Celebrating Chaos: The Power of Untidy Realities in Ethnographic Research




Ethnographic work is underpinned by fluid and often ambiguous methodological demands as well as dataset chaos [...] By ‘embracing the chaos’ of its subject matter and controlling for methodological messiness, ethnographers can turn the ambiguity, fluidity and fragmentation of the human condition and its cultural webs into a weapon that yields unique empirical purchase.




ethnographic work in particular. Disputes around tensions in ethnography, of whether it is, in fact, a 'real', 'empirical' science or not, frequently characterize intellectual debate. In part, this perception has arisen due to the messy methodological handling of qualitative research that often occurs (Hammersley, 1992). However, I argue that there is a distinction between messy methodological handling of ethnographic research and the chaotic character of ethnographic data itself. I suggest that the emotional work of ethnography, the accompanying uncertainty and confusion, can, in fact, be productive (Hochschild, 2020). When combined with robust methodological rigour, this chaotic character of ethnography can become constructive and beneficial, reflecting the unique strengths of the ethnographic method over other empirical approaches.
Ethnographic work is underpinned by fluid and often ambiguous methodological demands as well as dataset chaos, both of which are discussed in later sections of the paper. Methodological demands comprise: (i) oscillating between somewhat knowing and remaining open to surprising findings at the field site, given no ethnographer enters completely free of presupposed notions; (ii) thorny issues related to obtaining informed consent from fieldwork participants (Thorne, 1980); (iii) representations of researcher identity and the extent of information offered to participants; (iv) traversing the shadowy boundaries of what counts as a site, pitted against the practical realities that produce spatial-temporal shifting throughout the duration of fieldwork; (v) navigating access and 'getting in' to a field site (Goffman, 2001, 153-158); (vi) juggling the duality of developing researcherparticipant relationships, whilst maintaining a suitable distance from subjects and refraining from appropriation behaviour such as mimicking of participants; (vii) confronting researcher positionality, as one tries to uncover invisible yet central narratives at a field site (Magolda, 2000); and (viii) accounting for and capturing temporal and inter-situational variation through the course of the ethnography. Collectively, these elements run the risk of producing what I label methodological messiness, which requires carefully considered handling in order to prevent the ethnographic inquiry from descending into incredibility.
In addition to the threat of methodological messiness, ethnographic work frequently deals with dataset chaos; this comprises a significant part of the chaotic and beneficial character of ethnography. Ethnographic data is scruffier than the sanitized, efficient, or ostensibly 'bleached' data gleaned during quantitative research processes, such as during lab experiments and surveys. However, ethnographic datasets, recorded in the form of jottings and later converted into fieldnotes, offer unique depth when brought into focus through comprehensive ethnographic analysis. The empirical scrutiny of such untidy and disjointed material, upon subjection to the tools of the ethnographic approach, (coding, creating categories, building concepts, and eventually theory development), enables researchers to counter commonsense assumptions about field site participants (Katz, 2001). It offers the opportunity to illustrate the inferred rules that contribute to the day-to-day functioning of a site, whilst discovering the "cogs and wheels" (Hedström & Ylikoski, 2010, p.54) underpinning social interactions among groups and individuals.
I suggest abductive ethnographic inquiry as one possible method for controlling methodological messiness and leveraging dataset chaos.
Abductive ethnographies, by retaining flexibility in the chronological sequence of sifting through literature, discovering surprising outcomes and collecting data, offer a scientific route to deriving symbolic meanings of discourse and engagement in the field (Emerson, 2001). In many ways, abductive ethnographies manage to 'de-layer' social meanings and reach points of data access that other methods may not be able to achieve as successfully. This abductive approach is discussed in detail in a later section of this paper.

Ethnography's Object of Focus: Humans in a Cultural Web
Unlike an experiment or survey, ethnographic fieldwork will not necessarily begin with a general hypothesis put forward with the purposes of testing. The object of analysis, instead, is to grasp the complex, textured structures of meaning produced at a field site, by undertaking a mechanistic exploration of its culture and social life, and the production, perception and interpretation of social actions by participants. Through prolonged interactions at the site, ethnographers aim to access the subjectivities and emotions of their participants, that will aid in the explanation of behavioural outcomes (Emerson, 2001).
In understanding why ethnography has a more chaotic character and may pose a greater risk of methodological messiness than other approaches, we turn to Geertz. Human beings, he puts forth, are animals "suspended in webs of significance which they themselves have spun" (Geertz, 1973, pp. 55-70). Culture represents those webs, and so, when trying to explore and understand culture and its related social exchanges, an ethnographer's pursuit is not towards discovering a general law or objective theorem, but instead, to offer meaning through an interpretative lens. Therefore, if ethnography is interested in exploring cultural webs, it is unlikely for it to encompass strictly structured research sites and investigation processes. Nor is ethnographic fieldwork likely to yield immediate and obvious results, in the manner that a more quantitative-led approach might provide. By 'embracing the chaos' of its subject matter and controlling for methodological messiness, ethnographers can turn the ambiguity, fluidity and fragmentation of the human condition and its cultural webs into a weapon that yields unique empirical purchase.

