©2004,TonyL.Whitehead.Ifquoted,pleasecite.Donotduplicateordistributewithoutpermission.Contact:twhitehe@anth.umd.edu,or301‑405‑1419

ETHNOGRAPHICALLY INFORMED COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENTRESEARCHSYSTEMS(EICCARS)WORKINGPAPERSERIES

WHATISETHNOGRAPHY?Methodological,Ontological,andEpistemologicalAttributesTonyL.Whitehead,Ph.D.,MS.Hyg.ProfessorofAnthropologyandDirector,TheCulturalSystemsAnalysisGroup(CuSAG)DepartmentofAnthropologyUniversityofMarylandCollegePark,Maryland20742September23,2002.RevisedMarch27,2004

1

TableofContents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................2

EthnographyIncludesbothQualitativeandQuantitativeMethods,andbothClassicalandNon‑ClassicalEthnographicMethods............................................................6

EthnographyismorethanSimplyMethods,buthasOntologicalandEpistemologicalProperties.......................................................................................................................................8

Ethnographyisa“Holistic”ApproachtotheStudyofCulturalSystemsandIntroductiontotheCulturalSystemsParadigm(CSP) ........................................................8

EthnographyistheStudyoftheSocio‑culturalContexts,Processes,andMeaningsinCulturalSystems........................................................................................................................15

EthnographyistheStudyofCulturalSystemsfromBoth“Emic”and“Etic”Perspectives.................................................................................................................................16

EthnographyisGreatlyDependentonFieldwork..............................................................17

EthnographyisaProcessofDiscoveryandContinuingInquiriesinanAttempttoAchieveEmicValidity ..............................................................................................................17

EthnographyisanIterativeProcessofLearningEpisodes.................................................18

EthnographyisanOpen‑EndedEmergentLearningProcess,andNotaRigidInvestigator‑ControlledExperiment .......................................................................................18

EthnographyisaHighlyFlexibleandCreativeProcess ....................................................19

EthnographyisanInterpretive,Reflexive,andConstructivistProcess ...........................20

EthnographyRequirestheDailyandContinuousRecordingofFieldnotes.................21

EthnographyMaybeCarriedoutbyIndividualInvestigators,orbyTeamsofInvestigators ...............................................................................................................................21

EthnographyPresentstheWorldoftheirHostsWithinaHumanContextof“Thickly”DescribedCaseStudies. ........................................................................................23

ReferencesCited ........................................................................................................................24

2

IntroductionIn the fall of 1978, as a second year research assistant professor in theHealth EducationDepartment(HEED)attheUniversityofNorthCarolina’s(UNC)SchoolofPublicHealth,Ifoundoutthatmycontractwasunderreviewbythedepartment’sfullprofessors.IwasshockedwhenGuySteuart,thedepartmentchair,began thereviewwith thecomment that thedepartmentwasconsidering firingmeandhiringa“realanthropologist.”I,ofcourse,hadnoideawhatheconsidereda“realanthropologist.”Ihadspentmore than sevenyears studyingand receivingaPhD fromoneof thenation’s leadingdepartmentsofAnthropology(UniversityofPittsburgh).Whywasn’tthat“real”enough?NewlyweddedandplanningtostartafamilyandbuyahomeIwas,Ithinkunderstandably,aggravated.IquicklytoldDr.SteuartIdidn’tunderstandhiscomment.Heresponded:

“Wehiredyoutobringananthropologicalperspectivetoourcommunityefforts.Butyouseemedbentonspendingyourtimetryingtobecomeabiostatistician.Ifwewantedabiostatistician,wewouldhavehiredarealone;notsomeonewhoistryingsohardtobecomesomequasi‑statistician.”

GodfreyHochbaum,anotheroftheprofessors,thencommentedthatthedepartmentwantedandneededananthropologicalperspective—experienceinethnographicandqualitativeresearch.Hecontinued:

“Formorethanhalfacenturyquantitativemethodshavedominatedtheresearchthatinformsusregardingwhatwedo.Yetwithallofthemoneythathasgoneintofundingthese[quantitative]inquiries into illness and health behavior, they have contributed nothing new in ourunderstandingofthehumancondition.”

IwasshockedtohearthiscomingfromHochbaum,ashewasoneoftheoriginatorsoftheHealthBeliefModel (the HBM), the primary theoretical tool for health education at that time, and one of thediscipline’sfewjustificationsofitselfasscience.Moreover,thetestingofvariousconstructsfoundintheHBM led to some of the earliest used of testing such constructs for their psychometric properties, aprocedure thatwould soon become one of themajor uses of so‑called quantitativemethods in publichealth.WhatIdidnotknowatthetime,butwouldsooncometolearn,wasthatHochbaumwasoneofthose social scientists and health professionals who had grown weary of the dominance of suchquantitative methods in social and health sciences research. This dominance of these so‑called“quantitative approaches (i.e. survey and measurement methods such as psychometrics andeconometrics, hypotheses testing, large randomized samples, reliable and valid instrumentation,experimentaldesigns,etc.)wasbecauseithadbecomegenerallyacceptedthatsuchmethodsarethemostreliable tools that we have for achieving maximum possible reliability and validity in exploringhypothesizedrelationshipbetween the factorassociatedwithhealthbehavior.Thesedemonstrationsof“scientific rigor” then came to justify both public and private investments of millions of dollars intosurveyresearchcentersoverthepastdecadewithinandoutsideofacademicinstitutions.

On the other hand, social scientists have long known theweakness of suchmethods in assessing thecomplexitiesofthehumancondition.Sciencesadvocatingstrictrulesofmeasurementusuallyoperateinalinearfashiontoshowcausalrelationshipsbetweenselectphenomena;buthavebeenlongknowntobeweakinprovidinginsightontherelationshipsbetweenthecontextsandprocessesofhumansociallife,andtheʺmeaningʺthathumansattachtosocialandphysicalphenomena(Denzin1970:30‑31). Iwouldcometolearnthathumanservicepolicymakershavecontinuedtofindoverthatthishugeinvestmentinmeasurementapproacheswashaving little impactontheirabilities tochangeor influence thenegative

3

health and social outcomes in the lives of the populations that they served. While continuing torecognize the important strengths of quantitative approaches, there is a growing awareness thatdominantquantitativemethodsweretellinguslittleaboutthecomplexityofthehumancircumstancesinwhichillhealthandsocialconditionsoccur.In1978,Hochbaumwasspeakingtowhatwasbecomingagrowingtrendamonganumberofsocialandhealthscienceresearchersandprofessionals:arecognitionthatwhile the so‑called quantitativemethods had provided little in helping us change risk behaviorsrelatedtosuchchronicadultconditionsasheartandothercardiovasculardiseases,diabetes,andcancers,and theyhavebeenevenmore limited inhelpingusaddressmanyof themajoradolescenthealthandsocialproblemsofthepasttwodecades,particularlyinurbanareas,suchashighratesohomicidesandotherviolence,drugabuseandtrafficking,AIDSandSTDs,etc.).Ontheotherhand,therehasgrownatrend towards turning to the so‑calledqualitative researchmethods, suchasopenended interviewing,focusandothergroupinterviewing,analysisofspaceutilization,textanddiscourseanalysis,andsoon,havethestrengthstobetterassesscontext,process,andsocio‑culturalmeaning(Denzin,opcit) thatunderliehumanbehavior, includinghealthriskbehavior.Ethnographicresearchmethodswere includedamongthese so‑called qualitative researchmethods. But as I discuss in this paper, it is inaccurate to refer toethnographyassimplyjustanotherqualitativeresearchmethod.FollowingmymeetingwithSteuartandHochbaumin1978,Iwouldeventuallylearnthattheyneverhadany intention of not renewing my contract at that time. Steuart wanted to shock me into followingthroughwithwhathethoughtIwastrainedtodo,andwhyhehadhiredme.ButwasIreallytrainedtouseethnographicorqualitativemethods?IhadbeenhiredbecauseofSteuartʹsviewthatanthropologistswere ethnographers, and ethnographers were trained to do fieldwork. Steuart thought that he wasgetting an expert who would assist in building the field component of HEEDʹs program, and I wasimmediately assigned to work with this component. However, I was what I would call a classicallytrained cultural anthropologist. I had passed my preliminary exams in the four subfields—culturalanthropology, linguistics, archaeology and biological anthropology (although without considerablestruggleinthelasttwo)—mycomprehensiveinanethnographicarea(theCaribbean)andatopicalarea(medical anthropology), andmy two language exams (French and Turkish). I had also completed 15monthsofextensivefieldworkinJamaica.ButIwasnevertrainedtodofieldwork.Ingraduateschool,Itookonecourseinwhichtheprofessorsharedfieldnotesandexperiencesfromthefieldworkthatcarriedoutforherowndoctoraldissertation.Butitwasnotarequiredcourse,andIdidnʹtfindmyselfrelyingonanything that I had learned in the classwhen Iwent to domy own fieldwork.While students inmytrainingprogramwererequiredtotakeacourseinquantitativemethods(suchasstatistics),IhadbeenallowedawaiverbecauseofthequantitativecoursesthatIhadtakeninmypriormastersdegreetraininginpublichealth.Ihadfound,infact,thatmyearlierintroductorytraininginsurveyresearch,biostatistics,andepidemiologicalmethodsweremorehelpfultomeduringmydissertationresearchinJamaicathananythingthatIhadlearnedduringmyPhDstudy.It is notmy intention here to critique the department where I didmy training. The department wasfollowingastandardapproach toPhDtrainingprograms inanthropologydepartments throughout thecountry at that time. In fact, the University of Pittsburgh had what was considered one of the mostrigorous trainingprograms in anthropologyat that time (early 1970s).My trainingwasgrounded in asort of phenomenological epistemology of classical anthropology that was prevalent in the disciplineduring those years—an epistemology that still dominates, particularly among senior culturalanthropologists. However, therewas little recognition of the value of this type of trainingwithin theUNCSchoolofPublicHealthinwhichIwenttoworkinJanuaryof1976.Ifoundmyselfemployedinadepartment inwhicheveryoneseemedtohaveprofessionalorientations thatwerecompletelydifferentfrommy own.My anthropological training had been heavily theoretical, and anything close to being

