Challenge Question RESPONSERESPONSERESPONSE

I think Meghan's option that ethnomusicology is just a word that defines a field based on a general consensus is closest to the truth. But then again, I tend to look at all words from that perspective, so maybe I am biased. Either way, ethnomusicology, like other fields have, will evolve and experience changes in its methods of study and subjects of study. Whether it receives a new name, or a qualifier in addition to the existing name, or no change in name at all, is all up to the general, and somewhat arbitrary, consensus.

In terms of methods of study and their trustworthiness, I completely agree that a lot of the time they are unjustifiably put under suspicion. In terms of approach, Wong's study is completely legitimate, because she intends to only study one person, and doesn't try to make it more than it is. My concern is just that readers might not think that this study carries much weight, because it represents only one person and not larger trends, which might make it "less useful." Kiri's research may miss out on a more casual GTA audience, but that is not necessarily because of her methods or represent any bigger gap in study sample than a typical ethnography. What I'm mainly concerned with is reader's perceptions and judgements, which, though sometimes unwarranted, are nevertheless there.