I TENOR I
3.1 The Nature of Ethnographic Research
examination of syllabuses and other officialdocuments; and analysis of student work.
These methods arebe evaluated in terms oftheir ability to provide an understanding ofthe factors thatimpact on the leaming and teaching of writing in the context ofthe school that I investigated, as well as on their ability to provide insights on questions of equity and access that were mentioned in chapters one and two. This last concem emphasises the inherently critical nature of ethnographic description.It 'does not take any given customary reality for granted' (Erickson 1988: 1807) and exposes what is 'hidden' to those who might have invested in certain practices.
and not in settings set up specifically for the purposes of research. However, describing ethnography as qualitative and naturalistic does not give a complete description of its nature.
Watson-Gegeo's definition focuses on 'cultural interpretation' and this is echoed by other commentators on ethnography. Wolcott (1987) states that its purpose 'is to describeand interpret cultural behaviour'(43).Itis this conception ofculture as 'integral to the analysis'(Watson-Gegeo 1988: 577) that commentators feel distinguishes ethnography from other forms of qualitative research.
Thesecond aspect of ethnography highlighted by Watson-Gegeo's definition at the beginning of the last paragraph concerns interpretation. This implies that ethnography is more than good descript ion ,and that a focus on culture requires ethnographers to make senseof whattheyhave observed. Hammersley (1994) states that the 'analysis of data involves interpretation of the meaningsand functions ofhuman actions'(2).Wolcott arguesthat an ethnographer'staskrequire s going beyond chronicling events to developing a'theory ofcultural behaviour'(1987 :41). The ethnographer must be actively engaged in developing this theory byinferringitfromthewords and actions of the peoplebeing studied. This raises an issue about how one accounts for the role oftheinterpreter's ownpersonal history in the process of interpretation: 'if there are no innocent texts,there are no privileged interpretations' (Thomas 1995: 18). Pierce (1995),drawin gfrom the work of critical educational and ethnographic researcherssuch as Weiler (1988) and Simon and Dippo (1986), believes that the personal histories of researchers cannot be separated from the process of interpretation (the production of knowledge). This she feels should be madeexplicit, and illustrates this point in a descriptionof her personal experience of doctoralresearchinto the natural learningexperiences offive immigrant womeninCanada. Shedescrib eshowshe was an active participant in the study, and how she was aware that her own history, experience and identity'intersected in diverse and complex wayswiththeprogressoftheresearch' (Pierce 1995:
573).
Toachieve the ethnographicgoal ofproviding 'a descriptive and interpretive-explanatory account' (Watson-Gegeo 1988: 577) of a group's behaviour in a given context, implies long-term, systematic and holistic observation. The necessityfor holistic observation is because any event orbehaviourneeds to be describedand analysed in relationto the whole system of which it is a
part, as an integrated not as an isolated phenomenon. For my research topic it was be necessary to understand how the learning and teaching of writing in the classrooms of an urban ex-DET school is embedded in increasingly larger contexts such as the school, the education and examination system, the community in which the school is located, and the wider society. My research also needed to uncover how these different contexts impact on the learning and teaching of writing and provide explanations for the outcomes in that particular school context. As mentioned in the introduction, I did my research by working in the school for two and a half years teaching a standard nine class each year, and continued my contact with the school up to the present time. An holistic understanding of what shapes the teaching and learning of writing in those classrooms required seeing those processes in relation to the relevant micro- and macro- contextual layers in which they are embedded.
