Authors: Alfredo Berbegal, Researcher, Department of Methods of Research and Diagnostic in Education (MIDE), University of Zaragoza, Spain
Fernando Sabirón, Research Director, Department of Methods of Research and Diagnostic in Education (MIDE), University of Zaragoza, Spain
Patrick Boumard, Research Director, Department of Philosophy, Breton and Celtic Research Center (CRBC-CNRS), University of Western Brittany, France

1. Setting up the project
Prestigious handbooks show us that Ethnography is being accepted as the most accurate and the one that fits better to scientific study of socio-educational phenomena (Agar, 1985; Aguirre, 1995; Atkinson et al., 2001; Bryman, 2001; Cohen et al., 2001; Denzin & Lincoln, 2002; Guba, 1990; Hammersley, 2002). The ethnographic model of research permits a grounding theorization of praxis, comprehensive and explanatory from multiple points of view. So, this design is pertinent to put in context our object of study: the educational companionship for minor offenders.

1.1. What epistemological choices?
Nevertheless, in my case, the choice for this research design was not inspired by the nature of the research object. From the beginning, I did not have an object of study. My election was the result of a process of socialization in a political dimension of the social epistemology (Kuhn, 1962). My first ethnographic affiliation aspired to become "medium" in search of an humanistic epistemology which admits its physical, psychological, sociological and political dimensions (Bachelard, 1971) and shapes a critical deconstruction of certain scientific representations of educational phenomena (Boumard & Bouvet, 2004; Sabirón & Arraiz, 2001, 2005). My epistemological evolution: Phenomenology, Constructivism and Complexity.

Troubles: Allocating myself and my ethnography inside this invertebrate epistemology of person and not reducing this debate to its methodological effects (quantitative vs. qualitative). Possible Weaknesses: "Over argument" composition, lack of critical thinking, "sur-implication" (Lourau, 1997), progressive disappearance of research object, epistemological and methodological stench.

1.2. Why Deviance and Education?
One can give two reasons for professing this "Sympathy for the Devil":

• Critical Educational Intention. Outlying realities, outsiders, misfits... Do they represent the output of a particular social machine? How is this machine working? How could Education break it? How could we link this critical attitude with some critical scientific representation, but without falling in demagogy (Boumard, 1999)?
• Critical Epistemological Intention. Understanding Good implies understanding Sin, and vice versa. This is one of the most important consequence of the socio-constructivist perspective and the prolific viewpoint of the Chicago School (Lemert, 1967; Becker, 1963; Goffman, 1963; Matza, 1969) and the Ethnomethodology (Cicourel, 1964; Ogien, 1995). Deviance and Rule build them in a solidarity way (vid. Diagram n° 23, p. 6).

Troubles: Exotic or "folkloric" construction, landscape of trivialization of the Other, false critical thought or disguised imposition of rationality. Possible Weaknesses: "Person" may be absent, reduced to "actor" or "subject", and stretching "person" notion implies a dizzy reflexivity between method and research subject.

Both epistemological choices and socio-educational deviance sensitivity are the letter of introduction of the European Society of Ethnography and Education (vid. ESEE Research Group ETNOEDU links). My demand analysis was born in this context.

1.3. What Fieldwork?
The fieldwork as "situation-in-life" means that the whole research and the progressive research subject construction should be driven by this "situation-in-life" itself.
This adventure started on the 12th August 2004. My last day, on the 28th June 2005...

• Access. I had access to the fieldwork by a job interview, as any potential employee. I was a covert observer. From the beginning, this was the best way for conducting my research, since a hostile atmosphere stemmed from the institution and everybody managed sensitive information.
• Played Roles. The final research nature normally depends on the ethnographer position in the fieldwork (Adler & Adler, 1987). In early research period, I stood in for permanent workers (holidays or sick leaves). I worked as educational worker in the correctional institution and, as workshop manager, I belonged to the Work Department where I oversaw courses and activities. Finally, I became a member of the staff, as counselor of vocational training for the educational area of Juvenile Court.
• Stay. In my case, developing and maintaining the fieldwork meant keeping my post and adapting to work routines: assistance, management, relationships, institutional functions, etc. My ethnographic aim... Going "native"!!
• Leaving. It was a living decision, not a logical or technical research manoeuvre. Leaving the fieldwork was a living situation and it also revealed aspects of the social reality. After a working year, I resigned from my post because of a research fellowship.

Troubles: Covert Ethnography put me in ethical tight corners (vid. Section 5.1). Possible Weaknesses: Research might mistake the "social being" and the "social scientist" (Bourdieu, 1990) and an intersubjective knowledge production was seriously threatened (vid. Section 4.2). Maybe this mistake was not a grave danger: the fieldwork was carried out in terms of attitude (Boumard, 1989) - existential involved -, and Ethnography was thought as method (Sabirón, 2006) - specific scientificity of knowledge.

Back to Project Home Page