User:Jailbreaklee/sandbox

Critical ethnography
Critical ethnography is conventional ethnography with a political purpose.

-Jim Thomas, Doing Critical Ethnography (1993)

Preface
This Wikipedia web page serves the researchers with basic background knowledge about ethnographer and who are interested in critical ethnography. My first

time to enter into the camp of critical ethnography is December 2013. My own teaching and learning experiences in China and Canada form my own understanding

about critical ethnography. Here, I position myself as a beginning critical ethnographer to share and discuss with my readers in a more dialogical (Booth et

al. 2008) and introductive way. And this Wikipedia web page devotes more attention to a basic framework of critical ethnography from a theoretical perspective.

The more readings I read about critical ethnography, the more challenge I feel- “this world-alas! - is messy, complex and rather unpredictable”

(Blommaert, 2010, p.27). But I believe that the main aim of critical ethnography is to unfold make our world more messy, complex and unpredictable by sharing

multiple but unique stories of different peoples with a micro-and-macro perspective (for example, daily communications and the role of the nation-state). So

I would like to share a TED talk named “The danger of a single story” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Ihs241zeg) to start our dialogue. Chimmanda

Adichie’s TED talk always reminds me the danger to hear and can only hear one story to people around me and people I seldom know or know nothing about them. In the end, sincere appreciation goes to Li Zhangyan, my friend in China, who helps with creating,editing and posting this web page.

Now,are you ready? Let’s go together!

-Han Bing

1) The ethnographic tradition in Anthropology (Madison, 2012)
Anthropology was established as an academic discipline during the middle of the nineteenth century. In the beginning, the questionnaire was the main method the missionaries, traders, sailors, explorers, and colonial administrators used to obtain data from the population that inhabited their local outposts or stations. The questionnaires were then sent back to the colonial metropolis for the “armchair” ethnologists to interpret (Davis, 1999, p.60). Toward the end of the century, more ethnologists financed their own expeditions to “far off lands” for the purpose of conducting surveys. These surveys were generally based upon predetermined questions for the interests and benefit of the colonial empire (Davis, 1999, p. 68). The limitations, distortions, and superficiality of these accounts created a growing unrest and called for longer engagements in these research locations in the early years of the twentieth century. This was the foundation of ethnographic research. Want to know more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnography

2) The Chicago School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_(sociology))
In sociology and later criminology, the Chicago School (sometimes described as the Ecological School) was the first major body of works emerging during the 1920s and 1930s specialising in urban sociology, and the research into the urban environment by combining theory and ethnographic fieldwork in Chicago, now applied elsewhere. The Chicago School is best known for its urban sociology and for the development of the symbolic interactionistapproach. It has focused on human behavior as determined by social structures and physical environmental factors, rather than genetic and personal characteristics. Biologists and anthropologists have accepted the theory of evolution as demonstrating that animals adapt to their environments. As applied to humans who are considered responsible for their own destinies, members of the School believed that the natural environment which the community inhabits is a major factor in shaping human behavior, and that the city functions as a microcosm.

Want to know more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_(sociology)

3) Postpositivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpositivism; Denzin, 2001)
In philosophy and models of scientific inquiry, postpositivism (also called postempiricism) is a metatheoretical stance that critiques and amends positivism. While positivists believe that the researcher and the researched person are independent of each other, postpositivists accept that theories, background, knowledge and values of the researcher can influence what is observed. However, like positivists, postpositivists pursue objectivity by recognizing the possible effects of biases. Postpositivism critique the basic assumptions of positivism outlined by Denzin (2001):

(1)There is a reality that can be objectively interpreted;

(2) the researcher as a subject must be separate from any representation of the object researched;

(3) generalizations about the object of research are “free from situational and temporal constraints” (p.44);

(4) there is a cause and effect for all phenomena;

(5) the researcher’s analysis should be objective and “value-free” (p.44).

