The Need for Classroom Ethnographies

Earlier Interpretations of the Classroom: Student–Teacher Relations, Authority and Experience

The practice of sociology and perhaps most other disciplines is actualized at the level of the classroom (Chaudhuri, 2003; Erickson, 2010; Hammersley, 2021). The teacher is at once an authorial presence and a researcher of the same authority (Ball, 1995; Giroux, 1988; Hammersley, 1993). The student is at once the radical dissenter and the bearer of institutional hegemony (Giroux, 2001, 2018). The curriculum is a medium which negotiates authority and reflexivity, dissent and hegemony, through the interaction of the student and the teacher within the classroom (Apple, 2013, 2018).

As for an empirical validation of the classroom, almost all the authors who have both written and discussed the issues inherent in the practice of sociology (discussed above) have been able to do so during their time as tenured professors and teachers. The point being that not only is their work related to real-time experiences within the classroom but also that they carry the symbolic value of belonging to an institutional system of pedagogic dissemination and validation (Bourdieu, 1973, 1988). Further, their own bio-historical experiences tend to affect their interactions in and around the classroom (see Chaudhuri, 2003; Pathak, 2003).

The need for an ethnography of university classrooms arises out of the sheer volume of work already dedicated to school classrooms and the like. Be it Willis (2017), Apple and Apple (2004) or Thapan (2006), the school classroom has been of the greatest import. And so it should be, as it is the very basis of education. However, the university classrooms need further enquiry. Moreover, it is the concept of space that is common across the pedagogic field: especially in the transition from school to university where it plays a defintive role in the life of students as well as teachers.

The classroom is the space of executing the curriculum (Apple, 2018); it is also a space to inculcate moral codes and ethics of academic behaviour (Bernstein, 2003). Institutionally, it is the real and symbolic site of pedagogic authority (Bourdieu, 1988). As Chaudhuri (2003) finds that the themes that plague and arouse the students are best discovered within the classroom. Moreover, the classroom as a space is also the space of silence, where some students are unable to speak and some are unable to relate to their peers (as in Deshpande, 2018; Rege, 2006). The classroom, according to Pathak (2003, 2021) is also a space of dialogue, dissent and discussion, where a lecture need not be limited to its four walls, or a theory to its text. Examinations conducted within and around it might be a cause of anxiety and of fulfilment for the students taking them. The classroom then can be characterized through three concepts: (a) interaction between student and teacher via dialogue and writing, (b) authorial structures (if any) between student and teacher and (c) the nature of interaction(s) of students and teachers with the larger institution.

Why an Ethnographic Lens: Brief History, Importance and Limitations

Briefly summarizing the place of ethnography through some of its own practical concerns and some possible changes can help us in finding in it an apt method of enquiry for university classrooms. Firstly, according to Hammersley and Atkinson (Hammersley, 2018; Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019), ethnography came out as a reaction to quantifiable approaches in the social sciences (also see Silverman, 2004). The problem with quantification, notes Hammersley, was the difficulty of capturing experiential cognition in a group set-up (Hammersley, 2018, p. 13). A second genesis of ethnography came from the dialectic of ‘ought’ and ‘is’, that what people say they do or how they act should be placed under the lens of in-depth long-term observations vis-a-vis fieldwork (for instance, read Malinowski, 2020). To answer certain questions that quantification could not ascertain, ethnography took the view of interpretive analysis through a theoretical lens (Das, 1996, 2006, 2008; Goffman, 1961). By using tools such as participant observation and in- depth interviews for particular cases, it would provide a theoretically sound and analytically dense view of social interaction and practices. As for Hammersley (2018), a problem facing ethnography was the ability of quantitative analysis to deprive humans of their subjective agency or for that matter analyse the socio-cognitive foundations of hegemonic group practices. Further, an ethnographic view (see Das & Singh, 1995) can be extended to the influence of the State and its various instruments and apparatuses of domination—from the law to education—through an ethnographic analysis of hegemony.

