This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval]On: 09 October 2014, At: 05:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal ofQualitative Studies in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tqse20

Rapport and friendship inethnographic researchCorrine Glesne aa University of VermontPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Corrine Glesne (1989) Rapport and friendship in ethnographicresearch, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 2:1, 45-54, DOI:10.1080/0951839890020105

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951839890020105

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION, 1989, VOL. 2, NO. 1, 45-54

Rapport and friendship in ethnographicresearch

CORRINE GLESNEUniversity of Vermont

Most ethnographic fieldwork texts advise us to develop rapport with research participants.Fewer warn us of the problems that might ensue. This paper focuses on rapport's rela-tionship to friendship in ethnographic work and discusses the instrumental role of rapport, theproblematic role of friendship, and confusion in interpreting rapport-building behavior. Intraditional ethnographic research, rapport is a trust-building mechanism that primarily servesthe interests of the researcher. Friendship is different from rapport and can confound researchobjectivity. Yet the similarity of rapport-building behavior to friendship-developing behaviorcan cause misunderstandings and feelings of deception by the researcher and her/his others.

"Rapport" and "friendship" are terms that occur repeatedly in fieldwork literature.Their nature, however, is less frequently explored. Some writers interchange theterms, while others portray rapport as necessary and friendship as hazardous. Somedescribe rapport as a good thing, full of trust and friendly relations. Others liken it to"webs of trust" and deception (Douglas, 1976). Although a number of rapport-related issues could be discussed, I will focus on only one in this paper: rapport'sassociation with friendship in ethnographic research. Through reflecting upon thekinds of relationships that researchers form with those with whom they work, we mayfind ways to improve data quality.

Definitions

Ethnography

Ethnographic research refers to the anthropological tradition of long-term immer-sion in the field where the researcher collects data primarily through participant-observation and interviewing. Throughout fieldwork, the researcher interactswith others, sharing stories and meals, and helping out when doing so does not affectthe nature of the data sought. The ethnographer seeks understanding and maynegotiate with her/his others - variously referred to as subjects, respondents, orinformants — to reach this understanding. In her/his role as researcher, the ethnog-rapher does not try to change the lives of those she/he studies.

Collaborative, change-oriented researchers such as feminist scholars and action oradvocacy anthropologists are challenging this traditional ethnographic approach inwhich the researcher controls the study's purpose and methods. In general, they arguefor more cooperative arrangements between researchers and their others so that allpartake in establishing research priorities, collecting data, interpreting data, anddeveloping plans to use the new understandings (Bassey, 1986; Maher & Tetreault,

0951-8398/89 $3.00© 1989 Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

05:

20 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

4 6 CORRINE GLESNE

1988; Mies, 1983; Miller, 1988; Reinharz, 1983; Roman & Apple, 1988; Thome,1980), Mies (1983) states that for feminist researchers, "the change of the statusquo becomes the starting point for a scientific quest" (p. 125). Research, tradi-tionally a process of description and analysis, becomes a transformative activitythat affects all parties (Heldke, 1988). Although comparisons between modes ofinquiry are not a focus of this paper, reference is made periodically to the collabor-ative, change-oriented approach because it has implications for the role of friend-ship and rapport that contrast with those of the more traditional ethnographicmethod.

Rapport and friendship

The dictionary (Gove, 1986) defines rapport as the "relation characterized byharmony, conformity, accord, or affinity" and notes that it refers to the "confidenceof a subject in the operator as in hypnotism, psychotherapy, or mental testing withwillingness to cooperate" (p. 1882). A friend is "one that seeks the society or welfareof another whom he holds in affection, respect, or esteem or whose companionshipand personality are pleasurable" (p. 911). Aristotle (1926) differentiates friendshipinto three types. First is friendship based on utility. Friends like each other "in so faras some benefit accrues to them from each other" (p. 459). Such friendship, statesAristotle, "is a thing for sordid souls" (p. 475). The second type of friendship isrooted in pleasure. People like each other because they are agreeable to one another.The third type of friendship, founded on virtue and goodness, is the ideal: "it is thosewho wish the good of their friends for their friends' sake who are friends in the fullestsense, since they love each other for themselves" (p. 461). We may like a number ofpeople for their utility and pleasantness. Such friendships are easily formed and justas easily ended. In contrast, the virtuous friendship is long-lasting and limited to afew.

