Q: Stacey wonders, “Please understand that this is not meant in a negative way but I was pondering your use of the word ‘ethnographic’ in describing your research projects. I, also schooled in anthropology, was under the impression that the important components of proper ethnographic research was not just 1) the methodology of participant observation but also that 2) such work should be done over a substantial period of time…this usually being a minimum of a year. If you would agree to such a length of time’s value to the research findings, then perhaps the projects that your company does in less time actually warrant a different term. I just can’t help but think that these shorter projects, though granted they may be intense and similar in observation technique, and even as valuable as the findings may be, are not truly ethnographic in scope.”
A: Hi Stacey,
No offense taken, in fact I answer questions like this all the time. Interestingly though, it is usually me trying to defend the use of the word ethnography from those who we believe stretch the definitional limits. I guess this is a question that’s answer is a matter of perspective. We work with the definition, which we think is fairly common, that ethnography is a process and a product—that it is at once the method of ethnography (participant observation, open-ended, in-context interviews, inductive data collection and analysis, etc.) and it is the output (an ethnographic work).
And that the time an ethnography takes (within reasonable limits) is not a factor in its status as an ethnography. Many ethnographies take less than a year, it seems that more and more ethnographies are being done in smaller time frames, particularly since applied anthropology is becoming more common in both the business world and the academic world in situations where results are needed quickly. This discussion reminds me of the debate about the difference between “statistical” significance and “practical” significance. With the cut off for statistical significance being somewhat arbitrarily assigned and over time becoming reified as the measure of significance. I think there are a lot of measures of what makes a good ethnography and depending on the question you are trying to answer, time spent in the field can certainly be one of them—but by no means always the most important factor in determining a good ethnography.
Just as one who spent five years in the field might be offended by a month long ethnography, someone who did ground breaking work (and we think we do!) might be offended if their labor of love is labeled something other than an ethnography just because it took six months instead of 12, or six weeks for that matter. Ethnography would be a dying art and science if one needed a year to do it, the practicalities of life often prohibit such long field periods. The types of projects we do range in scope and time commitment in the field—again depending on the type of question we are trying to ask. We are careful to design projects that meet our clients needs for quick answers while at the same time remaining true to the rigorous demands of a good ethnographic approach.
We cope with our clients need for quick results by doing team ethnography. We have multiple teams collecting data at once. We can collect an astounding amount of data in a short period of time and say our work is ethnographic, with pride.
Melinda