[06/28/2024] Observational Methods and Qualitative Data Analysis 3-4

Making Observations

Observation, a naturalistic qualitative inquiry technique, serves as a complement to the individual or group research interview. In observational research, the researcher witnesses, participates in, and/or experiences the phenomenon under investigation. Again, we will discuss the role of researcher as an instrument of data collection, underscoring pertinent skills, knowledge, and abilities. Along the way, we will analyze best practices in observation by highlighting what to do, as well as what not to do. This section will plant the seeds for those segments that follow, on ethnography and case study, given the frequency with which the technique is used in those particular research traditions.

The observation, as developed by 20th century anthropologists, entails direct engagement of the researcher in the research setting. Therein, the inquirer observes or may participate in facets of everyday life. Thus, observations can take place anywhere, like sporting events, festivals and fairs, coffee shops, and religious rituals.

Rossman and Rallis (2012) consider six reasons why a qualitative researcher might consider the use of observation:

• To understand the context

• To see tacit patterns

• To see patterns people may not see themselves

• To see patterns people may not want to talk about

• To provide direct personal experience and knowledge

• To move beyond the selective perceptions of both yourself and the participants (p. 193)

As we will discuss, observations (like interviews) can be nuanced and diverse; as Luker (2008) opined, “these methods run the gamut from watching children at play in a school yard while standing on a sidewalk . . . to actually moving to a distant site and staying there for months or maybe years at a time” (p. 155). Observations also require researchers to be intensely self-aware of their positionality and the overarching purpose of research.

If possible, the next activity is one to do away from your computer and out in the world so that you can observe a context, or situation, or undertaking of interest to you. Alternatively, you can remember back to a recent experience in such a setting. You may take notes during or after your observation. When your observation is complete, write brief responses (2–3 sentences) to at least three of the following prompts, which are derived from Merriam and Tisdell (2016).

1. Describe the physical environment. (What was the context or setting? What was the space like?)

2. Describe the people. (With whom did you interact? What brought the individuals in this space together? What did you notice?)

3. Describe the activities and interactions. (Was there a sequence? How were people and activities or events connected? Were there conversations involved?)

4. Describe subtleties. (What emerged as informal, or unanticipated? What symbols did you observe? Were there important nonverbals, like dress, artifacts, or gestures?)

5. Describe your own behavior. (How did your role influence what you observed? Did you participate, or merely watch? What would you have done differently?)

Consider the following examples if you need some help developing an idea about what you would like to observe. You might go to a sporting event and observe interactions between and among spectators, or attend a club or organization meeting for the first time, seeking to explore the ways in which new or prospective members are welcomed. Or, go to your favorite restaurant or coffee shop to investigate ways individuals interact, trying to notice things you would normally tend to overlook. It will be best to complete this observation activity before proceeding.

Throughout this topic, we will come back to the observational context upon which you just reflected to illuminate related considerations. We will also build from the questions you answered, many of which align with the queries that observers bring into the research context.

As with the research interview, the observation relies on an overarching research question. Again, we hope you will see how the observation approach, structure and flow, and place should align with the observation’s purpose to assure trustworthiness. Misalignments may jeopardize the entire process.

Consider these missteps:

• A researcher observes how children interact on a playground. Allotting just 30 minutes to her study, she focuses on an argument two kids have over who will utilize the swingset. Focusing on this interaction alone, she overlooks other important encounters. At the end of the observation, she concludes the playground fosters hostile interactions among children.

• A “pay-what-you-will” coffee shop opens in an urban area seeking to attract individuals across socioeconomic statuses. Carlos, a student, wants to explore individuals’ interactions within this novel space. During his first several interactions, which are during the late afternoon (which is convenient to his schedule), only a handful of people come to the coffee shop—and for “to-go” orders. Concluding his study is a bust, he moves on to a different project. Of note, he misses several posters within the space that publicize early morning community chats and Friday night open mics.

• A researcher observes several hour-long ballet classes within which he also participates. Having once been a dance instructor, he finds himself focusing on the teacher’s instructional methods. Consequently, he begins to lose sight of his overarching research question.

To avoid these and other mistakes, let’s venture into a detailed exploration of observer style and approach, structure and flow, and place.

Observer Style and Approach

Observer Style and Approach

Once again, we underscore the centrality of positionality and reflexivity, which are as important to observation as they are to interviewing. An individual within a research setting may be a cultural insider or an outsider, each bearing different considerations. A Jewish student who observes a Christian baptism is likely an outsider, whereas a Jewish student witnessing a bris may claim insider status. Yet there are also gray areas. A Christian student observing baptism at a congregation that is not her own may, at once, be both an insider and an outsider. She is inside to the religious context, yet an outsider to the congregation.