While these definitions describe the qualities of relationships characterized byrapport or friendship, they do not clarify the differences between the terms forresearch purposes. Power is one dimension that assists in distinguishing the two.Traditional ethnographers establish and maintain rapport to serve research needs asthey define them. The asymmetrical nature of this relationship is discussed in some ofthe following. Friendship participants, however, are equal actors in establishing andmaintaining their relationship. Aristotle (1926) states: "only when mutual is suchgoodwill termed friendship" (p. 457). And although friends may calculate theirbehavior, they do not do so in the continuously watchful manner that describes theperpetrator of rapport.

The concepts of "trust" and "liking" also help to differentiate rapport andfriendship. Rapport is a relationship marked by confidence and trust, but notnecessarily by liking. As Rosalie Wax (1971) states, "one can learn a great deal frompeople one dislikes or from people who dislike one" (p. 373). In rapport relationships,I trust others to tell me their true feelings and beliefs, and they trust that in takingtheir words I will do them no harm. Friendship, however, means liking, feelingaffection for one another, and implies a sense of intimacy and mutual bonding. I trustmy friends, but, even more, I like them and will do things for them that I will not dofor others.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

05:

20 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

RAPPORT AND FRIENDSHIP IN ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH 4 7

Background

My personal exploration of rapport and friendship began in varied research settings:a fundamentalist Christian school and a rural village in the Eastern Caribbean. Ispent two days a week for one school year as a researcher in a study of a fundamentalistChristian school. The first semester, I took notes from the back of classrooms andworked at developing rapport through talking with teachers and students in thelunchroom, on the playground, and before and after school. The second semester, Iinterviewed students and teachers.

In the Caribbean, I worked for half a year on an agricultural extension projectin St Vincent before beginning a year of participant-observation and interviewingin a rural village on the island. I wanted to understand the motivations andconstraints for rural young adults to participate in both agricultural work andeducational programs. To get at this understanding, I conducted multi-sessionedinterviews with 30 young adults, held shorter interviews with 80 others, had innumerableconversational "interviews," and participated in a year's cycle of village activities.

What becomes clear as I reflect upon my own experiences and read otherfieldwork accounts is that there is no ideal rapport that can be transposed from oneresearch situation to the next. What is sufficient trust for rapport is largely contextual,depending on our goals; personalities, age, gender, and ethnicity of the participants;and the setting and time of the study (Glazer, 1972; Gonzalez, 1986; Spradley,1979). For instance, I developed friendly relationships in the Caribbean. In themountainous hillsides, I worked small plots of land with young women and men. Iwas included in weddings, funerals, and full-moon outings. In general, I liked beingin the Caribbean. To some extent, though, I never lost the sense of being an outsiderand an actor, ever conscious of my purpose as researcher. I strongly preferred my"acting" role in the Caribbean to that called for by the Christian school setting. Inthe Christian school, the necessity of continuously being mindful of our speech andbehavior was so strong that the other research assistant and I jokingly referred toourselves as the Christian Intelligence Agency. Yet I grew to respect many people at theschool and even to like a few. In both settings, I developed and maintained rapport.

The quality of data that researchers acquire is not necessarily related to orpredictable from the amount of emotional distance between them and their others.That I enjoyed fieldwork in the Caribbean more than that in the Christian schooldoes not mean that I collected better data in one setting over the other. Foranother example, compare studies by Wax (1971) and Myerhoff (1978). Theinterned Japanese Americans that Rosalie Wax studied during the Second WorldWar resisted intimacy and required a different kind of rapport relationship thandid the Jewish elderly who virtually incorporated Barbara Myerhoff into theirlives. Contextual variables call for and permit different levels of involvement, butat all levels, researchers can establish rapport sufficient to satisfy their research needs.

