There is a longstanding debate concerning the issue of value neutrality and the question of ethnography as political or non-political business (e.g. Hegelund 2005; Beach 2014). On one side there are positions which can most obviously be observed in materialist, critical and feminist ethnography. These stances reject objectivity by demanding a reflexive and performative ethnography (e.g. Denzin 2003, Dennis 2009) or by highlighting inequalities as part of a critical agenda (e.g. Hylyard 2004; Beach 2008). In contrast, there is a revitalized sociological view which concludes that the case for partisanship is not convincing at all (e.g. Hammersley 2000). However, it is a prominent position within the discourse of educational ethnography to depict ethnography as a non-political process of knowledge production by warning against the danger of partisanship; not least because of the ongoing emphasis on the argument that taking sides has had undesirable consequences (Hammersley 2004, 2006, 2018). That this conflict is still at the heart of educational ethnography becomes clear when the recently published Wiley Handbook of Ethnography of Education (Beach, Bagley & da Silva 2018) focusses on the difference between analytical and political perspectives in ethnographical research. In re-reading the chapters of the handbook, one of the main methodological conclusions is that ethnographical research “is not neutral” in approaching and analysing the field, yet at the same time is called upon to discuss its methodological decisions and its effects (Beach et al 2018, 530).

Referring to this, the talk focusses on a postcolonial and cultural view of translation as a mode of critical performative ethnography and argues that educational ethnography cannot be politically innocent. This will be done by four steps: The first part of the talk will give a very rough survey of the prominent positions and problems within this debate and concludes with the argument that educational ethnography cannot be politically innocent. In combining theoretical reflections on theory and praxis of ethnographical work  with methodological considerations of being self-reflexive and ethical in doing ethnography, the talk addresses - in a second step - the theory-praxis-nexus as a central dilemma of ethnographical work. The impossibility of participating in a field without being (active) part of its practice will be deepened by offering with term translation a critical perspective in a third step. Finally the talk illustrates the notion of ethnography as beeing political by discussing three ethnographical vignettes drawn from previous research on pedagogical organizations in the context of border-crossing  and from current research on knowledge transfer at memorial sites.

The thesis of a political and normative stance of educational ethnography is based on the methodological assumption that educational research and the educational field under investigation are entangled (Wimmer 2002). In order to establish this thesis, the talk draws attention to two methodological issues of educational research and their methodic implications for educational ethnographical research, namely the nexus between theory and praxis on the one hand (e.g. Breidenstein 2013; Dennis 2018) and the normative stance of educational research on the other hand (Spicer et al. 2009): 1. By referring to cultural positions within the German discourse, pedagogical research can be seen as entangled with the objects it approaches (Wimmer 2002). In this view, the entanglement of theory and praxis can be understood as a translational conflict beyond a Marxist and emancipatory dialectic, (re)produced by the ethnographer's activity of observing, experiencing and writing (Engel 2019). 2. Another important point of reference is the work of Mats Alvesson and colleagues, who establish the concept of "Critical Performativity" within the Critical Management Studies. According to Judith Butler, „performativity must be understood not as singular or deliberate act, but rather as the reiterative practice by which discourse produces the effects that it names” (Butler 1993, 2 zit.n. Spicer et al. 2009, 544). In accordance with these ideas, critical research as a critical-performative practice is aware of its normative stance and the constructive impact of research by aiming to constructively influence the concrete practice of the social world (for example by denaturalizing the ‘natural’ norms and powerful relations and enabling subalterns to speak for themselves). Taking these methodological reflections on the entanglement between ethnographical research and the field into account, it becomes clear: There is a conflict between the researcher's norms and the norms of the field and between what seems empirically evident and the researcher's pedagogical utopia of a better social world (which constitutes in a certain way the empirical investigation). The entanglement of the researcher with the field raises the ethical question, which role pedagogical norms and utopias play in the process of educational ethnographical research.