In contrast, postpositivists believe that human knowledge is based not on unchallengeable, rock-solid foundations, but rather upon human conjectures. As human knowledge is thus unavoidably conjectural, the assertion of these conjectures is warranted, or more specifically, justified by a set of warrants, which can be modified or withdrawn in the light of further investigation. However, postpositivism is not a form of relativism, and generally retains the idea of objective truth. Postpositivists believe that a reality exists, like positivists do, though they hold that it can be known only imperfectly and probabilistically.

Want to know more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpositivism

II.Critical ethnography: An introduction
[Power] is exerted by some particular institutions, such as local government, the policy, the army. These institutions transmit the orders, apply them and punish people who don’t obey. But I think that the political power is also existed by a few other institutions [for example, schools and universities] which seem to have nothing in common with the political power, which seem to be independent but which actually are not. -Michel Foucault, The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On human nature (2006)

1)	Introducing some critical scholars
	Pierre Bourdieu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flz6shD3g2s)

	Michel Foucault (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj8SImrtdZc)

	Antonio Gramsci (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exe5U3kFU5g)

2)	Foucault and critique
Critique is to deconstruct and reinvent those epistemological certainties that foreclose alternative possibilities for ordering and reordering authoritive regimes of truth and to discern and unveil the relationship between mechanisms of coercion and what constitute “knowledge”. Critique occurs when a subject gives itself the right to question “truth” as “truth” operates through power and to question power as it operates through “truth”. It is to care for the self as a subject that is in formation and meanings that circumscribe your subjecthood in advance of your coming into being. Critique is the courage to break open “the limits of what I might become and the limits of what I might risk knowing.” (Madison, 2012, p. 15-16)

2.	Defining the term “critical”: What is critical in critical ethnography (CE)?
CE begins with an ethical obligation of a researcher to address processes of unfairness or injustice. CE scholars thus define the term “critical” which distinguish CE from the more general term “ethnography”. Madison (2012, p.5) contends that “the critical ethnographer take us beneath surface appearances, disrupts the status quo, and unsettles both neutrality and take-for-granted assumptions by bringing to light underlying and obscure operations of power and control.” She further outlines the term “critical” from a researcher’s perspective (Madison, 2012, p. 5-6):

(1)The critical ethnographer moves from “what is” to “what could be” (Denzin, 2001; Noblit, Flores, & Murillo, 2004) by examining social conditions as the point of department for research (Tomas, 1993);

(2) the critical ethnographer makes the voices and experiences of subjects, whose stories are usually restrained and out of research, accessible in order to emancipate knowledge and discourses of social justice.

For me, the core of emancipating knowledge and discourses of social justice is to make life better for all social beings, which “make a difference in others’ world (Madison, 2012, p. 10) and our own world. I take the position that CE researchers are also social beings with multiple identities. Therefore, we are brought into the issue of the researcher’s positionality in CE in next section. Let’s move to next section and talk about the researcher’s positionality together!

III.Positioning the researcher: where do I locate myself in CE?
The experiences in your life, both past and present, and who you are as a unique individual will lead you to certain questions about the world. -D. Soyini Madison, Critical Ethnography: Methods, ethnics, and performance (2012)

The way we see things is affected by what we know and what we believe. -John Berger, Ways of seeing (2008) Norton Peirce (1995), in her early works, argues that there is no objective and unbiased stance in critical research. CE easily gets critique on the researcher’s subjective and biased stance throughout the research and report process. Existing scholars (see Noblit et al. 2004; Creswell, 2013; Bryman, et al. 2012) offer very helpful suggestion to cope with the above critique. This is to report the researcher’s positionality. Therefore, “critical ethnographers must explicitly consider how their own acts of studying and representing people and situations are acts of domination even as critical ethnographers reveal the same in what they study” (p.3). Reporting the researcher’s positionality is vital with two main reasons (Madison, 2012, p. 7-10):

(1) it forces us to acknowledge our own power, privilege, and biases”, p.8) just as CE denounces the power structures that surround our subjects.

(2) CE should critique not only the notion of objectivity but also the notion of subjectivity.

(3) Doing fieldwork is a personal experience, in which our intuition, sense, and emotions are powerfully woven into and inseparable from the process.

