ethnography case study and action research are all

info Welcome to the new library homepage for students who enrolled through Northcentral University. To access the old NCU library homepage, click here . If you enrolled through National University, click here . Please be aware that the NU and NCU students have access to all of the same resources, and we will be merging library homepages by next year.

notifications Welcome to the new library homepage! If you are looking for the old homepage, click here .

Research Process and Scholarship

• Academic Research
• Research Process
• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Action Research
• Single-Subject Research
• Qualitative Research (Ethnography, Case Study, Action Research)
• Quantitative Research
• Mixed Method Research
• Experimental Research
• Quasi-Experimental Research
• Meta-analysis Research
• Correlation of Research Variables
• Clinical Review in Health Care Research
• Human Subject (IRB) This link opens in a new window
• Share Your Capstone
• Support Services

Selected Titles

Qualitative Research: Ethnography, Case Studies, and Action Research

Qualitative Research

• What is Qualitative Research
• Ethnography

Qualitative Research is a method of understanding the big picture or they total situation.  It often explores the why and how decisions are made. and allows flexibility in how the researcher and the participants interact. It entails observation and in depth interviewing. Disciplines that use qualitative research and analysis include sociology, psychology & human behavior, and business. Techniques for gathering data include ethnography, focus groups, case studies, and action research.

• Video (FMG): Exploring Qualitative Methods
• Literati Searches on Qualitative research 

Content: Books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos on research methods and design. 

Purpose: Use to learn more about qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research. 

Special Features: Includes a methods map, project planner, and "which stats" test

Find SAGE Research Methods about qualitative research methods - data analysis  [Use the database link above or click on Methods Map image below].

Case studies investigate a case (person, group, event or institution) in depth. Collective or comparative case study looks at several case studies to highlight key focal points between studies.

• Case study . (2008). In K. O'Reilly, Key concepts in Ethnography . London, United Kingdom: Sage UK.
• Literati Search for " case study ."

Find SAGE Research Methods about  case studies  [Use the database link above or click on Methods Map image below].

Written reports of direct and sustained contact observing individuals and cultures.

• Introduction . (2008). In K. O'Reilly, Key concepts in ethnography . London, United Kingdom: Sage UK.

Find SAGE Research Methods about ethnographic research  [Use the database link above or click on Methods Map image below].

• << Previous: Single-Subject Research
• Next: Quantitative Research >>
• Last Updated: Nov 30, 2023 6:40 PM
• URL: https://nu.libguides.com/thesis

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

The entanglements of ethnography and participatory action research (par) in educational research in north america.

• Margaret Eisenhart Margaret Eisenhart University of Colorado
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.324
• Published online: 26 April 2019

The traditions of ethnography and participatory action research (PAR) have different roots and different priorities, but their trajectories have become entangled in educational research over the past halfcentury. In many ways, ethnography and PAR are compatible. Both make participants’ perspectives central to the research. Both rely primarily on qualitative methods. Both are ethically committed to appreciating cultural differences and promoting the welfare of the groups they work with. Taken together, each adds something important to the other: PAR offers ethnography a “stance toward research” that is more democratic and action-oriented than traditional ethnography; ethnography lends PAR legitimacy as a research approach. Nonetheless, differences between the two create contradictions and tensions when they are combined. While educational researchers remain enthusiastic about the potential of combining activism with cultural analysis, it is important not to collapse ethnography and participatory action research, or privilege one over the other, but to find productive ways to move forward with the tensions between them.

• ethnography
• participatory action research
• case studies
• activist ethnography
• United States

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 18 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|162.248.224.4]
• 162.248.224.4

Character limit 500 /500

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Research Guides

Ethnographic Case Studies

Jeannette Armstrong; Laura Boyle; Lindsay Herron; Brandon Locke; and Leslie Smith

Description

This research guide discusses ethnographic case study. While there is much debate over what, precisely, delimits a case study , the general consensus seems to be that ethnographic case studies differ from other types of case studies primarily in their focus, methodology, and duration. In essence, ethnographic case studies are case studies “employing ethnographic methods and focused on building arguments about cultural, group, or community formation or examining other sociocultural phenomena” (Schwandt & Gates, 2018, p. 344), typically with a long duration, per the demands of ethnographic work. In essence, ethnographic case studies are case studies “employing ethnographic methods and focused on building arguments about cultural, group, or community formation or examining other sociocultural phenomena” (Schwandt & Gates, 2018, p. 344), typically with a long duration, per the demands of ethnographic work. Indeed, in its very situatedness, ethnography has a “case study character” and is “intimately related” to case studies (Ó Rian, 2009, p. 291); though there is currently a move to extract ethnographic work from overly situated contexts and use extended case methods, “[e]thnographic research has long been synonymous with case studies, typically conceived of as grounded in the local and situated in specific, well-defined and self-contained social contexts” (Ó Rian, 2009, p. 290). Because ethnography, in practice, is often a kind of case study, it’s useful to consider ethnography and case studies each in their own right for a fuller picture of what ethnographic case study entails.

Ethnographic research is one approach under the larger umbrella of qualitative research. Methodologically, it is, “a theoretical, ethical, political, and at times moral orientation to research, which guides the decisions one makes, including choices about research methods” (Harrison, 2014, p. 225), that is at its crux “based upon sharing the time and space of those who one is studying” (Ó Rian, 2009, p. 291)–a situated, nuanced exploration seeking a thick description and drawing on methods such as observation and field notes. According to …an ethnography focuses on an entire culture-sharing group and attempts to develop a complex, complete description of the culture of the group. Creswell and Poth (2018), an ethnography focuses on an entire culture-sharing group and attempts to develop a complex, complete description of the culture of the group. In doing so, ethnographers look for patterns of behavior such as rituals or social behaviors, as well as how their ideas and beliefs are expressed through language, material activities, and actions (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Yin (2016)  suggests that ethnographies seek “to promote embedded research that fuses close-up observation, rigorous theory, and social critique. [Ethnographies foster] work that pays equal attention to the minutiae of experience, the cultural texture of social relations, and to the remote structural forces and power vectors that bear on them” (p. 69).

Case study research, meanwhile, is characterized as an approach “that facilitates exploration of a phenomenon within its context using a variety of data sources” (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 544). The aim of case studies is precise description of reconstruction of cases (Flick, 2015). The philosophical background is a qualitative, constructivist paradigm based on the claim that reality is socially constructed and can best be understood by exploring the tacit, i.e., experience-based, knowledge of individuals. There is some debate about how to define a The philosophical background is a qualitative, constructivist paradigm based on the claim that reality is socially constructed and can best be understood by exploring the tacit, i.e., experience-based, knowledge of individuals. “case” (e.g., Ó Rian, 2009), however. As Schwandt and Gates (2018) write, “[A] case is an instance, incident, or unit of something and can be anything–a person, an organization, an event, a decision, an action, a location”; it can be at the micro, meso, or macro level; it can be an empirical unit or a theoretical construct, specific or general; and in fact, “what the research or case object is a case of may not be known until most of the empirical research is completed” (p. 341). The two authors conclude that given the multifarious interpretations of what case study is, “[b]eyond positing that case study methodology has something to do with ‘in-depth’ investigation of a phenomenon . . . , it is a fool’s errand to pursue what is (or should be) truly called ‘case study’” (p. 343, 344).

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13 (4), 544-559.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Flick, U. (2015). Introducing research methodology . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Rian, S. (2009). Extending the ethnographic case study. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of case-based methods (pp. 289–306). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Schwandt, T. A., & Gates, E. F. (2018). Case study methodology. In N. K. Dezin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.; pp. 341-358). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Key Research Books and Articles on Ethnographic Case Study Methodology

Fusch, G. E., & Ness, L. R. (2017). How to conduct a mini-ethnographic case study: A guide for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report , 22 (3), 923-941.  Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss3/16

In this how-to article, the authors present an argument for the use of a blended research design, namely the Ethnographic Case Study, for student researchers. To establish their point of view, the authors reiterate recognized research protocols, such as choosing a design that suits the research question to ensure data saturation. Additionally, they remind their reader that one must also consider the feasibility of the project in terms of time, energy, and financial constraints.

Before outlining the benefits and components of the Ethnographic Case Study approach, the authors provide detailed narratives of ethnographic, mini-ethnographic (sometimes referred to as a focused ethnography ), and case study research designs to orient the reader. Next, we are introduced to the term mini-ethnographic case-study design, which is defined as a blended design that is bound in time and space and uses qualitative ethnographic and case study collection methods. The benefits of such an approach permit simultaneous generation of theory and the study of that theory in practice, as it allows for the exploration of causality.

Ethnographic Case Study research shares many characteristics with its parent approaches.  For example, subjectivity and bias are present and must be addressed. Next, data triangulation is necessary to ensure the collected qualitative data and subsequent findings are valid and reliable. Data collection methods include direct observation, fieldwork, reflective journaling, informal or unstructured interviews, and focus groups. Finally, the authors discuss three limitations to the ethnographic case study. First, this design requires the researcher to be embedded, yet the duration of time may not be for as long when compared to full-scale ethnographic studies.  Second, since there are fewer participants, there should be a larger focus on rich data as opposed to thick data, or said differently, quality is valued over quantity. Third, the researcher must be aware that the end-goal is not transferability, but rather the objective is to gain a greater understanding of the culture of a particular group that is bound by space and time.

Gregory, E. & Ruby, M. (2010) The ‘insider/outsider’ dilemma of ethnography: Working with young children and their families in cross-cultural contexts. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 9 (2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X10387899

This article focuses on the dilemma of insider and outsider roles in ethnographic work. It challenges the notion that a researcher can be both an insider and an outsider at the same time. There is no insider/outsider status; it is one or the other–not both.

It is easy to make assumptions about one’s status as an insider. It is not uncommon for a researcher to assume that because one is working amongst his/her “own” people sharing a similar background, culture, or faith that she/he is an insider. Likewise, a researcher may assume that it will be easy to build rapport with a community with which he/she has commonalities; however, it is important to keep in mind that the person may be an insider but the researcher may not have this same status. When the person enters into the protective space of family or community as a researcher, it is similar to being an outsider. Being a researcher makes one different, regardless of the commonalities that are shared. It is not the researcher’s presumed status of “insider” or “outsider” that makes the difference; rather, researcher status is determined by the participants or community that is being studied. It is wise for researchers to understand that they are distinctively one of “them” as opposed to one of “us”. This is not to say that researchers cannot become an “insider” to some degree. But to assume insider status, regardless of the rationale, is wrong. Assuming common beliefs across cultures or insider status can lead to difficulties that could impact the scope or nature of the study.

In conclusion, regardless of the ethnographic design (e.g., realist ethnography, ethnographic case study, critical ethnography), it is important for the researcher to approach the study as an “outsider”. Although the outsider status may change over time, it essential to understand that when one enters a community as a researcher or becomes a researcher within a community, insider status must be earned and awarded according to the participants in the community.

Ó Rian, S. (2009). Extending the ethnographic case study. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of case-based methods (pp. 289–306). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

In this chapter, Ó Rian valorizes the problems and potential hiding within the vagaries of ethnographic “case” boundaries, arguing that “whereas the fluid and multi-faceted aspects of the ethnographic case pose dilemmas for ethnographers, they can also become resources for ethnographers in exploring theoretical and empirical questions” (p. 292). Indeed, he views the idea of firm case boundaries as a weakness, as “definitions of the case will rule in and out certain social processes,” and suggests ethnography’s flexibility can deal with this problem well because it permits researchers to “question the boundaries of the case as the study proceeds,” leading to a “de- and re-construction of the case that . . . places ethnography at the centre of a resurgent contextualist paradigm of social inquiry . . . that is increasingly self-consciously exploring its own theoretical and methodological foundations” (p. 304). Most of the chapter delves into these possibilities for exploration, offering an insightful (if occasionally difficult to follow) perspective on how they have been proceeding.

The chapter offers considerations that might be particularly helpful to researchers undertaking ethnographic case studies who are struggling to connect their cases, so firmly rooted in a particular context and their own personal experiences and observations, to a bigger picture. Ó Rian elucidates the reflexive strategies various ethnographers have adopted as they’ve sought “[t]o achieve a link between context-specific data and meso- or macro-level generalizations,” categorizing these strategies into three “interlocking extensions of case study research” (p. 292): personal extensions (related to “the shaping of the boundaries of the case by the ethnographer’s location within the field and . . . how ethnographers can convey their personalized experiences and tacit learning to readers” [p. 292]), theoretical extensions (which bridge the gap between the situated worlds being explored and “the larger structures and processes that produced and shaped them” [p. 292]), and empirical extensions (“creative efforts to experiment with the empirical boundaries of the ethnographic case” [p. 292] by bringing in, for example, historical context, social networks, etc.). The crux of his argument is that ethnographic researchers have a prime opportunity to push against the boundaries of their context and “extend their cases across space, time and institutional structures and practices” so that the ethnographer is “multiply, if perhaps a bit uncomfortably, situated” (p. 304), and also to include an “emphasis on the ongoing process of theoretical sampling within the process of the ethnographic study, with close attention to be paid to the paths chosen and rejected, and the reasons for these decisions” (p. 304). These kinds of extensions offer an opportunity for theories to “be refined or reconstructed” as the researcher attempts to locate their personal experience within a broader framework, allowing “[t]he case study . . . to challenge and reconstruct the preferred theory” while also connecting the case to a larger body of work, particularly because theory “carries the accumulated knowledge of previous studies” (p. 296).

Ó Rian’s in-depth descriptions of how other researchers have varyingly handled these personal, theoretical, and empirical extensions might be a bit overwhelming to novice researchers but overall can offer a way to “locate their cases within broader social processes and not solely within their own personal trajectories” (p. 294)–while also helping to situate their reflections and extensions within a larger body of literature replete with researchers struggling with similar questions and concerns.

This chapter offers an  in-depth, generally accessible (but occasionally overwhelming) overview of case studies of all sorts and integrates an extensive review of relevant literature. The authors provide an informed perspective on various considerations and debates in the case study field (e.g., varying definitions of what a “case” is construed to be; interpretive vs. critical realist orientations; the relative benefits of and techniques involved in different types of approaches), helping novice researchers locate and better describe their own approach within the context of the field. The information is quite detailed and delves into a wide variety of case study types, suggesting this chapter might best be first skimmed as an initial introduction, followed by more careful readings of relevant sections and perusal of the key texts cited in the chapter. The breadth of this chapter makes it a helpful resource for anyone interested in case-study methodology.

The authors do not specifically explore ethnographic case studies as a separate type of case study. They do, however, briefly touch on this idea, locating ethnography within the interpretive orientation (comprising constructivist approaches offering “phenomenological attention to lived experience” [p. 344]). The authors also cite researchers who distinguish it due to its “[employing] ethnographic methods and focus on building arguments about cultural, group, or community formation or examining other sociocultural phenomena” (p. 344). Ethnographic case study is placed in contrast to case studies that use non-ethnographic methods (e.g., studies “relying perhaps on survey data and document analysis”) or that “are focused on ‘writing culture’” (p. 344).

Two aspects of this chapter are particularly useful for novice researchers. First, it is worth highlighting the authors’ discussion of varying definitions of what a “case” is, as it can provide an interesting reconceptualization of the purpose of the research and the reason for conducting it. The second noteworthy aspect is the authors’ detailed descriptions of the four main case study uses/designs ( descriptive, hypothesis generation or theory development, hypothesis and theory testing , and contributing to normative theory ), which the authors beautifully align with the respective purposes and methods of each type while also offering insight into relevant conversations in the field.

Further Readings

Moss, P. A., & Haertel, E. H. (2016). Engaging methodological pluralism. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 127–247). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Simons, H. (2014). Case study research: In-depth understanding in context. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 455–470). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Recent Dissertations Using Ethnographic Case Study Methodology

Cozzolino, M. (2014). Global education, accountability, and 21st century skills: A case of curriculum innovation . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 3648007)

This dissertation is self-described as an ethnographic case study of a small, public, suburban high school in Pennsylvania. In this study, the researcher investigates the school’s process of integrating global education into its curriculum by implementing a school-wide initiative (Global Studies Initiative or GSI) as well as a program of study (Global Studies Credential or GSC). Cozzolino asserts that her framework has been shaped by both social constructivism and critical/Freirean pedagogy. From the constructivist view, she views knowledge as constructed through social interaction, and thus she sought to understand the world in which the research participants work, learn, and experience large parts of their lives. It is here that she situates the first three research questions that entail looking at the the GSI and the GSC in terms of their features, rationales, and implementations. The fourth question involves understanding the students’ views and perceptions of the GSC and here the author takes up a critical and Freirean pedagogy to honor and hear the voices of the students themselves.

The study design is therefore an embedded single-case study in that it is bound by the place (Olympus High School) and by its population. Furthermore, it is also a case within a case, as it seeks to understand the students’ perspectives of the global programming. The case study is ethnographically rooted through the multiple ethnographic data sources such as participant-observations and a prolonged engagement at the research site. Cozzolino embedded herself in the research site over a five-year period and became an active and invested member of the school community, thereby establishing a sound rationale for an ethnographic case-study approach.

The author concludes that there were some competing priorities about the overall initiative from stakeholders inside and outside the school district. This resulted in a less than ideal implementation of the program of study across the curriculum. Nonetheless, the students who were enrolled in these courses reported it to be a worthwhile experience. While Cozzolino presents specific recommendations for the improvements at Olympus High, she also offers implications for several other groups. First, she provides advice for implementation to other educational institutions that aim to integrate a global focus into their curriculum. Next, she gives recommendations for local, state, and national policy changes. Finally, she gives suggestions for engaging all parties in fruitful discourse to achieve their ultimate goal of implementing a meaningful and valuable global education curriculum.

Hamman, L. (2018). Reframing the language separation debate: Language, identity, and  ideology in two-way immersion . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 2089463322)

This study explored the issues of surrounding language separation in two-way immersion (TWI) classrooms. The author looked at how classroom language practices and teacher ideologies influenced the student experience and how the students’ understanding of what it means to be bilingual is influenced in a classroom that purports to be equitable in terms of language use.

The study is theoretically grounded in sociocultural, critical, and postcultural theories and adapted Lemke’s ecosocial system to conceptualize TWI classroom. Hamman also drew upon translanguaging theory and dynamic bilingualism to provide a framework for a more modern and nuanced perspective of bilingualism, bilingual learning, and bilingual students.

The author combined a single-case study approach with ethnographic methods to “engage in close analysis of classroom language use and the discursive negotiation of identities and ideologies, while situating these analyses within a rich understanding of the sociolinguistic context of this TWI classroom” (p. 78-79). She employed various ethnographic methods such as taking fieldnotes, conducting participant observations, interviewing, and memoing. The study is “bound” in that it takes place in one 2nd-grade classroom with one teacher and 18 students over the course of one year.

Hamman concludes that student perspectives on language separation should be considered, since this forced separation of language influenced how they thought of their developing bilingualism and identity as bilinguals. Furthermore, the study envisages a linguistic “middle ground” to strict separation that allows for appropriate and meaningful spaces for linguistic negotiation. Finally, this dissertation asserts that the strict separation of languages codifies a monoglossic ideology mindset and limits learners’ possibilities for learning and making connections across languages.

Kim, S. (2015). Korean migrant youth identity work in the transnational social field: A link between identity, transnationalism, and new media literacy . Retrieved from University of Missouri-St. Louis Institutional Repository Library. https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation/158/

This doctoral dissertation takes an ethnographic case study approach to explore the identity formation of transnational Korean youth. The researcher, herself a Korean immigrant to the U.S. navigating complex identity processes, focuses on these research questions: “1) what are the contexts in which migrant youth negotiate their identities? 2) how do youth understand and negotiate their sense of belonging? 3) how do youth’s [sic] cultural and literacy practices inform and shape their identities? 3i) how do youth make use of transnational new media for their identity work? 3ii) how do literacy practices potentially shape their identities?” (p. 7).

Drawing on Leander and McKim (2013), the author conceptualizes her study as a “connective ethnography” (p. 36) encompassing multiple spaces, both digital and physical, in which “space” comprises a variety of relationships, instead of a more traditional ethnography bounded by physical space. The “case study” aspect, meanwhile, refers to the four specific participants in which she chose to focus. She chose Korean immigrants in St. Louis, in general, due to their mobility between the U.S. and Korea, their high use of digital communication and information technology, and their limited access to the cultural resources of Korea in a Midwestern city. From an initial 32 possible participants purposively selected, the researcher chose four focal participants based on their Korean ethnicity, biliteracy in Korean and English, age (between 11 and 19 years old), residence in the U.S. (for at least 2 years), and their use of digital communication technologies. Data sources included an initial screening survey, an identity map each participant created, informal recorded conversations, recorded interviews in either English or Korean, field notes from the researcher’s interactions with the youth in various settings (home, school, community centers), and “literacy documents” (evidence of literacy practices from participants’ school and home, emails to the researcher, or activities in digital spaces). She used social semiotic multimodal discourse analysis and what she describes as “grounded theory thematic analysis” to analyze the data.

This is a reflective, thoughtful, and interesting dissertation. The author carefully notes the relationship between the data sources and her research questions, specifically addresses steps she took to ensure the validity of the data (e.g., triangulation via multiple data sources and theoretical frameworks, member checks, and feedback from her professors and other researchers), and discloses her own positionalities and biases. Her discussion includes not only a clear thematic exploration of her findings but also offers specific practical suggestions for how her findings can be applied and extended in the classroom.

Internet Resources

Abalos-Gerard Gonzalez , L. (2011). Ethnographic research . Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/lanceabalos/ethnographic-research-2?from_action=save

Created by Lance Gerard G. Abalos, teacher at the Department of Education-Philippines, this SlideShare, Ethnographic Research , explains that, regardless of specific design, ethnographic research should be undertaken “without any priori hypothesis to avoid predetermining what is observed or that information is elicited from informants . . .hypotheses evolve out of the fieldwork itself” (slide 4). It is also suggested that researchers refer to individuals from whom information is gathered as ‘informants’ is preferred over the term ‘participants’ (slide 4).

According to Abalos, “It is not the data collection techniques that determine whether the study is ethnographic, but rather the ‘socio-cultural interpretation’ that sets it apart from other forms of qualitative inquiry” (slide 6). A social situation always has three components: a place, actors, and activities (slide 8) and it is the socio-cultural interpretation of the interactions of these three that is the focus of the ethnographic research.

