Critical Review #5

In Chapter 13, Gregory Barz focuses on the role of fieldnotes in the process of field research. He makes a distinction between two models of the position of fieldnotes in the process of field research. In one, the linear approach, fieldnotes are essentially a transition phase from experience to interpretation, with no real opportunity to re-evaluate the field research, or the fieldnote. That is to say the ultimate goal of field research is the ethnography. On the other hand, however, he proposes a more integrative model, one that metaphorically utilizes the fieldnote as a fulcrum supporting both the experience and the interpretation. In my opinion, a more representative framework, the fulcrum model allows for retrospective re-evaluation of the experience and more importantly, the fieldnote. Barz comments on this notion, exemplified by Titon as “backward glances”, saying that there are some advantages and disadvantages to being able to look back on the experience and what one has jotted down. He mentions that the one main disadvantage is the temporal aspect of a fieldnote, the fact that a fieldnote is time-sensitive, saying, “time seems to become the enemy of fieldnotes, creating an awkward distance between inscription and event” (218). There are, however, benefits to retrospective analysis specifically being able to critically question what one has written down, which could ultimately lead to formulating new ideas for future research. As an aside, I am a bit confused about the term field research. It seems to be used as a broad, overarching term for the process of experiencing an event, writing fieldnotes, and interpreting the experience through a written ethnography, but at the same time, the term also seems to represent only the experiential aspect of the process (as indicated in the model). Is their a secondary definition for the term “field research”?


Discussion Question: Looking from a more extreme angle, with regard to Barz's proposal that "a more interactive model, one that locates fieldnotes in a position straddling the ranges of both field research action and ethnographic production", what would the consequences be to placing fieldnotes in a position of greater impact where, say, the reader does most of the interpretation, and how would this relate to Mjema's belief that we must "listen with our ears, and not with our pencils"?