For those readers doing ethnography work related to creativity and learning, I invite you to watch for our call for proposals in the next few months and submit a proposal for a session or program at the 52nd international Creative Problem Solving Institute to be held June 25-30 in Chicago.

Grant’s issue about people using “ethnography” is something that some in the creativity world share about those “doing creativity work.” Some argue that if you haven’t been trained in the master’s program in creative studies in Buffalo, New York, or gone through the leadership program at the Creative Problem Solving Institute (or something similar to these training programs) that you may not be “qualified” to teach/facilitate creativity programs. They might also argue that “simply reading a book about creativity doesn’t qualify you to REALLY teach creativity.” At the other end of the spectrum, having a master’s degree in creativity guarantees nothing, either. So the use of discipline-specific language certainly is a challenge across fields. And at the end of the day, what is delivered, no matter one’s title, is what really matters.

On a related note to this ethnography topic, I recently came into contact with Linda Yaven, a design professor from San Francisco. She is an advocate for the “documentation” process – which is based on the educational approach of Reggio Emilio in Italy. It also uses visual observation (including digital cameras) to gain insight and reflection into individual and group learning processes. It adds another dimension to this overall discussion on ethnography, learning and creativity. For more on Yaven’s work, see:
http://futurehistory.aiga.org/resources/content/2/2/6/8/documents/l_yaven.pdf

and pages 14-15:
http://www.caisca.org/publications/spring2005.pdf

Steve Dahlberg
General Manager
Creative Education Foundation

A few days ago Grant McCracken blogged about our ethnography project, and used the occasion to register a complaint about our use of the term “ethnography” to describe what we are doing here. His issue is this: “There are lots…

Note – I’m teasing Sean and we haven’t worked together anyway.

As for HCI and ethnography I work in usability research at Staples and I’m anxiously awaiting an opportunity to incorporate ethnography into the usability process. I have not had a terrible amount of luck yet, but I think it will come around…I hope? Usability is much more tactical than ethnography so it is often difficult to find a project with a large enough scope that would warrant doing any ethnography.

–Sean

I don’t call myself an ethnographer (a term that doesn’t mean a thing to my clients in any event), but I do contextual research for IT. There is a tradition now 25 years old of human computer interaction (HCI) adopting techniques of ethnography and applying them to the domain of computers.

As far as the computer domain is concerned, it takes a while for an anthropologist to get up to speed on computing issues, just as it takes a HCI researcher time to understand contextual issues.

I think one weakness in some HCI ethnography is that is that is so descriptive that one can’t find a story in it. HCI is not hindered by the theoretical underpinnings of anthropology, which is good and bad. It is good because most clients aren’t interested in theory, it is bad because theory can help to shape insight.

Personally, I get more theoretical inspiration from sociology than anthropology. The concept of culture is very difficult for me to pin down on a small scale, ordinary project. As far as I can understand as an outsider to anthropology, antropologists have trouble agreeing among themselves what culture is. I have blogged on this issue, and how to make the best of it.

Someone mentioned John Sherry. I have tried to read his stuff and find it theatrical. I don’t wish to offend anyone, but I have read many ethnographic accounts by anthropologists that seem mostly concerned with demonstrating how cleaver they are. That’s where theory gets in the way.