Political and administrative ethnographies

Citation

Rowe, M. (2015), "Political and administrative ethnographies", Journal of Organizational Ethnography, Vol. 4 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-05-2015-0014

Political and administrative ethnographies

Article Type: Book review From: Journal of Organizational Ethnography, Volume 4, Issue 2.

States of Imagination: Ethnographic Explorations of the Postcolonial State

Edited by Hansen, T.B. and Stepputat, F.

Duke University Press

Durham, NC

2001

Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power

Edited by Schatz, C.

University of Chicago Press

Chicago, IL

2009

Review DOI 10.1108/JOE-05-2015-0014

One of the assertions we find in the articles presented in this Special Issue on administrative ethnographies is that observation and immersion struggle to find a place in the study of the contemporary state. Academics working in political science will be familiar with the positivist bias in the research conducted and the papers published in the field. In part, this arises from the nature of the subjects that are of interest to political scientists and the difficulty of observing the inner workings of political and policy elites of Washington, Whitehall and elsewhere. It also reflects a separation of political science from the study of public administration. Yet we know that some of the finest work in the field can also lay claim to being ethnographic, whether that be Marris and Rein's (1972) observations on the war on poverty, Pressman and Wildavsky's (1973) observations on policy implementation or Heclo and Wildavsky (1974) detailed analysis of the workings of Treasury and policy officials in Whitehall. And we can point to examples of work that directly confronts the positivist bias in theory and in practice (Flyvbjerg, 1998, 2001). However, the assertion remains largely true. Ethnographic research is marginal to contemporary concerns with the state, politics, policy and public administration.

The two volumes under review both illustrate this assertion and, to a degree, explain it. The first, a collection of essays written by anthropologists, exemplifies some of the rich insights that can emerge from close observation. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the two essays by Buur (2001) and by Norval (2001) on the workings of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Buur observes the workings back stage in the Data Processor Unit. Statements are scrutinised and discussed. Do they describe an event or a gross human rights violation? In light of that, who is a victim, a perpetrator or a witness shifts in a way that underlines the fluid nature of bureaucratic decision making. Norval analyses the function of the same body as a repository of memory, of the not now, that leaves space for a post-apartheid identity to develop. She suggests that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has "subverted the ability of national leaders of all persuasions to grasp and represent history in their own image" (p. 191). What makes these two essays stand out is that the nature of the observations on which the authors draw are laid bare. We understand what has prompted their analysis and we can assess the validity of those conclusions. But this cannot be said of all the contributions. And this is part of the problem for political scientists and others. No matter how credible the conclusions may appear, we are not able to assess the nature of the evidence that informs the work. As a result, the essays appear as opinion pieces with a frustratingly opaque connection to the ethnographic promise of the sub-title.

The second collection considered has a more combative purpose, speaking directly to political scientists. It clearly sets out to address methodological debates and to argue for immersion in the study of power. As a result, the collection carefully and explicitly addresses the methodological questions and concerns that are absent from the first volume under review. Its four sections (Two Traditions of Political Ethnography; First-Person Research; Ethnography's Varied Contributions; and Placing Ethnography in the Discipline) develop what becomes a manifesto, setting forth the merits and the prospective agendas for ethnographic research. Kubik (2009) offers a clear exposition of the development of political ethnography before two essays confront the question of subjectivity. Both Allina-Pisano (2009) and Wedeen (2009) illuminate the value of ethnographic research in ways that, one suspects, will only irritate those political scientists unwilling to engage but, at the same time, might challenge and intrigue others. Readers who stick with the volume are then treated to an eclectic mixture of essays exploring the nature of ethnography and its value in questioning and illuminating problematic and puzzling themes. By way of an example, Schatzberg (2009) considers the question of causality in the Congo. If we take seriously that many Congolese believe "sorcery as a mode of causality because they are persuaded that it influences daily events and national politics" (p. 183), rather than to simply dismiss the idea, we can understand power as they see and experience it. It need not be a simple indication of delusions or false consciousness but a profoundly held belief.

Each of these essays draws explicitly upon some close engagement in observation and participation. The nature of this is transparent and, so, the reader is in a position to evaluate the value of the insights and conclusions they draw. It is to this, the writing (and reviewing) of ethnographic work that Yanow (2009) turns to in the final essay. She reflects on the experience of writing and reviewing to offer advice that, in this editor's opinion, have value well beyond the field of political ethnography. This is not to tame the interpretive aspects of ethnographic work for the audience. Rather it is to make transparent the work that underpins that interpretive enterprise. It is advice that the essays in the first volume under review would have benefitted from.

Together, the two volumes illuminate the worth of detailed ethnographic work and the weaknesses of some of the writing when engaging in debates that have been occupied by academic disciplines that value very different evidence. I for one would welcome the wider reading of Yanow's (2009) essay as a reader and a reviewer, though I recognise the difficulties as a writer. In this Special Issue of the Journal of Organizational Ethnography, the papers presenting research underline the importance and value of transparency in underpinning illuminating and insightful work. At the same time, the Special Issue continues the work of Schatz and colleagues in asserting the importance of ethnographic work for the political sciences.

Mike Rowe, Management School, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

References

Allina-Pisano, J. (2009), “How to tell an axe murderer: an essay on ethnography, truth and lies”, in Schatz, C. (Ed.), Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 53-73.

Buur, L. (2001), “The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission: a technique of nationstate formation”, in Hansen, T.B. and Stepputat, F. (Eds), States of Imagination: Ethnographic Explorations of the Postcolonial State, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp. 149-181.

Flybjerg, B. (1998), Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001), Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again, Cambridge University Press, Chicago, IL.

Heclo, H. and Wildavsky, A. (1974), The Private Government of Public Money, Macmillan, London.

Kubik, I. (2009), “Ethnography of politics: foundations, applications prospects”, in Schatz, C. (Ed.), Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 25-52.

Marris, P. and Rein, M. (1972), Dilemmas of Social Reform: Poverty and Community Action in the United States, Routledge, London.

Norval, A.J. (2001), “Reconstructing national identity and renegotiating memory: the work of the TRC”, in Hansen, T.B. and Stepputat, F. (Eds), States of Imagination: Ethnographic Explorations of the Postcolonial State, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp. 182-203.

Pressman, J.L. and Wildavsky, A. (1973), Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland; or, Why It’s Amazing that Federal Programs Work at all, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation of Ruined Hopes, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA and Los Angeles, CA.

Schatzberg, M.G. (2009), “Ethnography and causality: sorcery and popular culture in the Congo”, in Schatz, C. (Ed.), Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 183-200.

Wedeen, L. (2009), “Ethnography as interpretive enterprise”, in Schatz, C. (Ed.), Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 75-93.

Yanow, D. (2009), “Dear reader, dear author: the third hermeneutic in writing and reviewing ethnography”, in Schatz, C. (Ed.), Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 275-302.