Faculty of Arts & Humanities DEPARTMENT OF Anthropology and Sociology School of Oriental & African Studies MA Course Cover

Sheet Academic Year: 2013-14 Term: Course Title: Course Code: Course Unit Value: Contact Hours (per week): Course Teachers: Autumn Term Ethnographic Research Methods (T1) 15PANH002 0.5 1 hour lecture; 1.5 hour tutorial Lecturers: Dr Edward Simpson Tutorials: Dr Edward Simpson

Prerequisites: None Timetable: See www.soas.ac.uk/timetable for the lecture room. Tutorials will be assigned and lists posted on the notice board in the Faculty office. You should note that the timetable is subject to change and you are strongly advised to check the latest version on the web. Teaching methods and modes of learning: There will be a lecture and a compulsory 1.5 hour tutorial. You are expected to participate in tutorials by reading essential texts and preparing any other agreed assignments. Assessment: Assessment Assignment 1 Assignment 2 Weighting (%) 0.5 0.5 Due Date (by 11:59pm) 8th of January 2014 8th of January 2014 Length (words) 2500 2500

Coursework submission procedures: All assignments for this course must be submitted online via the BLE. Full guidelines can be found at: http://www.soas.ac.uk/artshumanities/information-for-students/ocs/ A brief summary of these instructions can also be found at the end of this course outline. Essays must be submitted online by 11:59pm (23:59) on the due date. Late submission of essays will be penalised by the loss of TWO percentage marks per working day. Please be

aware that University of London regulations on plagiarism apply to all work submitted as part of the requirement for any examination. Coursework feedback and marks will be available online no later than one calendar month after submission. Your tutor will email you when essays are ready, and they can be viewed via the same BLE page you submitted your essay from. If you have not received coursework back in a reasonable time, contact the course tutor or the programme convenor. Please note that you must provide an accurate word count for all coursework submitted for assessment (regulation 7.3) and that there are strict penalties for coursework that is over length (regulation 7.6). For students entering the school in and after September 2010, you should also note that you must undertake all elements of assessment and examination for your course (see regulation 6.3 in the postgraduate handbook for further details). You should check the most up to date web version of the handbook which can be found at: http://www.soas.ac.uk/welcome/postgraduate/enrolment/pgthandbook/ Attendance Requirements: You should attend all lectures and tutorials for the course, and attendance is required for at least 50% of tutorials, attendance registers will be maintained for these. You should notify your tutor or the Faculty Office in advance if you are unable to attend a tutorial for good reason. Should two absences occur without explanation within any four week period, your tutor will inform the Faculty Office and a letter will be sent to you with copies to the departments programme convenor and to the Registry. All absences are noted on your records, and if absences persist you may be prevented from taking the written examination for the course. Lecture Programme 2013-14: Wk 1 Wk 2 Wk 3 Wk 4 Wk 5 Wk 6 Wk 7 Wk 8 Wk 9 Wk 10 Wk 11 Malinowski and post-Malinowski Fieldwork and participant observation Personal anthropology and writing culture Ethics and representation Applied anthropology READING WEEK Introduction to the SOAS MA dissertation Anthropological method and theory Anthropological method and pictures Anthropological method and biography How to write a research proposal

