TEN LIES OF ETHNOGRAPHY

TLDR

Ethnographic work contains hidden practices that preserve occupational reputation, creating moral dilemmas that are essential to its functioning. This article examines the compromises ethnographers make against idealized ethical standards. The study focuses on three clusters of dilemmas—classical virtues, technical skills, and the ethnographic self—each comprising specific roles that illustrate methodological deception. The article argues that images of ethnographers are based on partial truths or self‑deceptions, and that shifts in styles alter but do not eliminate the need for methodological illusion.

Abstract

As Everett Hughes noted, there is an “underside” to all work. Each job includes ways of doing things that would be inappropriate for those outside the guild to know. Illusions are essential for maintaining occupational reputation, but in the process they create a set of moral dilemmas. So it is with ethnographic work. This article describes the underside of ethnographic work: compromises that one frequently makes with idealized ethical standards. It argues that images of ethnographers—personal and public—are based on partial truths or self-deceptions. The focus is on three clusters of dilemmas: the classical virtues (the kindly ethnographer, the friendly ethnographer, and the honest ethnographer), technical skills (the precise ethnographer, the observant ethnographer, and the unobtrusive ethnographer), and the ethnographic self (the candid ethnographer, the chaste ethnographer, the fair ethnographer, and the literary ethnographer). Changes in ethnographic styles and traditions alter the balance of these deceptions but do not eliminate the need for methodological illusions.