CONSTITUTING ETHNOGRAPHIC AUTHORITY: THE WORK PROCESS OF FIELD RESEARCH

IF social scientists were ever granted methodological authority automatically, that is no longer possible. As numerous critics observe (see Clifford, 1988), ethnographic writers cannot ignore the political and epistemological assumptions contained in their research and writing. Ethnographic authority must be established: It can no longer be assumed. It can be established, moreover, with a variety of strategies; there is not one right way to do so.

My method for constituting authority is to describe the work process of my field research, to detail the process through which the account contained in this book was constructed, and to recognize my “indigenous collaborators.” Thus, this is not a traditional methodological appendix. Instead of establishing a putative claim for “objectivity” or “reliability,” the focus is on the actual makings of an ethnographic research project.

Ethnographic authority, Vincent Crapanzano points out, is often constituted through the claim that the researcher was either invisible or disinterested. The idea is that invisibility insures that what “really” happens is not disturbed or altered by the ethnographer's presence. Ethnographic authority for this book, however, will be constructed along very different lines. If it is successfully constituted, authority will be accomplished first by acknowledging both my visibility and self-interest, and then by escribing how I managed both, or managed to use both to achieve my ends.