Lassister's article on collaborative ethnography is about a, not so much used, method to approach doing an ethnography. Collaborative ethnography is taking the ethnographer's research and perspectives about a certain culture and constantly letting the interlocutor read and give feedback or their own perspectives about how the ethnographer perceived their culture. Lassister talks about how more commonly used methodologies of how anthropologists approached their ethnography, was adding wrong assertions and perceptions to a certain culture. Such as in the case of Lawless's research, her feminism perceptions were causing the interlocutor, Sister Anna, to be uncomfortable about how she was portrayed, thus, making the research that Lawless found, invalid.
Lassister found that using collaborative ethnography, not only beneficial for his academic research but also, for the culture that he is studying. Such in the case of Kotay and his community, the Kiowa. from Kotay's view point, as said by Lassister “it is not about presenting their own interpretations on equal footing with those of the ethnographer. It is about the irrelevance of many academically positioned interpretations (such as sacred/secular dichotomies) to him and his community, and, perhaps most importantly, it is about the power these interpretations have in defining Kotay and the community to the outside" p11 . Which I find interesting because using the collaborative method seems much better for both parties. As the same case for the case with Mike.
I find this article very interesting as someone that studies anthropology myself. I do see that how the "normal" way to do an ethnography, would be to immerse yourself in a culture and try to analyze what you are experiencing, and then write about it without consulting the community that you analyzed about what you perceived. What really hit me was the text - The discipline of anthropology can be defined as a "deeply colonial academic discipline." I know the history and start of anthropology, but it really hit me when reading this, that even in present day we approach (though changing) our ethnography from the "above and over our consultants' shoulders" p5.
There are a few questions that spawned from this article:
1) Have you shown your perceptions about your subject of study to your interlocutors?
2) Do you feel that collaborative ethnography is the best way to gather research about a culture? Does it arise any issues in your opinion?
In response to the second question you posed, in relation to my own topic, I would be very interested to share my analysis of her responses to the customer I interviewed. She was so appreciative of having music played for her benefit in stores, I am very curious as to how she would have reacted had I shared my view of it being an expertly wielded manipulative device. It would have perhaps been very enlightening to receive feedback on my interpretation, and if she had a compelling argument against my opinion, may have helped weed out some of my bias based on the articles I have read and my own background in retail.
ReplyDeleteIt is a dangerous path to cross, however, as you pointed out in the example concerning Lawless because if your interlocutor disputes all of your interpretations, you can't very well go and publish it anyway, nor can you really just change it without additional research and study because then it is not how you perceived the culture, but how an insider perceived how you should perceive the culture (sorry that sentence is a bit convoluted!). Collaboration sounds like it should be highly beneficial, but it could also cause a great deal of strife between you and your interlocutor if you disagree and could cause a huge amount additional work if it drastically throws your approach off track.
I would say that the collaborative ethnography approach really depends on the interlocutor. In my case, for example, one of the individuals that I interviewed was David Borgo, a professor here at UCSD and an expert in both ethnomusicology and jazz. Using the approach outlined in Lassister's article would be to my benefit due to the fact that Professor Borgo has both an insider and an outsider perspective of the topic I am studying. He is in a position to take on a more objective point of view if necessary. One of the other individuals that I plan to interview, however, is purely a musician that participates in the culture that I am studying. He does not have the educational background that Professor Borgo does and may have a less objective point of view towards my research. I would not use the collaborative ethnography approach in this case because, as Alex mentioned, my interpretation may be skewed by the interlocutor's feedback.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything said so far. I'd say it depends on who you're dealing with. If the interlocutor is overly concerned with his/her image, then it might not be best. You might end up something that is more concerned with expressing how he/she wants to appear, which could be a lot further from the truth than what you originally had. It also might not be in one's best interest to practice collaborative ethnography when what you have deals with a delicate subject. However, there are examples of collaborative ethnography being helpful like the one Ben mentioned in class about how he shared his interview notes with that one interlocutor who put a lot of thought into his responses. For my research, I interviewed someone the other day that had a bit of trouble articulating his thoughts. I ended up with a lot of the same responses to my questions and what seems like little to take away from the interview. I think if I were to share what I had with the interlocutor here, I would benefit from it. Perhaps this next time around the interlocutor can expand on what he responded with and add on more to my interpretations. ...But then I guess I could be in the wrong here and what I got was really all there was to it and I'm just hoping for more.