The remainder of this paper explores three issues involving rapport and friendship inethnographic research: (1) the instrumental role of rapport; (2) the problematic role offriendship; and (3) confusion in interpreting rapport-building behavior.

The instrumental role of rapport

Rapport is an attribute of a variety of relationships - from used-car salesperson to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

05:

20 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

4 8 CORRINE GLESNE

marriage counselor. Its function, however, varies with each relationship. For instance,counselors establish rapport so that clients can feel sufficiently comfortable to discloseinformation; their intent is to attain ends shaped wholly by the client's needs, as theyand the client ascertain them. Collaborative inquirers are similar to counselors intheir rapport relationships. For them, rapport's instrumental role is to serve the needsof one's others, since the researcher's role is to be a data-collecting instrument forthose whose lives are being researched. Traditional ethnographers, on the contrary,establish rapport to attain ends shaped primarily by their own needs. Research, forthem, is an acquisitive act that rapport facilitates. Intention and purpose reside withthe researcher.

We manage our appearance and behavior in rapport-building efforts in order toestablish the atmosphere necessary for continual access to information. In the funda-mentalist Christian school setting, Peshkin (1986) shaved his beard and I alwayswore a skirt, neither things natural for us to do in the autumn of 1979. When Ibecame ill in the Caribbean village, I accepted the presence of concerned visitors whocame to "sit" with me despite my desperate yearnings to be left alone. Even whenresearch purposes and methods are negotiated, the researcher must act in culturally-appropriate ways to maintain access. This may mean "getting mad" or "causing adisturbance" as Pettigrew (1981) discovered while working among Sikhs in thePunjab. When a snide remark was made, she could not ignore it with a tolerant,indifferent attitude. In keeping with their cultural rules, she had to display heropposition in order to maintain respect and rapport. Similarly, when faced with theblatant, sexist treatment of women, she could not object, in keeping with her owncultural predisposition, or she would not have been allowed to stay. One's behaviormust be culturally appropriate. Through continuous conscious awareness of ourspeech and actions, we get our others to trust us.

And if our others trust us, we will find that their information is soon shared.Spradley (1979) gently acknowledges rapport's acquisitive function: "Rapport en-courages informants to talk about their culture" (p. 78). Freilich (1977) is morepointed: "The researcher . . . 'engineers' people and situations to get the type of datarequired by the study" (p. 257). The place of rapport in traditional ethnographicresearch, then, is that of a distance-reducing, anxiety-quieting, trust-building mecha-nism that primarily serves the interests of the researcher.

In this acquisitive process, trust is the crucial ingredient. The level of trust neededmay change as research progresses. The researcher's others may compel her/him toreveal more of herself/himself, to become, in a sense, "more of a friend" as time goes on(Shaffir, Stebbins, & Turowetz, 1980). Pressure to become more of a friend may alsocome from the researcher's stressful position as a marginal native. As Gans (1982) states,the researcher "wants to be able to act as a real person, because, most of the time, he isplaying a role which does not entirely satisfy his personal needs" (p. 56). Friendship,however, is not instrumental in the same way that rapport is in achieving the specifiedpurposes that the researcher establishes. What are the consequences of slipping over intofriendship in research relationships? The next section addresses this question.

The problematic role of friendship

When a distinction between rapport and friendship is made in traditional ethno-graphic literature, the overwhelming tendency is to warn against forming friendships

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

05:

20 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

RAPPORT AND FRIENDSHIP IN ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH 4 9

because of the hazards of sample bias and loss of objectivity. These hazards are linkedto over-identification, also called "over-rapport" and "going native" (Gold, 1969;Miller, 1952; Shaffir, Stebbins, & Turowitz, 1980; Van Maanen, 1983).

