WRITING ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELDNOTES SECOND EDITION WRITING ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELDNOTES SECOND EDITION Robert M. Emerson Rachel I. Fretz Linda L. Shaw THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS • CHICAGO AND LONDON robert m. emerson is professor emeritus in the Department of Sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is the author of Contemporary Field Research: Perspectives and Formulations, now in its second edition. rachel i. fretz is a lecturer in the Writing Programs unit at UCLA. linda l. shaw is professor in and chair of the sociology department at California State University, San Marcos. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London © 1995, 2011 by The University of Chicago All rights reserved. Published 2011. Printed in the United States of America 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 isbn- 13: 978-0-226-20683-7 (paper) isbn- 10: 0-226-20683-1 (paper) Library of Congress Cataloging- in-Publication Data Emerson, Robert M. Writing ethnographic fi eldnotes / Robert M. Emerson, Rachel I. Fretz, Linda L. Shaw. — 2nd ed. p. cm. — (Chicago guides to writing, editing, and publishing) isbn- 13: 978-0-226-20683-7 (pbk.: alk. paper) isbn- 10: 0-226-20683-1 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Ethnology—Authorship. 2. Ethnology—Fieldwork. 3. Ethnology— Research. 4. Academic writing. I. Fretz, Rachel I. II. Shaw, Linda L. III. Title. gn307.7.e44 2011 808Ј.066305—dc22 2011016145 o This paper meets the requirements of ansi/ niso z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper). To our friend and colleague, Mel Pollner (1940– 2007) Contents Preface to the Second Edition ix Preface to the First Edition xiii 1 Fieldnotes in Ethnographic Research 1 Ethnographic Participation 2 The Complexities of Description 5 Inscribing Experienced/ Observed Realities 12 Implications for Writing Fieldnotes 15 Refl ections: Writing Fieldnotes and Ethnographic Practice 18 2 In the Field: Participating, Observing, and Jotting Notes 21 Participating in Order to Write 24 What Are Jottings? 29 Making Jottings: How, Where, and When 34 Refl ections: Writing and Ethnographic Marginality 41 3 Writing Fieldnotes I: At the Desk, Creating Scenes on a Page 45 Moving from Field to Desk 48 Recalling in Order to Write 51 Writing Detailed Notes: Depiction of Scenes 57 Narrating a Day’s Entry: Organizational Strategies 74 In- Process Analytic Writing: Asides and Commentaries 79 Refl ections: “Writing” and “Reading” Modes 85 4 Writing Fieldnotes II: Multiple Purposes and Stylistic Options 89 Stance and Audience in Writing Fieldnotes 90 Narrating Choices about Perspective 93 Fieldnote Tales: Writing Extended Narrative Segments 109 Analytic Writing: In- Process Memos 123 Refl ections: Fieldnotes as Products of Writing Choices 126 5 Pursuing Members’ Meanings 129 Imposing Exogenous Meanings 131 Representing Members’ Meanings 134 Members’ Categories in Use: Processes and Problems 151 Race, Gender, Class, and Members’ Meanings 158 Local Events and Social Forces 166 Refl ections: Using Fieldnotes to Discover/ Create Members’ Meanings 167 6 Processing Fieldnotes: Coding and Memoing 171 Reading Fieldnotes as a Data Set 173 Open Coding 175 Writing Code Memos 185 Selecting Themes 188 Focused Coding 191 Integrative Memos 193 Refl ections: Creating Theory from Fieldnotes 197 7 Writing an Ethnography 201 Developing a Thematic Narrative 202 Transposing Fieldnotes into Ethnographic Text 206 Producing a Completed Ethnographic Document 229 Refl ections: Between Members and Readers 241 8 Conclusion 243 Notes 249 References 269 Index 283 Preface to the Second Edition Over the past twenty- fi ve years or so, ethnography has become a widely rec- ognized and generally accepted approach to qualitative social research. But ironically, in the years since the publication of the fi rst edition of Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes in 1995, the surge of interest in ethnographic writing we noted at that time seemingly has receded. Sociologists and anthropolo- gists no longer take up the complexities of representation in ethnography as frequently as they did in the 1980s and 1990s; they offer fewer considerations of the nature and effects of writing in ethnographic research than in those decades, although these issues seem to remain lively concerns in commu- nity studies and writing programs. But the earlier concern with the pro- cesses of writing fi eldnotes, as opposed to polished ethnographic articles and monographs, does appear to have made signifi cant marks on the prac- tice of ethnography: Some ethnographers now publish articles on key issues and processes in writing fi eldnotes, including Warren (2000) and Wolfi nger (2002). In addition, and probably more signifi cantly, some ethnographic an- thologies (e.g., Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont, Lofl and, and Lofl and’s Hand- book of Ethnography) and qualitative research guides (e.g., Lofl and, Snow, Anderson, and Lofl and, Analyzing Social Settings, fourth edition; Warren and Karner, Discovering Qualitative Methods: Field Research, Interviews, and Anal- ysis, second edition) now provide extended