The contents of the Genealogical method page were merged into Ethnography on 31 December 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ethnography article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meganob, Carocashion.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hoyamann 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The term ethnography is actually more precise than what the article suggests: Ethnography denotes the monograph that scholars (anthropologists) write following their research. The research itself is called ethnographic research -- not ethnography! The methods are called ethnographic methods.
I agree but also there is different uses of the term and understanding of ethnography. Anthropologists and sociologists (at least in the US) use the same term for different things. 65.6.182.51 00:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Mention should be made here of Ruth Fulton Benedict. The one person who was mentioned (until today) is someone I've never even heard of - I'd have to go back to the article to get her name in my head again, she's that obscure. I'll add Benedict and a few others when I get a chance, although I'm thinking maybe we just need a section saying See Also and then listing classic ethnographies, each of which should have a page (as should their authors). Lots of work to do. That Benedict isn't mentioned and the other person (Kim?) was, is amazing. -- Levalley ( talk) 20:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ethnography isn't just qualitative research. It uses elements of quantitative data as well, depending on the style of the ethnographer. test
In the beginning of the article is stated that Ethnos=nation. when you look at the "Ethnicity" page here on wikipedia, it states ethnos=people. to my knowledge the latter is better corresponding with the original greek term.
This whole article appears to be copied directly from http://en.allexperts.com/e/e/et/ethnography.htm
--
192.43.227.18 12:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Someone needs to start it from scratch.
I referenced Wikipedia's Ethnography entry in a published article focusing on Professor Wesch and Digital Ethnography. I think the Ethnography entry would benefit from Professor Wesch or other expert's opinion on Digital Ethnography. -- Dkaufman1 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems here to me that the absence of description or even mention of the ethnography of communication is really obvious. And putting aside the fact that I personally think it should get at least a mention, I noticed that ethnography of communication redirects here, yet there is no explanation or further mention of it. Shall I try and work it in? I'll probably give it its own section... thoughts? Electriceel [ Talk 11:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"Ethnography is the genre of writing that presents varying degrees of qualitative and quantitative descriptions of human social phenomena, based on fieldwork"
This is just bad. Can someone with knowledge of the field please come up with something a little less obtuse and less confusing?-- Gatfish ( talk) 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I've read through all of the details & posts and I am still unclear on how to describe what ethnography or ethnographic research actually is. Can anyone help? I'm no layman...but seriously what is this all about? A.howie ( talk) 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The Definition of ethnography is, a branch of anthropology dealing with the scientific description of individual cultures...it has nothing to do with writing [1]
-- Mdbridges ( talk) 22:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi I created a digital design research process based upon Ethnography called Ethnographics in 2002 which is now being taken up by various usability companies. Should Ethnographics have a seperate page or become a subset of Ethnography? Karl smith ( talk) 13:19, 15 Feb 2009
While I'm questioning the use of that word (can't make it make sense to myself), I'm thinking that what might have been intended there was some mention of the fact that, besides professional anthropologists churning out dozens of doctoral dissertations and monographs that are ethnographies, each year, there are number of other categories of things that are also ethnographies, for example:
Films (including Hollywood movies - see Karl Heider's book) Museums (often do a very good job of presenting a culture, and with lots of words involved) Novels (ethnographic novels are my favorite kind of ethnography and anthropologists Stanley Diamond and Renato Rosaldo, among others, have argued that they may be better in some cases than what anthropologists write about a culture, War and Peace comes to mind) Poems (Stanley Diamond wrote and published a lot about poetry as ethnography) Journals and diaries (many anthropologists include them in the category of ethnography, if the writer is writing about general cultural or social issues in their area).-- Levalley ( talk) 20:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
descriptions of human societies, which as a methodology does not prescribe any particular method (e.g. interview, questionnaire), but instead prescribes the nature of the study (i.e. to describe people through writing). [1] If someone can figure out what parts of these are being cited (and why) and work them back in that would be good, otherwise, let's stick to really well known methodologists - like Naroll - or ethnographers - like Evans-Pritchard or Maybury-Lewis and similar, especially in the lead.-- Levalley ( talk) 21:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