There are additional shades of gray when we consider who names (or has the right to name) the inquirer as insider or as outsider: the researcher or those individuals being observed. A congregation touting, “all are welcome, regardless of religious or spiritual background or affiliation,” may immediately bestow insider status on an individual who sees themself as an outsider. See how complex and nuanced observation can be? We will bring more attention to these issues during our section on ethnography.

The observer must also contemplate where they are situated within the context of four stances originally explicated by Gold (1958).

1. Complete participant: The inquirer is fully involved as a member of the group. Consequently, the group may be unaware that the researcher is engaging in a study, which could raise broader questions regarding research ethics.

   • Example: Victoria is studying the culture of sisterhood within sororities. She joins Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) and, after graduating, writes a book summarizing her experience and observations, both positive and negative.

2. Participant as observer: Here the researcher’s observations are known to the group, yet rendered less important than the inquirer’s status as a full participant.

   • Example: During her third year as a member of AOA, Victoria asks her sisters for permission to engage in a formal research study of their sisterhood culture. Upon receiving consent, Victoria begins to carefully document her observations and lived experiences, which are later published.

3. Observer as participant: Again the researcher’s observations are known to the group, yet are more central than the role of participant. In this way, membership is peripheral and, as Merriam and Tisdell (2016) reflect, “the researcher may have access to many people and a wide range of information, but the level of the information revealed is controlled by the group members being investigated” (p. 145).

   • Example: Diego, a member of a fraternity, is intrigued to learn more about the culture of sisterhood within sororities. He receives consent to observe and participate in public activities sponsored by the AOA sorority: a 5K race held as a fundraiser, an outdoor picnic to welcome new members, and a community service event held at a local nursing home.

4. Complete observer: Here the researcher only observes and is unlikely to be noticed by the individuals being studied.

   • Example: Diego attends and observes several activities sponsored by the AOA sorority. From the sidelines, he witnesses a 5K race held as a fundraiser. He also attends a lip sync competition and watches AOA’s performance.

Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discuss a fifth position, that of collaborative partner. This bears similarities to that of a complete participant, yet the participant’s identity as researcher is known to all involved. Further, both inquirer and participants are equally vested in the project as mutual partners. By way of contrast to the example above, we would imagine Victoria to openly study the culture of sisterhood with, beside, and on behalf of her AOA sisters.

Observers are also observed, as Schatzman and Strauss (1973) suggest. The very presence of an observer shifts facets of the context, regardless of stance. (A silent or lurking observer can be disconcerting; an overactive participant can also be jarring.) There’s no way around this, other than to advise observers to act ethically, conscientiously, and empathically; all circumstances and context are influenced by those who co-shape them. On this, the authors make this conjecture:

[The researcher] knows that over time [contexts] naturally change. He can assume they would have changed without his presence. The paradoxical issue of change and not changed represents a philosophical problem that, perhaps, cannot be genuinely solved, and certainly should preoccupy neither us nor our model fieldworker (p. 64).

As you may have already imagined, stances and positions can also shift throughout the duration of a research project. An outsider may begin by observing a context, attempting to gain a lay of the land. Then they may shift, or be invited to shift, into a more participatory role. Over time having developed the trust, rapport, and respect of cultural insiders, the investigator may even be invited in as a member of the culture or group.

Think back to the observation you were asked to reflect on at the beginning of this topic area and jot down answers to the following questions:

• Where on the insider-outsider continuum would you place yourself?

• Where do you believe true insiders would have placed you?

• Which of the stances did you occupy?

• What were the advantages and disadvantages of that particular stance?

Observation Structure and Flow

The goal of observation is to understand and explore what individuals do, in a given setting, as contextualized by an overarching research question. Keeping this in mind, attention to structure and flow are critical; otherwise the research observation can become short-sighted, unwieldy, and difficult to manage.

Structure and Flow

Creswell (2013) offers these observation steps, which help with structure and flow:

1. Upon selecting an observation site, be sure to attain permissions to be there. (We note the importance of having received approval through an ethics board, like a University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), such that “permissibility” has been thought through from all angles. Though it may seem implicitly permissible to observe playground interactions at a public park, the ethics of doing so, particularly when minors are involved, do require careful attention.)

2. At the site identify who, what, and when (to observe) and for how long.

3. Be fully aware of one’s own status as an insider–outsider, as well as the stance (e.g., participant as observer) to be taken. (Also consider how these positions may shift.)