General reference texts on research methods and ethnographic knowledge

Bernard, H.R. 2011 (5th edition) Research methods in anthropology. Alta Mira: London. * Borneman, John and Abdellah Hammoudi (eds) 2009. Being there: The fieldwork encounter and the making of truth. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ellen, E.F. 1984. Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. London: Anthem Press. Fardon, Richard (ed.) 1990. Localizing strategies: Regional traditions of ethnographic writing. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press; Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Faubion, James D. and George E. Marcus (eds). 2009. Fieldwork is not what it used to be: Learning anthropologys method in a time of transition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Ferguson, James and Akil Gupta (eds) Anthropological locations: Boundaries and grounds of a field science. Berkeley: University of California Press. Skinner, J. 2012. The interview: An ethnographic approach. London: Berg. Web-based materials Sage Publishers run a very comprehensive website dedicated to research methods. Further information on social science research in the United Kingdom can be found on the Economic and Social Research Councils website:http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ Reading list The following readings are to be used as a resource for future research needs, essay writing and other assignments. You are not expected to read all of them. Each week, a set of readings is highlighted as essential; these will form the basis of weekly class discussions. Further readings are suggested which expand the essential readings and are useful for students who are either particularly interested in some topic and want to read more extensively, or who wish to write an essay on it. Most topics have readings drawn from formal methods handbooks as well as more discursive sources; try to read some of both. All readings are to be undertaken with research design in mind. Note: readings marked with an asterisk (*) are key readings FOR ALL.

Preamble Students take this course for many reasons, some simply because they have to, others because they want to learn how to think about and do anthropological research. Developing a critical appreciation of anthropological or ethnographic methods is however not simply an academic exercise, it is an important life skill. I would like you to think about the discussions of methodology that take place as part of this course as such, as if you were learning a life skill. Anthropology requires certain kinds of doing, thinking and learning. It involves being with other people, talking to them, listening, understanding and grasping their point of view. While these types of interaction appear commonplace, the more you practice and consider them, the better you will become at them. Anthropology is not however easy. Recently, anthropological methods have also become extremely popular outside universities, especially with market research consultancies, governments and aid organisations. A grasp of anthropological methods is also then a marketable personal commodity, at least if presented appropriately. Above all however, an appreciation of anthropological methods takes us to the heart of the question of what it means to know things as well as one another. Students on this course are asked to read ethnography with a critical mind, primarily to see how research is turned into to writing, and method is turned into ethnography. What are the relationships between the anthropology we read, research questions and the process of research itself? What role does comparison play in anthropology? While reading ethnography ask questions of the way facts are presented: What is explained and how? How are arguments developed? What is excluded? How could the anthropologist have known this or that? The course covers the following: history of anthropological methods, fieldwork and participant observation, personal anthropology and writing culture debates, ethics, applied anthropology and advocacy, methodology and theory, visual research techniques, biographic and life history methods and writing research proposals. Please subject all the ethnography you read to an epistemological health check. This is good reading and thinking practice, and will also lend to a greater appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of anthropological methods. Aside from appreciating and understanding methods, the overarching aim of this course is to encourage students to think creatively and innovatively about the design and deployment of methodology. A solid appreciation of anthropological methodology will allow students to: undertake high-quality research within or outside the university. think through research design mindful of both the questions to be asked and the welfare and interests of the researched.

communicate both methods and findings effectively to a wide range of audiences.

Week 1: Malinowski and post-Malinowski Anthropological research methods set the discipline apart from others. Long-term participant observation generates fieldnotes and ethnography. This course critically scrutinises the different stages of the research process in anthropology. We will also touch on the history of methods and their epistemological consequences for shaping the discipline. Epistemology is an important word; we use it to mean the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity. Anthropology is based on learning and knowing, and theories of epistemology, both common-sense and philosophical, are key to understanding a sound grasp of the implications of method in anthropology. We will discuss questions of objectivity and interpretation, identify the difference between positivist and interpretive theories of knowledge. Through a discussion of the writing and research practices of Malinowski I will also introduce you to some of my own research. Reading Asad, T. 1986. The concept of cultural translation in British social anthropology in J. Clifford and G.E. Marcus (eds) Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Geertz, C. 1979. From the natives point of view: On the nature of anthropological understanding, in P. Rabinow and W.M. Sullivan (eds) Interpretive social science. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. pp. 225-241. Also in The insider/outsider problem in the study of religion; A reader (ed.) R.T. McCutcheon 1999. London & New York: Cassell. Hollis, M. 1994. The philosophy of social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. * Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the western Pacific. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (Chapter 1, Subject, method and scope). http://ia600301.us.archive.org/25/items/argonautsofthewe032976mbp/argonautsofthewe032976 mbp.pdf * Simpson, E. 2006. Apprenticeship in western India, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol. 12, 151-171. Week 2: What is fieldwork? Anthropologists do it in the field. But what exactly is fieldwork, where is the field and how does the term relate to what anthropologists do? Participant observation has been taken as the defining feature of social anthropology. What does it entail? How what ways has its meaning

