The Pros And Cons Of Ethnographic Fieldwork

Many aspects of social life could be viewed as taken for granted by members of a group; only a stranger can see what meanings, rules and understandings are operating in that setting. The role of an ethnographer, who carries out ethnographic fieldwork, is to approach a social setting as “anthropologically strange” and produce a “thick description” (Geertz 1973), i.e. an extremely detailed account of some aspect of social life. Ethnographic fieldwork lies central to anthropological research, but undeniably those undertaking it face challenges. The current state of ethnographic fieldwork is one that focuses on tension and conflict, and, arguably, the most significant challenge associated with ethnographic fieldwork today is that “there is little

The way in which I have decided to begin the debate surrounding challenges of ethnographic fieldwork is through considering definitions for both ‘ethnography’: “the study and systematic recording of human cultures; also; a descriptive work produced from such research.” (Merriam Webster Online) and ‘fieldwork’: “an essential aspect of all areas of anthropology because it is used to gather primary data, in other words fieldwork is how anthropologists collect the information used for their studies.” (Harris Jones

They are known to combine case studies with quantitative data, when carrying out their ethnographic fieldwork on schools in the UK. They would often spend minimal time in the actual schools, perhaps as little as a single day, before “going back with the message that these schools allowed children complete control over their own learning.” (Hammersley 2000) However, one research team adopted a rather more ethnographic approach (Berlak et al 1975). These ethnographers included Hargreaves, 1967; Lacey, 1970; Woods, 1979; Ball, 1981. They concluded that each week followed a structure. The Monday was allocated to setting up the school week ahead, and setting the task: this came across as an intense and structured environment. If the researcher was to visit on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, however, it is likely that the weekly structure would dictate them to reach the conclusion that “the teacher had played no role in organising what was to be learned and did not evaluate it.” (Hammersley 2000) The cyclical structure of the school weeks being somewhat partially observed by some researchers (and not fully immersing themselves) causes ambiguity and misconception, therefore. Most anthropological academics highlight the need to live with their study group for a year or longer, and acknowledge that the primary research method of