4

appliedwasdismissedassimilarto“socialwork,”anddefinitelynotanthropology.HEED,ontheotherhand,wasstronglycommittedtosocialactionandcommunityorganizing.Itconsideredsocialtheorythathadnoapplicationasquestionable, ifnotuseless.Thedepartmentmaintainedaninterest inqualitativethoughtandmethodologydespitethefactthatthedominantresearchparadigmthroughouttheschoolofPublicHealthwasquantitative.However,Steuart’songoingsupportgavemethecouragetodevelopaqualitativemethodscourse,which Ibegan teaching in1980andcontinued to teachuntil I leftUNC in1987.Traininginethnographicandqualitativeresearchmethodshasgrownsubstantiallysincethe1970s.Thenumberof books and journal articles thathavebeen committed to these two researchorientationshasskyrocketedover the last twoyears,andtherearenowpublishers (e.g,SagePressandAltamiraPress)whichhavededicatedentireseries to thesemethods.Publicandprivatesponsorshipofqualitativeandethnographic research on social and health issues has also greatly increased since the 1970s and early1980s.Therehasbeenarelateddemandfortraininginqualitativeandethnographicmethodsbygraduatestudentsacrossmanydisciplines,even indepartments inwhich thedominantresearchorientationandgraduate requirements are still quantitative. These departments are also beginning to hire facultymemberswhoseresearchorientationispredominantlyqualitativebutwho,becauseof their“minority”research orientation, often find themselves feeling that they have to project a more quantitativeorientation.Evengiventhisdemand,mostcollegesanduniversitiesofferfewcoursesinqualitative(andethnographic)methodsrelativetothenumberofquantitativecourses.Studentssearchingfortraininginqualitativemethods frequently turn to facultymembers in the humanities,where qualitativemethodshave long been the primary research orientation, and to anthropology where qualitative andethnographicmethodspredominate.Oneofthepositiveaspectsofthequantitative‑qualitativedebateovermethodsinthesocialsciencesoverthe last 30 years has been the growing acceptance of qualitative methods in social science research,researchfunding,andresearchtrainingprograms.Oneofthedownsidesofthisdebateforethnography,however,hasbeenthecreationofaquantitative‑qualitativemethodsdichotomy,whereinethnographyisconsidered as simply another qualitative research method. Thus one of the primary purposes of thispaper is to argue that while the predominant methods paradigm of ethnography is qualitative,ethnographyismorethansimplyaqualitativeresearchmethod.Oneofthereasonsthatthisdistinctionbecomes relevant is with regards to research funding. With the growing acceptance of qualitativeresearch, inhealth andhuman service research funding, therehas been an increasing call for researchprojects to include both quantitative and qualitative components as a means of overcoming theshortcomingsofboth.Atthesametime,however,thequantitativecomponentsinthese“multi‑method”approaches are still the dominant components, with the qualitative components being frequentlyallocatedlesstimeandmoneytoachievetheoutcomesthatwouldbemostbeneficialtoprojectoutcomes.Assuch,thequalitativemethodsusedaremostoftenchosenbasedonwhatisperceivedtobeleastcostlyand time consuming. This particular view has often led the adoption of a single qualitative researchmethod,andonethatischeapandcanbequicklycompleted,sothattheprojectcanmoveontodoingthe“real science.” Unfortunately, in health and human research, focus group interviews are frequentlychosenasthatquickandcheapmethod.Thusanyethnographerworkinginsuchanenvironmentoftenfindthemselveshavingtoabandonanyinterestindoingethnography,andadoptfocusgroup,orsomeotherquickandcheapmethodthatisconsideredqualitative. Foranthropologists,thisabandonmentofethnographyisalsosometimesfacilitatedbytheinabilitytoarticulatewhatisethnographyis,andwhyshoulditbeused.Itthenbecomeseasiertocarryoutfocusgroups,andacceptitasasuitablesubstituteforanotherso‑calledqualitativemethod,ethnography.Thusanotherpurposeofthepresentpaper is to

5

define what ethnography is. The remainder of this paper will discuss what I call the strengths orattributesofethnography,asthefollowing:

(1) Ethnography includes both qualitative and quantitative methods, and both classical and

non‑classicalethnographicapproaches.(2) Ethnography is more than simply methods, but has ontological and epistemological

properties.(3) Ethnographyisaholisticapproachtothestudyofculturalsystems.(4) Ethnographyisthestudyofthesocio‑culturalcontexts,processes,andmeaningswithin

culturalsystems.(5) Ethnographyisthestudyofculturalsystemsfrombothemicandeticperspectives.(6) Ethnographyisgreatlydependentonfieldwork.(7) Ethnographyisaprocessofdiscovery,makinginferences,andcontinuinginquiriesinan

attempttoachieveemicvalidity.(8) Ethnographyisaniterativeprocessoflearningepisodes.(9) Ethnography is an open‑ended emergent learning process, and not a rigid investigator

controlledexperiment.(10) Ethnographyisahighlyflexibleandcreative1process.(11) Ethnographyisaninterpretive,reflexive,andconstructivistprocess.(12) Ethnographyrequiresthedailyandcontinuousrecordingoffieldnotes.(13) Ethnography may be carried out by individual investigators, or by teams of

investigators.(14) Ethnographypresents theworld of itshost population2 in human contexts of thickly

describedcasestudies.

1Acaveathereisthatthislistofethnographicattributesshouldnotbeconsideredtobeexhaustive.Otherethnographersmayseeotherattributesthatarenotlistedhere,andmaybeevendisagreewiththese.Theremainderofthispaper,however,willconsistofbriefdiscussionsofeachofthesefourteenattributes.

2 Inwriting this essay, I have adopted thephrase of “hostpopulations” or “ethnographichosts” to refer to themembers of thecultural system being studied by the ethnographer. I prefer the word hosts rather than the traditional ethnographic term of“informant”becauseinmyworkininnercitycommunitiesIfoundthewordinformanttobequiteawkwardbecauseoftheuseofthesamewordtorefertopolicesnitches,whoaregreatlydisliked.Thewordhostalsofitstheepistemologicalorientationsbeingdiscussedinthepresentpaperofmovingawayfromanyconnotationoftheresearcherbeingthedominantactorintheresearcher‑researcheddyad.Assuch,Ipreferthewordhostsoverthepsychologicalresearchuseofstudysubjects,orthesociologistsuseofrespondentsorstudypopulations,becausethesetermscanalsoimplyahigherstatusintheresearcherresearchedrelationshipfortheresearcher. Iselectedthewordhostsalso,tofurtherconfirmtheroleoffieldworkintheethnographicprocess,whereintheethnographerislivingintheworldofhisorherhosts.

6

EthnographyIncludesbothQualitativeandQuantitativeMethods,andbothClassicalandNon‑ClassicalEthnographicMethodsA primary reason as to why one should not categorize ethnography as simply another qualitativeresearchmethodisthatwhilethedominantmethodologicalorientationofethnographyhastraditionallybeenqualitative,therearesomeethnographerswhohavealwaystendedtowardsquantitativemethodsintheir work. But perhaps, more importantly, while most ethnographers maintain a predominantlyqualitativefocusintheirresearch,somecomplementthatfocuswithquantitativemethods,whereuseofthelatterisappropriate.Theethnographer shouldemployanyandallmeansnecessaryandprudent to create themostholisticunderstandingoftheculturalsystemorgroupbeingstudied,includingqualitative,quantitative,classical,and non‑classical ethnographic methods. We will soon discuss the holistic attribute of ethnography,whereinindividualsorgroupsarestudiedwithintheholisticcontextsoffamilies,households,networks,communities,societies,andindividualandgrouphistory.Suchholisticorcontextualanalysisrequiresamulti‑methodapproach,whethersuchmethodsarequantitativeorqualitative.Also,whereasqualitativedata may provide rich contextual information regarding the individual providing such information,quantitativedatamust thenbe collected in order to strengthenboth the internal validity (whether theethnographer’sinterpretationofthedataiswhatitmeanstothoseprovidingit)andtheexternalvalidity(representativenessorgeneralizability)ofthedata.

Classical ethnographicmethods are those that ethnographershave traditionallyused, such as carryingout fieldwork and living in the living communities of their hosts, observing activities of interest,recording fieldnotes and observations, participating in activities during observations (participantobservation), and carrying out various forms of ethnographic interviewing. Other methods thatanthropologists have traditionally used include the physicalmapping of the study setting, conductinghousehold censuses and genealogies, assessing network ties, and using photography and otheraudio/visualmethods.

Ethnographers have also added many non‑classical methods to their tool kits. The study ofethnosemantics isagoodexampleofanon‑classicalmethod.Forexample,ethnographyisgroundedinthestudyofculturaldomains,or themeaningthatsocial,physical,andmetaphysicalphenomenahaveforthemembersofaculturalgroup.Theinitialkeytounderstandingthesedomainswasinthestructureand use of language. Thus ethnosemantics evolved as a technique for exploring cultural domains(Casagrande and Hale 1967; Gatewood 1984; Henley 1969; Lounsbury 1964; Romney and D’Andrade1964;Spradley1979;Wallace&Atkins1960).Newtechniquesofstructuredinterviewingevolvedinthecontinued study of cultural domains, including free listing, pile sorting, and paired and triadiccomparisons (Bernard, Borgatti 1999; Borster 1994; Borster & Johnson 1989; Burton & Nerlove 1976;Chavezetal1995;WellerandRomney1988).Becausesuchethnosemanticexplorationsarecarriedoutinastructuredinterviewformat,theyarenotwhataregenerallythoughtofasqualitativeresearchmethods.At the same time, because they are exploratory, rather than hypothesis testing, and are usually notadministeredtorandomizedsamples,theycannotbecategorizedasquantitativeinthemoretraditionalsenseoftheword.Anothernon‑classicalmethods that someethnographershaveadded to their research toolkits includesuch computer assisted technologies as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to facilitate traditional

7

ethnographicapproachesofmappingtheirhostcommunities(e.g.,seeAldenderferandMaschner1996;Cromley1999;Oliver‑Velez,etal.2001;Bennardo2002;Matthews,DetwilerandBurton(inpress).Othernon‑classicalapproachesthathavebeenadoptedbymanyappliedethnographers,butwhichwerenotatfirst acceptable to those anthropologistswhodefined ethnography in classical terms, are FocusGroupInterviews (AgarandMacDonald1995)andRapidEthnographicAssessmentsorAppraisals (Rist1980;WhiteheadandBrown1986;ScrimshawandHurtado1987;Beebe1995;Harris,Jerome,andFawcett1998;Beebe,2001).Insummary,becauseoftheorientationtowardsunderstandingcontextandmeaningfromtheperspectivesof theirhosts, ethnographersnotonlyusea rangeofmethods,but theymust theybeopentotheuseofallmethodsofunderstandingthehumanconditions,andnotbeprisontotheartificialboundariesthatcanbecreatedbytheuseofsuchlabelsasquantitativeversusqualitative(ReichardtandCook1979),orclassicalversusnon‑classicalethnographicmethods.

