In the current moment, ethnography is caught up in a number of debates that have led ethnographers to reflect on classic methodological and ethical dilemmas in new ways. The “replication crisis” had led to a movement for “open science” (e.g., registering hypotheses in advance; sharing codes and data), but it seems unclear that recommended best practices are appropriate to ethnography. It’s even up for debate whether ethnography is more of a social science or a genre. The fact that many ethnographies are widely read invites questions and criticisms from beyond the ivory tower–including our subjects–about the ethics of representation (e.g., who has license to write about whom) and the extent to which journalistic standards of data verification and transparency (e.g., fact checking, naming sources) should apply to qualitative research. Some ethnographers are calling for more open, critical discussions about the embodied dimensions of fieldwork, including not only emotions but also issues like sexual intimacy and harassment. There’s also a growing expectation that ethnographers empower our subjects to represent and analyze themselves. What’s more, as more of social life is lived online, it becomes increasingly unclear where the boundaries of the “field site” should be drawn and whether ethnographic conventions can be applied wholesale to the study of digital spaces.
The problems we would like to address in this Research Topic are the following:
- How should ethnography respond to the push for “open science” and to demands to democratize data collection and knowledge production?
- Ought "classic" ethnographies be reconsidered in light of contemporary ethical and methodological debates?
- What standards are appropriate for verifying ethnographic data and evaluating the quality of ethnographic research?
- What new ethical and data gathering/verification dilemmas arise when performing hybrid or completely online fieldwork?
A number of qualitative researchers have begun to map out new standards, or at least flexible guidelines, around these issues, such as: An emphasis on enabling “reanalysis” (rather than replication), including naming people and places or sharing data; an emphasis on enrolling participants as research collaborators; codifying evaluation criteria grounded in the interpretive–rather than positivistic–underpinnings of ethnography. Some have emphasized alternative forms of knowing and storytelling (e.g., art, film, memoire). There can be no “one size fits all” approach, however. This Research Topic will take a pluralistic view, curating methodological reflections that represent contrasting–and even conflicting–perspectives on these issues.
We are interested in essays, rather than typical research articles, that take up one or more of the broad questions above, reflect on how the writer thought through the issue in their own fieldwork, and stake out a position/lessons learned that will bolster the craft of ethnography. Specific themes include, but are not limited to:
1) Since replication is impossible, how should we go about verifying ethnographic claims and data?
2) As an interpretive method, are scientific standards appropriate?
3) Should ethnographers share their data, and if so, how?
4) What are the tradeoffs of anonymization?
5) What, if any, journalistic standards should apply to ethnography?
6) Does facticity matter for ethnography in the same way it does for journalism?
7) How do we protect people’s privacy when the Information Age makes it harder to insulate our subjects from our readers?
8) What is the relationship between data gathered online and “in real life?”
9) How do we write across difference, and what do we owe our research subjects?
10) How can we "decolonize" ethnography by reversing the traditional power dynamic between researcher and subject?
In the current moment, ethnography is caught up in a number of debates that have led ethnographers to reflect on classic methodological and ethical dilemmas in new ways. The “replication crisis” had led to a movement for “open science” (e.g., registering hypotheses in advance; sharing codes and data), but it seems unclear that recommended best practices are appropriate to ethnography. It’s even up for debate whether ethnography is more of a social science or a genre. The fact that many ethnographies are widely read invites questions and criticisms from beyond the ivory tower–including our subjects–about the ethics of representation (e.g., who has license to write about whom) and the extent to which journalistic standards of data verification and transparency (e.g., fact checking, naming sources) should apply to qualitative research. Some ethnographers are calling for more open, critical discussions about the embodied dimensions of fieldwork, including not only emotions but also issues like sexual intimacy and harassment. There’s also a growing expectation that ethnographers empower our subjects to represent and analyze themselves. What’s more, as more of social life is lived online, it becomes increasingly unclear where the boundaries of the “field site” should be drawn and whether ethnographic conventions can be applied wholesale to the study of digital spaces.
The problems we would like to address in this Research Topic are the following:
- How should ethnography respond to the push for “open science” and to demands to democratize data collection and knowledge production?
- Ought "classic" ethnographies be reconsidered in light of contemporary ethical and methodological debates?
- What standards are appropriate for verifying ethnographic data and evaluating the quality of ethnographic research?
- What new ethical and data gathering/verification dilemmas arise when performing hybrid or completely online fieldwork?
A number of qualitative researchers have begun to map out new standards, or at least flexible guidelines, around these issues, such as: An emphasis on enabling “reanalysis” (rather than replication), including naming people and places or sharing data; an emphasis on enrolling participants as research collaborators; codifying evaluation criteria grounded in the interpretive–rather than positivistic–underpinnings of ethnography. Some have emphasized alternative forms of knowing and storytelling (e.g., art, film, memoire). There can be no “one size fits all” approach, however. This Research Topic will take a pluralistic view, curating methodological reflections that represent contrasting–and even conflicting–perspectives on these issues.
We are interested in essays, rather than typical research articles, that take up one or more of the broad questions above, reflect on how the writer thought through the issue in their own fieldwork, and stake out a position/lessons learned that will bolster the craft of ethnography. Specific themes include, but are not limited to:
1) Since replication is impossible, how should we go about verifying ethnographic claims and data?
2) As an interpretive method, are scientific standards appropriate?
3) Should ethnographers share their data, and if so, how?
4) What are the tradeoffs of anonymization?
5) What, if any, journalistic standards should apply to ethnography?
6) Does facticity matter for ethnography in the same way it does for journalism?
7) How do we protect people’s privacy when the Information Age makes it harder to insulate our subjects from our readers?
8) What is the relationship between data gathered online and “in real life?”
9) How do we write across difference, and what do we owe our research subjects?
10) How can we "decolonize" ethnography by reversing the traditional power dynamic between researcher and subject?
