One of my favorite quotes from this week’s reading is when deciding on your research topic “if you truly already know what you will find, then the research is unnecessary (26).” My research question is do more socially integrated youth who recently exited the juvenile system have a lower rate of depressive symptoms? In my research, I typically have assumptions about the depression symptoms of youth reentering into their communities from the juvenile legal system. However, this could bias the interview questions I develop which not only skew the results but also obscure the non-obvious. The goal should be the inner workings. In my research, the obvious factors include home life, education, and the income of guardians. However, the non-obvious include family networks, friend networks, or other motivations.
A lingering question I have of this week’s readings includes the terms etic or emic. The etic view is the outsider perspective of behaviors or attitudes of those being studied while the emic view focuses on the intrinsic cultural distinctions that are meaningful to the members of that culture/situation. Although I find these two categories useful, they operate in the binary. I am concerned that it is possible to have both an emic and etic view. For example, youth of color tend to be overrepresented (due to structural racism) in the juvenile legal system. As a researcher, I would have both a shared understanding of the issues facings the youth, however, I would still be an outsider to their lens. Yes, this means I have both the pros of each view, however, so do I possess the cons of each viewpoint. Thus, I am still debating how to minimize or counter the cons of each viewpoint.
I also find your view on the etic and emic perspective particularly interesting. While I agree with Madi on how the ethnographic researcher often assumes the “in-between” role, I doubt whether this process occurs in a clear-cut sequence as described above. Perhaps even when the researcher is able to penetrate into the community’s culture and daily life, there are still parts of him or her that feels more “outsider” than informants who have spent all their life living within that community. Additionally, isn’t the role of the researcher to record his or her experiences and observations in ways that are understandable to the outsider world even as he or she slowly becomes part of the community? This responsibility implies that the researcher would always have to assume an outsider perspective even as he or she gradually becomes more similar to “insiders”.
I plan to focus my research project on the Vietnamese international students community, which I’m a part of. This discussion is highly relevant since I would need to find ways to balance the etic and emic sides of my research. Although I expect not to have much challenges gaining the emic perspective, I will have to consciously remind myself to recognize potential personal biases, and approach my research with an open mindset.
I did not consider how one may have both an emic and etic perspective. I found your example very interesting, and I think you make a great point. The use of etic and emic imply that there does not exist an “in-between.” Is there any kind of term that could serve to demonstrate this perspective? Additionally, isn’t the goal of ethnographic research to sit in this “in-between” space? Of course, as an ethnographer, you may only be an outsider at first, but if you invest years of your life living in a particular community and participating in that community’s daily life, are you not then entering a limbo that is somewhere between an insider and an outsider? I thought this was really interesting to consider. Thanks for sharing!