Transcript research on

S
Welcome to All
Course Code: E 300 B
Course Name
English Language and Literacy
Lecture 1
RESEARCHING LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN SOCIAL CONTEXT
PART 1 : PRINCIPLES AND APPROACHES
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCING ETHNOGRAPHY
(Pages: 1-14)
CHAPTER 2: THE RELATIONS BETWEEN RESEARCHER AND
RESEARCHED: ETHICS,ADVOCACY AND
EMPOWERMENT(Pages:15-20)
 The course draws on a variety of work in sociolinguistics, grammar,
semiotics, media studies, anthropology, psychology & education.
 The articles in course material focus on some intellectual debates
dealing with ‘big issues’ related to postmodern world - identity, social
relations, social control, ideology, freedom, democracy, power,
aesthetics, pleasure etc.
This volume discusses
 empirical investigations of language & literacy in social context.
 models useful to individual researchers, contemplating small-scale
studies.
 methods, analysis & use of empirical data in presentation &
argument.
Chapter 1
Introducing Ethnography
MARTYN HAMMERSLEY
In this chapter, the author
 outlines various research strategies (methods) which make up
ethnography & briefly traces their history.
 examines arguments about ethnography’s lack of scientific
method & also criticisms about its failure to break away from
natural science model.
 discusses problems related to generalization, bias, precision &
control of variables.
 explores issues raised recently within critical theory & feminism,
concerning politics of social research & particularly relationship
b/w researcher & researched.
 Ethnographic methods has a particular appeal for language
researchers in the field of education.
 This is because of their attention to contextual detail within small
naturalistic settings & to insider interpretations & meanings.






The term “ethnography” is a fluid concept. It is not clearly defined
in common usage. The forms of research design, data
collection & analysis are considered as its characteristics.
The diversity (variety) & looseness of terminology reflects some
disagreement on fundamental issues among advocates of these
approaches.
It also results from certain vagueness in thinking about
methodological issues that arises from a widespread emphasis
among ethnographers on primacy of research practice over ‘theory’
about how to do it.
This amounts to an anti-methodological & anti-theoretical prejudice.
Many ethnographers doubt general formulations, about human
social life or how to do research, in favour of a concern with
particulars.
The practice of ethnography is surrounded by diff philosophical
ideas.
Ethnography as Method
In terms of method, ‘ethnography’ refers to social research that
has the following features:
* analyses empirical data systematically selected for the purpose
* data emerging from ‘real world’ contexts
* data obtained from diff sources, but mainly from observation &
informal conversation
* approach to data collection is unstructured, it doesn’t follow a
detailed plan set up at the beginning
* focus is on a single setting or group; in life history research, it can be
even a single individual
* data analysis involves interpretations of meanings & functions of
human actions
Origins of ethnography found in writings of travellers who informed their
fellows about other societies. For eg: Herodotus, Hans Stade in the
early cent. & Toqueville and Engels in 19th cent.
Their writings form early history of today’s social or cultural
anthropology & sociology.

The datas of these reports were unsystematic & misleading;
analysis was speculative (inaccurate) & evaluative.

Natural science was an imp feature of development of social
science disciplines in the 19th and early 20th cent.

In 19 cent, many anthropologists relied on reports of travelers &
missionaries for their data.

From 20 cent. onwards, they collected their own data in a
systematic & rigorous (accurate) manner.

Since 20th cent, ‘ethnography’ is the main research method
employed by social & cultural anthropologists.
Methodological debates about Ethnography
There are mainly 2 criticisms:
1.
Criticism of ethnography for not being ‘scientific’ (1960s & 1970s)
2.
Criticism of ethnography for being too ‘scientific’ (1980s)

