Anthro notes

ON

J AH\rKOHDTcS

MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY PUBLICATION FOR EDUCATORS

<b

VOLUME

25

NO.

¹

SPRING

2004

COLLABORATIVE ETHNOGRAPH

by Luke

Eric

Las

siter

[Editors' Note:

As

explained in the following article,

"anthropologyoffersaplethoraof approaches ^forun- derstandingthecomplexityofculture."

As

EricLassiter demonstrates,collaborativeethnographyisnotentirely new, but^it does "highlight the collaboration that has alwaysbeeninherentinfieldworkpractice andextends

it

more

systematicallyinto thewritingofthe final eth-

nography"

Lassiter's article

and companion

Teacher's Corner

grew from two

projects: writinga manuscript

on

thehistory,theory,

and

practiceofcollaborative eth- nography under contract with the University of Chi- cagoPress,

and

The OtherSide of Middletown, a collabo- rativeethnographyprojectinMuncie, Indiana.]

Have

_reporter

^you

^{ever granted}

^an

^{interview to a}

for a local, regional, or national newspaper, onlytohavethatreportermisquote

you

in print? If

you

have

had

this experience,did

you

feelmisrepresented,thatyour

words

were takenoutof context?

What

if that

same

reporter asked

you

to re-

viewthestorybeforeit

went

to print?

Would you

take the opportunity? If

you

felt that the story misrepre- sented you,

would you

change it?

Would you

change yourquotations, forexample?

Or would you

^insistthat freedom ofthe press

was more

important,that the story should appearexactlyaswritten, thatthereporter

had

a right to represent

you however

heorshe chose?

Foranyoneinthebusinessofrepresenting oth- ers

— ^from

journalists to artists to academics

—

^these

seemingly simple questionsraiselargerquestions:

When we

write,to

whom

are

we

ethicallyresponsible?

To

our subjects,

who open

themselves to us?

To

ourreaders,

who

believe us to be in

some way

objective?

To

our

professional colleagues,

who

^expect a particular kind of analysis

from

us?

To

ouremployers,

who want

sto- riesthatwillgrabthe public's attention,therebysetting ourpublications apart?

For sociocultural anthropologists,

who

^often

spend

months

or years living

and working

with the people theyrepresent,these issueshave

become

increas- ingly central totheirpractice.Intoday'sworld,thepeople with

whom

anthropologists

work

oftenread

what

an- thropologists write about

them and

have

much

to say about

how

theyhave

been

represented to the outside world.Fortoday'santhropologists,theethical

commit- ment

to theircollaboratorsiscrucial,forwithoutthem, theycannot

go

abouttheirwork.For

many

anthropolo-

gists, however, the issue is bigger thanjust being^able to

go

abouttheirwork, doingthebusinessof "anthro- pologyas usual."

The

ethical

commitment

to thepeople with

whom we work

servesasaguidingprinciple that

—

inscribedinto

many

professionalcodesofethics

—

^tran-

scends all other agendas, including the

more

general scientificprinciple that all is, orshouldbe,knowable.

As you

might expect, this issue is a hot one.

Fordecades, anthropologistshavepassionatelydebated ethicalissues

among

themselves.Anthropologistshave sought

many

ways to address ethical issues over the years; collaborative ethnography has

emerged

as

one way

to respondtothese ethicalconcerns.

What

is

Ethnography?

Ethnography, the description of culture, is the staple of cultural anthropology.

Ethnography

remains the

most

distinctive

way

thatsocioculturalanthropologists translate the similarities

and

differences of

human

ex- perience.

Ethnography

references a particular literary

\.nthroNotes

Volume 25

No. 1 Spring

2004

genre,

one

that delves into rich

and

culturally diverse sources, so that

we may

understand the

more

general role of culture in people's lives everywhere. Ethnogra-

phy

also impliesa distinctive fieldworkmethod,a field-

work method

that essentially rests

on

fourpractices:

(1) participating in the lives of others (which

may

in- clude learninga

new

language or learning

how

tobehave appropriatelywithinaparticularsetting);

(2) observing behavior (which

may

include that of the ethnographerherselfaswellasthatofthecommunity);

(3) taking field notes (which

may

include jotting

down

firstimpressions,drawing maps,or writing extensive de- scriptions ofcultural scenes);

and

(4) conductinginterviews (which

may

include both in-

formalconversations

and more

formalexchanges).

At

the heartof this fieldwork practice

— ^which

may

be undertakenat

home

orabroadand

may

last

many

years

—

^is collaboration, the practiceof working closely withothers.Indeed, ethnographers

must

collaboratewith others to build their understandings of culture in any particularsetting:theycan notverywell participate,ob- serve, takefieldnotes, orconductinterviewswithout^it.

With

constantinteractionwiththeir"consultants"(aterm thathasreplacedtheolder"informant"label),ethnogra- pherslearnaboutthe particularmeanings ofthisorthat behavior,this orthatexperience, orthisorthat story.

