Millie Creightonrigor of the New Ethnography had on projects coming out at that time.
An ethnographer studying the lives of firefighters directed her inqui-
ries at topics that fit safely within the scientific model, such as “What
is done at a fire?” She did not explore the ethos of firefighters or how
they saw meaning in their lives. This, Wolcott argues, would have had
much greater ethnographic value. He concludes that the “systemic ap-
proach of the New Ethnography was so seductive that many failed to
recognize how very narrow it was” (Wolcott 1999 , 38 ).
Having struggled with these sometimes seemingly contradictory
convictions, and still having concerns about the emphasis on scien-
tific paradigms that seemed to underlie some of these methods texts,
I picked up Wolcott’s Ethnography: A Way of Seeing ( 1999 ). Rays
of hope immediately began to beam. It is not that I would agree with
his suggestions entirely. It is unusual for anthropologists, including
those with an interest in methods, to agree on things entirely. This text
clearly emphasized that ethnography is, and should be, about some-
thing other than getting the facts. Ethnography is about life, human
life, and it is not the case that “In this life, we want nothing but Facts”
(Dickens 1958 , 4 ). Rather than assert a particular scientific paradigm
for ethnography, Wolcott discusses the history of the debate among
anthropologists over this issue. Some assert that anthropology is a
“science,” in a purer sense; others that it is a “social science”; and
still others that it falls in or overlaps with the “humanities.” Wolcott
writes that there has been “a context of insider argumentation about
virtually every aspect of the discipline” and asks, “What is anthro-
pology’s proper place among the social sciences? Or should that read
‘among the humanities’ instead?” (Wolcott 1999 , 10 ). The recogni-
tion that anthropology bridges all these fields, humanities included,
perhaps renders my references to Dickens’s literary work for insights
as permissible for entry into these reflections of our work. I cannot
agree with the assertion that anthropology and the “artistic lens,” in-
cluding that of “fiction writers,” should be recognized as stuff of two
differentiated worlds (deMunck and Sobo 1998 , 22 – 23 ).
The ethnographic emphasis presented by Wolcott draws in part
on John Berger’s television series, Ways of Seeing. Importantly, “see-
ing” takes precedence over “looking,” and definitely over “counting.”