The Wiley Handbook of Ethnography of Education

Dennis Beach, Carl Bagley, Sofia Marques da Silva, Dennis Beach, Carl Bagley, Sofia Marques da Silva

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781118933701
• eBook ISBN: 9781118933725
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Research in Education

A state-of-the-art reference on educational ethnography edited by leading journal editors

This book brings an international group of writers together to offer an authoritative state-of-the-art review of, and critical reflection on, educational ethnography as it is being theorized and practiced today—from rural and remote settings to virtual and visual posts. It provides a definitive reference point and academic resource for those wishing to learn more about ethnographic research in education and the ways in which it might inform their research as well as their practice.

Engaging in equal measure with the history of ethnography, its current state-of play as well as its prospects, The Wiley Handbook of Ethnography of Education covers a range of traditional and contemporary subjects—foundational aims and principles; what constitutes 'good' ethnographic practice; the role of theory; global and multi-sited ethnographic methods in education research; ethnography's many forms (visual, virtual, auto-, and online); networked ethnography and internet resources; and virtual and place-based ethnographic fieldwork.

• Makes a return to fundamental principles of ethnographic inquiry, and describes and analyzes the many modalities of ethnography existing today
• Edited by highly-regarded authorities of the subject with contributions from well-known experts in ethnography
• Reviews both classic ideas in the ethnography of education, such as "grounded theory", "triangulation", and "thick description" along with new developments and challenges
• An ideal source for scholars in libraries as well as researchers out in the field

The Wiley Handbook of Ethnography of Education is a definitive reference that is indispensable for anyone involved in educational ethnography and questions of methodology.

Part One

1
Recognizable Continuity: A Defense of Multiple Methods

Geoffrey Walford

The Nature of Ethnography

This chapter promotes what might be called a traditional form of ethnography. It recognizes that all traditions change, but puts forward a view that, for an activity or product to be regarded as ethnographic, there is a need for some strong and recognizable continuity with what was regarded as ethnography for most of the last century. This is not straightforward as the term has broadened in usage in the last few decades. For some researchers, the term has now become almost synonymous with all forms of qualitative research, but this shears it of any independent meaning. Indeed, it actually misrepresents traditional ethnography as early practitioners hardly recognized any distinction between qualitative and quantitative methods. While ethnographers were unlikely to use sophisticated statistical analysis, they often generated quantitative data as well as qualitative field notes and descriptions. Some of the classic educational ethnographies (such as Becker et al. 1961; Hargreaves 1967; Lacey 1970; Ball 1981) presented a considerable amount of quantitative data to support their arguments.

Quantitative claims, which are frequently made in ethnographies, require quantitative data, so the use of structured observation, time sampling, and even surveys may be required in addition to more open‐ended participant observation and interviewing. The methods used depend upon the research questions that the study eventually tries to answer. Thus, one very noticeable feature of early sociology of education such as Ball’s (1981) study of a comprehensive school is the diversity of different ways of generating data that were used. Observations were made in a multitude of contexts: in classrooms, while accompanying groups on school visits, during invigilation of examinations, while playing cricket, in the wider community, and so on. Interviews were conducted with pupils and teachers, small‐scale questionnaires were circulated including sociometric questionnaires, pupil diaries were kept, school records and registers were examined. The results of the research were presented in a similar variety of ways with figures, diagrams, and charts alongside quotations from interviews and observed naturally occurring conversations.

There have been many attempts to describe the nature of ethnography. Hammersley and Atkinson (2007: 3), for example, start their discussion in the following way:

In terms of data collection, ethnography usually involves the researcher participating, overtly or covertly, in people’s daily lives for an extended period of time, watching what happens, listening to what is said, and/or asking questions through informal and formal interviews, collecting documents and artefacts – in fact, gathering whatever data are available to throw light on the issues that are the emerging focus of inquiry.

Another description is that by Fetterman (1998: 1) who states:

Ethnography is the art and science of describing a group or culture. The description may be of a small tribal group in an exotic land or a classroom in middle‐class suburbia. The task is much like the one taken on by an investigative reporter, who interviews relevant people, reviews records, weighs the credibility of one person’s opinions against another’s, looks for ties to special interests and organizations, and writes the story for a concerned public and for professional colleagues. A key difference between the investigative reporter and the ethnographer, however, is that whereas the journalist seeks the unusual – the murder, the plane crash, or the bank robbery – the ethnographer writes about the routine, daily lives of people. The more predictable patterns of human life and behaviour are the focus of inquiry.

Alternatively, some writers favor lists. One example, with which I was involved, was put forward by the editors of Ethnography and Education who listed in the first issue what they saw as the seven main features of ethnography.