ReplyDeleteI think the collaborative method of ethnography is an interesting one that I haven't really thought of before (at least in those terms). Although it does seem to have a few benefits, I don't like the idea of it as a whole. To me, when you immerse yourself in a culture and learn about that culture, you gain a different type of understanding. This understanding can be fairly accurate depending on the depth of your work and effort to dig up all the possible information.
ReplyDeleteNow lets say that you have formulated your thoughts and opinions of an aspect of music or culture about a society you are studying. You have done your due diligence and have come to the conclusion that there are several negative things you perceive about the music or culture and you wish to write those things along with all the other things in your next research paper. At this point, following the collaborative method, you choose to speak to your interlocutor. As you go through your list, he/she stops you when you get to the negative things and adamantly denies them even though you have done your research. Are they the final decision-maker? Do they get to play "spell-check"?
I have to agree with you, Arman, I think that this approach will depend on the person you are interviewing. For example there are a couple of people I'm going to interview, but have some very strong and biased views against certain ideas I want to deal with, like the idea that bringing new influences into the established tradition doesn't detract from it, or that blues played a heavy influence in the development of bluegrass, so I know that if I were to show them what I've written would likely lead them to tell me that I'm wrong and damage the chances for any further information I might gain from them. However, it could also lead to insights I haven't looked into, but due to the limited amount of people I can interview I'd much rather play it safe on this occasion. I think that at some point it might be important to see why they might think the research and conclusions you make as a researcher are wrong. If we never get presented with a good argument for why we might be wrong, we might never spot the holes in our logic or research and if it turns out that your research upholds your conclusion then there is nor harm done to your research and in that way I think, even if your interlocuter disagrees with you, it might be a good idea to use the collaborative method.
DeleteI haven't brought up any of my opinions or research ideas to anyone within the culture or any interlocuters as of yet; however, I find that I might at some point during this discourse.
ReplyDeleteTo me, collaborative ethnography is a very useful tool in understanding a culture and the way in which the interlocutors view the culture themselves. Sort of like gaining an insider's perspective on how you viewed it yourself and getting feedback on what you have found. As discussed in the other responses to this, it really depends on the interlocutor and where their opinions lie.
As for collaborative ethnography being the best method to gathering research within a culture.... I'm not so sure about that one. I feel that a combination of participation and collaborative ethnography can provide the best results.
To me, I think it's ok to disagree with an interlocutor. Certain things such as dates and numbers should be in agreement, but having different perspectives is ok. What it comes down to is that it is your paper and your research, so you will have your own personal bias to it. I know we want to try to make our writing the least bias that we can, but it's impossible to eliminate bias all together. So I think what's really important to is mention your background as a ethnomusicologist in the beginning to your paper. In Wong's article, she mentions her Asian American background as well as her personal childhood upbringing in relation to her studies. This helps the reader understand what personal bias she has. Additionally, I think it's really important to state why you don't agree with an interlocutor. Tell it as he or she says and then give your reasoning on why you disagree.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the first question, I did end up telling my interlocutors my findings, but not until after I had interviewed them for their own opinions. I think they were always relieved to find that most of the people I interviewed shared their opinions [about the survival of Western Art Music at UCSD in spite of the huge gap between New & Old WAM enthusiasts/performers/etc].
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to have some sort of discourse about the study with the interlocutors because I want to ensure that I am representing the material effectively and as accurately as possible. A lot of times it was just to clarify information & there was no point at which any of my interlocutors were concerned about their representation in my work. [Perhaps this is because I am just some lowly undergraduate conducting interviews for an undergraduate project that won't really reach beyond my MUS110 class, so they weren't worried about any reputations being sullied or being represented in a way that might compromise their work & status at this institution. If I were some important ethnomusicologist whose research may be published or at least disseminated, perhaps they'd be more careful & picky about how I may end up portraying them <--though I always aimed to be objective].
In response to the second question [which I sort of may have answered in my first response], I think Collaborative Ethnography can be very effective so that misunderstandings don't happen as often & one is not kept entirely in the dark. It seems a matter of respect & trust to be able to exchange information during a study. But at the same time there may be the risk [as encountered by the man recording Native American songs] of perhaps getting to close to the interlocutor/subject of study, and at some point this relationship may be exploited for one reason or another. There may also be a sort of bias of fondness [or intense dislike] as the ethnomusicologist gets closer to the interlocutor [which seems inevitable as the study continues].