References
I am not going to argue that, with anyone, any more than I'd argue with people who study bears about whether they study bears. Anthropologists study people and they do it mainly by doing fieldwork and writing it up as ethnography. It's that simple. Ethnography is pretty straightforward and deserves a really good article, hopefully with great bits of writing from some of them. And pictures. I like many things about the existing article, btw., but am also committed to improving it. Please bear with me as I find the actual citations, I have them, I'm just getting pretty slow these days about getting up on the stepstool to pull everything down. All help and commentary welcome. There is, however, no need to get into meta-aspects of various observational methodologies on this page - that can be for another article.-- Levalley ( talk) 21:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
An interesting source is used for lede. A simple ethnology textbook, dictionary, or encyclopedia would provide a better definition than "a feminist perspective on the loves of women"! Also, the definition states the same thing twice: "provides descriptions of human societies" ... "to describe people through writing". The dictionary.com definition is clearer and more concise. MisterSheik ( talk) 20:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just learned what "ethnography" means and is in along the lines of people watching? If so i think maybe we should put that somewhere on here.So, maybe at the end i can put that is is similar to people watching and define it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdbridges ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The citation for the definition of "ethnography" at the head of this article is to dictionary.com - that can't be a good choice of source, right? Seems weird to me, and I've never seen it in another wkp article. Should it be replaced by a citation to a proper piece of work introducing ethnography?-- mcld ( talk) 20:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The introduction says "Greek ἔθνος ethnos = folk/people and γράφειν graphein = writing". -γράφειν- is the infinitive = 'to write', while the equivalent for 'writing' in this case, would be γραφία [graphia], which gives us the -graphy suffix here and in geography, photography etc. See also: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-γραφία
I have changed the article accordingly. Please feel free to undo if I made a mistake.
93.173.183.16 ( talk) 21:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The intro begins with "Ethnography [...] is a scientific research strategy" - why is the word "scientific" there? To me it feels a bit like it's protesting too much. Ethnography doesn't sit in the core realm of what many people mean by the term "science", so it might imply things that are not meant - for example predictiveness, falsifiability. Wouldn't it be better to call it an empirical research strategy or even just a "research strategy"? I conduct ethnographic research myself, so please don't mistake this as an over-scientistic rant, but that adjective just sits wrong for me. Anyone else? -- mcld ( talk) 12:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I would agree ... but rather because the field of "social sciences" is mentioned shortly afterwards. It should thereby be sufficiently clear that ethnography is not an esoteric or otherwise unscientific endeavour. (BTW: I am also a graduated anthropologist, from Germany though.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.0.142 ( talk) 00:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking of cleaning up this section. There are many grammatical errors and am concerned about the line that talks about transcribing interview data by using genealogical methods. It appears to be creating a mash up of two different things. I also think that a few sentences should be added on "reflexivity" either in this section or perhaps in its own new section? 2ytbal ( talk) 02:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I eliminated the 1st section of the data collection methods and made two new paragraphs. The 1st paragraph mostly rewords the content that was already there, making it more accurate. The second paragraph introduces reflexivity which is an important element in discussing interviews and participant observation. 2ytbal ( talk) 03:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The section on ethnography as practiced in social and cultural anthropology ended rather abruptly at the early 1980s and contained no information on developments in the field since this point. Also, the now canonical text, Writing Culture, was not mentioned at all (and neither was its companion piece, Anthropology as Cultural Critique). To me, this seemed to be a rather glaring omission given the profound influence the text(s) have both within anthropology itself and outside the discipline (in terms of critical ethnography in other disciplines, like sociology, literary criticism, educational studies and information studies). Given that 2011 is the 25th anniversary of Writing Culture and that there are still new books, articles and conferences being devoted to it (Duke's Writing Cultures at 25 being the most recent conference), I felt that at the very least a paragraph should be included to remedy this omission.