The key elements of ethnographic research applied to the study of education contexts are:

• the focus on the study of cultural formation and maintenance;
• the use of multiple methods and thus the generation of rich and diverse forms of data;
• the direct involvement and long‐term engagement of the researcher(s);
• the recognition that the researcher is the main research instrument;
• the high status given to the accounts of participants’ perspectives and understandings;
• the engagement in a spiral of data collection, hypothesis building and theory testing – leading to further data collection; and
• the focus on a particular case in depth, but providing the basis for theoretical generalization. (Troman et al. 2006: 1)

While there are some differences between the descriptions and lists provided, the writers above claim that there is a set of specific criteria that have to be met before a study can be considered to be ethnographic. There needs to be long‐term engagement, the use of multiple research methods, and the generation of rich data. The research process also needs to be theory led and systematic. Understanding is not achieved through chaotic or biased processes, but by systematic and well‐ordered generation of data appropriate to the task.

There are several analogies that are commonly used for the task of doing ethnography. One is of the ethnographer as spy – someone who “hangs around” and makes notes on what is seen and heard. There are certainly similarities between the ethnographer and the spy (except that few ethnographies are now conducted covertly). The ethnographer takes great care with the selection of case study sites in which to “hang around.” Sites need to be appropriate for the particular theoretical and empirical tasks, and chosen for particular purposes rather than just convenience of access (Walford 2008). Once in the site, she or he will take care with presentation of self and will adopt a particular role, or a series of roles, that will enable relevant and reliable data to be generated. This means not simply observing those members of the culture who are conveniently available or seem to be “interesting,” but searching out those who are difficult to find and who may seem unpleasant or unlikeable. Observation does not occur just once; activities are observed at different times of the day, week, and year. Where interviews are conducted, the informants are chosen purposely to test or extend particular growing hunches or understandings. Care is taken about who to associate with, and time is taken to listen to everyone within any hierarchy of power or prestige. Different views are sought and a variety of different forms of data are generated.

A second analogy is that of the news reporter. Again, there are some similarities, but a news reporter will look for the unusual, the scandalous, the “newsworthy.” People involved will be named and what they say attributed to them. The more well known the people involved, the more likely it is that their activities and statements will be reported. In contrast, ethnographers are often more interested in the mundane than the unusual. The identity of the individuals involved does not usually matter. What matters is a greater understanding of how this particular culture works – how it maintains itself and adapts to changing circumstances. News reporters care greatly about topicality. Their work has to be reported fast to qualify as news; better to get a slightly inaccurate article out today than a more accurate one tomorrow. Ethnographers are far more interested in accuracy of descriptions and analysis than the rapidity of publication. They take pains to ensure that they have sufficient evidence for all the claims that are made (Hammersley 1990).

A third, and persuasive, analogy is that ethnographers are simply doing what everyone does when they enter a new situation. It is certainly correct that when anyone enters a new culture they have to learn the formal and informal rules about “the way we do things around here” (Deal 1985). But the ethnographer works much harder at the process. She or he tries to suspend any judgment until there is sufficient evidence to make one, and self‐consciously looks for potentially contradictory evidence before accepting initial guesses. Most importantly, an ethnographer systematically generates data and records those data for future analysis. When involved in analysis and writing they do not rely on memory of events that may have occurred many months before, but refer to field notes that were written as soon after the events as possible. A teacher joining a new school will make many assumptions about the similarity of this workplace to others she has been in. Different people might see these assumptions as using intuition, experience, or prejudice. The ethnographer tries to make as few assumptions as possible and is only ready to describe and make claims about what goes on after months of observation, interviewing, document gathering, systematic recording, and systematic analysis of all the data generated.

The Pervasiveness of Interviewing

What is very clear from all of these discussions is that multiple methods are at the center of ethnography, and that ethnography involves more than just interviewing. Yet, as Atkinson (2015) has recently reminded us, there are now many studies that call themselves ethnographic that rely on interviews alone. Even within studies that are based on a wider range of ways of generating data, the interview often predominates and the use of quantitative data and analysis based on field notes of observations of naturally occurring incidents has declined. It is worth considering why this may have happened, and why so many current ethnographic studies are so limited in their methodological focus.

There are, of course, several reasons for the change, including perceived increased time pressures on researchers which lead to ethnographies being conducted in shorter periods of time. But one of the main reasons for the change is changes in technology. The traditional anthropologists of the early twentieth century simply could not record interviews word for word. They had to rely on notes taken at the time of the interview and then amplified after the event. Although sound recording machines were available as early as the 1870s, magnetic tape recording only developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s. These machines were bulky and expensive. The cassette tape recorder was first put into production in the mid‐1960s. Expensive at first, it was so...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Table of Contents
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction
• Part One
• Part Two
• Part Three
• Part Four
• Index
• End User License Agreement