In Dennis Covington’S Book Salvation On Sand Mountain And

While both attempt to take an ethnographic approach, Covington’s writing truly does show the journalistic background he came from, since it came off as almost more story-telling than an actual research piece. Haberman, on the other hand, provided the reader with a large amount of background and history on Hinduism, essentially assuming the reader didn’t know anything about Hinduism going into the book. This made it so that while the reader was going on the journey of the pilgrimage with Haberman, they were also getting the informational and historical background of Hinduism and why the pilgrimage was performed, something that Covington cannot grasp so well. This could partly be because Covington assumes his audience is coming from a Christian and Western perspective, meaning a background and history of Christianity isn’t necessary. While Haberman, on the other hand, makes the same assumption, so a history and background of Hinduism would be necessary to accurately tell and portray the whole story. It is more appropriate for researchers to assume that their audience lacks the background knowledge than that they have it, because there could be missed information or unclear points made by the researchers otherwise. When explaining the traditions and beliefs of those in the snake-handling church, Covington presents in the information within the framework of his life and his experiences,