Comments on: Ethnography at the MSI meetings

By: Ron

Ron — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:54:56 +0000

I am attempting to locate Prof. Linda Price. Please email me if you can assist. I was a student of hers 25 years ago in Pittsburgh. Thanks.

By: The Fire of Genius

The Fire of Genius — Fri, 12 May 2006 01:26:28 +0000

Ethnography a good lantern for innovation?

Mike Madison points to an interesting conference recap of Grant McCrackens. Mike also wonders whether Ill have a comment. Indeed, I do
The ethnography McCracken discusses takes place for the sake of helping a company (he mention…

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Wed, 10 May 2006 18:37:06 +0000

See also "Ethnography in the field of design": http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3800/is_200001/ai_n8895749/print

By: Rick Wash

Rick Wash — Wed, 10 May 2006 15:36:21 +0000

One place that is really picking up the slack in training the `corporate ethnographers' that you speak of is Information Schools. Information schools (like the School of Information at Michigan, the Information school at University of Washington, SIMS (now SI) at Berkeley and others) are training students in doing ethnographic work with the intent of becoming "information professionals" that can accomplish exactly what you speak of.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 10 May 2006 04:40:13 +0000

Sometime in my past I watched the Bob Newhart show, the one where he was a pyschologist. He was married to someone named Carol, I think. What was interesting about Bob and Carol was that although Bob was doing psycho-therapy at work, Carol was more of the therapist to family and friends. Now it could be that Carol was therapist to many people. It could even be that Carol was a better therapist. What Bob had, as a therapist, however, were credientials. The credintials didn't make him better or worse than Carol. Maybe ethnography is where psycho-therapy was in the late 50's struggling for recognition as a profession.Whether you are Bob or Carol, or Ted or Alice, probably doesn't really matter much in the short run

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Tue, 09 May 2006 21:55:19 +0000

Grant said: "the post does not say that you have to be an anthropologist" and then said "there have to be patterns in the ethnographer's heads that serve him or her".

But he also ended on a good note specifying that 'careful observation' also applies. I agree with the premise and I will categorically state that I even understand the significance of this conversation in spite of any 'formal' education I received -- except for economics...

Andrew said: "anthropology is about finding out what meaning lies behind the behavior"

So is economics (at least neoclassic economics).

Andrew also said: "I agree, you don’t have to be an anthropologist to practice ethnography, but it I think it gives you a more holistic perspective"

Again, I don't disagree -- and heaven forbid, you will even see me saying things like, "all things equal on a resume, if they either have an anthropology background or an economics background, pick them". But holistic perspectives are also to be found in Systems Thinking and Complexity Theory. In fact, I would suggest that the 'depth' of what you learn in those disciplines related to 'whole' thinking might be better.

So, as considering how similar arguments (or 'deep discussions' depending on your perspective) in other venues have gone awry with no progress to be seen from the effort, we need some 'concepts' from which to converse among ourselves and others.

The distinction that Grant made between 'theory' and 'pattern' is key. We need a bunch more common terms like that.

By: Steve Portigal

Steve Portigal — Tue, 09 May 2006 20:56:44 +0000

Grant - to clarify, I'm saying that it does not *always* matter what we call things, not that it *never* matters. And we all know from working with companies that you encounter the jargon culture; if you don't work within their jargon, you may not succeed; you may not be heard. "I'm sorry but what you are referring to as participatory design is more correctly described in the literature as immersive/exploratory contextual ethnography." I can hear the doors (and minds) slamming shut.

For people who are trying to get a handle on what the heck this thing is, I'd rather speak to their guts than to the part of their brain that serves as a dictionary. I try to describe what happens and what the results are. But I'm more creating awareness than creating experts in these instances. "What-ever" means that people should rrrrreeeeeelllllaaaaxxxx - this is not some scary post-doctoral conceptual approach that should frighten them. The basics (the basics, not the expertise) is fairly straightforward.

By: Grant

Grant — Tue, 09 May 2006 19:06:43 +0000

Natasha, again, I am not claiming that anthropology should be the arbiter here. In general, anthropologists have been so naive, self indulgent, and incompetent when it comes to the study of their cultures, that the world felt obliged to come in and take the "culture" concept away. The same thing is happening with ethnography and quite right too. But this can't be that anyone and everyone can claim to do ethnography, anymore than anyone and everyone can do air traffic control. It's hard to do well! I wonder if the planning community might step up with training. Or, again, the bschools or the dschools (design schools). It shouldn't be all that hard to create a series of courses. As you say, we all can learn from one another. Thanks, Grant

Tim, yes, I think we could have give up the term "theory" which in a postmodern world points the way to terminological and conceptual delirium. Patterns. That's more modest and more clear. I don't want to ask someone "well, what theory are you using here?" But I would like to be able to say "so what's the pattern that's works here." This is merely a way of asking for a simple proposition, with terms, and relationships. Best of all, it "commissions" the listener to ask for terms and relationships to be further defined and clarified. Then we can say where we are. Thoughts only. Thanks! Grant

By: Grant

Grant — Tue, 09 May 2006 18:49:58 +0000

Andrew, It was great to meet you at the meetings and thank you for that overview of anthropology and the ways it helps supply patterns for its practioners! Makes me miss graduate school...I wouldn't have thought that possible. Best, Grant

Candy, what line of work are you in? I would like to know how the approach serves you. Best, Grant

Tim, that's well said, and I think its the descriptive stuff that is problematical. I know of one ethnographic supplier who believed his job was merely to ask the consumer what he or she wanted! Jeez, that's not going to get the job done, but most of all it takes advantage of the real analytic advantages that training makes available. Thanks, Grant

Steve, this "whatever" approach is I think philosophically disingenuous. If it didn't matter what we called things, discourse would be the great seamless anti-analytical world it is for the nonliterate oral tradition. Terms would conveniently bend and blur. It would be exceedingly difficult to get real intellectual traction. But more to the point, I think the whatever approach is dangerous from a "best practice" point of view. Terms and training do sometimes help separate the sheep from the goats. Good marketplaces are well informed marketplaces. If we don't discourage incompetence and misrepresentation, if we don't make it clear to the client that some terms have quality control built into them, we are inviting the day we get dismissed because we deliver an approach on which others have brought discredit. I am not saying we need to SixSigma the method. I am not saying everyone needs to be an anthropologist. I am saying that people need training and standards, or the pretenders will damage the brand. Thanks! Grant

Paula, notice that the post does not say that you have to be an anthropologist, it says merely that some formal training is called for, unless this method is to be merely descriptive, merely observational opportunism, there have to be patterns in the ethnographer's heads that serve him or her. Otherwise, the sheer volume of data and interpretive possibility must sink the possibility of insight. So it doesnt have to be anthropology, but it does have to be something. I have quite prepared to suppose that this something can be a life team of careful observation. Thanks, Grant

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 09 May 2006 18:42:52 +0000

I am not so much interested in boundary maintenance — although that is not inconsequential if you get undercut by ACME ethnography who is doing things cheaper and less robustly than a service you also are trying to sell but is presenting it as same thing. I think then it kind of becomes a race to the bottom, a commodity which is already happening so my point may be moot. But that is not my main concern. What I was trying to suggest is that theory has a potentially powerful role to play in commercial ethnography but if the dominant practices (atheoretical) end up creating an ethnographic hegemony that devalues theory then I am not sure that serves anyone. As for the presentation of theory I think it is like any sales pitch, sometimes it is done well, sometimes not.