FIELDWORK: Without the Sugarcoat

“Experience is the best teacher”. The quote must have been heard numerous times, and it might appear cliché. Despite its frequent encounters with readers or even writers alike, it remains universally accepted as true, thereby being hailed as timeless. Experience, as derived from the quote, is instrumental in accumulating and revealing empirical evidence. 

In Social Science research, the use of qualitative methodologies and designs is common; thus, becoming imperative in garnering empirical data through experience. Such data will soon be subjected to analysis, interpretation, and eventually be written up. Sounds like a piece of cake, right? The process appears linear, as it follows a structured procedure.

However, if the research is always approached in that manner, it would most definitely lose its significance, rigor, and essence. Experience alone, despite being hailed as timeless and instrumental in the research process, is not enough to reveal the true essence of the study. Having an experience does not automatically mean grasping the process. Likewise, being immersed in the field does not guarantee a clearer understanding of the subject or concept being explored, as unforeseen social forces, both inside and outside, could affect the trajectory of the study. Nonetheless, there must be a clarification on this matter. Indeed, in most academic investigations, experience itself is regarded as instrumental in obtaining insights that physical tools such as questionnaires and the like fail to acquire. However, solely relying on experiences makes the data or insights unrefined. 

Therefore, there must be another element that, when combined with ‘experience’, capacitates the researcher to not only obtain empirical data but also pique the very heart of the study itself. This article presents insights derived from a series of fieldwork conducted in the Ayta Magbukun communities of Bataan Province. It showcases how experiences, paired with prudent and insightful reflections, are instrumental in curating ethnographic undertakings.  

This blog explores the fundamental principles of classical ethnography, as well as the reflections of a novice ethnographer. It serves as an initial glimpse for those who are considering ethnography as their academic approach.

BASIC TENETS OF CLASSICAL ETHNOGRAPHY

Since Indigenous studies are anthropological in nature, the field is expected to utilize anthropological research methodologies. However, it must be noted that such methods should be: (1) decolonized and (2) tailored within the specific context of the study. In cultural anthropology, Ethnography is extensively utilized as a primary method in studying different cultures. 

Ethnography is derived from two Greek words, “ethnos,” which translates to “ human culture” and “graphy” which means “description of”. By its etymology, ethnography means “description of human culture”. According to Clifford Geertz, the purpose of ethnography is to capture the holistic description of one’s culture. Holistic, in this context, refers to literally everything that contributes to its wholeness or the so-called “web of significance”. In most cases, ethnography is reputed as the “Thick Description” of a human culture. Bronislaw Malinowski stated that ethnography is a process of understanding one’s culture from the insider’s point of view (emic). Its purpose is to grasp the subject, in this context, the native’s way of life, free from value judgments. 

Development in anthropological methodologies has sprouted over time and was employed by other anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Margaret Mead, his student.  Their works laid out the features of classical ethnography. In my analysis, ethnography has five main characteristics: (1) Longitudinal, (2) Naturalistic, (3) Reflective, (4) Holistic, and (5) Detailed Description. Such characteristics are the main indicators of classical ethnography, as a scientific process of studying humans in their cultural setting. 

However, through the years, the theory has been tested and challenged by several scholars, one of whom was James Clifford. Clifford challenged Geertz's’ Thick Description as he argued that the essence of culture can never be fully realized in mere description. For him, culture is an assemblage of multitudes of elements, and to unveil its significance, it must be meticulously interpreted. Thus, it prescribes that ethnography is both a thick description and an analysis of a culture. 

Throughout the existence of ethnographical studies, numerous scholars have refined the method, stating that ethnography should not be confined to a single site immersion and is not structured as it may seem. Further developments proposed by anthropologists aspired to tailor the method itself in ways that suit the nature of their study. Therefore, the previously utilized method may be employed anew in studies that yield the same context. As scholars put it, “Ethnography does not have a standard”. Thus, ethnography continuously evolves and becomes complex over time. 

INSIGHTS FROM A NOVICE ETHNOGRAPHER

Now that the technicalities surrounding ethnography have been discussed, this section explicates the reality of conducting ethnographic research in Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICC). Such insights are derived from the experience of a novice ethnographer who's been exposed to several Ayta Communities in the Bataan Province. 

Reading literature is among the fundamental stages of doing ethnography. Doing so informs the researcher about the collaborators (a more inclusive term for ‘participants’), their natural setting, what is already known about the investigation, and the non-negotiable considerations that need to be satisfied prior to immersion. The stages before immersion are already grueling, as several factors must be acknowledged. Among those are the political, social, economic, cultural, and legal aspects that govern the whole process of investigation. 