Friendship appears to bias data selection and to decrease objectivity in three mainways (Gans, 1982; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983; Pelto & Pelto, 1978; Zigarmi,1978). In the first situation, data bias may result from a somewhat unconscioussubjective selecting process. The researcher is tempted to talk primarily with personsshe/he likes or finds politically sympathetic. If she/he follows such impulses, Gans(1982) suggests that "the pleasure of participant observation [would] increase signifi-cantly, but the sampling of people and situations . . . may become badly distorted"(p. 52). Or it may be that the researcher talks to a variety of people, but over-identifies with one group. She/he then hears what this group has to say, but hearsless fully what other groups tell her/him. She/he may censor her/his own questioningprocess to avoid alienating those with whom she/he is over-identifying. She/he alsomay be tempted to give such friends confidential information that would help them.

In the second situation, the researcher is consciously aware of her/his best datasources, but is denied access to some of them because of her/his friendship with others.Pelto and Pelto (1978) warn that "every firm social relationship with a particularindividual or group carries with it the possibility of closed doors and social rebuffsfrom competing segments of the community" (p. 184). In the Caribbean village, Iattempted to maintain simultaneous access to alienated young adults, to unalienatedyoung adults, to government officials, and to estate owners. Forming friendshipexclusive alliances with any one group could have denied access to another. Achievinga politically neutral presence is, however, easier in some settings than in others. TheChristian day school offered no parallel factions.

In the third situation, the researcher's others over-identify with her/him. In doingso, they may begin to act in ways that they perceive she/he wants them to act or inways to impress her/him. Van Maanen (1983) cites the example of police he studiedusing overly aggressive patrol tactics in an effort to increase their worth in the eyes ofthe observer. Gold (1969) suggests that the informant who becomes too identifiedwith the fieldworker may even become more of an observer like the researcher. Insummary, friendship can affect the behavior of the researcher or her/his others withpotential detrimental consequences for objective and complete data-collection andanalysis.

It appears, therefore, that the researcher should establish rapport, but avoidfriendships in the research setting or, at least, as Zigarmi (1978) suggests, withresearch participants. Yet many of us develop friendships in our fieldwork. Mostfrequently those who become our friends play the special role of "key informant"(West, 1980). They may read drafts of working papers and discuss the researcher'sinterpretations. Feminist researchers advocate friendship relationships. Oakley (1981)describes how, some four years after her research, she stays in touch with more than athird of the women she interviewed. When researchers view research as collaborative,they become less bothered with the objectivity criterion and more concerned with, asMaher and Tetreault (1988) state, "building personal relationships with the peoplethey are studying, a reliance on empathy rather than objective detachment" (p. 2).To develop such relationships, the researcher must be willing to invest or honestlyreveal aspects of her/his own personal experiences and identity (Klein, 1983; Oakley,1981). Oakley (1981) goes on to claim that personal involvement is "the conditionunder which people come to know each other and to admit others into their lives" (p.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

05:

20 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

5 0 CORRINE GLESNE

58). We should, therefore, according to feminist researchers, not try to avoid suchrelationships, but actively cultivate them. Traditional scholars also support selectresearch friendships, albeit with different intentions in mind. King (1974) argues thatfriendships can create "opportunities for insights otherwise unobtainable by an out-sider" (p. 407).

I am reminded of Ned who knocked angrily at my door one evening in theCaribbean. His father, whom he had never known, had just appeared and wanted hisson's financial assistance. Ned had to talk to someone who would listen, and he choseme, probably because I was a safe confidant and a friend of sorts. Matrifocalhouseholds are common in the Caribbean, but not until then had I begun to glimpse,or even wonder about, how people felt about their absent fathers. My level ofintimacy with Ned, beyond that of a neutral observer, contributed to thoughts andunderstandings that I may not have achieved otherwise. I am not sure of what I mayhave given up in terms of objectivity for what I learned. I did not "go native"; I didnot set out to widen anyone's consciousness other than my own,1 but I did establish"research friendships" that would generally be assigned to Aristotle's utility category.