Ethnographic questions should guide what the researcher sees, hears, and collects as data (slide 9). When writing the ethnography, it is essential to ‘bring the culture or group to life’ through the words and descriptions used to describe the place, actors, and activities.

Abalos describes three types of ethnographic designs:

• Realist Ethnographies : an objective account of the situation, written dispassionately from third-person point of view, reporting objectively on information learned from informants, containing closely edited quotations (slide 11-12).
• Ethnographic Case Studies : researchers focus on a program, event, or activity involving individuals rather than a group, looking for shared patterns that develop as a group as a result of the program, event, or activity (slide 13).
• Critical Ethnographies: incorporating a ‘critical’ approach that includes an advocacy perspective, researchers are interested in advocating against inequality and domination (slide 14).

As ethnographic data is analyzed, in any design (e.g., realist, case study, critical), there is a shift away from reporting the facts to making an interpretation of people and activities, determining how things work, and identifying the essential features in themes of the cultural setting (slide 22). “The ethnographer must present the description, themes, and interpretation within the context or setting of the culture-sharing group (slide 23).

Brehm, W. (2016, July 21). FreshEd #13 – Jane Kenway . Retrieved from http://www.freshedpodcast.com/tag/ethnography/ (EDXSymposium: New Frontiers in Comparative Education).

Jane Kenway is with the Australian Research Council and is an emeritus professor at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. In this podcast, she explains “traditional’ forms of ethnography and multi-sited global ethnography, which are her area of specialization. She considers “traditional” ethnography to have three components: space, time, and mobility.

Insider/outsider stance is explained within the context of spatiality, community, and culture of space specific to ‘traditional” ethnography. Researchers are outsiders who are attempting to enter a space and become insiders, then leave the space once the research is completed. Research is conducted over an extended period of time in one place/space. As a result, researchers will get to know in an extremely intimate manner the ways of life of the community or group. “Work is supposed to be a temporality of slowness. In other words, you don’t rush around like a mad thing in a field, you just quietly and slowly immerse yourself in the field over this extended period of time and get to understand it, get to appreciate it bit by bit.” (minute 7:56).

“Traditional” ethnographers are not necessarily interested in mobility over time or exploring who enters and exits the site. Most ethnographers are only interested in the movement that occurs in the space that is being studied during the time that they are in the field. It is about looking at the roots of the space, not necessarily about looking at the movements into and out of the space.

Multi-sited global ethnography tries to look at the way bounded sites can be studied as unbounded and on the move, as opposed to staying still. It considers how certain things (e.g., things, ideas, people) are  followed as they move. The researcher moves between sites, studying change that is encountered in different sites. From this perspective, the interested lies in the connections between sites. Multiple sites with commonalities can also be studied at the onset, without the need to physically follow.

Paulus, T. M., Lester, J. N., & Dempster, P. G. (2014). Digital Tools for Qualitative Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

While this text is not solely about ethnographic case studies, it is rich with countless ideas for utilizing digital tools to aid in the multiple facets of qualitative research. In Chapter 5 of their text, entitled Generating Data, the authors dedicate a section to exploring Internet archives and multimedia data. They state that, “in addition to online communities, the Internet is rich with multimedia data such as professionally curated archives, ameteur-created YouTube and Vimeo videos and photo-sharing sites” (p. 81). They provide three specific examples, each explained below: The Internet Archive, CADENSA, and Britain’s BBC Archives.

The Internet Archive ( https://archive.org ) is a non-profit library of millions of free books, movies, software, music, websites, and more. The site also contains a variety of cultural artifacts that are easily available and downloadable. CADENSA ( http://cadensa.bl.uk ) is an online archive of the British Library Sound and Moving Image Catalogue. And finally, the BBC Archives ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/ ) is a particularly useful site for researchers interested in reviewing documentary film and political speeches.

Wang, T. (2016, September). Tricia Wang: The human insights missing from big data. [Video file]. Retrieved from  https://www.ted.com/talks/tricia_wang_the_human_insights_missing_from_big_data

In this TED Talk, Tricia Wang discusses her ethnographic work with technology and advocates for the need to save a place for thick data as opposed to relying only on big data. She argues that while companies invest millions of dollars in generating big data because they assume it will efficiently provide all the answers, it routinely does not provide a good return on investment. Instead, companies are left without answers to the questions about consumer preferences and behaviors, which leaves them unprepared for market changes.

In turn, Wang coins the term thick data, which is described as “precious data from humans, like stories, emotions, and interactions that cannot be quantified” (Minute 11:50). Wang suggests that this thick data may only come from a small group of individuals, but it is an essential component that can provide insights that are different and valuable. As an example, while working for Nokia, her ethnographic experiences in China provided her with new understandings on the future demand for smartphones. However, her employer did not take her findings seriously, and as a result, they lost their foothold in the technology market. She posits that a blended approach to collecting and analyzing data (i.e. combining or integrating thick data analysis with big data analysis) allows for a better grasp on the whole picture and making informed decisions.

Her conclusions for a blended approach to data collection also have implications for blending ethnographic and case-study approaches. While Wang took more of an ethnographic approach to her research, one could envision what her work might have looked like if she had used an Ethnographic Case Study approach. Wang could have clearly defined the time and space boundaries of her various ethnographic experiences (e.g. as a street vendor, living in the slums, hanging out in internet cafés). This would have allowed her to infer causality through the generation of thick data with a small sample size for each location and bound by each group.

Ethnographic Case Studies Copyright © 2019 by Jeannette Armstrong; Laura Boyle; Lindsay Herron; Brandon Locke; and Leslie Smith is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An Ethnographic Case Study Design

• First Online: 23 January 2020

Cite this chapter

• Congjun Mu 2  

437 Accesses

This chapter justifies the selection of an ethnographic case study approach to investigate Chinese multilingual scholars’ experiences in writing for scholarly publication in English. Mixed methods—quantitative survey and qualitative semi-structured interviews—are used to elicit data exposing Chinese scholars’ attitude to the controversies discussed in the literature and their strategies to cope with the challenges they face in writing and publishing in English. An in-depth case analysis method with text-history analysis is introduced. The questionnaire design owes much to previous studies in ERPP research, a field that has developed rapidly in recent years and may continue to grow in the future. The procedures of semi-structured interviews and document collection are presented in detail in the interests of transparency, reliability, and validity of the research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bazerman, C., Keranen, N., & Encinas, F. (2012). Facilitated immersion at a distance in second language scientific writing. In M. C. Badia & C. Donahue (Eds.), University Writing: Selves and Texts in Academic Societies (pp. 235–252). London: Emerald.

Google Scholar  

Burgess, S., Gea-Valor, M. L., Moreno, A. I., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2014). Affordances and constraints on research publication: A comparative study of the language choices of Spanish historians and psychologists. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14 , 72–83.

Article   Google Scholar  

Casanave, C. P. (1998). Transitions: The balancing act of bilingual academics. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 (2), 17–203.

Cho, D. W. (2009). Science journal paper writing in an EFL context: The case of Korea. English for Specific Purposes, 28 (4), 230–239.

Counsell, J. (2011). How effectively and consistently do international postgraduate students apply the writing strategies they have been taught in a generic skills-based course to their subsequent discipline-based studies? Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 5 (1), A1–A17.

Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38 (4), 663–688.

Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. M. (2010). Academic research networks: Accessing resources for English-medium publishing. English for Specific Purposes, 29 , 281–295.

Fernández Polo, F. J., & Cal Varela, M. (2009). English for research purposes at the University of Santiago de Compostela: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8 , 152–164.

Fife, W. (2005). Doing Fieldwork Ethnographic Methods for Research in Developing Countries and Beyond . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Flowerdew, J. (1999a). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 , 243–263.

Flowerdew, J. (1999b). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 , 123–145.

Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (1), 127–150.

Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: What can Goffman’s “Stigma” tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7 , 77–86.

Flowerdew, J. (2009). Goffman’s stigma and EAL writers: The author responds to Casanave. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8 , 69–72.

Fusch, P. I., Fusch, G. E., & Ness, L. R. (2017). How to conduct a mini-ethnographic case study: A guide for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 22 (3), 923–941.

Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research . London: Academic Press.

Gollin-Kies, S. (2014). Methods reported in ESP research articles: A comparative survey of two leading journals. English for Specific Purposes, 36 , 27–34.

Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2011). Quantifying the burden of writing research articles in a second language: Data from Mexican scientists. Written Communication, 28 , 403–416.

Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2013). Scientific Writing in a Second Language . Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.

Hirano, E. (2009). Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English for Specific Purposes, 28 (4), 240–250.

Holloway, I., Brown, L., & Shipway, R. (2010). Meaning not measurement: Using ethnography to bring a deeper understanding to the participant experience of festivals and events. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 1 (1), 74–85.

Kourilova, M. (1998). Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientific papers written by non-native users of English. Endocrine Regulation, 32 , 107–114.

LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52 (1), 31–60.

LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (2008). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research (2nd ed.). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Lei, J., & Hu, G. (2019). Doctoral candidates’ dual role as student and expert scholarly writer: An activity theory perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 54 , 62–74.

Li, X., Xue, M., Wang, Q., & Feng, H. (2011). The thinking and practice on performance evaluation of the classification of higher education institutions in Shanghai. Research in Education Development, 17 , 1–5.

Li, Y. (2002). Writing for international publication: The perception of Chinese doctoral researchers. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12 , 179–194.

Li, Y. (2006a). A doctoral student of physics writing for publication: A sociopolitically-oriented case study. English for Specific Purposes, 25 , 456–478.

Li, Y. (2006b). Negotiating knowledge contribution to multiple discourse communities: A doctoral student of computer science writing for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15 , 159–178.

Li, Y. (2012). “I have no time to find out where the sentences came from; I just rebuild them”: A biochemistry professor eliminating novices’ textual borrowing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 , 59–70.

Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “Deep Theorizing”: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25 (3), 353–388.

Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2006). Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication, 23 , 3–35.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing Qualitative Research . London: SAGE Publications.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moreno, A. I., Burgess, S., Sachdev, I., López-Navarro, I., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2013). The ENEIDA questionnaire: Publication experiences in scientific journals in English and Spanish. Retrieved from http://eneida.unileon.es/eneidaquestionnaire.php

Moreno, A. I., Rey-Rocha, J., Burgess, S., López-Navarro, I., & Sachdev, I. (2012). Spanish researchers’ perceived difficulty writing research articles for English medium journals: The impact of proficiency in English versus publication experience. Ibérica, 24 , 157–184.

Mur Dueñas, P. (2012). Getting research published internationally in English: An ethnographic account of a team of Finance Spanish scholars’ struggles. Iberica, 24 , 139–156.

Muresan, L.-M., & Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). English for research publication and dissemination in bi-/multiliterate environments: The case of Romanian academics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13 , 53–64.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Ethnograph approaches and methods in L2 writing research: A critical guide and review. Applied linguistics, 20 (1), 41–70.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work . New York: Guilford Press.

Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 100 (3), 674–701.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22 (4), 575–592.

Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (Eds.). (2006). Interpretation and Method Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn . New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Designs and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yockey, R. D. (2010). SPSS Demystified (C. Liu & Z. Wu, Chinese Trans.). Beijing: Renmin University of China Press.

Zhu, W. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 , 29–48.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Congjun Mu .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Mu, C. (2020). An Ethnographic Case Study Design. In: Understanding Chinese Multilingual Scholars’ Experiences of Writing and Publishing in English. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33938-8_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33938-8_4

Published : 23 January 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-33937-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-33938-8

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

12 Ethnography

Anthony Kwame Harrison, Department of Sociology, Virginia Tech

• Published: 02 September 2020
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter introduces ethnography as a distinct research and writing tradition. It opens with a discussion of ethnography’s current fashionability within transdisciplinary academic spaces and some of the associated challenges. The next section provides a historical overview of ethnography’s emergence as a professionalized research practice within the fields of anthropology and sociology. Focusing on ethnography as a research methodology, the chapter outlines several key attributes that distinguish it from other forms of participant observation–oriented research; provides a general overview of the central paradigms that ethnographers claim and/or move between; and spotlights three principal research methods that most ethnographers utilize—namely, participant observation, field-note writing, and ethnographic interviewing. The final section of the chapter introduces a research disposition called ethnographic comportment , defined as a politics of positionality that reflects both ethnographers’ awarenesses of and their accountabilities to the research tradition they participate in.

Introduction

In a classic 1929 American Mercury article on racial passing and investigating lynchings, the future executive secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Walter White, opened with an observation:

In any American village, North or South, East or West, there is no problem which cannot be solved in half an hour by the morons who lounge about the village store. World peace, or the lack of it, the tariff, sex, religion, the settlement of the war debts, short skirts, Prohibition, the carryings-on of the younger generation, the superior moral rectitude of country people over city dwellers (with a wistful eye on urban sins)—all these controversial subjects are disposed of quickly and finally by the bucolic wise men. (White, 1929 , p. 77)

Ethnographers are neither morons nor bucolic wise men. If called on, they may supply truncated answers to difficult questions. But they do this with an understanding that they are merely scratching the surface or offering something along the lines of sweeping tendencies regarding what are typically complicated and often contradictory aspects of human organization and social relations. The closer and deeper one looks, the more one sees. For this reason, ethnography is not particularly well suited for the kinds of business or policy-oriented research that requires statistically verifiable findings or strict evidentiary bases for direct and uncomplicated action plans (Jones, 2010 ). Still, references to ethnography and/or ethnographic thisses-and-thats increasingly appear in these and numerous other settings. To fully appreciate the value of ethnographies, it is important to read them in their entirety. Ethnographies are not built for efficiency in research practice or in communicating research results.

As a reflexive, intersubjective research tradition—that speaks to audiences’ hearts as well as to their minds—ethnography is most at home in spaces where complexity, nuance, and betwixt-and-betweenness are valued. Thus, there is a palpable tension between this research methodology—founded on patience and aspirations for comprehensive understandings—and the increasingly neoliberal academic environments, where the practices of ethnography have historically been nurtured and where a majority of practicing ethnographers continue to reside, settings where, increasingly, time, volume of output, and tangibility of results are key factors determining what is valued. We see this among graduate students of the early 21st century, who are progressively more pressured to have solid publication records upon completing their degrees—a practice that encourages some advisors to discourage students from pursuing ethnographic research. Another consequence of this development is the gradual erosion of ethnographic standards as shorter durations of research and shortened pathways to confirmable findings are accepted, if not heralded, as measures of competency. Under such conditions, the invisible work of ethnography (Forsythe, 1999 ), and the associated belief that anyone can do it, amplifies its current fashionability in problematic ways.

This chapter provides a foundation for understanding ethnography as a research methodology and genre of research reporting. While celebrating ethnography’s flexibility and generative potential—indeed, its refusal to be contained within fixed definitions—I also present it as a distinct research tradition, guided by a series of evolving conventions and commitments. This emphasis on precision is motivated by what I see as a multipronged crisis within the transforming field of ethnographic research. Factors influencing this crisis include but are not limited to: (a) ethnography’s place within neoliberal universities and associated spaces where efforts toward increasing efficiency reign; (b) a “transdisciplinary romance with ethnography” (Kazubowski-Houston & Magnat, 2017 ) that, too often, leads undertrained and underinvested researchers to claim the label—thus, in my view, doing violence to ethnography in both a figurative and a literal sense (Ingold, 2014 ); and (c) increased institutional surveillance and “methodological conservatism,” which creates hostile environments for ethnographers seeking to have their work approved by oversight bodies and agencies (Lincoln, 2005 ). At the same time, ethnography has qualities that make it particularly well suited for grasping and representing complex social phenomena and the contentious bases of knowing during these difficult times. Methodologically, ethnography flourishes in the liminal spaces between research design and improvisation. Through their critical engagements with its sometimes troubled history, trained ethnographers tend to align with marginalized perspectives and the communities they emanate from. Representationally, ethnography refuses to reduce the social world to simplistic binaries or neatly bracketed findings. In the following pages, I elaborate on these and other qualities of the ethnographic enterprise. Specifically, I present ethnography as a distinct methodology—rooted in the professionalization of anthropology and, to a lesser degree, sociology as academic fields—with a particular set of defining attributes, paradigmatic observances, and research conventions.

Defining Ethnography

The term ethnography references both a research and an inscription (i.e., writing process to written product) practice. Ethnography is research in that it describes a methodology (distinguished from a research method in the section Ethnography as Methodology) usually conceptualized as involving participant observations within a community or field of study. 1 Thus, a person can speak of doing ethnographic research among Vermont maple sugarers (Lange, 2017 ) or among people participating in a translocal cultural phenomenon who may not even consciously identify as a group (Amit, 2000 ). At the same time, it is an inscription practice in that the products of ethnographic research—typically books like Edmund Leach’s classic Political Systems of Highland Burma (1954) or Riché J. Daniel Barnes’s Raising the Race (2016)—are referred to as ethnographies. 2

Typically, greater academic attention is given to discussions of ethnography as research. However, to the extent that evaluations of and inferences about research are derived from the resulting written account, this focus on ethnography as research may be overblown. Indeed, since at least its postmodern turn (see Clifford & Marcus, 1986 ; Marcus & Fischer, 1986 ), considerable attention has fallen on ethnography as a literary convention. Scholars have additionally argued that writing practices are integral to ethnographic data collection and analysis and therefore should not be treated separately (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011 ; Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005 ; Sanjeck, 1990 ). 3 Elaborating on a concept that I call ethnographic comportment , toward the close of this chapter, I argue that most researchers are guided by a “textual awareness” (Van Maanen, 2011 , p. 158)—an imagined end product that they are working toward—that influences them variously throughout all stages of an ethnographic project, from conception to publication. Nevertheless, if one is looking for a standard definition of ethnography, a research-oriented definition such as the one offered by Martyn Hammersley and Paul Atkinson (1995) is quite typical:

[Ethnography involves] participating, overtly or covertly in people’s daily lives for an extended period of time, watching what happens, listening to what is said, asking questions … [and] collecting whatever [other] data are available to throw light on the issues that are the focus of the research. (p. 1)

Such a simple, straightforward definition highlights ethnography’s resemblance to “the routine ways in which people make sense of the world everyday” (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995 , p. 2)—thus making it appear to be something anyone can do. But to paraphrase something my colleague Carol A. Bailey once told me, no one would think of doing multiple linear regressions without statistical data analysis training, yet, quite regularly, people with no background in qualitative research claim to be doing ethnography (see also Schwandt, 2000 , p. 206n3). Commenting on the popularity of ethnography in consumer research, Patricia L. Sunderland and Rita M. Denny ( 2007 ) remarked,

A myriad of research techniques … (from the few-minute in-store intercept interview, to the one-hour “depth interview,” to the online focus group) have become redefined as “ethnographic” with barely any change in the underlying assumptions regarding method or analysis. Researchers have transformed themselves into “ethnographers” with few changes in practice beyond the name. (pp. 13–14)

Although these observations are specific to a single nonacademic arena, I argue that, even within the academy, the proliferation of ethnography warrants similar sentiments. In his book The Cosmopolitan Canopy (2011), Elijah Anderson defined folk ethnography as “a form of people watching that allows individuals informally to gather evidence in social interactions that supports their own viewpoints or transforms their commonsense understandings of social life” (p. xv). Although Anderson views this as a positive development, it concerns me that the distinction between folk ethnography and ethnography is blurring. In this chapter, I argue against the notion of ethnography as a qualitative research free-for-all, open for anyone, regardless of background or training, to undertake. As Diana E. Forsythe ( 1999 ) asserted, it is not “just a matter of common sense” (p. 130). Ethnography is a specific approach to research and writing about it, with a rich history and established yet evolving set of guiding principles. For those of us who take ethnography seriously, it involves training (usually through advanced coursework and mentorship), reflection, and accountability.

Historical Foundations of Ethnography

As a research tradition, ethnography’s roots are most firmly planted in the fields of anthropology and qualitative sociology: the former most often credited to the innovations of Polish-born, British-trained Bronislaw Malinowski and the latter usually attributed to a collection of researchers associated with the University of Chicago—commonly referred to as the Chicago School. Though these origin myths have been widely discussed and debated, and some treatments suggest ethnography began as early as the Greeks and Romans (Wax, 1971 ), I nevertheless cast ethnography as a relatively recent methodology, which came of age with the professionalization of both disciplines during the early decades of the 20th century.

In my chapter for the first edition of the Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research , I discussed this history in great detail (see Harrison, 2014 ) and will therefore offer only a truncated version here. 4 During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, on both sides of the Atlantic, the nascent academic field of social/cultural anthropology crystallized around a reorientation away from the traditional model of armchair theorizing and toward a serious investment in ways of going about collecting and using data. 5 The various learned societies dedicated to anthropological interests that emerged during the 19th century relied primarily on the reports of colonial administrators, military officers, missionaries, traders, and other travelers for their information. The new class of professional anthropological intellectuals who came into being through these organizations prioritized the need for more formal—and less prejudiced, sensationalized, and unequivocally racist—standards of scientific reporting. In this interest, various sets of anthropological questionnaires and field guides were developed, initially for untrained travelers but, over time, increasingly toward the goal of fostering the most “precise and exacting” methods among field anthropologists (Urry, 1972 , p. 51). The most famous of these was Notes and Queries on Anthropology , which appeared in six iterations between 1874 and 1951 (Urry, 1972 ). Another effort to circumvent the limitations of untrained, biased, and otherwise disinterested reporting involved expeditions featuring teams of specialized experts—most notably the Cambridge Torres Straits expedition of 1898 (Stocking, 1983a ) and a series of privately funded and Bureau of American Ethnology–sponsored expeditions to the American Southwest occurring throughout the late 19th century (Judd, 1967 ).