The shift in the use of the ethnographic methods, involving in-depth interviews and participant observation in sociology, came by way of the Chicago School of ‘Symbolic Interactionism’, embodied in works of George Herbert Mead, Erving Goffman and Herbert Blumer (Hammersley, 2018). The ability and the need to study social groups in general against the primitive–advanced binaries was probably the Chicago School’s greatest contribution. That even the most urban and industrialized societies could not be charted in a linear graph of positive progression and suffered its own bouts of madness and orientation towards social phenomenon has been thoroughly captured by Goffman in his study of ‘Total Institutions’ (see Goffman, 1961). Any space when symbolically rendered produces its own variations of meaning-orientations. Thereafter the symbolic realm follows from the actor’s worldview and/or perspective towards certain types of spaces and timeframes, as also being conditioned by the latter (Blumer, 1986, pp. 10–15). That communication with one’s space and language-games of a given epoch govern the movement and discourse between actors is also a contribution of the Chicago School. It is to this tradition that ‘classroom ethnographies’, departmental ethnographies and generally institutional ethnographies really belong. In the context of the classroom, Bloome and Beauchemin (2018) believe that the space called a class can be symbolically envisioned—being a part of a larger totality, that is, the institution, school or college; here also departments and administration(s). The actors—the student and teacher—can be said to occupy such a space to purport norms and mores of membership.

Second, an ethnography of the departments and their classroom must study the nature of interaction that takes place within it and outside it: meaning, the language that qualifies (if any) for participation within the classroom; the method(s) used by the teacher in his/her teaching; the explication of the text—either through dialogue or any other method that ensues within the class. Equally important is the way in which the students and the teacher interact with the classroom as a space—the seats they occupy, the bodily gestures they purport, the absence of some and presence of others in a particular course. Finally, through the student–teacher interaction(s) pertaining to a text, theory or general query, one can seek to establish concepts of relatability, ambiguity and exclusion and/or marginalization. If silence prevails, if debates ensue, or if ignorance rules the day, every aspect of bodily, oral and written communication can be analysed. What is left out and what is included—the nature of a student’s performance in internal examinations and semester examinations, variations in grading (if any), variation in the moderation of grades (if any)—can be correlated to their experiences of the classroom and their peer group linkages in-and-outside it.

Third, the reality of the ethnographic enterprise is that it cannot hide from itself, neither behind numbers nor the narrative it tries to create because an interpretative journey is already wrought with subjectivity. Ethnography is, if anything, a dance of observation and interpretation. The students and the teachers being observed are not unaware of the intent the researcher has. However, given the fact that ethnography allows for an ‘extended presence’, where the participant tries and at times does become a part of the larger milieu it may lead to the turn of the observer’s ‘gaze’. It is only when the actors in the field say to the researcher, ‘I hope you will write about this incident in your work’, that the participant is reminded of the gaze the field throws back at him/her.

A classroom ethnography allows for both observation and interpretation but in a space which is otherwise closed and reserved for students and teachers belonging to a particular institution. It is an exclusive experience for the ethnographer of being a non-student student in a space which is essentially competitive: the entrance exams, interviews and so on, and a timeframe which is partly temporary (for the students) and somewhat permanent (for teachers other than guest faculty).

There are some glaring limitations to any method. As for classroom ethnographies one of the key limitations is access—whether an institution allows itself to be studied—or allows its member student, staff and others to be spoken to by someone who is in the business, critical or otherwise, of analysis. The second limitation is that the field here is essentially one of intelligentsia or an intellectual class. By this I do not mean a range of IQ or scholarly medals but a certain penchant to speak. Actors are aware of the lingua franca of Academia and the politically and intellectually correct throw of words and phrases (much like the scholarly addiction to ‘over-cite’). Actors, unless uninhibited, are careful, let’s say, with their opinion on caste or gender stereotypes (Kumar, 2021; also see Kumar, 2016). It’s only in a class on caste and the reservation policy where one who claims to be a staunch anti-casteist may also reveal that he/she is also anti-reservation. This becomes a site of revelation where an issue raised by an actor may not be followed by a generally accepted solution. The task of the ethnographer is not to resolve a conundrum such as this but to place it before the reader as a topic which is open to debate and dialogue due to varying motivations and lived experiences of the actors and the researcher involved.

