1. A Quick and Dirty Introduction to the Spradley-McCurdy Ethnographic Interviewing Method Cole V. Akeson GEOG5712: Research Design Professor Kenneth E. Foote 02 March 2009

2. Agenda What is this mouthful called the Spradley-McCurdy ethnographic interviewing method? How and when is it useful? How does it work? A 12 step program Caveats: When is it not useful/applicable? Comparisons to other methods

3. What is this “S-M E I M”? Ethnography as a non-linear process –(continual shuffling between selecting a problem, formulating hypotheses, collecting data, analysis, writing up) Informants’ knowledge is emphasized A search for meaning through symbols, i.e. words and verbal cues, to tacit cultural knowledge Moreover, focusing on ethnosemantic symbols –the symbol, meaning, and relationship between symbol and referent –Quoting sociological review: “Drunks are notorious liars and manipulators. Spradley unfortunately takes the lies as facts and bases his conclusions on them” (Spradley 1979, 49). Finally, an interviewing methodology meant to systematize methodology for novice and expert alike

4. Key ethnosemantic relationships Domains: Connections of cultural symbols/folk terms into interrelated “domain” Domain analysis (taxonomies): Internal structures of domains demonstrating differentiation among components Componential analysis (paradigms): Search for differentiating attributes among symbols Theme analysis: Relating domains in larger cultural processes

5. How and when is the method useful? Designed for use by: –Novices and experienced academics –Students, social scientists and non-academic professionals Allowing ethnography to bridge interdisciplinary divides “Grounded theory” approaches Can also be adapted to theoretically bound, structured settings Used and adapted by social scientists, police, journalists, salespeople, etc.

6. Caveats and criticisms: When is it not useful/applicable? Best for open-ended approaches Less useful in shorter-term ethnographic investigations Criticized by more humanistic ethnographers, social theory devotees Earlier renditions critiqued as not considering positionality, etc. –Some terms en vogue during publishing of The Ethnographic Interview and The Cultural Experience are less often used today

7. A 12 step program (no, not that one) 1.Locating an informant 2.Interviewing an informant 3.Making an ethnographic record 4.Asking descriptive questions 5.Analyzing ethnographic interviews 6.Making a domain analysis 7.Asking structural questions 8.Making a taxonomic analysis 9.Asking contrast questions 10.Making a componential analysis 11.Discovering cultural themes 12.Writing an ethnography

8. A 12 step program (still not that one) 1.Locating an informant 2.Interviewing an informant 3.Making an ethnographic record 4.Asking descriptive questions 5.Analyzing ethnographic interviews 6.Making a domain analysis 7.Asking structural questions 8.Making a taxonomic analysis 9.Asking contrast questions 10.Making a componential analysis 11.Discovering cultural themes 12.Writing an ethnography

9. Making ethnographic records Utilize both field notes and transcriptions from recordings Condensed notes, expanded notes (i.e. transcription together with field notes), journaling Analysis and interpretation (i.e. coding) –By hand, by computer

10. Descriptive Questions Building rapport –“Apprehension→Exploration→ Cooperation→Participation” (Spradley 1979, 79) Avoid leading questions Types of questions: –Grand tour: broad sweeping explanations of space, time, events, people, activities, objects “Typical,” recent time, show a process –Mini-tour: refining explanation of smaller processes –Example –Experiences –Native-language Direct, hypothetical, typical sentence

11. Domain analysis Folk terms elicit important cultural symbols These symbols are semantically interconnected in larger processes, “domains” –i.e. spatial, cause-effect, rationale, location of action, functional, sequential relationships Next step: Determining not only presence, but meaning of relationship

12. Structural questions and taxonomies Elicit informants’ structural relationships within domains, avoid researchers’ perceived meaning Used concurrently, repetitively, contextually, with descriptive questions (again, non-linear process) Types: –Verification questions –Cover term questions: Elicit meaning of term and its sub- components –Inferential included term questions –Card sorting questions Create taxonomic relationships among terms: Relate terms hierarchically and functionally along one-dimensional relationship

13. Example: “Taxonomy”

14. Contrast questions and componential analysis Elicit further details of relationships: comparative/contrasting uses Types: –Contrast verification, directed contrast (list), dyadic (non-leading) contrast questions, triadic Demonstrating multiple semantic differences (as opposed to taxonomies’ one) between folk terms, producing componential analyses or “paradigms”

15. Example: “Paradigm”

16. Themes and writing Elicited from informants, but will be most influenced by the ethnographer Typically multiple themes will be found in any research setting/microculture Creating cultural inventories to draw forth themes –Looking for connections, but also gaps Applying componential analysis on a larger scale, across data collected

17. References Further reading: McCurdy, David W., James P. Spradley, and Dianna J. Shandy. 2005. The cultural experience: Ethnography in complex society. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. 2 nd ed. Spradley, James P. 1979. The ethnographic interview. New York: Harcourt College Publishers. Spradley, James P. and David W. McCurdy. 1972. The cultural experience: Ethnography in complex society. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. 1 st ed. Cover image Vincent van Gogh, Green Wheat Field, 1889, Kunsthaus Zurich. http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/gogh/fields/ (accessed March 1, 2009). http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/gogh/fields/