changed since Malinowskis day? In what way do fieldworkers participate when carrying out their research? The term ethnography is used both to refer to a method of research and to the written product of research. We will also focus on objectivity and subjectivity, gender and the researcher; actor-oriented approaches, and the notion of fieldwork as experience and process as it is reflected in writing. We will ask how theory the identity and social position of the researcher and research data are interconnected, and what is the relationship between fieldwork and writing in anthropology, in the past and today. Critically read one * article as an example of ethnographic fieldwork Reading Altorki, S. and C.F. El-Solh (eds) 1998. Arab women in the field: Studying your own society. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Berreman, G. 1962. Behind many masks, in his Hindus of the Himalayas. Berkeley: University of California Press (2nd edition). Bell, D., P. Caplan and W. Jahan Karim (eds) 1993. Gendered fields: Women, men and ethnography. London: Routledge. * Boellstorff, T. 2008. Coming of age in second life: An anthropologist explores the virtually human. Princeton: Princeton University Press (see on googlebooks). * Borneman, J. 2007. Syrian episodes: Sons, fathers, and an anthropologist in Aleppo. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Castaneda, Q.E. 2006. The invisible theatre of ethnography: Performative principles of fieldwork, Anthropological Quarterly, vol. 79, no. 1, 75-104. Dresch, P., W. James & D. Parkin (eds) 2000. Anthropologists in a wider world: Essays on field research. Oxford & New York: Berghahn Books (chapters by Parkin, Dresch and Allen). Geertz, C. 1979. Deep Play: notes on the Balinese cock-fight, in P. Rabinow and W.M. Sullivan (eds) Interpretive Social Science: A reader. California UP. [Also in Geertzs The interpretation of cultures, Basic Books, 1973]. * Gupta, A. & J. Ferguson, 1997. The field as site, method and location in anthropology, in Gupta, A. & J. Ferguson (eds) Anthropological locations: Boundaries and grounds of a field science. Berkeley: University of California Press. Handwerker, W.P. 2006. The evolution of ethnographic research methods: Curiosities and contradictions in the qualitative research literature, Reviews in Anthropology, vol. 35, no. 1, 105-118. Hume, L. and J. Mulcock, 2004. Anthropologists in the field. Cases of participant observation. New York: Columbia University Press.

Jackson, M. 1989. Paths towards a clearing. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (Introduction and Chapter 7: The man who could turn into an elephant) * Jenkins, T. 1994. Fieldwork and the perception of everyday life, Man (N.S.) vol. 29, 433456. Lassiter, L.E. 2005. Collaborative ethnography and public anthropology, Current Anthropology, vol. 46, no. 1, 83-106. * Kovats-Bernat, J. C. 2002. Negotiating dangerous fields: Pragmatic strategies for fieldwork amid violence and terror, American Anthropologist, vol. 104, no. 1, 208-222. Marcus, G. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 24, 95-117. Perez, Rosa Maria, 2009. Body and culture: Fieldwork experiences in India, Portuguese Studies, vol. 25, no, 1, 30-45. Prentice, R. 2008. Knowledge, skill, and the inculcation of the anthropologist: Reflections on learning to sew in the field, Anthropology of Work Review, vol. 29, no. 3. Rabinow, P. 1977. Reflections of fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. * Simpson, Edward (2005) 'The 'Gujarat' earthquake and the political economy of nostalgia.' Contributions to Indian Sociology, 39 (2). pp. 219-249.