Malinowski, the famed “founding father” of ethnography (Jones, 2010 ), came to anthropology after earning a doctorate in physics and mathematics from Jagiellonian University in Poland. He arrived in England—one of the key centers of anthropological thought—at precisely the right moment to benefit from the decades-long debates regarding appropriate ethnographic data collection methods that had been taking place. A year before his arrival, in a 1909 meeting of the principals from Oxford, Cambridge, and the London School of Economics, it was decided that the term ethnography would be used in specific reference to “descriptive accounts of non-literate peoples”—as distinct from the historical and comparative-based term ethnology (Radcliffe-Brown, 1952 , p. 276). We can thus mark this meeting as arguably the first collective effort to delineate ethnography as the principle data collection method within the rapidly professionalizing field. 6

Arriving in England, Malinowski immediately connected with a small circle of scholars, dedicated to anthropological interests, calling themselves the Cambridge School. This group included Alfred Cort Haddon, William H. R. Rivers, and Charles Seligman, all of whom had participated in the 1898 Torres Straits expedition. The quality of the various anthropological writing projects Malinowski had undertaken prior to landing in England—including what would become his first book, The Family among the Australian Aborigines (1913/1963)—undoubtedly facilitated his acceptance into this distinguished group. Still, Malinowski’s emergence as the most recognized figure in the development of ethnography can largely be attributed to timing. At the time of his arrival, members of the Cambridge School were already grappling with many of the ethnographic revelations that Malinowski would eventually put forward in his seminal work, Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922/1966). Malinowski can be distinguished as the last member of the Cambridge School to conduct fieldwork prior to the outbreak of World War I (Stocking, 1983b , p. 82) and the first professionally trained anthropologist to carry out research according to the most recent methodological advances of the time (Kuper, 1996 , p. 7). Consequently, when Argonauts was published a few years after the war, it stood alone as an implementation and representation of the culmination of prewar Cambridge School theorizing.

Malinowski embarked on his South Pacific fieldwork in 1914—carrying with him the 1912 edition of Notes and Queries , which had been considerably revised by Rivers (Myers, 1923 ). After a 6-month “apprentice’s trail run” on the island of Mailu in southern New Guinea (Kuper, 1996 , p. 12), the young researcher would more famously carry out two extensive periods—of a year each, 1915–1916 and 1917–1918—in the Trobriand Islands. During his initial Mailu fieldwork, Malinowski realized that his research became more productive when isolated from the prejudicial influences of the European administrators, missionaries, and traders who were also present on the island. Writing about this experience in Argonauts , he recounted, “It was not until I was alone in the district that I began to make some headway” (Malinowski, 1922/1966 , p. 6). This revelation sparked one of Malinowski’s most notable contributions to the practice of ethnography, which George Stocking ( 1983b ) described as “a shift in the primary locus of investigation, from the deck of the mission ship or the verandah of the mission station to the teeming center of the village” (p. 93). Such a positional shift facilitated a corresponding adjustment to his ethnographic posture:

In this type of work, it is good for the Ethnographer sometimes to put aside camera, note book and pencil, and to join in himself in what is going on. 7 … Out of such plunges into the life of the native … I have carried away a distinct feeling that their behavior, their manner of being, in all sorts of tribal transactions, became more transparent and easily understandable than it had before. (Malinowski, 1922/1966 , pp. 21–22)

In his preface to Argonauts of the Western Pacific , esteemed anthropologist James George Frazier hailed it as a “remarkable record of anthropological research” by someone who had “lived as a native among the natives” (J. G. Frazier, 1922 / 1966 , p. vii). For his part, Malinowski was exceedingly deliberate in foregrounding his methodological “innovations.” Thus, the myth of Malinowski—as the first field researcher to voluntarily remove himself from colonial quarters, (essentially) cut off all ties with “civilization,” and immerse himself in the world of “savages” as a methodological imperative for understanding their world—soon took legs. His prescriptive methods for doing this included long-term residence by a trained researcher; learning the local language rather than relying on interpreters; collecting as much data as possible on as wide a range of activities as possible—from the spectacular and ceremonial to the everyday and mundane—and taking copious field notes; and, when possible, partaking in social activities as a participant observer.

One of the most rehearsed explanations of ethnography, contained within the pages of Argonauts , is Malinowski’s oft-cited goal of “grasp[ing] the native’s point of view” (Malinowski, 1922/1966 , p. 25). This decree to recognize and (to some degree) prioritize the subjectivity of non-Western peoples marked a transformative moment in how anthropology was practiced. No longer simply viewed as the objects of study, the perspectives of rational native actors provided the platform for developing anthropology’s relativist doctrines. By advocating for the internal logics underlying each culture, anthropology came to serve a critical role in exposing the prejudice and racism surrounding evaluations of cultural difference (Baker, 2010 ). 8 Together, Malinowski’s prescriptions amounted to a methodological manifesto (Strathern, 1987 ) that championed experiential modes of understanding, contextualization, and the distinction between ideal and actual behavior as signaling the capacity for agency within social structures.

In the most celebrated histories of anthropology, the idea of participant observation–based fieldwork, which is at the core of modern ethnography, came into being through these methodological advancements. Yet, the myth of the “Malinowskian Revolution” (Kuper, 1996 , p. 32) belies the tremendous effort and attention toward refining anthropological research methods that were taking place prior to his arrival in England, as well as across the Atlantic among Franz Boas and his students (see Harrison, 2014 ; Lassiter & Campbell, 2010 ). Although Malinowski was not singly responsible for inventing these ethnographic standards, his archetype status has been significant to their reification. Furthermore, his position during the interwar period as England’s “only master ethnographer” helped him to further cement his progenitor status (Kuper, 1996 , p. 1). 9 For most of the 20th century and now continuing into the 21st, the image of “going off” to a fieldwork site far removed from the university community one is a part of, for a minimum of 1 year, has been a rite of passage within sociocultural anthropology; and for much of this time, the importance of conducting research in non-Western societies—what some have critiqued as anthropology’s intrinsic process of Othering (Deloria, 1969 ; Magubane & Faris, 1985 )—was rationalized as “absolutely essential” to the development of an anthropological perspective (Mead, 1952 , p. 346).

Far and away the most celebrated ethnographic conventions practiced outside anthropology came from a collection of researchers associated with the University of Chicago’s department of sociology. Generally speaking, the Chicago School 10 formed through the combined influences of Malinowskian fieldwork methodologies and German phenomenological theory (Jones, 2010 ). Through their conceptualization of urban life as an assemblage of “natural areas” or “little communities,” researchers affiliated with the Chicago school, under the direction of Robert E. Park, imagined the city as a social laboratory through which to examine secular differences—primarily oriented around ethnicity and various forms of civic otherness. With an extensive background in newspaper work and having served as “a sort of secretary” to Tuskegee Institute founder and notable African American spokesman Booker T. Washington (Faris, 1967 , p. 28), Park arrived in Chicago in 1913 with keen interests in issues surrounding urban life, race relations, ethnic heterogeneity, and processes of assimilation. Soon thereafter, Park dedicated himself to training graduate students and, indeed, several of the most significant works to come out of the program during the interwar period were authored by his students (Blumer, 1998 ). 11

While ethnography has long-standing roots in sociology, its centrality to the discipline has never matched its position as the “hallmark methodology” of anthropology (Sunderland & Denny, 2007 , p. 13). From the outset, sociology’s ethnographic efforts were firmly intertwined with anthropology. 12 Thus, although Chicago sociologists gave a good deal of attention to particular aspects of methodological training, their most inspired forays into fieldwork were often characterized as a closer-to-home version of what anthropologists do. 13 We can see this in Park’s justifications for the kinds of research he was most interested in advancing. In an important essay advocating for the scientific value of researching the city, Park explained:

Anthropology, the science of man, has been mainly concerned up to the present with the study of primitive peoples. But civilized man is quite as interesting an object of investigation.… The same patient methods of observation which anthropologists like Boas and Lowie have expended on the study of the life and manners of the North American Indian might be even more fruitfully employed in the investigation of the customs, beliefs, social practices, and general conceptions of life prevalent in Little Italy on the lower North Side in Chicago, or in recording the more sophisticated folkways of the inhabitants of Greenwich Village and the neighborhood of Washington Square, New York. (Park, 1925/1967 , p. 3)

Years later, in describing his own attraction to this ethnographic tradition, Howard S. Becker ( 1999 ) explained, “You had all the romance of anthropology but could sleep in your own bed and eat decent food” (p. 8).

Still, the model of urban-based fieldwork put forth by Chicago School sociologists was an important predecessor to the way ethnography is thought of and practiced today. For much of the 20th century, anthropological field research focused on small, isolated communities where it was possible to get to know most members, map out kinship relations, and, at least, imagine that one was getting a comprehensive portrayal of society. 14 In the early 21st century, virtually all ethnographers adopt a topic-oriented approach, which focuses on one or more specified aspects of and/or social networks within what are understood to be much more complex and globally interconnected societies. As a result of the metropolitan settings of their research, urban sociologists, unlike their colleagues in anthropology, were compelled to acknowledge that they were dealing with specific dimensions of social life and/or subcultures that were situated within larger societal contexts.

The origins of ethnography as a professionalized methodological (research) and representational (writing) practice are most squarely situated within the discipline of anthropology. Recognizing these foundations in no way implies that ethnography is the exclusive purview of anthropology or, for that matter, that anthropologists should have exclusive right in determining what does and does not qualify as ethnography (Atkinson, 2017 ). Indeed, some of the most significant methodological considerations leading up to ethnography’s now-standard insistence on reflexivity (see the section Ethnographic Comportment) issued from the application of sociology’s symbolic interactionist theories to circumstances surrounding the ethnographic encounter (Berreman, 1962 ; Junker, 1960 ); and today many of the most exciting works surrounding ethnography issue from transdisciplinary spaces. I therefore echo Magdalena Kazubowski-Houston and Virginie Magnat’s ( 2017 ) call for “coalition and collaboration between like-minded ethnographers across the social-sciences, the arts, and the humanities” (p. 11). Yet these historical foundations continue to serve as methodological anchors for ethnographers.

Ethnography as Methodology

In discussing ethnography, commentators sometimes incorrectly treat it as a method rather than a methodology. The difference is significant. A method is simply a tool or technique used to collect and/or analyze data. Ethnographers typically utilize a variety of tools and techniques during the course of their research, including but not limited to establishing rapport; selecting informants; using a range of interview and/or focus group forms; making observations—both participatory and nonparticipatory—and writing field notes based on them; conducting surveys, genealogies, and domain analyses; mapping fields; transcribing texts; and coding data. 15 In contrast, methodologies are established norms of inquiry that are by and large adhered to within distinct research traditions. A methodology, therefore, involves theoretical, ethical, political, and at times moral orientations to research, which guide the decisions researchers make, including their choice of methods. Accordingly, it can be thought of as a philosophy of research practice, analysis, and description. Later in the chapter, I detail three of the most fundamental methods that ethnographers commonly utilize—namely, participant observation, field-note writing, and ethnographic interviews. However, first I outline several key attributes that, in my view, contribute to any instance of research being ethnographic and then highlight three philosophical positions—or what I call paradigms —that ethnographers orient themselves in relation to when conducting research.

Ethnographic Attributes

In this section I outline five essential priorities that distinguish ethnography. I offer these, in part, as a corrective to what I regard as the casual and commonplace misappropriation of it as a stand-in for all types of qualitative research (Kazubowski-Houston & Magnat, 2017 ). Building on my earlier definition, these attributes should be regarded as important orienting principles that scholars trained in ethnography and aware of its historicity hold in common.

Ethnography and Culture

Harry F. Wolcott asserted that the critical attribute distinguishing ethnography from other forms of qualitative research is a focus on describing and interpreting cultural behavior. In other words, at its core an ethnography must include an intentional engagement with and “working resolution” toward understanding culture (Wolcott, 1987 , p. 45). Wolcott called this ethnographic intent . The specifics of this “working resolution” may vary. Culture, according to Stephen A. Tyler ( 1969 ), provides the framework for recognizing and describing how “people make order out of what appears … to be utter chaos” (p. 6). Yet for the inquiring ethnographer, culture might be conceptualized as being revealed through people’s behaviors, the expressed ideals that guide such behaviors, or the discovery of underlying frameworks through which situational choices are made. Each of these, or some combination, can have implications for how ethnographic researchers go about their craft.

Debates over a precise definition of culture notwithstanding, ethnography has traditionally rested on a principle of cultural comparison, perhaps best reflected in the anthropological maxim of “making the strange familiar and the familiar strange.” For earlier generations of ethnographers—primarily anthropologists and sociologists (see the section Historical Foundations of Ethnography)—this was accomplished by traveling to starkly different social settings, which brought about the inevitable comparisons with the home “culture” (as the term was then understood 16 ). As the lens of ethnographic inquiry expanded to include spaces and places that did not initially appear to be particularly distinct from the ethnographer’s home (Messerschmidt, 1981 ), this comparative mode of sense-making became more implicit than explicit. The native ethnographer, for instance, conducting research in her own community, would appear to start from the same cultural foundations as the people she (participant) observes. Yet, as a trained ethnographer—someone who has read cultural theory and been exposed to several cross-cultural ethnographic studies—she makes sense of her observations in relation to the wealth of documented scholarship on cultural diversity. 17 Thus, she is less likely to generalize distinct cultural practices as the “normal way” people do things and more apt to frame her observations and understandings in conversation with foundational and recent thinking about culture.

Ethnography and Contextualization

Ethnographies prioritize contextualization, meaning that particular people and the situations they find themselves in are best understood in relation to broader factors that impact them—including, but not limited to, historical, local, political, economic, and religious factors. Anthropology, in particular, has historically recognized interconnections and mutual influences between various aspects of social life—or what anthropologists call holism . Following from this, ethnographers take an open-minded, inductive approach to what might potentially be considered data. In other fields of research where deductive reasoning —that is, the idea that truth follows from a sequence of conditional premises that can be empirically verified—is prioritized, efforts are made to silence external noises in the interest of focusing on what researchers determine are the most salient factors and variables. The inductive reasoning that guides ethnographic research starts from the assumption that such noises have consequence—they not only impact social conditions but also, at times, reflect deeper structural workings of culture.

Contextualization also impacts situational constructions of meaning. To illustrate what I mean here, I turn to the work of Clifford Geertz ( 1973 ), who famously defined ethnography as “an elaborate venture in … ‘thick description’ ” (p. 6). Referencing a thought experiment conducted by philosopher Gilbert Ryle ( 1971 ), Geertz elaborated on thick description through the example of a rapidly contracting eyelid. Whether such action amounts to an involuntary twitch of the eye or a “conspiratorial signal to a friend” (i.e., a wink) is entirely contextual. Accordingly, a thin description of behavior—“her left eye blinked”—tells us very little. Through understanding such things as the circumstances under which the blink occurred, the intention of the blinker, the prevalent social codes that may or may not mark the blink as meaningful, and whether this meaning was received and understood, we get a better sense of what is going on. Thick description, then, in the words of anthropologist Karin Narayan ( 2012 ), can be summarized as “layering meaning into closely observed details” (p. 8). Noticing and describing something as subtle and instantaneous as a blink requires careful attention to detail; it means observing social life with the same heightened sensitivity that we use when perceiving works of art (Willis, 2000 ). Yet, without proper contextualization, such descriptions have limited ethnographic value.

Ethnography as Iterative

In addition to being governed by inductive principles—meaning that research “starts from the data rather than from a hypothesis to be tested, or even from a fixed research question” (Hammersley, 2008 , p. 69)—ethnography proceeds as an iterative mode of inquiry. By this I mean that ethnographers continually re-engage with their research questions, fundamental assumptions, methods of inquiry, and accumulated data toward the goal of refining their work—which can sometimes include making a radical change in direction. Consequently, ethnographic research designs must be flexible enough to allow for the expected surprises and misadventures that arise when an individual (serving as a research instrument) engages in the daily lives of other people—who are inevitably continuing along the unforeseeable journeys that are their lives—for a prolonged period of time. Even at its most scientific, ethnography is resolutely a human science conducted in a real-world laboratory. As such, the ethnographic enterprise is saturated with circumstances, situations, and personalities that are unanticipated and often uncontrollable. Barbara Tedlock ( 2000 ) elaborated:

No matter how much care the ethnographer devotes to the project, its success depends upon more than individual effort. It is tied to outside forces, including local, national, and sometimes even international relationships that make research possible as well as to a readership that accepts the endeavor as meaningful. (p. 466)

Indeed, one of the most predictable aspects of ethnographic research is its unpredictability, so much so that statements along the lines of “I began my research intending to study X but wound up studying Y ” are now standard ethnographic writing conventions. I would go so far as to suggest that an absence of such sentiments (i.e., everything working out according to plan) is greeted with more suspicion than their presence.

Recognizing how ethnographic data and interpretation evolve simultaneously, James Spradley ( 1980 ) offered a cyclical model of ethnographic inquiry—what he calls the ethnographic research cycle —as distinct from the linear research models (i.e., define the problem, formulate hypotheses, gather and analyze data, draw conclusions) found in the other social sciences. According to Spradley ( 1980 ), each phase of ethnographic inquiry (data collection and analysis) informs new questions:

The cycle cannot wait until you have collected a large amount of data.… You need to analyze your fieldnotes after each period of fieldwork in order to know what to look for during the next period of participant observation. (pp. 33–34)

As such, a strict sequence of prescribed methods will not suffice. Ethnography achieves virtue and vitality through its lack of prescription, by continuously straddling the line between structured research design and improvised inquisitive adventure. Gary Alan Fine and James G. Deegan ( 1996 ) described ethnography as “a puzzle of mysterious design” that is “only known when the researcher has decided that it is close enough to completion” (p. 441). Through iterative processes of tacking back and forth between experiences and reflections, ethnographers piece together their research projects.

Ethnography then should be thought of as involving iterative–inductive–inscription practices . 18 It is iterative in the sense that it involves recurrently engaging with theory, data, and analysis (O’Dell & Willim, 2011 ); it is inductive in that ethnographers approach this engagement with open minds and few preconceptions about where data will lead them; and it is inscriptive in foregrounding writing as its principal mode of recording data, analyzing data, and representing social life (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005 ).

Ethnography and Empathy

The ethnographic project is variously empathetic. Through intersubjective engagements—most notably via participant observation—ethnographers aspire to “imaginatively experience the feelings, thoughts, and situation” (Davis, 2014 , p. 6) of people they work among. As such, ethnography encourages a degree of intimacy between researcher and researched that, at its best, recognizes and appreciates their mutual implication in the production of knowledge (Lassiter, 2005 ; Sluka & Robben, 2012 ). Ethnographers’ commitments to the people and communities they conduct research among are both moral and political. Academically situated ethnographers—on the basis of their training, disciplinary identities, and institutional affiliations—are mandated to protect the interests of the people and communities they work among by following institutional and disciplinary guidelines surrounding research, most notably those pertaining to informed consent, deception , and confidentiality . 19 In addition, trained and invested ethnographers recognize their charge to reveal, unsettle, and at times undermine the institutions and forces through which social inequalities are maintained and perpetuated. Thus, ethnographers are consistently attentive to the interests of disempowered groups. When working among such groups, these commitments to social justice result in alliances and recognitions of researched communities’ roles in evaluating the quality of ethnographies (Harrison, 2018 ). In contrast, when working among power-wielding groups—what Laura Nader ( 1972 ) called studying up —ethnographers should feel some obligation to use their position and access to uncover and even disrupt the workings of power. This can take many forms. However, its absence—for example, using conventional ethnographic methods for the explicit purpose of perpetuating social inequalities—in these enlightened times 20 is simply not ethnography.

This notion of ethnographic empathy also pertains to the reception of works ethnographers produce. Ethnographic authors write toward the of goal of enabling their readers to envision themselves walking in someone else’s shoes and, what is more, to grasp people’s perspectives and understand their behaviors as resulting from alternative (or previously unrecognized) cultural logics. Ethnographers’ written accounts communicate person-to-person sentiments—inviting readers to imagine the situated interests and actions of someone else. Resembling, to some degree, how a politician might use a handful of personal stories to communicate something about the state of a nation during a national address, 21 the most evocative ethnographic writings utilize sentimentality and emotion in detailing individual’s stories and particular episodes. As such, their representational power lies in their informational richness and ability to communicate affect , as opposed to other research traditions that prioritize statistical validity or theoretical applicability. Indeed, by providing compelling testimonies, which embrace the emotionality and messiness of real life (Law, 2004 ), ethnographies do more to complicate and therefore advance existing theories than to straightforwardly confirm them.

Ethnography and Narrative

Storytelling saturates ethnography. Ethnographers collect stories from people firsthand, on their own terms, or in such close proximity to them that they powerfully reflect something about the way culturally situated actors move through their worlds (Turner, 2007 ). As researchers, we invite such stories through open-ended ethnographic interviews (see the section Ethnographic Interviews) where participants are asked to share their personal histories, their perspectives, and/or what is most meaningful to them about a given topic. Ethnographers are also told personal narratives while building rapport and deeply hanging out (Wogan, 2004 )—for example, when getting a ride home from an open-microphone event (Harrison, 2009 , p. 64) or while sharing cramped living spaces (Holmes, 2013 ). In addition, ethnographers are regularly featured actors in the stories they recount. Contemporary ethnography mandates degrees of reflexivity and transparency, both of which demand that researchers share aspects of their personal stories and provide some accounting of the research experiences that led them to know what they know. These stories—often culled from interview transcripts or field journals or pieced together from various sources (Brand, 2007 )—get recirculated, re-created, or re-placed, sometimes verbatim, in ethnographic texts.

Ethnographers are foremost writers. A primary aspect of their data collection involves writing field notes (see the section Field-Note Writing). In crafting these and other data into finished works, they indulge ethnography’s aspirations and ability to reach broad audiences and to communicate sophisticated meanings through artful storytelling and other experimental modes of academic writing. As a thickly descriptive research genre, ethnographic texts may, at times, appear to threaten too much information; however, when done well, the layered meanings activated through such dense contextualization circle back to show their relevance. Accordingly, ethnographic writing should be undertaken as a writerly endeavor—meaning that authors acknowledge the intelligence of their readers and, therefore, allow space for them to construct their own meanings and make their own sense of certain aspects of an ethnographic account. 22

The Story of the College Visit

A few years after completing my dissertation, I was invited to speak to an anthropology class at a small liberal arts college where I was giving a guest lecture. The students had read a short piece—recounting the story of a gathering in Golden Gate Park following an open-microphone event—that would become the introduction to my first book, Hip Hop Underground (Harrison, 2009 ). 23 I spent a few minutes talking about my research in relation to the passage and then opened the floor for questions. A few questions in, a young man raised his hand and began explaining how he had grown up in San Francisco, had probably “partied” on the same Golden Gate Park picnic tables that I mentioned in my piece, and was someone who considered hip-hop close to his heart. At this point, he looked away, focusing on the paper on his desk and, in thoughtful, measured tones explained that whenever he read an academic piece on hip-hop he found himself getting defensive. Mine was the first piece he had read where he did not have that feeling. “That’s ethnography,” I said.

