Assignment One For 146303 “Fieldwork”

By Matthew Bluck ST ID 08596042

Compare and contrast the central premises and methodology of research as

enunciated by Malinowski with those articulated in the work of any other

anthropologist in that set of readings. Consider what is implied about the process

of research, relationships with informants and ethical issues involved in

conducting fieldwork based on participant-observation.

Fieldwork as a method of anthropology involving participant observation and a

rigourous method of recording is held as being first carried out by Bronislaw

Malinowski as described in his introduction to Argonauts of the Western Pacific in

1922 and can be understood as approaching issues with the practice of “armchair”

(Shokheid 5628 : 2001) anthropology as represented by James Frazers monumental

work the “Golden Bough” (Senf 629 : 2006). Malinowski was one of many people

influenced by A.C Haddon’s emphasis on fieldwork and A.C Haddon had carried out

a Torres Straight expedition in 1898–99 (Young 2001). The idea of fieldwork as part

of the professional practice of anthropology was taught by R. Rivers and C.

G.Seligman but the principle of participant observation, “live right amongst the

natives” (Malinowski 6 : 1922) as carried out by Malinowski was arguably new. A

contemporary account of fieldwork as an anthropology method is described by Anette

Lareau in Common Problems in Fieldwork: A personal essay (Lareau 1996), the

description of the research enterprise is similar and there is a reflexive narrative

(Dewalt, Dewalt & Weyland 290 : 2000) in both accounts of fieldwork which reflects

a comparable commitment to methodological candor (Malinowski 15 : 1922) but

there are differences in the two accounts that are approximately 74 years of

methodolgical development apart.

Both Annette Lareau and Bronislaw Malinowski situate their research and give an

account of their research aims. Bronislaw Malinowski in order to situation his

research on the Trobriander Islanders in his introduction to Argonauts of the Western

Pacific in 1922 gives a description of the subject, method and scope of his study, and

in doing so is defining his study as produced by a scientific method and thus a valid

form of knowledge (Malinowski 4 : 1922). His ethnography is a science practiced

away from laboratories out in the field that adhered to his three stated principles of

scientific aims, immersion in the native way of life and the collection and analysis of

research data. Annette Lareau was investigating social class differences in

contemporary American family life and how these effected schooling and educational

performance (Lareau 200 : 1996), her research was conducted in two schools, Colton

school as a low socioeconomic school and Prescott as a upper middle class school and

this ethnographic research was the basis of her book titled Home Advantage: Social

Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education (Lareau 2000). She has

subsequently developed the concept of “ concerted cultivation” (Lareau 2 : 2003)

(Bodovski & Farkas 2008), a child rearing strategy associated with middle and upper

class parents and the concept of “the accomplishment of natural growth” (Lareau 3 :

2003) (Bodovski & Farkas 2008) as a child rearing strategy practiced by poor and

working class parents and this theory has been supported by quantitative studies

(Bodovski & Farkas 2008). The location of their fieldwork is indicative of

transformations in the practice of fieldwork (Shokheid 5630 : 2001), Malinowski is

studying another culture while Annette Lareau is investigating an aspect of her own

society.

Writing in 1996 Annette Lareau does not have to justify her research as scientific, she

is operating in an established tradition that recognises her participant observation

fieldwork being a qualititative method as part of a range of methodologies and is

aware of issues associated with the way data is collected. Historically there are

examples of problematic fieldwork, which includes Margaret Meads observations in

Samoa subsequently challenged by Derick Freeman (Shokheid 5629 : 2001), Oscar

Lewis challenging Robert Redfields study of the Tepoltzlan (Shokheid 5629 : 2001)

and Patrick Tierney challenging the research by Timothy Asch and Napoleon

Chagnon as found in the ethnographic film A Man called Bee: Studying the

Yanomomo (Gregor & Gross 687 : 2004). Annette Lareau is aware of the issue in

participant observation of introducing information to her subjects of her own creation

(Shokheid 5629 : 2001) and in retrospect she doubts her research question, “How does

social class influence childrens schooling” was appropriate to a qualitative

methodology. She considers that qualititative data is useful for demonstrating the

meaning of events and not so useful for the demonstration of correlations (Lareau 224

: 1996).