Week 3: Personal anthropology and writing culture In this session we will examine the role of writing, reflection and biography in the production of ethnographic knowledge. First we will discuss fieldnotes, and then the writing of ethnography. This will return us to themes introduced in the first week: rhetorical styles, the constitution of anthropological authority, and questions of representation. Reading Aunger, R. 1995. On ethnography: Storytelling or science?, Current Anthropology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 97-130. Clough, P.T. 1998. The end(s) of ethnography. From realism to social criticism. New York: Counterpoints.

Fardon, R. (ed.) 1990. Localizing strategies. Regional traditions of ethnographic writing. Scottish Academic Press & Smithsonian Institution (Introduction plus an appropriate regional chapter). James, A. et. al. (eds) 1997. After writing culture. Epistemology and praxis in contemporary Anthropology. London: Routledge (Chapter 1). Kulick, Don and Margaret Wilson (eds) 1995. Taboo: Sex, identity and erotic subjectivity in anthropological fieldwork. London: Routledge. * Marcus, G. & J. Clifford (eds) 1986. Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California (Introduction: Partial Truths). Marcus, G. & D. Cushman. 1982. Ethnographies as texts, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 11, 25-69. Marcus, G. & M. Fischer. 1986. Anthropology as cultural critique. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Pocock, D. 1988. Persons, texts and morality: Marett memorial lecture, Oxford, 1988. International Journal of Moral and Social Studies. 3 (3), 203-216 (BLE). * Pocock, D. 1994. The idea of a personal anthropology. Journal for the Anthropological Study of Human Movement, 8 (1), 11-42. A reprinted version of a paper presented to the Decennial Conference of the Association of Social Anthropologists, at Oxford, July 4th-11th, 1973 (BLE). Spencer, J. 1989. Anthropology as a kind of writing, Man, vol. 24, no. 1, 145-64

Week 4. Ethics and representation In this session we look at the ethical issues in anthropological research from fieldwork to writing and publishing. We examine the history of ethnical controversy in the discipline, the nature of current guidelines and some new dilemmas Reading Adams, R. 1981. Ethical principles in anthropological research: One or many?, Human Organization, vol. 40, 155-59. Ahmed, A. & C. Shore, (eds) 1995. The future of anthropology. London: Athlone.

Association of Social Anthropologists Ethical guidelines for good research practice http://www.theasa.org.uk/ follow links to ethnics Akeroyd, A. 1984. Ethics in relation to informants, the profession and government, in R. Ellen (ed.) Ethnographic Research. Academic Press (Chapter 6). Barnes, J. 1977. The ethics of inquiry in the social sciences. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Burr, R. 2002. Shaming of the anthropologist: Ethical dilemmas during and in the aftermath of the fieldwork process, http://www.anthropologymatters.com/onlinejournal/RachelBurr.html Cassell, J. 1980. Ethical principles for conducting fieldwork, American Anthropologist, vol. 82, 28-41. Castaneda, Q. 2006. Ethnography in the forest: An analysis of the ethics in the morals of anthropology, Cultural Anthropology, vol. 21, 121-145. Christensen, G. 1993. Sensitive information: Collecting data on livestock and informal credit, in S. Devereux and J. Hoddinott (eds) Fieldwork in developing countries. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. pp. 124-137. Harper, I. and A. Corsin Jimnez, 2005. Towards interactive professional ethics, Anthropology Today, vol. 21, no. 6, 10-12. Mills, D, 2003. Like a horse in blinkers?: A political history of anthropologys research ethnics, in P. Caplan (ed.) The ethics of anthropology: Debates and dilemmas. London: Routledge. * Mosse, D. 2006. Anti-social anthropology? Objectivity, objection and the ethnography of public policy and professional communities. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.).vol. 12, no. 4, 935-956. Nugent, S. 2001. Anthropology and public culture: The Yanomami, science and ethics, Anthropolgy Today, vol. 17, 10-14. Pels, P. 1999. Professions of duplexity: A prehistory of ethical codes in anthropology, Current Anthropology, vol. 40, no, 2. Pettigrew, J. et al, 2004. Relationships, complicity and representation: Conducting research in Nepal during Maoist insurgency, Anthropology Today, vol. 20, 20-25. Scheper-Hughes, N. 1995. The primacy of the ethical: Propositions for a militant anthropologist, Current Anthropology, vol. 15, pp. 227-43 (see the response of M. Ramphele. 1996. How ethical are the ethics of this militant anthropologist? Social Dynamics, vol. 22, no. 1).

