Stebbins raises some interesting points about the "participant-as-an-observer-as-a-non-member." It all takes me back to the my Knight post on the "insider" and "outsider" dichotomy, and how troubling I found it all. I was afraid that as an outsider the research would not result in completely truthful observations about subjects, and as an insider they would not be as objective as they should be.
Though Stebbin's language can be a little off putting (speaking in absolutes, making generalizations...ect.) he does make some really good points about becoming an observer who participates in the setting. I think that Stebbin's assertion that the researcher should try in fit in is a valid one. It has to do with the issue of trust that I am so concerned with when it comes to the ethnographic methodology (as I understand it). He manages to draw lines and stay within his competent bounds in his research, not allowing "field work reciprocities" when it conflicted with his research. However, I would not go as far to say that the whole project is null if are not fully accepted into the group - not all research projects demand participation. Or if it does, you can modify your research structure; these are after all people we are dealing with and people are not always predictable, so it is all about rolling with the punches...from what I gather.
Stebbin's makes a great point regarding genuine interest, as well. This is something that does not come up often in our discussions and I think that it is an important consideration. As I have said, these are people that researchers are dealing with; to be disingenuous while conducting ethnographic research, to me, is simply wrong. These people are allowing you into their lives and are expecting something useful and fulfilling to come out of the process and to do it without sincerity and interest, is, in my opinion to use them to as means to your own end.
Hi Chantel, I agree with almost everything you wrote in your post on the Stebbins article.
ReplyDeleteAs I was doing the reading, I, too, was reminded of Knight's insider/outsider dichotomy and the various tradeoffs that seem to accompany taking one approach over the other. What I really found interesting, though, was Stebbins' detailed investigation of how a researcher can exist as both an "insider" AND as an "outsider" while conducting research. This observation suggests to me that the dichotomy becomes a bit blurry when conducting increasingly "intimate" types of research, such as nonmember participant-as-observer research.
Throughout my reading of the Stebbins article, I kept on imagining the author walking a tightrope. This appears to be a common theme for INF1240, and it is developed fairly well throughout Luker's description of salsa-dancing research. Like salsa-dancing, research requires a sense of balance and the development of an ability to not just follow the steps, but to also eventually improvise, adapt and "feel it out" .
Stebbins demonstrates this sense of balance, improvisation and "feeling it out" when he describes the participatory roles that he was willing to accept, and the ones that he felt the need to refuse. For example, he was willing to fetch soft balls while researching an adult amateur baseball team, but he was unwilling to participate as their umpire (Stebbins, 1987, p.106). Another example would be when he agreed to guard the wallets and keys of a junior football team that he was studying, but he refused to advise a separate, professional football team (and their coach) on the subject of "player motivation" (Stebbins, 1987, p.107). Some of the reasons he gives for refusing participation within these circumstances include: a lack of sufficient experience or knowledge to successfully participate, and/or a fear that such participation will bias or impede the research. I get the impression that the best way to approach ethnographic situations such as these is to consider them on a case-by-case basis, for each one will inevitably come with its own unique set of considerations.
Despite suggesting a case-by-case approach to resolving participatory problems, you are right in saying that Stebbins makes some broad generalizations about what works and what doesn't work when trying to "fit in". He appears to support these general claims, however, and I did not get the impression that any of them were irrelevant or unsubstantiated; so, perhaps there is no harm in him making such generalizations.
I agree with you that a nonmember participant-as-observer project is null if the researcher is not fully accepted into the group. I imagine that this is the reason why Stebbins discusses the learning process before he discusses the participation process. It is also probably the reason why he stresses the importance of fitting in within the early weeks and months of the project (Stebbins, 1987, p.108), for doing so not only "blunts" the perception of the researcher as a potential threat (Stebbins, 1987, p.103), but it also facilitates "acquaintanceship" (Stebbins, 1987, p.105), which can lead to feelings of familiarity and understanding. It is these feelings of familiarity and understanding, which can lead then to the group entrusting the researcher "... with the delicate job of writing a scientific account of the subjects' social world" - one, which is "... accurate, insightful and understanding." (Stebbins, 1987, p.108).