4. Design a protocol for recording observations. (Note: The list of questions that you initially reflected upon at the start of this topic area offers a sample protocol.)

5. Utilize the protocol to record observations.

6. During the observation, invite someone to introduce you if you are an outsider. During initial encounters, limit your objectives. (It may also help to do short, more frequent observations when you begin; observation can be grueling and even exhausting for both novices and experts alike.)

7. After observing, withdraw slowly and be certain to express gratitude.

8. Prepare full notes immediately after the observation that utilize thick description.

Merriam and Tisdell (2016) detail further “what to observe” (e.g., Creswell’s second step) in this summary:

What to observe is partly a function of how structured the observer wants to be. Just as there is a range of structure in interviewing, there is also a range of structure in observation. The researcher can decide ahead of time to concentrate on observing certain events, behaviors, or persons . . . . Less-structured observations can be compared to a television scanning the area. Where to begin looking depends on the research question, but where to focus or stop action cannot be determined ahead of time (p. 140).

Taking field notes is part of the observational method. Some researchers print out a copy of their protocol, jotting field notes under each of the questions posed within the protocol. Inquirers describe what they see (as well as what they may hear, taste, smell, and touch) in rich detail. Alongside these details may be observer comments: “emotional reactions to events, analytic insights, questions about meaning, and thoughts for modifying your design” (Rossman & Rallis, 2012, p. 194). Many observers draw or create “maps” of the observational space. Be prepared for the effort this process takes; just an hour of observation can take hours (3–6) to record.

Part of our responsibility as inquirers is also to recognize our bias and think about what we may not have seen. Further we should reflect deeply on where we tended to fixate or even over-focus our attention. Relatedly we may want to use member checking or peer review to clarify tacit assumptions.

Observation and Place

Schatzman and Strauss (1973) wrote about deciding on a research location—the sampling of space or place. Not only does the researcher need to consider the actual place of investigation, but they must also contemplate how they move and locate themselves within the space.

Close your eyes for a moment and visualize your university’s library. If there’s more than one library, pick just one. And if you have never been to your university’s library, choose another library, like that of your home community or high school.

Now that you have that image in mind, let us imagine that you are investigating how individuals interact with one another within that library space. Contemplate where you would place yourself, were you to prepare for one of multiple 2-hour observations. Where would you start? How often might you move?

Schatzman and Strauss (1973), noting that novices often anguish over such decisions, offer three approaches to positioning within a given place: single, multiple, and mobile. Single positioning is most narrow, though the idea of “staying put” has merits (e.g., deep, prolonged engagement). Multiple positioning (e.g., staging oneself, for periods of time, at multiple spaces) has obvious advantages: “It provides comparative data of all sorts, and allows the researcher to raise hypotheses about relations among people at different locations” (p. 41). Mobile positioning entails moving about, even tracing individuals as they go about their tasks.

Of course not all observations are face-to-face; online observations (like virtual interviews) have grown in popularity and prominence. Cyber ethnography is becoming more popular; ethnographers study culture and online spaces. The medium makes a difference; observing interactions on a Reddit thread differs from viewing live video feeds. Further virtual spaces, whether private or public, make both “lurking” and deception (e.g., disguising one’s true identity) easy. This bears considerable ethical complications. Finally, researchers must maintain awareness of their own sensory limitations (given complications in reliably “decoding” what is “seen” in a virtual medium).

Wherever observation is conducted, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) remind their reader that the observation itself is only half the process: “Observations must be recorded in as much detail as possible to form the database for analysis” (p. 161).

Suppose that Connor has received IRB approval to study tailgating culture at Big Ten institutions. Specifically, he plans to engage as a “participant as observer” at three football games, each at different Big Ten institutions, in the fall. His protocol will focus not just on how humans interact, but also on nonhuman interactions: artifacts, vehicles, food and drink, etc. How would you advise Connor to orient himself to these observational places? What positioning would you recommend? Before reading on, jot down your thoughts about these questions.

Place

Most importantly, Connor should have a plan, though he may later deviate from the plan to follow leads, hunches, and so on. Prior to each of his participant observations, Connor should procure a map of the tailgating space, such that he’s aware of where he might position himself. A multiple or mobile approach offers flexibility and opportunities for comparative analysis; he may wish to locate himself in different spaces for 30 minutes each. Or, he may choose to circulate slowly, observing and documenting his experiences along the way. As a participant observer, Connor will also bring awareness to his own experience of tailgating whether as insider, outsider, or some combination.