Tierney, P. 2000. Darkness in Eldorado. How scientists and journalists devastated the Amazon. NY: W. Norton. (see the debate this book generated in `CA Forum: Anthropology in Public Perspectives on Tierneys Darkness in Eldorado, Current Anthropology, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 265-76; and discussion on the AAA website]. Wilson, K. 1993. Thinking about the ethics of fieldwork, in S. Devereux & J. Hoddinott (eds) Fieldwork in Developing Countries. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. pp. 179-199. Warwick, D. 1983. The politics and ethics of field research, in Bulmer and Warwick (eds), Social research in developing countries. pp. 315-330. Please also see numerous articles on ethics and research published in the journal Anthropology Matters http://www.anthropologymatters.com

Week 5: Applied Anthropology What relations can anthropologists have with the people and subjects they research? Should anthropologists get involved? What might the consequences be? Reading: the article in Current Anthropology, Vol. 51, No. S2, October 2010, which most appeals to your research interests. WEEK 6: READING WEEK Week 7: Introduction to the SOAS MA Dissertation with Jakob Klein In this weeks session we will discuss the regulations and expectations relating to a Masters level dissertation at SOAS. If you are an MA student writing a dissertation in the anthropology department it is vital that you attend this session. M.Phil students need not attend. Seminar groups will run as normal on a topic chosen by the group. Week 8: Anthropological method and theory In this session we look at the use of social theory in fieldwork. We take the work of Pierre Bourdieu as an example to examine the role of individual biography in the ways anthropologists can see and understand the world. In particular we will look at his concept of habitus and his less well known French ethnography. Al-Mohammad, Hayder. 2011. 'Less methodology more epistemology please: The body, metaphysics and certainty' Critique of Anthropology, 31:121-138.

10

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. * Bourdieu, P. 2008. The Bachelors Ball: The Crisis of Peasant Society in Barn. Oxford: Polity. Bourdieu, P. 2008. Sketch for an Auto-analysis. Oxford: Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre and Loic Waquant, 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Oxford: Polity. Goodman, Jane E. 2003. The proverbial Bourdieu: Habitus and the politics of representation in the ethnography of Kabylia, American Anthropologist, 105(4): 782-793. James, A. et. al. (eds) 1997. After writing culture. Epistemology and praxis in contemporary Anthropology. London: Routledge (Chapter 1). * Jenkins, Timothy. 2006. Bourdieus Barnais ethnography, Theory, Culture and Society, 23(6): 45-72. King, Anthony. 2000. Thinking with Bourdieu: A practical critique of habitus, Sociological Theory, 18(3): 417-433. McNay, Lois. 1999. Gender, Habitus and the Field: Pierre Bourdieu and the Limits of Reflexivity, Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 16, 1: pp. 95-117. Robbins, Derek 2009. After the Ball Is Over: Bourdieu and the Crisis of Peasant Society, Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 26, 5: pp. 141-150. Robbins, Derek 2007. Sociology as Reflexive Science: On Bourdieu's Project, Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 24, 5: 77-98.

Week 9. Anthropological method and pictures * An article closest representing your own research interests from either Visual Anthropology Review or Visual Anthropology * Browse: Alexander Street Anthropology (SOAS has a subscription for this database) and watch a film with subject/theoretical affinity with the article you have read. What are the connections/divergences between the two?

