When on the topic of Ethnography, the authors notes the importance of understanding how short-term and long-term research differs. In the quotation about short-term investigations they state that it “takes a more deliberate and interventional approach to that of long-term participant observation and is also theoretically engaged”, from which I understood the importance of the preparation stages of research. When the subject of the investigation (or the question) is raised, it it crucial to decide what the aim is – even as it may change throughout – understanding your initial goal will allow a more precise and detailed plan to formulate. The concept Pink defined as an ‘‘ethnographic place’’ (2009) recognises how interlinked the global world; I particularly liked the analogy of it being the “entanglements” rather than “localities”. I am curious to raise the question how my peers interpreted the concept of an ‘‘ethnographic place’’. As our discussions develop in class, I started formulating a strong understanding of the idea of everything co-existing in this ecosystem, and although this sounds straight forward its a pretty complex concept to wrap your mind around.
Ethnographic fieldwork, such as observations, may be tedious but it provides insights on the subject that cannot be gathered otherwise. Just like we mentioned in class: What the individual Says, Does, and Say they Do are three completely different notions. This article also allowed me to appreciate the skill that formulates as one conducts ethnographic research. Once you’ve practiced the components and understand their contribution to the end-goal (“three types of intensity: of the research encounters themselves; of the ethnographic-theoretical dialog; and of the post-fieldwork engagements with materials”), I would assume the framework would allow more efficiency in future projects. I am very excited to put some of these concepts into practice on Saturday as we explore mass production and consumption in the field.