Here is a new question of the week. It does not close down the last one - please continue to contribute there as well.
Consider the following research question:
"What is the nature of the rites of passage associated with adolescence among the people of Drongaland?"
In order to reach the truth about this topic, would it be better if the investigator came from Drongaland or from somewhere else? Why?
Hello blog since I’m the first to comment:
ReplyDeleteThe simple answer to this question mighht be that a person from somewhere else should undertake the research to eliminate the likelihood of a bias. However ‘to each his own bias’ and someone from somewhere else would be biased in his research towards the right depending on his own setiments.
The person from Drongaland may be inclined to present this rite through his own eyes, ignoring certain truths. Take for instance, (this is a little farfetched) the rite involves some amount of spiritual possession and so in order not to make his country seem primitive he either downplays the nature of this possession or overplays it depending on his sentiments towards the rite.
He may even use his personal beliefs to influence his research. For instance as a native of Drongaland his belief in the whole possession affair would somehow come into play. Instead of taking a critical look as to whether it is really possession that element is treated as an assumption. Therefore it is automatically assumed that there is actually possession involved.
His personal experience may also play a part in some way in his judgment. Depending on how he himself was treated during the rite it may affect his take on the rite in one way or another.
In the same vein the person from another place brings his limited understanding of the culture into play as happened in the past where the early colonialist allowed their limited understanding of the African culture to influence their perception of the African culture branding it as ‘barbaric’(I know this example is a little overused….but)
Therefore there is no clean cut way of eliminating all bias in a research investigation into culture. I’m not really sure if collaboration will eliminate this bias and allow more objectivity.
it would be important if the person came from drongaland to give a better answer but as skiski said, the person may be biased. however, if the investigator is an outsider he or she may not expose or reach all of what is the truth and the fact that the person is an outsider also brings into consideration the fact that his or her perception of the truth will be influenced by his or her origins. but to take sides i would go for the truth from the native's perspective.
ReplyDeleteObviously bias must be considered when making the decision about the right person to investigate. However it is possible to also be biased against the people of Drongaland even if you are not from Drongaland. Someone from Drongaland might be better equipped to understand their culture and traditions but also unwilling to name rites of passage that are perhaps secretive or even negative to his culture's appearance.
ReplyDeleteIn this day and age it is virtually impossible to remain unaffected by parts of the world you've never even had contact with due to the advancements in technology and journalism.
Honestly, if I had to make a decision about who should investigate, I would choose the best investigator period. Regardless of where they are from and then trust that being in a position where they are considered the best at what they do, they would push aside all external influences to their research.
Like Chelsea rightfully says, it will be quite a tall order to ask any investigator to be devoid of human bias! However, looking at it from a completely different angle, the origin of the investigator plays little role in reaching the truth. The real problem with reaching the truth is not the ”observed”, or the origin of the observer, but rather, the mindset of the “observer” himself/herself. (Of course origin can play a role in their mindsets) The truth can be right under the investigator’s nose, but how he/she interpretes it, reasons it out, and relays conclusive results which are purely truth, is another ball game altogether! An investigator from Drongaland may be biased towards some of the rites, having probably experienced the customs for oneself, whereas a foreign investigator may be truly oblivious to important information, or possess very shallow knowledge about certain reasons for the rites. In my “biased” opinion however, the foreign observer is more credible (I wonder if this opinion would have changed if I was from Drongaland ! ) think a foreign investigator is more likely to give objective results, though the validity is still questionable!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your interesting comments so far.
ReplyDeleteOf course I made up the country of "Drongaland", but the title of this thread is an adaptation of that of a famous study made by the anthropologist Margaret Mead. She researched on the nature of adolescence on the Pacific island of Samoa, and, when she published "Coming of Age in Samoa" in the 1920s, there was a great deal of controversy concerning whether or not her findings were true and accurate. Had the Samoans told her what she wanted to hear? Had she projected her own expectations onto what they said? Or was it just that her critics wanted to undermine the conclusions she came to because they didn't like them?
Mead reported that the path through adolescence in Samoa was orderly and that there seemed to be no taboo subjects, girls grew up in a very sexually liberated environment yet seemed to have no particular problems about raising their own families, etc. This was in marked contrast to observations and societal norms in the USA at the time - where adolescence was commonly regarded as a period of upheaval and danger.
