Circular paradoxes. Why observers different in cycles from participants?

Abstract

Following the discussion held on pages of the Journal of Ethnographic Theory between Tim Ingold and Alpa Shah, an analysis of the discordance in the participant observation in both components is made. While Ingold sees it as a learning, Shah perceives it as a revolutionary medium. This discordance is perceived in a broader way in all ethnographic experiences. After reviewing the historical origins of the participant observation, it delves into its cyclic discrepancies. For a better understanding of this disintegration, two personal ethnographic examples are used in Israel and Michoacán. It is concluded that we are losing knowledge as professionals thanks to this internal difference.