1. TOWARDS AN ETHNOGRAPHIC METHODOLOGY IN INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION SOME THESIS FOR THE DEBATE Gunther Dietz Universidad de Granada

2. Structure of the paper summary: 1. Thesis for a Theoretical and Methodological Debate 2. Uses and Abuses of Ethnography in Educational Research 3. Towards a Reflexive and Holistic Ethnography 4. A Heuristic Model 5. An Ethnographic “Code of Conduct”

3. 1. THESES FOR A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE 1. Multiculturalism in Education  Multicultural Education 2. The Discourse on Intercultural Education as an Epi-Phenomenon of Multiculturalism 3. The “Politics of Identity” as a Pre-requisite of Intercultural Discourses 4. Intercultural Education as Pedagogization of Multiculturalism

4. 1. THESES FOR A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE 5. Culture and Ethnicity as Axes of the Analysis of Interculturality 6. Structural Homology Between Ethnicity and Nationalism 7. Interculturality as Product and Producer of Ethnogenesis 8. Towards a Reflexive Ethnography in the Study of Interculturality 9. A Heuristic Model for the Ethnography of Interculturality in Education

5. 2. USES AND ABUSES OF ETHNOGRAPHY IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH In social anthropology: challenge of going beyond “experimental ethnography” In education: challenges and risks of “school ethnography”: instrumentalization of ethnography as auxiliary technique banalization of the ethnographic “culture” concept over-emphasis on applied and “evaluative” research reification of “empowerment” approaches

6. 3. TOWARDS A REFLEXIVE AND HOLISTIC ETHNOGRAPHY need for “double hermeneutics”: reflexivity of ethnographer reflexivity of objects / subjects of ethnographic research need for integrating: explorative, holistic ethnographic field work “transfer of knowledge” towards the subjects need for conceiving ethnography as intercultural dialogue: emic, actor-centred perspective etic, observer-centred perspective

7. 3. TOWARDS A REFLEXIVE AND HOLISTIC ETHNOGRAPHY need for focusing on institutional, structural, “national” frames: a) Todd (1994), comparison of “metaphysical postulates” of integration: asymmetrical kinship systems  differentialist- segregationist tendency symmetrical kinship systems  universalist- assimilationist tendency

8. 3. TOWARDS A REFLEXIVE AND HOLISTIC ETHNOGRAPHY need for focusing on institutional, structural, “national” frames: b)Verlot (1999), comparison of “basic intuitions” of institutional identities: postulates: “egalitarian-civic” vs. “ethno-cultural” premisses perspectives: self-perception as “majority” vs. as “minority” orientations: “open” vs. “closed” attitudes towards ext. influences

9. 4. A HEURISTIC MODEL dimensions for a comparative research model: a)the syntactical dimension: institutional structurations of the nation-state and its pedagogics the institutionalization of the “public” vs. “private” spheres the syntax of assimilation, segregation and integration

10. 4. A HEURISTIC MODEL dimensions for a comparative research model: b)the semantic dimension: the discursive models of intercultural education their translation into intra-institutional discourses on diversity the educational actors and their often ethnicized discourses

11. 4. A HEURISTIC MODEL dimensions for a comparative research model: c)the pragmatic dimension: the (re-)production of monolingual and monocultural habitus intercultural / transcultural competences educational modes of interaction

12. semanticspragmaticssyntax actor-centredinteraction-centredinstitution-centred ethnicityculture (intra- / inter- culture) territorialized units = discourse= practice= structure ethnographic interviews participant observation“intercultural workshops” = emic= etic= emic / etic (“epistemological windows”)

13. 5. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC “CODE OF CONDUCT” (Cf. Werner & Schoepfle 1987) Standards of Epistemology and Theory: Separate always text (1) and text (2), the ethnographer’s and the informant’s discourse. Analyze separately and contrast any contradictions between text (1) and text (2) or within txt (1) and/or text (2). Learn the culture you are working in focussing both on issues separating and uniting its members. Maintain a methodological stance of cultural relativism.

14. 5. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC “CODE OF CONDUCT” (Cf. Werner & Schoepfle 1987) Standards of Personal Equation: Maintain an autobiography that you should periodically update and revise. Expose yourself to the widest range of cultural variation available.

15. 5. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC “CODE OF CONDUCT” (Cf. Werner & Schoepfle 1987) Standards of Research Design and Proposal: Consider the problem underlying an ethnography, and make explicit the theory underlying the ethnographic problem. Design (before starting the data collection) an efficient data management system for ethnographic texts and other documents. Put in place (before starting the data collection) a plan to protect the privacy of all people whose statements enter your data base. Formulate carefully an explanation of your project for the informants, in “their language”.

16. 5. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC “CODE OF CONDUCT” (Cf. Werner & Schoepfle 1987) Standards of Field Relations: Make a serious effort to learn the language of the people who are the topic of your ethnography. Conduct your fieldwork and field relations in such a manner that other ethnographers / researchers will be able to follow and to do restudies.

17. 5. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC “CODE OF CONDUCT” (Cf. Werner & Schoepfle 1987) Standards of Data Collection (Observation and Interviewing): Do not alter or fabricate any data. Determine the language of the interview with regard to the language which suits best the informant.

18. 5. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC “CODE OF CONDUCT” (Cf. Werner & Schoepfle 1987) Standards of Analysis: Analyze data collected through different methods first separately, before contrasting and comparing them. Apply the same methods of analysis (based on the same theory) when comparing any pair of potentially discrepant text fragments. Do not alter or fabricate any ethnographic data analysis.

19. 5. AN ETHNOGRAPHIC “CODE OF CONDUCT” (Cf. Werner & Schoepfle 1987) Standards of Analysis: First describe, then interpret and explain. Always separate description form interpretation. List all consultants and informants who contributed to the ethnography (appropriately disguised, after considering their privacy and safety). Use the same privileges of citation for your informants and consultants as you do with professional sources. Consider your particular audience when choosing the best medium and the best method within that medium for presenting ethnographic data and conclusions.