What

is Collaborative

Ethnography?

Today,ethnographerswrite

many

differentkindsofeth- nography

and no two

of

them

approach their craft, or

some would

say art, in exactly the

same

way.

But

the issues of ethics

and

representation are

becoming more

and

more

central to the

work

of all ethnographers.

The

ethical and political circumstances in

which

ethnogra-

phy

is conducted

and

writtenhascausedethnographers to approach their craftwithin

more

humanistic frame- works,ratherthanthepurely"scientific"frameworksthat

dominated

the field in the past. Indeed, collaboration has

become

a key

metaphor

for doing ethnography

—

the

work

inthe fieldas well as the

work

of writing.

Some

ethnographers have long used dialogue, or a"dialogic"techniqueintheirwritings byrepresent- ing the conversations

between

the anthropologist

and

her or his collaborators to illustrate

how

cross-cultural understandings

emerge

inthecontextoffieldwork.

Oth-

ers haveutilized fieldwork collaborationliterally,choos-

ingnotonlyto focus

on

the collaborative

emergence

of culturewithinthewrittentext,butalsoaskingtheircon- sultants totake a

more

active role inthewritingprocess

itself. Called"collaborative ethnography," the approach highlights the collaboration thathas always been inher- entin fieldworkpractice

and

extendsit

more

systemati- callyintothewritingof thefinalethnography.

Simplyput,collaborativeethnographers,intheir representations of others, place the ethical responsibil- itytoconsultantsaboveallelseandseek consultant

com- mentary and

direction as the ethnographic text takes shape.

As

a humanistic project

—

^not a scientific

one

—

collaborative ethnography seeks

common ground

for writing representations that are

more

sensitive to

and more

honest about^theethicalandpoliticalcircumstances thatprovideacontext within

which

ethnographygrows.

Writingethnographythus

becomes more

of ajointpro- cess,

where

bothethnographer(s)andconsultant(s)share thetask,tovaryingdegrees,ofwritingthe finalproduct.

For

this reason, collaborative

ethnography

is often, though not always, co-authored by both the ethnogra- pher

and

hisorherconsultants.

Collaborativeethnographyisnot merelybureau-

cratic.

Many

ethnographersseek

commentary from

those representedintheethnography,asmight berequiredby, forexample, agovernmental institution, but collabora- tive ethnography asks of consultants

more

than just a stamp of approval.Collaborative ethnographersseekto use dialogue aboutthe developingethnographyto yield

deeper collaborative co-interpretations.

The

results can bemixed,yieldingextremely valuablebenefits aswell as drawbacks. Intheend,however,^Ibelieve the

method

is

extremely rewarding

—

^{both personally}

^and

^{to the field}

asa whole.

Although

collaborative ethnography is a con- temporary response to contemporary circumstances,it isnotentirelynew. Indeed,ithas arich,albeit oftenun-

remembered,

history.

Roots of

Collaborative

Ethnography

In the early 1840s, the soon-to-be

famous

anthropolo- gistLewis

Henry Morgan,

whilebrowsingin abookstore,

met

ElyS.Parker,the soon-to-be-famous SenecaIndian

who would go on

tobe GeneralUlysses S.Grant'smili- tarysecretary,

and

later,President Grant's

Commissioner

of IndianAffairs.There,inthe bookstore,

Morgan and

AnthroNotes Volume 25

No. 1 Spring

2004

Parker struck

up

aconversation,

became

instant friends, andaftertheirinitialmeeting,weresoon workingtogether

on

writinga cultural description of the Iroquois.

Mor- gan had

always

wanted

towrite sucha studybut

had no

"real" contacts

among

^Indians. Parker enthusiastically providedhis

own

first-hand

knowledge

of his tribe,the Seneca,

and

gave

Morgan

accessto

many

leaders in the largerIroquoisConfederacy (of

which

theSenecawere,

and

are, a part), helping

him

understand Iroquois lan- guageandculture.Parker

most

likelyreadand responded toMorgan's manuscriptasitdeveloped. In the finalver- sion,Leagueof^theHo-de-no-sau-nee, orIroquois(published in 1851),

Morgan

dedicated the

book

tohis friend:

"To

Ha-sa-no-an'-da (ElyS. Parker),

A

Seneca Indian,This

Work, The

Materialsof

Which Are

the Fruitof ourJoint Researches, is Inscribed: In

Acknowledgment

of the Obligations,

and

inTestimony of theFriendshipofthe Author."

While

Morgan

eventually

went on

to

become more

famous,

and

disparaged, for hiswritings

on

social evolution,hisLeague

was

widelyconsideredtobethefirst true

American

ethnography especially for its intimate description ofIroquois beliefs and practices

from

the

"inside"

—

^thanks,ofcourse, to Parker.Morgan's

was

not acollaborativeethnography by contemporarystandards, sinceoutsideofMorgan'sbriefacknowledgment,

we do

not

know

to

what

extent Parker actually helped shape thetext.Nonetheless, itplaced collaborationwithinfor- mantsattheheartof ethnographicpractice

where mere

observation (byoutside

government

authorities,for ex- ample)

was no

longer satisfactory to a

budding

science ofculture.

