Masha Gessen’s “The Dying Russians” presents the approaches of two different people–Michelle Parsons and Nicholas Eberstadt–to the study of the Russian mortality crisis. In doing so, she shows much of the difference between Parson’s possibly hedgehog-esque approach versus Eberstadt’s seemingly more fox-like approach. Parsons analyzes the Russian mortality crisis in the 1990s through a cultural lens (which makes sense given that she is an anthropologist); it seems that she wants to delve into the idea that the diminishment of Russians’ self-worth has caused–or at least contributed to–the strikingly high mortality rate in Russia. She conducts her research through a series of “unstructured interviews with average Muscovites.” My first concern when reading this is that these interviews are described as unstructured; as someone who prefers more methodological approaches to study, the fact that her interview questions are apparently not standardized in any way seems troubling. I am also curious as to what Parsons defines as an “average Muscovite,” and I am skeptical–like Gessen–of Parson’s decision to interview “the survivors, not the victims, of the [Russian] mortality crisis.” Furthermore, to touch upon a point made in class this week, Parson’s use of interviews as her method of study is tricky/potentially problematic because we never know whether or not people are telling the whole truth.
As Gessen points out, Parson’s approach is problematic because it attempts “to identify a single turning point,” and potentially ignores other factors that contribute to Russia’s mortality crisis, factors which Eberstadt attempts to observe. I find less issue with Eberstadt’s method–and tend to identify it as more fox-like–because he approaches his study more systematically, and, at least from what Gessen writes in her article, he seems to do so without major preexisting notions/theories; he studies various “culprits”: infectious diseases, cardiovascular disease, injuries and poisonings, and when he finds that the rates at which some of these culprits kill Russians is much higher than in other countries, he “thoroughly examines” why this is the case.
I agree with your overall conclusion about Eberstadt’s methodology being more accurate and efficient. However, I have to wonder if he is not missing a crucial element to his study; that being interaction and immersion in the culture. It is true that Eberstadt uses inductive research by studying what he calls “culprits” of society. But I feel that his study would be better if he put himself in the Russian civilian’s shoes so to speak. Because after all, this is a cultural issue that is very specific to Russia, and that not a lot of people have exposure to or knowledge of.
Personally, I also prefer more methodological approaches to a study; without structure, it is often extremely difficult to isolate the variable that caused whatever it is that is being measured or studied. In the particular case of Russian mortality, however, I believe the best approach would be a combination of Eberstadt and Parsons’ individual studies. While a structured search for causation is effective, when it fails, Parsons’ approach is not a bad one. The interesting part about the structure of Parsons’ interviews, or lack thereof, is that if she were to ask specific questions, people might be tempted to respond in certain ways (possible unintentional experimenter bias). But by posing general questions in an unstructured manner, interview participants were likely able to respond with more freedom. Interviewer questions can often unintentionally influence a participant’s response.
You raise an interesting point, Harry, and one that I agree with: that a study of the Russian mortality crisis that combines Parsons’ and Eberstadt’s methods might be most effective. I think that a study of “hard” variables followed by a cultural study to delve deeper into these variables and perhaps get a glimpse into “the psychological well-being of Russians”–and its, as Eberstadt suggests, relationship to Russian mortality–would be particularly useful to developing a well-rounded approach to the “mortality mystery.” As for Parsons’ approach to her interviews, while I agree that structured, specific questions allow for the possibility of experimenter bias, I believe that such bias is also possible in an unstructured interview; Parsons could unintentionally ask biased questions or make leading comments over the course of such an interview. Overall, I just do not think that interview is the most reliable method of study.
On the other hand, having pre-existing theories (or acknowledging that you do have them), can be an essential part of analyzing a problem, especially when it comes to confirming the underlying plausibility of the hypothesis. Likewise, Parsons’ methodology has flaws, but those flaws do not render her study automatically without worth – its results are at the very least representative of her interviewees, with the potential to speak to larger trends. Indeed, that larger trend is identified by Gessen identifying a second study and bringing it into the same conversation, with its evidence enhancing Parsons’ work as much as it contradicts it. Both studies are imperfect, and a preference for one in the other is certainly sensible in certain contexts, but analyzing a broad array of evidence ultimately communicates a clearer version of the truth than what any single study could hope to achieve alone.