Unveiling the Layers: Exploring the Lamphere Learning Ladder in Ethnographic Research
Ethnographic research, particularly participant-observation, inherently involves navigating complex relationships and ethical considerations. This article explores the concept of the "Lamphere Learning Ladder" as a framework for understanding and addressing the frictions that arise in ethnographic praxis. It examines how researchers and informants interact, the challenges of maintaining ethical boundaries, and the importance of reflexivity in shaping research outcomes.
The Frictions of Ethnographic Praxis
Ethnographic research is not a frictionless endeavor. It involves researchers immersing themselves in the lives of others, forming relationships, and interpreting their experiences. This process inevitably generates friction, arising from the diverse identities, power dynamics, and inherent tensions between the researcher's goals and the needs and expectations of the community being studied. As objects/people encountering each other in various ways, with various degrees of force, under different degrees of pressure, and often moving in different directions. These frictions arise from the complex identities we carry through our work, and the ostensible nature of why we do this. These frictions can propel our lives along different trajectories, depending on our ability to harness or withstand them. The intensity of these frictions can significantly impact both the researcher and the researched, shaping the trajectory of the research and its potential consequences.
De-Formability and its Discontents
A cornerstone of ethnographic methodology is the concept of "de-formability," where researchers willingly adapt their perspectives and assumptions to understand a new way of being in the world. This involves a willingness to bend and flex our identity depending on the particular moment in our research process, sometimes joining in fully with the community, erasing the lines between us and them, while at other times, standing back, observing, tracking, and parsing what we see unfolding before us. This openness to "de-formation" has been traditionally seen as essential for gaining deep insights into the lives of others.
However, the idea of de-formability has faced criticism. The idea that we can become members of radically different communities ignores issues of power, privilege, and opportunity. Many scholars have argued that identities are never truly erasable, and researchers remain defined by their own social positions, power dynamics, and experiences, regardless of their attempts to blend in.
Moreover, the process of de-formation can be personally challenging and even harmful. Many of the experiences we have during the course of fieldwork can be physically, emotionally and mentally damaging. Ethnographers may encounter situations that are physically, emotionally, or psychologically damaging, leading to ethical dilemmas and personal struggles.
Read also: Understanding PLCs
The Spectrum of Softness and Hardness
Acknowledging the limitations of complete "softness," some researchers have shifted towards a more "hardened" approach, maintaining a greater distance and objectivity. However, this raises concerns about reducing the essential friction that fosters empathy and understanding. Creating spaces for softness, for de-formability, brings back the kinds of friction that help us approach another person’s life from a place of respect and curiosity. It returns people to the status of informant (expert teaching us), not subject (a person that is discussed or dealt with). Finding the right balance between "softness" and "hardness" is crucial for ethical and effective ethnographic research. We know that teams who have included senior stakeholders in projects report greater success in helping them understand the experiences of others (Beers et al., 2011). I know timelines for our work are often very short, but including space for experiential learning across the team will only improve outcomes.
The Informant's Perspective: Recognizing Vulnerability
It is equally important to consider the "softening" that occurs in informants. Early ethnographies often portrayed communities as “hardened” - it was the anthropologist who was “de-formable” not our informants (c.f., Evans-Pritchard 1969 [1940]; Benedict 1946). But this was another ruse of the ancients. Researchers often seek to "soften" informants by building rapport and trust. When we position ourselves as a friend, as we are taught to do, we take on obligations incumbent of friends, and these can be significant in many communities, especially those that are resource- or relationship-poor. When we express interest in other’s stories, we commit ourselves to their version, not our script, and may find ourselves mistaken as a therapist, minister, or other trained professional (c.f, Bernius & Dietkus 2022). This can create vulnerabilities, especially when power dynamics are unequal. Recognizing the differences in power, privilege, opportunity, resources, and relationships between us and our informants can help us better identify when and how people might be vulnerable to “softness.” Researchers must be mindful of the potential impact of their presence and actions on the lives of their informants, ensuring that they do not exploit or harm them in the pursuit of knowledge.