11

Banks, Marcus and Howard Morphy. 1997. Rethinking visual anthropology. Yale: Yale University Press. Collier, John. 1986. Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. University of New Mexico Press. Edwards, Elizabeth. 2011. Raw histories: Photographs, anthropology and museums. Oxford: Berg. Loizos, Peter, 1993. Innovation in ethnographic film. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Morton, Christopher and Elizabeth Edwards (eds) 2009. Photography, anthropology and history: Expanding the frame. Farnham: Ashgate. Suhr, Christian and Rane Willerslev, 2012. Can Film Show the Invisible? The Work of Montage in Ethnographic Filmmaking. Current Anthropology, Vol. 53, No. 3: 282-301. Week 10: Anthropological method and biography This week we will look at the techniques of biography and life history method in anthropology. The lives of other people are intrinsically interesting, so to too are the ways in which people present themselves as continuous or discontinuous beings. Biography is linked to concepts of self, personhood and proper and improper being in society. Think about how we present ourselves, while juxtaposing the life history of a friend against the ideas contained in one of the following readings. Becker, Gay, 1994. Metaphors in disrupted lives: Infertility and cultural constructions of continuity, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 8, 4: 383-410. Delcore, Henry, 2004. Development and the life story of a Thai farmer leader, Ethnology, 43, 1: 33-50. Jackson, Michael, 2005. West-African Warscapes: Storytelling Events, Violence, and the Appearance of the past, Anthropological Quarterly, 78, 2: 355-375. Johnson-Hanks, Jennifer, 2002. On the Limits of Life Stages in Ethnography: Toward a Theory of Vital Conjunctures, American Anthropologist, 104, 3: 865-880. Lewis, David, 2011 Exchanges of professionals between the public and non-governmental sectors: Life-work histories from Bangladesh, Modern Asian Studies, 45, 3: 735-757. MacClancy, Jeremy, 2007. Nakomaha: A Counter-Colonial Life and Its Contexts. Anthropological Approaches to Biography, Oceania, 77, 2: 191-214.

12

Rttger-Rssler, Birgitt, 1993. Autobiography in Question. On Self Presentation and Life Description in an Indonesian Society, Anthropos, 88, 4./6.: 365-373. Simpson, Edward, 2013. Death and the spirit of patriarchy in western India. In Magnus Marsden and Konstantinos Retsikas (eds) Articulating Islam: Anthropological approaches to Muslim worlds. Dordecht: Springer, pp. 55-76.

13

Appendix: Surveys and interviews A central part of anthropological research of all kinds is interviewing; the readings below relate to the interviews as a method, followed by a section on surveys. Interviews Bulmer, M. 1983. Interviewing and field organization, in M. Bulmer and D.P. Warwick (eds) social research in developing countries. London: Wiley & Sons. pp. 205-217. Fontana, A. & J. Frey, 1998. Interviewing: The art of Science, in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds) Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. New Delhi: Sage. Hammersley, M. and P. Atkinson, 1983. Insider accounts: Listening and asking questions, in their Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Tavistock. pp.105-126. Heyl, B. S. 2001. Ethnographic interviewing, in P. Atkinson et. al. (eds) The handbook of ethnography. Sage (Chapter 25). Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. New Delhi: Sage (chapters 1-2, 5-9). May, T. 1993. Social research. Open University (Chapter 6). McCracken, G. 1988. The long interview. Beverley Hills: Sage. Mitchell, J. & H. Slim, 1991 The bias of interviewing, RRA Notes, vol. 10. Moser, C.A. and G. Kalton, 1971. Methods of collecting the information III - interviewing, in their Survey methods in social investigation. London: Heinemann (Chapter 12). Pottier, J. 1989. "Three is a crowd": Knowledge, ignorance and power in the context of urban agriculture in Rwanda, Africa, vol. 54, no. 4, 461-477. Tedlock, D. 1987. Questions concerning dialogical anthropology, Journal of Anthropological Research, vol. 35, no. 4, 387-400. Surveys Bulmer, M. and D.P. Warwick, 1983. Data collection, in M. Bulmer and D.P. Warwick (eds) Social research in developing countries. London: John Wiley & Sons (Chapter 11). Buzzard, S. 1990. Surveys: Avoiding the common problems, in K. Finsterbusch, J. Ingersoll and L. Llewellyn (eds) Methods in social analysis in developing countries. Westview Press. Social Impact Assessment Series.