To exemplify theuse of bothquantitative andqualitative researchmethodswhile conducting classicalethnography, I offer my dissertation research in Jamaica during the calendar year of 1974, and thesummerof1975.Myresearch, focusedon theroleofemploymentandeconomicstatusonmale familyrole(husband‑fathers)performanceinaJamaicansugartown(Whitehead1976).Somerelevantstatisticalandsecondarydatawereanalyzedpriortoarrivinginthefieldsetting,andcontinuedthroughoutthe15month data collection period. Shortly after arriving in the field, I designed a survey instrument andcarriedoutahouseholdsurveyofarandomizedsamplingoftheentirestudycommunity(quantitative).Participant observation (qualitative) methodswere carried out during the entire fieldwork period, astimewasspent invarioussettings inwhichmalesspent their times (in thehomes, inworksettings, inrum shops, church, etc.). Participant‑observation fieldnotes revealed that my hosts frequently usedwords such as big, little, good, wicked, strong, weak, respectable, and reputation, when discussing maleattributes, and in some cases, female attributes. So ethnographic interviews were carried out on asubsample to explore the meanings implied in this language when used as gender attributes. Theseinterviewswerecarriedoutinasurveyformattoconveniencesamplesof180malesbetweentheagesof18 and 55 of both low and high incomemales to get some idea of how broadly these attributeswererepresented,aswellassomeotheritems,inthecommunity.Duringthreemonthsofthesummerof1975,I returned to administer a questionnaire similar to the last one to a sample of females in the hostcommunity (Whitehead 1978). During the summer of 1983, I again returned to again explore suchcharacteristicsinamoreinformalandsemi‑structuredinterviewing.(Whitehead1984,1986,1992).Asweshallsoonseeinthediscussionsbelow,ethnographersoftenfindthemselvesinhostsettingswheretheinvestigatorcontroldesiredinquantitativeorpositivistresearchislargelyimpossible.Thus,insistingonmaintaininga single,predeterminedmethodof inquirywouldprevent the collectionofmeaningfulinformation.Assuchethnographersareopentoavarietyofmethods,includingmethodsthataremorequantitative or positivist in their epistemologies. As Denzin and Lincoln (1994:2) have suggested,followingLevi‑Strauss (), theeffectiveethnographershouldbea“bricoleur”,a“jackofall trades”,onewhouseswhatevertoolsandtechniquesareathandinordertogainanin‑depthunderstandingofthephenomena in question.According to this definition, ethnography should not bemade a slave to anysinglemethod,whateverthatmethodmightbe.

8

EthnographyismorethanSimplyMethods,buthasOntologicalandEpistemologicalPropertiesIntheprecedingparagraph,thereadermightnoticetheintroductionofthewordpositivistorpositivism.This isbeingdonedeliberatelytosuggest that indifferentiatingresearchorientationsweneedtomovebeyond simply a discussion ofmethods, as in the quantitative‑qualitative differentiation, as there areotherattributesinvolvedindifferentresearchapproaches.Twokeyattributesofdifference,accordingtoGubaandLincoln(1994)arealsoontologicalandepistemologicalorientations.Theysuggestthatscholarswithdifferent researchorientationsmayalsodiffernot only in termsofmethods, but also in termsofperspectiveson thenature ofwhat is being studied (ontology), andhow tobestunderstand thisobjectofstudy (epistemology).Researchersmaydiffer in theirontologicalorientations in termsofwhether theyadopt the idea thatwhat is being studied exists as some exact phenomenon (i.e., the idea of an exactobjectivity),themorepositivistorientation,orthenatureofthephenomenonwillvarybasedonarangeof factors, including social, economic, political, situational, or experiential/personal. Researchersmayalsodifferepistemologicallyintheirbeliefsthatthebestwaytoaccuratelyunderstandhumansettingsisthrough the positivist investigative approach that emphasizes a separation between investigator andsubject, or an acceptance that what is understood of that setting is the product of an intersubjectiveprocessbetweeninvestigatorandsubject.(Moreonpositivismwillbediscussedinlatersectionsofthisessay).

My point here is that understanding ontological and epistemological orientations are relevant tounderstandingdifferencesinresearchapproaches,itisalsoimportanttounderstandthatthesedifferentphilosophicalorientationswill frequentlydictate theselectionofmethodstobeusedinsocialresearch,andhowthosemethodswillbecarriedout.Thusdifferentiatingresearchersintermsoftheirontologicalandepistemologicalorientationsmaybemoreusefulthantryingtodifferentiatethembasedonmethodsbecause researchers of different research philosophies may use either quantitative and qualitativemethods,orboth.Theprimaryargument in thepresentpaper is thatethnographydiffers fromwhat iscalled qualitative research because while ethnography may share many of the ontological,epistemological,andmethodsorientationsofqualitativemethodologists,itmayalsosharesomewithso‑calledquantitativeresearchers,andhavecertainorientationsthatarenotfoundineither.Theremainderoftheethnographicattributesthatarediscussedinthispaperreflecttheontologicalandepistemologicalpropertiesofethnography,aswellasadditionalreferencestomethods.

Ethnographyisa“Holistic”ApproachtotheStudyofCulturalSystemsandIntroductiontotheCulturalSystemsParadigm(CSP)Ethnographersarefondofsayingthatethnographyisalwaysdefinedbytheoriesofculture.Butrarelydotheyinformyouastowhatthosetheoriesofcultureare.Infact, throughoutthehistoryofculturalandsocialanthropology,therehavebeendebatesastowhatthenatureofculturetrulyis.Thefactthatsomerefertothemselvesassocialanthropologistswhileothersrefertothemselvesasculturalanthropologistsreflectsoneof theearliestproblemswiththisconcept.Morethanfiftyyearsago,KroeberandKluchon(1952)producedabookthatcompileddefinitionsoftheconceptofcultureandcameupwithmorethan250conceptualizations. It isacomplexconcept,but inmyopinion,averyimportantone,eventhoughdifficulttograsp.Itisforthesereasonsthatinthissection,Iwillgivesignificantattentiontoit,andhowitevolvedtobecomemyprimaryontologicalframeworkforresearchandappliedanthropologicalpractice.

9

The lackofastandardanthropologicaldefinitionofculturecontributed tomypredicamentearlyonatUNC. Surrounded by colleagues who expected a frequently used anthropological concept to bemeasurableoroperational inapplied settings, Ihaddifficultyarticulatingadefinitionof culture.OveryearsofexperienceIbegantosynthesizemanydefinitionsofculturetoformulateacultureconceptofmyown,butalsoonethatdrawsonavarietyofotherconceptualizations.Similartothepresentdiscussiondefining ethnography in terms of its attributes, culture too can bedefined in terms of its attributes ofculture,amongwhichIincludethefollowing:

(1) Cultureisa“holistic”flexibleandnon‑constantsystemwithcontinuitiesbetweenits interrelated components, which include shared ideational systems (knowledge,beliefs, attitudes, values and other mental predispositions), and preferred behaviorsandstructural(social)relationships.

(2) Culture provides rules and routines that facilitate order, regularity, familiarity,

andpredictabilityinwhatisotherwiseadisorganizedworldofpeople,things,ideas,andbehaviors.

(3) Cultureprovides“meaning”intheinterpretationofpeopleʹsbehavior,thingsinthe

physicalandmetaphysicalworld,events,occurrences,andsoon,sothatpeoplecanconstructandcommunicatetheirrealities.

(4) Culture is the primary source of a people’s knowledge about the world. In the

context of ethnography, culture provides no inherent hierarchy of knowledge,instead it applies local conceptions of the definition of knowledge (See Berger1967:15);

(5) Culture is a shared phenomenon. Members of a cultural group often share

knowledgeandmeaningsystems,or“acommonsenseofreality,”(Berger:1967:23),whichisreferredtoasintersubjectivity.

(6) Culture contributes to human communication and miscommunication. The

meanings and interpretations provided by a cultural system not only facilitatecommunicationbetweenthosewhosharevariousaspectsofsuchsystems,buttheymayalsogiverisetomiscommunicationsandmisunderstandingsbetweenmemberswhoarefromdifferentsystems.

(7) Cultureimpliesvalues,orthepreferredpractices,socialrelationships,orideasand

sentimentsofahumancommunity.(8) Culturalpatternsmaybeidealaswellasreal.Peopleʹsstatementsastowhattheir

realitiesaremaycontradictwhattheirbehavioralpatternsandproductsimply.(9) Culturemaybetacitaswellasexplicit.Explicitcultureisculturalknowledgethat

people can easily talk about in a direct fashion. Tacit culture is knowledge thatmotivatesparticular ideationalorbehavioralpatterns,butaboutwhichpeoplemaynotbeable todirectlyspeak. (Spradley1979:8‑9).Theconceptof“personal space”(thedistanceofcomfortinthecontextofpersonalinteractions)isanexampleoftacitculture.

10

(10) Cultural patterns are horizontally (within generations) and vertically

(intergenerationally) reproduced.However, there is also continuous change takingplacewithin cultural systems.Thus inplannedchangeprograms, suchconceptsas“core” and “peripheral” cultural patterns are helpful, as core patterns can beassumedtobemoreresistanttochange.Butevenwithincoreculturalpatternsthereis continual stress for change, as well as subpatterns that emerge, disappear, andreemerge.

(11) Theexpressionof culturalpatterns ishighly influenced—butnotdeterminedby—

environment. Both physical and social environmental factors influence culturalexpression.Environmental influencesofaphysicalnaturemighttakeyearsorevengenerations to express themselves; while social environmental features mayinfluence cultural expressions immediately and continually because of culturalmechanismsofsocialfeedback.

(12) Cultureisahistoricalproduction.Theemergenceandcontinuityofculturalsystems

arenotonlyproductsofverticalandhorizontalreproduction.Significanteventsandprocesses canalsogive rise to theproductionand reproductionof specific culturalpatterns.

(13) Culture is functional. It is not popular in popular scholarly discourses of

postmodernismandculturalcriticismtoreferback to the functionalistperspectivesofearlierscholarslikeMalinowski,RadcliffeBrown,andParsons.Butthroughmanyyears of experience as an applied anthropologistworkingwith health and humanserviceprofessionals, I have foundnotionsof culture’s role inmeeting an arrayofhumanneeds tobeveryfruitful.While Isharecriticalreviewsof themisuseof theconceptofculturebypastanthropologists, Ihavefoundthatholisticapproachestothe functional qualities of cultural systems are invaluable in developing strategieswhichcombatsimplisticprogramsthatcandomoretoharmthantohelp.

Discerningformyselftheattributesofthecultureconcepthashelpedmeimmenselyinarticulatingittoothers. Another necessary challenge that I have faced is in attempting to operationalize the cultureconcept, or parts of it, in order to use it in an ethnographic and interpretive fashion. In otherwords,gaining a clearer conception of culture provided a degree of standardization to the fundamentaltheoreticalconceptthatunderliestheethnographicinquiriescarriedoutbyanthropologists.Thisstepwasmostnecessary—forthenearly35yearsthatIhaveworkedasahealthethnographer,Ihavebeencalledontoprovideethnographicexpertisetodozensofprojectswhichcutacrossarangeofhealthandsocialfields.Moreover,theresearchunitthatIfoundinthefallof1989,theCulturalSystemsAnalysisGroup(CuSAG—http://www.cusag.umd.edu), survived for some time, like somany applied anthropologists,primarilyonshort‑termresearchcontracts3.Forentitieswhoseexistence isdependentonthesuccessful

3Fornineyears,CuSAGsurvivedthroughprimarilymysolitaryeffortstosecurecontracts.However,becauseethnographyhadnotyetenteredthemainstreammindsofthosefundinghealthcontractsasworthyoflongtermcontractsandresearchgrantsthatwereofferedtomorepopularhealthresearchfollowingthemorepopularpositivistapproaches,thecontractsthatCuSAGreceivedwereshortterm(usuallyayearorless),Ifounditimpossibletomaintainthistypeofproductivityinasmallanthropologydepartment,andmeetmyresponsibilitiesasafulltimefacultymember.Moreover,aftersufferingarangeofchronichealthconditionsbetween1996 and 2003 (diabetes, cancer, andhypertension), in 1998, I called amoratoriumonpursuing contracts forCuSAG. Havingachievedsomecontrolovermyhealthproblems,thispastyearIhavestartedtherevivalofCuSAG,butnotasacontractpursuing

11

securingofsuchcontracts,nothavingsomedegreeofstandardization inbothmethodologiesandtheirunderlying theoretical conceptsmeans constantly ‘reinventing thewheel for each new project. This isphysicallyandmentallytrying.MyattemptstoavoidthistryingsituationledtothedevelopmentoftheCultural Systems Paradigm (CSP), a framework for researchwhich is grounded in the dimensions ofculturediscussedabove.

