Defining Elements of Critical Ethnography

As with any methodology, critical ethnography is employed differently by different researchers, but there are some common characteristics that can be found in the vast majority of critical ethnographic work. I provided an explanation of critical ethnography at the beginning of this chapter, but I'd like to expand on that explanation here by discussing some of the defining elements of critical ethnography. These elements, in fact, are what make critical ethnography critical.

Illuminating Both Structure and Agency

Critical approaches to ethnography (Anderson, 1989; Carspecken, 1996; Carspecken & Walford, 2001; Foley, 1990; Levinson, Foley, & Holland, 1996; Roman & Apple, 1990; Willis, 1977) attend to both the larger social structures and the agency of individual people and groups of people. Both structure and agency are, therefore, illuminated through data and analysis in critical ethnography. Illuminating structure, on the one hand, means showing how economic, political, social, historical, and cultural institutions and norms operate in any given context and confine the options available to individuals. Illuminating agency, on the other hand, means highlighting how people are not completely constrained and how our actions are not always determined by structures. Instead, individuals make choices within a particular context and often resist oppressive and constraining structural forces. Thus highlighting resistance—that is, opposition to the marginalization and oppression experienced either by an individual or by a group of which an individual is a member—is an important goal in critical ethnography. In other words, critical ethnographers argue that although people have agency and often resist their oppression, structures bear down on them and confine their arena of possibilities for action.

As I noted earlier, Paul Willis's Learning to Labor (1977) offers a classic example of the relationship between structure and agency, but countless critical ethnographic studies since then have done this as well. The vignette with which I opened this chapter reflects this tension in my own research, and, for me, it was difficult to determine the appropriate emphasis between structure and agency. Overemphasizing the structural dynamics of racism within schools implies that individual people play no role and are thus exempt from responsibility for racist practices and outcomes. But overemphasizing the role of individuals in regard to racism within schools implies that the institution of schooling is equitable and that racism is merely the fault of a few irresponsible people and, therefore, is easily fixed. Neither of these explanations fully articulates the reality within schools.

Highlighting Both Micro and Macro Phenomena

Critical ethnography attempts to highlight both local practices and patterns and more general or global practices and patterns. For example, Stacey Lee's ethnography (2005) describes the ways American identity is synonymous with being White within a particular Midwestern high school. She provides thick description of her research context and the Hmong youth with whom she worked, but she uses the data as a sort of window through which to better understand patterns of race, racism, and identity within the U.S. education system. It is this rub between the micro, or local, and the macro, or global, that critical ethnography attempts to articulate. In other words, critical ethnographers know that racism, sexism, classism, and other types of oppression exist, and we attempt to illustrate how this oppression plays out at the local level. But it is also through this illustration of micro patterns and practices that we shed light on macro structures and institutions. As I noted earlier, I struggle (as do others) to articulate this balance in fair and accurate ways.

Drawing On and Building Theory

Critical ethnographers are interested in social theory and analyses of social systems, and we attempt to use our research to improve on and build social theory. We share an interest in theoretical concepts like structure, agency, culture, reproduction, and oppression. Further, critical ethnographers attempt to weave theory and rich description. In Angela Valenzuela's Subtractive Schooling (1999), for example, she provides rich description of the schooling experiences of Latina/o youth while also adding much to our understanding of theories of both assimilation and caring. There is much to be learned from Valenzuela's description of schooling so that we can better understand the struggles, successes, and strategies of Latina/o youth in U.S. schools. There is also much to be learned from the variations on caring theory that Valenzuela articulates. Good critical ethnography adds to our understanding of existing theories (such as caring theory in Valenzuela's work) or develops new theoretical insights.

Theory plays an important role in critical ethnography because we rely on theory to provide an interpretive or conceptual framework for both designing the research and analyzing the data. Critical ethnographers may draw on feminist theory, critical theory, queer theory, or critical race theory, for example, to guide our research topic and questions, methods, analysis, and interpretation. This is not to say that critical ethnographers already know what we are going to find or are just looking for what we already know; instead critical ethnographers are explicit about the foundational principles and assumptions from which we are starting. For example, if I approach my research from a critical race theory perspective (Bell, 1992; Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Dixson & Rousseau, 2006; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995), I already assume that racism exists and that race matters in everyday experiences. What I do not know, however, is what racism will look like at a particular site or how race will have an impact on certain people and experiences—these might be some of the things I am hoping to uncover in my research. After collecting data, I also then come back to critical race theory to assist me in making sense of and better understanding my data.

Focusing on Various and Intertwining Power-Related Identities and Oppressions

Critical ethnographers study a range of topics, but our research topics are always related to issues of power. By power, I mean access to key resources and knowledge, and the means to exert control over those resources and knowledge within society. Power is differently distributed among and between racial, social class, gender, linguistic, and other groups, resulting in patterns of oppression and privilege. Although critical ethnography is often associated with critical theory and its exclusive focus on social class issues, many critical ethnographers are concerned with all forms of social injustice and address issues of race, class, gender, sexuality, and language in our work. It is important to note that many contemporary critical ethnographers examine the intersections of multiple identities and power-related categories. Michelle Fine and Lois Weis's The Unknown City (1998), on the one hand, provides an example of a critical ethnography that is primarily about social class but also devotes considerable attention to race and gender. Stacey Lee's Up Against Whiteness (2005), on the other hand, centers an analysis of race and ethnicity while also attending to issues of social class, gender, and language. The primary topic of analysis (for example, race or class) is not what distinguishes critical ethnography. Rather, it is the focus on some aspect of power, privilege, and oppression that is one defining characteristic of critical ethnography.