Paradigmatic Plasticity

Throughout the course of their research and writing, ethnographers orient themselves around certain theoretical, ethical, and political commitments. At their foundation, these commitments involve questions of ontology (concerning the nature of reality), epistemology (how we know what we know), and axiology (relating to morals and values). Following Patricia Leavy ( 2009 ), I use paradigm as an umbrella term that encompasses the range of philosophical stances, assumptions, and goals that surround research endeavors. Although the philosophies guiding ethnographic research are quite often unstated, at moments when they come into conflict the results can be explosive.

The Story of the Conference Incident

Several years ago, I attended an interdisciplinary conference where, in response to a few last-minute cancelations, the organizers decided to combine two panels. This made sense at the time. First, although the panel topics were different, they overlapped under the broader theme of the conference. Second, a single panel would attract a larger audience for all of the presentations—indeed, by the time I arrived it was standing room only. Last, such a move would spare one presenter from the awkwardness of being the lone panelist in a 90-minute session. However, in deciding to combine panels, the organizers overlooked or chose to ignore the paradigmatic differences informing the respective audiences that would be drawn to each panel. This did not become an issue until the final presentation: a masterful explication on the functionality of various strategies for alleviating conflict among competing social groups. During the question-and-answer period, an audience member—who had obviously come to see presentations initially slated for the other panel—questioned the researcher’s right to reduce people’s behaviors to such all-too-neat formulations, the evidentiary basis on which his claims were being made, as well as his investment in the communities through which, in making his academic career, he appeared to be profiting from. Chaos ensued as the two parties went back and forth in a heated exchange—with the accused researcher at one point even blurting out, “You don’t know me!” Thankfully, there were only a few minutes left in the session. As the panel came to a close, various colleagues approached the two combatants to endorse their action and/or console, as appropriate.

As a research tradition, ethnography straddles multiple paradigms. With its roots in anthropology—regarded as the most humanistic of social sciences and the most scientific of humanities (Redfield, 1953 )—such paradigmatic plasticity is to be expected. Yet, as ethnographic practices have migrated to a wide range of academic disciplines and interdisciplinary spaces, the potential for paradigmatic disputes over what is and what is not “good” and/or legitimate research has become more pronounced.

By my reckoning, both parties involved in the conference incident would rightly consider their work ethnographic. Yet where activities of research (i.e., methods) may appear similar, the foundational philosophies of knowledge (i.e., epistemologies) and ideas about how it should be applied through endeavors labeled “research” can look radically different.

In considering different paradigmatic orientations surrounding qualitative inquiry, Thomas Schwandt ( 2000 ) highlighted three areas of concern that are instructive for my discussion of ethnography. I adapt them here:

Cognitive concerns surrounding how to define, justify, and legitimize claims to understanding.

Social concerns regarding (in this case) the goals of ethnography.

Moral concerns as to how to “envision and occupy the ethical space” between ethnographers and those they research in responsible, obligatorily aware, and status conscious ways (see Schwandt, 2000 , p. 200).

Before briefly outlining some of the paradigms that surround ethnography, I offer a few caveats. Whereas defining and labeling paradigmatic frameworks is useful, it would be a mistake to give too much attention to trying to fit a particular researcher or even an instance of ethnographic research neatly into one category. Ethnographic experience is perpetually ephemeral, meaning that at times ethnographers are prone to move, transform, and shape shift between different paradigmatic classifications. Attempts to categorize also tend to highlight differences over time and disciplinary space. While differences clearly exist—the above-mentioned conference incident stands as a testament to this—the need to neatly place individuals or projects in particular boxes closes down the possibility of also seeing commonalities and furthermore belies the nuanced nature and theoretic eclecticism of ethnographic inquiry. Nonetheless, in what follows, I discuss three philosophical traditions that ethnographers might move between and draw from as paradigmatic resources.

Positivism is premised on a belief in what is referred to as naive realism —that is, the notion that there is a reality out there that can be grasped through sensory perception. As such, it holds empirical data—that which is produced though direct observations—as definitive evidence through which to construct claims to truth. In doing so, positivism prioritizes objectivity, assuming that it is possible for a researcher to detach him- or herself from values, interests, or the clouding contamination of bias and prejudice. Following this formula, good research is achieved through conventional rigor—that is, dutifully following a prescribed, systematic series of steps surrounding data accumulation and analysis. In that positivism recognizes a fundamental (capital “T”) Truth, which it is believed researchers can apprehend, researchers anchored in this tradition are more prone to concern themselves with questions of transferability (i.e., can the findings from one setting be applied to another?) and generalizability (i.e., can the findings from a particular context be generalized to the whole?) on the assumption that such Truth has potential relevance for a broad range of social circumstances and cultural contexts. Although few, if any, contemporary ethnographers would define themselves as strict positivists, it is nonetheless important to discuss positivism as foundational to any social scientific enterprise. To some extent, outlining the tenets of strict positivism may be useful in explaining what most ethnographers are not. However, before dismissing it too quickly, I should point out that, particularly with regard to the mandates of certain gatekeepers of credible research reporting, ethnography is not as far removed from its positivist principles as some of its practitioners would like to think. Postpositivist orientations 24 toward valuing empirical evidence, making efforts toward detached objectivism, and deductive reasoning continue to carry weight, even if researchers are less confident about their conclusions.

Interpretivism

Interpretivism, which issues from an acknowledgment of the constructed nature of all social reality, recognizes no single all-encompassing Truth, but rather multiple (small “t”) truths that are the products of human subjectivities. Thus, cultural and contextual specifics are critical to understanding, and inductive reasoning becomes the privileged path to making sense of unwieldy social realities. Reality, which is shaped by experience, thus becomes something to be interpreted. Such interpretivism sees human action as inherently meaningful with meanings being processual, temporal, and historically unfinished. The subjectivity of the ethnographer is quite consequential here. Under any form of interpretivism, the outcomes of researcher bias are acknowledged. Sometimes efforts are made to mitigate researchers’ subjectivities. Such techniques might involve reflexive journaling, inventorying subjectivities, and other attempts to manage and track bias (Schwandt, 2000 , p. 207n11). Yet, increasingly, interpretivist approaches accept that within ethnography the human is the research instrument and, as such, cultural, social, and personal frames of reference are inescapable.

Critical Research

The critical research paradigm focuses on the workings of power, with attention to axes including (but not limited to) race, gender, ethnicity, age, class, sexuality, and differential abilities. As opposed to the positivist stance of neutrality and detachment, critical researchers distinguish themselves by their personal and sometimes emotional investment in the welfare of the individuals and communities they work among. Critical researchers are committed to using their research to empower such communities by working with them to create meaningful social change. 25 As such, they aspire to make the processes surrounding research transparent to both the communities they work among and their various audiences. Critical perspectives emerged in connection with various social movements of the 1960s and 1970s and, accordingly, are often fashioned as a form of scholar activism. Recently, participant action and collaboration have become key methodological imperatives shaping the relationships formed around various critical research projects. Through such developments, questions regarding who initiates research, controls its direction, and owns its products have become vitally important.

Ethnographers do not just take part in the daily lives of the people they conduct research among; as a consequence of their participation, they impact people’s lives and, in turn, are implicated in them. It is therefore difficult to separate cognitive, social, and moral concerns surrounding research. All are influenced by the research paradigm(s) the ethnographer observes. Paradigmatic orientations affect the entire ethnographic process, starting with the ways research is conceived of and designed, what qualifies as data, and ultimately how such data are treated.

Through the previous discussion of paradigms and essential attributes, I have drawn attention to ethnography as a research methodology, as opposed to a method. Again, this distinction is important to my effort to differentiate ethnography from qualitative field research more generally. Nevertheless, when someone mentions doing ethnographic research, a handful of research activities (or methods) come to mind. These include having sustained contact with a community of people through participant observation, writing field notes, and (usually) interviewing. In the following sections, I give each of these research conventions additional consideration.

Participant Observation

Participant observation, as the term suggests, refers to a research disposition somewhere between full participation, just like (or as) a member of a community, and strictly observing. While participant observation is often conceptualized as a location on a continuum between these two extremes—with ideally some level of balance 26 —I believe it is better thought of as a simultaneous process that oscillates between varying degrees of participation and observation. Such oscillations occur both situationally and temporally. In the case of the latter, they might take place in the context of a particular event or more generally over the course of different research phases. Participant observation has historically been championed as providing the virtues of both an insider’s (participant) and an outsider’s (observer) perspective. As a foundation of ethnographic understanding, a discussion of this insider/outsider binary is instructive even if such neat distinctions rarely, if ever, exist in the lived world.

Whereas a recognized goal of ethnography is to grasp people’s understandings of their world, since its inception the primary means of achieving this goal has been through experiential understanding. Writing in his introduction to Argonauts , Malinowski (1922/1966, p. 5) recalled that, to “get … the hang of tribal life,”

I had to learn how to behave, and to a certain extent, I acquired “the feeling” for native good and bad manners. With this, and with the capacity of enjoying their company and sharing some of their games and amusements, I began to feel that I was indeed in touch with the natives, and this is certainly the preliminary condition of being able to carry on successful field work. (p. 8)

Yet to simply grasp the native’s point of view is often not enough. Ethnographers have long recognized that “those cultural features of a particular society that are the most deeply ingrained are the least likely to be explicated and questioned by native members themselves” (Wengle, 1988 , p. xvii). As a consequence of ethnocentrism —that is, the tendency for all people to position their own cultural beliefs and practices at the center of their worldview (i.e., to see them as “normal”)—native members of a cultural group are at times blind to many of the most salient aspects of their lifeways. 27 Thus, a flexible and situated position somewhere between an insider and an outsider is typically upheld as ideal.

As a practice, participant observation involves an inherent critique of interviewing. Although interviewing is fundamental to most ethnographic projects, advocates of participant observation are quick to point out that, if the goal is to understand behaviors and worldviews in their cultural context, interviews alone will not suffice. There is usually some disjuncture between what people do and what they say they do. At one level, this can be seen as a distinction between ideal and actual behavior. In an interview setting, people are more likely to shade their representations of behaviors toward cultural ideals. For example, studies point out the tendency among Americans to underreport the amount of alcohol they consume (Rathje & Murphy, 1992 ). Whether consciously underreported or not, this pattern is likely connected to the cultural ideal against drinking too much. Yet even in circumstances where a strong cultural ideal is not in play, people’s behaviors amount to more than what they choose or are able to tell an interviewer in the context of an interview. Native language speakers, for example, would have considerable difficulty explaining the rules to their language or how they know what they know without additional linguistic training. Even in a situation where both conditions are met (someone is aware and can explain ), an interviewee must make decisions about what to emphasize and what to ignore or gloss over. Such choices might lead them to steer clear of topics that the interviewer would find salient. 28

To return to the drinking example, in particular settings where the ability to consume a lot of alcohol is linked to status, it may be likely that quantities will be overreported. Of course, such settings are usually informal, are semiexclusive, and involve peer groups—for example, the stereotypical morning after the college fraternity party. Another advantage of participant observation over interviewing alone is that it provides access to these interior spaces. Fieldworkers achieve this by locating such spaces, gaining access (including building rapport), and, notably, spending time there. The famous Hawthorne studies on worker productivity found that people tend to alter their behavior for short periods of time under the scrutiny of a researcher or observer (Landsberger, 1958 ). Such reactivity can jeopardize ethnography’s aspirations for naturalistic inquiry. Thus, an ideal, if nearly unattainable, goal of participant observation is that the researcher becomes familiar enough within the research setting that everyday life proceeds as if he or she was not there. Factors surrounding this include duration of time in a setting, resemblance between researcher and members of the researched community, and level of participation.

Duration of Time in the Setting

The general rule is that the longer a researcher stays in “the field,” the more accustomed people become to his or her presence—not to mention the greater the understanding of what is going on. Yet this is conditional. Wolcott ( 1987 ) pointed out that, “based on any one researcher’s skill, sensitivity, problem, and setting, optimum periods of fieldwork may vary” (p. 39). Nevertheless, it is worth noting that within anthropology the Malinowski-derived standard has been a minimum of 1 year in the field.

Resemblance between Researcher and Members of the Researched Community

This resemblance includes both physical and social resemblances. Greater resemblance, in theory, facilitates “life as usual,” whereas notable differences are a perpetual reminder that there is a researcher present. Some of the most recognizable differences concern race, language proficiency, decisions regarding self-presentation, and, in certain instances, age and gender.

Level of Participation

This, in part, depends on the researcher’s aspirations—for example, a researcher may aspire to a stance that, at different times, involves full participation or minimum participation (Junker, 1960 ). At the same time, and in conjunction with the previously noted factors, the various communities researchers engage have differing levels of accessibility and inclinations toward hospitality (e.g., insisting that someone “join in”); and beyond language alone, researchers have different competencies 29 —all of which can impact their level of participation.

In sum, participant observation is simultaneously the most fundamental, complex, and uncertain method of ethnographic research. Its temporal parameters can range from strictly designated fieldwork outings—for example, a few hours in the field on a weekday afternoon—to an all-consuming living experience (24 hours a day) spanning several years. Its spatial parameters can be as narrow as a Midwest college bar (Spradley & Mann, 1975 ), as broad as multiple sites across a global landscape (Wulff, 1998 ), and as amorphous as translocal (Gupta & Ferguson, 1997 ) and virtual (Nardi, 2010 ) fields of activity. 30 While a good deal of planning goes into participant observation research projects, the combination of its ill-defined parameters and the fact that it plays out in the lived world render it difficult to forecast and, consequently, a largely improvised endeavor.

Field-Note Writing

A second principal method of ethnographic research is the creation and management of ethnographic field notes. These systematic in-the-field writings are inextricably linked to participant observation in that they serve as the primary means of recording the detailed observations and insights gleaned through such experiences. Accordingly, the quality and character of field-note writing have implications on an ethnographer’s ability to accurately and effectively report research findings. 31 Historically, field notes received little methodological attention. Like ethnography more generally, their resemblance to people’s everyday activities—particularly the act of keeping a personal journal or diary—cultivated the belief that instructions to simply “write down everything you see and hear” would suffice. In the literature that has since emerged on field-note writing, there is no consensus on a single correct method. I would advise any researcher to use the available methodological prescripts as guidelines but to develop particular routines and procedures that align with their own best writing habits as well as the specific circumstances of research. Nevertheless, a handful of best practices consistently show up in the literature and together illustrate why field-note writing and keeping a diary are not one and the same.

Schedule a significant amount of time each day or soon after each fieldwork “outing” to write field notes. Details fade with the passage of time, so do not unnecessarily delay field-note writing. In a full-immersion fieldwork situation—where participant observation comprises the entirety of one’s living experience—this practice of writing field notes (i.e., articulating and reflecting on observations and experiences) can be thought of as the major nonparticipatory endeavor that the researcher consistently engages in.

Employ jottings or “scratch notes” (Sanjek, 1990 , p. 96)—that is, quickly scribbled words or phrases, written in the context of participant observing, intended to jog one’s memory when writing. A researcher should always carry a small notebook or some equivalent jot-recording technology (e.g., a small handheld recorder). Additionally, when observing/experiencing the world with the intention of documenting it through field-note writing, it is important to rely on all one’s senses and not merely vision alone. Sounds, smells, tastes, and touches can all be powerful means to creating scenes on a page.

Organize different approaches to field-note writing categorically. For example, Emerson et al. (2011, pp. 57–79) discussed four general field-note subcategories: (a) descriptions based on concrete sensory details of physical spaces, people, objects, or actions, (b) dialogues between people, (c) characterizations portraying how a person acts and lives, and (d) narratives involving either sketches (i.e., snapshots) of a setting/character or episodes illustrated through continuous action and interaction. In all of these categories, it is important for the field-note writer to distinguish between that which is concrete and/or directly observed—for example, verbatim quotes—and that which is inferred, approximated, or logically assumed (Bailey, 2017 ). Field notes can additionally take the form of methodological notes (highlighting research techniques used and/or planned), analytic notes (periodic forays into conceptual understandings that strive to approximate professional writing 32 ), and personal notes (therapeutic and potentially revealing outlets for discussing one’s relationships, feelings, and emotions).

Ethnographic Interviews

Ethnographers typically conduct interviews as a primary method of research. However, whereas participant observation is so central to ethnography that some well-practiced scholars might be forgiven for simply—and in my view, mistakenly—equating the two, interview-based research and ethnography are distinctly different (Becker & Geer, 1957 ; Lamont & Swidler, 2014 ). Ethnographers, like most qualitative researchers, conduct interviews, but, unlike participant observation, interviews alone do not come close to approximating ethnography.

Ethnographic interviewing is distinct from what I will call general interview-based research in several ways. First, ethnographic interviews typically take place after a researcher has been in the field for some period of time. Ethnographers do not enter the field assuming they know what is most important; firsthand experience in a social arena is thought to facilitate better interview questions (O’Reilly, 2012 ). It is furthermore presumed that a level of familiarity between researcher and researched, and perhaps even mutual respect, leads to better research collaborations.

Second, ethnographers understand and at times analyze interviews as speech events—meaning that an interview is more than just a transcript of questions and answers. Contextual factors including (but not limited to) place, time, body language, fluidity of dialogue, and prior relationship between interviewer and interviewee may all have a bearing on the way an interview plays out (O’Reilly, 2012 ). In fact, an ethnographer may find as much value in what a person chooses not to talk about as in what they emphasize. Additionally, the texture of statements—such things as inflection, accent, volume, and cadence—combined with context, can often alter the literal meaning of what is said.

Finally, some ethnographers consider everyday dialogue with people in the field as a form of informal interviewing. If an interview is defined as a consciously initiated verbal exchange through which a researcher—primarily via questions and answers—learns from the people they conduct research among about a given topic, we must be cognizant of the fact that, during the course of participant observation–based fieldwork, these types of exchanges take place all the time. At what point does asking someone how to take the bus downtown or inquiring, over coffee, about why someone did not join his or her sister in visiting a relative turn into an interview? The point is, with participant observation research, these distinctions are conditional and often undefined.

Participant observation, field-note writing, and ethnographic interviewing are by no means the only research methods ethnographers employ. The data collection techniques of ethnographic research are often determined pragmatically in relation to theoretical orientations, research questions, and the availability and appropriateness of various options. Ethnographers also gather and analyze pieces of material culture, make nonparticipatory behavioral observations; record videos; take photographs; engage in community mapping; conduct surveys, genealogies, and domain analyses; and examine archival documents, censuses, and various media materials, in addition to a range of other methods. Nevertheless, participant observations, the field notes they inspire, and interviewing comprise the core practices of most ethnographic researchers.

Ethnographic Comportment

As a final framework for understanding ethnography and what distinguishes it from other forms of participant observation–based field research, I introduce the idea of ethnographic comportment as a politics of positionality, which bears on an ethnographer’s conduct and demeanor throughout the research and writing process. The critical awarenesses that underly ethnographic comportment, in many respects, are extensions of ethnography’s now-standard mandate for reflexivity. Generally speaking, reflexivity in ethnography amounts to an awareness of “one’s own role in the construction of social life as [ethnographic research] unfolds” (O’Reilly, 2012 , p. 11). It involves “a continual internal dialogue and critical self-evaluation” regarding one’s positionality, assumptions, and agendas (Berger, 2015 , p. 220). The origins of reflexivity can be traced to ethnographers’ postwar rise in self-consciousness (Nash & Wintrob, 1972 ), which was fully realized with anthropology’s 1980s postmodern turn (Clifford & Marcus, 1986 ; Marcus & Fischer, 1986 ). In the early 21st century, reflexivity is thought of as both an important aspect of ethnographic knowledge production and a means to assessing research accountability and validity. Trained ethnogra phers are well aware of this—to the point, perhaps, where reflexivity becomes embodied knowledge or a part of who we are.

Ethnographic training also includes familiarity with ethnography’s history and key debates (McGranahan, 2014 ). This history began during the colonial era at a time when, according to Kathleen Gough ( 1968 ), “Western nations were making their final push to bring practically the whole pre-industrial non-Western world under their political and economic control” (p. 401). Anthropologists, particularly, are well schooled in this history and, as a foundation of contemporary disciplinary training, debate the extent to which past ethnographers were willingly and/or unwillingly complicit in furthering it (see Lewis, 2013 ). Ethnographers working in sociology observe a similar tradition of researching marginalized urban communities (Vidich & Lyman, 2000 ) and representing them in ways, or through analytical categories, that were often not consistent with their self-understandings and/or best interests.

Training in ethnography should also incorporate considerations of the power dynamics that continue to shape ethnographic encounters (Koivunen, 2010 ; Wolfe, 1996 ). These critical awarenesses inspire sensibilities that ethnographers carry with them throughout the research enterprise. I am in no position to prescribe the exact decisions and actions that follow from such awarenesses. Does the White British ethnographer researching in Ghana meaningfully grapple with the politics surrounding the favorable attention she receives as a European in Africa, or does she simply explain that Ghanaians are nice and she had no trouble building rapport? Does she struggle with the historical implications of potentially projecting her own frames of understanding onto contemporary Abron music practices or does she simply report what she understands she is seeing and move on? The choice is up to the ethnographer; however, it should be made with some understanding of and critical reflection on the enterprise she is taking part in. To summarize, ethnographic comportment involves a historical awareness and reflexive self-awareness of one’s participation in ethnography as a research tradition. Following João de Pina-Cabral’s ( 1992 ) assertion that ethnographers match what they observe “against the accumulated knowledge of [their] discipline” (p. 6), I maintain that such knowledge increasingly includes a critical outlook on both the historical and the resonating fault lines of ethnography as practiced.

At a moment when the (mis)use of ethnography as an umbrella term for any and all qualitative research threatens its integrity, researchers who are seriously invested in ethnography are reflexive of their participation in this research tradition. Accordingly, they adopt a disposition of accountability for their role in advancing rejuvenated and/or progressive forms of ethnographic practice. Throughout the process of research, ethnographers are (self-)conscious about how they comport themselves in relation to their research and the people they are researching among; they are also conscious—albeit often abstractly—of the end product that they are working toward. Such textual awareness (Van Maanen, 2011 ) influences their decision-making throughout the various, flexible, and often unforeseeable stages of an ethnographic project. When their work is finished, they hope that both their in-the-field conduct and their written ethnography will be regarded as good (see Harrison, 2018 ) and, in the best of instances, that the latter will contribute to furthering the ethnographic tradition in positive ways.

In sum, ethnographic comportment is predicated on the idea that the embodied knowledge a researcher has accrued through disciplinary and methodological training guides them, as a form of improvised analysis, throughout the ethnographic enterprise toward the goal of producing work that is valued in its own right, (usually) by the researched community, and as part of the ethnographic tradition.

