I have a question about the formulation of hypothesis in an ethnographic research? i read a couple of books and found opposing views. In her discussion of participant-observation method, Schilling Estes (2013) says that we can "consider what we observe, formulating and reformulating hypotheses, then return back to the community for more focused observations based on our ever more finely tuned hypotheses" (p. 117), whereas Eckert (2000) notes that “Rather than testing hypotheses against predetermined categories, ethnography is, among other things, a search for local categories. Thus while survey fieldwork focuses on filling in a sample, ethnographic fieldwork focuses on finding out what is worth sampling.”. I am a bit confused which one is more suitable for an ethnographic fieldwork in a sociolinguistic study? to proceed with research questions or to formulate a testable hypothesis right from the scratch?
Greetings.
I would suggest you look at grounded Theory approaches.
Start with Glaser and Strauss- their stuff is from the 60s, but is a good place to start. You should be able to turn up material searching for rounded Theory i any good academic search engine.
Here, your research question would arise from within the fieldwork, not be pre-determined.
It is similar to, but not the same as, Eckert's position.
Hi,
Actually, there are opposing views in ethnography on this issue. Broadly speaking, If you prefered extended case method, you would start with a theory and go into the field, then go back to the theory to elaborate it. However, if you would prefer gorunded theory, you would enter the field without a specific theory and you would end up with a theory. For extended case method, I suggest you to look at Buroway and for grounded theory , as the previous answer mentioned, Glaser and Strauss.
Certainly, back to the foundations of linguistics (Boaz, Sapir/Worf hypothesis) you're going to see 'living language' in a setting which involves social-interactional, technological, and historic limiters. These are both precedent and immediate in any analysis of language use (Sapir).
on the basis of my experience of covert participant observation where I was also a particpant I would advise you to get in there and keep your eyes and ears and notebook open and think about it later.
Well said, Jarvis! The field researcher should not come in with a lot of suppositions, because these will cloud your picture before you've taken it.
When I was being exposed to Korean, I had to really listen to grasp their take on the notion of 'respect', which was not quite what I thought it was.
Proponents of grounded theory think in the fashion that you reported of Schilling Estes. But it is helpful that you already know that characteristic views of participant observation consider that method incongruous with hypothesis formulation. Perhaps you may need to specify what you mean by "hypothesis". If by that you mean a formalized assumption to be tested using an inferential statistic, i am afraid that I will align myself with those who have advised you that such a process and participant observation are not compatible. Participant observation is typically a holistic inquiry that aims at producing an idiographic report that is descriptive and often interpretative. Of course quantitative studies where testing of hypotheses are possible have rooms in sociolinguistic investigations too. Sebastian Rasinger (2008) has written a notable primer on this. But it must be underlined that it does not seem possible to test a hypothesis using data from a participant observation as such.
thank you so much for your valuable information and guidelines Ian Stuart Betül Özgün Thomas E. Lehman Bob Jarvis Peter-Jazzy Ezeh
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Statistical Techniques
- Meta-Analysis