Christie makes a good point about Rodney’s candor with Wong and willingness to be so honest regarding his personal taste and history. It’s true that he did possess a level of comfort with Wong so as to facilitate a candidness and openness in his discussion with her that he might not have possessed with someone else. At the same time, he was aware of Wong’s purpose in interviewing him, so that might also have affected his answers if there was any information he was hesitant to disclose to someone outside his close circle of friends. However I probably mostly agree with Christie that Wong was able to draw more out or Rodney than someone else might have been able to. Even just personal side notes and jests of conversation might lead to a point that might otherwise remain unexplored.
Regarding my personal experience in writing this ethnography, I would say that I similarly have had more ease in accessing my group, Badmaash, because of knowing a few people in the group. I was surprised at the warm reception I received from the many members I didn’t know at all previous to my introduction to the group by the co-chair that I do know. Had I no affiliation I wonder if I would have been met with the same response, or if my friendship with this chair as well as a few others in the group put me in a different category and consequently less threatening. While this camaraderie with some of the group members certainly has given me access to more information, it at the same time has made me more wary of the details I remark upon and disclose to the public within my work. I have no negative reflections upon or feelings towards the group, it’s just tricky sometimes to know how certain observations or comment might be received. I would in no way want to offend anyone, whether I knew them or not, but am probably more concerned about the consequence of this with friends whom I care about and plan to continue to have relationships with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your situation brings up some interesting issues. Namely, access. I've always been of the opinion that most ethnographies are colored by both the ethnographer's exposure and access to the group at hand. I assume you became interested in working with Badmaash because of your pre-existing friendships and knowledge of the group. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think the issues of familiarity run even deeper than the details you include; familiarity likely gave the impetus for the ethnography. Is that a problem? I don't think so necessarily, but if you view the choice to study one group/culture over another as being important in itself, then I think it is worth examining familiarity for more than its effect on the content of the ethnography.
ReplyDeleteAs to what you include and what you don't, I've interviewed two of my roommates for different projects and it gets a little messy but ultimately, if you transcribe the sessions, I've found that it's pretty easy to figure out what is said to you the ethnographer vs. you the friend. Also, friend-y details aren't probably that interesting to the reader as details about the person and their experience with the culture, anyway. That's a huge generalization, to be sure, but all the same.