LAS MUJERES EN EL CINE

Whether a researcher foregrounds an emic or etic perspective in a study usually signals the degree to which a researcher seeks to represent the perspectives of participants.

Participant perspectives can be foregrounded through choices related to data collection, or in the ways that the data is represented in texts. For example, contemporary ethnographic work is well known as valuing insider (or emic) perspectives and seeking to closely

represent the natural and authentic language and behaviours of individuals, or the specific aspects of the culture or society which are being studied (for more detailed discussion, see Olive 2014).

Some widely used definitions of emic and etic define the notions as discrete orientations toward research where there is very little overlap. See for example the definition below from the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia (2017):

Taking an insider position has historically meant that emic studies involve sustained, wide-ranging observation of a single cultural group. In classical fieldwork, for example, an ethnographer immerses him-or herself in a setting, developing relationships with informants and taking on social roles (e.g.,

Geertz 1983; Whyte 1955). The emic is concerned with collating insider accounts which explore actions primarily in terms of the actors' self-understanding;

emphasizing their culturally and historically bound nature. Concepts and constructs are devised from insider accounts gathered in interviews and by capturing naturally occurring talk (Silverman 1993). Accounts are furnished with extensive observations of the site. This immersive work is geared to creating a “thick description”

(Geertz 1973) of behaviors, patterns, and interactions. Thick description provides a detailed account of field experiences in which the researcher makes explicit contextualized patterns of cultural and social relationships.

In contrast, the etic approach often starts with theory, hypotheses, and concepts that may hold less local resonance for participants inside the setting being studied. As Lett (1990: 130) describes it, “Etic constructs are accounts, descriptions, and analyses expressed in terms of the conceptual schemes and categories regarded as

meaningful and appropriate by the community of scientific observers. (Whitaker,

2017,

https://doi-org.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/10.1002/9781118430873.est0640, Accessed 1 July 2018)

However, the emic and etic orientations are now frequently acknowledged by researchers, not as two discrete, but as two positions on a continuum, sometimes overlapping.

Consider, for example Olive (2014) and his account of the potentially productive tensions between emic and etic perspectives:

Within qualitative research, there are a number of methodologies which significantly favor the emic over the etic and visa versa. Regardless of the methodology being employed, many researchers of social behavior reside within the tension between the two extremes. Given the inescapable subjectivity that every researcher brings to a study through his or her past experiences, ideas and perspectives, a solely emic perspective is impossible to achieve. Conversely, if a researcher takes a purely etic perspective or approach to a study, he or she risks the possibility of overlooking the hidden nuances, meanings and concepts within a culture that can only be gleaned through interviews and observations. (Olive, 2014)

As a researcher I was working across the emic/etic orientations in four ways. First, I was a postgraduate student for whom academic writing was central to my day-to-day lived experience of pursuing a research degree. In this sense, I drew on my experiences of academic writing to make sense of the experiences of other research students. Here I can be seen to be an ‘insider’ who was adopting a more emic orientation to the research. Second, as a researcher in literacy studies drawing on sociolinguistics and literacy studies, and taking up the notion of ‘the long conversation’ (Lillis 2008 and and Maybin 1996: see 3.3 for a more detailed discussion) I was able to get close to the perspectives of

participants about their writing. Through this more emic orientation, understandings were built, and knowledge shared, between the participants and I about the specific aspects of academic writing which were of significance to each participant (see, for example Lillis, 2008, p. 359 & 360). The ‘long conversation’ notion also draws attention to the fact that these understandings were unpacked over time. Third, adopting a reflexive stance (see section 3.8) led to greater understandings of the ways in which my researcher perspectives

might influence the research. Through my personal reflections on writing, and the field notes carried out during research I was able to move towards an etic orientation, to stand back and engage with the data with greater distance when it was required during analyses. Finally, it was also necessary to adopt a more explicitly etic lens, in the sense that I was a researcher adopting a critical perspective. Drawing on critical realism and Academic Literacies, I worked at cultivating this orientation: it was important to actively distance myself as the researcher from the participants’ experiences as well as read the data in critical ways for example by foregrounding the significance of gender (see the Conclusion in this thesis for more detailed commentary).

I will now turn to a more detailed discussion of the ways in which data was analysed and represented in this study of postgraduate writing practices.