FigureIisaschematicillustrationoftheCSP’sconstructcategoriesandsubcategories.Anassumptionofthis schema is that the range of human activities can be grouped into one or more of 9 descriptivecategories:

(1) The individual human organism and its biological status, psychological makeup,personality and idiosyncratic tendencies (including agency), “intelligence,” skilllevels,etc.

(2) Thesocialsystemsorunitsofsocialrelationshipswhichindividualsinteractwithin,

are influenced by, and have an influence on (residential units, extra‑residentialnetworksanddyads,andcommunityorsocietalorganizationsandagencies).

(3) Individualandshared(withothersinselectsocialsystems)behavioralpatterns.(4) The significant “idea” systems (knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, and

symbolismsor“unitsofmeaning”)heldbyindividualsandsocialsystems.(5) ExpressiveCultureasrepresentedinsuchformsaslanguage,music,art,etc.(6) Technologiesandhumanmadematerialobjects,ormaterialculture.(7) Thephysicalenvironmentsinwhichhumansinteract.(8) Needs thathumansmustmeet inordertoachievethelevelofphysical functioning

necessarytothesurvivaloftheindividualandgroup.(9) Thehumangroupʹssharedhistoryofsignificanteventsandprocesses.

WhiletheCSPhasbecomemyprimaryconceptualframeworkforboththeanalysisofsocialandculturalsystems, the schema offered in Figure 1 is often critiquedwhen I have included it in presentations atanthropologyandothersocialscienceconferences,Assuch,IfeelthatIneedtodemonstratetoreadersthat it is more than that by providing some background on how the CSP evolved as part of myontologicalandepistemologicalorientationasanethnographerandanappliedanthropologist..

WhiletheCSPwasfirstpublishedintheearly1980s(Whitehead1984), itsoriginprobablystartedwithmytraininginpublichealthinthelate1960s.Atthattime,thesystemicapproachesofParsonsandothers(e.g.ParsonsandBales;Billingsley1968)hadnotyetbeenabandonedasstagnantfunctionalism,astheyoften are in todayʹs more popular theoretical approaches in the social sciences, in particular post

entityasinthepast,butsimplyasanonlineentity,offeringinformationandassistancetothosewhomightthinkCuSAGhastheskillsthattheywant.

12

modernism, post structuralism, and critical perspectives. Duringmy graduate school days in the late1960s and early 1970s, systems theory continued tobeheavily taught by social scientists atPittsburghwhileIwasthere,andIwasattractedtotheapproachforpersonalreasons.Moreover,myearlypersonalhistoryofgrowingupblackinruralsegregatedsouthernpovertycontributedtomylifelonginterest intheapplicationofmytrainingtoissuesofpovertyandinequitiesinaccesstohealthandsocialresources.The system’s framework of the individual as a member of multiple social systems significantlycontributedtomycontinuedfocusonstructuralfactorsthatcontributedtopovertyandrelatedproblems.TheintroductiontosystemstheorythatIreceivedinpublichealth,attractedmetototheconceptionof“holism” in anthropology, and to the structuralist and structural‑functionalist theories of Radcliffe‑Brown () andMalinowski (). Moreover, as a “culturally deprived4 “AfricanAmericanwho grew upsharecropping in theSouth, functionalismprovidedmewithabalance incontrast to the“blamingthevictim”modelswhichdominatedthethinkingonsocialproblemsatthattime.InfactIhaveneverfoundtoo great a distinction between early functionalist theory in anthropology, and the present popularnotions of personal agency which is omnipresent in the currently popular critical approaches tounderstanding the human condition. But what was so important to my development as an appliedanthropologistwasthatthisearlyintroductiontosystemstheoryhelpedmetounderstandthepossiblesourcesforthecomplexityofanysocialissuethatothertheoreticalmodelsdidnotaddress.The CSP began to emerge as a formal theoretical and research paradigm during and after theethnographic fieldwork which I conducted for my Ph.D. dissertation in Jamaica in 1974‑75. ExistingtheoreticalmodelsexplainingWestIndianfamilyandreproductivebehaviorswerenʹtbeingexplainedbydominanttheoriesatthetimeonthesplitpersonalities(Kerr1963)andnormativedualism(Smith1966)ofWest Indian people.My field experience taughtme that the sources of persistent poverty and relatedconditions,aswellastheirimpactonfamilystructureandfunction,weremuchmorecomplexthansuchmodels suggested.Thesemodelswere similar to theblaming thevictimmodels found in literatureonblackfamiliesintheUnitedStates,asdiscussedintheprecedingparagraph,andfailedtogiveadequateattentiontothebroadermorestructuralsourcesoftheseconditions.

By the time I arrived in the field in 1974, my training in anthropology had led to a more Marxistorientation, somewhat5 replacing Parsonian structuralism as the theoretical framework to help meunderstandwhat I saw and experienced.However, the fieldwork experiencemovedme away from aMarxistmodelbecausefromwhatIcouldsee,Marxismseemedtovieweverythingintermsofbroaderstructural sources. Although a focus on the agency of poor people is usually associatedwithMarxistthinking, it didnot providemewith an adequate framework for understanding the complexity of theideational systems ofmy ethnographic host. I have published elsewhere the complexity of howmalesamongmy ethnographic host viewed themselves in themselves in terms of their relationship to othersocial systems in which they lived, their families, communities, the larger Jamaican society andCaribbean,and in therelationshipof JamaicaandJamaicans to thepowerfulcosmopolitancountriesofEngland,Canada,andtheUnitedStates(Whitehead1978,1984,1986,1992).

The Jamaican experiencewas valuable in terms ofmy experiencing how people integrated ecologicalfactors, social systems, and ideational constructs into a systemic whole, i.e., the cultural systemsparadigm.However, itwasnotuntilmyarrivalatUNC that theCSPbecamea formal theoretical andresearchmodel.ThesystemicorientationsofParsonsandothersbecameusefulagainwhenIwasaskedto teacha courseon the family,primarilybecauseof the familyhealthorientationofmypublichealth

4 5

13

training,andthekinshipfocusofmyanthropologytraining.Ifoundthatmyearlyattractiontosystemstheoryoverlappedwiththefactthatsystemic(e.g.Billingsley1968)anddevelopment6approaches(e.g.,seeAllen1978)werethenandcontinuetobepopulartheoreticalapproachestothestudyofthefamily.TheCSPdidnotfullyemergeuntilthelate1970sandearly1980sasaparadigmforthestudyofculturalsystems,andasaframeworkfordesigningandimplementingcomprehensiveethnographicresearchandanalysis. It was at UNC, where I struggled with the anxieties and conflicts of being in an aliendisciplinary land, that the CSP emerged in response to two important factors: (1) a lack of adequatemodelsforinterpretingthecomplexdatageneratedbyethnographicapproachesinamannerappropriatefor applied settings (Pelto et al, 1980); and (2) the frequencywithwhich ethnographic inquiry yieldednarrativeanswersfrominformantswhichexpressedarangeofconcernsoutsideoftheresearchquestionsbutwhich appeared to be of extreme importance to those being studied. Thesedilemmas gave rise tothreeunderlyingethnographicprincipleswhicharebuiltintotheCSP.ThefirstethnographicprincipleoftheCSPiswhatIrefertoasThePrincipleofUniversalHumanCulturalCategories. This principle holds that there are certain categories of phenomenawhich are universallyrelevanttohumancommunities,thoughthesecommunitiesdifferintermsofhowthesephenomenaareexpressed (culture). This assumption is in contrast to the epistemology that drivesmost positivist andethnographicresearchparadigms.Itsuggeststhatwelookforwaysthathumansandtheirculturesaresimilarbeforewebegantolookforhowtheyvary.Thinkinginthiswayledmetoconsiderthedevelopmentofbroad universal cultural categories for designing community ethnographies, and for managing andanalyzing the plethora of data that this research often yields. Thus, the basis for the nine generalcategories of the CSP discussed above, and the subcategories found in each as provided in Figure 2.However, very important to this particular orientation is that while the CSP suggests broad universalculturalcategories,itmustbenotedthathumancommunitiesandtheirindividualmembersvaryintermsofhow those components are expressed. The job of ethnographer, then, is to decipher the specific cultural andindividualexpressionswithinthesedatacategories.ThesecondethnographicprincipleoftheCSPiswhatIcallthePrincipleofParadigmaticFlexibility,whichstatesthatbecauseofthedifferencesinbehavioralandideationalexpressionsacrosshumangroupsandindividuals,conceptualframeworksthatinformthestudyofculturalsystemsmustbeflexible.Asaconsequenceof variations in expression, while the categories of the CSP provide a framework for initiatingethnographicstudyandstoringethnographicdata,theboundariesofthesecategoriesarenotrigid.DatathatarestoredinoneCSPcategoryatonepointintheethnographicprocessmaybemovedtoorsharedwithanothercategoryastheethnographercontinuestolearnabouthisorherhostculture.ThecategoriesoftheCSParenotnecessarilypermanent.IndeedtheCSP’scategoriesandsubcategorieshavechangedagreatdealsincetheparadigmwasfirstconceptualized—aprocessofevolvingconceptualizationthatwillcontinueasconceptionsofhumanculturalandindividualvariationsalsoevolve.ThethirdethnographicprincipleoftheCSPiswhatIcallthePrincipleoftheInterrelationshipbetweenSocio‑cultural Contexts, Processes, andMeaning Systems.This principle holds that in order to understandwhycertainbehaviorsemergeandpersist,includinghealthriskandresiliencybehaviors,wemustunderstandthe socio‑cultural contexts in which these behaviors occur, the socio‑cultural processes of behavioralcontexts,andthesocio‑culturalmeaningsthatthesecontextsandprocesseshaveforthosewhopracticethem.Morespecifically,theCSPallowsustoholisticallystudy: 6

14

(1) thesocio‑culturalcontextsofthesocialsystems (householdsandfamilies,formalandinformalnetworks,organizations,groups,dyads,institutionsandrelationshipsofthewider community, society, inter‑societal linkages), of which individuals aremembers, of the physical environments occupied by individuals and theirsignificant social systems, and of significant individual and shared historicalpatterns;

(2) the socio‑cultural processes included in the interactions of individuals with and

withintheirsignificantsocialsystems,withandwithinthephysicalenvironmentsthat individuals and their significant social systemsoccupy, and in individual andsharedhistoriesandpatternsofindividualandgrouphumanneedsfulfillment;and

(3) thesocio‑culturalmeanings that individualsandtheirsignificantsocialsystemsapply

to social systemic relationships, thephysical environments theyoccupy, individualandsharedhistoricalpatterns,andpatternsofbasichumanneedfulfillment7.

