While conducting fieldwork among indigenous communities belonging to other cultures, anthropologists often wrongly record and analyze their field data. This is the prime reason why our analysis many time does not correspond to the ground realities. Therefore it is extremely important for the anthropologists to validate their observations by rechecking their interpretations with the participants of the said event/incident. Under such situation, what field technique is advocated for reducing subjectivity in our analysis of the interpretations of the observation?
In my opinion, there is no technique to reduce subjectivity in the observation since the subjectivity of the researcher itself is the research instrument. Rather than trying to eliminate the subjective factor, I think we should try and use it as a means to generate insights in the research subject following the approach of George Devereux ("From Anxiety to Method in the Behavioral Sciences") and others. This kind of strong reflexivity requires us to reflect on what can be learned about the field from our subjective reactions as researchers. How are disturbances in the research relationship connected to our own subjectivity as well as with the structures of the field under study?
Triangulation - or verifying from multiple standpoints is the principle way in which we check our findings. If the men in a community say "X" - verify it by also talking to women or children. If you see something happening - talk to people to check your interpretation is correct. You will never entirely remove subjectivity - but you can check the information you have by cross-checking it from other directions. Often the subjectivities we encounter while cross-checking are more interesting than straightforward verifiable social facts.
I agree with both preceding commenters and would add that it is useful to work closely with a set of friends/informants that represent differing perspectives. During my work with an Islamic community in Kelantan, Malaysia, I had individuals from both the conservative and the liberal parties as well as some who were comparatively disengaged. The best test of my admittedly subjective insights came when I gave copies of the resulting publication(s) to bilingual villagers and received their responses.
Many thanks Marie, Gavin and Douglas for your participation in this ongoing discussion. Maria has rightly stressed the need of a strong reflexivity which helps us to learn more about the field from our subjective reactions as researchers. Gavin has suggested the verification from multiple standpoints as the best way by which observation and analysis can be made more objective. Douglas has recommended to work closely with a set of informants that represent differing perspectives in order to make the field observation and data analysis more accurate. I agree with all your innovative ideas. Besides these, another important principle is to go to the field with an open mind and try to understand the observed event/situation/incident from the viewpoint of the informants/community members. In case of any confusion, clarifications should be sought from multiple sources. The researcher should be conscious of the fact that s/he is from a different culture and therefore s/he should not interpret event/situation/incident as per her/his cultural values/ethos. Otherwise, s/he is likely to record the interpretation of her/his observation rather than the actual observation while studying other culture(s). This process of learning is slow and gradual. The researcher gains this experience and insight only with her/his longer stay in the field.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation