This article is an account of how ethnographic identity was constituted and how audiences were located during the early stages of an ethnography of television viewers in Mexico. The description takes a narrative form and details the field experience and acknowledges the visibility and self-interest of the ethnographer. Writing about the field experience in such a fashion is motivated by the fact that few studies of media reception provide discussion about the events that shaped the direction of the inquiry, the productive discomfort of the field encounter, selection and movements within the interpretive communities represented in studies, or relationships with various members of those communities. Moreover, a narrative account is helpful in demonstrating how the methodology that was developed evolved as a result of emerging relationships and contextual processes, not as a systematic design for finding a research “sample.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ang, I. (1989). Beyond self-reflexivity. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 13(2), 27-29.
2.
Ang, I. (1996). Ethnography and radical contextualism in audience research. In J. Hay, L. Grossberg, & E. Wartella (Eds.), The audience and its landscapes (pp. 247-264). Boulder, CO: Westview.
3.
Barrios, L. (1992). Televisión, comunicación y aprendizaje en el contexto de la familia [Television, communication and learning in the family context]. Cuadernos de Comunicación y Prácticas Sociales, 4, 55-74.
4.
Bartra, R. (1992). The cage of melancholy: Identity and metamorphosis in the Mexican character. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
5.
Benson, P. (Ed.). (1993). Anthropology and literature. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
6.
Berger, R. A. (1993). From text to (field)work and back again. Anthropological Quarterly, 66(4), 174-186.
7.
Bonfil, B. G. (1990). México profundo [Deep Mexico]. Mexico: Editorial Grijalbo.
8.
Bonfil, B. G. (1991). La teoría del control cultural en el estudio de procesos étnicos [Cultural control theory in the study of ethnic processes]. Estudios Sobre los Cultures Contemporaneos, 4(12), 165-204.
9.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
Calderón, V. M. (1993). Monografía histórica de Querétaro [Historical monograph of Querétaro]. Querétaro, Mexico: Archivo Historico de Gobierno del Estado de Querétaro.
11.
Ceglowski, D. (1997). That’s a good story, but is it really research?Qualitative Inquiry, 3(2), 188-201.
12.
Conquergood, D. (1991). Rethinking ethnography: Towards a critical cultural politics. Communication Monographs, 58, 141-156.
13.
Dumont, J. P. (1992). The headman and I: Ambiguity and ambivalence in the fieldworking experience. Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1978)
14.
Escobar, A. (1993). The limits of reflexivity: Politics in anthropology’s post-Writing Culture era. Journal of Anthropological Research, 49(4), 377-391.
15.
Fiske, J. (1998). Audiencing: Cultural practice and cultural studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 359-378). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1998). Interviewing: The art of the science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 47-78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Fox, R. (Ed.). (1991). Recapturing anthropology: Working in the present. Santa Fe, NM: School for American Research Press.
18.
Fuenzalida, V., & Hermosilla, M. E. (1989). Visiones y ambiciones del televidente [Visions and ambitions of the television viewer]. Santiago, Chile: CENECA.
19.
Geertz, C. (Ed.). (1983). Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
20.
Gillespie, M. (1995). Television, ethnicity and cultural change. London: Routledge.
21.
Grossberg, L. (1989). On the road with three ethnographers. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 13(2), 23-26.
22.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnography?London: Routledge.
23.
Jelin, E. (1991). Family, household and gender relations in Latin America. New York: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
24.
Leal, O. F. (1990). Popular taste and erudite repertoire: The place and space of television in Brazil. Cultural Studies, 4(1), 19-29
25.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 407-429). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Lull, J. (Ed.). (1988). World families watch television. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
Martín-Barbero, J. (1993). Latin American cultures in communication media. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 18-30.
28.
Martín-Barbero, J., & Muñoz, S. (Eds.). (1992). Television y melodrama [Television and melodrama]. Bogotá, Mexico: Trecer Mundo Editores.
29.
Monsiváis, C. (1996). Will nationalism be bilingual? In E. G. McAnany & K. T. Wilkinson (Eds.), Mass media and free trade (pp. 131-140). Austin: University of Texas Press.
30.
Moore, D. C. (1994). Anthropology is dead, long live anthro(a)pology. Journal of Anthropological Research, 50(4), 345-364.
31.
Moreno Pérez, E., & Barrera, G. (1994). El barrio de San Francisquito [The neighborhood of San Francisquit]. Querétaro, Mexico: Talleres Gráficos de Gobierno del Estado.
32.
Murphy, P. (1995). Television and cultural politics in Mexico. The Howard Journal of Communication, 6(4), 250-261.
33.
Murphy, P. (1999). Media cultural studies’ uncomfortable embrace of ethnography. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 23(3), 205-221.
34.
Nutini, H. (1989). Conclusions: Some considerations on the nature and constitution of mestizo culture and society. L’Uomo, II(2), 251-266.
35.
Nutini, H. (1997). Class and ethnicity in Mexico. Ethnology, XXXVI(3), 227-238.
36.
Orozco, G. (1991). La audiencia frente a la pantalla [The audience in front of the screen]. Dia-logos de Comunicación, 30, 54-73.
37.
Orozco, G. (1992). El niño como aprendiz y televidente en los estudios de audiencia en México [TV audience research in Mexico: Conceptions of child audience]. Cuadernos de Comunicación y Prácticas Sociales, 3, 91-114.
38.
Press, A. (1996). Toward a qualitative methodology of audience study: Using ethnography to study the popular culture audience. In J. Hay, L. Grossberg, & E. Wartella (Eds.), The audience and its landscapes (pp. 113-130). Boulder, CO: Westview.
39.
Probyn, E. (1989). Take my word for it: Ethnography and autobiography. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 13(2), 18-26.
40.
Quantz, R. A., & O’Connor, T. W. (1988). Writing critical ethnography: Dialogue, multi-voicedness, and carnival texts. Educational Theory, 38(1), 95-109.
41.
Rabinow, P. (1977). Reflections on fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley: University of California Press.
42.
Richardson, L. (1998). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 345-371). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
Secretaría de Desarrollo Económico. (1992). Anuario económico 1992 [1992 economic annual]. Querétaro, Mexico: Gobierno del Estado.
45.
Seiter, E. (1990). Making distinctions in TV audience research: Case study of a troubling interview. Cultural Studies, 4(1), 61-84.
46.
Schrøder, K. C. (1994). Audience semiotics, interpretive communities and the “ethno-graphic turn” in media research. Media, Culture & Society, 16(2), 337-347.
47.
Tedlock, B. (1991). From participant observation to the observation of participation: The emergence of narrative ethnography. Journal of Anthropological Research, 47(1), 69-94.
48.
Tufte, T. (1999). Living with the Rubbish Queen: Telenovelas, culture and modernity in Brazil. Bedfordshire, UK: University of Luton Press.
49.
Valaskakis, G. (1989). Partners in heritage: Living the tradition of Spring Spear. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 13(2), 12-17.
50.
Whiteford, A. H. (1990). Two cities of Latin America. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