The third and final limitation in classroom ethnographies is that of time. The sheer volume of classrooms in a singular institution does not permit a generalizable proposition. For instance, does a day-long immersion in a field qualify as ethnography? The ethnographic experience is an immersive experience, and one is a prey to time. Within a span of a single year, over a hundred classrooms cannot be observed immersively given the basic ethnographic demand for ‘trust-building’ as an outsider in a closed-group. A lot more can and needs to be said about this limitation of the ethnographic enterprise. I shall conclude this section by stating one demand: real ethnographies must be open to quantitative surveys and means of data collection and interpretation (I say this out of my own fear and failure with quantitative analysis). The qualitative aspect of ethnography provides that subtle space for the poetic narrative of observation, communication and interpretation. The quantitative imagination would allow an expansion of such a space.

Sitting in the Classroom: Participating and Observing as a Student or …?

This section briefly looks towards my field and the observations therein. In my ethnography of a public university, I was able to speak to a few teachers, many students and observed both within and outside the classroom. The sheer beauty of this journey has been to notice that the world of the university need not necessarily affect the little home of the classroom, but that home, that is, the classroom, indefinitely affects the world outside. Yes, the fee structure and job requirements or the career choices are essential features of concern for both students and teachers, but the respite from a boredom induced class through canteen-conversations or an inspiring lecture leading to furthering of the class timings (as if a world outside could be muted for the ‘time’ being) has been of greater significance.

When we conduct an ethnography of the classroom, a few phantoms suddenly appear before us. One of them is the space of the classroom: the way the chairs are set (mostly in a proscenium format), if the teacher’s table is larger than that of the student or if the teacher has a table at all. Is there a blackboard? Is there a whiteboard? Are there projectors? Is the room air-conditioned or do fans suffice? Is there one exit to the class or more? Are other classes designed the same way or are some better organized than the others? Then come expressions that are a little more subjective and aesthetic. For instance, the aesthetic of a class—a sociology classroom is seen to be surrounded by posters with quotes from Marx, Ambedkar and Butler. The student posters carry different hues unlike the university circular, pertaining mostly to affordability rather than the aesthetic. The classroom is both institutionally governed and aesthetically navigated.

A classroom ethnography allows the researcher to observe the valorization of space and time through the play of language, intent and vocation within a definitive timeframe colloquially called ‘class-time’. A classroom can be stratified between frontbenchers, middle-benchers and back-benchers visually. Interactions have a definitive linguistic character like the conjunctive use of English and Hindi in enquiries and explanations. Space, then, is organized in accordance with linguistic affinity, interest, relatability and time.

Finally, a classroom ethnography allows a study of the pedagogic character of the classroom through three open sets—dramaturgical, communicative and authorial. The dramaturgical style refers to movements, dressing patterns and use of teaching aids for the teacher. In some cases, the teacher may deepen his/her voice when emphasizing a point, and in some cases the teacher may tread slowly to the end of the classroom, turning only slightly, when he/she requires the students to contemplate over an analogy. Communication can be through a monologue where the teacher reads out of a text or lectures extempore, dialogic when the class is perpetually engaged in questions and answers, debates and a little dissent. The most common communicative gesture is the part monologue and part dialogue. A lecture is delivered within the first half of a two-hour class and then a round of questions and answers follow.

The authorial aspect of pedagogy is a little more complicated. Authority does not simply stem from the examinations or the fear of grades. Authority also comes by way of experiences and status within an institution. The teacher, for instance, delivers a lecture with a host of analogies which he/she believes aligns with the reading but also resonates from his/her own lived experiences. Let us take two short instances that could only be located within the classroom: given the time of class within pedagogic time.