The above broad description of the nature of ethnographic research needs to be deepened by an explanation of important principles which underlie such an approach.Firstly, a cornerstone of ethnography is the attempt to elicit the participants' understandings ofthe contexts in which they are observed and of their behaviour in those contexts. This is referred to as an emic analysis or description. It tries to uncover the ways in which participants interpret behaviour, events and situations in order to acquire a knowledge of categories and rules they must know in order to operate in the context being studied. Investigating behaviour in its own terms,as described above, also means that the perspectives and interpretations of participants in the context/s being investigated are incorporated in the descriptive language they themselves employ. For example, as far as my research is concerned I have used literate life histories (which will be discussed later in this chapter) as a means of gaining pupils' perspectives and experience of the learning and teaching ofwriting in the community and school I have investigated. Thus hopefully I will be able to record their perceptions in their words, which will be clearly distinct from my interpretation of their words. These literate life histories (LLHs) from the pupils were collected by means of interviews and it is important that they were 'carried out so as to promote the unfolding of emic cultural knowledge in its most heuristic, natural form' (Spindler and Spindler 1987: 19). In addition, information was gathered by interviewing teachers about their literate histories, teacher training and experience of teaching in the school, as well as by observing teachers in their classrooms.This information is linked to an analysis of syllabuses and other official documents
in order to understand how these impact on perceptions of writing and how it is taught. The multilayered nature of the data collected would require an understanding that there would be differences in attitudes and conceptualisation between teachers and pupils and within these two groups.
Another aspect of investigating behaviour in its own terms is that one aims to capture 'thelocal meaningsthat happenings have for the people involved in them' (Erickson, 1986:p.12 1-2). This means that one should aim to find the meanings that are particular to the set of individuals who use these meanings as well as particular to the moment oftheir use. My LLHs should therefore be able to capture what essay writing means to the pupils that I have interviewed ie what meaning they give to it as well as being sensitive to the fact that experiences may vary across pupils and across time as new knowledge or input affects individuals' attitudes and perceptions.
A further principle of ethnographic research which Watson-Gegeo emphasises is that it is 'concerned with group rather than individual characteristics because cultural behaviour is by definition shared behaviour'(1988: 577). So while the ethnographer might be concerned with the individual and observing individual behaviour, it will be for the purpose of investigating what an individual's behaviour has to say about group perceptions and behaviour. Thus the perceptions of, and attitudes towards, writing that the LLHs of individual pupils reveal will be significant in terms of what they reveal about the prevailing attitudes and perceptions of the group they represent. However, commentators state that when it comes to the task of describing and interpreting cultural behaviour, then the direct representation of the participants' view ofreality (emic analysis) cannot stand on its own (Spindler and Spindler 1987: 4). Watson-Gegeo states that an emic analysis precedes an etic analysis which translates the emic analysis into a form and vernacular understandable to a wider audience (such as social scientists),which would allow for useful comparisons across languages, settings and cultures (1988: 579). The etlmographer thus attempts to develop a theory of the setting under study (in my case how writing is taught and learned in a particular school) and then to generalise, through etic analyses, to other settings studied in a particular way. As mentioned before, an important motivation behind this study has been the question of the link between the teaching and learning of writing and access to wider realms of social action and power. This is particularly pertinent in the context of South African
education where separate education systems have legally existed until 1996 with very unequal provision and outcomes across those systems.De factohuge differences still exist across schoo Is and the vast majority of pupils in South Africa will school in a context similar to the one in this study; an under resourced environment where the pupils and teachers are not mother-tongue speakers of English (in this case Zulu speakers). Teachers in these schools are generally less qualified than teachers in other schools. Their practice will reflect their training and the 'traditions' of practice that have developed in those schools and in the particular school that is the subject of this study. An ethnographic study of the teaching and learning practices surrounding writing in a particular school will enable useful comparisons with other schools in South Africa and elsewhere.Itcould also provide useful insights around the issues of power and access that could inform the content and practice of teaching writing in other contexts.
The above discussion on etic analysis indicates that ethnographic research is bothcomparative and critical. It is comparative in that it seeks to make generalisations about behaviour across particular situations, for example, across school-based practices of teaching writing in different school contexts.Itis also thus 'inherently critical' (Erickson 1988: 1087) in that it seeks to uncover the 'customary reality' of everyday events which participants tend to take for granted. Erickson states that 'everyday life' is often invisible to the participants because it is so familiar 'we do not realize the pattern in our actions as we perform them' (ibid), and also because people have invested in this reality. Consequently they might not want to face its contradictions because this threatens established practice and power relations. An ethnographic approach would thus 'make the familiar strange and interesting again' (Erickson 1986: 121) and at the same time bring to the surface the hidden reality of everyday practices. This would enable one to bring comparative and critical reflection to bear on this customary reality. Ethnographic research achieves this through detailed and systematic study of a situation by both creating 'a descriptive and interpretive- explanatory account' (Watson-Gegeo 1988: 577), and by employing multiple sources of information to verify the interpretation of this reality. An ethnographic study of the customary practices surrounding the learning and teaching of writing in a standard nine class in a school should uncover the hidden factors, assumptions, values, and attitudes driving these practices. This would allow informed critical reflection on those practices which could have implications for curriculum reform in a number of contexts and educational levels such as matriculation
examinations, teacher training, and school syllabuses.