Unearthing Culture

As a qualitative method, ethnography explores culture—the values, beliefs, daily lives, patterns, rituals, symbols, and behaviors shared by a group of people. By “culture,” we are not limiting our exploration to nations or ethnic groups. Culture also exists in workplaces, student organizations, schools, and more. Exploring culture necessitates researcher immersion, which relies on prolonged observation (among other triangulated methods, like informant interviews). Aptly stated by Adler and Adler (2012), “Ethnography is the only method that allows us unfettered access to the lives of others” (p. 30).

Consider a community medical clinic. There are many types of clinics, among them the community mental health (CMH) clinic. Intriguingly, the field of community psychology (CP) has increasingly distanced itself from endorsing such clinics, “to imagine new ways of supporting the health and wellness of individuals and communities” (Hartmann et al., 2018, p. 62). However, some found this mindset limiting, particularly for certain communities that are, or could be better served, by CMH clinics. Exploring a “return to the clinic,” community psychologists Hartmann et al. (2018) utilized ethnography to examine CMH clinics’ culture and cultural concepts, with focus on American Indian clients. The abstract of their study follows:

Community psychology (CP) abandoned the clinic and disengaged from movements for community mental health (CMH) to escape clinical convention and pursue growing aspirations as an independent field of context-oriented, community-engaged, and values-driven research and action. In doing so, however, CP positioned itself on the sidelines of influential contemporary movements that promote potentially harmful, reductionist biomedical narratives in mental health. We advocate for a return to the clinic—the seat of institutional power in mental health—using critical clinic-based inquiry to open sites for clinical–community dialogue that can instigate transformative change locally and nationally. To inform such works within the collaborative and emancipatory traditions of CP, we detail a recently completed clinical ethnography and offer “lessons learned” regarding challenges likely to re-emerge in similar efforts. Conducted with an urban American Indian community behavioral health clinic, this ethnography examined how culture and culture concepts (e.g., cultural competence) shaped clinical practice with socio-political implications for American Indian peoples and the pursuit of transformative change in CMH. Lessons learned identify exceptional clinicians versed in ecological thinking and contextualist discourses of human suffering as ideal partners for this work; encourage intense contextualization and constraining critique to areas of mutual interest; and support relational approaches to clinic collaborations (p. 62).

Throughout, we will utilize Hartmann et al. (2018)—and other ethnographic studies—to elucidate the distinctive characteristics of this rich research tradition. First, we will present a brief history of ethnography, sharing facets of its origin and evolution. From there, we will examine the kinds of questions ethnographers seek to answer, while exploring the unique methods utilized.

History and Evolution of Ethnography

Ethnography comes from the discipline of anthropology and has origins in the 19th century. Today, ethnography is the dominant method used by social and cultural anthropologists. It is also embraced by qualitative researchers in psychology, sociology, education, health science, and more. As mentioned before, culture is broadly conceived as encompassing group beliefs, values, rituals, and more. Culture shows up in schools, online social media sites (like Reddit), athletic teams, and more.

Adler and Adler (2012) traced the evolution of four ethnographic faces (i.e., genres): classical, mainstream, public, and postmodern. Each is reviewed briefly.

1. Classical: From the Chicago School of traditional ethnography, this face privileges lengthy immersions in the field, from which researchers “bring back the news” (p. 29) of what they have learned to the academic setting. Typically, writings are written in third person. Scholars communicate objectively the facts gleaned from their encounters.

2. Mainstream: This is the “made-for-traditional-publication” face, one that privileges a postpositivist position. Thick description is sacrificed. To get published, “qualitative researchers must justify their use of field research to a mainstream audience, to rationalize an often intuitive research process, and to sterilize subjective elements of the research” (p. 27).

3. Public: In contrast to mainstream ethnography, this face endorses the researcher’s deep, subjective immersion into a culture. Participant observation is prioritized. In fact, many public ethnographers “critique qualitative researchers who use in-depth, life-history interviews as data rather than living among the people they represent” (p. 28). The product is intentionally public, focused on nonacademic audiences.

4. Postmodern: This genre overtly rejects mainstream ethnography and is often anchored within a political or emancipatory framework. Postmodern ethnographers “also espouse moving beyond the experimental, reflexive ways of writing first-person ethnographic texts to creating critical personal narratives of counter-hegemonic, decolonizing methodologies” (p. 28).