Criticism of ethnography for not being ‘scientific’
 Ethnographers based their work on Quantitative, experimental &
survey research.
 By 1960s, highly developed & sophisticated literatures has grown
up around them, by implementing scientific method.
 This was framed in terms of the positivist outlook that dominated
philosophy of science.
 What was required in empirical(experimental/practical)research was
-a clear & operational hypothesis,
-a selection of research design to test it either by physical
manipulation of variables (as in experiments) or through statistical
analysis of large samples of cases (as in survey research).
Ethnographers responded to this criticism in several ways:
1.Some claimed that ethnography is more scientific than quantitative
research.
-it is based on the grounds that case study can produce universal
laws, not just probability findings,characteristic of statistical method.
 In recent times, scientific character of ethnography is justified stating
that it is more suited to the nature of human behaviour.
2. Broadly accepting the view of sociological method, but treating
ethnography as distinctive, to suit particular phases of research
process.
- it might be regarded as appropriate in pilot (main) stages of social
surveys or debriefing stages of experiments.
3. Ethnography represents a diff kind of science from that characteristic of
natural sciences.
-here quantitative methods are criticized for aping natural sciences.
-ethnography is more idiographic (concentrating on specific cases or
functioning of individuals rather than generalizations) rather than
nomothetic (focuses on unique as much as general), interpretative
rather than observational.
 Ethnography is viewed as based on assumptions – about human
society & how it can be best understood.
 Milder versions of these assumptions are found in advocates of 2nd
position, & they can be summarized under Naturalism, Understanding
& Discovery.
1.