The case for cultivating research friendships under considered circumstancesremains open, but, as a rule, I think we should give priority to developing andmaintaining rapport, not friendships. Working according to this priority requires thatwe remain aware of the line between rapport and friendship, a variable line that isactively shaped by our research needs. We must juggle these needs with the demandsof the constrained response that says, in effect, "I am yours, but only up to a point.While I must get close to you in order to understand you, I need the distance ofunentangled alliances." Research success generally necessitates being warm and cool,close and distant in order to maintain the fine line between rapport and friendship.

Confusion in interpreting rapport-building behavior

What we do when we establish rapport is similar to what we do when we establishfriendship. Rapport and friendship tap a common affective vein, drawing uponattributes such as friendliness, approachability, warmth, interest, trust-worthiness,and concern. In establishing rapport, we take behaviors that are generally perceivedas elements in the ordinary human relationship of friendship and construe them assomething else because we have directed them towards a different end. Like Geertz's(1973) twitches and winks, the behaviors may appear the same, but have differentmeanings. Different intepretations of the behaviors by the researcher and her/hisothers may result. In this respect, I address three matters: (1) misunderstanding byour others; (2) intentional deception by the researcher; and (3) mutual exploitation.

Misunderstanding

What researchers do in the name of rapport can be misconstrued as friendship by ourothers. In our research life, we seek out, talk with, and dine with people whom wemight prefer to ignore in everyday life. If they are instrumental to our research needs,we continue the interactions. If not, we are likely to pull away. As our need tomaintain rapport with certain people declines, so, too, does the appearance offriendship that rapport-building efforts may connote. As this decline occurs, our

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

05:

20 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

RAPPORT AND FRIENDSHIP IN ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH 5 J

others may feel rejected, hurt, and disappointed. Accordingly, through the other'seyes, the researcher may appear deceptive.

Knowing they have managed to mislead their others, researchers often feel someguilt; they also feel confused over how to teach their others the special attributes ofboth the role of researcher and of subject. In their own minds, researchers experiencedifficulty in keeping a sharp line between behavior appropriate to research goals, butnot necessarily to friendship. The researchers' others may have even more difficulty indistinguishing the difference because they do not have the same purposes and goalsguiding their behavior as does the researcher. Unmet expectations and conflict canresult from such misunderstandings. Collaborative researchers attempt to avoid thisproblem by negotiating research conditions with their others.

Intentional deception

Research texts and fieldwork accounts suggest two schools of thought regardingresearchers' use of rapport: the "good guys" and the "bad guys" (see Douglas, 1976;Johnson, 1975). The good-guys school of thought endorses the attributes of the goodethnographer, such as patient, tolerant of ambiguity, nonjudgmental, and so on. Inthis school, rapport is affability incarnate, a pleasant sort of thing, and its practitionersare nice people who may mislead their others, but not intentionally. Intentionaldeception belongs to the bad-guys school. They would argue that even the nice guyswho establish rapport manipulate the personas they present and calculate how muchthey will reveal and conceal of their selves and their research purposes. Researchers,they argue, routinely deceive in order to obtain the information they desire. To them,rapport is a mask that hides the researcher while revealing a front that advancesher/his research purposes. It is "impression management."