Whereas classical ethnographers often traveled to cultures far away, modern ethnographic researchers study culture and subculture everywhere: neighborhoods, schools, medical systems, correctional facilities, religious organizations, artist colonies, virtual shopping spaces, and more. As we will come to explore together, “The end result of ethnography is an attempt to describe the culture of a given group as the individuals in the group see it” (Mayan, 2009, p. 38).

Ethnographic Questions

Ethnographic Questions

Ethnographers seek to understand a given group’s culture. This may include the beliefs, values, practices, traditions, and behaviors shared. Wolcott (2010) underscores the importance of two meta-questions addressed in any ethnography: “What do people in this setting have to know and do to make the system work?” “If culture, sometimes defined simply as shared knowledge, is mostly caught rather than taught, how do those being inducted into the group find their ‘way in’ so that an adequate level of sharing is achieved” (p. 74)?

Hartmann et al. (2018) wanted to know “how ideas of culture—particularly ideas associated with American Indian (AI) communities—operated in the clinic setting to inform local and national dialogues that would improve [behavioral health] services” (p. 64). What made this inquiry ethnographic in nature was an insistence on exploring culture versus relying on individual or client perspectives alone. In fact, the authors argued that understanding the clinic as a culture invites diverse, nonclinician voices—those “that should participate in re-imagining the clinic and its role in pursuing wellness” (p. 64).

Chretien and colleagues (2015) conducted a digital ethnography of medical students who use Twitter for their professional development. This question was posed: “What is the culture of medical students who use Twitter for education” (p. 1674)? Learning with whom students interact was part of the study’s goals.

Earlier in this module, we touched upon Fork’s (2021) ethnography of Jewish adolescents’ identity formation. Understanding identity as culturally imbued, the author asked: What are the “trajectories of adolescent identity formation as a form of learning situated in a Jewish community and especially its youth group” (p. 55)? Focus within this question is on group or community culture.

Going back to the earlier example that involves investigating students’ lived experience of stress, let’s see how such an exploration might be conceptualized as ethnographic. See also the comparisons to phenomenology, narrative inquiry, and grounded theory.

• Phenomenology: What is the lived experience of stress, for first-year college students, during exam week? The researcher may invite open-ended reflections, perhaps through a series of interviews, regarding experiences of stress, the meanings that arise from stress, and participants’ understanding of stress during exam week.

• Narrative inquiry: What stories, either those told to oneself or those conveyed externally, shape first-year students’ experiences of stress during exam week? The researcher invites the telling of stories, through interviews and other methods, focusing both on what is told and on how the stories are conveyed.

• Constructivist grounded theory: What processes underlie first-year students’ lived experience of stress during exam week? What theory emerges from exploring students’ actions and interactions? Through the systematic methods explored next, including semi-structured interviewing, the researcher works with participants to co-create a grounded theory or model.

• Ethnography: What cultural values, beliefs, and traditions reinforce stress for first-year students during exam week? Herein, we shift from discrete focus on individuals to an exploration of group- or organizational-level culture, to be gleaned from prolonged immersion (observation), informant interviews, and artifact analysis.

Now, it is your turn to think about an ethnographic question or idea, one that might better help you understand human experience as it is embedded within groups, organizations, and communities. Consider a culture about which you are curious. What would you like to better understand about that group, community, or organization? You do not need to pose a concrete question; instead, you might practice freewriting a response that could serve as impetus for an ethnographic study. Here are some examples:

• I’d like to better understand the culture of “hazing” and how it seems to be produced, and reproduced, in certain subgroups (e.g., athletic teams, Greek-letter organizations).

• I’m interested in learning more about the beliefs, values, and traditions of nature-based spiritual groups, such as Wiccans or Animists. How are they manifested and shared?

• I’m interested in learning more about the culture of shared governance in student organizations like the Student Government Association. How is this culture produced and reproduced, especially when a new executive board comes in?

Ethnographic Practices, Social Science Scenarios, and Applications

The signature ethnographic practice was detailed in the prior topic area: the observation. Each of the following practices—fieldwork, the informant interview, and the emic–etic perspectives—connects indelibly to observation. We explore the three practices, respectively, by presenting a definition, examples from social science studies, and the opportunity for you to apply what you have learned.

Fieldwork

Note. Ethnographic researchers are also fieldworkers, immersing themselves, often for prolonged periods of time, in the culture they are studying.

Fetterman (2010) defines fieldwork as “working with people for long periods of time in their natural setting” (p. 33). Prolonged engagement in the field enhances trustworthiness and invites opportunities for the ethnographer to build trust and rapport, observe and participate, interview members of the culture, and interface with artifacts. Within a fieldwork context, thus, data gathering practices are observation, interviewing, and artifact analysis. It is not uncommon for survey methods to be used as well.

