Ethnography is bandied about frequently in business and design circles these days. And sadly, like many buzz words, its true meaning has been lost in its popularity. Let me start by saying ethnography is hot today because it provides you insight you can’t get from being far away from your target users.
Ethnographic research evolved out of cultural anthropology. Some of you may remember Margaret Mead’s famous ethnography of the Samoans (some of you may also remember the Samoans’ famous joke on her, but more on that later). Mead lived with the Samoans to decipher how their culture affected the sexual maturation of girls. She wrote copious notes on her experiences, and later, when studying elsewhere in the South Pacific, took over 25,000 photographs.
Ethnographic research is first and foremost about observation. Ethnographers are not experimenters. They do not engineer or contrive situations to elicit reactions. They observe “natural” settings, that is, where people are going about their lives. Contrary to popular belief, ethnographers also do count things — quantitative data can serve to summarize a large number of observations (e.g., how many people on the subway are carrying a briefcase?).
Ethnography is NOT simply “in-person interviewing.” Now there is such a thing as “ethnographic interviews,” which melds ethnographic observation of natural settings with in-depth interviewing techniques. I myself have used ethnographic interviews on my dissertation and gleaned great insight.
But true ethnography means months of observation and in-depth analysis of all the “symbols” that your target users use. That means paying attention to their clothes, their manner of speech, their “argot” or local shared dialect, and even the accepted practices around social events like meals, meetings, and saying goodbye.
Ethnography does have a very clear limitation, which becomes clear when you learn about the Samoan joke on Margaret Mead. It was quite common to joke about sex in Samoan culture, so when Mead asked these young girls what they did at night, they jokingly told her they spent the night with boys. Mead later reported that Samoans matured sexually much more quickly than North Americans and had little of the same repressed sexuality. But this was not at all true and Mead had been duped.
Mead’s assumptions that Samoans were sexually more liberated than North Americans affected her research. Ethnographers who do not understand issues of gender and power are condemned to repeat these mistakes. An ethnographer interviewing workers must understand that when they tell her they “like having a laptop,” they have a need to portray themselves as “team players.”
An ethnographer must understand that when he interviews women in their kitchens, they are demonstrating their “proper” roles as women and may have a vested interest in portraying themselves as more “homey” than they really are.
Ethnographers are not objective. They are part of this thing we call society. As such, they have biases, just like everyone else. Good ethnographers understand that designing new laptops or new kitchens is about understanding the target user’s place in society as well.
Further reading:
http://onlineqda.hud.ac.uk/resources.php#Ethnography
Categories: Research Methods · ethnography · methods
{ 1 trackback }
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Dear sir/madam,
I am student of Master of Philosophy that have colpleted. I have done ethnography study among Indigenous group and have keen interest to continue my further study.
If you any option for my academic as well research support it will be grateful.
Your Truly
Ramchandra Dahal
Ramchandra,
You may wish to subscribe to the anthrodesign group on Yahoo groups. It’s a lively discussion board for these very things, with several posters I’ve noticed from India.
Sam, me interpreta tu post.
Por primera vez, yo leo que alguien (tú) pone el foco en el lugar correcto. Como bien dices, el tema no es la técnica sino el investigador. Es absolutamente relevante en mi experiencia como entrenador de investigadores, que ellos construyan categorías (distinciones) para ver lo que el entrevistado permite ver.
Aún veo en muchos articulos sobre etnografía que existe la ilusión de “entender al consumidor” con la sola visita de un grupo de ejecutivos a la casa del mismo.
No es el lugar, ni la situación, es el ojo del investigador entrenado para dejar que las oportunidades aparezcan, y solo se verán algunas cosas. Luego el desafío es aún muy grande… como pasar de la oportunidad vista al desarrollo de un producto.
Saludos.
Ramchandra,
I am worried about your research skills. “Dear sir/madam”.
You lack of attention to detail is concerning.
It specifically says on the right: ” Sam Ladner, PhD, is interested in technology and work. She writes..”
Ramchandra,
Did you notice? There is nothing on the right. Now look to the left.
Your article, which perhaps overstates the usefulness of ethnography, ironically fails to mention that Mead’s study of the Samoans’ was a hoax.
Perhaps this is what you are referring to when you reference a “joke” on her, but since the link does not actually work I cannot tell.
Hi Charles,
Yes, I am referring to the “joke” on her. I would disagree with you to say that the entire ethnography was a hoax. Granted, it was laden with Mead’s own ethnocentrism and granted, it was flawed. Yet, when you read Mead’s work today you still do see the attempts to careful cultural immersion.
I guess if Mead’s study were “post” postmodernism, we might find more value in her work. But she is indeed a product of her time.
The link is broken? D’oh! Thanks, Charles!