To be

sure,League

had

an

enormous

effect

on how

allfuture

American

ethnographers

would go

about

their

work

to describe Native

American

cultures: in its

wake, descriptions thatlackedinformation provided

by

knowledgeablecollaborators

seemed

incomplete.

Of

course, nineteenth-century ethnologists (as theywerecalledthen) generallyapproachedthe descrip- tionof

American

Indian cultures through the "salvage motif": they soughtout olderinformants as collabora- tors todescribe the "glory days" of a

bygone

era,often situatinghistoricaldescriptionsof

American

Indian"cul- ture"within broadtheories of socialevolutionwherein theprogress of"civilization"

would

^inevitably

subsume

the Indians' earlier "savage" and "barbaric" stages of

cultures.

Most

usedcollaborators, but

some

tookit

one

E/y Parker

step further,co-authoringtheirtextswiththeirinform-

ants.

An

exampleisAlice Fletcher, a

Bureau

of

Ameri-

can

Ethnology (BAE)

ethnologist,

who,

while staunchly believing that Indians should fully assimilate to white ways, nonethelessvaluedthe salvagingofIndiancultures.

Fletcher

worked

closelywithher collaborators

and

rec- ognized

them

fortheircontributionstoher ethnographic work.

One

of those collaborators, Francis

La

Flesche, insistedthatFletcher

more

directlyrecognizehiscontri- butionsbygranting

him

co-authorship. Fletcher agreed,

and

together Fletcher

and La

Flesche wrote The

Omaha

Tribe,publishedin 1911.

The two would

collaborate for a totalof fortyyearsuntilFletcherdied in 1923.

Another

well-known example is the collabora- tive relationship

between

Franz Boas, the "father" of

American

anthropology,

and George

Hunt, a Kwakiutl Indian.

The two

collaborated

on

a

number

of projects

from

the 1890suntil

George Hunt

diedin1933.Together, they

produced

hundreds of pages of ethnographic

ma-

terial

on

Kwakiutllanguageandculture.Importantly,

Boas

and Hunt's collaborations

marked

a sea change in an- thropology,

moving away from

the earlier paradigm of social evolution.

More and more

anthropologists

(BAE

ethnologists

among

them)had

become

disillusionedwith theevolutionaryparadigm(undoubtedlyduetotheirclose

work

withNativeinformants in the field). Boas,in par- ticular,

became

the best

known American

advocate for

inthroNotes

Volume 25

No. 1 Spring

2004

an anthropology

more

closely reflecting native cultures outside of an evolutionary model, helping establish

American

anthropology within a

more

relativistic ap- proach.

Seeking to understand the "native point of view"

—

^aphrase

^{made famous}

^byBritishanthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski

—

necessarily implied a

more

in- tensefocus

on

fieldcollaboration.Ethnographers

began

to focus

more

energy

on

listening to

and

checkingtheir evolving understandings with their collaborators in or- der to distinguish the nativepoint of view

more

accu-

rately. Ironically,however,recognizingactual,

named

in-

formants for their contributions

—

widespread, for ex- ample, in

BAE

reports

— ^became

^less

^common,

^unlike

co-authored

works

likethosebyFletcher

and La

Flesche or

Boas and

Hunt.

By

the first

few

decades of the twentieth-cen- tury,anthropology

was

fast

becoming

anacademicdisci- pline thatrequired professionalcredentials.

As

the field

became more

academically-oriented, the authority and objectivity of the researcher to authentically represent

"the native point of view" in published works

became more and more

important. In short, as anthropologists

"averagedout"informantvoicestocreate

more

normal- ized descriptions (those thatcouldbe

more

easily

com-

paredwith otherdescriptions),the individualinformants faded into the

background

of the texts,

becoming

^al-

most

completely

anonymous. Thus

readerslearnedlittle

about

what

the natives were contributing to their

own

ethnographicdescriptions.

Inthe 1930s,

one

ofBoas'sstudents,Paul Radin, severely criticized his colleagues for their increasingly

common

practiceofaveragingouttheirinformants'ex- perience. "[Ethnography] can be accomplished only if

we

realize," Radin wrotein hisMethod and_{Theory of}Eth-

nology,"once

and

forall,that

we

aredealingwithspecific,

notgeneralized,

men and women." Through

thedevice of generalization, the anthropologist

had become

the authority

on

thenativepointofview

—

^he

^knew

^itbetter

than the nativesthemselves. Radinpointed to problems in anthropology's representationofothers, especially as the choice of subject

and

the style of telling were ulti-

mately chosen by the anthropologist—not to

mention

thatanthropologistswereincreasinglyobscuringthe"na- tive point of view" through their

own

theories of cul- ture. In his

own

fieldwork

and

writing, Radin chose to

focus intensely

on

the biographyof actual individuals, collaborating closelywiththese individuals to

more

clearly distinguish the "native point of view"

from

his

own,

payingcloseattention to the natives'

own way

of ^telling

theirstorythrough their

own

theories

and

philosophies.

