This speaks to my suspicion that the ideal of the "objective, neutral, unbiased researcher" is a myth, which must be accounted for in their ethnographic research.

A relevant take-away for any field

Not sure how I feel about the researcher misleading the readers about his own thoughts and feelings. I understand the value of including of the researcher's inner thoughts as a window into their mindset and perspective. But what's the point of "tricking" the reader about these things?

This also made me consider the inverse situation--in which a researcher deliberately omits mention of their own thoughts and feelings. This feels equally misleading, since a researcher who enters the field with lingering prejudice against a specific group will have their perspective affected by their bias. If they do not disclose this bias, however, the reader's conclusions from their writing can be distorted as they are unable to take this bias into account.

What exactly is "interpretive ethnography"? Are there any different kinds?

Is there danger in framing an academic study (ethnography) in this way? Can the frame impact the contents -- e.g. the researcher starts to imagine himself as a detective, which can distort the narrative and cause them to insert elements that aren't really there?

This duality seems like a parallel to the "double-voiced fieldnotes", and the insider-outsider dichotomy.

This echoes what I mentioned in a previous annotation -- by separating objective observations and subjective impressions, the researcher's fieldnotes really seem to speak with "two voices."

I'd never really considered before the important of a researcher's voice and inner thoughts as well as their objective observations in conducting fieldwork. It's important, however, that these thoughts are clearly delineated and that the researcher doesn't "speak over" the group they are observing in the process.

Interesting how the student here draws directly from their personal thoughts and reactions. This selection shows the value of having fieldnotes -- Amy was actually able to convey her spontaneous impression at the time the fieldwork was being done, by referring to her notes.

The student's choice to reveal personal details like these is interesting, and worth considering as a strategy when doing fieldnotes. Although this statement doesn't tell us anything about the class itself (the subject of the study), it tells us about the perspective and mindset of the researcher, which may be important as it colors their observations and the data.

It seems to me like the emphasis here isn't on removing bias or consciously becoming completely objective (which may not be possible), but instead identifying preconceptions so you can disclose them in your work and consider how they might impact your thought process.

This looks like an excellent way to confirm that your research conclusions are grounded in fact. Your statements and judgments should emerge as common themes from the raw data, to ensure you're not just putting down prejudices or assumptions you came into the field with.

I noticed these are some of the same things I already do when writing journals of my personal life. It might be interesting to contrast the process of creating field notes to creating a journal entry.

The double-entry method is particularly interesting because it allows for the potential of physically separating out the objective and subjective -- what's going on vs. one's reactions.

"Learning to look" is important because it's a skill I'd never considered before. This could be especially relevant in a setting or subculture you're familiar with, where you may think you already know everything.

The challenge and difficulty presented by this choice is difficult to overstate. There is so much constantly going on and possible to observe with a culture that it's crucial for a researcher to decide what subset of information to capture.

This paragraph highlights the importance of fieldnotes being accessible and useful for reference, as well as comprehensive--something lacking in a free-structured, stream-of-consciousness narrative.

Since fieldnotes usually consist of unstructured written observations, it seems especially important to organize them. This type of data, from my perspective, is less intuitive to organize and structure than for instance quantitative data.

The satirical piece also highlighted a dangerous human tendency: to see our own practices as rational and logical, while looking at the unfamiliar as strange, irrational, and superstitious. This has enormous potential to color and distort ethnographic work.

I wonder how academics can incorporate their "gut reactions" and "subjective responses" into their work. Relying on these things looks like the exact opposite of what I conceived ethnography as looking like.

This selection is an excellent example of the way assumptions can color an ethnography and distort its accuracy.

From being familiar with this particular culture (likely a middle-class, North American nuclear family), I would take issue with some of the language used here (e.g. "obligatory praise song") because I'm not sure it accurately describes what's going on as much as it does the ethnographer's assumptions.

I wonder how many people would have similar thoughts or quibbles when reading ethnographies of their own culture.

The clarification of "modern" here makes me wonder whether pre-modern families might have qualified as subcultures.

Great examples here of defining features of a subculture - jargon, norms, shared beliefs, etc.

I found the emphasis here on ethnography as a "collaborative journey" interesting and promising. To me, the most disturbing element of a poorly-done or biased ethnography is that it removes the autonomy of the people being studied. Ensuring this process is a collaborative one gives the study subjects a place at the table.

This section really lays bear the immense responsibility anthropologists and ethnographers have to be fair, accurate, and objective in their studies. Since for many individuals, their work is the vessel through which non-academics and non-anthropologist professionals understand a different culture, it's crucial that these works be fair. As shown by the myriad applications outlined here, how a culture is depicted in academia can have real, concrete consequences. I know that in the past, poorly-done ethnographies have reinforced stereotypes and prejudices and done damage to marginalized groups.

I wonder why deviations from the prevailing patterns of beliefs are also included in this definition of culture.

This sentence is a great short summary of what fieldworkers do. The preceding paragraph also makes the strong point that customs are present in groups of any size, and an "in-group" can be as large as a culture or country and as small as a club or school.

Fieldworkers require close observational and listening skills.