Question

1. Why does Richardson find Malinowski’s model of ethnographic fieldwork archaic?

a) How has the traditional informant-ethnographer relationship changed?

**Reference-------article--Miles Richardson--Global World--Myth Teller

Answer 1

1. Richardson found that there was an asymmetrical pairing of two societies, major differences between the 2 cultures being studies and other such issues in Malinowski’s model of ethnographic fieldwork. He also found that the informant was generally a man of wisdom and the ethnographers were more like their students. This led to ethnographers collecting only a single perspective of the culture that was described to them by the student. Furthermore, Richardson felt that a certain moral justification for being an anthropologist eventually became a part of the subculture. This would not help researchers observe the true working of the society when an anthropologist living amongst them would be a norm.
2. Ethnographers are no longer people from the upper classes of society like they were during colonial times. They are people who generally have a fascination for anthropology and new cultures. The society of the informant is nominally free or almost completely independent of the ethnographer these days. In most cases, the informant is almost non-existent. Ethnographers have found that they are more similar to their informants than they thought previously. Informants seem to be a more impoverished version of the ethnographer. The sphere of the informant’s information seems more restrictive and less distinctive.