Obtrusiveness as Strategy in Ethnographic Research

Abstract

Unlocking the Iron Cage, Michael Schwalbe's 1996 ethnography of the men's movement, is in many ways a classic ethnographic account, involving almost three years of intensive participant-observation. But the study is innovative—and even daring—in its strategies for establishing textual authority. Schwalbe's claims rest primarily on his status as a movement insider and full participant. Yet the credibility this provides also raises questions about Schwalbe's ability to provide a critical analytic account of the movement. Can he be an objective observer of a group in which he is also a fully immersed participant? Schwalbe is innovative in his willingness to exploit, rather than simply minimize, the tension between participation and observation. While in most of the book Schwalbe follows conventional ethnographic practice by trying to minimize his obtrusiveness as a research presence, at several key moments in the study he emerges to provoke critical debate among the men. Without these passages, Schwalbe's empirical claims would lose some of their most convincing sources of support. While researcher obtrusiveness is usually considered a methodological flaw in ethnography, Schwalbe's work manages to turn it into an asset, enhancing both his data-gathering and his credibility as a critical authority. In the process, he creates a distinctive and compelling methodological style.