1. Explain the difference between ‘fieldwork’ and
‘ethnography’ and why these are considered essential to the
discipline of anthropology?

2. Anthropology, the study of human diversity on a worldwide scale, distinguishes
itself as an inquisitive discipline with a heavy emphasis on empirical research. To
most cultural and social anthropologists, empirical research epitomizes the essence of
anthropology; that is, an attempt to understand the dynamic interrelationships
established between and within a myriad of cultures and societies of a particular
people. A holistic perspective of one’s chosen field study is acquired through the use
of commonly favoured methodologies of empirical research: fieldwork and
ethnography.
Ethnography is commonly a product of fieldwork as these two methods usually work
well together in achieving a thoroughly well explored enquiry of a specific culture.
Ethnography is a scientific written account detailing the lives of a society in depth
through observation of their customs. Fieldwork, on the other hand, is an attempt to
understand what it means to view the world from another cultural perspective through
immersing oneself in the society in question for a prolonged period of time (Heil,
Macdonald and Nettheim:Forthcoming). This essay will outline and contrast the
following key differences between fieldwork and ethnography: the morality,
reliability and importance of both methodologies.
Fieldwork has often been criticized for not addressing several underlying moral
implications concerning the ethnographer during the course of the field study
(Eriksen, [2001:28]) namely when carrying out certain techniques such as hidden
observation or regarding the level of personal involvement with the locals. It involves
a considerable amount of manipulation which some may go so far as to label deceit on
the ethnographer’s part. This calls into question the boundaries of an ethnographer:
how far would an ethnographer go to obtain field material for an ethnographic text? It

3. seems to suggest that the friendships developed are largely created out of necessity
rather than out of sincerity and for the most part, contact with locals cease once the
duration of the field study arrives. This implied that this might evoke a sense of
indignation on the peoples’ part as it creates the impression that they were simply
regarded as objects for the amelioration of science (Eriksen, [2001:28]). Ethnography
on the other hand, may not involve these techniques at all. In later events, a profitable
profession in several Native American tribes in North America has become more
prominent: the cultural specialist (Eriksen, [2001:28]). These local specialists unravel
the complexities of understanding tribal customs to foreign ethnographers. In that
sense, it may be said that ethnography could be deemed as less invasive as it may not
always be necessary to conduct fieldwork utilising techniques involving a higher level
of personal involvement, in order to produce an ethnographic account.
Many questions have been raised about the reliability of fieldwork and ethnography
as to whether they can be counted on to produce unbiased data. There is no doubt as
to their evident benefits: fieldwork produces empirical data rich with a deep insight
into the culture which is in turn translated into a well-rounded ethnographic text.
Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword: Eriksen states that firstly, significant
shortcomings such as several aspects of society life and of the native culture may not
immediately or actually be evident to the ethnographer. Ethnographers are fond of
acting the part of the ‘clown’ or that of the professional expert whilst conducting a
field study (Eriksen [2001:24]). Whilst choosing the former role usually creates
higher chances of observing unfiltered experiences, the latter creates slimmer
opportunities to observe the culture in its whole self, as locals may be too ashamed to
reveal facets of their culture to a high-ranking foreigner (Eriksen [2001:24]).
Secondly, as Eriksen (2001:27) said, ethnographical accounts may not be wholly

4. representative of the culture or society of the peoples under study. The perils of
depending on ethnography in turn exclusively depend on the unadulterated nature of
the empirical data produced and cannot be dismissed. As demonstrated by Gerald
Berreman who depended on a local interpreter throughout his experiences in North
India, a substantial amount of knowledge was unfortunately omitted due to the fact
that his interpreter was a member of a caste considered low in the hierarchy system
(Eriksen [2001:27]). This instance demonstrates that fieldwork though endorsing full
immersion can never be truly reflective of a culture, but strives to be as close an
approximation as possible.
Fieldwork is the crux of anthropology as it utilises techniques that investigate the
differences between cultures through experience and observation, which is the
foundation upon which ethnography is built. The anthropologist Robert Redfield
wrote, “It is by intimate, long-term acquaintance with culture groups that one gains
insight…” (Tamakoshi and Cross:1996). It can be understood from his words that
formal techniques are but another part of fieldwork, and that cultivating friendships as
part of personal immersion, are essential to gaining a proper satisfactory
understanding of culture. Culture is not innate; it is learnt and therefore there must be
personally explored to identify underlying grounds for diversity (Heil, Macdonald and
Nettheim:Forthcoming). Bohannan (1982:81) stated the following remark made by an
elder of the Tiv tribe in West Africa during her stay, illustrating the importance of
personal acquaintance with locals to gain access to their way of thinking:
We, who are elders, will instruct you in their true meaning, so
that when you return to your own land your elders will see that
you have not been sitting in the bush, but among those who
know things and who have taught you wisdom.

5. It is evident that fieldwork and ethnography are both equally important to
anthropology. Fieldwork techniques involving a higher level of personality
investment though occasionally seen as manipulative in some instances is, however,
necessary for the progression of mankind. Without this understanding, intolerance and
an inability to appreciate both the similarities and especially variances that bind all
cultures and societies together are imminent. There would be an inability to
empathise; thereby effectively dispelling the essence of what it is to be human. By
understanding cultural differences, the true wisdom of learning how to utilise it to the
benefit of mankind can be realised.

6. Bibliography
Bohannan, L.1982. Shakespeare in the Bush. In J. B. Cole (ed.) Anthropology for the
Eighties: Introductory Readings, pp. 72-81. New York: The Free Press.
Eriksen, T. 2001. Fieldwork and Its Interpretation. In Small Places, Large Issues: An
Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology, pp. 24-29. 2nd Ed. Sterling,
Va: Pluto Press.
Heil, D., Macdonald, G., and Nettheim, A. Forthcoming. Anthropology: A Student
Companion. London: Palgrave.
Tamakoshi, L., and Cross, B. 1996. The Anthropologist in the Field. Accessed April
2, 2013, http://theanthropologistinthefield.com/default.htm