For Malinowski the neccessary premise of the ethnographer having “real scientific

aims” (Malinowski 6 : 1922) is similar to the neccessity of asking the appropriate

research questions with respect to the methodology and Malinowski expands this

statement to include the neccessity of knowing values and criteria of ethography as

taught by R.Rivers and C.G. Seligman. I would argue that to contemporary

anthropolgy Malinowski’s research question for studying the Trobriand Islanders was

ambitious, to derive an outline of the society, cultural processes and understand native

psychology and behaviour (Malinowski 12 : 1922). This type of research question is

appropriate to the evolutionary theoretical basis of his time, which included the ideas

of Frazer and Durkheim (Malinowski 9 : 1922) (Senf 629 : 2006). The Golden Bough

written by James Frazer is a compendium of folk lore and myths that was obtained

from the literature and archival study, it is an example of the “arm chair” (Shokheid

5628 : 2001) anthropology that Malinowski’s method is repudiating (Senf 629 :

2006). The central idea of this type of work was the idea of cultural evolution

(Shokheid 5628 : 2001) and Malinowskis synoptic charts compiled before going into

the Trobriand Islands (Malinowski 14 : 1922) (Senf 629 : 2006) indicate a

functionalist theoretical approach based on observation instead of evaluating the field

experience in terms of evolutionary schemes (Young 2001) (Shokheid 5628 : 2001).

Malinowski’s idea of culture was as a self sustaining system of cultural institutions,

(Firth 1957 : 16) an idea acheivable on an island with an interest on the uses and

functions of culture as formed by customs, institutions and belief (Firth 1957 : 16).

He was preoccupied with the difference between biological and sociological

components of human nature. Malinowski’s classification schemes included a theory

of needs (Firth 1957 : 16) that held that the functions of culture were to satisfy

particular needs of individuals and the community and thus a distinction between the

needs of the individual and the needs of the community for maintenance and cohesion

could point to the components of human nature that were biological and sociological

(Firth 1957 : 16).

Malinowski’s second principle was for the individual to be in the correct condition for

ethnographic work, to attempt immersion into their way of life. Malinowski’s method

requires him to live in contact the natives, he is an outsider with limited ability to

communicate, alone1 and unskilled in the local technologies of subsistence

(Malinowski 5 : 1922). This principle was developed by his initial experience of

ethnography when studying the Mailu of the south coast of Papua New Guinea for

five months (Young 2001). Malinowski was directed there by Seligman and during

this experience he found that the more time spent in the village away from European

contact the more detailed his data got (Young 2001). This condition of living with the

people of his study means that when something important occurs he can investigate it

at the very moment of its incidence (Malinowski 8 : 1922), during his participant

observation fieldwork he describes loneliness but because of his isolation from other

Europeans he seeks out the company of the Trobriand Islanders and gets to know

them better, with richer data because of it (Malinowski 18: 1922). This description

of the experience of fieldwork for Malinowski sounds like friendship, there is a need

to gain the trust and loyalty of ones informants and the anthropologist as observer is

also being observed (Corsino 278 : 1987) and has to adopt a consistent ethical stance

to maintain informant relations in the community, friendship contains ethical

obligations that could result in role conflict (Beer 5807 : 2001).

In Malinowski’s own words he is striving to understand native mentality and

behaviour (Malinowski 5 : 1922) and to do this he must apply methods of collecting,

manipulating and fixing his evidence. The practice of participant observation which

Malinowski describes as “ living with the natives” (Malinowski 6 : 1922) has changed

over time since the first generations of Malinowski’s influence (Shokheid 5628 :

2001). The degree of participation and nature of observation in fieldwork can range

from complete participation where the anthropologist becomes a member of the group

to, active participation where the anthropologist engages in most of the same cultural

activity, moderate participation where the anthropologist is present at the scene but

has only occasional interaction (Dewalt, Dewalt & Weyland 260 : 2000). At the end

of this spectrum of participant observation is non participation, where cultural data is

obtained from media that includes archives, writing, diaries, movies and television

(Dewalt, Dewalt & Weyland 260 : 2000). Fieldwork for Annette Lareau’s study

described in Common Problems in Fieldwork: A personal essay (Lareau 1996) was a

combination of interviews with school officials, teachers and parents with moderate 1 Malinowski’s diary indicates some contact with Billy Hankcock and Raphael Brudo, traders in the Trobriand Islands. Billy Hankcock in Malinowski’s second expedition helped with some photography, supplies and both of the traders provided some ethnographic detail (Senf 630 : 2006)

participant observation in class room and school situations three times a week.

