Robert M. Emerson - Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, Second Edition

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)
ISBN-13: 978-0-226-20686-8 (e-book)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Emerson, Robert M.

Writing ethnographic fieldnotes / 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. EthnologyAuthorship. 2. EthnologyFieldwork. 3. EthnologyResearch. 4. Academic writing. I. Fretz, Rachel I. II. Shaw, Linda L. III. Title.
GN307.7.E44 2011
808.066305dc22

2011016145

This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).

Robert M. Emerson

Rachel I. Fretz

Linda L. Shaw

Over the past twenty-five years or so, ethnography has become a widely recognized and generally accepted approach to qualitative social research. But ironically, in the years since the publication of the first edition of Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes in 1995, the surge of interest in ethnographic writing we noted at that time seemingly has receded. Sociologists and anthropologists 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 community studies and writing programs. But the earlier concern with the processes of writing fieldnotes, as opposed to polished ethnographic articles and monographs, does appear to have made significant marks on the practice of ethnography: Some ethnographers now publish articles on key issues and processes in writing fieldnotes, including Warren (2000) and Wolfinger (2002). In addition, and probably more significantly, some ethnographic anthologies (e.g., Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont, Lofland, and Loflands Handbook of Ethnography) and qualitative research guides (e.g., Lofland, Snow, Anderson, and Lofland, Analyzing Social Settings, fourth edition; Warren and Karner, Discovering Qualitative Methods: Field Research, Interviews, and Analysis, second edition) now provide extended discussions of how to produce and work with fieldnotes. These developments provide some indication that addressing policies and practices for writing fieldnotes is increasingly part of ethnographic training for many social scientists.

These developments provide part of the motivation for a second edition of Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. But our own experiences teaching ethnographic fieldwork to another generation of students played a much larger role in this decision. As we continued to work with both undergraduate and graduate students in fieldwork courses, we were struck again and again by the pivotal role that writing fieldnotes plays in introducing ethnography 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 accurate fieldnote 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 reactions 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 first edition. In particular, we have substantially reorganized on strategies and tactics for writing fieldnotes to more closely mirror the sequencing of stages through which beginning ethnographers pass in learning to write fieldnotes. In these chapters, we deepened our discussion of point of view, in particular, focusing on the shifts between first and third person as well as showing the benefits of writing in focused third person. We also clarified the many ways that fieldnote writing is a kind of narrating, both in creating a loosely structured days entry and in composing more cohesive fieldnote 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 fieldnotes and ethnography to broader social patterns and structures. Throughout, we have updated our references to reflect contributions to ethnographic practice since the publication of the first edition and included new student fieldnote excerpts that exemplify our concerns and recommendations.