At a time when the proliferation of ethnography threatens to untether it from its core commitments and fundamental modes of inquiry, I see a pressing need to reprofessionalize ethnography by calling attention to its historical foundations, outlining its central practices and research principles, and presenting new frameworks, which I believe are helpful in grasping and gauging its contemporary significance. An awareness of ethnography’s history—its complicated engagements with colonialism and progressive humanism—should inform all efforts to move it forward. Beyond key practices like participant observation, field-note writing, and ethnographic interviewing, ethnography is marked by its attention to culture as an explanatory construct, lavish contextualization, iterative modes of data collection and analysis, empathetic engagements, and abundant storytelling. In embracing these attributes, ethnographers thoughtfully observe, reflect on, and represent the complexities of social life and culturally situated perspectives of people.

Ethnographers are not particularly adept at problem solving, in large part because the knowledge they procure, produce, and distribute is expansive, conditional, and historically unfinished. While “bucolic wise men” gather at the village store and resolve gun control debates or immigration issues in minutes, the ethnographer among them is perpetually suspicious of such quick answers. She understands that her job is to listen for meaning. She may participate—to extend the dialogue or maintain her own internal dialogue as she reflects on the grounded perspectives being shared around her. Above all else, she recognizes that people on all sides of a debate have convictions, passions, and frameworks of understanding that should be respected and that, as researchers, we should aspire to better understand. Increasingly, such patience and attention to human complexities are under threat by assembly line modes of academic production that treat time and knowledge as commodities. Yet by resisting these inclinations—and offering a counter to narrow definitions of research efficiency—ethnography secures its relevance to understanding the varied ways people live their lives and means through which they know what they know.

Future Directions

How can ethnography continue to flourish within contexts of accelerating academic production? How can it maintain its patient, thoughtful, and unfinished research practices at a time when academic value is equated with efficiency, volume of output, and tangibility of results?

Given that many people in the early 21st century engage with digital/social media technologies as aspects of their daily lives, how can ethnography best attend to the intersections between virtual and physical worlds?

In contexts of increased political and methodological conservatism, where institutional review boards require completed research designs and protocols as prerequisites to approval, how can ethnographers represent their iterative and inductive modes of research in ways that comply with institutionally mandated expectations?

As the lines between ethnography and everyday life become increasingly fuzzy, what new modes of ethnographic understanding and representation should be acknowledged and embraced?

In ethnography’s postpostmodern reformulations and trajectories, how should researchers map the borders of the field (ontologically and in terms of the various interests that ethnographic studies can serve)?

Ethnography’s foundations are in writing culture, yet, historically, ethnographers are deeply implicated in the project of literatizing nonliterate societies. Given this paradox, what nonliteral forms of ethnographic representations might a contemporary, critical, and historically informed ethnographic project take? How can we move beyond writing culture ?

Here, I am using field in both the traditional sense of fieldwork conducted within a physical place/space and in the Bourdieuian sense of a field of cultural practice (Bourdieu, 1984 ).

Ethnographies can also take the shorter form of essays and professional journal articles, as well as nonliterary forms like “films, records, museum displays, or whatever” (Geertz, 1973 , p. 19n). Recognizing this—yet in the interest of avoiding cumbersome qualifications—throughout the remainder of the chapter I treat ethnography foremost as a writing practice.

Etymologically, ethnography combines ethno , meaning “culture (or race),” and graphy, meaning “to write, record, and describe.” Thus, ethnography can be thought of as the process and product of writing, recording, and describing culture.

In addition to my own writings, there is a wealth of very good work on ethnography’s history—for example, see Darnell ( 2001 ), Jones ( 2010 ), Kuper ( 1996 ), Lassiter ( 2005 ), and Stocking ( 1983a ).

Broadly speaking, the distinction between social and cultural anthropology is based on national traditions, with the former practiced in England and the latter in the United States. More specifically, British (social) anthropology has historically stressed the interrelationships between social institutions and observes foundational figures like Malinowski and Alfred R. Radcliffe-Brown, whereas American (cultural) anthropology recognizes cultural coherences as outlined through the work of Franz Boas and Ruth Benedict (Garbarino, 1977/1983 ).

In the introduction to Argonauts of the Western Pacific , Malinowski ( 1922/1966 ) included a footnote explaining that, “according to a useful habit of the terminology of science, [he] uses the word Ethnography for the empirical and descriptive results of the science of Man, and the word Ethnology for speculative and comparative theories” (p. 9, fn).

Historically, the masculine pronouns he/him/his were used as universal references to all people—in this case falsely implying that all ethnographers were men. Rather than cluttering the text with numerous [ sic ]s, I let these pass without further comment. In instances where I offer gendered pronouns, as a general (but not exclusive) rule, I use the feminine she/her/hers. Following Margery Wolf ( 1992 ), I do not do this “to privilege the female voice but to call attention to the way in which the supposedly generic ‘he’ does in fact privilege the male voice” (p. 56).

Malinowski was certainly not the first to acknowledge the importance of “native subjectivity”—in fact, several commentators have highlighted this as an area where American anthropologists greatly outpaced their British counterparts (Bunzl, 2004 ; Darnell, 2001 ; Lassiter & Campbell, 2010 ). Indeed, cultural relativism as an anthropological movement is most prominently connected with Franz Boas and his students, Margaret Mead ( 1928/1961 ), Melville Herskovits ( 1972 ), and, most famously, Ruth Benedict ( 1934/2005 ). Yet the significance of Malinowski’s powerful dictate to understand native subjectivities—as a “goal, of which an ethnographer should never lose sight” (1922/1966, p. 25)—is illustrated by the frequency with which he has been and continues to be cited.

A short list of Malinowski’s students at the London School of Economics includes Raymond Firth, E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Hortense Powdermaker, Edmund Leach, Jomo Kenyatta, Lucy Mair, Audrey Richards, and Meyer Fortes.

Howard Becker ( 1999 ) is critical of this designation, arguing that “ ‘Chicago’ was never the unified chapel … [nor] unified school of thought” that many believe it to have been (p. 10).

These include Nel’s Anderson’s The Hobo (1923/1961), Frederick Thrasher’s The Gang ( 1927 ), Louis Wirth’s The Ghetto ( 1928 ), Harvey W. Zorbaugh’s The Gold Coast and the Slum (1929), Paul Cressey’s The Taxi-Dance Hall ( 1932 ), and E. Franklin Frazier’s The Negro Family in Chicago ( 1932 ).

For example, until 1929, the department at Chicago was known as the Department of Sociology and Anthropology. Among the (other) notable anthropologists in the department during these formative years were Boas’s students, Edward Sapir and Fay-Cooper Cole; Robert Redfield, who married Park’s daughter; and Ralph Linton, who taught classes there while affiliated with Chicago’s Field Museum (Faris, 1967 ).

Commenting on the improvisational nature of anthropological ethnography, Lisa H. Malkki ( 2007 ) suggested that sociologists approach ethnography “with a different sensibility” (p. 186, n2). Additionally, there appears to be some historical reluctance within the sociological tradition to refer to their brand of field research as ethnography. In Buford H. Junker’s ( 1960 ) seminal introduction to social science fieldwork, for example, based on extensive interviews with University of Chicago student fieldworkers, ethnography is only referenced on a few occasions. In one telling passage, Junker describes the ethnographer’s task of “start[ing] from scratch by learning the language of his esoteric people” in opposition to the sociological field worker operating “in some part of an otherwise already familiar cultural milieu” (1960, p. 70).

Malinowski ( 1922/1966 ) specifically said that “one of the first conditions of acceptable ethnographic work certainly is that it should deal with the totality of all social, cultural, and psychological aspects of a community, for they are so interwoven that not one can be understood without taking into consideration all the others” (p. xvi). This idea of anthropology as a holistic science—assuming the interconnections and mutual influences between various aspects of social life—continues to be reiterated in the introductory chapters of almost all discipline textbooks.

Several very good overviews of the qualitative research methods used in ethnography exist, including Bailey ( 2017 ), Bernard ( 1995 ), Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw ( 2011 ), Gobo ( 2008 ), Hammersley and Atkinson ( 1995 ), Pawluch, Shaffir, and Miall ( 2005 ), and Spradley ( 1980 ).

Whereas historically ethnographers thought of their work as focusing on neatly bounded cultures, usually (mis)represented as being isolated from globalizing influences, 21st century ethnographers understand their work to be focused on culture as a socially orienting concept—accordingly, the term shifts from being a noun to an adjective (e.g., cultural beliefs, cultural values, cultural processes).

This is not to suggest, as others have (see Marcus & Fischer, 1986 , p. 156), that “native” ethnographers lose their capacity for radical critique as a result of their Western anthropological training (McClaurin, 2001 ).

In making this characterization, I am building on Karen O’Reilly’s ( 2012 ) description of ethnography as an iterative–inductive process .

See Christians ( 2000 ) for a thorough discussion of these three guiding pillars surrounding qualitative research ethics.

I insert this qualification to recognize an earlier (less enlightened) period when some would argue that ethnography was used as an instrument of colonial domination (see Asad, 1973 ; Deloria, 1969 ; Gough, 1968 ).

I make this comparison based on behavior, not presumed intent. I am well aware that many people view politicians as being disingenuous. I am in no way implying that ethnographers operate with insincere intentions. Thank you to Steve Gerus for bringing this similarity to my attention.

I juxtapose this understanding of writerly against the example of an instruction manual, which as a very unwriterly text does not recognize its readers’ capacity to think on their own and therefore presents information in unimaginative ways with the intention of providing little room for alternative interpretations.

This can be found in Harrison, 2009 , pp. 1–6.

For a short summary of postpositivism, see Bailey ( 2017 ).

In particular cases, where such researchers work among more powerful groups, these commitments might be toward exposing the workings of power, thus leading toward the same ends of empowering those who are marginalized.

These in-between spaces are sometimes distinguished as observing participation and participating observation (see Bernard, 1995 ; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995 ; Junker, 1960 ).

This is sometimes referred to as homeblindness , defined as being blind to crucial dimensions of one’s own lifeways because they are taken for granted (Czarniawska, 1997 ). While I acknowledge that ethnocentrism more typically involves putting one’s culture above others, I maintain that homeblindness is a product of ethnocentrism.

Additionally, there might be countless potential reasons for an interviewee to be less than forthcoming.

For instance, someone doing an ethnography of pickup basketball games may have easier access if he or she has a background in playing basketball.

Today, many people engage the virtual, online, social media, or networked worlds consistently throughout their daily lives. To the extent that ethnographers are interested in engaging with people in everyday settings and circumstances, it would seem reasonable and even potentially quite illuminating for ethnographers to be attentive to the intersections of online and offline activities (Lane, 2016 ).

There are several excellent books that discuss field-note writing; see, for example, H. Russell Bernard’s Research Methods in Anthropology (1995); Carol A. Bailey’s A Guide to Qualitative Field Research ( 2017 ); and Robert M. Emerson, Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw’s Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes ( 2011 ). I strongly recommend that any novice researcher carry one of these books when embarking on fieldwork.

My definition of analytic notes is consistent with what Emerson et al. ( 2011 ) called in-process memos .

Amit, V. ( 2000 ). Introduction: Constructing the field. In V. Amit (Ed.), Constructing the field: Ethnographic fieldwork in the contemporary world (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Anderson, E. ( 2011 ). The cosmopolitan canopy: Race and civility in everyday life . New York, NY: Norton.

Anderson, N. ( 1923 /1961). The hobo: The sociology of the homeless man . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Asad, T. ( 1973 ). Anthropology and the colonial encounter . London, England: Ithaca Press.

Atkinson, P. ( 2017 ). Thinking ethnographically . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Bailey C. A. ( 2017 ). A guide to qualitative field research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Baker, L. D. ( 2010 ). Anthropology and the racial politics of culture . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Barnes, R. J. D. ( 2016 ). Raising the race: Black career woman redefine marriage, motherhood, and community . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Becker, H. S. ( 1999 ). The Chicago school, so-called.   Qualitative Sociology, 22, 3–12.

Becker, H. S. , & Geer, B. ( 1957 ). Participant observation and interviewing: A comparison.   Human Organization, 16(3), 28–32.

Benedict, R. ( 1934 /2005). Patterns of culture . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Berger, R. ( 2015 ). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research.   Qualitative Research, 15, 219–234.

Bernard, H. R. ( 1995 ). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Berreman, G. D. ( 1962 ). Behind many masks: Ethnography and impression management within a Himalayan village . Ithaca, NY: Society for Applied Anthropology.

Blumer, M. ( 1998 ). Chicago sociology and the empirical impulse: Its implications for sociological theorizing. In L. Tomasi (Ed.), The tradition of the Chicago school of sociology (pp. 75–88). Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.

Bourdieu, P. ( 1984 ). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brand, M. ( 2007 ). Making moonshine: Thick histories in a US historically black community.   Anthropology and Humanism, 32, 52–61.

Bunzl, M. ( 2004 ). Boas, Foucault, and the “native anthropologist”: Notes toward a neo-Boasian anthropology. American Anthropologist, 106, 435–442.

Christians, C. G. ( 2000 ). Ethics and politics of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 133–155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clifford, J. , & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). ( 1986 ). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cressey, P. G. ( 1932 ). The taxi-dance hall . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Czarniawska, B. ( 1997 ). Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Darnell, R. ( 2001 ). Invisible genealogies. A history of Americanist anthropology . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Davis, K. C. ( 2014 ). Beyond the White negro: Empathy and anti-racist reading . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Deloria, V., Jr. ( 1969 ). Custer died for your sins: An Indian manifesto . New York, NY: Macmillan.

Emerson, R. M. , Fretz, R. I. , & Shaw, L. L. ( 2011 ). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Faris, R. E. L. ( 1967 ). Chicago sociology, 1920–1932 . San Francisco, CA: Chandler.

Fine, G. A. , & Deegan, J. G. ( 1996 ). Three principles of Serendip: Insight, chance, and discovery in qualitative research.   Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 434–447.

Forsythe, D. ( 1999 ). “ It’s just a matter of common sense”: Ethnography as invisible work.   Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 127–145.

Frazier, J. G. ( 1922 /1966). Preface. In B. Malinowski , Argonauts of the western Pacific (pp. v–x). London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Frazier, E. F. ( 1932 ). The Negro family in Chicago . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Garbarino, M. S. ( 1977 /1983). Sociocultural theory in anthropology: A short history . Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Geertz, C. ( 1973 ). The interpretation of cultures . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gobo, G. ( 2008 ). Doing ethnography . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gough, K. ( 1968 ). New proposals for anthropologists.   Current Anthropology, 9, 403–435.

Gupta, A. , & Ferguson, J. ( 1997 ). Anthropological locations: Boundaries and grounds of a field science . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hammersley, M . ( 2008 ). Questioning qualitative inquiry: Critical essays . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Hammersley, M. , & Atkinson, P. ( 1995 ). Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Harrison, A. K. ( 2009 ). Hip hop underground: The integrity and ethics of racial identification . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Harrison, A. K. ( 2014 ). Ethnography. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 223–253). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Harrison, A. K. ( 2018 ). Ethnography . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Herskovits, M. ( 1972 ). Cultural relativism: Perspectives in cultural pluralism . New York, NY: Random House.

Holmes, S. M. ( 2013 ). Fresh fruit, broken bodies: Migrant farmworkers in the United States . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ingold, T. ( 2014 ). That’s enough about ethnography!   HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4, 383–395.

Jones, J. S. ( 2010 ). Origins and ancestors: A brief history of ethnography. In J. S. Jones & S. Watt (Eds.), Ethnography in social science practice (pp. 13–27). New York, NY: Routledge.

Judd, N. M. ( 1967 ). The bureau of American ethnology: A partial history. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Junker, B. H. ( 1960 ). Field work: An introduction to the social sciences . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kazubowski-Houston, M. , & Magnat, V. ( 2017 ). Introduction to special issue: The transdisciplinary travels of ethnography.   Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 18, 379–391. doi:10.1177/1532708617737100 10.1177/1532708617737100

Koivunen, T. ( 2010 ). Practicing power and gender in the field: Learning from interview refusals.   Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39, 682–708.

Kuper, A. ( 1996 ). Anthropology and anthropologists: The modern British school (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Lamont, M. , & Swidler, A. ( 2014 ). Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing.   Qualitative Sociology, 37, 153–171.

Landsberger, H. A. ( 1958 ). Hawthorne revisited: Management and the worker, its critics, and developments in human relations in industry. Ithaca, NY: Humphrey.

Lane, J. ( 2016 ). The digital street: An ethnographic study of networked street life in Harlem.   American Behavioral Scientist, 60, 43–58.

Lange, M. ( 2017 ). Meanings of maple: An ethnography of sugaring . Little Rock: University of Arkansas Press.

Lassiter, L. E. ( 2005 ). The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lassiter, L. E. , & Campbell, E. ( 2010 ). What will we have ethnography do?   Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 757–767.

Law, J. ( 2004 ). After method: Mess in social science research . New York, NY: Routledge.

Leach, E. R. ( 1954 ). Political systems of highland Burma: A study of Kachin social structure . London, England: Bell.

Leavy, P. ( 2009 ). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice . New York, NY: Guilford.

Lewis, H. S. ( 2013 ). In defense of anthropology: An investigation of the critique of anthropology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Lincoln, Y. S. ( 2005 ). Institutional review boards and methodological conservatism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 165–181). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Magubane, B. , & Faris, J. C. ( 1985 ). On the political relevance of anthropology.   Dialectical Anthropology, 9, 91–104.

Malinowski, B. ( 1913 /1963). The family among the Australian aborigines. New York, NY: Schocken Books.

Malinowski, B. ( 1922 /1966). Argonauts of the western Pacific . London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Malkki, L. H. ( 2007 ). Tradition and improvisation in ethnographic field research. In A. Cerwonka & L. H. Malkki (Eds.), Improvising theory: Process and temporality in ethnographic fieldwork (pp. 162–187). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Marcus, G. E. , & Fischer, M. M. J. ( 1986 ). Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

McClaurin, I. ( 2001 ). Theorizing a Black feminist self in anthropology: Towards an autoethnographic approach. In I. McClaurin (Ed.), Black feminist anthropology: Theory, politics, praxis, and poetics (pp. 49–76). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

McGranahan, C. ( 2014 ). What is ethnography? Teaching ethnographic sensibilities without fieldwork.   Teaching Anthropology, 4, 23–36.

Mead, M. ( 1952 ). The training of the cultural anthropologist.   American Anthropologist, 54, 343–346.

Mead, M. ( 1928 /1961). Coming of age in Samoa . New York, NY: Morrow.

Messerschmidt, D. (Ed.). ( 1981 ). Anthropologists at home in North America: Methods and issues in the study of one’s own society . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Myers, J. L. ( 1923 ). W. H. R. Rivers.   The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 53, 14–17.

Nader, L. ( 1972 ). Up the anthropologist—perspectives gained from studying up. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Reinventing anthropology (pp. 284–311). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Narayan, K. ( 2012 ). Alive in the writing: Crafting ethnography in the company of Chekhov . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Nardi, B. ( 2010 ). My life as a night elf priest: An anthropological account of World of Warcraft . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Nash, D. , & Wintrob, R. ( 1972 ). The emergence of self-consciousness in ethnography.   Current Anthropology, 13, 527–542.

O’Dell, T. , & Willim, R. ( 2011 ). Irregular ethnographies: An introduction.   Ethnologia Europaea, 41, 5–13.

O’Reilly, K. ( 2012 ). Ethnographic methods (2nd ed). New York, NY: Routledge.

Park R. E. ( 1925 /1967). The city : Suggestions for the investigation of human behavior in the urban environment. In R. E. Park , E. W. Burgess , & R. D. Mckenzie (Eds.), The city (pp. 1–46). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Pawluch, D. , Shaffir, W. , & Miall, C. ( 2005 ). Doing ethnography: Studying everyday life . Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Pina-Cabral, J. D. ( 1992 ). Against translation: The role of the researcher in the production of ethnographic knowledge. In J. D. Pina-Cabral & J. Campbell (Eds.), Europe observed (pp. 1–23). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. ( 1952 ). Historical note on British social anthropology.   American Anthropologist, 54, 275–277.

Rathje, W. , & Murphy, C. ( 1992 ). Rubbish! The archaeology of garbage . New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Redfield, R. ( 1953 ). Relations of anthropology to the social sciences and humanities. In A. L. Kroeber (Ed.), Anthropology today (pp. 728–738). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Richardson, L. , & St. Pierre, S. A. ( 2005 ). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ryle. G. ( 1971 ). The thinking of thoughts: What is “Le Penseur” doing? In G. Ryle , Collected papers: Vol. II, Collected essays 1929–1968 (pp. 480–496). London, England: Hutchinson.

Sanjek, R. (Ed.). ( 1990 ). Fieldnotes: The makings of anthropology . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Schwandt, T. A. ( 2000 ). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sluka, J. A. , & Robben, A. C. G. M. ( 2012 ). Fieldwork in cultural anthropology: An introduction. In A. C. G. M. Robben & J. A. Sluka (Eds.), Ethnographic fieldwork: An anthropological reader (2nd ed., pp. 1–47). Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell.

Spradley, J. P. ( 1980 ). Participant observation . Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Spradley, J. P. , & Mann, B. J. ( 1975 ). The cocktail waitress: Woman’s work in a man’s world . New York, NY: Wiley.

Stocking, G. W., Jr. (Ed.). ( 1983 a). Observers observed: Essays on ethnographic fieldwork . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Stocking, G. W., Jr. ( 1983 b). The ethnographer’s magic: Fieldwork in British anthropology from Tylor to Malinowski. In G. W. Stocking Jr. (Ed.), Observers observed: Essays on ethnographic fieldwork (pp. 70–120). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Strathern, M. ( 1987 ). Out of context: The persuasive fictions of anthropology.   Current Anthropology, 28, 251–281.

Sunderland, P. L. , & Denny, R. M. ( 2007 ). Doing anthropology in consumer research . Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Tedlock, B. ( 2000 ). Ethnography and ethnographic representation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 455–486). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thrasher, F. M. ( 1927 ). The gang: A study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Turner, E. ( 2007 ). Introduction to the art of ethnography.   Anthropology and Humanism, 32, 108–116.

Tyler, S. A . (Ed.). ( 1969 ). Cognitive anthropology: Readings . New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Urry, J. ( 1972 ). Notes and queries on anthropology and the development of field methods in British anthropology, 1870–1920.   Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 45–57.