As a novice ethnographer, I have observed that there are two phases of field immersion: (1) the theoretical and (2) practical. Both phases reinforce each other, sharing the same importance and weight. The first phase is gruesome in the sense that it requires a volume of readings, analysis, and synthesis of ideas in an academically accepted format. The second phase requires mental, physical, and emotional endurance from the researcher. 

My experience of doing ethnography resonated with Bronislaw Malinowski’s. In his book entitled “The Argonauts of the Western Pacific”, he stated: 

“Imagine yourself suddenly set down, surrounded by all your gear, alone on a tropical beach close to a native village, while the launch or dinghy that has brought you sails away out of sight. Since you take up your abode in the compound of some neighbouring white man, trader, or missionary, you have nothing to do but to start at once on your ethnographic work. Imagine further that you are a beginner, without previous experience, with nothing to guide you and no one to help you.”

Malinowski’s words attested to my experience as a novice or a beginner. To contextualize it in a way that most of us can relate to, I would say that the closest emotional experience of being an ethnographer is being forced by your mother to queue in a supermarket and have your purchases punched. Transactions prior to yours were swift, so in any second, it might be your turn. The stress and anxiety that arise from the converging circumstances and the so-called “waiting game” (waiting for your mother and your transaction soon approaching) are similar to a beginner's experience in doing ethnography. 

Provided that fact, I have developed questions in mind: “How do ethnographers overcome the overwhelming emotion associated with field immersion, especially during their very first attempt?” and “Do ethnographers really master the art of the method itself?”. The answers to this question will be provided implicitly. Thus, it is important to read the realizations to obtain the important points. 

1. All aspects must not be neglected 

One important fact about indigenous peoples' way of being and knowing is that they perceive things or objects as “holistic”, meaning that there are aspects aside from their physical form. In some cases, these aspects yield immense importance as the object itself loses its significance without its bearing. The idea is the same as doing ethnography, especially in Indigenous Cultural Communities. It prescribes that all aspects, such as social, cultural, legal, and ethical, must be considered beforehand. The researcher may adhere to this principle by securing permission from the NCIP (National Commission on Indigenous Peoples) and obtaining the “FPIC” from the community that the researcher chose as participants, or, in a more decolonized term, collaborators. 

The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples is a government agency that safeguards the rights and welfare of Indigenous Peoples. As a novice researcher, it is important to seek their permission first before immersing oneself in the community to make sure that no rights, values, or legal requirements are overlooked. It is also imperative to minimize or even eradicate unexpected complications. Likewise, securing the FPIC or the Free, Prior, Informed, and Consent from the community ensures that no cultural standards were violated. Below is a brief description of each letter from the acronym:

Free. It prescribes that the researchers must consult and share their purpose, aspirations, and clear intentions with the community. It must be done following the community’s total participation; in short, no activities must be forced against their will. 

Prior. It is grounded in the assumption that your collaborators must be informed fully, clearly, and meticulously before the conduct of the study and field immersion. 

Informed. The idea is similar to an acquaintance paying a quick visit to your abode. In this context, the acquaintance and the researcher stand on the same ground as the visitor. A visitor, particularly the researcher, must inform the house owner (collaborators) of the purpose, aspirations, and technicalities of the study in layman’s terms. This is to ensure that both agents of the study are at the same pace and abreast of its trajectory. 

Consent - Going back to the visitor example. A visitor, despite your close ties or relationship, should inform you first before stepping inside your domicile. In the case of too much closeness, sometimes this attitude is set aside. However, it is ideally recommended as it is considered basic human etiquette. Similar to the community immersion, the researchers, after doing all the preceding steps, should seek permission from the community or the locals themselves. Now, for instance, the steps were carried out and all concepts and purposes governing the study were already unveiled before the collaborators, but unfortunately, they didn’t allow the study to be conducted in their area. What should the researcher do? Will the study prosper?  Basically, no. The only remedy that a researcher may take is to accept the refusal as it is. 

Securing FPIC from both the community and the national agency for Indigenous peoples is are crucial step in undertaking culturally sensitive research. It ensures that all aspects are taken into careful consideration. Some might treat these steps as mere technicalities, but experience says otherwise. Obtaining the FPIC is an unequivocal sign of willingness to establish relationships with the collaborators.

2. Ethnography is Unpredictable

If there is a word that encapsulates this point, it would be “clueless”. But do not fret because being clueless is completely human, in both ethnography and life, no one has it all figured out. Remember the words of Malinowski: doing an ethnography is like taking a vacation on an island where solitude is the only companion. Doing an ethnography really gets anyone clueless, but the very cluelessness drives oneself to find the clue. 

