraged mainstream academic readers to understand the construction of their own literacy practices just as they understand those of marginalized groups” (75).
- “Despite the blossoming of recent work, there is still much to accomplish to make ethnography our own. First, we need to understand common ethnographic practices, and then we need to figure out how to make these commonalities useful for those of us in writing studies” (76).
- “Despite this tidy, three-part framework, ethnography is highly recursive and very messy, and ethnographers’ acceptance of that messiness reflects an important distinction between doing ethnography and being an ethnographer. Being an ethnographer is about developing habits of seeing and ways of being that make sense of cultural practices from within the culture being studied” (76).
- “When triangulating my data (e.g., field notes, interviews, videos of public performances, documents about or by GirlZone participants, research on national activist trends or girl culture, community literacy practices), I realized that this information would not have been forthcoming if I had not had long-term engagement, in a variety of roles, that allowed me to earn participants’ trust. Ethnographic research made these important but often obscured perspectives visible in ways other methods would not have” (78).
- “Because of this access, I felt obligated to give back to the people and organization of GirlZone in ways I had not anticipated when my research started, a move similar to some doing applied anthropological research where cataloging exotic cultures has given way to arguing for the benefit of those studied (see Conquergood)” (78).
- “ Some researchers who similarly struggled with the question of how to write for others called on ethnographers to abandon this methodology. Yet, as Gesa E. Kirsch argues, this is no option, particularly for historically marginalized groups who may acutely feel the dangers of others representing them. Instead, Kirsch suggests that ethnographic research should continue to give voice to the pressing problems that are too often unexamined (“Ethics” xiii). In other words, rather than abandon a method because some challenge it, we should find ways of better using ethnographic methods for ends that are, in Kirsch’s terms, more equitable and socially justified” (79).
- “With this advice in mind, I started to incorporate James Clifford’s call to move from “paradigms of experience and interpretation” to “discursive paradigms of dialogue and polyphony” (41) where many voices share the telling of the narrative. At times, I enacted this discursive paradigm by noting in the text where my views differed from my participants’ (Sheridan-Rabideau). Others have chosen different tactics, such as showing different angles of data via field notes (Chiseri-Strater) or by presenting field notes, creative writing, and ethnographic versions of the data (Wolf)” (79).
- Reflection:
I initially chose this article because I didn’t really have a solid grasp on what an ethnography is. The concept was pretty abstract to me, but I was interested in the all-encompassing nature of data gathering associated with ethnographic research. I am interested in the vast range of data or ‘artifacts’ that can be gathered and analyzed as a holistic yet intimate representation of a social structure. I can see myself doing some ethnographic work for my pedagogy project. I like the idea of collecting a range of data, so I would collect different writing samples, but I also would be interested to see writing samples or artifacts that are not produced for the class like social media pages. Of course, I would need permission from the students to use and compare those different pieces of writing. It potentially could be a tedious task, but I would be interested in taking observation notes of my students’ behavior during different writing assignments be that fast-writes or extended partner drafting time. Mary Sheridan’s article broadened my understanding of what data is. Through an ethnographic lens, I can collect more data for my pedagogical research than I originally thought.