Disciplinary (Per)Mutations of Ethnography

There has been a veritable explosion across various disciplines “discovering” ethnography over the past three decades. This article argues that the proliferation of “ethnography” outside anthropological circles has led to some pervasive interrelated misconceptions about ethnography, misconceptions reinforced by some of the reflective debates within anthropology. Consequently, this article argues that the broadening interdisciplinary discussions of “ethnographic methods” obscure the actuality of ethnography. Practitioners in these disciplines often discuss how they use “ethnographic methods,” as if these “methods” are the equivalent of engaging in ethnography. As a result, some rather significant differences in the way disciplines conceive and practice ethnography emerge because of how ethnography itself is conceptualized rather than how it is practiced. Ethnography is not simply an amalgamation of constituent parts; it is a sum greater than its constituent parts. There is more to ethnography than either its methods or its texts. Although ethnography is also about the kinds of stories, narratives, and diverse ways in which knowledge is produced and its findings are presented, ethnography is so much more than a literary endeavor. All the research methods found in ethnography are used in other forms of research, yet said methods, in and of themselves, do not make ethnography unique nor make an ethnography. Ethnography is much larger, profound, and illuminating