Reflection/Reaction Paper to "What is Ethnography"

            The Dilemma and Treasures of two Opposing Disciplines

            The concepts of ethnography, ethnology, positivism, and naturalism were introduced in the reading. Each concept was dialectically defined in terms of practices. The concept of reflexivity was also mentioned in the reading and how a researcher’s own acquired knowledge, belief and principles could influence his future interpretations.

            Ethnography is a method that involved a researcher in the principle and discipline of “immersion” or being “in the field;” that involves gathering data on the culture, way of life, behavior, practices, attitudes, and everyday routine of a particular people group (or the group being studied) for an extended period of time by “participant observation”. In contrast, ethnology analyzes the data gathered from the process of ethnography. In earlier practices, ethnologists act as “experts” to make sense of all ethnographic accounts. However, as the discipline advanced, the ethnographers themselves became analysts of their own works as well, and the sole definition of ethnography itself became problematic. In practice, ethnographers may take either the way of positivism or naturalism. Positivism takes on the “structured” way of gathering data, governed by the universal laws of sciences, by which his research must strictly follow the scientific method and must be replicated via some “certainty level”; which involves formulating and testing the hypotheses (research problems).  Positivism usually is quantifiable, confined in the laboratory and carries the principles of the physical sciences (math, physics, chemistry, statistics, and the like). Positivism also argues that even in social sciences, the same logic as of the physical sciences follows. On the other hand, naturalism opposes this idea in such a way that the natural world should be studied in its natural state, independent of the researcher’s “control” of variables and must employ the idea of "fieldwork". Naturalism usually is purely descriptive and focuses on a more in-depth study of fewer cases (or even a single case), as opposed to the positivists’ seemingly “shallow” analysis in generalizing a phenomenon based on a formulaic computation of a sample (a subset of a population). 

            As a practicing biostatistician, I have seen the relevance of the scientific method that the positivists are advocating in terms of making important decisions on studies like the effectiveness and safety of a new drug, risk factors associated with a terminal disease and prevention of such, and issues like determining prevalence of a rare disease in a community. I have also somehow agreed with the positivists’ belief on imploring the same logic and scientific method in studying social science-based research. Truly, I see the importance of the said method on clinical trials and experimental researches. I have handled survey researches (in the social sciences field) and analyzed them through scientific and statistical method. I have also seen that such method of analysis was rather insufficient; and I would not say “shallow”. Hence, nowadays, scientists have devised  “mixed-methods” analysis that combines both the disciplines of positivism and naturalism.  By practice, reflexivity was never employed in any research I have encountered so far; hence, the research was purely scientific and objective.

            Having been introduced to this reading makes me a little nervous already on the possible plights I might encounter once my thesis begins by next semester. The naturalist’s point of view, argument, and practices are interesting in a way that the researcher will be personally involved in the study and will act as a “participant” in a way (or rather, should I say, “eyewitness”).  The attention to minute details, the sensitivity to the surroundings and “co-participants”, and the “fieldwork” are the things that I have to look forward to. I have to agree that left to the positivist’s practices alone will leave a researcher “mechanical” and detached to the actual phenomenon as opposed to the naturalist’s seemingly “adventurous” method of gathering facts (data). I would liken the positivists as the “brain” of a research, while the naturalists, as the “heart.”

            The methods of ethnography that make use of all senses (and not just logic or acquired/learned scientific knowledge) are huge things I have learned from this reading. Somehow, as a data analyst by profession, I have become mechanical; and although I have seen the importance of the conclusions of such studies, they have in actuality detached me from the relevance of the phenomena. I have to say that this part is something I need to learn more and I am somehow optimistic that gathering the “treasures” on both disciplines will enable me to improve in my field; no discipline is better than the other.