Ethnography is a new interdisciplinary forum for the ethnographic study of social and cultural change. It aims to become the leading network for dialogical exchange between monadic ethnographers and those from all disciplines interested in ethnography, theory and society. It aims to foster work that pays equal attention to the minutiae of
experience, the cultural texture of social relations, and to the remote structural forces that bear on them, and to re-engage field-based research with larger social projects, including the identification and formulation of the different possibilities of 'social becoming' in an era of intense change. Researchers who employ these related research
methodologies inquire into the nature of observable group behaviours to attempt to understand what it means to be a member of that group. These methodologies are both observational and narrative in nature. Ethnography aims to become the leading international forum for the collective development of a theoretically informed methodology for
ethnography. Offering an alternative to both naturalistic qualitative research and social theory, it will publish articles that stress the need for an encompassing theoretical sensibility involved in how ethnography is actually practised and written. There is much debate concerning how ethnography is practised and written. Goffman, Burawoy and
Harre and Davies all use various types of ethnographic research methodologies to formulate and collect data to their studies of human interaction. Each practise ethnography in different styles and each argue what is the best way to approach ethnography. This essay will attempt to simulate a round table discussion between the three. Linking
together various speeches, readings, notes, and other such material this essay will attempt as accurately as possible to argue the topic of ethnography on behalf of the researcher. The source of  material drawn from to simulate each
speaker will be referenced at the end of each paragraph while direct quotes from the researcher will be referenced as they appear. The order of discussion will be Goffman, Davies and Harre, Burawoy then a conclusion which will summarise there arguments and evaluate them.

Goffman

To claim my sociology is a type of ethnography raises the important question of how to define ethnology. I will use Michael Burawoy’s definition ;

“Participant observation [ethnography] is usually viewed as one among a number of techniques of social research - archival, survey, demographic, and experimental. What distinguishes participant observation is the study of people in their own time and space, in their own everyday lives. Thus, the advantages of participant observation are
assumed to lie not just in direct observation of how people act but also how they understand and experience those acts. It enables us to juxtapose what people say they are up to against what they actually do. “  ( Burawoy, Gamson, Burton  :1991, 2)

If that definition is to be accepted as the true purpose for ethnomethologists then I would suggest that my dramaturgical approach to research is indeed ethnomethodological. The need to study individuals on a face to face level is crucial to understanding the social world. My dramaturgical approach to research, concerns me with the mode of presentation employed by the social actor and its meaning in the broader social context. We act socially, striving to maintain the identity we create for others to see.   ( Goffman: 1959 )

I now wish to talk about how the sociologist should go about using ethnomethodology in as a appropriate research method. By subjecting your own body and personality to particular situations you are able to inject yourself into that particular social world that will give you understandings, knowledge, insights, and experience that you could never get
from a outside perspective such as general theory. It is impossible to draw conclusions from a social world you are not involved in. Close up, face to face , microsociological analysis can explore the details of individual identity, group relations, and the impact of environment but only if the research is carried out in a effective manner. The sociologist
must be very careful while collecting data for if he/she makes mistakes the research may end up useless. You must become a active part of what you are studying. However this can cause two possible problems. First is what I call “Getting into Place” which concerns researchers being in the correct position to collect data and the second which I call “Exploitation of the Place” which concerns being careless about how you situate yourself within the area you are researching. ( Soci 313: Goffman : 1999 )

It is essential that while undergoing research your are not merely just a spectator of what you are studying but that you actively interact and become a part of the culture you are researching. This way you get to the real essence of ethnography. You are able view  measures of change, experience unexpected situations, establish insights into the
feelings emotions, actions, gestures and general behavioural patterns of others, as they go about their everyday life. Ethnology is best practised while being a undercover citizen. If a group you are studying knows you are there to analyse them it is highly doubtful the group members would trust you enough to allow you to penetrate their social
world. You have to be able to fit into the group, by learning to speak their language, use their gestures and identify with their cultural symbols. This type of ethnology is very intense research but I would suggest it is the best way to acquire data.  ( Soci 313: Goffman : 1999 )

To be able to fit into the group your are researching you must try and expel yourself from the social world you are used to and dispel your own cultural norms, values and beliefs as much as possible. Of course removing yourself totally from your own past socialisation is impossible but you must be disciplined enough when situating yourself in another
cultural setting to not use gestures, language and actions that would make you look alien to the group you are researching. Through my own experience I know that the longer you resist your own cultural symbols, and try to adopt those of another group the easier it becomes. However I would add that ethnography can also be flawed if you try too hard to fit into the group your researching. Your manner and social etiquette is crucially important.  It is a fine measure of not seeming too distant, and not seeming too close. ( Soci 313: Goffman : 1999 )

One year would be a minimum requirement for ethnographical studies I would suggest. This should cover allot of unexpected events. While in the field note taking should take place daily so the data is record while its still fresh in the mind. This will also help to avoid generalisations. Once you have collected the data then you are ready to accumulate
your notes and report on the situation you have observed.