1. Challenging the issue of value neutrality versus partisanship, the article suggests focusing ethnography as a dialectical notion of translating. Thus, ethnographical work can be described as a double gesture of translation: The educational field as subject matter is reproduced by ethnographical work and, at the same time, the ethnographical work perpetuates the praxis by confronting the field with the material presence of a stranger perspective. 2. Illustrated by three ethnographical vignettes drawn from previous research on pedagogical organizations in the context of border-crossing (Engel 2014) and from current research on knowledge transfer at memorial sites, the entanglements of educational ethnographical research will be discussed in reference to ethnographical experiences in and with the field. Here the entanglements of research and practice and the inevitability of a normative stance will be depicted by suggesting a translational style of ethnographical research which problematizes ‘highlighting objectivity’ but also makes clear that educational ethnographical research is “not unfiltered by preconceived ideas” (Beach 2014, 129): Ethnographical research – and this namely true for the educational context - can be seen as a process which constitutes itself as a progressive dialogue with the field it explores.

Beach, D. (2008). Ethnography and representation: About representations for criticism and change through ethnography. In: G. Walford (Ed.), How to do Educational Ethnogrphy. London: the Tufnell press. Beach, D. (2014). Identifiying Scandinavian Ethnography: Articulating Notions of Theory an Objectivity in the Ethnography of Education. In: A. Tervooren, N. Engel, M. Göhlich, I. Miethe & S. Reh. (Eds.), Ethnographie und Differenz in pädagogischen Feldern. Internationale Entwicklungen erziehungswissenschaftlicher Forschung. Bielefeld: transcript. Beach, D., Carl Bagley and Sofia Marques da Silva (2018). Ethnography of Education. Thinking Forward, Looking Back. In: D. Beach, C. Bagley, and S. Marques da Silva (Eds), The Wiley Handbook of Ethnography of Education. Wiley Blackwell Breidenstein, G. et al. (2013). Ethnografie. Die Praxis der Feldforschung. Stuttgart: UTB. Dennis, B. (2018). Tales of Working Without/Against a Compass. Rethinking Ethical Dilemmas in Educational Ethnography. In: D. Beach, C. Bagley, and S. Marques da Silva (Eds), The Wiley Handbook of Ethnography of Education. Wiley Blackwell. Denzin, N. K. (2003). Performance Ethnography. Critical Pedagogy and the Politics of Culture. London/New York: Sage. Engel, N. (2014). Die Übersetzung der Organisation. Pädagogische Ethnographie organisationalen Lernens. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Engel, N. (2019). Übersetzungskonflikte. Zu einer kritisch-kulturwissenschaftlichen Pädagogik. In. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 5/2019 (Beitrag angenommen). Hammersley, M. (2000). Taking Sides in Social Research. London: Routledge. Hammersley, M. (2004). Should Ethnographers be against Inequality? On Becker, Value Neutrality, and Researcher Partisanship. In. B. Jeffrey & G. Walford (Eds.), Ethnographies of Educational and Cultural Conflicts: Strategies and Resolutions. Amsterdam: Elsevier Hammersley, M. (2006). Ethnography: problems and prospects. In: Ethnography and Education, 1:1, 3-14, Hammersley, M. (2018) What is ethnography? Can it survive? Should it?, Ethnography and Education, 13:1, 1-17 Hegelund, A. (2005). “Objectivity and Subjectivity in the Ethnographic Method” In. Qualitative Health Research, Vol 15, No. 5, pp. 647-668. Hylyard, S. H. (2004). The Case for Partisan Research: Erving Goffman and Researching Social Inequalities. In. B. Jeffrey & G. Walford (Eds.), Ethnographies of Educational and Cultural Conflicts: Strategies and Resolutions. Amsterdam: Elsevier Spicer, A., M. Alvesson and D. Kärmann (2009). Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical management studies. In. Human Relations, 62 (4), 537-560. Wimmer, M. (2002). Pädagogik als Kulturwissenschaft. Programmatische Überlegungen zum Status der Allgemeinen Erziehungswissenschaft. In. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 2002/Beiheift 1, 109-122.