Ethnography

Method Categorisation:
Quantitative - Qualitative
Deductive - Inductive
Individual - System - Global
Past - Present - Future

Annotation: Ethnography is both a process and an outcome - the final written product - of a specific, long-term and subjective form of qualitative research (3). This article will focus on the process, giving an overview of different kinds of ethnographic research and its correlating methods.

In short: Ethnography encompasses diverse methodological approaches to gathering field material on social structures, relationships and phenomena.

Background

SCOPUS hits per year for Ethnography until 2020. Search terms: 'Ethnography', 'Ethnographic' in Title, Abstract, Keywords. Source: own.

Ethnography can be regarded one of the most important qualitative research methods that looks back on a long tradition but also many transitions. The foundations of modern Ethnography reach back about a hundred years. Until 1900, ethnographic information mostly originated from the collection of anthropological artifacts and descriptions of indigenous communities that were collected and reported by amateurs, e.g. missionaries or travellers, and subsequently evaluated by 'armchair' anthropologists. By the beginning of the 20th Century, then, anthropologists began to go into the field and get in contact with people themselves instead of relying on second-hand information (1), thereby merging the once separated figures of fieldworker and researcher into one.

An influential figure for the subsequent development of Ethnography was Bronislaw Malinowski, a Polish anthropologist who is considered to be the founder of fieldwork and participant observation methods relevant to Ethnography to this day (1, 8). He invested himself in 'classical' ethnographic work, spending months with a Melanesian community and gathering insights that he published in his 1922 work "Argonauts of the Western Pacific". He systematically recorded and later taught his approach to fieldwork, which heavily furthered the methodological foundations of anthropology (1).

The methodological approach to Ethnography was further influenced by the early 20th century work of the Chicago School of sociology, which is also responsible for major developments of interview methodology (see Open Interviews and Semi-structured Interviews). Sociologists in Chicago attempted to study individuals within the city by observing and interviewing them in their everyday lives, and furthered the methodological groundwork for the field this way (1).

Overall, Ethnography is historically and practically most closely related to the discipline of Anthropology and constitutes a defining method of this discipline (8). Still, the theoretical reflections and methodological approaches also apply to research endeavors in other Social Sciences. Today, Ethnographic research no longer just focuses on investigating far-away communities, but deals with a diverse range of topics, including media studies, health care, work, education, communication, gender, relations to nature, and others (7, 9) in the researcher’s own community and beyond.

What the method does

Ethnography as a research approach

Ethnography is not strictly a method, but rather a "culture-studying culture" (Spradley (2), p.9). It is a scientific approach to how research should be conducted that includes a set of methods, but also a set of theoretical considerations on how to apply these methods (1). The term culture "(...) refers to the acquired knowledge that people use to interpret experience and generate social behavior." (Spradley (2), p.5). Ethnography is thus based on an open concept of culture, where ‘culture’ is understood as a set of norms and behaviors agreed upon by a certain community. Such community can be tied together by spatial, temporal or other aspects. In this regard, ethnographic interest has moved away from the idea of focusing on far-away, enclosed societies studied by a single researcher (as in the example of Malinowski), but encompasses small-scale cultures such as a classroom, a family or a restaurant (3), but also multi-sited fieldwork approaches and constellations of researcher teams that include collaboration with members of the respective community as well as local researchers.

Ethnography attempts to understand the social world and actions of human beings in a specific cultural and societal surrounding of interest to the researcher (8) and through the relationships between the researcher and the research participants. The researcher intends to systematically describe this culture. "Rather than studying people, ethnography means learning from people." (Spradley, p.3). According to Malinowski, three aspects are of interest to the researcher: what people say they do (making sense of customs, traditions, institutions, structures); what they actually do (practice-based approach); and ways of thinking and feeling associated with these elements (1). The latter may be expressed directly by the studied individuals, but may also be tacit knowledge, i.e. knowledge that is inherent to the culture but taken for granted and communicated only indirectly through word and action (Spradley (2), p.5). Ethnographic research attempts to infer this knowledge by listening carefully, observing and participating in the culture in detail (2, see below).

