Participant Observation and Grand Theory Essay Example for Free

Participant Observation and Grand Theory EssayBronislaw Malinowski, with his ground-breaking field lap of the Trobriand Islander residential district in the beginning of the 20th century still today counts as a pi atomic number 53er, if not the founder of the British Social Anthropology. In his famous book Argonauts of the Western Pacific. An Account of congenital Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea that was first published in 1922 he develops an flourish ruleological frame ready for ethnographical look into, also known as dissipateicipant reflection.This method testament highly influence the anthropological way of nuzzleing its field of study and hence its theoretical adorn from then on. Looking at Malinowskis description of the clan system of the Trobriand community, his descriptive and specifying style of training becomes apparent Each of the four clans has its own name Malasi, Lukuba, Lukwasisiga, Lukulabuta. () There are specia l combinations of the clan names with formative roots, to descrive men and women and the mixed plurality belonging to the same clan Tomalasi a Malasi man Immalasi a Malasi women Memalasi the Malasi people ().Near the village of LabaI, on the northern shore of the main island, there is a glare c alled Obukula, which is marked by a coral outcrop. Obukula is, in fact, a hole (dubwadebula), or house (bwala) that is to say, one of the points from which the first ancestors of the linage emerged. (Malinowski 1929 496 f. , italics in original) This very nuanced and lineament specific example of the material gained from his methodological approach gives rise to the question if Malinowskis heritage of player observation has forever distanced Anthropology from bringing forward wonderful theories?To be satisfactory to consider and discuss this question, it is important to first define what Malinowski circumscribed when he dictated out his dogma for ethnographical research by the term participant observation. Secondly, a closer critical review of the dictum opulent speculation is indispensable for our purpose and will be clarified in the atomic number 16 role of this essay. Subsequently, we will look at these two concepts and their tattleship to one an otherwise in section three in order to approach the question whether Anthropology washbowl be viewed as a experience able to set offgrand theories. I. Participant observation In the foreword to Argonauts of the Western Pacific Malinowski states that he has spankingd in that Trobriand Island archipelago for about two years (), during which time he naturally acquired a thorough knowledge of the language. He did his work entirely alone, living for the greater part of the time right in the village. (1966 xvi). This statement already contains the fragrance of participant observation in fieldwork.The hallmark of this methodological way of collecting data is the immersion of the tec into her or his field of st udy over a long period of time and the personal part taking in the interactions of the people in the community studied. When Malinowski defined this pertly approach of first-hand observation he broke with the, at that time prevailing tradition of armchair ethnography. In this prior approach, ethnographers compiled data gained from historical sources to guess theories about authoritative aspects of a usually native community (Osterhoudt 2010).One of the main contributions of Malinowskis new method to anthropological theory was that by participating and observing behaviour in the sample community he found out that a discrepancy between existing behaviour and narrative statements exists. The eloquence and uniformity, which the mere verbal statement suggest as the only shape of human conduct, disappears with a break out knowledge of cultural reality. (Malinowski 1979 83). This discovery in itself already composes a point of criticism towards the preceding ethnographical arm-chair a pproach to data collection and evaluation. Even though participant observation is based on a seemingly broad and intuitive research design, it would, however, be incorrect to assume that this approach would be salvage of any directive principles on how to collect relevant data.Therefore, Malinowski describes how first, the researcher must possess real scientific aims (Malinowski 1966 6) and be familiar with the theoretical background of anthropology. Further, the researcher should live in the field among the natives all by herself/ himself, and lastly the researcher has to stick to special and strict scientific methods, much(prenominal) as drawing tables of tellingship terms, genealogies, maps, plans and diagrams (idib. 1966 10) to collect, prepare and record her/his data.The previous example of the clan system provides a whiz of the detailed and case specific information that is obtained by the application of participant observation. Besides the kind of the data collected, it should also be looked at the area of research and Malinowskis suggestion of the subject to be studied. He proposes that the field prole observes human existences acting within an environmental setting, natural and artificial influenced by it, and in turn transforming it in co-operation with each other. (Malinowski 1939 940). Thus, he focuses on the soulfulness as a starting point and its relation to, and joint dependence on a social group. The inquiries of a researcher will hence have to let in a specific study of the individual, as well as the group within which he has to live and work. (idib. 1939 950). The collective life within that group or society is widely to be seen in received types of activities, institutions such as the economy, education, or social control and political system in place (idib.1939 954). These institutions, as he points out, can be seen as a fruitful base to investigate the individuals motives and values and they will provide insight into the cognit ive process by which the individual is conditioned or culturally formed and of the group mechanisms of this process. (idib. 1939 954). II. Grand Theory In the following, the dictum grand theory will be specified and by doing so distinguished into two different tendencies of studying the concept.Wiarda (2010) defines a grand theory in his book Grand Theories and Ideologies in the Social Sciences as those large, overarching explanations of social and political behaviorliberalism, Marxism, socialism, positivism, corporatism, political