Therefore, our position as critical ethnographers is to critically understand that we bring our belongings with us (Madison, 2012) into the fieldwork and writing process. I believe that our audiences are not only interested in the voices and experiences of the subjects in the CE report but the stories of the critical ethnographers. In other words, our audiences may wonder: Could you tell your own stories as a CE researcher? Why do you choose this as your research interest? I define this as “stories behind stories”. Sometimes, I find that it is hard to distinguish the stories about the subjects from the stories of the CE researchers, especially when they have similar life or study experiences as marginalized people. Reflecting and sharing the CE researcher’s positionality with audience in reporting is necessary. Therefore, I agree Davis’ argument that CE could be understood as “reflexive ethnography” in terms of the researcher’s positionality. CE should be a “turning back” on researchers ourselves (Davis, 1999) as both researchers and human beings.

IV.Interpretive frameworks: Become critical in and through what in CE?
Critical thinking challenges “truth” in ways that subvert taken-for-granted ways of thinking. -Jim Thomas, Doing Critical ethnography (1993)

The real political task in a society such as ours is to criticize the workings of institutions that appear to be both neutral and independent, to criticize and attack them in such a matter that the political violence that has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them. -Michel Foucault, The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On human nature (2006)

1.	 Why critical social theories are important for CE?
As ethnographer, we employ theory at several levels in our analysis (Madison, 2012, 14-15):

(1) to articulate and identify hidden forces and ambiguities that operate beneath appearances;

(2) to guide judgments and evaluations emanating from our discontent;

(3) to direct our attention to the critical expressions within different interpretive communities relative to their unique symbol systems, customs, and codes;

(4) to demystify the ubiquity and magnitude of power;

(5) to provide insight and inspire acts of justice;

(6) to name and analyze what is intuitively felt from the perspective of the subjects.

Want to know more?

Madison, D. S. (2012). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance (pp. 1-18). Los Angeles, London: Sage.

1) Theory and method: To what extent they are different?
Madison (2012) contends that method and theory are reciprocally linked, although they are fistinguishable. Drawing on her own work, Madison (2012) further points out that they are sometimes at a discreet distance in specific situations in CE. Put it simply, at some moments, method and theory are separable. At another moment, they may become seamless.

2) What is an ethnographic method? (Spradley, 1980; Glesne, 1999; Madison, 2012)
Spradley lays out a methodological sequence (1980, p. 27): (1) select a problem;

(2) formulate a hypothesis;

(3) collect data;

(4) analyze data;

(5) write up the results.

Glesne outlines a similar methodological procedures(1999, p.4):

(1) state a purpose;

(2) pose a problem or state a question;

(3) define a research population;

(4) develop a time framework;

(5) collect and analyze data;

(6) present outcomes.

Informed by Spradley and Glesne’s works, Madison summarizes the ethnographic procedure in CE:

(1) start where you are (“who am I?”);

(2) Be a part of an interpretive community (“who else has written about my topic?”);

(3) Bracket your subject (the purpose of your research and study);

(4) The research design and lay summary ( field work preparation);

(5) interviews an observations;

(6) code and log data;

''' Want to know more? '''

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Longman. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Madison, D. S. (2012). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance (pp. 19-50). Los Angeles, London: Sage.

1) Historical materialism
a. A brief introduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism)

Historical materialism is a methodological approach to the study of society, economics, and history first articulated by Karl Marx (1818–1883) as the materialist conception of history. It is a theory of socioeconomic development according to which changes in material conditions (technology and productive capacity) are the primary influence on how society and the economy are organized. Historical materialism looks for the causes of developments and changes in human society in the means by which humans collectively produce the necessities of life. Social classes and the relationship between them, plus the political structures and ways of thinking in society, are founded on and reflect contemporary economic activity. Since Marx's time, the theory has been modified and expanded by thousands of Marxist thinkers. It now has many Marxist and non-Marxist variants.

b. The basic tenets of historical materialism (Cohn, 2012, p. 103-105) -The role of the individual, the State, and social groups -The nature and purpose of international economic relations (neolibalism) -the relationship between politics and economics -the causes and effects of globalization

In the Marxist view, the bourgeoisie promote globalization to increase their profits and to give their dominance over the proletariat. Both Marxisits and liberals see the technological advances as resulting from natural human drives for economic progress, while Marxists believe that they result from historically specific impulse of capitalist development (Scholte, 2005, p.128-130). Both historical materialists and liberals see globalization as a pervasive force, while historical materialists treat globalization as a negative process that prevents states from safeguarding domestic welfare and employment (Cohn, 2012). However, I take an opposite position. For me, sates still function its guard role but in a hidden way in the name of “deregulation” and “neoliberal” (Mattelart, 1994).