Naturalism
The aim of social research is to capture the character of naturally
occurring human behaviour & this can be achieved only by first-hand
contact, not by speculation (assumptions) or inferences.
 On the basis of naturalism, ethnographers insist on basing their
analysis in actual data & carry out research in ‘natural settings’.
 The notion of naturalism implies that social events & processes are
explained in terms of their relationship to the context in which they
occur.
2. Understanding
 Human actions differ from behaviour of physical objects & even that of
other animals: they do not consist of fixed responses, but involve
interpretation of stimuli & construction of responses.
 Ethnographers argue that it is necessary to learn the culture of the
group one is studying, & experience their way of life, before one
produce valid explanations for their behaviour.
3. Discovery
 Ethnographic thinking is inductive or discovery-based. One should
begin research with minimal assumptions so as to maximize one’s
capacity for learning. So ethnographers rarely begin their research
with specific hypothesis.
 Quantitative researchers also questioned scientific status of
ethnography.
Criticism: Ethnographic research suffers from lack of precision. For eg.
Words like ‘often’, ‘frequently’ are used instead of more precise
numerical specifications.
Answer: Ethnography never rejects quantification, & it sometimes
employ it. However, precision is not always imp where diff are
large & obvious.
Criticism: Ethnographic observation & interviewing are subjective & not
guided by a structure (in the form of questionnaire). This would
maximize the chance that another interviewer would produce same
data & therefore, it is subject to bias.
Answer: In ethnographic research, data collected depends on
researcher . But all knowledge is personal & cultural in the same
sense. For eg, the same question asked by an interviewer at the
same point in an interview, may mean diff things to diff people, if
they have diff perspectives.
Criticism of ethnography for being too ‘scientific’
 There has been an increasing disagreement about nature of scientific
method over the past 30 years.
 Until middle of 20th cent, confidence in scientific method as the source
of knowledge remained predominant.
 But as a result of major reconstructions in physics & demonstration of
its terrible potential for destruction, this confidence was undermined.
 Growing doubts about nature of scientific methodology were symbolized
by impact of Thomas Kubn’s book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions(1962).
 He showed that, the work of early scientists were shaped by theoretical
assumptions about the world, that were not based on empirical
research, & may now judged to be false.
 He claimed that history of science is punctuated by periods of revolution
(paradigm shifts).
 An example is shift from Newtonian physics to relativity & quantum
theory in early part of 20th cent.
 Today, there remains considerable disagreement among philosophers of
science about whether science provides knowledge of an independent
reality or simply a record of successful predictions of experience.
 Habermas regards interpretive research, in which ethnographic work
would be included, as more appropriate in social science, & believes it to
be founded on a concern with overcoming intercultural misunderstanding.
 However, he argues that even this approach is inadequate in study of
advanced capitalist societies b’coz it fails to address need to emancipate
people from ideology.
 There are 2 arguments involved here:
i) ethnography captures only surface appearances, not underlying reality.
ii) it is concerned with documenting how things are, not with discovering
how they might be changed for the better.
 Critical theory, by contrast, is concerned with dispelling ideology &
thereby promoting emancipation.
 There has been a tremendous growth in the influence of feminism & in
particular the attempt to identify aspects of Western thinking that betray
masculinist bias.
 An area of special concern for feminists is the relationship b/w researcher &
researched, viewed as an aspect of the politics of social research.
 The research is often focused on relatively powerless groups & researcher
exploiting their powerlessness to carry out research.
 Research often serves the powerful, enabling them to exercise more
effective control, & it may be a form of domination.
 Even where researcher & researched are social equals, power is still
involved b’coz it is the researcher who makes decisions about what is to be
studied.
 This is not only unacceptable but also distorts the knowledge produced.
 Furthermore, research reports are written in language that is not
comprehensible to those studied.
 Such research is often invalid b’coz ethnographer remains as outsider & fails
to understand world from a particular point of view.
 Such arguments are developed in several fields, not only among feminists
but also in educational research in form of advocacy of ‘the teacher as
researcher’.
 The remedy advocated is participatory research, research by & for
participants, with professional teachers playing no more than a facilitative role.
 A central element of the rationale for ethnography is that it can capture
nature of human social life more accurately than quantitative methods.
 This is a key element of ethnographic commitment to both ‘naturalism’ &
‘discovery’.
 However, some critics argue that any such appeal to representation of reality
is ill-founded.
 If it is true that people construct interpretations of world, & that diff groups &
individuals
construct diff perspectives, then accounts produced by
ethnographers are simply versions of world that are no more valid than
others.
 This tendency of anti-realism has been reinforced by a wide range of
philosophical ideas like
- phenomenology(the science or study of phenomena, things as they are perceived,
as opposed to the study of being, the nature of things as they are)
-hermeneutics (science of interpreting texts)
-structuralism (method of sociological analysis based on the notion of human society
as a network of interrelations whose patterns and significance can be analyzed)
-post-structuralism(an intellectual movement derived from structuralism but
questioning the basis upon which the structures of society, language, and mores have
been conceptualized) etc.
 The critics claim that, in order to establish that their accounts represent
reality, ethnographers rely on rhetorical devices that are analogous to
those employed by travel writers & realist novelists like Dickens or Emile
Zola.
 These critics do not reject use of rhetorical devices, however what is
required is more honest rhetoric.
 From a variety of points of view, conventional ethnographic research has
come under criticism in recent times.
 Its commitment to describing & explaining social world, rather than
seeking to change it, has been rejected by some.
CHAPTER 2
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN RESEARCHER AND RESEARCHED:
ETHICS,ADVOCACY AND EMPOWERMENT(p.15-20)
This chapter discusses
 The politics of research process and particularly the relation between
the researcher and the researched.
 Whether and how, social research can be empowering for its subjects.
 The consequences of three possible positions which researchers take
up: ethics, advocacy and empowerment.
Ethics
 Social science is not a neutral enquiry into human behaviour and institutions.
 It is strongly implicated in the project of social control, whether by the state or
by other agencies that ultimately serve the interests of a dominant group.
 Social scientists recognize the potentially exploitative and damaging effects of
being researched on.
 An ethically aware social scientist will see the possible dangers and try to
forestall them.
 The researcher might exploit subjects during the research process.









In covert research, subjects cannot give full, informed consent because
researcher deliberately mislead them as to the nature and purpose of
research, or conceals the fact that research is going on.
This create ethical problems because it is deception.
eg: Milgram experiments on obedience to authority (pg: 15).
Most disciplines have strong concern with ethical standards, manifested
by published codes of conduct, professional oaths, ethics committees etc.
They work on the basis of balancing the needs of a discipline in its pursuit
of knowledge and truth with interests of people on whom research is
conducted.
The interests of the researched are a negative force limiting what
researchers can do.
An ethical researcher ensure that their privacy is protected.
In ethical research, there is a wholly proper concern to minimise damage
and offset inconvenience to the researched, and to acknowledge their
contribution.
Human subjects deserve special ethical consideration, but they do not set
the researcher’s agenda.
Positivist emphasise on distance in order to avoid interference or bias.

