EPIC 2016 Reflection #19 Is it still ethnography?
EPIC 2016 Reflection #13, discussed whether or not ethnography is enough. As that post indicated, many practitioners no longer view doing ethnography as enough to get their job done, and more than a few no longer view it as a key component of their professional practice. I think we can say that some practitioners have made an upshift from ethnography to strategy.
But there was another current evident at EPIC, which was not about transcending ethnography to reach a higher level of corporate engagement as strategists, but rather about diminishing ethnography, and especially its vulgarization. The core of discontent centered on the shift to user experience and usability studies, alongside dismay at claims that ethnography could be taught in a 3 hour workshop. I will call this the downshift from ethnography to usability and user experience.
(That this stark division is too simplistic is evident from UX strategists - consider this EPIC Blog: Ethnography and IoT 2016 ).
Again, some quotes on this theme from anonymous attendees.
“Ethnography is being reduced to a method that requires no training.”
“We have lost ethnography. We need to ask ourselves what we have given up.”
“Does anyone else find their jobs boring? My job used to be interesting.”
“It’s becoming harder for me to describe what my job is. Is it ethnography?”
This discussion came to a head in the Thursday Salon on Deskilling, but the theme emerged repeatedly, throughout the conference. The concern here is perhaps best termed de-professionalization. Several points worth pondering were made, at the Deskilling Salon and elsewhere. Taken together, the points are somewhat contradictory. I enumerate four here.
1. There is no accrediting organization that provides professional credentialing of ethnographers, analogous to doctors and lawyers (that might have been a PhD in anthropology, but one got the sense that the era of an anthropological monopoly on ethnography was long over, and no one expected an association analogous to the American Medical Association or the American Bar Association to emerge).
2. To the degree that a traditional PhD in anthropology might be required, such a background raised many barriers to employment: (a) It takes too long to train PhD anthropologists; (b) Research in the traditional mode requires too much time, making it too expensive and unresponsive; (c ) A monopoly was out of the question, as there were not enough PhD anthropologists to do the work; and (d) Ethnography in the academic mode was difficult to sell to employers.
3. Because academically trained, PhD anthropologists are too few and too expensive, there has been continual pressure to “de-skill” the practice, and at various points usability, and user experience, were singled out as vulgar reductions of genuine ethnographic practice, while recognizing that this was where the jobs were. Many “ethnographers” were training people in “user experience.”
4. Lastly, the complaint persisted that “real ethnography” - of the sort academic anthropologists did in the golden age of anthropology - remained poorly understood - or poorly communicated - to potential clients. “You’ve got to sell it!” But not everyone felt they could sell it.
So, perhaps unsurprisingly, professional ethnography has broken the academic mold, and is something quite different in its professional application.. Perhaps it is no longer ethnography at all. Does that matter?
I would love to talk more with practicing professionals about this issue. Contact me!