Reflections on Reflexive Methods in Archaeological Research

I've basically decided that I want to contribute to the class project as an ethnographer. I think I'm prepared literarily for this undertaking, since I've read extensively on cultures of science and technology, on the social construction of scientific facts, and on communication within and between scientific disciplines. (My senior thesis deals with the social construction of a laboratory.) However, most of my research experience is in history. So the prospect of interviewing archaeologists, who are themselves familiar with ethnographic methods, is a little intimidating. Fortunately, Brigitte, who is probably much more experienced in ethnographic field work than I am, is also considering this role in the class project. Her expertise is reassuring.

My inexperience aside, I do have another scruple with participant-observation: I am not sure what to do with the information I uncover. If I find flaws in the research behaviors of my classmates, when, if ever, should I notify them? Carolyn Hamilton met this same problem in a 1999 preliminary study at Çatalhöyük. Her early analysis of the production of archaeological knowledge revealed a number of "faultlines"--areas where the methodological bricks that were built into the research project to encourage interaction and reflexivity "slumped in." She concludes a presentation of her early findings at the Theoretical Archaeology Group in Liverpool by noting,

"If the aim at Çatalhöyük is to produce a research structure with a strength set in stone, able to withstand all pressures and pulls, then the emerging project is flawed...If the production of knowledge is viewed as a process, and if the aim of the project is to be responsive to change, the faultlines are a guarantee of flexibility, contingency, provisionality and multiplicity."

I'm still trying to track down a copy of Ian Hodder's book Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at Çatalhöyük, so I do not yet know how quickly Hamilton's findings were used to change some of the "methodological bricks" that were proving problematic.

In analyzing our own methodological bricks, I am faced with the same options that Hamilton met. I can point out faultlines (or cornerstones) as I see them, or wait until the end of the semester to produce a comprehensive critique of the architecture of our methodology; to be more of a participant or more of an observer. I think the former option would benefit the class product, but it might detract from my own final product.