Also, I've added 3 more texts to the 'Suggested Reading' section. The first two reflect the new paragraph by including Writing Culture and Anthropology as Cultural Critique. The third book by Westbrook is a good overview of contemporary ethnography, especially as practiced by anthropologists, in that it is aimed at introducing non-specialists to ethnography. It offers a quick and succinct way for those new to ethnography to enter the conversation and get their bearings, as it were. Ryantjohnston8 ( talk) 19:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I also slightly rearranged the Suggested Readings section to better reflect an alphabetized ordering of the sources. Ryantjohnston8 ( talk) 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I added a bit to the ethics section of this article on Ethnography. I decided to take some information from the American Anthropological Association since they are well known in the Anthropology field and their code of ethics is applied when doing anthropological field work and ethnography. I spoke mainly about the ethics and moral obligations of those doing ethnographic research. Shimmeryshad27 ( talk) 17:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous ethnographies that have made claims that have later been shown to be untrue or fabrications. Should there maybe be a section on this? 88.114.154.216 ( talk) 17:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
There have been major edits done to the lead over the last month, and recently, contest about it that have resulted only pressures to revert. (1) Some very good prose by a registered user that, unfortunately, deleted some other good prose that had a better structural and rhythmic compatibility. (2) Another revert by an IP that complicated the original assertion by the first revert. So it's time to discuss just how ethnography is properly depicted in a WP:LEAD. — Cpiral Cpiral 22:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Near the end of the intro it says: "avoid casual explanations." Should that be "casual" or "causal"? -- Philip Sutton ( talk) 00:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Whole article is a bit of a jumble and needs restructuring. Leutha ( talk) 10:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The lead section needs to distinguish this term from ethnology (and the conceptually closely related cultural anthropology) clearly, noting where the terms overlap and where they diverge. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
verlmeulen's 2008 work currently has two separate listings (footnotes 9 & 10). They should be consolidated (the one with Ys uses the correct spelling). I am having trouble working on the text page, so I'm ask that some-body else do this clean up, please. kdammers (I can't get tildes to work.)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ethnography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.anthrobase.com/Dic/eng/def/kinship.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Should these two sections be reviewed and combined?Or if not combined, these two sections might serve better if the history and meaning section follows the origins section to provide a more clear timeline. -- Aswieter ( talk) 16:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The introduction to this article says that ethnography describes the object of study from that object's own point of view. That sounds like it's describing specifically emic ethnography. Is there not such a thing as etic ethnography? If there is, as I expect, then perhaps the introduction needs to be changed? -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 23:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
A large majority of this page is taken from Creswell, John W, and Cheryl N Poth. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches, 2018.
Just by way of example, the "Forms" Section is plagarized nearly entirely (section 249.3/1178 of the epub).
Here's the original source:
> Types of Ethnographies
> There are many forms of ethnography, such as a confessional ethnography, life history, autoethnography, feminist ethnography, ethnographic novels as well as the visual ethnography found in photography, video, and electronic media (Denzin, 1989; Fetterman, 2010; LeCompte, Millroy, & Preissle, 1992; Pink, 2001; Van Maanen, 1988). Two popular forms of ethnography will be emphasized here: the realist ethnography and the critical ethnography.
> The realist ethnography is a traditional approach used by cultural anthropologists. Characterized by Van Maanen (1988, 2011), it reflects a particular stance taken by the researcher toward the individuals being studied. Realist ethnography is an objective account of the situation, typically written in the third-person point of view and reporting objectively on the information learned from participants at a site. In this ethnographic approach, the realist ethnographer narrates the study in a third-person dispassionate voice and reports on what is observed or heard from participants. The ethnographer remains in the background as an omniscient reporter of the “facts.” The realist also reports objective data in a measured style uncontaminated by personal bias, political goals, and judgment. The researcher may provide mundane details of everyday life among the people studied. The ethnographer also uses standard categories for cultural description (e.g., family life, communication networks, work life, social networks, status systems). The ethnographer produces the participants’ views through closely edited quotations and has the final word on how the culture is to be interpreted and presented.
> Alternatively, for many researchers, ethnography today employs a “critical” approach (Carspecken & Apple, 1992; Madison, 2011; Thomas, 1993) by including in the research an advocacy perspective. This approach is in response to current society, in which the systems of power, prestige, privilege, and authority serve to marginalize individuals who are from different classes, races, and genders. The critical ethnography is a type of ethnographic research in which the authors advocate for the emancipation of groups marginalized in society (Thomas, 1993). Critical researchers typically are politically minded individuals who seek, through their research, to speak out against inequality and domination (Carspecken & Apple, 1992). For example, critical ethnographers might study schools that provide privileges to certain types of students, or counseling practices that serve to overlook the needs of underrepresented groups. The major components of a critical ethnography include a value-laden orientation, empowering people by giving them more authority, challenging the status quo, and addressing concerns about power and control. A critical ethnographer will study issues of power, empowerment, inequality, inequity, dominance, repression, hegemony, and victimization.
Brimwats ( talk) 12:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on 15:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The long-standing stub Genealogical method might work better as a small subsection here, perhaps in the Data collection methods section; so, merge for short text and context. Klbrain ( talk) 21:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
""The kindly ethnographer" – Most ethnographers present themselves as being more sympathetic than they are, which aids in the research process, but is also deceptive. The identity that we present to subjects is different from whom we are in other circumstances." - This is not sourced -- at least not directly. Kdammers ( talk) 05:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)