Most who write about deception in research see it as a case of omission or"shallow cover" (Fine, 1980). For example, the researcher may not fully communicateher/his purposes to her/his others. Interested in the participation and treatment of aparticular ethnic group in a school, I tell my gatekeepers and interviewees that Iwant to learn about the students at their school, and that is all. Although I speaktruly when I explain my intent, I do not speak fully about it. The decision to offer myothers a partial account rests on a concern to ensure the most naturalistic behavior ofthe others. The decision to withhold is done to acquire more valid data, not toconfuse or harm. Because of the evolutionary nature of qualitative research, Ham-mersley and Atkinson (1983) state that "telling the 'whole truth' . . . may not alwaysbe a wise or even feasible strategy" (p. 71). Keeping within the bounds of the Rightsof Human Subjects directives, I may feel certain that I do not place my others at riskwhen I deny them a complete account of my purposes. Nevertheless, I clearly denythem the opportunity to be on guard, mindful of when their caution and restraintmight best serve their own purposes. Partial disclosure or deception by omissionaugments the assymetrical relationship that favors the researcher.

Some researchers see rapport's deceptive nature as more pervasive than justcommitting the sin of omission. Gans (1982) is one. He states that "psychologically,the participant observer is acting dishonestly; he is deceiving people about hisfeelings, and in observing when they do not know it, he is spying on them . . ." (p. 59;Gans' emphasis). Yet, again, such deception may be necessary when the researchertries to assume a nonreactive presence in the others' lives. Unlike friendship, which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

05:

20 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

5 2 CORRINE GLESNE

carries with it the license to disagree and to express personal beliefs, rapport does notoffer the same license, except on matters of no consequence to one's research project.The researcher strives to maintain harmonious relationships by not responding inher/his normal, non-research mode. For example, teachers in the Christian schoolwere actively involved in anti-ERA rallies. As researchers concerned with rapport, wenot only had to keep our thoughts on this topic to ourselves, but we also wereconstrained from partaking in any pro-ERA rallies that might be televized throughoutthe state. We did not want to be seen endorsing what was antithetical to coreChristian belief. Rapport places limitations on the researcher's ordinary interactionsand expressions. We did not want our anti-ERA subjects to know that we endorsedwhat they viewed as an abomination. Rapport is consonant with concealing oneself;friendship, for the most part, is not. It is a matter of degree. Though each allows fordifferent degrees of openness, it would be hard to imagine a friendship that wouldsurvive the amount of concealing that maintaining rapport entails.

Mutual exploitation

Fieldwork testimonies frequently expose the researcher as feeling not only deceptive,but also exploitative. Hitchcock (1970) reflects on his fieldwork in Nepal: "personsbecome means . . . It is compounded by an attitude I would quail at if it were notmade respectable by being called 'getting rapport,' 'finding the person behind thepersona,' and the like" (p. 184). We establish rapport to acquire data and may, asnoted, feel guilty in doing so.

Other fieldwork reports (Frelich, 1977; Saberwal, 1969; Sanders, 1980; Wade,1984; Wax, 1983) raise the issue of the possible use of rapport by our others toexploit, in a sense, the researcher. Though rapport is always described as theprerogative of researchers to manipulate, is rapport, in fact, a one-way phenomenon,or do our others also have some control over the process? Do our others, in theirterms and for their ends, "establish rapport" with the researcher? They do makedemands. In the Caribbean, I received requests that ranged from taking photographsof a wedding to adopting a child. Personal research accounts frequently speak of thesubjects who come to depend upon the researcher for rides into town, aspirin andbandages, enhanced social status, or study in the USA. Many of these accounts arepresented either in disparaging terms - "I am being used" - or in paternalistic terms- "I help out the needy when I can." It may be, however, that rapport is in the serviceof both parties of the researcher-other relationship. If the other does not have theresearcher's trust, the researcher will not lend her/his car.

Conclusion

As researchers, we need to examine the assumptions underlying our relationships withour others. If objectivity is important, then friendship is a problem, and we mustwork to separate rapport from friendship. From this perspective, friendship entanglesin that it suggests one has chosen sides, taken a stand, decided on preferences. Eachsuch suggestion risks shutting down data sources or biasing the collection process. Ifintersubjectivity is desirable, rather than objectivity, then friendship may be a goalthat rapport helps to achieve. From this perspective, friendship assists both the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

05:

20 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

RAPPORT AND FRIENDSHIP IN ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH 5 3

researcher and her/his others in achieving new perspectives and in acting upon thoseinsights in a negotiated fashion.