Van Maanen, J. ( 2011 ). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Vidich, A. J. , & Lyman, S. M. ( 2000 ). Qualitative methods: Their history in sociology and anthropology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 37–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wax, R. H. ( 1971 ). Doing fieldwork: Warning and advice . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Wengle, J. L. ( 1988 ). Ethnographers in the field: The psychology of research . Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

White, W. ( 1929 ). I investigate lynchings.   American Mercury, 16, 77–84.

Willis, P. ( 2000 ). The ethnographic imagination. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Wirth, L. ( 1928 ). The ghetto . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Wogan, P. ( 2004 ). Deep hanging out: Reflections on fieldwork and multisited Andean ethnography.   Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 11, 129–139.

Wolcott, H. F. ( 1987 ). On ethnographic intent. In G. Spindler & L. Spindler (Eds.), Interpretive ethnography of education: At home and abroad (pp. 37–57). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wolf, M. ( 1992 ). A thrice-told tale: Feminism, postmodernism, and ethnographic responsibility . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Wolfe, D. (Ed.) ( 1996 ). Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wulff, H. ( 1998 ). Ballet across borders: Career and culture in the world of dancers . Oxford, England: Berg.

Zorbaugh, H. W. ( 1929 ). The gold coast and the slum . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Implement Res Pract
• v.2; Jan-Dec 2021

A scoping review of the use of ethnographic approaches in implementation research and recommendations for reporting

Alex k gertner.

1 Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Joshua Franklin

2 Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Isabel Roth

3 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Program on Integrative Medicine, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Gracelyn H Cruden

4 Oregon Social Learning Center, Eugene, OR, USA

Amber D Haley

Erin p finley.

5 VA Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation & Policy, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Alison B Hamilton

6 Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Lawrence A Palinkas

7 Department of Children, Youth and Families, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Byron J Powell

8 Brown School and School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

Associated Data

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-irp-10.1177_2633489521992743 for A scoping review of the use of ethnographic approaches in implementation research and recommendations for reporting by Alex K Gertner, Joshua Franklin, Isabel Roth, Gracelyn H Cruden, Amber D Haley, Erin P Finley, Alison B Hamilton, Lawrence A Palinkas and Byron J Powell in Implementation Research and Practice

Background:

Researchers have argued for the value of ethnographic approaches to implementation science (IS). The contested meanings of ethnography pose challenges and possibilities to its use in IS. The goal of this study was to identify sources of commonality and variation, and to distill a set of recommendations for reporting ethnographic approaches in IS.

We included in our scoping review English-language academic journal articles meeting two criteria: (1) IS articles in the healthcare field and (2) articles that described their approach as ethnographic. In March 2019, we implemented our search criteria in four academic databases and one academic journal. Abstracts were screened for inclusion by at least two authors. We iteratively develop a codebook for full-text analysis and double-coded included articles. We summarized the findings and developed reporting recommendations through discussion.

Of the 210 articles whose abstracts were screened, 73 were included in full-text analysis. The number of articles increased in recent years. Ethnographic approaches were used within a wide variety of theoretical approaches and research designs. Articles primarily described using interviews and observational methods as part of their ethnographic approaches, though numerous other methods were also employed. The most cited rationales for using ethnographic approaches were to capture context-specific phenomena, understand insiders’ perspective, and study complex interactions. In reporting on ethnographic approaches, we recommend that researchers provide information on researcher training and position, reflect on researchers’ positionality, describe observational methods in detail, and report results from all the methods used.

Conclusion:

The number of IS studies using ethnography has increased in recent years. Ethnography holds great potential for contributing further to IS, particularly to studying implementation strategy mechanisms and understanding complex adaptive systems.

Plain language summary:

Researchers have proposed that ethnographic methods may be valuable to implementation research and practice. Ethnographic approaches have their roots in the field of anthropology, but they are now used in many fields. These approaches often involve a researcher spending time in “real-world” settings, conducting interviews and observation to understand a group of people. That said, researchers disagree on the meaning of ethnography, which presents a challenge to its use in implementation science (IS). We searched for articles in the field of IS that described their methods as ethnographic. We then reviewed the articles, looking for similarities and differences in how and why ethnographic approaches were used. Many of these articles said they used ethnographic methods because they were interested in issues like context, research participants’ views, and complex interactions. We found a large amount of variation in how ethnographic methods were used. We developed recommendations for describing ethnographic methods in a way that readers can clearly understand. We also made several observations of the value ethnographic approaches can bring to IS. Ethnographic methods may be especially useful to studying unplanned and unexpected changes that take place during implementation. These recommendations and observations could be helpful to implementation researchers wishing to use ethnographic methods.

The field of IS makes use of research methods and frameworks from various scholarly traditions ( Bauer et al., 2015 ; NIH Fogarty International Center, 2018 ). The field’s inclusive methodological ethos facilitates innovation and allows implementation researchers to draw on a diverse research toolset ( Bauer et al., 2015 ; Proctor et al., 2009 ). However, this methodological breadth can also present a challenge to the interpretation of research, particularly when there is a lack of agreement on common meanings and standards in the use of approaches ( Newhouse et al., 2013 ).

In recent years, researchers have argued for the value of ethnographic approaches in IS. Ethnography distinguishes itself from other approaches in health research by its deep engagement in a small number of cases to produce highly detailed data, its focus on human interaction in everyday environments to capture data outside of formal research processes, and its emphasis on building relationships with participants to access insiders’ perspectives, referred to as the “emic” viewpoint ( Reeves et al., 2008 ). These features are potentially well suited to delineating complex implementation processes, revealing contextual factors that affect implementation, and incorporating the perspectives of end-users in implementation, among other benefits ( Baumbusch et al., 2018 ; Bunce et al., 2014 ; Cohen et al., n.d .; Hamilton & Finley, 2020 ; Tumilowicz et al., 2015 ). Implementation researchers have also developed approaches based in ethnography for use in implementation research and practice. Palinkas and Zatzick (2019) developed a rapid approach to clinical ethnography that can be used to understand implementation processes and capture contextual details. Finley and colleagues (2018) proposed a process of periodic reflections based in ethnography for timely development of insights into implementation processes in dynamic contexts. Proposals for the use of ethnographic approaches have also been made more broadly in clinical and healthcare research ( Greenhalgh & Swinglehurst, 2011 ; Huby et al., 2007 ; Morgan-Trimmer & Wood, 2016 ; Savage, 2000 ).

Despite the potential value of ethnographic approaches to IS, differing ideas of what ethnography means present a challenge to their use. Because the meaning of ethnography can vary, it can be difficult to interpret what is meant by use of the terms “ethnography” or “ethnographic” in IS work, and thus to evaluate the rigor and reliability of the approach taken. Modern ethnographic approaches have their roots in anthropology, but what is meant by “ethnography” is contested across and within disciplines ( Agar, 2006 ; Brink & Edgecombe, 2003 ; Hammersley, 2018 ; O’Reilly, 2012 ). Ethnography may refer to a method, such as participant observation, or set of methods, sometimes including quantitative methods. However, it may also be understood as a process involving researcher reflexivity, an epistemological orientation emphasizing interlocutors’ perspectives, or a particular research product ( Agar, 2006 ; Clifford & Marcus, 1986 ; Hammersley, 2018 ; O’Reilly, 2012 ).

Given the diverse notions of ethnography, implementation researchers may employ ethnography in different ways. The objective of this scoping review is to examine the uses of ethnography in implementation research. The goal of this study was to identify sources of commonality and variation and distill a set of recommendations for reporting ethnographic approaches in IS.

Our research team included scholars with expertise in ethnographic methods and IS, including four trained anthropologists (EPF, JF, ABH, LAP). We chose to undertake a scoping review because of the exploratory nature of our research question. We did not seek to assess the quality of studies, as is typically done in systematic reviews. We followed the approach to scoping reviews delineated by Levac and colleagues (2010) . Our primary research questions were as follows: how are ethnographic approaches used in IS, why are they used, and what constitutes ethnographic approaches? In examining what constituted ethnographic approaches, we principally considered what methods were described and how they were used.

Search criteria

We included English-language academic journal articles meeting two criteria: (1) IS articles in the healthcare field and (2) articles that described their approach as ethnographic. For the purposes of conducting searches, we operationalized the first criteria as articles containing the phrases “implementation science,” “implementation research,” “knowledge translation,” or “knowledge to action.” We operationalized the second criteria as articles including variants on “ethnography” (search term: “ethnograph*”) in the title or abstract. In March 2019, we implemented our search criteria in four academic databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, and ProQuest Health Management. We also conducted a search in the journal Implementation Science for articles that included the term “ethnograph*” anywhere in the article.

Abstract review

Our search produced 210 unique records. Three co-authors (JF, AKG, ADH) screened the abstracts to ensure that they fit our criteria of IS articles in the healthcare field that described their approaches as ethnographic. At this stage, we used Eccles and Mittman’s (2006) definition of implementation research: “the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice” (p. 1). We did not require that articles make explicit reference to the IS field to be considered as implementation research.

We included all articles that described their approach as ethnographic but excluded meta-ethnographies (a method of synthesizing qualitative evidence from multiple studies). We included study protocols in our review. Two co-authors screened every abstract. If there was disagreement between the two co-authors, a third co-author broke the tie. We excluded 92 articles that did not describe their approach as ethnographic, 40 articles that were not considered implementation research, and 5 articles that were not health-related. The excluded articles referenced ethnography and IS, which is why they were captured in our search, but these articles did not characterize their own approaches as ethnographic or did not report on implementation research. After abstract review, 73 unique articles remained for full-text review, of which 21 articles were study protocols (see Appendix 1).

Full text analysis

The 73 included articles were published between 2004 and 2019, with 52 (71%) articles published since 2014. The articles were published across 31 academic journals. The most common journals were Implementation Science, BMC Health Services Research , and Social Science & Medicine .

We iteratively developed a codebook using inductively and deductively developed codes. To understand how ethnographic approaches were used in IS, we coded several article characteristics including characteristics of study design, study objectives, outcome types, and theory, model, or framework (TMF) used ( Nilsen, 2015 ). We coded outcome types as implementation outcomes, service outcomes, and client outcomes following Proctor and colleagues (2011) . We developed a simple schema for characterizing articles’ objectives: (1) developing tools for implementation research; (2) assessing implementation determinants (e.g., context, barriers, and facilitators); and (3) evaluating implementation strategies. Articles could be classified as having more than one of these objectives.

To understand why ethnographic approaches were used, we coded articles’ rationales for use of these approaches. We only coded explicit explanations of why ethnographic approaches were used to minimize subjective inferences. To understand what constituted ethnographic approaches, we documented what methods were used and the descriptions of these methods.

Four co-authors (GHC, JF, AKG, IR) coded the same six articles, iteratively revising codes until there was agreement on coding. The final codes were reviewed by the entire study team. These four co-authors then alternatively paired to double-code each article. Coding pairs first independently coded each article and resolved discrepancies by consensus. Any codes that could not be aligned by paired consensus were resolved by the additional coders. Coders also kept unstructured memos noting observations of interest that were not captured by codes. As such, memos did not produce quantitative results but observations on notable practices and distinctions. After coding, the results were summarized and reviewed by the study team to draw out key insights. Based on these results and reviews of existing recommendations for reporting on the qualitative methods, the study team developed recommendations for clear reporting on ethnographic approaches in IS ( Tong et al., 2007 ).

How are ethnographic approaches used in IS?

To understand how ethnography is deployed in IS, we documented the characteristics of IS articles that used ethnographic approaches. Of the 73 articles included, 32 (44%) articles did not report using a specific TMF ( Table 1 ). The remaining articles cited 27 distinct TMFs, with some using multiple approaches. Prominent IS frameworks were the most frequently employed. The most cited TMFs were the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR; Damschroder et al., 2009 ); Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS; Kitson et al., 2008 ); Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM; Glasgow et al., 1999 ); and Diffusion of Innovations ( Rogers, 2003 ).

Characteristics of articles using ethnographic methods in IS.

IS: implementation science; CFIR: Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; PARiHS: Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services; RE-AIM: Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance.

When it came to articles’ objectives, 64 (88%) articles were focused on assessing the determinants of implementation. Some of these articles aimed to better understand contexts in which implementation efforts could take place without seeking to assess a specific intervention. For instance, Charani and colleagues (2017) used observations and interviews to understand how surgical teams made decisions about antibiotic use. Twenty (27%) articles evaluated implementation strategies, nearly all using multi- or mixed-methods approaches. Sax and colleagues (2013) described a protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation of a “work package” of interventions to improve infection control in intensive care units. Eleven (15%) articles developed tools for implementation research. Some of these developed novel methods, as the previously discussed examples led by Palinkas and Zatzick (2019) and Finley and colleagues (2018) . Other articles used ethnographic approaches to elaborate theoretical approaches. For example, Jenkins and colleagues (2016) used an approach involving site visits, meetings, and written communication to develop a framework for guiding community-based knowledge translation. Bardosh (2018) used three rapid ethnographic studies to inductively develop a framework for assessing the effectiveness of interventions aimed at neglected tropical diseases.

Seventy-two (99%) articles included implementation outcomes. Many of these sought to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in specific contexts. Some articles identified specific implementation outcomes of interest to them. In their study of an innovation to improve dysphagia care, which employed a mixed-methods approach that included use of an “ethnographic field journal,” Ilott and colleagues (2013) clearly identified “adoption and adaptation” as their primary outcomes of interest. Other articles framed their objectives in terms of capturing a particular point of view or aspect of practice. Dainty and colleagues (2016) used interviews and observation to describe the implementation of a post-cardiac arrest consult team “from the participant perspective.” Boaz and colleagues (2016) examined the roles of patients across several quality improvement projects using interviews, observations, reflective diaries, and document analysis ( Boaz et al., 2016 ). Fifteen (21%) articles included service outcomes. Jacobsen and colleagues (2017) used survey instruments to track person-centeredness of care in nursing homes before and after an educational initiative. Fifteen (21%) articles included client outcomes. Mumtaz and colleagues (2016) described a protocol for evaluating the quality of maternal health services that included interviewing women about their care experiences.

Forty-three articles (59%) reported on multi- or mixed-methods research with 10 (14%) of these reporting on hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies ( Anguera et al., 2018 ; Curran et al., 2012 ). In memos, coders noted that these studies at times employed ethnographic approaches sequentially and at times concurrently with quantitative methods. Some articles reported qualitative and quantitative findings together, while others referenced quantitative findings published separately. Dorsey and colleagues (2015) used a “rapid ethnographic assessment approach” to inform measurements in a subsequent randomized controlled trial of a psychosocial intervention. Clarke and colleagues (2013) drew upon interviews, observations, and document review for process evaluation of a stroke care training intervention. Both articles reported on results of ethnographic approaches separately from quantitative trial results.

Sixty-two (85%) articles described studies in healthcare settings and 22 (30%) in other settings, including homes, places of worship, and social service offices. Sixty-six (90%) articles included clinical providers as participants. Of these, 55 (75%) also included other types of participants, most often administrators and non-clinical staff. Thirty (41%) articles involved patients or their families. In memos, coders noted that articles generally presented settings and participants as planned prior to data collection. By contrast, Shaw and colleagues (2017) described beginning their study of transitional care in a hospital but then following patients into other settings, including patients’ homes, as the study progressed.

Why are ethnographic approaches used?

Thirteen (18%) articles did not provide an explicit rationale for the use of ethnographic approaches ( Table 2 ). For the remaining articles, we grouped rationales for ethnographic approaches into six inductively developed categories, which reflected authors’ stated intent to understand context-specific phenomena (52 articles, 71%); clarify emic (insiders’) perspectives (31 articles, 42%); study complex interactions (28 articles, 38%); examine sociocultural factors (21 articles, 29%); strengthen reliability of findings through use of triangulation (16 articles, 22%); and integrate theoretical models or frameworks (7 articles, 9.6%).

Description of ethnographic methods in IS.

IS: implementation science.

Several studies drew on more than one of these rationales. Bunce and colleagues (2014) discussed the value of an ethnographic approach for process evaluation as “placing the intervention in its historical and social context, ‘being there’ to document the process as it unfolds and as interpreted by its participants” (p. 2). In their study of knowledge translation strategies to improve spinal care, Webster and colleagues (2014) explained that, through an ethnographic approach, “the cultural norms, local context and specific needs of various professionals can be explicated when building an account of how policymakers, clinicians, and hospital administrators interact” (p. 2). Dixon-Woods and colleagues (2012) succinctly explained multiple rationales for their ethnographic approach to studying a patient safety program in British hospitals:

Ethnography enables detailed, contextualized descriptions of behavior and of how people make sense of the situations in which they live and work and, consequently, why their own actions make sense (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). Ethnography is an especially useful approach to studying patient safety, as it provides an opportunity to observe firsthand how events are classified and communicated in particular ways, as well as the social, cultural, and organizational influences on such classificatory work ( Bosk, 2003 ; Waring, 2009 ). In particular, ethnography enables insights into how professionals in health care settings account for patient safety issues ( Bosk, 2003 ) in ways that other methods may not detect. (p. 554–555)

Several studies applied ethnographic approaches to reveal processes by which implementation strategies worked or failed to work at specific sites. These studies emphasized the value of ethnography for the study of context and complex systems. Drew and colleagues (2019) used an ethnographic approach to understand divergences in client and implementation outcomes across different hospitals as part of an initiative improve hip and knee replacement surgery in the United Kingdom. McCullough and colleagues (2015) used semi-structured interviews and observations to understand how contextual factors affected differential uptake of evidence-based anticoagulation practices across clinics in a network.

Some studies used ethnographic approaches to mobilize, legitimize, or formalize experiences of researchers and practitioners working in implementation efforts. These studies emphasized the value of ethnography for the study of complex systems and emic perspectives. Reflecting on their role as applied anthropologists working in a program to provide mental health crisis services in New York City, Pope and colleagues (2016) argued that “ethnographically based qualitative research might be used to convert the ‘noise’ of actual implementation process into information with instructive power ( Hohmann & Shear, 2002 ; Rapkin & Trickett, 2005 )” (p. 508). English and colleagues (2011) made a similar proposal as they drew on their own experiences to reflect on why an implementation strategy to improve pediatric hospital services in Kenya produced variable effects. Finley and colleagues (2018) formalized this potential of ethnographic approaches to provide knowledge and insights on implementation efforts as they unfold by developing a procedure for guided discussion.

What constitutes ethnographic approaches?

Articles generally described using a distinct set of methods that constituted their ethnographic approaches, primarily interviews and observation. However, we noted substantial diversity in how methods were described. In particular, the meaning of “ethnographic” was not always articulated.

Sixty-eight (93%) articles used interviews as a part of their methods ( Table 2 ). Forty-five (62%) articles described interviews as semi-structured, four (5.5%) as structured, and one (1.3%) as unstructured. Sixteen (22%) articles described interviews as formal and 14 (19%) as informal. Eleven (15%) articles described using conversations as part of their methods. Seventeen (23%) articles used interviews without describing the type of interview conducted.

In memos, coders noted variation in the level of detail with which articles described interviews or explained how interviews contributed to an ethnographic approach. Sobo and colleagues (2008) used semi-structured interviews as a part of their “focused ethnographic assessment” of an HIV testing intervention for US veterans. They explicitly described what was meant by their “ethnographic” interview approach:

Interviewers adopted techniques designed to elicit information that interviewees themselves deemed important and to expose understandings existing below any official discourse ( Campbell & Gregor, 2004 ). For example, interviewers adopted an “interested listener” rather than a dictatorial role ( Quinn, 2005 , p. 41). They sought to avoid collusive conversational turn-taking and gapfilling in which implicit meanings are assumed to be shared ( Campbell & Gregor, 2004 ). (p. 445)

Sixty-two (85%) articles described using observation as part of their methods. Of these, 20 (27%) described observation as participant, 20 (27%) as non-participant, and 24 (33%) did not specify. As with interviews, coders noted in memos variation in the level of detail with which observational methods were described. In several articles, the only mention of an ethnographic approach was to describe the use of “ethnographic observations” without elaborating on what this meant. By contrast, Latif and colleagues specified the constructs and variables researchers attempted to document through observations in their study of an intervention to improve patient adherence across pharmacies in England. They also provided an explanation of how observation contributed to their ethnographic approach: “Through first-hand observation and direct engagement, organizational ethnography offered an in-depth or ‘thick’ description of the social, through which analysis of the social-cultural and organizing context was possible” (p. 969).

Many articles described use of fieldnotes in conjunction with observation. In all, 60 (82%) articles described using fieldnotes. Some articles merely noted that fieldnotes were used, while others described the contents of fieldnotes and how they were used. In a protocol for the study of the implementation of a federal Canadian mental health strategy, Park and colleagues (2015) described how trained observers would keep fieldnotes of events such as team meetings that would capture contextual factors and personal interactions. They also described how observers and other research team members would reflect on fieldnotes as part of their planned data analysis.

A variety of other methods were also used as part of ethnographic approaches. Forty-three (59%) articles described analyzing documents as part of their methods. These primarily involved reviewing existing documents from study sites, such as written communications and protocols. Twenty-five (34%) studies used focus groups. Other methods were used less frequently. Zobrist and colleagues (2017) used cognitive mapping in their study of young child feeding interventions in Senegal. Patel and colleagues (2014) described a plan to use video ethnography in their study protocol for an initiative to improve cardiovascular risk management in primary care clinics.

Articles generally provided little information on researchers’ training and positionality (role and social position in relation to participants) as part ethnographic approaches. Forty (55%) articles did not provide any description of the researchers involved in ethnographic data collection. Only 12 (16%) of articles mentioned researchers’ training in use of ethnographic methods and relationship to the study’s setting. When descriptions were provided, they were often minimal. By contrast, Dlamini-Simelane and Moyer (2017) detailed Dlamini-Simelane’s participation as an HIV counselor as part of data collection for their study of nurse-led HIV treatment in Swaziland, reflecting on the insights that could be gained in this role.

There was lack of clarity in how long researchers were engaged in data collection. Fifty-six (77%) articles provided some information on study duration. However, there was substantial variation in how duration was reported. Some studies reported the start and end dates of data collection, while others reported number of site visits or hours of observations performed. Of the studies reporting on length of data collection, the shortest period was 2 weeks and the longest was 5 years ( Bunce et al., 2014 ; Dorsey et al., 2015 ).