Whiletheconceptofcultureisusuallythoughtofasbeingapplicabletotheanalysisof

societies,ethnicornationalgroups,orlocalcommunities,IhaveusedtheCSP,andthetheoriesofculturethatunderlietheparadigm,mostfrequentlyintheanalysisofillnesspopulations(e.g,personssufferingfrom HIV/AIDS), organizations, organizational subunits, institutions, academic disciplines andprofessionalgroups,orothersocialhumangroupasculturalsystems.Theuseof theCSP inanalyzingthesevarioussocialunitsasculturalsystemsismadepossiblewhenthesesystemshavethefollowing:

(1) preferredsocialrelationshipsorstructures;(2) preferred(ornormative)ideasystemsandbehaviorpatterns;(3) valuedandotherobjectsthathavebeenproducedbythegroup;(4) existwithincertainphysicalandsocialenvironments;(5) asharedsenseofneedsthatthegroupattemptstomeet;and(6) sharedhistoricaleventsandprocessesthatgroupmemberseitherexplicitlyknow,or

aretacitlyinfluencedby.

DiscussionsoftheuseoftheCSPinappliedethnographicresearchcanbefoundinexistingpublicationsonfoodresearchwhichwerecarriedoutinNorthCarolinainthelate1970sand1980s(Whitehead1984,1992).DevelopingtheCSPinthiscontextwascrucialtomybeingabletodesignandeffectivelycarryoutalaterrapidteamethnographyprojectinCameroon(WhiteheadandBrown1986).TheCSPhasalsobeenused to inform thedesign and implementationofmost of theurbanhealth relatedprojects inwhich IhavebeeninvolvedsinceestablishingCuSAG(Seehttp://www.cusag.umd.edu/programs).

7TherearethreecategoriesofhumanneedsoutlinedintheCSP,notonlythebasicorbiological/organicneedsasoutlinedbyMaslov,butalsosocialneedssuchaseducation,andexpressiveneedssuchastheneedforhavinganorderlyviewofthephysical,social,andmetaphysicalworlds.ThethreecategoriesofhumanneedsarediscussedinmoredetailintheCEHCWorkingpaper,“TheCulturalSystemsParadigm.”

15

EthnographyistheStudyoftheSocio‑culturalContexts,Processes,andMeaningsinCulturalSystemsToexplorethisparticularattributeofethnography,wereturntothethirdethnographicprincipleoftheCSPdiscussedabove,theinterrelationshipbetweensocio‑culturalcontexts,processes,andmeaningsthatarefoundinculturalsystems.Theideaforthisprincipleasitappliestoethnographyemergedfromtherealization early inmy career that the traditionally dominant quantitative or positivist approaches toresearch and intervention programs in public healthwere rarely grounded in the social, historical, orenvironmentalcontextsofthelivesofthepeoplebeingstudiedortargeted.Thesocio‑culturalprocessesthattakeplacewithinthesepopulations—andthatmayaffecttheirrealitiesandbehaviors—areinadequatelyaddressed by such approaches (See Buchanan 1998). The complexity of human meanings applied tocontexts and processes are often ignored, or are bounded in narrowly defined (for the sake ofmeasurement and demonstrations of causality) constructs of investigator defined attitudinal scales.Token lip service is sometimes given to discussions of meaning systems by bringing in qualitativeresearchersoranthropologists.Buttheseconsultationshaveusuallybeenundertakeninordertoconfirmorcomplementalreadyexistingnon‑contextualor“blamethevictim”modelsbycategorizing theseso‑calledbeliefsandvaluesaspeculiar to thepopulationbeingstudied.Otherwise,discussionsofbeliefs,values,andotherdomainsofmeaningamongthepopulationbeingstudiedareignoredinthemajorityofhealthresearch.The ethnographer is interested in the socio‑cultural contexts and processes inwhich people live theirlives,aswellasthemeaningsystemswhichmotivatethem.Withinanethnographicparadigm,theactorsand their corresponding actions, behaviors, and beliefs are examinedwithin the cultural and societalcontext inwhichtheytakeplace. Insodoing,asAgar (1996)suggested in theupdateofhisclassicTheProfessionalStranger,anethnographermustgo“beyondafocusonlocalcommunities[butshould]..shouldsituate themwithin the largerpolitical economy, aspeople arepartof states andof a turbulentworld(p.11). Such social context brings multiple systems of meanings, somemore dominant than others inaffectingthelivesofpeopleatthelocallevel.AsdiscussedbyClifford:

“Ethnographyisactuallysituatedbetweenpowerfulsystemsofmeaning.Itposesitsquestionsatthe boundaries of civilizations, cultures, classes, races and genders. Ethnography decodes andrecodes,tillingthegroundsofcollectiveorderanddiversity,inclusionandexclusion.Itdescribesprocessesofinnovationandstructurationandisitselfpartoftheseprocesses.”(1986:2)

Boyle(1994)hassuggestedthata“centraltenetofethnographyisthatpeople’sbehaviorcanonlybeunderstoodin context.”At the same time,however, emphasis in ethnography isplacednot on separatebehavioralacts,asisoftenthecaseinpositivistapproaches,butonhowbehavioralprocessesarelinked.Theprocessofpursuing aholistic viewof groupoften includes environmental andhistorical considerationswhichhelp the ethnographer gain a better understanding of the context in which an individual or groupoperates.Ethnography then approaches the interrelationships between socio‑cultural contexts, processes andmeaning systems as they contribute to the complexities of human realities. Most often this isaccomplishedinwaysthatcannotbeadequatelyaddressedbypositivistapproachesalone.ThisbecameveryapparenttomewhilecarryingoutresearchonfoodandcultureinNorthCarolinaduringthelate1970s.Inordertobeawardedagranttopursuethisresearch,Ihadtocommittofollowingaquantitativeapproachwhichwasinformedbypositivistepistemologies.Butevenafterutilizingvalidated,structuredresearchinstruments,andinterviewingmorethan200studyparticipantsregardingtheirfoodpractices,

16

there were questions about response validity because of, among other things, the varied meaningsattachedtomuchoftheterminologyweusedinourresearch(e.g.“eatingbetweenmeals.”8).Evenafterselectinginstrumentswhichhadsupposedlyvalidatedforruralblackpopulations,andthenattemptingtoconfirmtheirvalidityforourspecificpopulationbyadministeringapretesttoasubsampleofresidentsofour studycounty,wecontinued toexperienceseriousproblems,notonlywithvaryingmeaningsofwords9,butalsowithlanguagestructure,aswellasthestillseeminglyalienqualityoftheinstrument10,and with interviewer‑interviewee psychodynamics. These psychodynamics often resulted in studyparticipantsfindingasafeplacewithinourcodedanswerstorespond,regardlessofthequestionthatwasbeingasked.Asubsequentgrantallowedustodropthetraditionalepidemiologicalmodelwehadbeenfollowinginfavorofamoreethnographicapproach11.Abandoningamorepositivistapproachallowedusto achieve themajor findings of the study, primarily that conceptions of food extendedwell beyondsimplyeatingandnutritionandwereinfluencedbyavarietyofcomplexsocio‑culturalfactors.Wehavefound similar interrelationships in studies of violence (Whitehead, et al 1994), risk factors forAIDS ininnercitycommunities(Whitehead,1997),drugtraffickingandthepresentincarcerationepidemicamongblackmen(Whitehead,2000),andintheriskbehaviorsofadolescentAfricanAmericanfemales.

EthnographyistheStudyofCulturalSystemsfromBoth“Emic”and“Etic”PerspectivesTheprimaryaimofethnographyistounderstandthesocio‑culturalcontexts,processes,andmeaningsofaculturalsystemfromtheperspectiveofthemembersofthatsystem.Toachievethisunderstanding,theethnographer shouldmaintain both an “emic” and an “etic” approach to studying any given culturalsystem.Anemicapproachattemptstounderstandcomponentsofaculturalsystemfromtheperspectiveof the group being studied. The etic approach, on the other hand, analyzes a cultural system withresearchparadigmsbroughtbytheresearcherfromoutsideofthatsystem(PeltoandPelto1978).Theemicperspectiveiscriticaltotheethnographerʹsprimarygoaloflearningtheworldofhisorherhostcommunityfromtheperspectivesofitsmembers.AsMalinowskipointedoutmorethan80yearsago,thegoal of ethnography is “to grasp the native’s point of view…to realize his vision of the world” (1922:25).Moreover, as suggested by Guba and Lincoln (1997:198), the various hypotheses, theories, andinterpretive frameworks brought by outside investigators“may have little or nomeaningwithin the emicviewofstudiedindividuals,groups,societies,orcultures.”Atthesametime,complementingtheemicwithanetic viewpoint is important for understanding all aspects of a human group. Because the attributes ofculture include dichotomies such as the ideal versus the real and the tacit versus the explicit, theethnographermustmaintainsomesenseofanexternal,“objective”framework.ThisprovideswhatIcall‘emic validity’—understanding from the perspectives of ethnographic hosts through rigorous anditerative observations, interviewing, and other modes of ethnographic inquiry. In the end, theethnographermustkeepinmindthattheproductofethnographicworkisadescriptivereconstructionof

8Wehad found inourpretests that theuseof theword snackingwasopen tobroadvariations inmeaning, soweadopted thephraseofeatingbetweenmeals.However,aswelaterfoundinourethnographicstudy,muchofthedatawehadinresponsetothequestionofeatingbetweenmealswasalso invalidbecause forsomeofourparticipants,amealwassomething thatyousitdowntoatableandeat.Thussomepeopleviewedthemselvesasonlyhavingonemealperday,butwaseatingbetweenmealsallofthetime.

9 10 11

17

thehosts’ ownconstructionof theirworlds.This reconstruction canbebest achievedbybalancing theemicunderstandingwithwhatislearnedthroughaneticperspective.

