Reaction Paper to "What is Ethnography?"

          In all honesty, I am at a loss for what to say on the essay by Atkinson and Hammersley. It seems to me that so much has already been said and so much has been said on what has been said that it is nearly redundant to say something on what has been said on what has been said. But then I suppose that’s where the “reflexivity” part comes in, as defined in the reading – each person brings his or her own biases to the field. And so while it is true that many things have been said on what has been said on what has been said, nothing has been said yet with my specific set of biases. So, here we go.

I once had a discussion with a friend about the concept of absolute truth. Does absolute truth exist? She said yes. One hundred percent, absolute truth is there and can be verified by empirical methods. I told her that my view was a little less stringent than hers – I do believe in absolute truth, but that maybe the “empirical methods” aren’t that simple. Is it one person’s fault that their viewpoint alters the appearance of something, “distorting” the image? Which image from which viewpoint is the least distorted, and who is to say who is right? Is it fair to apply one set of standards for all people standing from different points of view and who see the object from different perspectives? What if someone stood behind a mountain and couldn’t see the object at all? I believe that there is an absolute truth – there is definitely a “right” view of the image. However, being that we are humans and have our limitations, there will be discrepancies, and at least for now, they are all correct. Absolute truth exists alongside temporary relative truths.

How does this relate to the field of ethnography? Much of the essay was concerned with discussing different methodological approaches to learning about another culture, and which one is the “best.” Positivism hailed quantitative data gathered from controlled environments, naturalism encouraged qualitative data from natural environments, and reflexivity emerged much later on to say that both are important plus the inclusion of a third factor: the acceptance that it is impossible for the researcher to make a purely objective study and the suggestion that the researcher include his or her own socio-cultural background as one of the variables of the study.

I feel that each approach is commendable in its own right and has its own value. Perhaps the question is not simply which one is the “best” but which one is most appropriate for each specific study, at least in terms of deciding between positivism and naturalism. Reflexivity, however, is a must. Similar to my conclusion in the discussion between my friend and me about absolute truth, I believe that while cultures undoubtedly have a “true” interpretation and a “true” way of understanding them, it is simply impossible given our circumstances to always reach that “true” way. Does that make our biased, “colored” interpretations any less true? No. Of course, it is imperative that we try our utmost best to study cultures “properly” but I think that there are simply too many cultures to study and for each, too perspectives to cover and every single one of them is valid, albeit on different levels of truth. How do you determine how distanced from the truth one interpretation is?

I suppose here lies the danger of too much reflexivity: We begin to think of every interpretation as the absolute truth, since each researcher is entitled to his or her own ideas. This is dangerous and can lead to much confusion. It is important that the distinction between absolute and what I have termed the “temporary relative truth” stays clear, and as long as it does, ethnography will stay a rewarding field with much to be learned in the exchanges of knowledge and culture.