Variations in research scope in Ethnography. Source: Spradley (3), p.30

Observing & Interviewing

Methodologically, Ethnography is special due to its focus on fieldwork, i.e. gathering material within the context that is to be studied. It is important here that ethnographers immerse themselves in the daily practices of the context they are studying to gain first-hand experience (1). Ethnographers spend a lot of continuous time in the social situations they study, and attempt to openly engage with the activities of the daily lives of the individuals of interest while asking them questions, observing, listening to and interacting with them (8). Fieldwork can therefore include a wide array of activities, such as"(...) asking questions, eating strange foods, learning a new language, watching ceremonies, taking field notes, washing clothes, writing letters home, tracing out genealogies, observing play, interviewing informants, and hundreds of other things." (Spradley, p.3). The researcher acknowledges the complexity of the social world and attends the studied situation for a substantial period of time to build trust and get acquainted with the individuals involved (1, 3). (Learning and) speaking the native language can be an important part of the participation process (8). Participant observation is the primary method throughout this process. The researcher systematically observes situations according to his/her (current) research questions and takes mental and written notes (10). A diary may be kept to reflect upon the research experiences. Since it is not always clear from the beginning which information may be of interest, the researcher needs to find a balance between noting everything worthwhile and still finding sufficient time to actually conduct the research (1).

Exemplary field notes. Source: MEDIUM

Participant observations are often supplemented by qualitative ethnographic interviews to gain a deeper understanding into previously observed situations. These are a form of open interview that focus on how the interviewees classify and describe their experiences and positions concerning their social context. Interviews may take place in-between observations, or in dedicated, set-up interview situations, and also with groups of interviewees (1). The Interviewees may be asked about broad or specific situations. Elements that may be learned about are: people involved, places used, individual acts, groups of acts that combine into activities or routines, events, objects, goals, time and feelings (4). The ethnographic interview differs from standard open interviews in that it tries not to impose any pre-conceived notions and structures on how the interviewee might view, define or classify these elements according to his/her worldview. Instead, the questions are formulated so that the interview is almost entirely guided by the interviewee's responses (1, 5). This way, the researcher may be able to extract insight into "(...) contextual understandings, shared assumptions and common knowledge upon which a respondent's answers are based (...). Ethnographic questions are used to elicit the perceptions and knowledge that guide behavior, while discouraging individuals from translating this information into a form corresponding to the researcher's revealed understanding and language." (Johnston et al. 1995, p.57f). Concerning potential power relations it is highly relevant to reflect and document these.

Inductive research

The Ethnographic Research Cycle. Source: Spradley (3), p.29

Ethnography is thus a very open and inductive process, with the researcher acting like an explorer who does not rely on strictly pre-defined questions leading his/her research, but rather goes into the field openly and develops new questions as the first results emerge from the material produced after some time (1, 3, 8). In this reflexive practice, the research design continuously evolves during the study, as do the methods used in fieldwork. The research is done in a circular process, which sets ethnographic research apart from classical theory-led, linear social science approaches (3, see Figure below). The scope of the research is decreased with every circulation: In terms of the research questions, the researcher first asks rather general descriptive questions about the situation at hand. The data is analyzed and based on the results, the focus is narrowed down: next, structural questions are asked, before contrast questions are used in the next step to further reduce the scope of the research design. The same applies to the data collection: Initially, the observations are rather descriptive, but become more and more focused and selective as the ethnographic research continues (3).

The material produced in Ethnography may be quantitative (e.g. statistical summaries of specific actions), but are primarily qualitative, e.g. photographs, audio files, maps, descriptions of phenomena, structures and ideas, or even objects (1, 9). Overall, therefore, ethnographic methodology may be defined as qualitative and inductive, focusing on the present individual while allowing for inferences on the past and the whole societal system that is observed.

Strengths & Challenges

The focus of Ethnography on producing material in the actual context is crucial for the quality of the results. Being in the very situation and watching what people do and learning about their thoughts on the situation as it happens allows for more insightful conclusions. The alternative - having individuals report in a dedicated, external setting, before or after the situation happening - might be biased since people do not always do what they say they do (1).

Another challenge in ethnography is that the term ‘ethnography’ itself is subject to debate. Ingold (12) argues that the term has recently been overused with the risk of losing its meaning. It should not be confused as a synonym for qualitative, fieldwork or encounters with people outside of academia (reproducing a distinction between the people from whom and with whom we learn). To move forward, Ingold suggests shifting the focus from the term ethnography, a practice of description, to participant observation, a practice of educational correspondence (12).