14

Kandiyoti, D. 1999. Poverty in transition: An ethnographic critique of household surveys in post-soviet Central Asia. Development and Change, vol. 30, no. 3, 499-524. Leach, E. 1967. An anthropologists reflection on a social survey, in D. Jongmans and P. Gutkind (eds) Anthropologists in the field. Assen: Van Gorcum. Moser, C.A. and G. Kalton, 1971. Questionnaires, in their survey methods in social investigation. London: Heinemann. pp. 270-302 (Chapter 13). Rudra, A. 1989. Field survey methods, in P. Bardhan (ed.) Conversations between economists and anthropologists. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Wuelker, G. 1983. Questionnaires in Asia, in M. Bulmer and D.P. Warwick (eds) Social research in developing countries. London: John Wiley and Sons (Chapter 12). Guarnaccia, P.J., P.J. Pelto, G.L. Pelto, L. Allen, L. Meneses and A. Chavez (1988) Measuring socio-economic status: Assessing intra-community diversity, Culture and Agriculture, vol. 35, 1-8. Nichols, P. 1991. Social survey methods: A fieldguide for development workers. Oxford: Oxfam. Development Guidelines No.6. Olsen, W. 1993. Random sampling and repeat surveys in south India, in S. Devereux and J. Hoddinott (eds) Fieldwork in developing countries. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. pp. 57-72.

15

ANTHROPOLOGICAL/ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH METHODS 20013-14 COURSE ASSESSMENT There are TWO assignments to be completed for this course. (A) a mini-ethnography, and (B) as second item from the options listed below. Both assignments together should amount to 5,000 words. (A). Mini-ethnography (approx 2,500 words) Write a mini-ethnography based on participant observation. The paper should include extracts from your fieldnotes to provide some sense of the social interaction and of the setting that you observed. You should also use your fieldnotes to analyze the framework and process of your observations/ interpretations. The paper should include: a description of the scene/setting; the research role(s) you adopted; it should discuss the issue of research access; discuss the issue of perspective used to render an interpretation; and comment critically on the representational, rhetorical or authorial style that you adopt. You will need to undertake a minimum of 3-5 hours of participant observation to answer this question. (B). In addition to your mini-ethnography you should undertake ONE of the following (approx 2,500 words) 1. Write a critical book review of a recent ethnography (approved by the course teacher) which evaluates the research methodology, the findings/conclusions, and their validity and reliability. In part do this by outlining: a description of the scenes/settings in which the research was undertaken; the research role(s) adopted by the ethnographer; comment on the issue of how the researcher negotiated access in the field and various scenes; discuss the researchers perspective and how this seems to be reflected in her/his interpretation/analysis; discuss the research design and choice of methods; comment critically on the representational, rhetorical or authorial style adopted by the ethnographer, and finally, indicate ethical issues that arise in the ethnography (field research and writing) 2. Write a research proposal that sets out a key research question, justifies a specific research design and methodology and provides the rationale for different research techniques (try to find ways of integrating more than one research method-- e.g. participant observation, interviews, oral history, secondary data analysis to explore a defined research topic. Attach an outline and timeframe rough budget [if in doubt talk to me first]. 1. Write an essay (questions to be provided by the course lecturer). Both of your assignments should be bound together and submitted in duplicate by 11.59pm of the first Monday of the spring term 2014.

