Canadian Journal of Sociology Online September-October 2006
Contrary to what one might guess from its title, The Chicago Guide to Collaborative Ethnography is not written by a sociologist trained in Chicago School interactionism and ethnography, but rather by an anthropologist. It is surprising that, despite the use of ethnography within sociology and anthropology, there is not more attention paid to each other's methodological insights. Lassiter's text demonstrates this point well, as I could find no references to sociological ethnography. Still, the ideas proposed and issues raised by Lassiter are relevant to all ethnographers.
The social and political milieu of ethnographic research is constantly evolving. Increasingly, researchers are called upon to make their studies more relevant and responsive to community concerns. To answer this challenge, Lassiter suggests that researchers emphasize greater collaboration with participants. While collaboration between researchers and subjects has been a central feature of ethnographic research, he argues that this relationship be made a more deliberate and explicit part of the research and writing process. Doing so, however, has implications for nearly every aspect of how ethnographic research is carried out and presented. Some of these issues the author deals with directly, while others he leaves for debate elsewhere.
Lassiter traces the history and development of collaborative ethnography from the early works of Malinowsky and Boas, and the Americanist anthropological tradition in Native American studies to the new critical ethnography of feminism and postmodernism. Both of the latter emphasize the influence of power relations and the "crisis of representation" in ethnographic research and writing. Such perspectives, he notes, provide fertile ground for conducting a more morally and ethically responsible, and advocacy-oriented form of collaborative ethnography. At the same time, these standpoints raise issues about the "appropriate" roles for researchers and participants, and the purpose of the research.
Lassiter is particularly concerned with the relationship between ethnographers and informants. Rather than being mere participants, informants in collaborative ethnography are better thought of as "consultants about culture and meaning" (p. 8). Lassiter advocates that consultants take an active role in all stages of the research study. Their role extends beyond data collection to co-interpreting and co-authoring ethnographic texts. Instead of consultants only reading and commenting on the final version of a study, there is an ongoing dialogue throughout the entire project. Consultants offer interpretations of the developing ethnographic text, which are discussed with the researcher and possibly with other consultants before becoming part of the text. The final product is a multi-voice report placing the interests of collaborators front-and-centre.
To achieve this type of deliberate and explicit collaborative ethnography requires a high level of ethnographic honesty, Lassiter argues. Ethnographers should be forthcoming about their experiences in the field and how these shape their interpretation of the text. If collaborators are to share in the interpretation and writing process and ultimately utilize the final report, the researcher's writing must also be accessible, and Lassiter provides useful advice on writing accessibly. He also offers suggestions on how to engage consultants in the writing and editing process, including having principal consultants act as readers and editors, employing focus groups to comment on the text throughout the process, holding community forums, and developing co-written texts.
The collaborative approach outlined by Lassiter presents practical impediments, not the least of which are time limitations. The amount of discussion, debate, and attempts to accommodate a number of different collaborators throughout the research process would be very time-consuming, as well as difficult to juggle and accommodate. However, Lassiter presents many examples demonstrating that such an undertaking is possible, although not recommended or necessary for all research endeavours.
Collaborative ethnography of the sort proposed by Lassiter is not without detractors. As he points out, "Many anthropologists, for example, still equate such collaboration with apology, with 'going native,' with social work, and do not consider it serious ethnographic research. For many collaboration is not real ethnography" (p. 149). Placing such a strong emphasis on this type of collaboration brings into question whose discourse should be privileged in the ethnographic text. For Lassiter, researchers have no more credence than their collaborators. From his point of view such privilege only reinforces the power imbalance inherent in traditional ethnographies and presents experiences that participants in the research process may not wholly feel are their own. Still, many readers will feel that researchers' training in method and analysis offers them a unique position in data collection, analysis, and writing that goes beyond being just another voice in the text and accumulator of viewpoints.
Determining for whom the final ethnographic text is written is another point of contention. Although Lassiter acknowledges that ethnographies are written for various audiences, it is clear that he sees collaborators and their communities as the main audiences. In advocating that ethnographers act as community activists, he runs the risk that their research will be dismissed as biased. Lassiter realizes that not everyone will appreciate collaborative ethnography and freely admits that this form of research is not recommended or even possible for all projects.
Building on ethnography's collaborative heritage, Lassiter effectively articulates a truly reflexive method for understanding social life. Even if one does not agree with some of collaborative ethnography's underpinnings, Lassiter's text is an important contribution to the field. One could implement the types of collaborative measures proposed by Lassiter that suit one's research project and theoretical perspective, and leave out those which do not. Collaboration can thus be viewed as a continuum, with its various elements negotiated between researchers and consultants.
Steven Kleinknecht
McMaster University
http://www.cjsonline.ca/reviews/collabethno.html
September 2006
© Canadian Journal of Sociology Online