In mainstream anthropology, Radin's critiques were largely ignored (after an initial backlash

from

his colleagues,

who

werebusily advancing the larger scien- tific theories ofculture).

But among American

Indian studies scholars, Radin's writings

had

a

more

lastingef- fect

—

^{especially in the writing of "life} history," as his

auto/biography

came

to be

known.

Like Radin, count- less

American

Indian scholars closelycollaboratedwith theirconsultantstowriteNative

American

auto/biogra- phies,

and

to thisday,

American

Indianlife histories are

among

the largestcollaboratively-producedliteraturesin anthropology

— ^many

^areco-authored

and

co-editedby bothanthropologist(s)

and

consultant(s).

Radin's intense focus

on

the individual in cul- ture

would

resurface in a varietyof forms in the disci- pline of anthropology.Although a thoroughdiscussion ofthesedevelopmentsis

beyond

thescope of thisbrief essay,sufficeittosay thatbythe 1960s, 1970s

and

1980s,

many

ethnographerswerebeginningtoaskthe

same

kinds of questions that Radin

had

once asked. In particular, interpretiveandhumanistic anthropologists

who

believe anthropology ^is an act of interpretationrather than an exactscience

wondered

ifanthropologists, intheirsearch to authoritatively elaborate the native point of viewin the serviceoflarger theoriesof humankind,had,intheir

ethnographic manuscripts, only reinforced the separa- tion

between

anthropologists and the communities in

which

theyworked.Inotherwords,

most

ethnographies werewritten for otheracademics

and

to support larger scientific theories.

Most

ethnographies, outsideof a

few

written by Margaret

Mead

and a few others, were not writtenforthepublic

and

werecertainlynotwrittenfor thepeopletheywereabout.

A

question

began

toecho throughoutthe^disci- pline:

"Ethnography

for

whom?"

^This question

grew

louder

and more

immediate as the so-called "natives,"

began respondingto thetextsthat

had

beenwrittenabout them, offering their

own

interpretations of outsiders'

"expert" ethnographies,respondingforcefullyto repre- sentations they perceived, in

some

extreme cases, tobe

unfair,malicious,orjustplainwrong. For example,

some

AnthroNotes Volume 25

No. 1 Spring

2004

of theresidents of the

New York

village Springdale (a

pseudonym)

were so outragedbySmallTownin

Mass

So-

ciety,the1958ethnography abouttheircity,thatthey

went

sofarastoparadeaneffigyof

one

of theauthorsposi- tioned atop a

manure

spreader!

As

the discipline devel- oped,the "nativepointofview"begantotake

on

awhole

new

meaning.

The

then

common

practice of keeping informants orcommunities

anonymous was

a

way many

anthropologists argued of"protectingthe natives."

But

far

from

protecting the natives,

anonymity

only con- foundedtheissue.Althoughanthropologistsattimes

had good

reasonstokeeptheirinformants

anonymous

(asin studies of illegalactivities), critics argued thatthe prac- tice

more

often thannot actively protected theanthro- pologist rather than the natives, significantly lessening the chance that natives could directly criticize the an- thropologist.

Many

anthropologistsinsistedthatthescientific

purposesandgoalsof ethnography should not be

com-

promised by

community

or informant responses, that their analyses, descriptions,

and

stories should appear exactly as written, that theirprofessional credentials al-

lowed

them

torepresent the natives as they

saw

fit. For others, consultantresponseswere an importantcultural fact:

Were

notthese responses significant

and

revealing in

and

of themselves?

Did

not these contentions pro- vide another opportunity tolook ^at the native point of view?

And

forstillothers,these responses representeda

whole new

ethicalchallengetothe practiceofethnogra-

phy

Having

encountered suchissuesmyself,there- sponsesand subsequentre-involvementof

my own

col- laborators certainlybrought

me

to a criticaljuncture

My Journey

to Collaborative

Ethnography

I took

my

firstanthropologycourse

when

I

was

a junior in college, in themid-1980s

—

^{thevery time}

^when

^these

debatesabout^ethics,representation,

and

the nativepoint ofview

had begun

toreachtheirzenith.

Not

awareofit at the time, these discussions

and

their consequences

would

haveaprofound effect

on me and on

the anthro- pology^I

would

embrace.

I

came

to anthropology reluctantly. Accepting

uncritically

what

I

had

heard

from

fellow college stu- dents about anthropology as a"colonial"

and

"exploit- ative" discipline,Iputoff

ANTH

101, ageneraleduca-

tionrequirement,aslongasIcould. Ihad spent

many

of

my

teenage years in

American

Indian interest groups

(known

widelyas

American

Indian"hobbyists"),

and

this

was

a

commonly

heardstory-linethere aswell.Although

I

knew

littleaboutthe actualcomplexitiesofNative

com-

munities

and much

^lessaboutpast

and

currentcollabo- rationsbetweenIndians

and

anthropologists,I

was

con- vincedthat anthropologists

knew

littleabouttheactual,

contemporary struggles of

American

Indian people.

