Why haven’t there been such blog posts about the recent EASA-conference (European Association of Social Anthropologists)? Anthropologist Grant McCracken has presented a paper at the EPIC-conference (Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference) and writt…

Duncan, good point, its a problem, so the issue is how to push back without turning the field into another self congratulatory, self serving elite. Thanks, Grant

Natasha, thanks for the comment, I think the ethnographers who do analysis are already beginning the process of separation. Lots of practitioners seem content with “thin description” to rewrite Geertz and hopefully it won’t be long before clients begin to ask for more. Thanks, Grant

Steve, I guess I think the moment of reckoning is already upon us, there are clients sitting in rooms all of the US going, “this is what we paid for?” They will hold their tongues indefinitely. And then discreditation comes like a rising tide, lots of little acts of skepticism and repudiation until a tipping point is accomplishment and the general consensus goes from positive to negative. Thanks, Grant

More likely is a cycling and fad-bubbling with different styles of ethnography or theory rising and sinking in prominence, getting relabeled, etc. For example, it wouldn’t shock me if somebody started pushing the wonders of content analysis software for use on interview transcripts. That kind of churn is more like what happens in strategy, where we have at least our fair share of hacks and snake-oilers.

Thanks for bringing this up in your blog. I just got home from EPIC this morning with a mind full of questions, good questions, about etnography as practice and what makes good practice.

The biggest learning I took away from the conference was the distinction between method and analysis and that what separates the sheep from the goats rests on the rigour of analysis that is somehow theoretically informed.

The idea of finding a way to catalogue or capture “extra data” is very appealing. On what grounds, though, do we define what “useful and intelligent” notes and queries are – in light of the larger context and mission of such an exercise? I would, of course, much prefer to fall on the side of “ethnographer of standing” than “hack”.

If participation there had any resume value, it would have to be independently evaluated piece by piece, and the “era” of participation determined.

I predict if you can create something like you describe, there will need to be a preliminary gatekeeping sooner or later, which would screen but not include the unlikely except as s/he is already known to someone who is already known.