The issue of the genera1isability of ethnographic research findings raises a number of issues surrounding research methods, triangulation ofdata, and the use ofquantitative data. Heath (1983) expresses it very clearly:
"So what?" is a question sometimes asked of the detailed descriptions provided by anthropologists of minutiae. To what extent is material and the sense of a particular phenomenon developed for one social group generalizab1e to other social groups? The same question can certainly be asked of studies of a single school or classroom or situation within a formal educational setting (41).
Commentators such as Lazaraton (1995) and Watson-Gegeo (1988) point to the need for triangulation ofdata and the use ofquantitative methods, both to validate findings in regard to the implicit rules surrounding participants' behaviour in a situation,and also to meet requirements of generality and comparison across classroom contexts. Triangulation refers to the juxtaposition of data from different sources and different research methods such as participant-observation, interviewing and surveys, and is seen as crucial in the development of valid findings in ethnographic work.However, Lazaraton (1995) makes the point that quantification per se does not ensure generalisabi1ity to other contexts and that thisis always a problem in ethnographic research. Itis often focused on a particular group in a particular situation, and on understanding the implicit rules that govern that group's behaviour in that situation. She also warns that issues of research methodology are 'also issues about legitimacy and power' (465).She cites the political reality of the differences in access to generalisable data between teachers on the one hand and researchers on the other, and that we cannot divorce this reality from arguments about rigorous research.
As far as my research is concerned my central core of data comes from literate life history interviewswith standard nine pupils that I taught. This is triangulated with data from a number of different sources collected in different ways. The following sources of data were used:
I collected data from marking matriculation English examination papers identifying the range of genres represented in the examination; quantifying the students' choice of topics
in the examination; and gaining first hand knowledge about the criteria employed in the assessment of the essays. The purpose of this was to try and see what 'messages' were likely to have come down from the examination for both teachers and pupils about what was considered important and relevant in essay writing. This, I felt, would provide some explanation for the teaching and writing practices I was encountering, both in the classes I taught, and in the school as a whole.
Participant-observation ofclasses also took place to see how writing was taught and what sort of writing activities pupils were involved in. This took the form of observation of individual lessons and also by following a class around from lesson to lesson over a number of different school days. I was thus able to quantify the amount of writing done, observe what sort ofwriting they did, and record how they were expected to approach the different writing tasks by the teacher.
Another source of data was the syllabus guides, teacher schedules and other guidelines sent by the education department. These had a bearing on how teachers view their tasks and revealed what expectations there were of them from education authorities.
Lastly I analysed pupils' essays on different tasks to gain insights into their understanding of the linguistic and structural task demands of different genres. Thus I felt that I had gathered information from a number of sources using different methods and that this would give me a valid and comprehensive 'descriptive and interpretive-explanatory account' (Watson-Gegeo 1988) ofthe learning and teaching of writing in the context that I was investigating.
A final principle of ethnographic research that needs to be considered is the role of theory in the research process. While the aim of investigating behaviour in its own terms and collecting participants' perceptions in their own descriptive language might seem conducive to a totally inductive process, it is important to realise that a prior theoretical framework is important to direct the 'researcher's attention to certain aspects of situations and certain kinds of research questions' (Ibid: 578). The role of theory is to guide observation in terms of the kinds of evidence that will
,
be significant in providing answers to research questions. However, induction, intuition and 'extensive firsthand presence' (Erickson 1986: 140) are vital and allow research questions and processes to be modified during the ongoing process of data collection. Theory helps
ethnographers to direct their research efforts and to evaluate the significance of answers to 'research questions posed at the beginning ofthe study and developed while in the field' (Watson- Gegeo 1988: 578).