You can obviously research this example or others that illustrate the dilemmas that arise when researching a "foreign" culture. Your comments above describe well some of these difficulties. There are no easy answers, but the search for them has given rise to accepted methodologies - the tools of the anthropologist's trade. Look up the terms "emic" and "etic" for further information on this...
To a larger extent, i think it would be much better if the investigator came from somewhere else because if it is an investigator from Drongaland, he/she may ignore some things which he/she will think that they are of less importance or they are so common and hence they need not be mentioned.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand as i was saying, an investigator from outside will take into account each and every things that he/she will see as to him, it may be of importance.
There may be a few set backs with this such as language barrier which may lead to incorrect and unreliable results which brings out the importance of the investigation being carried out by an investigator from Drongaland because he/she too will be able to provide detailed explanations to his finding as compared to an external investigator.
In short, i think to an extend that an external investigator will provide quantity while an internal investigator will provide quality results.
Honestly, I believe that no human no matter how hard they try can be completely objective about something maybe unless their emotions and feelings have disappeared. Therefore whether an investigator from outside or from Dragon land is investigating this situation, there will always be the problem of subjectivity but then the extent of the subjectivity is what really matters. For me I believe that an investigator from outside is better than a native one. As i said before, an outsider is more likely to be objective in the observation than someone who has lived in Dragon land and witnessed or even been a part of this practice before. If for example, I am asked to go and investigate the rite of passage of Ga girls known as kpojiemo in Accra, already I would know what to write because for one I do not like the idea of girls parading certain streets with their bare chest. My emotions are influencing the conclusions that I am going draw.
ReplyDeleteAgain we should remember that there is the problem of conformation to either prove or disprove the predictions of the investigator and this is known as the Oedipus Effect. Once the people of the land know that they are being observed, they will act in a way as to protect their reputation for example.
I have a problem with Chelsea saying that the best investigator should be given the job irrespective of whether he is a foreigner or a native of the land. What criterion determines the best investigator? Is it the person who can suppress his subjectivity more???
In response to Mama's question I think it is, in fact, the one who can suppress his subjectivity more. To be able to deliver the truth without much influence of your standpoint is, indeed, a great feat. As such, I think I would agree with Chelsea, only in my opinion, the foreign investigator is more likely to be objective because he has no firsthand experience of the subject he is investigating, unlike (perhaps) the native of Drongaland. Thus, the foreign investigator is less likely to have preconceptions, at least any concrete ones, and I think that goes a long way in reducing his subjectivity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Clementine and Manorki, although it would be more useful to get first hand information from a person who is from Drongaland the person may be bias.However, the investigator must take this into account and attack the problem from different angles .Either way neither the investigator or the native will give un-biased information.This is too complex to argue out !
ReplyDeleteI think it would help as well if when researching a foreign culture u can live with the native or the objects of study for some time and compare their behaviour and culture with what u know so u can have a more objective opinion. Definitely u may still hav a bias towards one but I believe the magnitude of the bias would be less than just as a foreigner doing research.
ReplyDeleteFor me, being an outsider of Drongaland has its advantages asome very strong standing arguments, but in order to investigate this issue, I would take an investigator from Drongaland over an outsider.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Because I believe that the outsider will not be able to explain some of the cultural practises of these Drongaland people; only someone on the internal end will be able show the significance of some of these practises.
The insider may be prone to bias, but so is the outsider. I remember when I was in IG2 one of my history assignments; it had something to do with this. The issue was to disparage which of the sources we had, one British and one German, was more inclined to tell us about the Hitler Youth.
Looking at the British point of view, they were prone to judge the Hitler Youth as a negative thing first of all due to the timeframe we were looking at, and secondly the ethics of the British people. While the German source gloried the Hitler Youth and all it was impacting.
I do acknowledge the fact that the insider in this case might be biased towards the culture of Drongaland because he comes from there; but at least he would be investigating these activities using values he gained from Drongaland itself and would be in a better position to understand, whereas the outsider would judge the values of Drongaland using his exterior principles that might not apply in their case.