Schatzmann and Strauss (1973) outlined ethical considerations for fieldwork that endure to this day. These include, but are not limited to:

• Making sure fieldworkers situate themselves as learners, recognizing that inquiry is worked out in the field, and not in a laboratory;

• Acknowledging the challenges inherent in relationships between researcher and participants, along an insider-outsider continuum, and across power dynamics;

• Ensuring the researcher is overt and honest in their positioning, versus working under cover.

In addition to contemplating the amount of time one spends on the ground, degree of involvement in fieldwork is important to consider, whether ethnography is face-to-face or virtual. Rossman and Rallis (2012) illustrate a continuum with four anchor points:

Coparticipation reflects “a racial and critical stance” (p. 148) associated with the transformative interpretive framework. Herein, the fieldworker may be a cultural insider, or known accomplice to and advocate for members of the culture. Immersion, like coparticipation, invites deep learning. The fully immersed fieldworker participates in most, if not all, facets of the culture. Both of these degrees of involvement are time-consuming, particularly in contrast to the latter points: limited participation (which may be episodic) and spectator (akin to an onlooker).

Consider several other concrete examples of how contemporary scholars approach fieldwork in their ethnographic projects:

1. Fork (2021) conducted fieldwork (participant observations, 1:1 interviews, and group sessions) with 16 Jewish adolescents in a liberal Jewish community in Germany. Specifically, she participated in youth group meet-ups, held once a week for two hours. Further, she depicted “attending a broad range of events like services, festivals and lectures at the Jewish community centre for three and a half months in 2018” (p. 56).

2. The Hartmann et al. (2018) study entailed 19 weeks (608 hours) of fieldwork, “averaging four full workdays of observation per week in all settings within the clinic except client encounters” (p. 64). The team also held interviews (with student trainees, a cultural aide, community elder, staff, etc.) and attained clinic materials.

Throughout the fieldwork process, the ethnographer is engaged concurrently in data collection and analysis. Says Fetterman (2010):

It begins at the moment a fieldworker selects a problem to study and ends with the last word in the report or ethnography . . . . The fieldworker must find a way through a forest of data, theory, observation, and distortion. Throughout the analytical trek, the fieldworker must make choices—between logical and enticing paths, between valid and invalid but fascinating data, and between genuine patterns of behavior and series of apparently similar but distant reactions. Choosing the right path requires discrimination, experience, attention to both detail and the larger context, and intuition” (p. 93).

When is fieldwork over? This question plagues and baffles researchers, especially those novice to ethnography. For those individuals studying a culture over time, like the scholar in the video who works with the Karen people, the ethnographic space is continual; it has no defined end. For other inquirers, fieldwork may end when saturation has been reached, or when there is a natural conclusion (e.g., an event or ceremony) demarcating time.

Earlier, you considered and reflected on a culture about which you were curious. Now, let us imagine that you were given a research grant to actually study that culture. In three to five sentences, use the lessons learned above to reflect on how you would approach doing fieldwork. For the sake of ease, let’s say you’ve already been granted permission and access to engage with the culture.

Your answer to the preceding question might have taken on many forms. One example, suppose Rosa is interested in learning more about the beliefs, values, and traditions of nature-based spiritual groups, such as Wiccans or Animists. Rosa envisions that fieldwork should entail everyday observation of rituals and practices, interviews with members of a nature-based spiritual community, and interaction with symbols, tools, and other artifacts. She is curious about nature-based practices, but identifies as an atheist. So, she is probably an outsider who would engage as a participant-observer while without immersing herself as fully as possible.

The Informant Interview

The Informant Interview

Note. The informant links the fieldworker and the broader culture.

The informant within a fieldwork context “becomes a key actor in the theater of ethnographic research and plays a pivotal role, linking the fieldworker and the community” (Fetterman, 2010, p. 51). Often, ethnographers will speak with multiple informants, each with different lenses or perspectives to offer, in an unstructured interview. In this way, key informants help the ethnographer “cross-check” what is observed. Consequently, “Key actors can be extremely effective and efficient sources of data and analysis” (p. 52).

Within ethnographic textbooks, the “wink and blink” scenario is recycled to help students decode the nuances (and potential pitfalls) of fieldwork. The difference between a wink and a blink is subtle and, as many lament, can be easily mistaken. Further, the wink and blink, respectively, have different cultural connotations. (The wink, while construed as a romantic gesture in some cultures, is offensive in others.) Expanding this metaphor, imagine how easy it is for fieldworkers to inadvertently misinterpret or misappropriate what they see or hear.