As researchers, we also need to recognize the role of power distribution in ourinteractions. In the traditional ethnographic mode, those who are studied grant usaccess and may benefit in some ways from the research process and product.Nonetheless, within the constraints of ethical considerations, the researcher retainscontrol over the project's purpose, methods, analysis, and use. That "intent" lies withthe researcher, who contributes to acts of real or perceived deception in the establish-ment and maintenance of rapport.

The collaborative modes of feminist and action research attempt to distributepower more equally throughout the various aspects of the research process. Theresearcher assists and facilitates rather than develops and executes. Intent, pur-portedly, lies with the group as a whole and exonerates the researcher from feelings ofexploitation, deception, or guilt. We need, however, more renderings of research-other relationships in this mode of research. How, for example, does the advocacy offriendship relationships limit the settings or the issues that can be investigated? Inwhat ways does the theoretical perspective or expert status of the collaborativeresearcher continue to set the research agenda? What is the nature, in the Aristotleansense, of these friendships? What happens to friendships when the researcher goeshome or on to other studies?

Rapport and friendship are different. We may establish rapport with people we donot like; we never establish friendship with anyone we do not like. Rapport is directedtowards ends defined by one party in a relationship. Friendship is open to both partieswho together define ends, duration, and need. Rapport's contribution to all modes ofethnographic research is essential. The researcher could not succeed without the trustthat rapport engenders. We ask others to allow us to watch and record what they do andsay. We ask them to describe and explain what they may never before have given voiceto. Friendship's contribution is more problematic. Friendship may bias data collection;but it also may contribute an even more potent voice than that gained throughrapport. Researchers need to monitor and describe more completely the contributionsand consequences of rapport and friendship in our work.

Note

1. When an interviewee exclaimed, "I tell you things I've never told myself," I was pleased. Thatinterviewees gained insight into their lives was, however, a by-product of the research process, not a goal.

References

Aristotle. (1926). Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics. H. Rackham, trans. (Book IX, pp. 517-575). New York:G.P. Putnam's Sons.

Bassey, M. (1986). Does action research require sophisticated research methods? In D. Hustler, A. Cassidy,& E.C. Cuff (Eds.), Action research in classrooms and schools (pp. 18-24). Boston: Allen & Unwin.

Douglas, J. (1976). Investigative social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Fine, G.A. (1980). Cracking diamonds: Observer role in little league baseball settings and the acquisition

of social competence. In W. Shaffir, R. Stebbins, & A. Turowetz (Eds.), Fieldwork experiences:Qualitative approaches to social research (pp. 117-132). New York: St Martin's Press.

Freilich, M. (1977). Marginal natives at work. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Gans, H. (1982). The participant observer as a human being: Observations on the personal aspects of

fieldwork. In R. Burgess (Ed.), Field research: A sourcebook and field manual (pp. 53-61). London:George Allen & Unwin.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

05:

20 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

5 4 CORRINE GLESNE

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Glazer, M. (1972). The research adventure: Promise and problems of field work. New York: Random House.Glesne, C. (1985). Strugglin,' but no slavin': Agriculture, education, and rural young Vicentians. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.Gold, R. (1969). Roles in sociological field observations. In G. McCall & J.L. Simmons (Eds.), Issues in

participant observation: A text and reader (pp. 30-39). Menlo Park, ci: Addison-Wesley.Gonzalez, N. (1986). The anthropologist as female head of household. In T.L. Whitehead & M.E.

Conaway (Eds.), Self, sex, and gender in cross-cultural fieldwork (pp. 84-100). Urbana: University ofIllinois Press.

