Today in class we started talking about a few instances in Ways With Words where it is not entirely clear on what basis/data Heath draws some of her conclusions. The ones mentioned in class generally (though not specifically yet? I don't think?) were related to the major topic of the study, literacy. However, one place where I wrote "how does she know this?" in the margin was in this passage on page 72:
[talking about Darrett] "His friends do not come into Trackton, because either he does not want Trackton to see his big-city buddy's Cadillac, or he knows his buddy's entrance will seem to confirm for Trackton respectables his 'wild big-time' life".
These seem very much like hunches to me... I'm thinking these could be hypothesized as reasons after spending some time in the community (as she did), but they could just as well be guessed after only a little time spent in the community, so why not ask Darrett himself? Overall, since this is not really related to a literacy practice, I don't suppose it's the most important issue of trustworthiness to have to resolve with Heath, but still, How does she know this? If I am to rely on this account (which I think actually leads more to validity than to scientific reliability, but I'm still weak on those nuances), I need to trust all details, not just those related to literacy... and I'm not too sure about this one. But then again, sometimes I'm pretty picky.
Writing Fieldnotes
14 years ago
I think this is an important point in regards to how we write up our research. For instance, maybe she really did ask him, but didn't indicate that. So, I think you are correct that in order to trust what is written in an ethnography, we will still look for the evidence.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your insightful comments. One thing that Marthy Hammersley talks about as he describes validity of ethnographic research is the sufficiency of evidence in ethnographic accounts. He points out that the validity of any kind of claim can be challanged by the readers. We can even challange and question further evidence that is given to us. Yet, the question is: where do we actually stop? Given the descriptions Heath provides in her first two chapters, she convinces the readers about the validity of her claims with her detailed writing. We could reasonably accept her claims based on the detailed "thick descriptions" she provides and the transcriptions of the community participants she includes in her writing.
ReplyDeleteYou are raising some very good points about the credibility of the researchers in ethnographic fields. Researchers with ethnographic understanding are expected to not only write from their own point of views but also from the fellow researchers and the readers of their ethnographic accounts by foreseeing the possible judgements and critisizms... That's why the ethnographers need to be prepared to provide detailed evidence to convince the audience. I'll try to make a copy of a book chapter (by Hammersely) that directly deals with this issue.