In summary I support ethnology. By following certain procedures and rules, ethnology can be used to develop a great understanding of  human interaction as long as you follow strict procedures so you do not get out of place or exploit the place you are researching.  ( Soci 313: Goffman : 1999 )

Davies and Harre

Goffman’s work talks allot about the way humans interact in terms of role playing. That the human being is merely a actor and he or she performs accordingly to the audience they are in front of. Moving from Goffman’s use of role to position as the central organising concept for analysing how humans interact, we will talk about another conception ;
The relationship between people and their conversations and the use of ethnography to research this interaction. ( Davies and Harre:1990 )

Individuals are social products. How we are produced depends on what kind of social situations we interact in. We make sense of our own lives and of others through the process of story telling. Our moral judgements, concepts, values and norms are translated through language. Therefore when practising ethnography a strong focus on
linguistics is required. The researcher must look at the notion of “positioning” in order to get a grasp on how language represents the self. By positioning we mean the “discursive process whereby selves are located in conversations as observably and subjectively coherent participants in jointly produced story lines.” ( Davies and Harre:1990:
46 ). We position ourselves and others in various social roles during conversation by using cultural stereotypes. Stereotypes we have leant through the storytelling by others and how we perceive the narratives within their language. For example if a speaker conveys gender discriminations through their language such as “ ..women are not equal to men.. “ it puts the listener in a position to either conform to the narrative or they may attempt to resist. Whatever the topic or situation all language positions the recipient. It must also be remembered that how one understands the conversation is crucial to how they are positioned. Factors like cultural differences, metaphors, narratives and the clarity of speech can influence how one thinks they are being positioned. ( Soci 313 : 1999 : Davies and Harre )

Understanding this concept, we then move into how we make sense of these events and how we can research them. Goffman’s dramaturigal approach is not a well thought concept for researching how we interact. Goffman would have us believe that conversations are a result of the actor acquiring a role due to his or her belief in the current
relationship of  those participating in conversation. We dispute this because we believe that conversations are not only a result of past experience but are a combination of our understanding of conversations in the past and present. Conversations do not shape our roles during the moment by moment interaction, we are responding to the
conversation from our past learnt experience of story telling in correspondence with the conversation we partake in.  ( Davies and Harre:1990 )

Ethnography is the best way this type of this positioning approach to human interaction can be analysed. Using participant observation as a tool to study conversation is crucial because of the shifting nature of positions. Every conversation is different and a position can change so rapidly according to what the speaker is saying, it would simply be impossible to get a accurate measure of the conversation if you were not present to observe it. Facial expressions, actions, and gestures, change of voice tone can all be indicative of the understandings we take from conversations. Although recorded or documented conversations can give you a feel for the way people are positioned, the best
way to study positioning is to be a witness to the moment by moment interaction as it takes place, insuring you know the context in which language is used. ( Soci 313 : 1999 : Davies and Harre )

Burawoy

I agree with some of Goffman’s research techniques such as his insistence on the discipline of the researcher, but I would suggest that his research methods are very fallible because his methodology revolves too much around the individual and does cater for macro structures of the social world. He shows a strong foundation for the understanding
of microsociological phenomena, an understanding bolstered by an investigation of his other writings but by limiting his work to a dramaturgical study but eliminates the possibility of applying the activities of the mundane world to the larger social world, a problem that may be reconciled by examining concepts of my preferred ethnography “The Extended Case Method”. ( Soci 313 : 1999 : Burawoy )

Harre and Davies study of positioning shows some interesting results but they like Goffman are limiting their study to microsocial life. In my opinion both Goffman’s and Harre and Davies use of ethnography research is too limited and does not account for macrosociology. I want to outline two main mistakes ethnographers make and propose how
the extended case method is able to avoid such mistakes. The first is that of limiting research to mircosocial life as Davies and Harre and Goffman do and the second is making generalisations about your research as grounded theory does. In essence either being too particular or too general. ( Soci 313 : 1999 : Burawoy )

