190 likes | 350 Vues
TOWARDS AN ETHNOGRAPHIC METHODOLOGY IN INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION. SOME THESIS FOR THE DEBATE. Gunther Dietz Universidad de Granada. Structure of the paper summary:. Thesis for a Theoretical and Methodological Debate Uses and Abuses of Ethnography in Educational Research
E N D
TOWARDS AN ETHNOGRAPHIC METHODOLOGYIN INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION SOME THESIS FOR THE DEBATE Gunther DietzUniversidad de Granada
Structure of the paper summary: • Thesis for a Theoretical and Methodological Debate • Uses and Abuses of Ethnography in Educational Research • Towards a Reflexive and Holistic Ethnography • A Heuristic Model • An Ethnographic “Code of Conduct”
1. THESES FOR A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE • Multiculturalism in Education Multicultural Education • The Discourse on Intercultural Education as an Epi-Phenomenon of Multiculturalism • The “Politics of Identity” as a Pre-requisite of Intercultural Discourses • Intercultural Education as Pedagogization of Multiculturalism
1. THESES FOR A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE • Culture and Ethnicity as Axes of the Analysis of Interculturality • Structural Homology Between Ethnicity and Nationalism • Interculturality as Product and Producer of Ethnogenesis • Towards a Reflexive Ethnography in the Study of Interculturality • A Heuristic Model for the Ethnography of Interculturality in Education
2. USES AND ABUSES OF ETHNOGRAPHY IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH • In social anthropology: • challenge of going beyond “experimental ethnography” • In education: challenges and risks of “school ethnography”: • instrumentalization of ethnography as auxiliary technique • banalization of the ethnographic “culture” concept • over-emphasis on applied and “evaluative” research • reification of “empowerment” approaches
3. TOWARDS A REFLEXIVE AND HOLISTIC ETHNOGRAPHY • need for “double hermeneutics”: • reflexivity of ethnographer • reflexivity of objects / subjects of ethnographic research • need for integrating: • explorative, holistic ethnographic field work • “transfer of knowledge” towards the subjects • need for conceiving ethnography as intercultural dialogue: • emic,actor-centred perspective • etic,observer-centred perspective
3. TOWARDS A REFLEXIVE AND HOLISTIC ETHNOGRAPHY • need for focusing on institutional, structural, “national” frames: • Todd (1994), comparison of “metaphysical postulates” of integration: • asymmetrical kinship systems differentialist-segregationist tendency • symmetrical kinship systems universalist-assimilationist tendency
3. TOWARDS A REFLEXIVE AND HOLISTIC ETHNOGRAPHY • need for focusing on institutional, structural, “national” frames: • Verlot (1999), comparison of “basic intuitions” of institutional identities: • postulates: “egalitarian-civic” vs. “ethno-cultural” premisses • perspectives: self-perception as “majority” vs. as “minority” • orientations: “open” vs. “closed” attitudes towards ext. influences
4. A HEURISTIC MODEL • dimensions for a comparative research model: • the syntactical dimension: • institutional structurations of the nation-state and its pedagogics • the institutionalization of the “public” vs. “private” spheres • the syntax of assimilation, segregation and integration
4. A HEURISTIC MODEL • dimensions for a comparative research model: • the semantic dimension: • the discursive models of intercultural education • their translation into intra-institutional discourses on diversity • the educational actors and their often ethnicized discourses
4. A HEURISTIC MODEL • dimensions for a comparative research model: • the pragmatic dimension: • the (re-)production of monolingual and monocultural habitus • intercultural / transcultural competences • educational modes of interaction
5. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC “CODE OF CONDUCT” (Cf. Werner & Schoepfle 1987) • Standards of Epistemology and Theory: • Separate always text (1) and text (2), the ethnographer’s and the informant’s discourse. • Analyze separately and contrast any contradictions between text (1) and text (2) or within txt (1) and/or text (2). • Learn the culture you are working in focussing both on issues separating and uniting its members. • Maintain a methodological stance of cultural relativism.
5. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC “CODE OF CONDUCT” (Cf. Werner & Schoepfle 1987) • Standards of Personal Equation: • Maintain an autobiography that you should periodically update and revise. • Expose yourself to the widest range of cultural variation available.
5. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC “CODE OF CONDUCT” (Cf. Werner & Schoepfle 1987) • Standards of Research Design and Proposal: • Consider the problem underlying an ethnography, and make explicit the theory underlying the ethnographic problem. • Design (before starting the data collection) an efficient data management system for ethnographic texts and other documents. • Put in place (before starting the data collection) a plan to protect the privacy of all people whose statements enter your data base. • Formulate carefully an explanation of your project for the informants, in “their language”.
5. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC “CODE OF CONDUCT” (Cf. Werner & Schoepfle 1987) • Standards of Field Relations: • Make a serious effort to learn the language of the people who are the topic of your ethnography. • Conduct your fieldwork and field relations in such a manner that other ethnographers / researchers will be able to follow and to do restudies.
5. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC “CODE OF CONDUCT” (Cf. Werner & Schoepfle 1987) • Standards of Data Collection (Observation and Interviewing): • Do not alter or fabricate any data. • Determine the language of the interview with regard to the language which suits best the informant.
5. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC “CODE OF CONDUCT” (Cf. Werner & Schoepfle 1987) • Standards of Analysis: • Analyze data collected through different methods first separately, before contrasting and comparing them. • Apply the same methods of analysis (based on the same theory) when comparing any pair of potentially discrepant text fragments. • Do not alter or fabricate any ethnographic data analysis.
5. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC “CODE OF CONDUCT” (Cf. Werner & Schoepfle 1987) • Standards of Analysis: • First describe, then interpret and explain. Always separate description form interpretation. • List all consultants and informants who contributed to the ethnography (appropriately disguised, after considering their privacy and safety). • Use the same privileges of citation for your informants and consultants as you do with professional sources. • Consider your particular audience when choosing the best medium and the best method within that medium for presenting ethnographic data and conclusions.