Want to know more?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism)

2) Dependency theory (Cohn, 2012, p. 108-109)
a. A brief introduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory; Cohn, 2012)

Dependency theory is the notion that resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and underdeveloped states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. It is a central contention of dependency theory that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the "world-system". (We are going to talk about the world system in the next subtitle. Please keep it in mind here.) Elsewhere, Cohn (2012) summarizes that dependency theory focuses on capitalist development, and supports the replacement of capitalism with socialism.

b. Main argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory; Cohn, 2012, p.108-109; Madison, 2012; p.59-60)

The theory arose as a reaction to modernization theory, an earlier theory of development which held that all societies progress through similar stages of development, that today's underdeveloped areas are thus in a similar situation to that of today's developed areas at some time in the past, and that therefore the task in helping the underdeveloped areas out of poverty is to accelerate them along this supposed common path of development, by various means such as investment, technology transfers, and closer integration into the world market. Dependency theory rejected this view, arguing that underdeveloped countries are not merely primitive versions of developed countries, but have unique features and structures of their own; and, importantly, are in the situation of being the weaker members in a world market economy. Dependency theory also argues that advanced capitalist states either underdevelop LDCs (least developed cities) or prevent them from achieving autonomous development (Cohn, 2012, p. 108-109). For me, the term neocolonialism appropriately fit into the argument about dependency theory here and now. The term neocolonialism refers to “the economic and political control –without assuming direct governance-by a powerful country over its former colonies or over less economically positioned countries where the poorer countries continue to remain economically dependent on the rich, industrialized nations through international institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization” (Madison, 2012, p. 59). Free markets, free trade, privatization of public-sectoreconomics, and deregulation are central values of neoliberalism (Madison, 2012, p. 64). The concern of neocolonialism is with contemporary power relations and global imbalances (Madison, 2012, p. 59). For me, all these mentioned above critically unfold the dynamic and complicate relations among different nation-states in the world system by examining inequities of poor countries in the form of trade and other economic factors. Now, let’s take a look at “the world-system” together!

Want to know more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory Cohn, T. H. (2003). Global political economy, 6th ed. (pp. 103-130). New York: Longman. Madison, D. S. (2012). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance (pp. 59-65). Los Angeles, London: Sage.

3) World-systems Theory
a. A brief introduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-systems_theory)

World-systems theory (also known as world-systems analysis or the world-systems perspective), a multidisciplinary, macro-scale approach to world history and social change, emphasizes the world-system (and not nation states) as the primary (but not exclusive) unit of social analysis. "World-system" refers to the inter-regional and transnational division of labor, which divides the world into core countries, semi-periphery countries, and the periphery countries. Core countries focus on higher skill, capital-intensive production, and the rest of the world focuses on low-skill, labor-intensive production and extraction of raw materials. This constantly reinforces the dominance of the core countries. Nonetheless, the system has dynamic characteristics, in part as a result of revolutions in transport technology, and individual states can gain or lose their core (semi-periphery, periphery) status over time. For a time, some countries become the world hegemon; during the last few centuries, as the world-system has extended geographically and intensified economically, this status has passed from the Netherlands, to the United Kingdom and (most recently) to the United States of America. b. Main argument (Wallerstein, 2004; Cohn, 2012, p. 110-112)

The main unit of analysis in world-systems theory is the world-system, which has “a single division of labor and multiple cultural systems” (Wallerstein, 1979, p.5). There are two types of world-systems: world-empires and world economies. World-empires have a common political system; in contrast, world economies have many political systems. In a world-empire, a single political entity often uses coercive power to control the economic division of labor between the core and the periphery. The modern world-system is a world-economy, because no single state has conquered the entire core region. Instead, states engage in a “hegemonic sequence,” in which various hegemonic states rise and fall. Now, it is an appropriate moment to invite and introduce the notion of “hegemony” in neo-Gramscian analysis. Let’s go together!