Coders noted in memos that studies primarily described results from interviews, less often describing results from observational methods, such as descriptions of settings or events. Coders also noted that studies often described results without referencing larger sociohistorical context or reflecting on the positionality of researcher regarding the research subject, in contrast to how ethnographic results are often presented in social science fields. One exception was Dixon-Woods and colleagues’ (2012) study of a program to reduce catheter-related infections in British hospitals. These researchers provided detailed descriptions of how staff responded to the program, placing these reactions within historical context of the British healthcare system.

With regard to analyzing study results, 64 (88%) articles used some form of data coding to identify themes, at times using formal named approaches (e.g., qualitative content analysis, framework analysis, matrix analysis) and at times describing more ad hoc approaches (i.e., developing themes through reading and discussion without a specific or formal process). Studies that did not use data coding either did not explicitly describe an analytic approach or drew on other approaches to the analysis of ethnographic data. In their study of how nurses use research in a pediatric critical care unit, Scott and colleagues employed Fetterman’s two-phase approach to ethnographic analysis involving “making order of data” followed by interpretation ( Fetterman, 1998 ; Scott et al., 2008 ).

Our findings suggest that ethnographic approaches are well-accepted in IS. The number of implementation research articles reporting use of ethnographic approaches has increased substantially in recent years, with many articles published in prominent journals. In addition, the use of ethnographic approaches appears compatible with a wide array of TMFs in IS. Ethnographic approaches can be deployed in a variety of mixed and multi-methods designs, including as a part of hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies.

We found that interviews and observations were the most frequently used methods in the articles we reviewed. However, we noted substantial variation in the detail with which these approaches were described. In some studies, the only mention of ethnography was to describe observations as “ethnographic.” This finding suggests “ethnography” is at times used to legitimize observational methods in IS. We also found a few articles reported using informal interviews and conversations. Such informal interactions could reveal valuable insights that are not as easily appreciated in formal interviews.

Ethnographic approaches were primarily used to assess implementation outcomes in healthcare settings. A minority of articles reported data collection with patients or in community settings. This finding is not surprising given that implementation efforts are typically aimed at clinical professionals. That said, ethnographic approaches are well suited for multisite research and capturing perspectives from diverse actors. Ethnographic approaches also allow for incorporation of new sites and participants as studies progress. These may represent underutilized possibilities of ethnographic approaches in IS.

The leading reasons given for using ethnographic approaches among the included articles were studying context-specific phenomena, capturing emic perspectives, and studying complex interactions. These rationales are consistent with proposals for the use of ethnographic methods in healthcare research ( Huby et al., 2007 ; Savage, 2000 ). In particular, we noted that ethnographic approaches were used to detail implementation processes and formalize the experience of individuals involved in implementation as research results.

The rationales for use of ethnographic approaches in IS suggest that collaborative approaches to ethnography may be especially valuable for studying adaptations to interventions and implementation strategies ( Stirman et al., 2019 ), “mechanisms” by which implementation strategies succeed or fail ( Lewis et al., 2018 , 2020 ; Powell et al., 2019 ; Zuckerman et al., 2017 ), and complex adaptive systems ( Braithwaite et al., 2018 ; Reed et al., 2018 ). The iterative nature of ethnography makes it well-suited to investigating emergent phenomena that are a feature of such systems, especially as interventions and strategies interact with contextual factors.

An additional possible contribution of ethnography to implementation is increased reflexivity and awareness of positionality ( Barry et al., 1999 ; Bikker et al., 2017 ). There is growing recognition in academic healthcare for the ways systems of oppression (e.g., racism, sexism, and colonialism) operate within and through healthcare institutions ( Evans et al., 2020 ; Horton, 2019 ; National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine, 2018 ). Especially, given that underrepresented minorities are often excluded from academic positions, researchers must critically address their positionality in relation to systems of oppression when conducting research ( Association of American Medical Colleges, 2019 ; Blackstock, 2020 ; McKay, 2018 ; Sufrin, 2015 ).

Some scholars have argued that research is only “ethnographic” if it employs a particular theoretical orientation, not merely a distinct set of methods ( Jowsey, 2016 ; Lambert, 2002 ; Waring & Jones, 2016 ). In conducting this review, we did not seek to reconcile tensions between traditional ethnographic approaches and more structured or abbreviated approaches used in health fields. Rather, our intention was to promote clear communication and thoughtful application of ethnographic methods, so that such tensions may be productive sources of critique and innovation, rather than merely sites of discord or misjudgment. Toward that end, we developed reporting recommendations.

Recommendations for reporting

Rather than develop criteria for reporting on ethnographic methods de novo, we sought to build on existing recommendations. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) is a checklist intended to improve reporting of qualitative research in health sciences ( Tong et al., 2007 ). It is the most cited of the EQUATOR Network’s key reporting guidelines for qualitative research ( Centre for Statistics in Medicine, n.d .). COREQ consists of 32 items separated into three domains: (1) research team and reflexivity, (2) study design, and (3) analysis and findings. Our study team agreed that these criteria were useful for the reporting on ethnographic methods. However, we noted several areas where additional information and emphasis could improve clarity in reporting ( Table 3 ).

Recommendation for reporting on ethnographic approaches in implementation research.

COREQ: Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.

Domain 1: research team and reflexivity

COREQ’s first domain includes criteria on researcher credentials (Item 2), occupation (Item 3), gender (Item 4), experience and training (Item 5), and relationship with participants (Items 6–8). Reflecting on researchers’ characteristics and relationship to studies can add substantially to ethnographic approaches ( Barry et al., 1999 ; Bikker et al., 2017 ). As Dixon-Woods (2003) has argued, “researchers are required to be reflexive—that is, to reflect on and be able to give an account of how they produced their interpretations—and to be able to show that their interpretation is warranted by the data” (p. 326). Information on researchers’ training can improve readers’ confidence in the execution of methods. Explanations of researchers’ positionality can improve readers’ understandings of how studies were conducted and what insights were available to researchers.

We found that a few articles in our review included information on researchers’ training and relationship to study sites and participants. We recommend that articles delineate researchers’ training and experience in ethnographic methods, including any training provided for completion of the study. We also recommend providing detailed information on researchers’ relationship to the study site and participants, which may go beyond the items explicitly listed in COREQ. Discussing researchers’ social position and characteristics in relation to study sites and participants may be relevant depending on the study’s context and aims.

In the IS field, clarifying how researchers were perceived by participants and their existing roles in organizations is especially important. Implementation efforts may be perceived as burdensome top-down initiatives by some staff. In these situations, staff may withhold their honest views if they perceive researchers as surveillance agents for organizational leadership. Researchers can contextualize these dynamics by clarifying their position within organizations and explicating their relationship with participants. Delineating any strategies that were used to gain participants’ trust is recommended.

Domain 2: study design

COREQ’s second domain includes criteria on methodological orientation and theory (Item 9), participant selection (Items 10–13), setting (Items 14–16), and data collection (Items 17–23). In our review, we found substantial diversity in articles’ study designs, with many using mixed- or multi-method designs. This diversity makes comprehensive reporting of study designs crucial.

Beyond the existing items in COREQ’s Domain 2, we recommend that researchers explain why an ethnographic approach is appropriate for their research question, clarifying what they mean by “ethnographic” and, if relevant, the relationship between their theoretical approach and their use of ethnographic methods. If appropriate, we recommend that researchers consider applying and referencing approaches to focused or rapid ethnography when planning and reporting studies ( Higginbottom et al., 2013 ; Knoblauch, 2005 ; Palinkas & Zatzick, 2019 ; Wall, 2015 ). Such approaches often provide clear guidelines for their use and are typically understood to be distinct from conventional ethnography, which may help avoid ambiguity ( Knoblauch, 2005 ; Wall, 2015 ).

Given the contested meanings of ethnography, we recommend that researchers consider whether referencing ethnography adds or detracts from understanding their approaches. We propose that the invocation of ethnography merely to justify the use of observation in methods is unnecessary. Describing observational methods as ethnographic is rarely clarifying, given the breadth of meanings associated with ethnography that we observed. Rather, researchers may focus on detailing how observational methods were employed, by whom, and what their goals were. Similarly, researchers merely seeking to convey that their studies were conducted in “real world” settings or during routine activities may describe their work as in situ rather than as ethnographic.

Ethnographic approaches often involve informal interactions in mundane activities that can be difficult to convey in a formal description of methods. Clifford Geertz (1998) famously theorized ethnographic work as “deep hanging out.” Few articles in our review conveyed such unstructured immersive approaches, possibly because they were not used or because researchers were concerned that these would not be perceived as rigorous. We encourage researchers to describe informal, unstructured, and unplanned interactions that contributed meaningfully to data collection and provide important insights. Phenomenological approaches may prove useful to implementation researchers who wish to engage with such unplanned or unstructured research experiences ( Cohen et al., n.d .; van Manen, 2016 ).

An advantage of ethnographic approaches is that they are commonly iterative. Study settings and participants can evolve as researchers gain knowledge and insights ( Agar, 2006 ). We recommend that researchers explicitly delineate how their planned approaches evolved over the course of the study and why. Such descriptions can provide valuable information for readers. Clear descriptions of such iterative approaches may also contribute to evolving ethnographic methodologies and study designs in IS.

Domain 3: analysis and findings

COREQ’s Domain 3 includes criteria related to data analysis (Items 24–28) and reporting (Items 29–32). COREQ presumes that researchers will use some approach to data coding leading to theme derivation in analyses. While ethnographic analyses do generally involve identification of themes, they may not involve explicit data coding ( Agar, 2006 ). Regardless of how themes are derived, we recommend that researchers’ reflexivity be explicitly considered in analyses, given its central importance to ethnographic approaches ( Barry et al., 1999 ; Bikker et al., 2017 ). We similarly suggest that researchers present results within their sociohistorical context if it will improve the understanding of their findings.

Given the diversity of study designs within which ethnographic approaches are used in IS, differing approaches to presenting results are to be expected. COREQ emphasizes the importance of presenting quotations in results (Item 29). We additionally recommend that researchers present results from all methods used as a part of ethnographic approaches, including observational methods. Doing so may include descriptions of settings or events that were noteworthy. Use of digital media, including audio, photographs, and video, may also be used to convey researchers’ observations ( Underberg & Zorn, 2013 ).

Researchers seeking to follow our recommendations may encounter structural barriers from journals in the form of word limits or formatting requirements. Notably, sociology and anthropology journals, where ethnographic research has traditionally been published, have word limits in the range of 9,000–15,000, rather than 2,000–4,000 that is typical of health journals, and do not dictate the article structure. We encourage health journal editors to allow longer article lengths for qualitative and mixed-methods work. Editors may consider allowing longer versions of methods and results for online publication with abbreviated print versions.

In some instances, our recommendations may suggest a blurring of traditional article structures and headings. Researchers may need to preview results if they describe how methods iteratively evolved or preview discussion topics if they present their results within a sociohistorical context. We encourage researchers and editors to be open to flexible presentations of studies if these convey more faithfully iterative, recursive, and reflexive approaches. We recognize that article length and structure guidelines are unlikely to change in the near term. We encourage researchers to seek creative ways in which to communicate their ethnographic and mixed-methods approaches within existing parameters. This may include using supplemental materials sections or publishing separate study protocols that provide additional methodological detail.

Limitations

As a scoping review, our study provides an exploratory rather than a comprehensive view of ethnography in IS. Our analyses are likely influenced by our disciplinary backgrounds, though we sought to recruit a multidisciplinary team and critically challenge our implicit notions through iterative coding and discussions. Our recommendations are aimed at improving clarity and comprehension in communicating ethnographic approaches, but we did not make suggestions for what ethnography is or how it should be done in IS.

Ethnographic approaches to IS may allow researchers to gain insights that would not be available through other methods, particularly on the interactions between implementation processes and context as well as insiders’ views of implementations efforts. Comprehensive and harmonized reporting approaches could improve the understanding of ethnographic approaches, enhancing its value in IS.

Supplemental Material

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: A.K.G. was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health under award number F30DA044668. B.J.P. was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health under award number K01MH113806. A.B.H. and E.P.F. were supported by the VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative under award numbers QUE 15-272 and QUE 20-028. I.R.’s contribution to this article was partially supported by a T32 Fellowship from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (5T32AT00378). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Supplemental material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.

• Agar M. (2006). An ethnography by any other name . Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung , 7 ( 4 ), 36. 10.17169/fqs-7.4.177 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anguera M. T., Blanco-Villaseñor A., Losada J. L., Sánchez-Algarra P., Onwuegbuzie A. J. (2018). Revisiting the difference between mixed methods and multimethods: Is it all in the name? Quality and Quantity , 52 ( 6 ), 2757–2770. 10.1007/s11135-018-0700-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Association of American Medical Colleges. (2019). Diversity in medicine: Facts and figures 2019 . https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/report/diversity-medicine-facts-and-figures-2019
• Bardosh K. L. (2018). Towards a science of global health delivery: A socio-anthropological framework to improve the effectiveness of neglected tropical disease interventions . PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases , 12 ( 7 ), Article e0006537. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006537 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barry C. A., Britten N., Barber N., Bradley C., Stevenson F. (1999). Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research . Qualitative Health Research , 9 ( 1 ), 26–44. 10.1177/104973299129121677 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bauer M. S., Damschroder L., Hagedorn H., Smith J., Kilbourne A. M. (2015). An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist . BMC Psychology , 3 , Article 32. 10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumbusch J., Wu S., Lauck S. B., Banner D., O’Shea T., Achtem L. (2018). Exploring the synergies between focused ethnography and integrated knowledge translation . Health Research Policy and Systems , 16 ( 1 ), 103. 10.1186/s12961-018-0376-z [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bikker A. P., Atherton H., Brant H., Porqueddu T., Campbell J. L., Gibson A., McKinstry B., Salisbury C., Ziebland S. (2017). Conducting a team-based multi-sited focused ethnography in primary care . BMC Medical Research Methodology , 17 ( 1 ), Article 139. 10.1186/s12874-017-0422-5 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blackstock U. (2020, January 16). Why Black doctors like me are leaving faculty positions in academic medical centers . Stat . https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/16/black-doctors-leaving-faculty-positions-academic-medical-centers/
• Boaz A., Glenn R., Locock L., Sturmey G., Gager M., Vougioukalou S., Ziebland S., Fielden J. (2016). What patients do and their impact on implementation . Journal of Health Organization and Management , 30 ( 2 ), 258–278. 10.1108/JHOM-02-2015-0027 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bosk C. L. (2003). Forgive and remember: Managing medical failure (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braithwaite J., Churruca K., Long J. C., Ellis L. A., Herkes J. (2018). When complexity science meets implementation science: A theoretical and empirical analysis of systems change . BMC Medicine , 16 ( 1 ), Article 63. 10.1186/s12916-018-1057-z [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brink P. J., Edgecombe N. (2003). What is becoming of ethnography? Qualitative Health Research , 13 ( 7 ), 1028–1030. 10.1177/1049732303253542 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bunce A. E., Gold R., Davis J. V., McMullen C. K., Jaworski V., Mercer M., Nelson C. (2014). Ethnographic process evaluation in primary care: Explaining the complexity of implementation . BMC Health Services Research , 14 ( 1 ), Article 607. 10.1186/s12913-014-0607-0 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell M., Gregor F. (2004). Mapping social relations: A primer in doing institutional ethnography . AltaMira Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Centre for Statistics in Medicine. (n.d.). EQUATOR network . University of Oxford. https://www.equator-network.org/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Charani E., Tarrant C., Moorthy K., Sevdalis N., Brennan L., Holmes A. H. (2017). Understanding antibiotic decision making in surgery-a qualitative analysis . Clinical Microbiology and Infection , 23 ( 10 ), 752–760. 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.03.013 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke D. J., Godfrey M., Hawkins R., Sadler E., Harding G., Forster A., McKevitt C., Dickerson J., Farrin A. (2013). Implementing a training intervention to support caregivers after stroke: A process evaluation examining the initiation and embedding of programme change . Implementation Science , 8 , 96. 10.1186/1748-5908-8-96 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clifford J., Marcus G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography . University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen D., Crabtree B. F., Damschroder L., Hamilton A. B., Heurtin-Roberts S., Leeman J., Padgett D. K., Palinkas L., Rabin B., Schacht Reisinger H. (n.d.). Qualitative methods in implementation science . National Cancer Institute. [ Google Scholar ]
• Curran G. M., Bauer M., Mittman B., Pyne J. M., Stetler C. (2012). Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: Combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact . Medical Care , 50 ( 3 ), 217–226. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dainty K. N., Racz E., Morrison L. J., Brooks S. C. (2016). Implementation of a post-arrest care team: Understanding the nuances of a team-based intervention . Implementation Science , 11 ( 1 ), 112. 10.1186/s13012-016-0463-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Damschroder L. J., Aron D. C., Keith R. E., Kirsh S. R., Alexander J. A., Lowery J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science . Implementation Science , 4 ( 1 ), 50. 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M. (2003). What can ethnography do for quality and safety in health care? BMJ Quality & Safety , 12 ( 5 ), 326–327. 10.1136/qhc.12.5.326 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M., Leslie M., Bion J., Tarramt C. (2012). What counts? An ethnographic study of infection data reported to a patient safety program . Milbank Quarterly , 90 ( 3 ), 548–591. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00674.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dlamini-Simelane T., Moyer E. (2017). Task shifting or shifting care practices? The impact of task shifting on patients’ experiences and health care arrangements in Swaziland . BMC Health Services Research , 17 ( 1 ), Article 20. 10.1186/s12913-016-1960-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorsey S., Lucid L., Murray L., Bolton P., Itemba D., Manongi R., Whetten K. (2015). A qualitative study of mental health problems among orphaned children and adolescents in Tanzania . The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease , 203 ( 11 ), 864–870. 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000388 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drew S., Judge A., Cohen R., Fitzpatrick R., Barker K., Gooberman-Hill R. (2019). Enhanced recovery after surgery implementation in practice: An ethnographic study of services for hip and knee replacement . BMJ Open , 9 ( 3 ), Article e024431. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024431 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles M. P., Mittman B. S. (2006). Welcome to implementation science . Implementation Science , 1 ( 1 ), 1. 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• English M., Nzinga J., Mbindyo P., Ayieko P., Irimu G., Mbaabu L. (2011). Explaining the effects of a multifaceted intervention to improve inpatient care in rural Kenyan hospitals—Interpretation based on retrospective examination of data from participant observation, quantitative and qualitative studies . Implementation Science , 6 , 124. 10.1186/1748-5908-6-124 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans M. K., Rosenbaum L., Malina D., Morrissey S., Rubin E. J. (2020). Diagnosing and treating systemic racism . New England Journal of Medicine , 383 ( 3 ), 274–276. 10.1056/NEJMe2021693 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fetterman D. M. (1998). Ethnography: Step by step (2nd ed.). SAGE. 10.1016/s1098-2140(00)00096-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finley E. P., Huynh A. K., Farmer M. M., Bean-Mayberry B., Moin T., Oishi S. M., Moreau J. L., Dyer K. E., Lanham H. J., Leykum L., Hamilton A. B. (2018). Periodic reflections: A method of guided discussions for documenting implementation phenomena . BMC Medical Research Methodology , 18 ( 1 ), Article 153. 10.1186/s12874-018-0610-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geertz C. (1998, October 22). Deep hanging out . New York Review of Books . https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1998/10/22/deep-hanging-out/
• Glasgow R. E., Vogt T. M., Boles S. M., Glasgow E. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework . American Journal of Public Health , 89 ( 9 ), 1322–1327. 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenhalgh T., Swinglehurst D. (2011). Studying technology use as social practice: The untapped potential of ethnography . BMC Medicine , 9 ( 1 ), Article 45. 10.1186/1741-7015-9-45 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamilton A. B., Finley E. P. (2020). Qualitative methods in implementation research: An introduction . Psychiatry Research , 283 , 112629. 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112629 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammersley M. (2018). What is ethnography? Can it survive? Should it? Ethnography and Education , 13 ( 1 ), 1–17. 10.1080/17457823.2017.1298458 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Higginbottom G. M. A., Pillay J. J., Boadu N. Y. (2013). Guidance on performing focused ethnographies with an emphasis on healthcare research . Qualitative Report , 18 ( 9 ), 1–16. 10.7939/R35M6287P [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hohmann A. A., Shear M. K. (2002). Community-based intervention research: Coping with the “noise” of real life in study design . American Journal of Psychiatry , 159 ( 2 ), 201–207. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horton R. (2019). Offline: Transcending the guilt of global health . The Lancet , 394 , 996. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32177-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huby G., Hart E., McKevitt C., Sobo E. (2007). Addressing the complexity of health care: The practical potential of ethnography . Journal of Health Services Research & Policy , 12 ( 4 ), 193–194. 10.1258/135581907782101516 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ilott I., Gerrish K., Pownall S., Eltringham S., Booth A. (2013). Exploring scale-up, spread, and sustainability: An instrumental case study tracing an innovation to enhance dysphagia care . Implementation Science , 8 ( 1 ), 128. 10.1186/1748-5908-8-128 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobsen F. F., Mekki T. E., Forland O., Folkestad B., Kirkevold O., Skar R., Tveit E. M., Oye C. (2017). A mixed method study of an education intervention to reduce use of restraint and implement person-centered dementia care in nursing homes . BMC Nursing , 16 , Article 55. 10.1186/s12912-017-0244-0 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenkins E. K., Kothari A., Bungay V., Johnson J. L., Oliffe J. L. (2016). Strengthening population health interventions: Developing the CollaboraKTion Framework for Community-Based Knowledge Translation . Health Research Policy and Systems , 14 ( 1 ), 65. 10.1186/s12961-016-0138-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jowsey T. (2016). Watering down ethnography . BMJ Quality & Safety , 25 ( 7 ), 554–555. 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005325 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitson A. L., Rycroft-Malone J., Harvey G., Mccormack B., Seers K., Titchen A. (2008). Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: Theoretical and practical challenges . Implementation Science , 3 , 1. 10.1186/1748-5908-3-1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knoblauch H. (2005). Focused ethnography . Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung , 6 ( 3 ), 44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lambert H. (2002). Anthropology in health research: From qualitative methods to multidisciplinarity . British Medical Journal , 325 ( 7357 ), 210–213. 10.1136/bmj.325.7357.210 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology . Implementation Science , 5 ( 1 ), 69. 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis C. C., Boyd M. R., Walsh-Bailey C., Lyon A. R., Beidas R., Mittman B., Aarons G. A., Weiner B. J., Chambers D. A. (2020). A systematic review of empirical studies examining mechanisms of implementation in health . Implementation Science , 15 ( 1 ), 21. 10.1186/s13012-020-00983-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis C. C., Klasnja P., Powell B. J., Lyon A. R., Tuzzio L., Jones S., Walsh-Bailey C., Weiner B. (2018). From classification to causality: Advancing understanding of mechanisms of change in implementation science . Frontiers in Public Health , 6 , Article 136. 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00136 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCullough M. B., Chou A. F., Solomon J. L., Petrakis B. A., Kim B., Park A. M., Benedict A. J., Hamilton A. B., Rose A. J. (2015). The interplay of contextual elements in implementation: An ethnographic case study . BMC Health Services Research , 15 ( 1 ), Article 62. 10.1186/s12913-015-0713-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKay R. (2018, August 13). Teaching and critiquing global health: Or, “I think I’ll go into consulting.” American Anthropologist . http://www.americananthropologist.org/teaching-and-critiquing-global-health-or-i-think-ill-go-into-consulting/
• Morgan-Trimmer S., Wood F. (2016). Ethnographic methods for process evaluations of complex health behaviour interventions . Trials , 17 ( 1 ), 232. 10.1186/s13063-016-1340-2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mumtaz Z., Salway S., Nyagero J., Osur J., Chirwa E., Kachale F., Saunders D. (2016). Improving the Standards-Based Management-Recognition initiative to provide high-quality, equitable maternal health services in Malawi: An implementation research protocol . BMJ Global Health , 1 ( 1 ), Article e000022. 10.1136/bmjgh-2015-000022 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine. (2018). Sexual harassment of women (Johnson P. A., Widnall S. E., Benya F. F., Eds.). National Academies Press. 10.17226/24994 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newhouse R., Bobay K., Dykes P. C., Stevens K. R., Titler M. (2013). Methodology issues in implementation science . Medical Care , 51 ( 4 , Suppl. 2), S32–S40. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31827feeca [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NIH Fogarty International Center. (2018). Toolkit Part 1: Implementation Science Methodologies and Frameworks . Global Health Resources, CDC. https://www.fic.nih.gov/About/center-global-health-studies/neuroscience-implementation-toolkit/Pages/methodologies-frameworks.aspx [ Google Scholar ]
• Nilsen P. (2015). Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks . Implementation Science , 10 ( 1 ), 53. 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Reilly K. (2012). Ethnographic methods (2nd ed.). Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Palinkas L. A., Zatzick D. (2019). Rapid assessment procedure informed clinical ethnography (RAPICE) in pragmatic clinical trials of mental health services implementation: Methods and applied case study . Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research , 46 ( 2 ), 255–270. 10.1007/s10488-018-0909-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park M. M., Lencucha R., Mattingly C., Zafran H., Kirmayer L. J. (2015). A qualitative study on the ethics of transforming care: Examining the development and implementation of Canada’s first mental health strategy . Implementation Science , 10 ( 1 ), 121. 10.1186/s13012-015-0297-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patel B., Patel A., Jan S., Usherwood T., Harris M., Panaretto K., Zwar N., Redfern J., Jansen J., Doust J., Peiris D. (2014). A multifaceted quality improvement intervention for CVD risk management in Australian primary healthcare: A protocol for a process evaluation . Implementation Science , 9 ( 1 ), 187. 10.1186/s13012-014-0187-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pope L. G., Cubellis L., Hopper K. (2016). Signing on for dirty work: Taking stock of a public psychiatry project from the inside . Transcultural Psychiatry , 53 ( 4 ), 506–526. 10.1177/1363461516655947 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Powell B. J., Fernandez M. E., Williams N. J., Aarons G. A., Beidas R. S., Lewis C. C., McHugh S. M., Weiner B. J. (2019). Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: A research agenda . Frontiers in Public Health , 7 , Article 3. 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00003 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor E. K., Landsverk J., Aarons G., Chambers D., Glisson C., Mittman B. (2009). Implementation research in mental health services: An Emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges . Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research , 36 ( 1 ), 24–34. 10.1007/s10488-008-0197-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor E. K., Silmere H., Raghavan R., Hovmand P., Aarons G., Bunger A., Griffey R., Hensley M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda . Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research , 38 ( 2 ), 65–76. 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quinn N. (2005). How to reconstruct schemas people share, from what they say . In Quinn N. (Ed.), Finding culture in talk: A collection of methods (pp. 35–81). Palgrave Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rapkin B. D., Trickett E. J. (2005). Comprehensive dynamic trial designs for behavioral prevention research with communities: Overcoming inadequacies of the randomized controlled trial paradigm . In Trickett E. J., Pequegnat W. (Eds.), Community interventions and AIDS (pp. 249–277). Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reed J. E., Howe C., Doyle C., Bell D. (2018). Simple rules for evidence translation in complex systems: A qualitative study . BMC Medicine , 16 ( 1 ), Article 92. 10.1186/s12916-018-1076-9 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves S., Kuper A., Hodges B. D. (2008). Qualitative research methodologies: Ethnography . British Medical Journal , 337 , Article a1020. 10.1136/bmj.a1020 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Savage J. (2000). Ethnography and health care . British Medical Journal , 321 ( 7273 ), 1400–1402. 10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1400 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sax H., Clack L., Touveneau S., da Liberdade Jantarada F., Pittet D., Zingg W. (2013). Implementation of infection control best practice in intensive care units throughout Europe: A mixed-method evaluation study . Implementation Science , 8 ( 1 ), 24. 10.1186/1748-5908-8-24 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott S. D., Estabrooks C. A., Allen M., Pollock C. (2008). A context of uncertainty: How context shapes nurses’ research utilization behaviors . Qualitative Health Research , 18 ( 3 ), 347–357. 10.1177/1049732307313354 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaw J. A., Kontos P., Martin W., Victor C. (2017). The institutional logic of integrated care: An ethnography of patient transitions . Journal of Health Organization and Management , 31 ( 1 ), 82–95. 10.1108/JHOM-06-2016-0123 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sobo E. J., Bowman C., Aarons G. A., Asch S., Gifford A. L. (2008). Enhancing organizational change and improvement prospects: Lessons from an HIV testing intervention for veterans . Human Organization , 67 ( 4 ), 443–453. 10.17730/humo.67.4.6p5778357w511757 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stirman S. W., Baumann A. A., Miller C. J. (2019). The FRAME: An expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions . Implementation Science , 14 ( 1 ), 58. 10.1186/s13012-019-0898-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sufrin C. (2015). “Doctor, why didn’t you adopt my baby?” Observant participation, care, and the simultaneous practice of medicine and anthropology . Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry , 39 , 614–633. 10.1007/s11013-015-9435-x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong A., Sainsbury P., Craig J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups . International Journal for Quality in Health Care , 19 ( 6 ), 349–357. 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tumilowicz A., Neufeld L. M., Pelto G. H. (2015). Using ethnography in implementation research to improve nutrition interventions in populations . Maternal & Child Nutrition , 11 , 55–72. 10.1111/mcn.12246 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Underberg N. M., Zorn E. (2013). Digital ethnography: Anthropology, narrative, and new media . University of Texas Press. 10.1080/1472586x.2014.863021 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Manen M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2nd ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315421056 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wall S. (2015). Focused ethnography: A methodological adaption for social research in emerging contexts . Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung , 16 ( 1 ), 1. 10.17169/fqs-16.1.2182 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waring J. J. (2009). Constructing and re-constructing narratives of patient safety . Social Science & Medicine , 69 ( 12 ),1722–1731. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waring J., Jones L. (2016). Maintaining the link between methodology and method in ethnographic health research . BMJ Quality & Safety , 25 ( 7 ), 556–557. 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005325 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Webster F., Fehlings M. G., Rice K., Malempati H., Fawaz K., Nicholls F., Baldeo N., Reeves S., Singh A., Ahn H., Ginsberg H., Yee A. J. (2014). Improving access to emergent spinal care through knowledge translation: An ethnographic study . BMC Health Services Research , 14 , Article 169. 10.1186/1472-6963-14-169 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zobrist S., Kalra N., Pelto G., Wittenbrink B., Milani P., Diallo A. M., Ndoye T., Wone I., Parker M. (2017). Results of applying cultural domain analysis techniques and implications for the design of complementary feeding interventions in Northern Senegal . Food and Nutrition Bulletin , 38 ( 4 ), 512–527. 10.1177/0379572117720749 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zuckerman S., Skopec L., Epstein M. (2017). Medicaid physician fees after the ACA primary care fee bump (pp. 1–13). Health Policy Center, Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/88836/2001180-medicaid-physician-fees-after-the-aca-primary-care-fee-bump_0.pdf [ Google Scholar ]