For further challenges, see Normativity.

Normativity

• Early ethnographic work focused on the understanding and exploration of far-away communities unknown to the researcher, mostly isolated in a different part of the world, as part of colonial interventions to legitimize power relations. Today, Ethnography has shifted, and any cultural or societal setting may be analyzed using ethnographic methods. Even seemingly mundane situations in cultural contexts more familiar to the researcher may reveal 'strange' and unknown elements when analyzed thoroughly (1, 8). This realisation emphasizes that 'reality' is not the same to all people. While this idea of naive realism is a tempting assumption, it should be set aside for ethnographic research which attempts to learn about what different elements of life - words, but also concepts - mean to people in different social and cultural settings (2). As Spradley puts it: "Ethnography starts with a conscious attitude of almost complete ignorance." (Spradley, p.4) This new perspective on life is generally interesting as it scrutinizes what is normal and what is not.
• Ethnography can be seen as a powerful tool to inform people about other people's lifeworlds, connect societies and broaden perspectives (see (2)). It may therefore be helpful for sustainable development which relies on the acceptance and incorporation of diverse perspectives and (sometimes conflicting) demands.
• O'Reilly (1) discusses implications of ethical field work. For ethical reasons, the researcher should not disguise his/her presence but be open about his/her role and research intent. Consent should be given by all individuals studied and disclosure on the subsequent usage of the data as well as confidentiality should be provided. At the same time, being too open and transparent might complicate the immersion of the researcher in the studied situation, thus negatively affect the fieldwork process, or even make it impossible due to the interactive nature of the research process. The researcher should attempt to balance openness so that no harm is done, but not constantly remind everyone of his/her role as a researcher in order to ensure useful research results. The researcher must also be aware of their own risk when conducting research in certain societies that do not approve of their way of living (e.g. when conducting political research or concerning their own gender in certain regimes) . For this purpose the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sozial- und Kulturanthropologie (DGSKA) provides a risk assessment sheet (13). For further elaborations on ethical considerations, refer to O'Reilly (1).

Quality criteria

• Malinowski emphasized that the observations done in the field should not be conducted randomly, but systematically. They should not only focus on the extraordinary elements of each situation, but rather provide a comprehensive collection of all individual elements. This also involves the detailed, written description of the context and setting as well as the methods of the observation (1).
• Time is a crucial factor for observation since it takes some time for the researcher, being an outsider to the analyzed context, to get acquainted with the situation and gain a feeling of the people's perspective (8). This also reduces the risk of the people behaving differently than they usually would due to the researcher's presence, since they get used to his/her presence after some time. Additionally, spending a sufficient amount of time with the situation of interest allows for the researcher to change the directions of the research and narrow down the research focus after first conclusions emerge (see What the method does) (1).
• Participation is an important element of ethnographic fieldwork. Instead of relying only on external observations, the researcher should join the observed context and get in contact with the respective situations to get a better feel for an insider's perspectives. However, this participation might influence the 'objectivity' of the observation (1), which is why ethnography is generally seen as a subjective methodology.

Outlook

One trend in ethnographic research is the emergence of multi-sited ethnography to adapt to more complex study objects moving between different locations (14). Ethnography has turned away from the assumption that culture is spatially fixed. Instead, coherent cultural processes may take place across great distances or on the move (15). In turn, the population of a bounded space might be very heterogeneous (15). In multi-sited ethnography, observation and participation no longer take place in one single location contextualized in a larger social order, but at multiple sites (14). Field sites can be selected following the movements of a group of people, a material object or a metaphor. This lends coherence to research projects without being spatially bounded (14). Related to that, mobile ethnography involves moving with research subjects and objects (16). However, Merriman warns that mobile methods should not be seen as superior to conventional methods (17).

