民族志教学方法的现状

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 ANTHROPOLOGY
A. Ruth, Katherine Mayfour, J. Hardin, T. Sangaramoorthy, A. Wutich, H. Bernard, A. Brewis, Melissa Beresford, Cindi Sturtzsreetharan, Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, H. Dengah, C. Gravlee, G. Guest, K. Harper, P. Mahdavi, S. Mattison, Mark Moritz, R. Negrón, B. Piperata, Jeffrey G. Snodgrass, Rebecca K. Zarger
{"title":"民族志教学方法的现状","authors":"A. Ruth, Katherine Mayfour, J. Hardin, T. Sangaramoorthy, A. Wutich, H. Bernard, A. Brewis, Melissa Beresford, Cindi Sturtzsreetharan, Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, H. Dengah, C. Gravlee, G. Guest, K. Harper, P. Mahdavi, S. Mattison, Mark Moritz, R. Negrón, B. Piperata, Jeffrey G. Snodgrass, Rebecca K. Zarger","doi":"10.17730/1938-3525-81.4.401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ethnography is a core methodology in anthropology and other disciplines. Yet, there is currently no scholarly consensus on how to teach ethnographic methods—or even what methods belong in the ethnographic toolkit. We report on a systematic analysis of syllabi to gauge how ethnographic methods are taught in the United States. We analyze 107 methods syllabi from a nationally elicited sample of university faculty who teach ethnography. Systematic coding shows that ethics, research design, participant observation, interviewing, and analysis are central to ethnographic instruction. But many key components of ethical, quality ethnographic practice (like preparing an IRB application, reflexivity, positionality, taking field notes, accurate transcription, theme identification, and coding) are only taught rarely. We suggest that, without inclusion of such elements in its basic training, the fields that prioritize this methodology are at risk of inadvertently perpetuating uneven, erratic, and extractive fieldwork practices.","PeriodicalId":47620,"journal":{"name":"Human Organization","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Teaching Ethnographic Methods: The State of the Art\",\"authors\":\"A. Ruth, Katherine Mayfour, J. Hardin, T. Sangaramoorthy, A. Wutich, H. Bernard, A. Brewis, Melissa Beresford, Cindi Sturtzsreetharan, Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, H. Dengah, C. Gravlee, G. Guest, K. Harper, P. Mahdavi, S. Mattison, Mark Moritz, R. Negrón, B. Piperata, Jeffrey G. Snodgrass, Rebecca K. Zarger\",\"doi\":\"10.17730/1938-3525-81.4.401\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Ethnography is a core methodology in anthropology and other disciplines. Yet, there is currently no scholarly consensus on how to teach ethnographic methods—or even what methods belong in the ethnographic toolkit. We report on a systematic analysis of syllabi to gauge how ethnographic methods are taught in the United States. We analyze 107 methods syllabi from a nationally elicited sample of university faculty who teach ethnography. Systematic coding shows that ethics, research design, participant observation, interviewing, and analysis are central to ethnographic instruction. But many key components of ethical, quality ethnographic practice (like preparing an IRB application, reflexivity, positionality, taking field notes, accurate transcription, theme identification, and coding) are only taught rarely. We suggest that, without inclusion of such elements in its basic training, the fields that prioritize this methodology are at risk of inadvertently perpetuating uneven, erratic, and extractive fieldwork practices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Organization\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17730/1938-3525-81.4.401\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Organization","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17730/1938-3525-81.4.401","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

民族志是人类学和其他学科的核心方法论。然而,关于如何教授民族志方法,甚至民族志工具包中的方法,目前还没有学术共识。我们报告了对教学大纲的系统分析,以衡量美国如何教授民族志方法。我们分析了107种方法的教学大纲,这些教学大纲来自全国范围内教授民族志的大学教师样本。系统编码表明,伦理学、研究设计、参与者观察、访谈和分析是民族志教学的核心。但伦理、高质量的人种学实践的许多关键组成部分(如准备IRB申请、反思性、定位性、现场笔记、准确转录、主题识别和编码)很少被教授。我们认为,如果不将这些要素纳入其基本培训,优先考虑这种方法的领域就有可能无意中使不均衡、不稳定和采掘式的实地工作做法永久化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Teaching Ethnographic Methods: The State of the Art
Ethnography is a core methodology in anthropology and other disciplines. Yet, there is currently no scholarly consensus on how to teach ethnographic methods—or even what methods belong in the ethnographic toolkit. We report on a systematic analysis of syllabi to gauge how ethnographic methods are taught in the United States. We analyze 107 methods syllabi from a nationally elicited sample of university faculty who teach ethnography. Systematic coding shows that ethics, research design, participant observation, interviewing, and analysis are central to ethnographic instruction. But many key components of ethical, quality ethnographic practice (like preparing an IRB application, reflexivity, positionality, taking field notes, accurate transcription, theme identification, and coding) are only taught rarely. We suggest that, without inclusion of such elements in its basic training, the fields that prioritize this methodology are at risk of inadvertently perpetuating uneven, erratic, and extractive fieldwork practices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Human Organization
Human Organization Multiple-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信