Ultimately she ended up interviewing 12 families. Annette Lareau describes difficulty

in conveying her purpose of study to her subjects and clarifying her relationship with

the schools to the parents she was interviewing (Lareau 1996) and this type of

description, asking for permission and explaining his role in noticably absent in

Malinowskis Argonauts of the Western Pacific. It is apparent from the biography on

Malinowski by Michael Young (Young 2004) A biography is the Strictest sense of the

term (Shenf 626 : 2006) that Malinowski had to ask permission from the colonial

authorities and despite problems with the governer of Papua New Guinea and the

colonial society at the time of World War One, he managed to obtain some funding

for his ethography within the Trobriand Islands from the Australian goverment (Sherif

627 : 2006).

It is now understood that an anthropologist has an ethical obligation to their subjects

to explain the purpose of their study and make sure the potential consequences of their

work are not detrimental. Part of the criticism of the ethography by Timothy Asch and

Napoleon Chagnon of the Yanomomo is that it was used subsequently to justify

mistreatment of this people by government institutions (Gregor & Gross 687 : 2004).

The 1997 code of ethics for the American Anthropological Association with reguards

to the people being studied includes the principles of openess about purpose,

consideration of the potential impacts and disclosure of sources of support for their

research, whether the subjects want to remain anonymous or receive recognition and

the neccessity of obtaining a high quality informed consent (Fluehr-Lobbab 197 :

2000) . For New Zealand anthropology the Association of Social Anthropologists of

Aotearoa/ New Zealand has Principles of Professional Responsibility and Ethical

Conduct which includes ethical statements regarding the of responsibility of

anthropologists to informants and the wider community and the discipline itself

(ASAA/NZ 1997). For Annett Lereau to gain access to the schools and families of

her study she was obliged to present her role, purpose and the potential consequences

of her work to her subjects and gain informed consent. She has a ethical obligation to

protect the welfare of her subjects and in Home advantage: social class and parental

intervention in elementary education (Lareau 2000) she gives examples from her

notes of the families she was interviewing, gives names to her subjects, conveys parts

of a life history and her subjects are given a voice and agency (Lareau 65 : 2000).

Malinowski in Argonauts of the Western Pacific does not give a detailed anecdote

concerning the development of his relationship with his subjects, there is no

description of having to seek approval or permission by his informants to study them,

he describes his enquires as sometimes intrusive and unwelcome which are

ameloriated in part by gifts of tobacco (Malinowski 8 : 1922).

Malinowski’s descriptions of the Trobrianders in Argonauts of the Western Pacific

(Malinowski 1922) almost to a rule do not contain the names of individuals, the

descriptions are more a catalogue of types and roles of peoples (see figure 1).

Figure 1 : A photographic plate from Argonauts of the Western Pacific across

from page 48.

In trying to explain this absence it possible that such a description could compromise

his intension to demonstrate his ethnographic research as a science and his theoretical

basis of a functionalist description of a culture within the academic culture of his

time. From the biography written by Young 2004 (Senf 2006) it is known that

assistant resident magistrate “Doctor Bellamy” and the trader Billy Hancock were

instrumental in facilitating the conditions required for Malinowski’s fieldwork (Senf

623 : 2006). In terms of his relationships with his informants, Malinowski had good

relationships with the high ranking important personalities at Omarakana which

included the paramount chief Touluwa and the garden magician

Bagidou (Senf 623 : 2006) and these are not described in Argonauts

of the Western Pacific (see figure 2).

The importance of having Malinowski conduct his research at the

high ranked village of Omarakana to the paramount chief Touluwa

indicates a degree of understanding of his activities by high ranking

individuals but also potentially reflects economic and political

advantages. Exploring these details would help situate the context

of his research.

Figure 2 : Malinowski mentions informants in Argonauts of

the Western Pacific, a plate across from page 48.