discussions of how to produce and work with fi eldnotes. These developments provide some indication that x PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION addressing policies and practices for writing fi eldnotes is increasingly part of ethnographic training for many social scientists. These developments provide part of the motivation for a second edi- tion of Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. But our own experiences teaching ethnographic fi eldwork to another generation of students played a much larger role in this decision. As we continued to work with both undergradu- ate and graduate students in fi eldwork courses, we were struck again and again by the pivotal role that writing fi eldnotes plays in introducing ethnog- raphy and in molding and deepening students’ research experiences. And we remain intrigued by the varieties of writing issues that students have to grapple with and try to resolve in order to create lively, detailed, and accu- rate fi eldnote depictions of the social worlds they are trying to comprehend. Teaching in large part from Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes had another effect: As the result of continuing student questions and confusion, we saw at close hand some of the limitations in parts of the book. These student re- actions led us to make changes at a number of points in the text, although we have tried to retain as much continuity as possible with the fi rst edition. In particular, we have substantially reorganized chapters 3 and 4 on strate- gies and tactics for writing fi eldnotes to more closely mirror the sequencing of stages through which beginning ethnographers pass in learning to write fi eldnotes. In these chapters, we deepened our discussion of point of view, in particular, focusing on the shifts between fi rst and third person as well as showing the benefi ts of writing in focused third person. We also clarifi ed the many ways that fi eldnote writing is a kind of narrating, both in creating a loosely structured day’s entry and in composing more cohesive fi eldnote tales within those entries. We have made fewer and less drastic changes in the other chapters, although we have provided a fuller discussion of the issues of race, class, and gender as well as the relationship of fi eldnotes and ethnography to broader social patterns and structures. Throughout, we have updated our references to refl ect contributions to ethnographic prac- tice since the publication of the fi rst edition and included new student fi eld- note excerpts that exemplify our concerns and recommendations. In terms of the actual substance of these changes, in our teaching we now place strong emphasis on beginning analysis as early as possible. Develop- ing theory from fi eldnote and interview data is not an easy or straightfor- ward process and should be started early enough to allow the fi eldworker to look for, fi nd, and write up observations that will advance such analysis. The new edition refl ects these concerns: We now urge writing brief asides and more elaborate commentaries from day one in the fi eld, one- paragraph sum- PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION xi mary commentaries at the end of each set of fi eldnotes, and lengthier in-process memos within a matter of weeks. We continue to distinguish these forms of in-process analysis and analytic writing from the full- bore processes of coding and memo writing that best occur after a substantial amount of fi eld data has been collected. We want to acknowledge the help and support of a number of students from our courses who have contributed feedback on the fi rst edition and/or fi eldnotes that we have incorporated in this second edition. These students include Diego Avalos, Caitlin Bedsworth, Stefani Delli Quadri, Marie Eksian, Katie Falk, Christy Garcia, Graciella Gutierrez, Blaire Hammer, Brian Harris, Heidi Joya, Eric Kim, Jaeeun Kim, Norma Larios, Grace Lee, Nicole Lozano, Miles Scoggins, Sara Soell, and Jennifer Tabler. We would also like to thank the following family, friends, and colleagues for their intellectual and personal support in this project: Bruce Beiderwell, Sharon Cullity, Amy Denissen, Sharon Elise, Shelley Feldman, Bob Garot, Jack Katz, Leslie Paik, Mary Roche, Garry Rolison, Bob Tajima, Erin von Hofe, and Carol Warren. Preface to the First Edition In recent years many ethnographers have emphasized the central place of writing in their craft. Geertz’s (1973) characterization of “inscription” as the core of ethnographic “thick description” and Gusfi eld’s (1976) dissection of the rhetorical underpinnings of science provided seminal statements in the 1970s. Subsequently, Clifford and Marcus’s edited collection, Writing Cul- ture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography (1986), Van Maanen’s Tales of the Field (1988), and Atkinson’s The Ethnographic Imagination (1990) have ad- vanced consideration of ethnographic writing. Yet examinations of ethnographic writing remain partial in scope: All begin with already written fi eldnotes and move on to examine matters such as the rhetorical character of these fi eldnotes or the more general structure of the whole, fi nished ethnographies built up from them.