My

^firstanthropologycourse

—

^anintroduction toculturalanthropologytakenatRadfordUniversity(RU)

under

the tutelage of Dr.

Melinda

Bollar

Wagner

—

changed

my

outlookirrevocably. I had, at the time, be-

gun

to

more

criticallyreflect

on my own

fascinationwith Indians. Paradoxically,

my

hobbyistinterests

had

led

me

to seekout"real"Indians,theKiowas,with

whom

^Ilived duringthe summers.

These summer

experiences forced

me

to reconsider

how

I

had

perceived Indians

on my own

terms, the representation I

had

constructed. This personalstoryincludingtheKiowas'

enormously

gener- ous

and

abiding friendship, I relate in greater detail in The Power_of KiowaSong, but sufficeit say thatWagner's anthropologycoursegave

me

the

means

tobegintoun- derstandthepowerfulcontradictionsI

was

experiencing betweenIndians asartificiallyrepresentedideals

and

In- dians as real people.

By

the

end

of thatfirstanthropol-

ogy

course, I

had

changed

my

major.

The

following

summer,

backinthe

Kiowa com-

munity,I

announced my

plansto

become

ananthropolo-

gist.Perhaps^Imight

one

day"study"the

Kiowa

people.

Some

of

my

^friendswere encouraging

and

supportive.

Others,however,werenot.

Former Kiowa

TribalChair-

man,

Billy

Evans

Horse,with

whom

^I

had

a close rela- tionship, direcdy challenged

my

decision, offering yet another objectiontothe

way

thatanthropologistsworked.

His family

had worked

with anthropologists before, he

said, and they

had

feltslighted

when

his family

had

not been recognized for their contributions.

Many

anthro- pologists

had

built their careers

on

the

Kiowa

knowl- edgethat

had

been freelysharedwiththem;and,in their manuscripts, they often passed off their

knowledge

of

Kiowa

cultureastheir

own,

asifindividual

Kiowa

people

had had

only a small role.

To

be an anthropologist, ar-

gued Horse,

would mean

^thatI

would

haveto followin these

same

foot-steps

—

^beingan"expert"attheexpense of Kiowas.

He would

have

no

partinit.

VnthroNotes

Volume 25

No. 1 Spring

2004

To

^{say thatI}returnedtocollegewith

mixed

feel- ings about

my new

major

would

be anunderstatement.

On

the

one

hand, I

had

learned that the typical story- lineabout anthropologyasbeing"colonial"and"exploit- ative"

was

perhaps too simplified

and

extreme;

on

the other hand,

my Kiowa

friends presented

me

with real

and

first-handexperiences with the problems of repre- senting othersinethnographictexts

—

^{theyweretiredof}

being colonized

and

exploited,

and

now, unrecognized.

To

^saytheleast,I

was

confused.

I began

my

senior yearas an anthropology

ma-

jorhalfheartedly.

But

the classesItookwith

RU

profes- sors Drs. Cliff and

Donna

Boyd,

Mary La

Lone,

and

Melinda Wagner, bestowed

new hope

in

me

for thepo-

tentials of anthropology, especially the potentials to re- solve the incongruity

between my

chosen major

and

the feelings I

had

for

my Kiowa

friends.

One

class, in par- ticular, changed everything. Professor Wagner's "Prac- ticing

Anthropology

^" class required

me

^to engage in

ethnographic research, including writing an actual eth- nography.

Among

other books,

we used James

P.

Spradley's The Ethnographic Interview

and

Spradley

and David

McCurdy'sEthnographyinComplexSociety.

I

was

particularly struck

by

Spradley

and

McCurdy's writings about doing ethnography utilizing

an "emic" approach based

on

language

and

experience- basedtheoriesofculture,trying toviewtheworld through the eyes of those in another cultural group, accessing theirunderstandingthroughthelanguage theyused.

Most

importantly,Spradley

and McCurdy

argued thatwriting ethnographycouldberelevantandbeneficial tothe

com-

munitiesstudied, as

Jim

Spradley

had hoped

his

work on

"tramps"

would

help others understand

and

help the homeless, alcoholic

men

he wrote about in his classic

work, You

Owe

YourselfaDrunk.

With

all thisin mind, I

embarked upon

an eth- nographicprojectoflocalNarcotics

Anonymous

meet- ings with a focus

on

the experience of drug addiction andrecovery. I

worked

closelywithseveralinformants/

consultants, in both the fieldwork

and

writing process.

With

Spradleyand

McCurdy's

callforrelevanceinmind,

my

consultants

and

I negotiated an accessible ethno- graphic textthat elaborated the experience of drugad- diction

and

recovery, a text they could give to drugad- dicts

who

wereconsideringNarcotics

Anonymous

asan optionto recovery.

