Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Ethnography Vs. Journalism: Week 1.5 Response to AJ's Post

Rather than burying it as a response to each of your individual posts, I think it makes more sense to reply on this main posting thread, -- especially when my rambling'n'meandering thoughts are relevant for all of us.  For now, I'm going to respond to AJ's post.  

AJ, great post as usual.  You raised excellent questions, and I've had similar ones myself.  There are certainly many similarities between what we typically think of as journalism and what we're learning is ethnographic writing.  As you stated (via Kahn), they both require the "generat[ion], collect[ion], analy[sis], and synthesi[s]" of ideas, data, and other related material.  
  • One beneath-the-radar difference is that ethnography -- at least within the academy -- tends to examine power dynamics within a given culture.  An ethnographic approach might ask: how are participants' relationships and roles shaped by the negotiation (or lack thereof) of power?  It seems to me that an ethnographic approach to research/life seeks to defend the powerless or the disenfranchised.  Although this isn't a defining feature, from what I've gathered, ethnographic projects typically seem to stick up for "the little guy" -- people or ideas that might be overlooked or disregarded. 
  • A follow-up on that thought: instead of looking at an issue through a telescopic lens (from far away), they examine it through a microscope (super close-up).  My awesome advisor at UCSB often reinforces this point during our chats, and that "versus" dichotomy always helps make the issue click for me.
  • A follow-up to the follow-up: I bang heads with administrators (and probably always will, unless they're more experienced in this specific context or approach the issue more respectfully) when they tell me how to do my job -- that is, how to design, teach, and assess Academic Writing.  (Which, just to anticipate looking like a schmuck here... is literally, the 1 thing I'm doing with my life!)  They seem to be in favor of a 1-size-fits-all model without understanding how/why its important for instructors to build their own courses through their own theoretical framework, and they also seem to overlook the longview of writing development (which includes cultivating attitudes and habits instead of just "grammatical fluency") in lieu majorly reductive views of what "good writing" is/isn't.  Now, I can only truly see the world through my own eyes, but comparatively, I've got the microscopic view of the issue, whereas they've got the telescopic view.  Good teachers -- which they are, which makes this even more bizarre -- think ethnographically and see their classrooms as distinct cultures.  However, on this issue, they haven't done any due diligence in trying to understand what is/isn't appropriate or prudent for Academic Writing -- according to the "native's perspective," my students or my own.  We're the ones who have "lived it," on the ground, so we're the ones who truly know its upsides and downsides.  So for them to "get" what's happening in this context, they need our "native" perspectives.  Does that example help?  ;)
  • Since we're on the topic of identity and personal perspective, one major difference between journalism and ethnography is that journalism usually strives to achieve objectivity, and in effect, removes the writer's individual stance towards the material from the written piece.  Ethnographers, though, would maintain that there really is no true objectivity.  Since ethnographers dig into their cultures via participant-observation, they tend to acknowledge their pre-dispositions, biases, and cultural assumptions at the door.  (Although this isn't always the case, ethnographic research pieces typically begin with autobiographical background information so the reader knows what subjectivities the authors are bringing to the table.)
  • Ethnographic projects are often guided by an underlying research question.  They're not "married" to this question, though;  qualitative research can be iterative and ever-expanding/evolving. 
  • As you mentioned, time is a major factor, for sure.  Ethnographies are intense, so such sustained inquiry takes a lot of time.  Journalists have deadlines that an ethnographer would never be able to meet because they'd/we'd need to sacrifice getting that "deep" and intimate knowledge of the culture and its participants which is so crucial to ethnographic work.
I think/hope this is a decent start for now.  Glad we got some momentum going.  Thank in advance for reading and for being such committed academic badasses!

4 comments:

  1. Thanks for the feedback and thoughts, Zack. Yeah, I’m totally onboard with what you’re saying. Totally agree.

    Examination of power dynamics seems to be a big one. While you could agree that some journalism certainly concern themselves with this, it more of a ethnography dealio (from what can tell, so far).

    I also like what you're saying about "objectivity". These seems to be one of the more bigger differences between journalism and ethnography.

    In certain areas, I guess it makes sense that the two disciplines would overlap. For instance, I view Hunter S. Thompson's work with the Hell's Angles more of an ethnographic portrait. Whereas, I view Hunter's work on the campaign trail and Vegas long-form investigative journalism pieces.

    Come to think of it, I would say none of his work really could be called objective. Although, he's known as the he's the gonzo journalist. Not the gonzo ethnographer.

    Lots to mull over but I feel like I have a much clear idea of ethnography vs journalism. It'll be interesting to compare with everyone's thoughts on this at the end of the quarter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What up? Good to “see and talk” to you two, and Zack, again.

    That’s kind of how I’m going to approach the weekly responses. As if we were all in classroom – that is, super conversationally.

    Natalie, you wrote about sharing drafts. I gotta say I’m not down with that, at all. I would be much more guarded in what I wrote, knowing that what I was writing was going to be eventually read by the participants – other than the published work, of course. I need to take honest notes, which I can’t do with another set of peepers eyeballing my notes and journals.

    I didn’t get the sense from the reading, that you needed to share your notes. People can request whatever they want. They also have the right to refuse to be any part of it. I’m sure it limits the number of participants, but it’s also a matter of integrity and credibility.

    Or no? I can actually see it both ways – arguments and extreme examples – where pretty much any stance could be justified. What do you guys think?

    ReplyDelete
  3. AJ - I don't think the reading was saying it was necessary to share drafts either. I was just sharing my surprised reaction to the idea, and that through reading more about it, that I could see the possible benefits. Just a little.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ey!

    I'll be back on this tomorrow and Friday -- just wanna let you know. :)

    Z

    ReplyDelete