Ethnography Division Preconference
NCA 2009
Preconference Title: Reconciling Reflexivity in Ethnography: Virtues and
Challenges for Ethnography and Ethnographers
Participants:
Keith Berry, University of Wisconsin-Superior (Organizer/Facilitator)
Bryant Keith Alexander, California State University, Los Angeles
Donal Carbaugh, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Robin Clair, Purdue University
Gary Allen Fine, Northwestern University
Amira De La Garza, Arizona State University
H.L. (Bud) Goodall, Jr., Arizona State University
Robert Krizek, Saint Louis University
D. Soyini Madison, Northwestern University
Lisa Tillmann, Rollins College
John T. Warren, Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Abstract:
Reflexivity as a theoretical concept and methodological strategy maintains its position as
an essential component in contemporary conversations about, and uses of, ethnography.
Diverse and contested understandings persist, however, regarding what it means to “be
reflexive,” thus, requiring further consideration. This day-long preconference of
presentations and discussion explores how various ethnographers, representing a range of
traditions, assumptions, and tactics, reconcile the roles and uses of reflexivity in
ethnographic inquiry.
Rationale:
“Reflexivity” in ethnography maintains its position as an essential component in
contemporary conversations about, and uses of, ethnography. The term commonly is
directed toward how interpretation in ethnographic research should occur. “Being
reflexive” historically has entailed scholars actively working in a range of ways to ensure
a more “coherent” description of culture; that is, to account for researchers “imposing”
their experience and meaning onto the cultural life being studied. A contrasting
understanding has emerged over the past two decades re-conceptualizing reflexivity in
ways that deliberately draw out and prioritize creative intersections among/between
ethnographers’ lifeworlds (everyday realities) and their ethnographies. Reflexivity, thus,
has meant explicitly integrating dimensions of ethnographers’ cultural lives and identities
(including sex/gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status/class, and
religion) with their cultural accounts. Doing so has created a perspectival and contingent
understanding of culture and has enhanced a sense of self-understanding among
ethnographers.
Reflexivity has evolved as a theoretical concept and methodological strategy diverse in
meaning and practice, likely as varied as the cultural life ethnographers seek to represent.
This diversity offers a sense of openness for doing ethnography and renders reflexivity a
contested intellectual phenomenon, characterized by contrasting and sometimes
disagreeing perspectives concerning its significance and role in research. Embracing the
topic as contested, indeed, is worthwhile in its own right. However, it also can make the
relationship between ethnography and reflexivity, and the ways we do research, rather
uncertain and ambiguous. As such, questions persist calling for our consideration:





What does “reflexivity” mean in ethnographic research?
What challenges persist for ethnographers in “being reflexive?” How are
ethnographers currently working through these issues?
Considering NCA’s convention theme, with respect to negotiating reflexivity in
ethnographic methods, what does it mean to pursue “stability” (at the very least,
the impulse to maintain tradition) and “change” (the impulse for innovation and
transformation)? In what ways do “discourses of stability and change” influence
or govern ethnographic praxis? How might influences and even pressures to
perform reflexivity in some ways instead of others impact our research, our
identities as ethnographers, and/or relationships with ethnographers different than
us?
What critical cultural issues, including the pursuit of social justice, are intertwined
with and made possible by the idea of reflexivity in ethnography?
How might working to grasp the idiosyncratic and shared ways ethnographers
understand and enact reflexivity serve as a useful opportunity for better
understanding ethnography as fruitful and relevant intellectual milieu?
Pursuing understanding to these questions is essential, insofar as their direction ultimately
points to what ethnography is, how ethnographies are produced, and how we relate to
each other as a unified community comprised of diverse ethnographers. Thus, answering
them can allow us to discern the current status of our field, how we might (continue to)
produce worthwhile ethnographies, and how we can better understand similarities and
differences among practitioners, and how these characteristics serve as challenges and
opportunities in the pursuit of culture.
More researchers continue to adopt ethnographic methods as a valuable research path in
Communication and related fields; increased and innovative modes of doing ethnographic
research are taking stronger form; and scholarly journal standards regarding
representational practices continue to impact acceptance rates (and thus the ways many
scholars move through the academic tenure and promotion process). Thus, the need for
open and pointed questioning and focused and imaginative reflection is vital.
The varied ethnographers of this preconference session, representing a range of
traditions, assumptions, and tactics, will engage some/several of the above questions.
Presenters will consider the shared topic of reflexivity in ethnography through their own
particular vantage points and interests. A variety of presentation styles is encouraged.