The February 9, 2011 seminar was presented by Edmond J. Safra Lab Fellow Aaron Swartz. Aaron presented three papers, which he described as "institutional ethnographies". The first paper (and the one which generated the most discussion) provided a detailed account of Congress and the congressional election process as a means of understanding the corruption that flourishes in that institution--specifically the gap between what voters expect from their elected officials, and what actually occurs. The second paper examined the U.S. educational system, and the third looked at suburbanization in the U.S.
In presenting his paper on Congress, Aaron described a system in which the only people who can successfully run for office are those who cater to the wealthiest members of society. He described the "cult of expertise" which pervades the institution, and ensures that even new members of Congress are surrounded and advised by individuals whose interests are far from being aligned with those of the elected officials' constituents. Seminar participants discussed the ethnographic approach of the paper, while making suggestions for specific sections of the paper that would be strengthened by additional evidence.
Many of the participants saw value in the ethnographic approach of the article, noting that it brought to light patterns of institutional corruption that might not otherwise be discernible. For example, one participant noted that many studies simply examine the voting patterns of members of congress, but that such an approach provides little insight on the issue of agenda-making, which is just as important. Why some issues make it to Congress and others don't is a difficult problem to quantify, but an ethnographic approach can provide a unique insight on the problem. Even so, other participants took issue with the purely descriptive nature of Aaron's paper, noting that a more analytical approach might prove more useful in terms of generating ideas about possible solutions to the problem.
Participants also made suggestions for additional areas of inquiry that were not fully examined in the paper. For example, several participants were interested in having more attention given to staffers--particularly with some description of their employment cycle, how and when they move on to positions as lobbyists, and to what extent such a career is perceived as a path to wealth by those who pursue it. Other suggestions called for collecting more specific data to support claims made in the paper. (e.g. mapping out the social networks in Congress, determining how many hours each day are spent on fund-raising activities, etc.)
Overall, the seminar discussion focused on the benefits and possible pitfalls of the ethnographic approach of the paper, as wall as suggestions from the participants about future areas of inquiry.