Methodological Messiness
The object of focus for ethnographic work -culture and social life -produces the risk of methodological messiness. This messiness looks different from the chaotic character of ethnographic work, as explained in the next section of this paper. From the initial stages of field site selection and choosing a subject of study, messiness can erupt and sustain right until the final stages of research. In order to prevent the ethnographic inquiry from succumbing to risks of incredibility, it is imperative to get a handle on this possible messiness right from the beginning. This section is divided across the various types of methodological processes and challenges that ethnographic research runs the risk of encountering.
ii) A frequently shifting ethnographic setting holds varied implications for seeking informed consent and can prove to be a challenging business (Thorne, 1980). The risks and benefits of ethnographic research are also less obvious than in medical or clinical research.
This gives rise to untidy and complex ethical concerns, including types and forms of consent, such as written, verbal, implicit, as well as considerations about when to renew consent, in order to remind participants of the research underway, whilst attempting to remain inconspicuous as a researcher (Berreman, 2007).  (Thorne, 1980). formal and informal exchanges, the former involving the seeking of informed consent, whilst the latter typically occurring within more relaxed, causal environments (Emerson, 2001

vi)
In order to uncover subjectivities, ethnographers are encouraged to undertake participant observation (Malinowski, 1922), establish prolonged contact and approximate the lives of their participants, without appearing to mimic them (Bernard, 2011). The line between approximating and mimicking, however, is often marked by fuzzy, opaque boundaries. Dressing in a manner that adheres to local culture and norms may be seen as a marker of respect; however, speaking in an accent that identically copies the participants' spoken form of dialect may be viewed as crossing the line and eventually become counter-productive. This wobbly dance between getting in without the impression of trying too hard or appropriating is a complex, perplexing balance to strike; it plays a key role in deciding whether the ethnographer gains intimacy with the in-group or not (Goffman, 2001). to ignore their role in meaning-making in the field. Hence, acknowledging and engaging with one's own politics as a researcher provides a rich, new avenue for intellectual discourse, whilst disclosing an honest, and close to the bone account of how research really happens (Becker, Gans, Newman & Vaughn, 2003).
One such example is illustrated through the ways in which gender becomes salient in a male-dominated field setting, which can hold bold implications for research (Orrico, 2015). Ignoring reflexivity (which illuminates how gendered processes unfold in the field) neglects a key mechanism in the production of ethnographic analyses. Instead of relegating positionality as a negligible downstream effect, ethnographies can weave ethnographer politics into mainstream research and output. Whilst ethnography has begun moving towards adopting a less apologetic stance towards reflexivity and political engagement, a fair amount of distance remains to be covered in order for these elements to be considered an iterative and generative part of the investigative discourse.
viii) In order to identify patterns, ethnographers typically conduct fieldwork over a substantial period of time. This implies changes in group composition and dynamics, both of which must be accounted for when conducting ethnographic analysis. This makes the triangulation of key data points a much more challenging task; participants may behave in a particular manner at a certain point in time, but this may be subject to temporal and inter-situational variation through the course of the ethnography (Tavory & Timmermans, 2014). In order to produce a robust, valid and reliable research product, ethnographers are expected to capture these variations and empirically account for exceptions to the patterns they discover. The negative case must also be accounted for and sufficiently reasoned. However, this time consuming and diversified data can be turned into an advantage; it can offer the opportunity for longer spread out observations and interactions, allowing patterns to emerge organically. Eventually, this repeated exposure to subjects adds to the strength of the ethnographer's claims and the overall validity of their research findings.
If the methodological complexities underpinning ethnographic work are mindfully traversed -accounting for situational, context-specific dynamics, probing to question and triangulate subjects' responses, and carefully treading the lines between 'ethical' and 'inaccurate' or 'deceptive' -then ethnographies can proceed to utilize dataset chaos to their benefit as outlined in the next section. Together, these offer constructive power in uncovering mechanisms and meanings which individuals attribute (Goffman, 2001) to social action and processes, often with more depth and nuance than other methods (Angrosino, 2007).

