Shifting boundaries in ethnographic methodology

Hammersley (2006) in his position paper ‘Ethnography: problems and prospects’ (3) – published in the first issue of this journal – chose to focus almost entirely upon ‘contested’ issues relating to the conduct or process of ethnographic research, and made no reference to issues related to the dissemination or (re)presentation of ethnographic data. Such an omission was perhaps surprising given that over the last 20 years a paradigmatic shift or re-envisioning of qualitative and ethnographic research has occurred critiquing the ways in which data can and should be generated, analysed and portrayed.

In essence the complex, changing and contested global, societal and cultural contexts of the twenty-first century have given rise to significant methodological questions for educational ethnographers. For instance, issues such as negotiating access to increasingly diverse sites and people, reaching the marginalised, disempowered, victimised and oppressed, power differentials and standpoints, sampling of time, space and people, and speaking to and engaging with multiple audiences, and the ethics of engagement, are all fundamental and increasing concerns. The question posed is, how well are we equipped, as an educational ethnographic community, to engage with and analyse these complexities and moreover portray them in a way that can capture the sensuous array of sights, sounds, and smells as well as represent the traumas, passions and emotions, of twenty-first century lived experiences? Such a challenge arguably calls for a re-working or shifting of ethnographic methodological boundaries, and a interdisciplinary recognition of the need and potential for embracing more evocative and sensuous arts-based forms of working; a synergy of social science and the arts creating new opportunities which challenge orthodox ethnographic conceptions and practice. This special issue speaks to that quest and provides a voice and space to those committed to fusing educational ethnography and the arts.

I would like to thank the editorial board for their willingness to shift their own perceptual boundaries to provide a platform for the publication of articles, some of which one might not necessary expect to see featured in Ethnography and Education. Indeed, this special issue does acknowledge the continued contested nature of working in new ethnographic ways and for that reason has included an article by the notable ‘old school’ educational ethnographer Geoffrey Walford, an author who could be described at the very least as sceptical of certain arts-based developments labelled as ethnography. The inclusion of the Walford paper is important as it provides some degree of balance and raises issues and concerns which those committed to more innovative forms of ethnographic working may need to be cognisant and possibly address.

In effect the special issue is intended to provide a reference and debating point for those working within a critically evolving qualitative paradigm. It seeks to be of interest not only to those already committed to new forms of ethnographic working and the evolving concerns they face, but also to those who are curious to know and learn more about what arts-based ethnographic practitioners do and why they do it.

In putting together the special issue I made invitations to key authors who are either critical commentators in the field and/or who embrace different art forms – drama, poetry, performance art, fictive writing and digital video – in their work, and reflect analytically and critically upon their practice. Each submission (including my own) went through an independent refereeing process. The result I believe is a compilation of leading edge work currently located at the methodological boundaries of twenty-first century ethnographic educational research thinking and endeavours.

The collection of articles opens with a thought-provoking mosaic essay or ‘manifesto of sorts’ (255) from Norman Denzin entitled ‘A critical performance pedagogy that matters’. In his piece Denzin acknowledges the intermeshing of performance and globality, and critically and evocatively calls for qualitative researchers in a post 9/11 milieu to embrace methodologies which shift and transcend the ‘constraints of a lingering, politically and racially conservative postpositivism’ (256).

In contrast the next article by Geoffrey Walford ‘For ethnography’, while not intended as ‘a response to the other papers within this special issue’ (271), nonetheless seeks ‘to promote what might be called a traditional formof ethnography’ (271). In his writing Walford provides a critique of certain ‘newer forms of qualitative inquiry’ (271) and acknowledges that while ethnographic approaches change, also contends that such developments must not be at the cost of sacrificing methodological rigour or ‘some recognisable continuity with what has been regarded as ethnography in the last century’ (271).

In my paper entitled ‘The ethnographer as impresario–joker in the (re)presenta-tion of educational research as performance art: towards a performance ethic’, I celebrate the ethnographic turn to performance, but draw on examples from my performance art work, to speak to the need for the maintenance of a strong performance ethic. This call includes the need for the development of a critical community of arts-based ethnographic scholars capable – in a potentially hostile academic environment – of making a rigorous methodological stand. The next article by Andrew Sparkes, ‘Novel ethnographic representations and the dilemmas of judgement’, picks up the theme of rigour. Whereas the previous paper is concerned with the process of performance, Sparkes reflects critically on the ‘informed, principled and responsible decisions’ (301) around criteria (universal or relativist) by which readers might judge the quality of such work. He argues that ethnographers ‘might seek to develop the qualities of connoisseurship as an art of appreciation in order to assist them pass judgement’ (301).

In Jim Mienczakowski's article ‘Pretending to know: ethnography, artistry and audience’ there is further acknowledgement of the embedded performative turn in ethnographic research, but also that this turn comes with critical obligations and purposes for ‘data driven performance methodologies’ (322). In particular Mienczakowski explores the crucial need for those engaged in performance-based ethnographic work to rethink, and redefine ‘the audience–performer–researcher dynamic’ (321) in order to develop a fundamentally important ‘research rich theatre of understanding’ (322).

In reflecting on a literary approach Kjersti VanSlyke-Briggs asks the reader to ‘Consider ethnofiction’ as ‘a valid stylistic writing choice for presenting ethnographic research findings’ (335). VanSlyke-Briggs provides a detailed insight into the challenges and opportunities in adopting an ethnofictive method and in so doing provides an excellent backdrop to the work of Peter Clough featured in the following chapter. Clough in an article entitled ‘Finding God in Wellworth high school: more legitimations of story-making as research’ tells the story of Charlie Cork, a Religious Education teacher ‘I have most certainly met’ (348), to show and tell how the existential complexities of life can be best revealed through arts-based work.

A further literary approach to ethnographic research, lyrically presented by Alison Phipps and Lesley Saunders is that of poetry. Presented in the form of a dialogue between the two authors the article ‘The sound of violets: the ethnographic potency of poetry?’ explores ‘how poetry can interrupt and/or illuminate dominant values in education and in educational research methods’ (357).

The final article in the special issue, ‘Ethnography 2.0: writing with digital video’, features the innovative work of M.L. White. Presented as a personal journal of methodological discovery and critical reflection, M.L. White investigates – with links to digital video extracts of her work – the ethnographic use of digital video technology in an educational setting and ‘considers the implications of digital production, presentation and dissemination of ethnographic educational research knowledge’ (389).

The work of all the authors featured in the special issue help to uncover and unfold a moving educational ethnographic methodological landscape, one to be viewed and traversed by readers. It is possible on reading the articles some individuals may remain sceptical or unconvinced of the need to change from traditional ethnographic approaches. For other readers – hopefully the majority – this special issue will chal-lenge, engage and widen understanding, open up new reflexive horizons, and lead to a re-awakening of what is educationally and ethnographically desirable, achievable and possible.