culture, institutionalism, psycho synopsis, rational choice theory, environmentalism (Jared Diamond), sociobiology, and now chemistry and geneticsthat give coherence to the social acquaintances, help us to organize and think about change and modernization, and give us models to understand complex behavior. (Wiarda 2010 x)This definition of grand theory as an overarching explanation is in line with Anthony Goods (1996) understanding of a generalizing s cience that produces usual, descriptive and predictive laws (idib. 1996 34). Here a grand theory is understood as a theorem providing a universal and structural framework that gives meaning to grumpy and individual phenomena on the ground. In this process the importance of the local and the contingent, () the extent to which our own concepts and attitudes have been shaped (Skinner 1985 8) builds also a part of the universal framework.The second tendency to conceive the idea of grand theory goes a step further and is chiefly characterized by C. Wright mill about application of it. He vigorously criticised the concept in his book The Sociological institution (1959) The basic cause of grand theory is the initial choice of a level of thinking so general that its practitioners cannot logically get down to observation. They never, as grand theorists, get down from the higher generalities to problems in their historical and structural contexts.This absence of a firm sense of genuine problems, in turn, makes for the unreality so noticeable in their pages. (idib. 1959 33) As this quote shows, Mills understanding of a grand theory goes beyond our first definition. In this second understanding Mills implies that scientists generating grand theories are engrossed in their try to build abstract, normative and all-embracing frameworks and thus neglect the study of the meaning behind their constructs.The individual with its particular values and interpretations, as well as variety on the scale of the actual area of research fall behind. III. Participant Observation and its relation to Grand Theory Taken the just outlined conception of grand theory influenced by Mills and putting it in birth with Malinowskis methodology of participant observation, the answer to our question whether or not Malinowskis heritage barred the way of Anthropology to ever produce grand theories appears unambiguously to be yes.Participant observation in its very nature is close to the individ ual and aims to explore, over a long period of time, which social and cultural forces influence the human being in a specific setting. Therefore, with regards to Mills conception of grand theory, Anthropology has a birth defect called participant observation that will always prevent it from producing highly abstract grand theories, which stand in no relation to the circumstances from where they were deduced from.A closer look reveals that Malinowskis understanding of the anthropological formation of theory aligns with Mills criticism towards highly abstract grand theories It would be easy to quote works of high repute, and with a scientific hall-mark on them, in which wholesale generalisations are laid down before us, and we are not informed at all by what actual experiences the writers have reached their conclusions.() I consider that only such ethnographic sources are of unquestionable scientific value, in which we can clearly draw the line between, on the one hand, the result of direct observation and of native statements and interpretations and on the other, the inferences of the author, based on his common sense of psychological insight. (Malinowski 1966 3) Here Malinowski differences between two approaches of data processing.One approach leads to mere wholesale generalisations and the other approach also includes the actual experiences the researcher faced on the local level that explain on what assumptions and observations her or his generalizations are based on. He hence supports the notion of Anthropology as a science of producing generalisations, as long as they are comprehensible and in direct relation to the reality on the ground. Malinowskis ethnographies exist to a vast amount of descriptive details that are very specific to certain social groups or individual preferences and he has hence often been criticized as an empiricist (see Firth 1957).Also, one could argue that his exploit to put his findings in a neat structured box with columns, as h e has done in his article Group and Individual in Functional Analysis (1966) seem rather compelled. Nevertheless, he was able to provide social science with universal and generalizing frameworks on, inter alia, on how social institutions function in relation to society. He states that social institutions have a definite organisation, () they are governed by authority, law and order in their public and personal relations, while the latter are, besides, under the control of extremely complex ties of kinship and clanship. (Malinowski 1966 10). Malinowskis suggestion to use institution as a starting point for social and cultural analysis has produced integrated descriptions instead of loosely classified catalogues of traits, and has stimulated the fuller recording of case material from actual behavior as a supplement to the listing of ideal patterns. (Murdock 1943 443). Following Malinowskis ethnographic method and theory construction therefore aims to create a firm framework of the so cial constitution that disentangles the laws and regularities of all cultural phenomena from the irrelevances. (Malinowski 1966 10f. ). His approach is thus far more that only an accumulation of meaningless observations of an individuals life in a very specific society. Considering these arguments, Malinowski approach can, indeed, be seen as congruent with our first tendency to understand grand theory. The answer to our initial question should hence be that Anthropology is a science that can sure as shooting produce grand theories in the sense of generalized frameworks and universalistic theories, without neglecting the importance of the local and the contingent (Skinner 1985 12).Furthermore, Anthropology can be viewed as an established science with its own field of study being the human being and its social group as well as their mutual dependencies and influences. Anthropology stands in a clear relationship to the other basic science, because it is concerned with studying phenome na at one clearly discriminate level opposite number those other sciences. (Good 1996 32)