Dataset Chaos
Cultural and social interactions, including symbols and signs, by definition,  (Malinowski, 1922).
iii) Ethnography demands for the ongoing, iterative and reflexive processes of data collection and analysis to be conducted simultaneously. This marks a departure from other research methods which clearly demarcate the chronological order of data collection and analytical engagement. During these two processes, the meaning of the 'ethnographic present' (Halstead, 2008, pg. 2) is fluid and ever-changing. Chaos in the dataset also stems from this constant co-mingling (Becker, 1998). After entering the field site, an ethnographer begins the process of collecting data but is also mandated to begin the exercise of making sense of the material gathered in parallel. Once the ethnographer identifies repeated patterns in the data, the researcher returns to the field to collect more concentrated data. As moving between data and analysis continues, there is an expectation that the ethnographer will triangulate dominant patterns, by returning to the field (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995). Practically, this requires the researcher to simultaneously inhabit ethnography's double fields, moving from fieldsite to 'back home' and engaging both spheres at once (Halstead, 2008, p.2). This multiplicity of the ethnographic present becomes an agent for constituting and reconstituting anthropological knowledge but requires systematic and organized handling in order to make sense of continuously emerging themes from seemingly chaotic datasets (ibid).

iv)
Finally, ethnography is a highly subjective method of inquiry, which contributes to its chaotic character (see above). Pink (2007) underlines the subjective dimension of the social scientist's gaze in visual research; however, she highlights how the researcher's subjectivity forms a crucial and central component of empirical undertaking more generally, even in textual representation. This delicate balance between traversing method and data is not without potential pitfalls. Whilst the intersubjectivity of co-created data offers an opportunity to unravel richly textured findings and meanings at a field site, this interaction is often more contingent and dialogical than in other methods (Bryman, 2016). For example, one instance where this challenge becomes obvious is during participants' presentations of themselves, which tend to vary according to time and place (Goffman, 1959). Further, due to social desirability bias, participants will often articulate one perspective at a particular time and go on to perform or implement another action at a later time. We see this in the case of research on religiosity, for example, when subjects will often claim proclivity to attending places of worship and performing other religious acts, when in fact, those notions may depict their desires more than their behaviours.  (Emerson, 1995).
Therefore, to concede, in fact, leverage, the complexity and profusion of ethnographic contexts and relationships, and methodologically co-create in conjunction with the 'slipperiness' of ethnographic data, forms the bedrock of ethnographic prowess (Geertz, 2001). Undervaluing or misrepresenting this subjective soul would mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Turning Chaos into Value
So far, in this paper, I have made the case that ethnographic accounts are able to confront and tackle the chaotic character of their undertaking, by employing methodological rigour, in order to ensure that potentially constructive dataset chaos does not slip into a giant methodological mess. In addition to the methodological grit outlined in the sections above, a specific approach that can prove beneficial to managing ethnographic chaos is abduction. Moving away from traditional notions of induction and deduction, an abductive ethnography can help find a way to avoid methodological messiness (Tavory & Timmermans, 2014).

What might an abductive ethnography look like and what does this
practically entail? Abductive ethnographies, characterized by the iterative process of moving back and forth between literature and data, produce a unique navigational map to glean meanings and narratives of significance (Tavory & Timmermans, 2014). The assumption that the ethnographer will enter the field site completely blank gets discarded. Instead, by immersing themselves in existing scholarship, ethnographers allow themselves to discover surprising observations that might be anomalous to existing theories, even before entering the field site. Upon discovering this unexplained observation, abduction nudges ethnographers in the direction of collecting new data in order to produce original theoretical explanations that may fit this surprising observation (Plows, 2018). It does not shy away from the untidy, confounding realities of conducting research. Instead, it emphasizes methodological openness, consistency and thoroughness as paramount in dealing with this chaos, insisting that only when handled systematically can dataset chaos be turned into an asset for the ethnographer. By so doing, abductive analysis enables ethnographic work to take the most creative route to data collection, analysis and theory building.
Tangentially, the presentation of ethnographic findings can also adopt exciting new forms; by using material collected through a blurry researcher lens, and reflexively and creatively representing it in the form of a coherent account, ethnographies can break new narrative ground (Fine, 2003 imaginaries, and open up spaces for future dialogue and activism (Becker, Gans, Newman & Dianne, 2003).
This combination of employing inventive yet scientific techniques of storytelling, along with leveraging ethnography's chaotic character and subjective soul, in every sense, becomes ethnography's most substantive muscle.