Secondly, communication and participation in social life increasingly takes place via diverse forms of media which poses new methodological challenges for anthropological research (18). This calls for a “new framework, multimodal anthropology, by which we mean not only an anthropology that works across multiple media but one that also engages in public anthropology and collaborative anthropology through a field of differentially linked media platforms” (Collins et al. 2017, p. 142). Multimodal anthropology acknowledges the central role media production plays in everyday life of both anthropologists and interlocutors and is open to engage with newly emerging media formats (18). For example, Horst used digital media and technology to facilitate the four Ts—tours, time, translations, and texts—that structure collaborative, ethnographic research (19).

At first, many studies in virtual ethnography proposed a sharp division between online and offline based on the conventionally bounded field site, but recently this view has been challenged (15). Burrell suggests conceptualizing the field site as a network to incorporate both online and offline spaces and close and distant spaces and gives practical advice on boundaryless ethnographic research (15).

Key Publications

Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. Routledge London, New York. Available at http://www.bohol.ph/books/Argonauts/Argonauts.html (last accessed on 15.07.2020)

• The original work of Malinowski.

O'Reilly, K. 2005. Ethnographic Methods. Routledge Oxon.

• An extensive description of how Ethnography is applied.

Brewer, John D. 2001. Ethnography. Understanding Social Research. Open University Press.

• A compact overview on Ethnography.

References

(1) O'Reilly, K. 2005. Ethnographic Methods. Routledge Oxon.

(2) Spradley, J.P. 2016. The Ethnographic Interview. Waveland Press.

(3) Spradley, J.P. 2016. Participant Observation. Waveland Press.

(4) Westby, C. Burda, A. Mehta, Z. 2003. Asking the Right Questions in the Right Ways. Strategies for Ethnographic Interviewing. The ASHA Leader 8(8). 4-17.

(5) Johnston, R.J. Weaver, T.F. Smith, L.A. Swallow, S.K. 1995. Contingent Valuation Focus Groups: Insights From Ethnographic Interview Techniques. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24. 56-69.

(6) Frömming, U.U. Köhn, S. Fox, S. Terry, M. (eds). 2017. Digital Environments. Ethnographic Perspectives Across Global Online and Offline Spaces. transcript Verlag, Bielefeld.

(7) Brewer, J.D. 2003. The future of ethnography. Qualitative Social Work 1. 245-249.

(8) Mader, E. et al. Einführung und Präpodeutikum Kultur- und Sozialanthropologie. Available at (https://maas.phaidra.org/eksa/index.php/STEOP_-_Propaedeutikum_KSA) (last accessed on 15.08.2024)

(9) Atkinson, P. Delamont, S. Coffey, A. 2007. Handbook of Ethnography. London et al.: Sage.

(10) Creswell, J. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. London et al.: Sage.

(11) Brewer, J.D. 2001. Ethnography. Understanding Social Research. Open University Press.

(12) Tim Ingold, ‘That’s Enough about Ethnography!’, HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4, no. 1 (June 2014): 383–95, https://doi.org/10.14318/hau4.1.021.

(13) DGSKA - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sozial- und Kulturanthropologie, ‘Ethik’, accessed 24 September 2024, https://www.dgska.de/dgska/ethik/.

(14) George E. Marcus, ‘Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography’, Annual Review of Anthropology 24 (1995): 95–117.

(15) Jenna Burrell, ‘The Field Site as a Network: A Strategy for Locating Ethnographic Research’, Field Methods 21, no. 2 (May 2009): 181–99, https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08329699.

(16) Noel B. Salazar, Alice Elliot, and Roger Norum, ‘Studying Mobilities: Theoretical Notes and Methodological Queries’, in Methodologies of Mobility: Ethnography and Experiment (New York: Berghahn Books, 2017), 1–24, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvw04gfd.5.

(17) Peter Merriman, ‘Rethinking Mobile Methods’, Mobilities 9, no. 2 (3 April 2014): 167–87, https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2013.784540.

(18) Samuel Gerald Collins, Matthew Durington, and Harjant Gill, ‘Multimodality: An Invitation’, American Anthropologist 119, no. 1 (March 2017): 142–46, https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12826.

(19) Heather A. Horst, ‘Chapter 9. Being in Fieldwork: Collaboration, Digital Media, and Ethnographic Practice’, in eFieldnotes, ed. Roger Sanjek and Susan W. Tratner (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016), https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812292213-010.

---

The author of this entry is Christopher Franz. Last edited by Wanja Tolksdorf on 10th March 2025.