As

Iwrote

my

ethnography,

my

col-

BillyEvansHorse. Photoby author.

laborators (who, in this case,

wanted

to remain anony-

mous

forobviousreasons)respondedtothetext,point- ing out discrepancies and adding information

we had

neglectedin ourconversations.

Looking

back

on

itnow,

my

firstattemptatdo- ing ethnography

was

tentative

and

rough; but the pro- cess of working this closelywith consultants

—

^{in both}

fieldpractice and writing

—

^{inspired me. Indeed, itpre-}

senteda collaborative

model

thatIfeltmightresolvethe kindsofissuesthatBilly

Evans Horse had

raised inour conversationsthe

summer

before,

when

I

announced my new

major. Ithusreturnedtothe

Kiowa community

the following

summer

with a

new

proposition for doing a

more

jointlyconceived,practiced,

and

writtenethnogra- phy.

That summer,

Billy

Evans Horse

and ^I

began

a conversation about doing a collaborative ethnography

on

atopic that

we

eventuallyagreed

had

heightenedsig- nificance in the

Kiowa

community, the diverse

and

ex- tensive world of

Kiowa

song.

Our

conversation lasted the next several years, continuingthrough

my

^graduate

studies,

and

culminatingwith

my

dissertation, and sub- sequently, The Power_ofKiowaSong.

Icredit

my

^{graduateeducationat}theUniversity of

North

CarolinaatChapelHillforgiving

me

the

more

AnthroNotes Volume 25

No. 1 Spring

2004

sophisticated conceptual tools with

which

to build this collaborative ethnography.

One

class inparticular

—

^Dr.

Glenn

D. Hinson's "Artof

Ethnography" —

^surveyedthe

contemporarydiscussions

among

anthropologistsabout the ethics andpolitics of representation and,

more

im- portantly, offered methodological strategies fordoinga

more

ethicallyresponsible, collaborativeethnography. In thatclass I

had my

secondanthropological"conversion experience"asI

awakened

totherealpossibilitythat col- laborative ethnography might transform anthropologi- cal practice. Hinson,the "master of collaboration" and

my

dissertationadvisor,

worked

closelywithme,helping

me

understandthe

more complex

nuances

and

veryreal complications of

working

within collaborative frame- works. Fortunately forme, Chapel Hill's anthropology

program

supported this kind of practice,

and

another

one

of

my

dissertation committee

members, James

L.

Peacock,regularlyencouraged

me

toconsider

how

Icould situate

my

collaborative

work

withinlargercurrentsof a

more

publiclyengaged anthropology(alarger

movement

that seeks to bridge the gap between academic and ap- plied practice, in

which

Peacock has long

been

a key

player).

By

thetimeIleftChapelHill in 1993tolive

and

researchfull-time inthe

Kiowa

community,I

had

essen-

tially

two

differentgroups for

whom

^I

was

writing:

my

dissertationcommitteeand

my Kiowa

consultants

—

^who,

now numbering

severaldozen, werehelping

me

^under-

stand

and

write about

Kiowa

song. Forthose like Billy

Evans

Horse,writinganethnographythatcould beread and understood by

Kiowa

people

was

absolutelycritical to the project; this

was

notto be anotherstandard dis- sertationinaccessible to"normal"people. If

Kiowas

were goingtoinvest in

my

project,I

had

to invest in

them

as readers: it

was

the ethical

and

responsible thing to do.

Along

theselines,theywerealsotobeclearlyrecognized for their contributions unless they preferred otherwise (andvery fewdid).

Two

keyissuesthusemerged,

which

serveasthe foundationforbuildinga collaborativeethnography:ethi- cal responsibilities to consultants

and

writing clearly.

Because

my

ethnography

was

established

on

friendship,

I had a moral responsibility to

my

^{friends to} represent

them

the

way

they

wanted

tobe represented (as an au- thor,I

work

veryhardtopresentmyselfinthebestpos- siblelight; theyshould havethat right also

—

^deletingor

adding information, changing their quotations, or dis- agreeingwith

my

interpretations). Additionally, I

had

a moralresponsibility towriteclearlyso theycouldrespond to

my

ethnographictext asitdeveloped.

Moral/ethical responsibility

and

clear, concise writingarecriticaltocollaborativeethnography because they areat theheartof

what makes

aparticularkind of ethnography"collaborative."Allethnographyiscollabo- rativeto

one

degree oranother,ofcourse,but

what makes

ethnographicwritingcollaborative is involvingconsult- ants in the construction of the final ethnographic text itself.It

means

notonly seekingresponses

and commen-

tary

on

our interpretations, but,

more

importantly, re- integratingthese commentaries backinto theethnogra-

phy

itself, allowing consultants to shapebothrepresen- tationandinterpretation.