The emphasis of this point is that ethnography is unstructured. Yes, a researcher could read plenty and voluminous studies related to the current endeavor, but the act itself enriches the theoretical knowledge. However, there is always a gray area that no one is ever prepared for. Ethnography is a method that replicates those in laboratories– the experiments. As for the record, I was fortunate enough to be immersed in a field with my professor. I witnessed the fluidity of ethnographic techniques. 

My professor was conducting an ethnography for his dissertation in the selected provinces of Bataan, where the Aytas’ (Indigenous peoples in Bataan) ancestral land lies. To garner insights from his collaborators, he used different techniques, both conventional and improvised. The former entailed questionnaires arranged in themes, and the latter involved a paper with a written word related to the study’s variables. My professor kept on using the same techniques, but then he realized that ethnography is not a one-size-fits-all technique; it varies from both the person and community (for context, he was employing multi-sited ethnography). As for my observation, the strategy that worked was the “to just get along but be mindful of the points” approach. I will expound on the idea in the next point. 

3. The best technique is the one that yields results 

As a student of social science, it was thought that the discipline itself is fluid, meaning that it does not conform to a universal method of acquiring the truth. In its nature, social science is a soft science, contrary to physics, math, chemistry, and other fields that are categorized as hard sciences. Most educators, particularly in sociology-related courses, provide the most typical explanation of society by comparing it to a laboratory. In both sciences, hard and soft, experiments occur. But the place where such experiments are carried out varies. Experiments under hard sciences occur in a laboratory, while those in social sciences happen outside. 

Each field of discipline employs tools to gather information and eventually subject it to scholarly analysis. For hard sciences, especially the physics-related experiments, procedural tools such as measuring, optical, or even electrical equipment are used to ensure that hypotheses are tested with utmost precision, leading to the attainment of promising conclusions. However, let us look at the other side of “science”. As stated, experiments in social science take place outside. Therefore, what tools are used to obtain facts or truth?

The safest answer, based on the experience of doing ethnography, is….. Nothing. 

In doing ethnography, the best technique and tool that a researcher must employ is the one that yields results. Now, what are those “results”?. During fieldwork, it was observed that each collaborators respond to questions differently, thus yielding different or even varying insights. Responses to the same questions and techniques vary from community to community and person to person. Therefore, the previous question must be reframed. Instead of asking what tools, it should be “what skill(s)”? is/are needed to acquire facts? 

Upon observation, the technique that seemed to work was branded as “get along but be mindful”. Conducting interviews is already challenging, as responses from collaborators are abrupt or unpredictable. There are even instances where their retorts completely deviate from the topic. Therefore, it is important to learn the skill of getting along, as it captures the interest of your collaborators– let them tell you a story. But being mindful is equally important as you get along, so that pertinent facts can also be obtained. 

  Considering the technique resonates with the idea of “hitting two birds with one stone”. Getting along allows the researcher to establish rapport with the collaborators, and being mindful redirects him to another equally crucial purpose of the study– to obtain pertinent data. 

4. Be a Participant 

One important fact about ethnography is that it employs fieldwork. It is considered to be the hallmark of anthropology. The center of its principle is the premise that the collaborators (participants/subjects) must be studied in their natural setting. Central to this concept is the term “participant observation,” where the researchers observe the collaborators. There are two types of participant observation: (1) the privileged observer and (2) the participant observer. The former merely observes the group while the latter functions and acts as if a member of the community. 

Margaret Mead,  in her popular book entitled “The Coming of Age in Samoa,” implicitly provided that one of the purposes of ethnography is to experience. Experience is central to ethnography because to experience is to understand and appreciate. At some point, no one can really understand something unless he/she experience it her/himself. This is the reason behind the protest to become a participant observer instead of relying solely on observation. 

Doing ethnography, as a novice ethnographer, means living life with your collaborators. It is one of the most effective ways to build trust, belongingness, and rapport among the community members. Most importantly, some realizations could only emanate through experience. According to Ayn Rand, “senses, especially the sights, could be deceiving,” and to experience something firsthand, suspend these pre-conceived value judgments. 

CONCLUSION

Doing an ethnography is not an easy feat. It requires mental, physical, and emotional rigor. Having to consider the ethical, legal, and academic dimensions of this academic and cultural approach is demanding enough, requiring heavier work, beyond the average. Despite the rigor, successfully conducting an ethnography is among the most fulfilling endeavors in the academe. Ethnography is not confined to being an academic approach; it is also a medium to connect to your participants culturally, politically, and legally.