In Chapters 2 and 3, Murchison (2010) provides a thoughtful overview of how the object of ethnographic study is shaped by first identifying research “problems” or questions then developing a research design that effectively addresses these problems/questions given the accessibility and limitations of the researcher, their informants, their field site, and their resources. From selecting a site to the ethnographer’s intersubjective positionality, from building community trust to the legal, ethical, and sociopolitical restrictions and risks, numerous factors influence the feasibility, extent, breadth, and depth of an ethnographic project. Oftentimes, ethnographer finds themselves in a balancing act adjusting their research and methods to the needs and desires of their informants and community members, their academic and financial institutions, their readers, external organizations, and themselves. Each component requires adequate time and thoughtful consideration. It can be a significant undertaking. In fact, the difficulty of this very balancing act is something an eighth-year graduate student conducting ethnoarchaeological research among Ch’ol Maya communities in Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico, communicated to me himself.
Ethnoarchaeology both in name and practice exists at the crossroads of ethnographic and archaeological methodologies. It provides hope for an archaeologist to approximate towards the coveted yet often rarely fully-flourished “four-field approach” in anthropology. The imaginary line between past and present often is often blurred and nonexistent in a cyclical worldview. Yet, Murchison’s readings reminded me of some of the major methodological issues and considerations that ethnography can pose, especially as part of a larger ethnoarchaeological initiative. Historically, ethnography and ethnoarchaeological research have often been used to supplement understandings and interpretations of cultural artifacts and features identified in the archaeological record, although sometimes at the expense of acknowledging change and agency among contemporary communities. As a response to decolonial shifts in anthropological discourse, ethnoarchaeology’s applications have expanded towards deeply integrating local and heritage community oral histories regarding and relationships to archaeological sites, cultural artifacts, and the past, especially as part of larger community-based project initiatives. Yet daring to pursue an ethnoarchaeological approach, especially as a novice researcher, puts the research at risk of either being too “descriptive” or “exploratory” for contemporary ethnographic standards or labeled less “disciplined” or “rigourous” by a scientific audience. Balancing both worlds to develop an effective research project and argument requires significant time and energy, often at the burden of the researcher (e.g. such as completing a dissertation in a reasonable time frame in the case of my colleague in Mexico).