Glenn Petersen levantou muito recentemente questões centrais acerca da importância da etnografia (Petersen 2005: 312). Fazer uma boa etnografia é importante para o antropólogo, mas será importante para mais alguém? Qual a importância da nossa etnografia se ela não puder ser utilizada por mais alguém (para além dos próprios antropólogos) com efeitos práticos e se não for reconhecida como útil?
As I have come to value my own ethnography, I simultaneously have had to recognise that any practical importance to be found in what I do would seem also to derive from not doing ethnography. This conundrum first provoked me to undertake this paper. Moreover, I am inclined to believe that this may be an element of what currently afflicts anthropology as a whole. It also occurs to me that it is ethnographic competence (as opposed to authority) that enables me and us to move on to other realms, that is, it may take a very long time to ground ourselves sufficiently in ethnography to move on to other realms. My position representing Micronesia at the United Nations required my familiarity with Micronesia, a familiarity I gained because of my ethnographic work. (Petersen 2005: 312-313, itálico do autor)
Ethnographic authority implies that a reader unfamiliar with a body of material can rely upon the authority of the writer for assurance that the text provides an accurate depiction. However, this is almost entirely a matter of literary context. To use ethnography for more practical or mundane purposes requires a different sense of accuracy, one that provides some assurances that policies can be based upon what is recounted with some certitude. I call this ethnographic competence. (Petersen 2005: 313, itálico do autor)