The Chaotic Character of Ethnographies in Action
The littered, non-linear pathways of ethnographies are visible in action, both during fieldwork as well as in the innovative pedagogical toolkit offered in university methods courses within the social sciences and humanities. Hochschild's intensely immersive fieldwork in Louisiana, comprising focus groups, participant observation and interviews, adopted abductive reasoning to reflect on the various kinds of, numbers of, combinations of causes to make sense of her data (Hochschild, 2020). By so doing, she was hazarding a best guess and generating a hypothesis. Her hypothesis-generating rather than hypothesis-confirming research then provided the opportunity for future scholarship to take it up later, try to make sense of the conditions under which her findings hold validity and use abduction to extend its exploration under possible new circumstances.
Herein lies the surprising and theory building potential of abductive ethnographic pursuit (Hochschild, 2020).
Hochschild's research also places emphasize on bolstering interpersonal relationships and highlights the problems of "unempathically" conducting ethnographic fieldwork. Again, we see the subjective soul of ethnographic research at the core in this case; it is not simply about achieving logistical precision, but about drawing human connections and forging relationships, without undermining the objectivity of the scientific inquiry itself.
Further, as she suggests, when conducting fieldwork especially among those whose values and beliefs might differ from one's own, it is all the more important to turn off our 'alarm systems', which might begin to colour our impressions of the data being collected (Hochschild, 2020). In her case, her personal alarm system might have been set into motion, if she had not consciously entered Louisiana with an unbiased approach. By removing this alarm system, the ethnographer is able to retain maximum openness and objectivity in the investigative pursuit (ibid). In certain instances, such inquiry may require discarding one's personal proclivities and political subjectivities, in order to aim for an objective investigation. This way, data that initially appears haphazard, random or chaotic, begins to get systematically organized in a coding system, Typically, during undergraduate qualitative methods classes, student ethnographers are encouraged to select field sites off their university campuses. The purpose is to venture far from the familiar routine and insularity of their day-to-day student lives, in order to gain exposure to the broader patterns prevalent in the "real" parts of the city. As such, physical distancing and self-isolation, as happening globally due to the case of the that the ethnographic method will generate systematic meaning and perhaps even ground-breaking theories.

Discussion and Conclusions
In this paper, I have argued that the real power of ethnographies, when juxtaposed against other methods of inquiry, reveals itself in the chaotic character of ethnographic fieldwork itself. Specifically, I have introduced and engaged with a particular type of chaos to demonstrate this strength: dataset chaos, which stems from the abstract and often elusive social interactions occurring at a field site. It is this fluid, ambiguous and constantly changing nature of ethnographic data which produces thick description (Geertz, 2001), from which the ethnographer derives meaning. In turn, this thick description allows us to gain a handle on something; that something could comprise beliefs, emotional states or events at field sites. Part of the ethnographer's task is to explore and unpack the sensibilities, feelings and metaphors that best explain this something, which is usually of deep significance to field site participants (Hochschild, 2020).
This paper also problematizes the issue of ethnographic chaos, by drawing a clear distinction between messy methodological handling of ethnographic research and the chaotic character of ethnography itself. I have argued that only when the empirical inquiry is underpinned by vigorous methodological discipline, does ethnographic chaos hold the potential to become a useful tool for research. On the contrary, if tackled with methodological sloppiness and compromise, dataset chaos can quickly spiral out of control and culminate in research outcomes that get reduced to unsystematic and unscientific storytelling, yielding minimal validity or reliability in its findings.
I posit an abductive ethnographic approach (Tavory & Timmermans, 2014) as one way of achieving this goal of balancing dataset chaos against potential methodological fall-out. By acknowledging that research is an iterative, processual undertaking, ethnographers can leverage the chaos found in their datasets, whilst applying a robust methodological framework.
Before entering the field site and subsequent to the data collection, they can continue engaging with theoretical strands to see how their findings might explain a gap in scholarship. This creative route to empirical inquiry can play a pivotal role in generating new theoretical foundations (ibid).
By highlighting the power of ethnographic chaos, complemented by methodological rigour, I challenge those positivist paradigms which overlook the benefits of qualitative research due to the intersubjective characteristics of the latter (Plows, 2018). Relatedly, and as demonstrated through the role of gender in Orrico's fieldwork (2015), I make a case in favour of openness about reflection and positionality in research, in order to provide audiences with real and honest insights into the investigative process and the factors that influence research outcomes. I build upon Pink's emphasis on the subjective dimension of the social scientist's gaze in visual research and extend it to ethnographic inquiry of other kinds (Pink, 2007).
Therefore, instead of adopting an apologist stance for the lack of engagement with quantitative datasets and yielding of binary outputs, the subjective soul of ethnographic research can become a powerful tool for delayering hierarchies of meaning and participants' deep stories (Hochschild, 2016), as can be seen in the case of adapting the undergraduate ethnographic research methods course in the UAE case study. In so doing, this holds potential to surpass the production of superficial definitions, perspectives, attitudes and beliefs. In its place, it seeks out the latent norms and rules that contribute to the functioning of a social place and prevent it from descending into chaos (Katz, 2001).