The relationships of Annette Lareau with her informants and her

ethical obligation of informed consent to the people of her study

addresses in part the issue that participant observation is

“inevitably unethical by virtue of being interactionally deceitful”

(Dewalt Dewalt & Weyland 273 : 2000), in effect informants forget

that casual interactions are part of the information gathered by the

anthropologist. Although Annette Laraeu’s moderate level of

participant observation and interview was of a different scope to

Malinowski’s isolated active participation fieldwork, it allowed her to

achieve her research aims and from her experience develop a better

methodology for her later research as described in Unequal Childhoods:

Class, Race, and Family Life (Lareau 2003). I would also argue that her

relationship with the people of her study was more ethical because

it was on a more professional basis, this would be facilitated by her

subjects being within her own society.

In conclusion the descriptions of the experiences of participant observation by

Malinowsk and Annette Laraeu though seperated by 74 years of methodological

development contain a commitment to methodological candor (Malinowski 15 :

1922), reflect a need to obtain high quality data and development of high quality

interpretations of the data obtained. There are differences in the underlying theory,

Malinowski is developing a functionalist interpretation while Annette Lareau is

comparing class differences and they have different relationships to their informants.

The different context of their studies reflects the more contemporary practice of

locating sites of anthropological research within Western societies and accumulated

practical experience of fieldwork over time. This accumulated experience of

fieldwork has resulted in its increasing professionalisation which includes ethical

dimensions and so I would argue that Annette Laraeu’s relationship with her

informants is more professional than Malinowski’s. Annette Lareau’s work is also

more reflexive (Dewalt, Dewalt & Weyland 289 : 2000), in part because as it makes

explicit the fieldwork process and the interpretation of data. This reflexive narrative

facilitates education on the fieldwork experience and when complementary to

participant observation as means to obtain data, provides better claims to truth for that

data (Dewalt, Dewalt & Weyland 290 : 2000).

Bibliography

ASAA/NZ ( 1997). Principles of Professional Responsibility and Ethical Conduct.

Published by the Association of Social Anthropologists of Aotearoa/ New Zealand.

Printed in Palmerston North.

Beer, B. ( 2001). Anthropology of Friendship . In the International Encyclopedia of

the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Pages 5802-5808.

Corsino, Louis. ( 1987). Fieldworker Blues: Emotional Stress and Research

Underinvolvement in Fieldwork Settings. In the Social Science Journal, Volume 24,

Number 3. Pages 275- 285.

Dewalt, Kathleen H; Dewalt, Billie R. & Wayland, Coral B. (2000). Participant

Observation. In Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology. (Edited by H Russel

Bernard). Published by AltaMira Press. Printed in the United States of America.

Pages 259 to 301.

Firth, Raymond . ( 1957). Culture in Malinowski’s Work. In Man and his Culture. An

Evaluation of the work of Bronislaw Malinowski.( Edited by Raymond Firth). ( 2nd

Edition 1960). Published by Routlegde, Kegan Paul, London. Pages 1-23

Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. ( 2000). Ethics. In Handbook of Methods in Cultural

Anthropology. (Edited by H Russel Bernard). Published by AltaMira Press. Printed in

the United States of America. Pages 173 to 202

Gregor, Thomas A. & Gross, Daniel R. (2004). Guilt by Association: The Culture of

Accusation and the American Anthropological Association’s Investigation of

Darkness in El Dorado. In AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST, Vol. 106, Issue 4.

Pages 687 to 698.

Lareau, Annette. (2000). Home advantage: social class and parental intervention in

elementary education. Published by Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc. Printed in

the United States of America. Pages 20- 66.

Lareau, Annette, (2003). Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life.

University of California Press, Berkeley. Pages 1 to 30.

Malinowski, Bronislaw ( 1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of

Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelago of Melanesian New Guinea .

Published by George Routledge and Sons limited, 1932. First published July, 1922 by

Dutton New York. Pages 1 to 25.

Senf, Gunter. ( 2006). A biography is the strictest sense of the term. In the Journal of

Pragmatics : Book Review. Volume 36. Pages 610 to 637

Shokeid, M. ( 2001). Fieldwork in Social and Cultural Anthropology. In the

International Encylcopedia of Social and Behavioural Sciences. Published by

Elsievier Science Ltd. Pages 5628 to 5631.

Young, M ( 2001). Malinowski, Bronislaw (1884–1942). In the International

Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences Pages 9147-9151