Positivism is strongly committed to the idea that observations procured
in a scientific manner have the status of value-free facts.
 The positivistically inclined researchers go beyond the idea of ethics
and make themselves more directly accountable to the researched.
 They move to an advocacy position.
ADVOCACY
 Advocacy position is characterised by commitment on part of
researcher not just to do research on subjects but research on and for
subjects.
 This commitment formalises common development in field situations.
 Researcher use his/her skills or authority as an ‘expert’ to defend
subjects’ interests, getting involved in their campaigns for healthcare or
education, cultural autonomy or political and land rights, and speaking
on their behalf.
eg: The case of the Ann Arbor ‘Black English’ trial in 1979 (pg: 16-18).
 Sociolinguist William Labov suggests two principles:
(1) Error correction: If we as researchers know that people hold erroneous
views on something, we have a responsibility to attempt to correct those
views.
(2) The debt incurred: When a community has enabled linguists to gain
important knowledge, the linguist incurs a debt which must be repaid by
using the said knowledge on the community’s behalf when they need it.
This is an advocacy position.
 Labov stresses that the advocate serves the community, and
that political direction is the community’s responsibility.
 While Labov’s positivism is in some ways extremely radical, it is
so within a positivist framework.
 Labov’s positivism is clearly visible in his uneasy juxtaposition of
‘objectivity’ and ‘commitment.’
 In Labov’s view, a researcher’s advocacy might undermine the
validity of his/her findings.
 Labov advises advocate researchers to take an auxiliary role,
but in practice it leaves them with some very significant powers:
the power to identify the ‘community’ whose interests they will
speak for, and the power to decide on an objective truth which
they will speak.
 Labov glosses over the anti-positivist argument that observation
is theory-laden and observers bring their values and interests to
it.
EMPOWERING RESEARCH
 We have seen ‘ethical research’ as ‘research on, ‘advocacy
research’ as research on and for and ‘empowering research’ as
research on, for and with.
 It is the centrality of interaction ‘with’ the researched that enables
research to be empowering.
 Empowerment is not an absolute requirement on all research
projects.
 The three main issues that we take up here are
1. The use of interactive methods
2. The importance of subject’s own agendas
3. The question of feedback and sharing knowledge
Persons are not objects and should not be treated as objects
 They are entitled to respectful treatment
 If empowering research is research done ‘with’ subjects as well as
‘on’ them, it must seek their active cooperation which requires
disclosure of the researcher’s goals, assumptions and procedures.
 The question before us is how can we make our research methods
more open, interactive and dialogic.
Subjects have their own agendas and research should try to address them
 Researchers are powerful in such a way that they set an agenda for any
given project.
 But from our insistence that ‘persons are not objects,’ it obviously follows
that, the researched persons have their own agendas.
 The question is if we are researching ‘with’ them, as well as ‘on’ and ‘for’
them, do we have a responsibility to acknowledge their agendas and deal
with them in addition to our own?
If knowledge is worth having , it is worth sharing
 The question is should it be part of researcher’s brief to empower people in
an educational sense, by giving them access to expert knowledge?
 Social researcher’s knowledge is constructed out of subject’s own
knowledge .
 There is a convention in some contemporary research of reproducing
subject’s own words on the page, unmediated by authorial comment, in
order to give the subject a voice of her own and validate her opinions.
 This non-intervention might also be claimed as an empowering move.
 Discourse, after all, is an historical construct; whether or not intervention
changes someone’s opinion, it is arguable that they gain by knowing where
those opinions have ‘come from’ and how they might be challenged or more
powerfully formulated.
Dr. Veena Vijaya
E-mail: [email protected]
Thank You