Malinowski's Participant-Observation in Modern Anthropology
Where does Malinowski’s conceptualization of participant-observation sit in the landscape of modern anthropological fieldwork?
A primary objective of the modern ethnographer is to glean insights into the ways people relate to and interact with one another and the world around them. Through participant-observation, Malinowski (1922) offered a valuable tool with which to uncover these insights and understandings, the ethnographer. The ethnographer as research tool has become the basis of much modern anthropological research. As a method, it was a radical departure from the typical approach to fieldwork used in Malinowski’s time which involved techniques that kept the ethnographer distanced and distinct from those they studied (McGee & Warms, 2008). In his conceptualization of participant-observation, Malinowski identified three primary objectives for the fieldworker. First, to record the feel and flow of daily life as a member of the community; second, to create a framework of community organization based on a scientific perspective; and third, to collect detailed personal information particular to the community of study (Malinowski, 1922). These goals and methodologies remain principal to the design and analysis of modern anthropological research. However, they also raise a number of questions about the practical, paradigmatic and ethical difficulties associated with anthropological fieldwork. Discussed below are the goals identified by Malinowski, some of the issues they raise, and how they have come to be interpreted within modern anthropological practice.
The premise of participant-observation draws the researcher inside the daily life of those they study, with the many small experiences, interactions, intimacies and resulting integration providing an entrée into cultural life not afforded the lone observer or ‘outsider’. Malinowski took great pains to ensure that he eventually came to feel part of the tribe, an insider, ‘joining in himself in what
A primary objective of the modern ethnographer is to glean insights into the ways people relate to and interact with one another and the world around them. Through participant-observation, Malinowski (1922) offered a valuable tool with which to uncover these insights and understandings, the ethnographer. The ethnographer as research tool has become the basis of much modern anthropological research. As a method, it was a radical departure from the typical approach to fieldwork used in Malinowski’s time which involved techniques that kept the ethnographer distanced and distinct from those they studied (McGee & Warms, 2008). In his conceptualization of participant-observation, Malinowski identified three primary objectives for the fieldworker. First, to record the feel and flow of daily life as a member of the community; second, to create a framework of community organization based on a scientific perspective; and third, to collect detailed personal information particular to the community of study (Malinowski, 1922). These goals and methodologies remain principal to the design and analysis of modern anthropological research. However, they also raise a number of questions about the practical, paradigmatic and ethical difficulties associated with anthropological fieldwork. Discussed below are the goals identified by Malinowski, some of the issues they raise, and how they have come to be interpreted within modern anthropological practice.
The premise of participant-observation draws the researcher inside the daily life of those they study, with the many small experiences, interactions, intimacies and resulting integration providing an entrée into cultural life not afforded the lone observer or ‘outsider’. Malinowski took great pains to ensure that he eventually came to feel part of the tribe, an insider, ‘joining in himself in what
References: Bourgois, P. (1991). Confronting the Ethics of Ethnography: Lessons from fieldwork in Central America. In F. Harrison (Ed.), Decolonizing Anthropology: Moving further toward an anthropology of liberation. Washington, DC: Association of Black Anthropologists, American Anthropological Association. Kalow, N. (1996). Living Dolls. In B. Jackson & E. D. Ives (Eds.), The World Observed: Reflections on the fieldwork process. USA: The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. Kirby, S.L., Greaves, L. & Reid, C. (2006). Experience Research Social Change: Methods beyond the mainstream (2nd ed.). Canada: Broadview Press. Krieger, S. (1996). Beyond Subjectivity. In A. Lareau & J. Shultz, (Eds.), Journeys Through Ethnography: Realistic accounts of fieldwork. USA: Westfield Press. Lareau, A. (1996). Common Problems in Fieldwork: A personal essay. In A. Lareau & J. Shultz, (Eds.), Journeys Through Ethnography: Realistic accounts of fieldwork. USA: Westview Press Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: Dutton. McGee, R.J. & Warms, R.L., (Eds.) (2008). Anthropological Theory: An introduction history (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Scheper-Hughes, N. (1995). The Primacy of the Ethical: Propositions for a militant anthropology. Current Anthropology, 36(3), 409-420. Sterk, C. (1996). Prostitution, Drug Use and Aids. In C. Smith & W. Kornblum (Eds.), In The Field: Readings on the field research experience. Westport, USA: Preger Press.