Want to know more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-systems_theory Cohn, T. H. (2003). Global political economy, 6th ed. (pp. 103-130). New York: Longman. Wallerstein, I. M. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Wallerstein, I. M. (1979). The capitalist world-economy (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4) Neo-Gramscian analysis
a. A brief introduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Gramscianism)

Neo-Gramscianism applies a critical theory approach to the study of International Relations (IR) and the Global Political Economy (GPE) that explores the interface of ideas, institutions and material capabilities as they shape the specific contours of the state formation. The theory is heavily influenced by the writings of Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), a theorist and social activist who was former leader of the Italian Communist party. Neo-Gramscianism analyzes how the particular constellation of social forces, the state and the dominant ideational configuration define and sustain world orders. In this sense, the Neo-Gramscian approach breaks the decades-old stalemate between the so-called realist schools of thought, and the liberal theories by historicizing the very theoretical foundations of the two streams as part of a particular world order, and finding the interlocking relationship between agency and structure.

b. Main argument: The notion of hegemony in neo-Gramscian analysis (Cohn, 2012, p.112-114)

Gramscians view hegemony in terms of class. A dominate class that rules only by coercion is not hegemonic in the Gramscian term because its power does not extend throughout society. To attain hegemony, the dominant class must gain the active consent of subordinate class on the basis of shared values, ideas, and material interests. In contrast, neo-Gramscians use the term hegemony in a cultural sense to connote the complex of ideas social groups use to assert their legitimacy and authority, and they extend the concept of hegemony to include nonstate actors (for example, international banks) and states.

Want to know more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Gramscianism Cohn, T. H. (2003). Global political economy, 6th ed. (pp. 103-130). New York: Longman. Bieler, A., & Morton, A. D. (2004). A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change: neo-Gramscian perspectives in International Relations. Capital & Class, 28(1), 85-113.

V. Critical ethnographic sociolinguistics: A critical ethnography of language and identity
Language is the place where actual and possible forms of social organization and their likely social and political consequences are defined and contested. - Chris Weedon, Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory (1997)

In this section, I will narrow down my focus to a sociolinguistic study which employs CE. I am still in the process of reading it. But I cannot wait to share with you because of their insightful analysis about language in society! I will also integrate other scholars’ arguments when I outline Monica Heller’s Critical ethnographic sociolinguistics. Now, let’s go!

Drawing on an ethnographic sociolinguistics, Heller (2010, p. 10) counts for

(1) the ways in which the production and distribution of resources are regulated, as well as how values and meaning are attributed to resources;

(2) how symbolic and material resources are exchangeable, given the conditions of the market, and what allows for stability and change in those conditions;

(3) how social structuration positions social actors in ways that constrain their access to resources and hence their ability to mobilize them in specific moments;

(4) how these constraints are reproduced or changed in terms of the obstacles an opportunities social actors encounter. She (Heller, 2010) further points out the beauty of an ethnographic sociolinguistics is to follow and unfold social process across time and space, and to see how agency and social structure engage each other under specific political economic conditions.

In the ethnographic sociolinguistics, the core term language guides us to see and understand the society (Heller, 2010, p. 36-39) through the following ways: (1) Language as linguistic capital (Bourdieu, 1991) unequally distributed among different social actors, and elements of which have different values in social market;

(2) language is involved in the process of organizing unequal relations of production and consumption to legitimize the inequality;

(3) language does not only play an important role in boundary making and boundary maintenance, but plays an important role to get access to other forms of resources;

(4) it’s more neutral to use language to operate processes of inclusion and exclusion (Heller, 2010), to make individual judgments ( Han, 2014), and also legitimize these processes (see Blommaert et al, 2005), especially when making judgment to people based on gender and race is not acceptable ( Monzo and Rueda, 2009).