Thus, the role of informant is indeed key. These are the individuals to whom ethnographers turn, in the context of an unstructured interview, to understand culture better. In fact, “Typically, the key actor will find many of the ethnographer’s questions obvious or stupid” (p. 50).

Here are two snapshots of how key informant interviewing has been used; one featured a face-to-face approach, whereas the other transpired in a digital context.

1. Fetterman (2010) recounts his ethnographic study of dropouts, noting his relationship with Rerun, a young man who often invited the researcher to dinner or to listen to music. “He and his grandmother told me stories about the neighborhood—how it used to be and how dangerous it had become. He also showed me around the community so that I would learn ‘how the other half lived.’ . . . This same information helped me to understand the contextual background of the [dropout] school program” (p. 50).

2. Interviews with key informants provided insights into Chretien et al.’s (2015) Twitter study. To provide deeper insight into the team’s observations, informants (medical students) gave information on their use of Twitter, discussed how they interacted with others, and shared what they gleaned.

The Emic–Etic Perspectives

Emic-Etic Perspectives

Note. Ethnographic researchers strive to understand culture not from their own perspectives, but from those who are inside, or emic, to the culture itself. The etic, or scientific perspective, is also valuable in understanding culture.

When the process of ethnographic inquiry culminates in an outcome, whose perspective of reality does it bring to the fore? In both process and product, ethnographers are advised to think about the emic perspective, while recognizing the advantages and downsides of the etic position.

Whereas the emic perspective refers to the insider’s view of reality, the etic perspective is that of the outsider looking in, or of the culture as viewed objectively. Often, a researcher may come into a study seeking to upend an etic perspective formulated through a “scientific” approach to knowledge building. Community psychologists Hartmann et al. (2018) problematized their field’s etic construction of behavioral health supports, which prompted a study of CMC clinics that centered participants’ emic gaze.

An obvious advantage of the emic perspective is its constructivist nature. Multiple realities are invited to surface, which “is crucial to an understanding of why people think and act in the different ways they do” (Fetterman, 2010, p. 21). An astute ethnographer relies heartily on participants’ emic perspectives; these are reported verbatim, or represented in final products using thick description.

Take a moment to reflect on this quotation from James Spradley (1979), a well-known ethnographer:

I want to understand the world from your point of view. I want to know what you know in the way you know it. I want to understand the meaning of your experience, to walk in your shoes, to feel things as you feel them, to explain things as you explain them (p. 34).

Now, in a short paragraph or two, write the story of a time when your perspective of a situation or encounter shifted from etic (outsider) to emic (insider). What was it like for you to shift perspectives?

Most modern ethnographers strive to represent culture from an emic perspective, though this is hardly attainable in full (Rossman & Rallis, 2012). Why is that so? Well, researchers ultimately write “interpretations (their own) of participants’ understandings of their worlds (the participants’ interpretations)” (p. 46). Popplewell’s Ted Talk brings emic perspectives to the center, yet etic strands do linger. This, to individuals working from the postmodern and critical ethnographic perspectives, is why participatory ethnography can be so valuable.

There are a few caveats. Fetterman (2010) reminds his reader that emic perspectives may be in conflict with each other, which could necessitate etic interpretation. He recalls a study, one of his own, within which two realities—that of folk medicators and that of physicians—collided and “...required an etic, or outsider’s, perspective to form a complete picture of this medical and cultural phenomenon” (p. 21).

To complicate things more, it is important to remember that not all researchers arrive on the scene with an etic mindset; many are already deeply embedded within the cultures or communities they are studying.

Characteristics of Ethnographic Inquiry

As Adler and Adler (2012) shared, “Ethnography is the only method that allows us unfettered access to the lives of others” (p. 30).

As a qualitative method, ethnography explores the values, beliefs, daily lives, patterns, rituals, symbols, and behaviors shared by a group of people. Exploring various forms of culture necessitates researcher immersion, which relies on prolonged observation (among other methods, like informant interviews).

We will review the distinctive characteristics of ethnography, including the kinds of questions ethnographers seek to understand through fieldwork. Again, we will add onto the grid, which will help you compare the research traditions you’ve learned about thus far. We will also unpack ethnographic principles by reviewing an intriguing study (conducted by a team of social scientists and biologists) on the human-animal connection.

In the table that follows, you can contrast ethnography with other research methods.