Gove, P. (Ed.). (1986). Webster's third new international dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam & Webster.Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. New York: Tavistock.Heldke, L. (1988). Coresponsibility and the academy: An uneasy companionship. Paper presented at the University

of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign.Henry, F., & Saberwal, S. (1969). Stress and response in field work. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Hitchcock, J. (1970). Fieldwork in Ghurka country. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Being an anthropologist: Fieldwork

in eleven cultures (pp. 164—193). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Johnson, J. (1975). Doing field research. New York: The Free Press.King, R. (1974). The teacher as a participant-observer: A case study. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Education and

cultural process: Toward an anthropology of education (pp. 399—410). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Wins-ton.

Klein, R. (1983). How to do what we want to do: Thoughts about feminist methodology. In G. Bowles &R. Klein (Eds.), Theories of women's studies (pp. 88-104). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Maher, F., & Tetreault, M.K. (1988). Breaking through illusion: The intersection of feminist pedagogy and feministethnography. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association meetings, NewOrleans.

Mies, M. (1983). Towards a methodology for feminist research. In G. Bowles & R. Klein (Eds.), Theories ofwomen's studies (pp. 117-139). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Miller, J . (1988). Points of dissonance in teacher/researchers: Openings into emancipatory ways of knowing. Paperpresented at the American Educational Research Association meetings, New Orleans.

Miller, S.M. (1952). The participant observer and "overrapport." American Sociological Review, 17, 97-99.Myerhoff, B. (1978). Number our days. New York: Simon & Schuster.Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing woman: A contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist

research (pp. 30-61). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Pelto, J .P. , & Pelto, G. (1978). Anthropological research: The structure of scientific inquiry. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Peshkin, A. (1986). God's choice: The total world of a fundamentalist Christian school. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Pettigrew, J. (1981). Reminiscences of fieldwork among the Sikhs. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist

research (pp. 62-82). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Powermaker, H. (1966 Stranger and friend: The way of an anthropologist. New York: W.W. Norton.Reinharz, S. (1983). Experiential analysis: A contribution to feminist research. In G. Bowles & R. Klein

(Eds.), Theories of women's studies (pp. 162-191). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Roman, L., & Apple, M. (1988). Is naturalism a move away from positivism? Paper presented at the Qualitative

Inquiry in Education conference, Stanford, CA.Saberwal, S. (1969). Rapport and resistance among the Embu of central Kenya (1963-1964). In Henry &

Saberwal (Eds.), Stress and response infield work (pp. 47-62). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Sanders, C. (1980). Rope burns: Impediments to the achievement of basic comfort early in the field

research experience. In W. Shaffir, R. Stebbins, & A. Turowetz (Eds.), Fieldwork experience:Qualitative approaches to social research (pp. 158-171). New York: St Martin's Press.

Shaffir, W., Stebbins, R., & Turowetz, A. (1980). Fieldwork experience: Qualitative approaches to social research.New York: St Martins Press.

Spradley,J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Thorne, B. (1980). "You still takin' notes?" Fieldwork and problems of informed consent. Social Problems,

27, 284-297.Van Maanen, J. (1983). The moral fix: On the ethics of fieldwork. In Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field

research (pp. 269-287). Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Wade, J. (1984). Role boundaries and paying back: "Switching hats" in participant observation. An-

thropology and Education Quarterly, 15, 211-224.Wax, R. (1971). Doing fieldwork: Warnings and advice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Wax, R. (1983). The ambiguities of fieldwork. In Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 191-201).

Boston: Little, Brown, & Co.West, W.G. (1980). Access to adolescent deviants and deviance. In W. Shaffir, R. Stebbins, & A. Turowitz

(Ed.), Fieldwork experiences: Qualitative approaches to social research (pp. 31-44). New York: St Martin's Press.Zigarmi, D. (1978). The psychological stresses of ethnographic research. Paper presented at the American

Educational Research Association meetings, Toronto, Canada.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite L

aval

] at

05:

20 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014