Revealing Complexity: Embracing Roughness
In the ethnographic encounter, the “roughness” of an object and surface are best understood as the revealed complexity of researchers and the community members. By “revealed complexity,” I mean the willingness of each party to share the fragments, frustrations, and challenges in their own lives - the experiences that have made us a bit prickly. The "roughness" refers to the complexities, contradictions, and vulnerabilities that exist in all human lives. If we borrow Geertz’s (1973) metaphor of culture as “webs of significance,” roughness is best visualized as the places where the web may be torn: where the stories and pathways of our lives fail to connect, to make sense, to flow seamlessly to the next juncture. Roughness is our willingness to demonstrate or discuss our moral quandaries, our social concerns, our fears, and our general points of difference. These kinds of complexities are the texture - the roughness - of all human lives. To borrow from Goffman (1956), this is the willingness to reveal the “backstage” person beyond the slick, rehearsed “front stage” persona we curate. It is the willingness to reveal the "backstage" persona, beyond the curated "front stage" we present to the world.
For researchers, roughness emerges from their own habitus, fallibility, and the challenges of navigating unfamiliar systems. Some of these frictions result simply from our habitus (Bourdieu 1972) - from the ways in which we embody power, status, wealth, and other axes of identity. By default of having human bodies, we come to occupy certain social categories within our work, whether these align to our own held identities or not. Other roughness results from being fallible. On difficult days, when we are overwhelmed from navigating systems that are confusing and new, when we are mentally exhausted from speaking new languages all day, or when we just miss the familiar. As our research progresses, new kinds of roughness appear as we develop trustworthiness and rapport with different informants. We share our lives, our joys, our edges.
Similarly, informants reveal their roughness through breaks and ruptures in their lives, often exposing vulnerabilities and challenges. Just as elements of our lives may not connect smoothly, so too do we find breaks and ruptures in theirs. In fact, the Manchester School focused entirely on investigating these ragged edges - for in pursuing the breaks, you understand both the systems that create them and the ideals that inform them (c.f., Gluckman 1955; Colson 1953) . One of the ostensible perks of a researcher’s “outsider” status is that it enabled informants to be more direct about the roughness without fear of social judgment. Exploring these ragged edges can provide valuable insights into the systems and ideals that shape their experiences.
Read also: Learning Resources Near You
Digital Ethnography: Navigating Opaque Relationships
Digital ethnographic research presents unique challenges in navigating roughness. In digital ethnographic research, where we live behind screens and screeners, we can opt to reveal little to nothing about ourselves (c.f., Walther 2007; Tufecki 2008). We can appear as opaque and slick as the technology that mediates the relationship. We may never reveal our name, our location, or the kinds of quirky facts that might enable people to create an accurate mental model of who we are. The anonymity afforded by digital platforms can create a sense of detachment, making it easier for researchers to remain opaque and avoid revealing their own vulnerabilities. There is a freedom and possibility in this for many researchers. Elements of my embodied identity that I cannot (and will not) hide in person can be backgrounded during digital research. This gives me the ability to function almost as a disembodied mind, or as another social persona, laser-focused on the topic at hand, but not entirely human. In many ways, this enables us to move much more quickly through research because we are not actually implicated in the process. We are not a source of friction, of conversation, of slowing down and chatting. This raises ethical questions about the nature of relationships and the potential for exploitation in digital research settings.
Gender Dynamics in Support and Care
Studies have found that people with cancer value family support. Feminist work suggests that women carry most responsibility for practical and emotional support in families, but few qualitative cancer studies explicitly incorporate a gender perspective. Both men and women described the vital role that their partners played in providing emotional and practical support. Mutual support and reciprocity were also key features of narratives; both men and women reported controlling their emotions to protect spouses and preserve ‘normal’ household routines. Traditional gender roles had some influence; some women organised ‘cover’ for domestic work and childcare when they were ill, while some men focused on making sure that their families were financially secure and partners were ‘protected’ from the effects of their stomas.
Read also: Learning Civil Procedure
tags: #lamphere #learning #ladder #explained
