Response to Andy's Response (Challenge Question Cycle)

Andy's response to me

I’m intrigued by your idea that assuming both roles is outside the realms of polyphonic, experiential, and interpretive ethnographies. Based on Clifford, then, the only remaining mode of discourse is the dialogical, and this may be a valid characterization of this writing style. However, there is one big problem: all the dialogue happens within the author’s mind, and real people are not involved. Thus, if this was to become a formal method of writing ethnographies, a new mode of discourse would have to be invented to characterize writing from both the role of the insider and the outsider.

The main reason that I categorized the increased objectivity of this writing style as an advantage was because I thought that, provided it is done correctly, presenting two or more views would be less biased and colored by the ethnographer’s prior experiences than an experiential or an interpretive discourse. I did not go so far as to categorize this as deception, but it certainly could be, especially if it done incorrectly. I considered this possibility when I wrote that no one can really forget his prior biases and past.

Of course, an insider’s ethnography is no more or less informative than an outsider’s ethnography—as you wrote, they just include different elements. But I disagree that an insiders’ ethnography would be difficult for an outsider to interpret because of cultural practices and vocabulary. Sure, they are different, but unless an ethnographer was writing only for the culture he was studying (which in my opinion, is extremely unlikely), he would have to define and explain the unfamiliar prior to presenting the insider’s views. The only unfamiliarity should stem from the insiders’ different background and experiences.