Reflecting on Issues of Representation and Positionality

Critical ethnographers devote considerable attention to issues of representation and positionality. Although these terms have been used to refer to a variety of issues, I use representation here to mean issues related to how we as researchers describe our participants and data, and positionality to mean the identities of the researchers in relation to our participants and data.

Two of the most common issues related to representation that critical ethnographers must resolve are how to represent our participants and how to represent certain types of data. Research that focuses on issues of power necessarily involves people who are affected by inequitable resource and power distribution, and questions arise as to whether individuals negatively affected by power hierarchies ought to be described in research as victims, villains, or heroes. These choices are, of course, overly simplistic and fail to account for the actual complexity involved, but the point remains that critical ethnographers sometimes make difficult decisions about how to best represent our research participants.

In a related vein, critical ethnographers sometimes make difficult decisions about how to handle “hot” data that has the potential to cause harm or misrepresent an issue. As Michelle Fine and Lois Weis (1998) eloquently note, “We continue to struggle with how to best represent treacherous data; data that may do more damage than good, depending on who consumes/exploits them” (p. 272). Stacey Lee's work (2005) provides another example when she describes the struggle to decide how to talk about “early marriage” practices among the Hmong American families in her research. A topic like “early marriage” could serve to reinforce stereotypes and vilify the Hmong American community, but it could also serve to illuminate both the experiences within families and the dominant structures within schools that judge immigrant youth and communities.

Considering the authorial voice of researchers, Michelle Fine (1994a) outlines three positions qualitative researchers might adopt. First, the ventriloquist stance assumes the researcher directly transmits information from the research participants. There is no political stance explicit in the research, and the researcher is detached from the participants and attempts to be as invisible in the representation as possible. This position denies that any choice between various perspectives exists and, as a result, conveys descriptions of research that are static and disconnected from the larger context. Second, the voices stance positions the research participants at the center and highlights their ideas and experiences that are in opposition to the dominant discourse. The researcher is present, but her positionality is not addressed explicitly. And third, in the activism stance the researcher takes an explicit stand against injustice and advocates for greater equity on behalf of those most marginalized.

The third option outlined by Fine is most consistent with critical ethnography because the researcher has a clear agenda and is positioned as an activist. However, in addition to assuming the activism stance, many critical ethnographers also explicitly incorporate reflexivity concerning our own positionality. This reflexivity entails deep and critical reflection by the researcher about her own identities and her role in, and impact on, the research. “Positionality is vital because it forces us to acknowledge our own power, privilege, and biases just as we are denouncing the power structures that surround our subjects” (Madison, 2005, p. 7).

Subjectivity is an oft-cited concept within research circles, and although subjectivity and positionality are related, they are not exactly the same. Whereas subjectivity refers to one's own, individual self, positionality refers to the self in relation to others (Madison, 2005). Positionality assumes that we coconstruct reality, and it is the space of overlap or intersection that critical ethnographers must examine and make explicit in our research. There must be a balance, however, so that the research does not become solely about the researcher—taking it out of the realm of critical ethnography and into the sphere of autobiography or autoethnography (see Chapter eight). Because critical ethnographers are primarily concerned with highlighting and changing inequities, our work must center the people and topic of analysis rather than centering ourselves as researchers.

As in all studies, my positionality and identities certainly played a role in how I was perceived, how people interacted with me, what they said to me, and what they did not say or do in my presence (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995; Weis & Fine, 2000). As a White person conducting research with predominantly White teachers, my racial identity was often taken for granted and not questioned. In this sense my whiteness was an asset because White teachers and administrators seemed to assume a sort of compatibility with me and believed that I would share similar ideas about race. I am sure that a number of teachers felt comfortable saying certain things to me because of our shared White identity. Being acutely aware of how I was probably being perceived by most of the White teachers with whom I worked caused me some discomfort, however. I often wondered if I was being dishonest or unethical by not making my beliefs about race and racism explicit to them. It is likely that doing this would have caused tension in a number of the relationships I formed with teachers, and, in the end, I opted to not offer my perspectives about race but also to be honest if I was asked. It is perhaps unsurprising that I was rarely asked about my thoughts on issues of race and racism.

Taking a Stand Against Inequity

In addition to focusing on issues of representation and positionality, critical ethnographers center an agenda of highlighting and changing inequities because we value equity, which refers to that which is fair and just. Critical ethnography is concerned with both what is and what could be, or what ought to be (Carspecken, 1996; Madison, 2005; Noblit, Flores, & Murillo, 2004; Thomas, 1993). In other words, critical ethnographers attempt to both describe the current lived realities and advocate more equitable alternatives. Critical ethnographers thus share a value orientation in that we are all concerned about inequity and attempt to use our research toward positive social change (Carspecken, 1996; Carspecken & Apple, 1992). As Phil Carspecken (1996) notes,

Through both our research topics and our approaches we strive for a world in which equity prevails—in other words, one in which fairness and justice are prevalent.

Critical ethnography is defined, in part, by its social usefulness—that is, by its ability to highlight and offer alternatives to the many social injustices and inequities in our world. Indeed, “critical ethnography begins with an ethical responsibility to address processes of unfairness or injustice within a particular lived domain” (Madison, 2005, p. 5). Critical ethnographers are explicit about our politics and believe that researchers must be engaged in working for social change, although we sometimes differ on exactly what that means. As an example, Douglas Foley and Angela Valenzuela (2005) differentiate between critical ethnographers who do cultural critiques, those who write applied policy studies, and those who are involved directly in political movements. Whereas Foley (1990, 1995) describes his work as primarily cultural critique, Valenzuela has been involved in numerous political movements and has served as an expert witness on educational issues in Texas. Both scholars do important critical ethnographic work because, like other critical ethnographers, they attempt to illustrate and disrupt inequity.