sp!ked-IT | Article | 'Ethnography' exposed

sp!ked-IT | Article | 'Ethnography' exposed - this article in Spiked, highlights a few interesting points, although it tries to focus on some versions of "unsuccessful" ethnography and propose that maybe there should be "better" ethnography - a point that is not particularily innovative, although relevant. Recent interest in "getting to know the consumer" may reflect a sudden realization on the part of technologists - that the user is not like them (a motto of the CMU HCI program) and that they need to understand the user in order to get ahead. How does one find out what the user wants? Well, you can ask, can't you? The two competing methodologies of the "asking" process at the moment are - large scale survey research (where many people are asked to respond to present survey questions), and in depth interviews and observations (the people stories, or, something Genevieve Bell calls "deep hanging out").

What has bothered me most though, was why those methodologies are competing. Each has drawbacks and advantages which can complement each other if done in tandem. The problem being - who really has time and ability to do both (not to mention funding, of course)? That's besides the fact that ethnographers often do not have the statistical training and knowledge of survey researchers while survey researchers do not have the theoretical background to discern patterns in observations thus making them useful. At the same time, the two kinds of methodologists quite dislike each other, which is even more counterproductive.

Getting back to the lack of theoretical background point though, I believe it is precisely this lack, that precipitates bad ethnography in market research and politics. Spiked article laments that observations from such research are often mundane, limiting possibility of creative solutions provided by those able to look at the bigger picture. Yet bigger picture does not necessarily have to come from people absolutely unfamiliar with small details that can only be discerned through "deep hanging out". Theoretical background - good knowledge of Goffman's theories for example - might provide a way for a researcher to combine a close focus and the ability to see a bigger picture. In fact, theoretical training is essential for ethnographic observation to be useful for understanding how small pieces fit in that bigger picture.

Proliferation of pseudo ethnography is worrying to a certain extent. Social science has long been struggling with public misinterpreting research results because they do not have the theoretical or statistical training to turn a critical eye on the methods, and tend to take most conclusions at face value. Pseudo ethnography might have a damaging effect on real and useful ethnography, such as done by Mizuko Ito or Nina Wakeford, in the public eye, discrediting social science even further, making the drive to connect quantitative and qualitative research that much more futile.