EthnographyisGreatlyDependentonFieldworkSpradley(1980:3)statedthat“ethnographicfieldworkisthehallmarkofculturalanthropology.”Agar(1980)hasarguedthattheverynamefor“doingethnography” isfieldwork.Myuseofthewordethnographichostsrather than the traditional informantused traditionally inethnography implies theroleof fieldwork inethnography,whereintheethnographerliveamongthoseuponwhomheorsheisresearching,andtheyare his or her host. A primary reason for fieldwork is to achieve the emic validity that ethnographypromises. Being in the field and coming to a thorough understanding of the daily lives of the groupunder study is one of the key components of any ethnographic enterprise. Fieldwork allows theresearcher to observe and examine all aspects of a cultural system, especially those that could not beaddressed through laboratory or survey research alone. Spending long periods of time in the field isconsidered the crucial aspect of the classical ethnographer’s ability to comprehensively describecomponentsofaculturalsystemasaccuratelyandwithas littlebiasaspossible.Epistemologically, theclassicalethnographerbelieves that theonlyway togainanative’sviewofhisorherownworld is tospend time in thatworld,according toSpradley (ibid), “participating inactivities, askingquestions, eatingstrange foods, learning a new language,watching ceremonies, taking fieldnotes,washing clothes,writing lettershome,tracingoutgenealogies,observingplay,interviewinginformants,andhundredsofotherthings.”Indeed,oneoftheprimarymethodsusedinethnographyisparticipantobservation,whichimpliesthattheethnographernotonlyobservesactivitiesinthefieldsetting,butalsoparticipatesinthemwhereverpossible.Long‑termparticipantobservation,asadvocated inclassicalethnography, is themeans foranethnographertodiscernwhatisrealversuswhatisideal,whatisexplicitfromwhatistacit,andwhatisemicallyvalid.Participantobservationbydefinitiontakesplacewithinthesocialsettingsthatarefamiliarandsignificanttotheethnographerʹshosts—thosesocialsettingsthatprovidethesocio‑culturalcontexts,processes,andmeaningsystemsoftheirworld.

EthnographyisaProcessofDiscoveryandContinuingInquiriesinanAttempttoAchieveEmicValidityAmongtheontologicalorientations inwhichethnography isgrounded is theviewthathumans,as theprimaryobjectofstudy,constructmultiplerealitiesthatarecomplex,multifaceted,differentlyexpressedinspecificsituations,andcontinuallyundergoingchange.Epistemologically,tograspanunderstandingofsuch realities, the classic ethnographic enterprisedoesnot beginwithpredeterminedhypotheses tobeprovedordisprovedasobjectivesocialfact,butbeginswithopen‑endedexploratoryattemptstolearnasmuchaspossibleaboutthoserealities.Intheend,thisprocessenablestheethnographertodescribetheserealities and the connections between them with as much emic validity as possible. A large part ofgainingasmuchinformationaspossibleisthroughthecollectionofsecondaryandexistinginformation(statistical, scholarly and popular publications, etc.) on the ethnographic host and their social andphysical environments. Because of the exploratory orientation of ethnography, this secondaryinformation is not assessed so much to generate hypotheses to be proved or disproved in theethnographic setting (although this is an option), as it is to contribute baseline knowledge about theresearch setting, and to generate questions worthy of ethnographic exploration. The ethnographicenterprise is asmuch about discovering the right questions to ask (process) as it is about finding theanswers to those questions (product). Ethnography entails continual observations, asking questions,

18

making inferences, and continuing theseprocessesuntil those questionshave been answeredwith thegreatestemicvaliditypossible.

Theethnographer isnotalways immediatelyawareofnewdiscoverieswhile in the field. Idiscussnotdiscovering the importantconceptof“balance”amongthe Jamaicanmalehostsuntil Ihadbeen in thefield setting for eight months, until I recognize through reviews of my fieldwork that the work wasrepeatedlyusedinconversationsbymalesregardingmales.Oncediscoveringit,Ithenbeganfocusingonit and found that itwas an important concept in explaining the puzzle that I had had for some timeregardinghowmales could seem tovaluebehaviors that seemed tobeopposite frommyperspective.Forexample,forsomemaleshavingchildrenwasanindicatorofaman’sstrength,themorechildrenbyanumberofwomen,thestrongertheman.Atthesametimehowever,amanwhohadsomanychildrenthat it could “mesh up” (destroy) his relationshipwith his primarymatewas seen asweakness. (SeeWhitehead1986;1992).

I discussedmy struggleswith the construct of balance in JamaicawithinAgar’s (1982) application ofGadamer’s (1975) concepts of breakdown, resolution, and coherence. For the ethnographer, according toAgar (1982:783), breakdownoccurswhen there is a “disjunctionbetweenworlds”—the ethnographer’sworld and the host culture’sworld. That is, the ethnographer does not have a framework formakingsenseofwhatheorsheisobserving,ashisorherassumptionofcoherencehasbeenviolated.Resolutionis the (ethnographic)processofachievingcoherence. In fact,Agar implies thatwhileanethnographermight have been in the field for some while, the ethnographic process begins in earnest whenbreakdownsoccurbecausetheneedforfindingcoherencepromptsthedevelopmentoffocusedquestionsanda search foranswers‑‑theprocessof resolution. Theprocessofbreakdown‑resolution‑processalsoaccentuates the importanceofbeing in the field, as suchprocesseswilloccurmore frequently in thoseenvironmentsinwhichethnographichostsspendmostoftheirtime.

EthnographyisanIterativeProcessofLearningEpisodesTheprocessofcontinualinquiriesdiscussedintheprecedingsectionareorganizedandcarriedoutinadiscursive or iterative format. The ethnographer enters a research setting with an orientation towardsdiscovering new knowledge through multiple learning (ethnographic data collection) episodes. Eachsubsequentlearningepisodebuildsonquestionsthatemergedduringprecedingepisodes.Assuch,eachsubsequentdatacollectionmethodorinstrumentisdesignedandimplementedinordertocomplementandenhancethedataalreadycollected.Thatisthisiterativeapproachallowsanethnographer’songoingexperienceinthefieldtoinformdecisionsonsubsequentmethodsandapproaches.Asstatedearlier,thisprocessinvolvesmultipletechniquesandmethodsfordatagatheringorlearning,asmethodsareselectedfortheirutilityinrevealingwhatistobelearned.

EthnographyisanOpen‑EndedEmergentLearningProcess,andNotaRigidInvestigator‑ControlledExperimentSpradley(1979)hascommentedthatethnographyisnotsomuchaboutstudyingpeopleaslearningfromthem. Ethnography is the process of learning about ethnographic hosts’worlds or cultural systems, astheirsocializationintoorexperiencewiththesesystemshasrenderedthemasexpertsonvariousaspectsof theirworlds.Thus tobeeffectiveathisorher craft, theethnographer learns tobecomecomfortablewith appearing unknowledgeable or ignorant of the world about which he or she is learning. Thislearningprocessisanongoingonethroughoutthefieldworkenterprise,untiltheethnographerfeelsthat

19

heorshehasanunderstandingof thatworldfromtheperspectivesofhisorherhosts.Assuch,manyethnographers have traditionally rejected or been quite uncomfortable with the emphasis placed oninvestigatorcontrolthatisthecornerstoneofquantitativeorpositivistapproachestosocialresearch.Thepositivistemphasisoninvestigatorcontrolisoftencharacterizedbythedevelopmentofaresearchdesignandhypothesestobetested,aswellasthedevelopmentofdatacollectioninstrumentsandanalysispriorto the researcher spending any significant time in the cultural system to be studied. The positivistresearcher must build into his research design methods for controlling variables that might possiblyinfluencetheoutcomeofteststovalidatehypothesizedrelationship(s)betweenstudyvariables.Itisnotonly this predetermined structure that is problematic for ethnographers; but also the rigidity that isinherent in the implementationof thesedesigns. Inpositivist orquantitativeorientations, not only areoneʹsresearchquestions,hypotheses,andmethodspredeterminedbeforesignificanttimeisspentinthesocial setting to be studied, but once such designs are established, they usually can not be altered,regardless of what is later learned from the study setting. Why ethnographersmay learn such rigidpositivistapproaches,andusethemtoanswerspecificresearchquestions,orinspecificresearchsettings,theethnographicattributeofdiscoveryorienteddictatethatethnographersmustalsoremainopentonewdiscoveries as they emerge during the fieldwork process. That is, the ethnographer must not allowexisting knowledge (including scientific, theoretical, andmethodological orientations) frompreventingthe absorptionof newknowledgegainedduring the fieldworkprocess; or asGeertz (1973)puts it theethnographer must allow components of the cultural system to be revealed through the fieldworkprocess.

I have numerous examples from different fieldwork settings to support the point of being open todiscoveriesinthefield,andhowthesediscoveriescanleadtoamorevalidunderstandingofthesocialsettingandissuesbeingstudied.However,Ionlyhavespaceinthispaperforone,whichItakefromtheclassicethnographicfieldworkthatIcarriedoutinJamaicain1974‑75onmalefamilyroleperformance.As a PhD candidate, Iwas quite knowledgeable regarding the plethora of literature on Jamaican andWestIndianfamilystructure,andoneofitsmostimportantdomains,male‑femaleconjugalrelationships.However,Ihadnotcomeacrossthephrase“wickedwoman”inthatliterature,butwhichturnedouttobeonethatIwouldcometohearoftenduringthecourseofmyfieldwork.ThefrequencywithwhichIheardthephrase,anditsrelationshiptotheimportantdomainofmale‑femalerelationshipmeantthatIneeded to understandwhat the phrasemeant for thosewho used it. Thus after 8months of classicalethnography,Idevelopedaninstrumenttoexplorethemeaningamongconveniencesamplesof80men,and40females,andcametofindthatthebehaviorofthewickedwomanofsignificancetoconstructsofmasculinitywasnottheprostituteorthefemaleconjurer,butthewomanwhowouldleaveherpartnerafterhehadworkedhardtoprovideforher12.

EthnographyisaHighlyFlexibleandCreativeProcessAnother reason thatethnographers, inparticular thoseof substantial ethnographicexperience, find therigidmethodological orientation of positivismdifficult, if not impossible, to follow is because of theirexperienceoffindingthemselvesinsomanyresearchsettingsoverwhichtheyarenotabletohavetheinvestigative control that is so highly valued in more positivist research orientations. Most often theethnographerworksinasituationinwhichhisorherhostpopulationhasgreaterimmediatecontroloftheresearchsettingthantheethnographer13.Thusthesuccessoftheethnographer’sresearchenterpriseis

1213Exceptionswouldbeethnographiescarriedoutamonginstitutionalizedorsomeothercaptivepopulation,suchashospitalorprisoninmates,classroomsofstudents,etc.

20

moredependentonthegoodwillandcooperationofhisorherhostthanisusuallythecaseforthosewhopersist in following amorepositivist researchparadigm. In some instances, it is not only the researchprocessuponwhichtheethnographerisdependentonhishostpopulation,butheorshemayfindearlyintheethnographicprocessthathisorhermentalandphysicalfunctioningorcomfortisdependentonhisorherhost.Becauseofsuchcircumstances,theethnographeroftenfindshimorherselfhavingto“gowiththeflow”ofthesocio‑culturalcontextsandprocessesoftheseresearchsettings.Thusethnographershavetobehighlyflexibleintheirapproachtounderstandingthehumancondition.Moreovertheopen‑ended, emergent and iterative attributes of ethnographydescribed earliermean that the ethnographermust constantly be creative during the ethnographic process. Once in the field setting, ethnographerssometimesfindthateitherthemethodologicalortheoreticalorientationsthattheyhadplannedtofollowwerenotpossible,oractuallyhadnorelevanceforthepopulationortheissuetheyhadinitiallyplannedto study. Or once in the field, situations and circumstances change constantly. Gaining access toparticipants, being able to document fieldnotes in a timelymanner, having to use multiple methods,managinga teamofpeople, all require creativityand resourcefulness. In ethnography, there is agreatdeal of uncertainty. An attitude of flexibility and creativity can greatly ease the process that enablesresearchsuccess.

