What have we learned (Week 1)

From Foster & Kemper (“Anthropological Fieldwork in Cities”) the first thing we learn is that urban anthropology is really a post WWII phenomenon.  Previous to that anthropologists were concerned first with “primitives” and later (1940s), with “peasants.”  Influenced by Malinowski and the British school 1950s/60s, Americans began staying in communities for longer periods, learned the languages instead of relying on translators, and brought improved (and more compact) equipment to the field.  All throughout these times (influenced by Boaz et. al.), the methodology remained consistent--ethnographic fieldwork.  1^st step, “establishing rapport;” 2^nd step, the “in-depth” interviews over time. With few restrictions on travel and the portability of equipment, combined with web 2.0 tools, there is really no place we cannot reach. 

So, when talking about the ethnographic experience, we learn that the urban environments are very different from those bounded, homogeneous communities of yore.  Now, anthropologists might define the population by social group—a religious sect or an occupation.  Drawbacks to conducting urban fieldwork?: You can’t live with the people you study and they see you on their time/schedule.  The good news is that you don’t have to see your informants if you don’t want to—added privacy, more time for r&r.  No matter what, urban anthropology is a thing of the future. This point was also emphasized by Gemelch & Gmelch in their study on placing students in two different fieldwork envrionments: rural Barbados and urban Hobart (Tazmania). [More on them in the Week 2 post]  

I thought the article by Ted Bestor ("Networks, Neighborhoods and Markets: Fieldwork in Tokyo") is really important for what it has to teach us about "doing" ethnography in the field.  Instead of participant observation he prefers the term "inquisitive observation."  He gives us a blow-by-blow account of how to find a "community" in an urban landscape; how to identify "key informants" who can then lead you to the next level of interviewing; and finally, how to maximize your efficiency in narrowing down the information you uncover.  In short, his advice is "choose a network, not a neighborhood."

To refine this concept he gives the example of how he began with the seafood distribution system and branched out until he had a repertoire of informants from several different area of the marketplace, what he calls "parachuting," or dropping in from multiple entry points.  As a result he began to see little, but very important ethnographic details that would be invisible to someone who had not taken the time to build a foundation--colors of baseball caps to designate specific jobs, for example, or, pins on executives at trade show and union meetings. He also talks about chance encounters, such as the janitor who became a key informant.  The single most important point he makes is that we are often interested in what most people would consider "mundane" bits of  information.  Our challenge is to make them see how interesting it is so they will share it with us.