positivism

In any kind of research, there is more than one way to interpret what we are observing. The Positivist intent though, would be to find the “correct” interpretation that would lead one to the objective, universal truth, discarding all other interpretations as the useless results of human bias, error, and preconception. But what if, instead, we stopped searching for the One Truth (which may or may not even exist, and even if it does, humans might not be able to directly access it) and began to view truths as plural. That each piece of knowledge we gain is really a part of something larger, with a whole picture that only begins to come into focus the more of these partial truths we amass and fit together.

Ethnographers have long struggled with the nebulous in-between spaces of science on the one hand, and story-telling on the other. It was what my frustrated seminar professor described as the tension between “a world” and “the world” in the writing of ethnography. Are we, the researchers, tasked to be faithfully re-creating the world as it actually was during our fieldwork? Or are we simply weaving a fiction; complete with dramatis personae, compelling character arcs, and promises of redemption that exist purely in a world of our own perspectives? Are we following the clues to solve our case, or are we leading our audience down a path that was already drawn from the beginning? A little of both and neither?

The Familiar Strange

“Socially-Constructed” Does Not Mean “Not Real:” Knowledge-Making and the Meaning of Subjectivity in the Social Sciences

Reflections on Novel Writing in Anthropology