Page 118 - Prathima Volume 12

m%;sudk Ydia;%Sh ix.%yh
2018$2019 fodf<diajk fj¿u
to objectification and subjectification? On this base, how could anthropology enable
one to study the concept of culture or how do we make “different anthropology”? I
would like to draw the attention to the relation between subjectivity and power that
Ortner (2006) explicated. She argues that subjectivity should be understood in terms of
changing power and how cultural and social formations shape, organize, and provoke
modes of thoughts. After postmodern involvements in anthropology, anthropologists,
particularly, feminist anthropologists argued for revising research methods in
anthropology. Why do research methods need to be revised? The next section will
answer this question with relevant examples.

4.4. Revising Research Methods in Anthropology

When it comes to research methods, we may suggest traditional ethnographic research
methods as the best tools to conduct research, but there are many problems with the
conventional ethnographic research methods in terms of ethnocentrism, power
relations, and Western imperialism. I have discussed some of them earlier, but now I
will discuss the new ethnographic research methods in anthropology. The new
ethnographic research methods will balance between etic and emic approaches and
include the role of language, feminist approaches, and decolonizing anthropological
knowledge.

In the past, many anthropologists including Malinowski (1932 [1922]) and Boas
(1896) undertook single-sited fieldwork, but today many prefer to do multi-sited
fieldwork. Malinowski, who is the father of modern ethnographic methods, studied
Trobriand Islanders in Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1932 [1922]). Indeed, he is a
pioneer in the “extended residential fieldwork” that helps to understand the social
meanings and activities of people by constant participation and presence in the society
being studied. This became a key research instrument in ethnographic research
especially by the influences of Malinowski (Sanmugeswaran, 2016). First, I will
briefly discuss the problem encountered in the Malinowski's work. Malinowski (1932
[1922]) provides the empirical investigator with an ethnographical framework, which
he considers as a mental chart that has to be transformed into a real one. Compared to
Durkheim (2013) laying the foundation of methods in sociology, Malinowski (1932
[1922]) seemed to demand a greater ethnographic exercise, even though both insist on
scientific rigor. Malinowski's (1932 [1922]) method implies complete immersion,
talking to natives to get their point of view. In fact, many anthropologists were inspired
by his ethnographic data collection method; participant observation is a key research
tool that he evidently proved through his study. As a result, we could learn
unquestionable scientific value and figure out ethnographic research steps from his
study; observation, nature of statement and interpretation. This kind of field work
steps help the anthropological presentation of the result of findings. On the other hand,

104