Characteristics of Research Methods

Research Method	Purpose-Focus?	Researcher’s Role?	Unique Practices?	Form-Outcome?
Ethnography	To describe and interpret culture: the values, beliefs, daily lives, patterns, rituals, symbols, and behaviors shared by a group of people.	The ethnographer is a fieldworker, immersed to varying degrees in the culture itself. The ethnographer seeks to understand the culture not through their own lens, but through that of its participants.	Fieldwork Participant observation Key informant interviews Emic–Etic	The outcome varies widely. It may be published in a mainstream journal, rendered artistically, or arrayed for public consumption. Achieving transferability through thick description is prominently practiced.
Grounded Theory	To explore and explicate human processes, actions, and interactions, generating a theory grounded in participants’ lived experiences.	The constructivist researcher positions oneself, given their role in co-constructing theory. Memoing is used throughout the process.	Constant comparative method Theoretical sampling Saturation	Through constant comparative method (CCM), categories emerge and are linked, related, and connected in an emergent model that presents a theoretical explanation of the process being investigated.
Narrative Inquiry	To tell and study human experiences through story.	The researcher positions oneself, and may be co-located as both the primary instrument and a participant.	Self narratives (e.g., autoethnography) First person artifacts Three-dimensional inquiry space	Varies widely. Stories can be published intact, or may be analyzed for “storylines” (thematic elements) across participants. Stories may also be analyzed for their resonance with existing theories (e.g., feminist theory).
Phenomenology	To understand the essence (meaning) of lived experiences with phenomena.	The researcher attempts to suspend judgment, through epoche, and serves as the primary instrument.	Epoche In-depth interviewing Phenomenological reduction* Imaginative variation* * Indicates topics that will be explored later in the section on data analysis.	Experiences, as data, are reduced to essential themes. The outcome describes the “essence” of the phenomenon being investigated.

Let’s continue, practicing and reinforcing your knowledge of ethnographic practices and strategies (like the informant interview and emic–etic positioning)!

Have you ever found yourself wanting to know more about chimpanzees? Or have you been curious about how humans and chimpanzees interact? Maybe or maybe not. Either way, the study we are about to explore may pique or satisfy curiosity.

Parathian and colleagues (2018) make up a team of interdisciplinary ethnographers (scientists and social scientists) who published an intriguing study documenting human–wildlife interactions. In fact, they had a name for the kind of study they did: multispecies ethnography. As described, “we began by carrying out an in-depth ethnography of Nalu beliefs and practices associated with the forest and primates to examine the connections between Nalu people and chimpanzees” (p. 761).

Here is an excerpt from their abstract:

One of the main challenges when integrating biological and social perspectives in primatology is overcoming interdisciplinary boundaries . . . . In the biological sciences, human–wildlife interactions are the actions resulting from people and wild animals sharing landscapes and resources, with outcomes ranging from being beneficial or harmful to one or both species. In the social sciences, human–nonhuman relationships have been explored on a philosophical, analytical, and empirical level. Building on previous work, we advocate viewing landscapes through an interdisciplinary “multispecies lens” in which humans are observed as one of multiple organisms that interact with other species to shape and create environments. To illustrate these interconnections we use . . . coexistence between people of the Nalu ethnic group and Critically Endangered western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Cantanhez National Park in Guinea-Bissau, to demonstrate how biological and social research approaches can be complementary and can inform conservation initiatives at the human–primate interface (pp. 749-750).

Several ethnographic practices can be identified in the Parathian et al. (2018) study. For example, the research team found that humans and chimpanzees coexist; they “meet and ‘mingle’, sharing habitat and resources” (p. 763). If a researcher were to seek 1:1 feedback from an Nalu person regarding what they observed, we would have an example of an informant Interview.

The quote, “Recognizing that conservation is as much about people as about other species and habitats requires significant modifications to how science is used and applied in conservation” (p. 755) shows how there is also understanding to be sought regarding how, in some cultures, local people have cultivated enduring conservationist practices premised on a different way of viewing human–wildlife interactions. This demonstrates taking an emic perspective.

Another illustrative passage relates that, “Recognizing that conservation is as much about people as about other species and habitats requires significant modifications to how science is used and applied in conservation” (p. 755). The human–wildlife interaction can be viewed in multiple ways. There is a Western way of “viewing human communities and practices as uniformly damaging to natural habitats” (p. 754). In this case, taking an etic perspective is demonstrated.

Finally, the research team focused on interactions between chimpanzees and the Nalu, one of six ethnic groups that live in the Cantanhez National Park (Guinea-Bissau). This research took place over 11 months. Qualitative methods included participant observation and interviews. This approach is a prime example of fieldwork.