16

Online Submission Guide Full guidelines for uploading essays and viewing your marks can also be found on the SOAS website at: Faculty of Arts & Humanities -> Information for Students -> Online Coursework Submission. URL: http://www.soas.ac.uk/artshumanities/information-for-students/ocs/guide Deadlines 1. Essay deadlines for all online submissions are 11:59pm (23:59) on the date due. We do however advise you submit earlier in case you encounter any difficulties. 2. Assignments will be open for late submission until midnight on the final school deadline date (Friday, Week 2, Term 3). After this date no further online submissions will be possible. 3. Penalties for late submission are applied in the same way as for paper submission. However, 2% deductions occur from midnight of each overdue day instead of 16:00. 4. When submitting your essay AFTER the essay deadline please email your course tutor to advise them as soon as you have submitted. Tutors will not automatically be notified of late submissions and failure to contact them could result in your essay not being marked by the final school deadline. Format and File Details 1. Submit your essay as one single file. Do not split your essay, bibliography or appendix items in to separate documents. 2. Formatting must be in the same style as for paper submissions: font size 11 with page numbers. On the first page should be displayed: your student ID, course title, course code, tutor's name, assignment number and word count. 3. Your submitted file must be less than 20 MB in size. 4. Essays must be in either MS Word, WordPerfect, PostScript, PDF, HTML, RTF or plain text format. 5. If you have scanned your essay to a PDF file, ensure you encode the file using OCR (optical character recognition) to ensure the essay is readable by the submission system. Submitting 1. There are six steps to uploading your essay 1. Ensure you have selected the appropriate assignment 2. Click the My Submissions tab 3. Give your essay a title 4. Select a file for upload 5. Check the confirmation box 6. Click Add Submission 2. Confirmation of successful submission will be provided by an automatic email delivered to your student email address. This is your proof of submission - do not delete this file.

17

If you do not receive this receipt, re-attempt submission. If your submission is still not accepted, follow the Alternative Email Essay Submission procedures on the next page. 3. You can review your submitted essay by returning to the My Submissions tab a few minutes after uploading your essay. 4. Resubmitting Essays: 1. Before the essay deadline has passed submitted essays are considered draft and can be resubmitted/overwritten repeatedly. To resubmit work click the resubmit button from the assignment submission screen. 2. After the essay deadline essays cannot be resubmitted. 5. If all attempts to submit your essay via BLE fail, alternative arrangements may be provided by your faculty office (uploading of your emailed submission for example). Guidelines on how to proceed can be found on the Alternative Email Essay Submission procedures on the next page.

18

Alternative Email Essay Submission If, having followed the preceding guidelines, you are unable to submit your essay via BLE refer to the technical support page at: http://www.soas.ac.uk/artshumanities/information-forstudents/ocs/support/ However, as it is important that you submit your essay by its required deadline, where you are encountering submission problems you are permitted to email your essay to your faculty. This email facility must only be used for courses where online submission of coursework is being used and should only be used as a last resort. Please ensure you adhere to the following process. Required Steps 1. Email from your student email account. 2. In the subject of your email include: a. Your six digit student ID number. b. Your course code. (This is the 9 character code that identifies your course. It will be in the format 15 XXX XNNN for PG courses or 15 NNN NNNN for UG courses where X denotes a letter and N denotes a number). c. The assignment number. 3. Copy and paste the text of your essay in to the body of your email. 4. Attach the file you are attempting to submit, ensuring it conforms to the required format noted in the "Format and File Details" section of the online submission guide. 5. Send your email to one of the following email addresses, depending on which department you are submitting your essay to: Department of Anthropology & Sociology [email protected] Department of Art & Archaeology [email protected] Department of History [email protected] Centre for Media and Film Studies [email protected] Department of Music [email protected] Department of the Study of Religions [email protected] You will receive an automated reply on receipt of your email. However, your essay email will only be formally accepted once the faculty office have checked your attachment and uploaded it to BLE. Your submission date and time will be taken from the date stamp on the automatic confirmation email you received.

19