EthnographyisanInterpretive,Reflexive,andConstructivistProcessInadditiontowhatIhavebeenreferringtohereasemicvalidity(understandingthemeaningsofstudiedphenomena from the host perspective), Altheide and Johnson (1994) discusses the concept of“interpretive validity.” Their terminology is based on the perspective that all research findings areinterpretationsmadebytheresearcherofwhatheorshehasobservedintheresearchsetting.Assuchitislongbeenacceptedamongpositivist researchers thatbiased interpretationsarepossible,and thus theyhave long attempted to overcome suchbiases through statistical andmethodological treatments. Sincepositivistapproacheshavedominatedthesocialscienceresearchscene,thefindingsfromethnographersand qualitative researchers have long been dismissed as not having validity because they don’treligiously follow such rigid methodological regimens. As such, as Altheide and Johnson point out,reflexivity is the best prescription for enhancing interpretive validity. They define reflexivity as therecognition“thatthescientificobserveispartandparceloftheresearchsetting,contextandcultureheorsheistryingtounderstandandrepresent”(AltheideandJohnson1994:486).Assuchtheinterpretationorrepresentation(researchfindings)biasthatanethnographermighthavemaybebasednotonlyhisorherowncultural,personaltheoreticalormethodologicalparadigmsbroughttotheresearchsettings,butalsoto the dynamics of the research process—his or her interactionswith the host community.14 As such,anotherdefinitionofethnographicreflexivityisthatit’snotonlyanongoingprocessofnotonlywhatisbeingobservedor studied,butalsoa continuingexaminationand reexaminationof thebasis forone’sinterpretations,andthepotentialbiasesinrepresentation.

Anotherattributeofcontemporaryethnographyistheunderstandingthataportionofthe“realities”thatarerepresentedinanethnographer’sfindingsareconstructionscreatednotonlybytheobservationsoftheethnographerbutalsobecauseofinputfromthehost.Aconstructivistviewpointimpliesthatforthe

14Itshouldbenotedhowever,thatwhilewhatisconsideredasareflexiveperspectiveiswidelyacceptedincontemporaryethnography,itwasnotalwaysthecase.Whiletherehaslongbeensometraditionofreflexivityinethnography(forexampleintheBoasianschoolofanthropologyandtheChicagoSchoolofSociology),theorientationbecameacoreepistemologicalattributeofethnographywiththeriseofpostmodernandpoststructuralthinkinginthesocialsciencesandhumanitiesduringthe1970s,whichcoincidedwiththepublicationofMalinowski’sdiary(whichindicatedthatsomeofhisrepresentationsofhisMelanesianhostsmighthavebeeninfluencebyhisownthoughtsandinteractionswithhishostcommunity.

21

ethnographer,realitydoesnotexistasaneutralobjectivephenomenathatcanbeaccuratelyrevealed,letalone accurately measured. Rather, “realities” are jointly constructed at given points in time by theethnographer inconjunctionwiththepeoplebeingstudied.That is,anotherethnographerstudyingthesame topic in the same ethnographic setting may come out with different findings because of thedifferencesintheethnographers,thefieldworkdynamics,andsomedifferencesinthehostpopulation.

EthnographyRequirestheDailyandContinuousRecordingofFieldnotesEthnographersarecontinuouslyrecordingasfieldnotes,whattheyareobservingandlearnedinthefieldsetting. The open‑ended, emergent, discovery‑oriented iterative, and reflexive attributes of theethnographicenterprisemakethecollectionofdailyfieldnotesnecessarysimplyasameansofrecordingwhat is being observed and experienced by the ethnographer. As the ethnographer learns about theculture inwhichheorshe isworking,similar toastudent takingnotes inaclassroom,heorshemustrecorddataandobservationswhiletheyarestillfreshinthemind.Therichdetailswhichmakefieldnotesvaluablerequirethatanethnographermakethesenoteseachandeverydayinthefield.Witheachdaythat passes following a fieldwork experience, the recollection of it inevitably loses the clarity andsignificanceuponwhichanalysis isbases. Mostethnographersmaintain theirdaily fieldnotes in fieldjournals.Becauseof theemergentnatureofethnography, thevalueofmaintaining fieldnotesbecomesapparentduringlaterreviewsofthejournalastheethnographerbeginstopickuponculturalpatterns.Thesepatternsoftenrevealasocialorculturalsignificanceofwhichtheethnographichosts themselvesmaynotevenhavebeenconsciouslyaware.Dailyfieldnotesalsofacilitatetheiterativeandinterpretiveprocesses of ethnography, as the repeated collection and recording of data helps the ethnographerachieveanemicallyvalidproduct inwhichfindingsarerepeatedoftenand indetail.Takingfieldnotesalsofacilitatestheethnographicattributesofreflexivityandconstructivism,inthattheethnographernotonlyrecordshisorherobservationsoftheethnographicsetting,butalsohisorherreactionstowhatisobservedorexperienced.

EthnographyMaybeCarriedoutbyIndividualInvestigators,orbyTeamsofInvestigatorsFor many researchers, this aspect of ethnography may appear to be obvious. However, manyethnographers (and many of those who hire ethnographers) think of ethnography as an individualendeavor. Indeed, most classical ethnographic reports have been those of lone ethnographers.Interpretivist, reflexive, and constructivist epistemologies have supported this classical approach toethnography.Undoubtedly,anindividualresearcherwhohasspentalongperiodoftimeinthefieldiscapableofprovidingcarefulandwell thoughtoutanalyses in the courseof ethnographicanalysisandwriting.Iamastrongadvocateofanethnographer’strainingincludingthiskindofclassicalethnographicexperience. I believe that such an experience is crucial to developing important epistemologicalorientations of ethnography. At the same time, however, I am also a strong advocate of mostethnography being a team effort because of thedistinct advantages of division of labor and increasedmanpower,particularlyinappliedsettings.IadmitthatIhavealwaysbeenalittleuneasyaboutmyabilitytobetruetotheconceptofholisticstudyofcommunitieswhenIhaveworkedalone;andIamalittlesuspiciousofcolleagueswhosaytheycanprovide such comprehension. Taking a holistic approach to the ethnographic study of humancommunities requires an overwhelming amount ofwork—morework than a single ethnographer canreasonablyaccomplish,nomatterhowlong‑termtheresearch.Moreover,inmostofthecommunitiesin

22

which I have worked there have been constraints on my ability to reach certain segments of thepopulation because of barriers regarding sex, age, ethnicity, race, class, or nationality. As such, theprimary advantages of the team ethnography approach is a division of labor and, in the case of aphenotypically and socio‑culturally diverse team, the ability to use differentmembers of the researchteamtogainentréeintodifferentpopulationsegmentsofthehostcommunity.At thesametime, inappliedresearch, theholisticperspective thatananthropologistcanbringappliedefforts (e.g. planned interventions to address community health problems) is crucial because withoutsuchholisticperspectivesinterventionsinformedbysuchresearchcanbemisdirectedbecauseofitslackof emic validity. At the same time, if research based on a holistic perspective is going to berecommended, it shouldhave the research skills involved to achieve that perspective.Often times thesingle ethnographer does not have the range of research skills necessary to adequately address thecomplexitiesinherentinaholisticapproachtothestudyofaculturalsystem.Beyond methods, a team approach also allows the ethnography to capitalize on the strengths andcompensatefortheweaknessesofanyindividualteammember.Forexample,someresearchersaremoreskilled at interacting with community residents, for instance, while others are not as comfortable orinterestedinthoseinteractions.Othersmaybeproficientintheliteratureanddocumentanalysisrelatedcomponentsoftheethnography,ormoreskilledatusingtheinternettotapintootherelectronicsourcesofinformation.Inotherwords,thevariousstrengthsofteammemberscanbebroughttobearinordertoexploit the full range of data sources available, ultimately producing as holistic and comprehensive apictureofthecommunityresidentsasispossible.

Fromthereflexiverecognitionthatdifferentresearchersmaybringdifferentinterpretiveframeworkstoastudy setting, assurances of achieving emic validity are enhanced with discussions between teammembers following ethnographic data collection episodes—regardingwhat had been observed duringtheday,whyandhowwerecertainsettingsoractivitiesselectedforobservation,andwhethertherewerevariationsintheinterpretationsofwhatwasobserved.Suchreflexiveandinterpretivistperspectivesalsodictate the presence of both cultural outsiders and cultural insiders on the research team. Technicallytrained researchers (includingethnographers) areusually culturaloutsiders, in that theyusually studyculturalsystemsoutsideoftheonesofwhichtheyaremembers.Theyoftenbringtechnicalresearchskillsto the team that are not present among the communities andpopulations that they study. Theymaybringacertaindegreeortypeofobjectivitytotheresearchprocessbecauseofalesslikelihoodofemotionalattachmenttocertainfeaturesofthecultureunderstudy.Moreover,beingofadifferentculture,theculturaloutsider may make observations that stimulate new and culturally significant ethnographic questions(referredtobyAgarasaperiodofʺbreakdownʺintheethnographicprocess);whereastheculturalinsiderʹsenculturaltionandfamiliaritywiththesamephenomenamayhavemadeitsoroutinethatsuchquestionsmaynotevenbeconsidered. Ontheotherhandculturalinsiders(membersoftheculturalsystembeingstudied)willknowofsourcesofculturalmeaningthatcouldbeveryimportanttothestudy,butmaybecompletelyunknowntotheoutsider.Moreover, cultural insiders can be very important to issues of entre into a study community, and thedevelopmentofrapportandtrust.Ihavefoundourresearchamongdrugtraffickers,streetprostitutes,HIVpositivepersons,urbanadolescentsatriskforavarietyofills,theworldofchildren,andevenAfricanchiefsandQueenMothersgreatlyfacilitatedbyhavingmembersoftheseculturesandsubculturespresentontheteam. Frequently, as cultural outsiders,wehave found insiders to be very important too as first contactcultural informants as we wrestle with exploring continually new breakdowns during the ethnographicprocess.Andfinally,Ihavefoundtheteamapproachalsofoundthat—aresomeofthemostintellectually

23

stimulatingexperiencesofanethnographicenterprise.Finally,Ihavefoundtheteamdiscussionsheldatthe end of each ethnographic data collection episodes—mentioned at the beginning of the precedingparagraph—to be some of themost intellectually stimulating activities in the research process, indeedmorestimulatingthanthoseindividualattemptstofindmeaningandrelevanceintheethnographicdataassessedthroughindividualethnographicefforts.