The extended case method is well-suited to understanding the larger society as well as microsocial life. The value of participant observation and the extended case method in social research, underlines how these methodological approaches deepen and enrich scholarship in the social sciences. The extended case method seeks to resolve the
problems of ethnography being either to general or too particular by seeking to undercover the macro foundations of a micro sociology. Its methodology is concerned with how micro situations are shaped by macro social forces, how people interact according to the social settings they are in rather than taking the macro as given as I feel my two
contemporaries do. ( Soci 313 : 1999 : Burawoy )

Grounded theory is a method that has been used extensively across a variety of social science disciplines. The basic tenet of this approach is that a theory must emerge from the data, or in other words, a theory must be grounded in the data. Hence the approach purports to be inductive rather than deductive. As defined by two of its major proponents "the grounded theory approach is a qualitative research method that uses a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively derived grounded theory about a phenomenon" (Strauss & Corbin, 1990:24). Grounded theory presents theory which is substantiated by data from field notes. The research results provide an idea where the data came from, how the data is rendered and how concepts were integrated. It’s claims to science lies in making generalisations concerning the data collected and comparing that data to that of other research matter involving social situations. My main problem with such methodology is that by making such generalisations you ignore the specificity of each situation you are researching. ( Burawoy : 1991 )

The extended case method fuses together micro and macro to give a good blend of research technique that provides the most effective type of research in my opinion.  Its method provides a solution to what the particular and the general do not account for. “The extended case method derives generalisations by constituting the social situation as
anomous with regard to some pre-existing theory (that is, an existing body of generalisations), which is then reconstructed. “ (Burawoy :1991: 280) . It draws genetic explanations from particular outcomes rather than generic. Generic strategy such as grounded theory attempts to look for similar occurrences between case studies, whereas
genetic strategy such as the extended case method  focuses on the differences in case studies. What is better about the genetic strategy is it focuses on society as a whole rather than generalising about other case studies. It does not take social structure as given therefore you can seek to undercover the macro foundations of social worlds. The
extended case method takes the social situation as the point of empirical examination and works with given general concepts to understand how micro situations are shaped by wider structures. ( Burawoy : 1991 )

Conclusion

All three researchers use ethnographic methodology for analysing the way in which humans interact. Goffman’s research methods provides a strong foundation for the understanding of microsociological phenomena. His research methods are very disciplined. Goffman uses ethnography to the extreme, getting as close as possible to his
subject matter which may raise the question, that such closeness may flaw his research. In general however Goffman’s research and the way he goes about acquiring his data seems a very useful tool for studying the mircosociological world.  Davies and Harre research the way in which conversation positions us in terms of human interaction. Their research revolves about the way we develop the self through story telling. They claim this then effects the way we interact on a moment to moment basis during conversation. Davies and Harre use ethnology as a research method as it is able to measure the shifting positions of listeners and speakers. Although their study provides great insight into the way we communicate with each other they too ignore macro structures. Ethnography is a good tool for their particular research matter but overall by focusing on the way in which human’s communicate, Davies and Harre ignore too many other important social interactions. Buraway claims to have found a type of ethnography that is neither too general nor to particular. He criticises researchers such as Goffman and Davies and Harre for being to particular and ignoring macro structures. He criticises other types of ethnography such as grounded theory for being too general. He sees the solution to these problems in the extended case method in which the researcher works with given general concepts to understand how micro situations are shaped by wider structures. Goffman and Davies and Harre’s research methods provide us with great insights into the mircosociological world but Burawoy’s  extended case method enables the researcher to use case studies in a way that can fuse together both macro and micro social
structures. The use of ethnography by all researchers provides theoretical insights which are all useful research methodologies, however Burawoy’s research strategy is the most effective because it encompasses a wider range of the cultural texture of social relations.
 
 

Burawoy, Gamson, Burton, 1991.  Ethnography Unbound : Power and Resistance in the Modern Metropolis University of California Press.

Davies, Bronwyn, &  Harre, Rom, 1990 Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, vol. 20, pp. 43-64.

Goffman, Erving, 1959  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday: Garden City, New York, 1959.
Soci 313 Course Book 1999  Burawoy, Michael, The Extended Case Method pp, 271-287

Soci 313 Course Book 1999  Davies, Bronwyn, & Harre, Rom, Positioning
pp,43-63

Soci 313 Course Book 1999 Goffman / On Field Work -Journal of Contemporary Ethnography  pp 123-135

Strauss, Anselm L., and Corbin, Juliet. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage, 2nd ed., pp. 312.