Critical Ethnography

Theoretical Foundations

Critical ethnography shares several things with interpretive, noncritical approaches. It explores, describes, and interprets norms, rules, everyday rituals, and epistemologies that identify people within a culture or institution. This is done not in order to test hypotheses or even to collect empirical information subject to tests of validity and reliability, but rather to better understand social phenomena. Also critical ethnographers are not keen on statistical generalizability but prefer analytical generalizability, which emphasizes the potential of ethnographic research for theoretical development. When ethnographic research allows scholars to create and expand concepts or understand generic processes or social systems, ethnographic research can be said to have value for theoretical/analytical development.

However, where critical ethnography diverges from interpretive ethnography is in the epistemological and theoretical orientation of the ethnographer and his or her role as an engaged citizen, activist, and scholar. Critical ethnography seeks to move beyond mere description and interpretation and move instead toward a critical approach that [Page 224]seeks to question hegemonic discourses that allow certain groups to exert power over others, to equalize power structures, and to criticize the actions and policies faced by people enmeshed in subordinate relations. In his work, for instance, Dwight Conquergood took it on himself to testify in court as an expert witness on the groups he studied on several occasions.

Historically, ethnographers—even many interpretive ones—have adopted an ethnographic approach based on detachment from the people under study, the desire to maintain and gather value-free knowledge, and the relativist view that cultures are different but equal. In contrast, critical ethnographers' main assumption and interest are in the ways cultures are positioned unequally in power relations. Critical ethnography takes its roots from critical theory, following in particular the idea that institutions create unequal power structures and produce a false consciousness in which the people cannot see this and actually work to maintain the status quo. This translates into full-blown attempts to create communities and relationships based on ideals of equality, as Dwight Conquergood did by forming surrogate families both among the Hmong in Southeast Asia and in Albany Park.

...