EthnographyPresentstheWorldoftheirHostsWithinaHumanContextof“Thickly”DescribedCaseStudies.Incontrasttopositivistandquantitativeresearchapproachessuchasthesurveys,whichoftencollectdatafromlargesamplesinanefforttoachieveexternalvalidityandrepresentativeness,richdescriptivecasestudies can provide valuable, in‑depth data evenwhen the number of cases is small. In otherwords,whereas the survey provides data that is broad (in terms of external reliability or representativeness),goodethnography,throughrich,holisticcasestudies,canprovidedatathataredeep,rich,orwhatGeertz(1973)referstoas“thick.”Therichnessorthicknessofethnographicdatacomesfromplacingindividualswithin their various socio‑cultural contexts, and exploring how socio‑cultural processes andmeaningsystems are expressed within these contexts. In good ethnography, hosts are not reduced to simplenumericalvalues,butaredepicted through thegamutofhumanexperience, including rich contextual,process, and ideational constructions.While ethnographers rarelyuse the realnamesof theirhosts forreasonsofconfidentialityandprotection,theyoftenprovidepseudonyms.Thisnamingprocesstendsto“humanize” individual hosts for the reader of ethnographic texts, and organizing that individualscontextual data aroundhimor her continues this process. I have had experience graduate students inboth anthropology and public health collect very rich and relevant data on very small and non‑probabilistic samples, but which had the potential of yielding new insights about a health or socialproblemsthathadtheretoforebeenunexplored.Butwhenitcametotheanalysisandpresentationofthisdata,thedominationofpositivismintheirtraininghasbeensostrong,thattherichcontextualdataarethen omitted, and they attempt quantitative analyses with data from samples too small and non‑representativeforthestatisticalanalysesthattheyareattempting. Ihaveseensuchstudentsthenhaveproblemswithgettingtheirproductsapprovedbytheirthesiscommittees,orifthecommitteeapprovestheir thesis, their work is never further used by anyone as the work is methodologically unsound,irrelevant,andconsideredtobepoorworkonthepartofprofessionals.Untilresearcherslearnthattherearealternativestothisdominationofpositivistperspectives,andcanbetrainedtopursuehowtodeveloptherigornecessarytocarryoutthesealternativestostudyingthehumancondition,thenouradvancesinthehumanscienceswillcontinuetobelimited,asGodfreyHochbaumsuggestedtomemanyyearsago.

24

ReferencesCitedAgar,M.A.(1982).“TowardsanEthnographicLanguage.”,84:779‑95Agar, M.A. (1996). The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. San Diego, CA:

AcademicPress.Agar,M.andJ.MacDonald.(1995).FocusGroupsandEthnography.HumanOrganization54(1).Aldenderfer, Mark and Herbert D.G. Maschner. 1996. Anthropology, Space and Geographic Information

Systems.OxfordUniversityPress.Altheide, DL and JM Johnson (1996). “Criteria for Assessing Interpretive Validity in Qualitative

Research,” inHandbook ofQualitativeResearch.Denzin andLincoln (eds.)ThousandOaks,CA,SagePublications

Allen,WalterR.(1978).“TheSearchforApplicableTheoriesofBlackFamilyLife.”JournalofMarriageand

theFamily40(1):117‑29.Beebe,James(1995)BasicConceptsandTechniquesofRapidAppraisal.HumanOrganization, 54(1):Pages42‑51.BeebeJames(2001)RapidAssessmentProcess‑AnIntroduction.WalnutCreek,Calif.:AltaMiraPress,Berger,PeterandThomasLuckmann(1967)TheTheSocialConstructionofReality:ATreatiseintheSociology

ofKnowledge.Anchor.

Bennardo, Giovanni. 2002. Map Drawing in Tonga, Polynesia: Accessing Mental Representations ofSpace.FieldMethods,14(4):390‑417.Bernard,H.Russell (2002).ResearchMethods inAnthropology:QualitativeandQuantitativeApproaches.

(3rd.Ed.).WalnutCreek,CA:AltaMiraPr..Berreman, Gerald D. (1968). “Ethnography: Method and Product.” IN: Introduction to Cultrual

Anthropology.JamesA.Clifton(ed.)Boston:HoughtonMifflin.Pp.336‑373.Billingsley,Andrew(1968).BlackFamiliesinWhiteAmerica.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice‑HallBorgatti, S.F., (199). “Elicitation Techniques for CulturalDomainAnalysis. In J.J. Schensul, et al (eds),

Enhanced Ethnographic Methods: Audiovisual Techniques, Focused Group Interviews and ElicitationTechniques.(pp.115‑151).).WalnutCreek,CA:AltaMirraPress

Borster1994;Borster&Johnson1989;Boyle, J.S. 1994. “Styles of Ethnography”, in Critical Issues in Qualitative Research. California, SagePublicationsInc.

25

Buchanan, David R. (1998) Beyond Positivism: Humanistic Perspectives on Theory and Research in HealthEducation,HealthEducationResearch.13(3):439‑450

Burton&Nerlove1976;Cassagrande,J.B.&Hale,K.L.(1967)“SemanticrelationsinPapagoFolk‑Definitions”.InD.Hymesand

W.E.Bittle(eds.).StudiesinSoutwesternEthnolinguistics.TheHague:Mouton,pp.165‑196.Chavezetal1995;Clifford, James and George Marcus. (1986) Writing Culture The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography,

UniversityofCaliforniaPressCromley,E.K.,(1999).“MappingSpatialData.”InJ.J.Schensul,etal(eds.)MappingSocialDenzin,N.K.1970).TheResearchActDenzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln (1994), “Introduction: Entering the Field of Qualitative Research” in

Handbook of Qualitative Research. Denzin and Lincoln (eds.) Thousand Oaks, CA, SagePublications:

Durkheim, EmileThe Rules of the SociologicalMethod, (Ed. by Steven Lukes;Translated byW.D.Halls).

NewYork:FreePress,1982(originally1895)Emerson, R, M., R. Fretz and L, Shaw. (1995)Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, Chicago: University of

ChicagoPress.Gadamer,H.G.(1975).TruthandMethod.NewYork:ContinuumGatewood1984;Geertz,Clifford(1973).TheInterpretationofCultures.NY:BasicBooks.Pp.33‑54.Goodenough?Guba,EGandYSLincoln(1994),“CompetingParadigmsinQualitativeResearch”inHandbookHandbook

ofQualitativeResearch.DenzinandLincoln(eds.)ThousandOaks,CA,SagePublications:Harris,K.J.,N.W.Jerome,andS.B.Fawcett(1998).ʺRapidAssessmentProcedures:AReviewandCritique.ʺ

HumanOrganization56(3):375‑378.Harris,Marvin(1968)TheRiseofAnthropologicalTheory.NewYork:Crowell.Henley1969;Kerr,M.(1963).PersonalityandConflictinJamaica.London:Collins

26

KroeberandKluchon (1952 ).Culture:ACriticalReviewofConcepts andDefinitions.NewYork:RandomHouse

Levi‑Strauss()citationsforBricoleurLounsbury1964;Malinowski(1922).Malinowski().Matthews, S.A., J.Detwiler andL.Burton (inpress).Viewingpeople andplaces:Couplinggeographicinformationanalysiswithethnographicresearch.InF.Harvey,M.Kwan,M.Pavlovskaya(eds).Oliver‑Velez, D. et al. 2001. Mapping the Air‑Bridge Locations: The Application of Ethnographic

MappingTechniques toaStudyofHIVRiskBehaviorDeterminant inEastHarlem,NewYorkandBayamon,PuertoRico.HumanOrganization.61(3):262‑276.

Parsons,Talcott()Pelto,P.J.andG.H.Pelto(1978).AnthropologicalResearch:TheStructureofInquiry.(2nd.

Ed.).NY:CambridgeU.Pr.(Peltoetal,1980)Radcliffe‑Brown()

Reichardt,C.S.andT.D.Cook(1979)“BeyondQualitativeandQuantitativeMethods”in Qualitative and QualitativeMethods in Evaluation Research, Beverly Hills,California:SagePublications.

Rist,RayC. (1980). ʺBlitzkriegEthnography:On theTransformationofaMethod intoa

Movement.ʺEducationalResearcher9(2):8‑10.RomneyandD’Andrade1964;Scrimshaw,Susan,andElenaHurtado(1987).RapidAssessmentProceduresforNutrition

and PrimaryHealth Care. Los Angeles: U. of California Latin American CenterPublications.

Smith,M.G.(1966).“Introduction”In:EidthClarke,MyMotherWhoFatheredMe.London:GeorgeAllen

andUnwin,pp.i‑xiivSpradley,J.P.,(1979)TheEthnographicInterview.NewYork:Holt.RinehartandWinston.

27

Spradley,J.P.,(1980)ParticipantObservation.NewYork:Holt.RinehartandWinston.Wallace&Atkins1960).Whitehead,T.L.1976).Whitehead, T.L. (1984) “Socio‑cultural dynamics and food habits in a southern community.” InMary

Douglas(ed.)FoodinTheSocialOrder.(pp),,NewYork:TheRussellSageFoundationWhitehead,T.L,(1992).“InSearchofSoulFood.”IN:AfricanAmericansintheSouth,H.BaerandY.Jones

(ed.).(pp.94‑110)Athens:UnivGeorgiaPress,.Whitehead,T.L. (1997). “UrbanLowIncomeAfricanAmericanMen,HIV/AIDS,andGender Identity”.

MedicalAnthropologyQuarterly,(December)Whitehead, T.L. (2000). “The `Epidemic’ and `Cultural Legends’ of Black Male Incarceration: The

SocializationofAfricanAmericanChildrentoaLifeofIncarceration”IN:BuildingViolence:HowAmericaʹsRushtoIncarcerateCreatesMoreViolence,JohnP.May(ed.).SagePublications

Whitehead,T.L.andJ.Brown(1986). ʺGender‑relatedIssues inCarryingOutRapidTeamFieldworkin

theCameroon.ʺIN:Self,Sex,andGenderinCross‑CulturalFieldwork.Urbana,IL:U.ofIllinoisPr..Pp.196‑212

Whitehead,T.L.,J.Peterson,andL.Kaljee(1994).“TheʹHustleʹ:SocioeconomicDeprivation,UrbanDrug

Trafficking, and Low‑Income, African‑American Male Gender Identity.” Pediatrics. 93(6):1050‑1054.

28

Figure 1: The Cultural Systems Paradigm

Physical Environment

Human Survival Needs

Historical Events & Processes

Individual Human Organism

Social Systems -Domestic Units -Broader Associations -Wider Community & Society -Extra-societal Links

Idea Systems (Individual and Shared) -knowledge -attitudes -beliefs -values -meanings -expressive culture & significant symbolisms

Behavioral Patterns (Individual / Shared) -Activities -Socio-cultural Characteristics

Material Culture / Technologies

Cultural System

Cultural System

Human Eco-system

29