Thiswritingprocessis extremely rewarding.Es-

sentiallyusingtheevolvingtext asacenterpieceofa larger ongoingconversation, the discussion of

my

ethnogra-

phy

with

Kiowa

consultants, as Iwrote it,led to

whole new

understandings of

Kiowa

song

— ^and

^{to the very}

real difficulties of presenting

one

genre of expression (song) via another genre of expression (paragraphs

and

sentences).Iregularlystruggledwiththis

problem

in

my

writing,buttheresponses

from my Kiowa

consultants

—

and

thecollaborativeco-interpretations that

emerged

as a resultof these conversations

—

^helped

^me

^understand

on

adeeperlevelthereal difficultiesofpresenting

Kiowa

RalphKotay(left)andEricLassiterworktogetheron "TheJesusRoad:

Kiowas, Christianity, andIndianHymns."PhotobyRobertDeanKotay.

AnthroNotes

Volume 25

No. 1 Spring

2004

song to the "outside world" while remaining attentive, simultaneously, tothe "insideworld" of

Kiowa

readers, present

and

future.

Needless to say, writingthis

way was

as satisfy- ingasitwaschallenging.LiketheethnographyIhad

done

with

members

of Narcotics

Anonymous,

I feltthe eth- nographyI

was

doingwith

Kiowa

people,

on some

level, mattered, notjustforoutside readers (academic or oth- erwise), but to the

Kiowa

community.

Of

course, the

community

value

and

relevance of ethnographic texts

can only

go

so far,

and

often they are part of a

much

largerequationof community-basedaction(forexample, asa resultof our

work

together,Billy

Evans Horse and

I

agreedthatallthebook'sroyalties

would go

tothe

Kiowa

Education Fund, a fund

we

established to assist

Kiowa

youths attend college).

A

collaborativeethnography opens

up

the pos-

sibility that ethnography can matter for those

beyond

the academy.This

was

brought

home

to

me most pow-

erfully

when

a sixteen-year-old

Kiowa

singerrevealedto

me

thatThe Power_ofKiowaSong

was

thefirst

book

he

had

ever actually read

from

cover to cover.

He

said he

was now

thinkingaboutcollege.Thatstatement, forme,

made

all the challengesinherent incollaborative ethnography worthwhile.

The

experienceofwritingThe Power_ofKiowa Song providedthebase

upon which

Ihavebuiltallof

my

sub- sequentethnographic projects, including TheJesusRoad:

Kiowas, Christianity, andIndian

Hymns

(which I co-wrote with historian Clyde ^Ellis of

Elon

College, and Ralph Kotay,another

Kiowa

consultant) and

most

recently,The OtherSide of Middletown:Exploring

M

^untiesAfricanAmeri- can Community, a collaboration of

community and cam-

pusinvolvingover75

community members,

faculty,

and

undergraduate college students (see "Teachers Corner"

in this issue).

Limitations of

Collaborative

Ethnography

Allmanuscripts (evenpresumably"objective"ones)have limitations: they are, afterall, limited by the experience and point of view of the aufhor(s). Ethnographies are further limited by therange of the ethnographer's field experience, the choice of people with

whom

she orhe works,

and

the topics of their conversations that serve as the basis for writing aparticular ethnography, based

on

aparticularsetof experiences

and

conversations. In

collaborativeethnography,thisprocessis further limited by theinvolvementof consultantsin thewritingof the ethnographic text.While

some

ethnographersmightsee thisinvolvementasoverlyrestrictive,Ihavefoundin

my own work

that themethod'slimitations palenextto

what

I have learned about others, including myself.

The

im- portant thingaboutwritingcollaborativeethnographyis

being honest about the limitations

—

to yourself, your consultants,

and

your readers

—

^while simultaneously underscoringtherealpossibilities fordeeper,collabora- tive co-interpretations.

Inspiteofthis,collaborativeethnographyisnot foreveryone norforalltypes of ethnographicprojects.

Collaborativeethnography

works

particularlywell

when

issues of representation are critical to the project

and when

communities

want

an ethnographer's helpin tell-

ing their story,theirway. For example, as I detailin the

"Teachers Corner,"

members

ofMuncie's AfricanAmeri- can

community had

long

been

ignored in

ongoing

"Middletown"

studies for

which

Muncie, Indiana is fa-

mous;

they

wanted

us (i.e., facultyand students) to help

them

^tell their story to a larger audience. Although in today's world

more and more

people are similarly situ- atedin streams ofrepresentations thatnotonly include ethnography, but also newspapers, radio, film, the Internet,

and

television,issuesofrepresentationarenot always this central to each

and

every ethnographic un- dertaking.

Collaborative ethnography

may

not always be appropriate for

documentary

projects that struggle to present varyingviewpoints about contentious socialis- sues.

When,

forexample,

members

of Muncie's African

American community

asked

my

studentsand

me

tocon- duct a brief ethnographic survey of business owners' opinions about renaming their street to Martin Luther King,_Jr., Boulevard, they charged us to conduct a bal- ancedsurvey (andreport) so they couldassess

more

criti- cally acontentious

community

debatethat

had

clouded individual voices and concerns.

My

students

and

I ac- cordingly utilized a very different ethnographic model,

more

inlinewithconventionalethnographicmethods.

Fortunately, anthropology provides

room

for bothkinds of ethnography.

Depending on

thegoals of theethnographer

and

his or hercollaborators,

and

their ethical

and

moralresponsibilitiesto

one

another, anthro- pologyoffers aplethoraof approaches forunderstand-

ingthecomplexityofculture

— ^from

the anthropologist's pointof viewas wellas

from

the native point of view.

Indeed, our job as sociocultural anthropologists is to enlarge the discussionof culture

among

everyone; eth- nography fortunately continues to provide

one

of the

most

powerfulways to engagein thislargerdiscussion.

Forit is ethnographythat still can provide us with

one

of the

most complex

understandings of ourselves

and

others

— ^one

^person

^{and one}

^{voice at atime.}

Further Reading

Darnell,Regna.1998.

And

AlongCameBoas:ContinuityandRevolu- tion inAmericanist Anthropology.JohnBenjamins.

Brettell,CarolineB.,ed. 1996.WhenTheyReadWhatWeWrite:The

Politicsof Ethnograplyy^.Bergin

&

Garvey.

Clifford,James. 1988. ThePredicamentof Culture:Twentieth-Century Ethnograp/y,Literature, andArt. HarvardUniversityPress.

Clifford,James,and George E. Marcus, eds. 1986. Writing Cul- ture:ThePoeticsandPoliticsofEthnography. UniversityofCalifornia Press.

Fletcher, Alice C,and FrancisLa Flesche. 1911. "The

Omaha

Tribe."Twenty-seventhAnnual_{Report of}theBureau_ofAmerican Eth-

nology.GovernmentPrinting Office.

Fluehr-Lobban,Carolyn,ed.2003.EthicsandtheProfession ofAn-

thropology:Dialogue forEthicallyConsciousPractice. AltaMiraPress.

Jaarsma,Sjoerd,ed. 2002.HandlewithCare:OwnershipandControl ofEthnographicMaterials.UniversityofPittsburghPress.

Lassiter,LukeEric. 1999.

"We

KeepWhat

We

HavebyGiving^it Away."AnthropologyNews40(1):3,7.

.2000. "Authoritative Texts, Collaborative Ethnography, andNativeAmericanStudies."AmericanIndianQuarterly 24(4):601- 14.

.2001. "From'ReadingOvertheShoulders ofNatives' to'Reading AlongsideNatives,' Literally:TowardaCollaborative and Reciprocal Ethnography."journal_ofAnthropologicalResearch 57(2):137-49.

Lassiter,LukeEric.1998.The PowerofKiowaSong:

A

Collaborative Ethnography. UniversityofArizonaPress.

Lassiter,LukeEric,ClydeEllis,and RalphKotay. 2002.TheJesus

AnthroNotes Volume 25

No. 1 Spring

2004

Road:Kiowas,Christianity,andlndianHymns.UniversityofNebraska

Press.

Lassiter, Luke Eric, Hurley Goodall, Elizabeth Campbell, and Michelle Natasya Johnson. 2004. The Other_{Side of} Middletown:

Exploring Muncie's AfricanAmericanCommunity.AltaMiraPress.

Lawless, Elaine. 1992. '"IWasAfraidSomeoneLike

You

...an Outsider . . . Would Misunderstand': Negotiating Interpretive Difference Between Ethnographers and Subjects."journalof AmericanFolklore105:301-14.

Marcus,GeorgeE.,andMichael M.J.^Fischer,eds. 1986.Anthro- pology as CulturalCritique:

An

ExperimentalMomentin the

Human

Sciences. UniversityofChicagoPress.

Morgan,Lewis Henry. 1851.Eeague_oftheHo-de-no-sau-nee, or Iroquois.SageandBrother.

Papa,Lee, andLuke EricLassiter. 2003. "TheMuncie RaceRi- ots of 1967,RepresentingCommunity

Memory

throughPublic Performance, and Collaborative Ethnography betweenFaculty, StudentsandtheLocalCommunity."]ournal of ContemporaryEth- nography 32(2):147'-66.

Radin,Paul. 1933. TheMethodandTheory_ofEthnology:

An

Essay

in Criticism.McGraw-Hill.

Rosaldo, Renato. 1993. CultureandTruth: The Remakingof Social Analysis.2^nded. Beacon^Press.

Spradley,James ^P. and David

W

McCurdy. 1988. The Cultural Experience:Ethnography inComplexSociety. WavelandPress.

Spradley,JamesP.1979. TheEthnographicInterview.Harcourt Col- lege.

Spradley,JamesP. 1988.YouOweYourselfaDrunk:

An

Ethnography ofUrban Nomads.University Pressof America.

Luke

EricLassiteris anassociateprofessorof anthropologyat BallState UniversityinMuncie, Indiana.