• Open access
• Published: 10 May 2024

Community-based participatory-research through co-design: supporting collaboration from all sides of disability

• Cloe Benz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6950-8855 1 ,
• Will Scott-Jeffs 2 ,
• K. A. McKercher   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4417-585X 3 ,
• Mai Welsh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7818-0115 2 , 4 ,
• Richard Norman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3112-3893 1 ,
• Delia Hendrie   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5022-5281 1 ,
• Matthew Locantro 2 &
• Suzanne Robinson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5703-6475 1 , 5  

Research Involvement and Engagement volume  10 , Article number:  47 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

820 Accesses

Metrics details

As co-design and community-based participatory research gain traction in health and disability, the challenges and benefits of collaboratively conducting research need to be considered. Current literature supports using co-design to improve service quality and create more satisfactory services. However, while the ‘why’ of using co-design is well understood, there is limited literature on ‘ how ’ to co-design. We aimed to describe the application of co-design from start to finish within a specific case study and to reflect on the challenges and benefits created by specific process design choices.

A telepractice re-design project has been a case study example of co-design. The co-design was co-facilitated by an embedded researcher and a peer researcher with lived experience of disability. Embedded in a Western Australian disability organisation, the co-design process included five workshops and a reflection session with a team of 10 lived experience and staff participants (referred to as co-designers) to produce a prototype telepractice model for testing.

The findings are divided into two components. The first describes the process design choices made throughout the co-design implementation case study. This is followed by a reflection on the benefits and challenges resulting from specific process design choices. The reflective process describes the co-designers’ perspective and the researcher’s and organisational experiences. Reflections of the co-designers include balancing idealism and realism, the value of small groups, ensuring accessibility and choice, and learning new skills and gaining new insights. The organisational and research-focused reflections included challenges between time for building relationships and the schedules of academic and organisational decision-making, the messiness of co-design juxtaposed with the processes of ethics applications, and the need for inclusive dissemination of findings.

Conclusions

The authors advocate that co-design is a useful and outcome-generating methodology that proactively enables the inclusion of people with disability and service providers through community-based participatory research and action. Through our experiences, we recommend community-based participatory research, specifically co-design, to generate creative thinking and service design.

Plain language summary

Making better services with communities (called co-design) and doing research with communities (e.g. community-based participatory research) are ways to include people with lived experience in developing and improving the services they use. Academic evidence shows why co-design is valuable, and co-design is increasing in popularity. However, there needs to be more information on how to do co-design. This article describes the process of doing co-design to make telepractice better with a group of lived experience experts and staff at a disability organisation. The co-design process was co-facilitated by two researchers – one with a health background and one with lived experience of disability. Telepractice provides clinical services (such as physiotherapy or nursing) using video calls and other digital technology. The co-design team did five workshops and then reflected on the success of those workshops. Based on the groups’ feedback, the article describes what worked and what was hard according to the co-designers and from the perspective of the researchers and the disability organisation. Topics discussed include the challenge of balancing ideas with realistic expectations, the value of small groups, accessibility and choice opportunities and learning new skills and insights. The research and organisational topics include the need to take time and how that doesn’t fit neatly with academic and business schedules, how the messiness of co-design can clash with approval processes, and different ways of telling people about the project that are more inclusive than traditional research. The authors conclude that co-design and community-based participatory research go well together in including people with lived experience in re-designing services they use.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Co-design has the potential to positively impact co-designers and their community, researchers, and organisations. Co-design is defined as designing with, not for, people [ 1 ] and can reinvigorate business-as-usual processes, leading to new ideas in industry, community and academia. As co-design and community-based participatory research gain traction, the challenges and benefits of collaborative research between people with lived experience and organisations must be considered [ 2 ].

Disability and healthcare providers previously made decisions for individuals as passive targets of an intervention [ 3 ]. By contrast, the involvement of consumers in their care [ 4 ] has been included as part of accreditation processes [ 4 ] and shown to improve outcomes and satisfaction. For research to sufficiently translate into practice, consumers and providers should be involved actively, not passively [ 4 , 5 ].

Approaches such as community-based participatory research promote “a collaborative approach that equitably involves community members, organisational representatives and researchers in all aspects of the research process” [ 6 ] (page 1). This approach originated in public health research and claims to empower all participants to have a stake in project success, facilitating a more active integration of research into practice and decreasing the knowledge to practice gap 6 . Patient and public involvement (PPI) increases the probability that research focus, community priorities and clinical problems align, which is increasingly demanded by research funders and health systems [ 7 ].

As community-based participatory research is an overarching approach to conducting research, it requires a complementary method, such as co-production, to achieve its aims. Co-production has been attributed to the work of Ostrom et al. [ 8 ], with the term co-design falling under the co-production umbrella. However, co-design can be traced back to the participatory design movement [ 9 ]. The term co-production in the context of this article includes co-planning, co-discovery, co-design, co-delivery, and co-evaluation [ 10 ]. Within this framework, the concept of co-design delineates the collaborative process of discovery, creating, ideating and prototyping to design or redesign an output [ 11 ]. The four principles of co-design, as per McKercher [ 1 ], are sharing power, prioritising relationships, using participatory means and building capacity [ 1 ]. This specific method of co-design [ 1 ] has been used across multiple social and healthcare publications [ 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 ].

A systematic review by Ramos et al. [ 15 ] describes the benefits of co-design in a community-based participatory-research approach, including improved quality and more satisfactory services. However, as identified by Rahman et al. [ 16 ], the ‘ why ’ is well known, but there is limited knowledge of ‘ how ’ to co-design. Multiple articles provide high-level descriptions of workshops or briefly mention the co-design process [ 13 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Pearce et al. [ 5 ] include an in-depth table of activities across an entire co-creation process, however within each part i.e., co-design, limited descriptions were included. A recent publication by Marwaa et al. [ 20 ] provides an in-depth description of two workshops focused on product development, and Tariq et al. [ 21 ] provides details of the process of co-designing a research agenda. Davis et al. [ 11 ] discuss co-design workshop delivery strategies summarised across multiple studies without articulating the process from start to finish. Finally, Abimbola et al. [ 22 ] provided the most comprehensive description of a co-design process, including a timeline of events and activities; however, this project only involved clinical staff and did not include community-based participation.

As “We know the why, but we need to know the how-to” [ 16 ] (page 2), of co-design, our primary aim was to describe the application of co-design from start to finish within a specific case study. Our secondary aim was to reflect on the challenges and benefits created by specific process design choices and to provide recommendations for future applications of co-design.

Overview of telepractice project

The case study, a telepractice redesign project, was based at Rocky Bay, a disability support service provider in Perth, Australia [ 23 ]. The project aimed to understand the strengths and pain points of telepractice within Rocky Bay. We expanded this to include telepractice in the wider Australian disability sector. The project also aimed to establish potential improvements to increase the uptake and sustainability of Rocky Bay’s telepractice service into the future. Rocky Bay predominantly serves people under the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) [ 24 ] by providing a variety of services, including allied health (e.g. physiotherapy, dietetics, speech pathology, etc.), nursing care (including continence and wound care), behaviour support and support coordination [ 23 ]—Rocky Bay services metropolitan Perth and regional Western Australia [ 23 ].

The first author, CB, predominantly conducted this research through an embedded researcher model [ 25 ] between Curtin University and Rocky Bay. An embedded researcher has been defined as “those who work inside host organisations as members of staff while also maintaining an affiliation with an academic institution” [ 25 ] (page 1). They had some prior contextual understanding which stemmed from being a physiotherapist who had previously delivered telehealth in an acute health setting. A peer researcher, WSJ, with lived experience of disability, worked alongside CB. They had no previous experience in research or co-design, this was their first paid employment and they had an interest in digital technology. Peer Researcher is a broad term describing the inclusion of a priority group or social network member as part of the research team to enhance the depth of understanding of the communities to which they belong [ 26 ]. Including a peer researcher in the team promoted equity, collective ownership, and better framing of the research findings to assist with connecting with people with lived experience. These outcomes align with key components of community-based participatory research and co-design [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ].

Person-first language was used as the preference of experts with lived experience who contributed to this research to respect and affirm their identity. However, we respect the right to choose and the potential for others to prefer identity-first language [ 31 ].

A summary of the structure of the phases completed before co-design workshops are represented in Fig.  1 below. Ethical approval for the project was received iteratively before each phase on the timeline (Fig.  1 ) from the Curtin Human Research Ethics Committee (HRE2021-0731). The reporting of this article has been completed in line with the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) checklist [ 7 ].

Summary of telepractice co-design project structure [ 1 ]

Here, we present an outline of the chosen research methods with descriptions of each process design choice and supporting reasons and examples specific to the study. The format is in chronological order, with further details of each step provided in Appendix 1 (Supplementary Material 1).

Methods and results

Process of co-production and preparation for co-design.

Co-production was chosen as the planning method for the study, as the inclusion of community members (Rocky Bay Lived experience experts and Staff) in each step of the research process would increase buy-in and make the research more likely to meet their needs [ 5 ]. An example of co-planning (part of co-production) includes the study steering committee, with a lived experience expert, clinician and project sponsor representatives collaborating on the selection of study aim, methods and recruitment processes. Another example of co-planning, co-design, and co-delivery was recruiting a peer researcher with disability, who worked with the embedded researcher throughout the study design and delivery.

The second process design choice was to attempt to build safe enough conditions for community participation, as people who feel unsafe or unwelcome are less likely to be able to participate fully in the research [ 1 ]. Building conditions for safety was applied by repeatedly acknowledging power imbalances, holding space for community input, and anticipating and offering accessibility adjustments without judgment.

Getting started

Understanding and synthesising what is already known about telepractice experiences and learning from lived experience was prioritised as the first step in the process. We paired a scoping review of the literature with scoping the lived experiences of the community [ 32 ]. Our reasoning was to understand whether the findings aligned and, secondly, to learn what had already been done and to ask what was next, rather than starting from the beginning [ 1 ]. Examples of strategies used in this step included interviewing clinicians and service provider Managers across Australia to establish how they implemented telepractice during the pandemic and understand their views of what worked and what did not. The second learning process occurred onsite at Rocky Bay, with people with lived experience, clinicians and other support staff, whom the embedded researcher and peer researcher interviewed to understand experiences of telepractice at Rocky Bay.

The authors presented the interview findings during focus groups with Rocky Bay participants to share the learnings and confirm we had understood them correctly. The groups were divided into staff and lived experience cohorts, allowing for peer discussions and sharing of common experiences. This helped build relationships and a sense of familiarity moving into the workshop series.

Co-design workshops

This section outlines specific components of the co-design workshop preparation before describing each of the five workshops and the final reflection session.

Staff and community co-designers

Two process design choices were implemented to form the co-design group. The first was to prioritise lived experience input as there are generally fewer opportunities for lived experience leadership in service design [ 16 ], and because the disability community have demanded they be included where the focus impacts them [ 33 ]. To acknowledge the asymmetry of power between community members, people with lived experience of disability and professionals, we ensured the co-design group had at least the same number of lived experience experts as staff.

The second priority for the co-design group was to include people for whom involvement can be difficult to access (e.g. people who are isolated for health reasons and cannot attend in-person sessions, people who live in supported accommodation, part-time staff, and people navigating the dual-role of staff member while disclosing lived experience). It was important to learn from perspectives not commonly heard from and support equity of access for participants [ 4 ].

Workshop series structure

When structuring the workshop series, lived experience co-designers nominated meeting times outside standard work hours to reduce the impact of co-design on work commitments and loss of income while participating. The workshops were designed to be delivered as a hybrid of in-person and online to give co-designers a choice on how they wanted to interact. The workshops were designed as a series of five sequential 90-minute workshops, where co-designers voted for the first workshop to be predominantly in-person and the remainder of the workshops online. Some co-designers chose to attend the initial session in person to build rapport. However, the virtual option remained available. The subsequent online sessions reduced the travel burden on co-designers, which the co-designers prioritised over further face-to-face meetings.

Workshop facilitators

To maintain familiarity and ensure predictability for co-designers, the workshops were co-facilitated by the embedded researcher and peer researcher. The co-facilitators built on relationships formed through previous interactions (interviews and focus groups), and each facilitator represented part of the co-designer group as a clinician or a person with disability. An extra support person was tasked with supporting the co-designers with disability to break down tasks and increase the accessibility of activities. The reason for selecting the support person was that they could contribute their skills as a school teacher to support the communication and completion of activities, and they had no previous experience with disability services to influence the co-designers opinions. This role was adapted from the provocateur role described by McKercher [ 1 ].

Pre-workshop preparations

To prepare for the workshops, each co-designer was asked to complete a brief survey to ensure the co-facilitators understood co-designers collect preferences and needs ahead of the session to enable preparation and make accommodations. The survey included pronouns, accessibility needs and refreshment preferences. Following the survey, the co-facilitators distributed a welcome video; the peer researcher, a familiar person, was videoed explaining what to expect, what not to expect and expected behaviours for the group to support a safe environment [ 1 ]. This process design choice was made to allow co-designers to alleviate any potential anxieties due to not having enough information and to increase predictability.

Workshop resources and supports

As the first workshop was in-person, specific process choices were made to ensure co-designers felt welcome and to uphold the dignity of co-designers with lived experience [ 34 ]. Examples of process design choices include facilitating transport and parking requests, providing easy access to the building and room, making a sensory breakout room available and having the peer researcher waiting at the entrance to welcome and guide people to the workshop room.

After reaching the workshop room, all co-designers received an individualised resource pack to equalise access to workshop materials, aiming again to balance power in a non-discriminatory way [ 11 ]. The resource pack included name tags with pronouns, individualised refreshments, a fidget toy [ 35 ] whiteboard markers and a human bingo activity described in a later section. An easy-to-apply name tag design was selected after consulting a co-designer with an upper limb difference. Further details on the resource packs are included in Appendix 1 (Supplementary Material 1).

Enabling different kinds of participation

We provided non-verbal response cards to each co-designer as communication preferences vary significantly within the disability community. The cards were intended to benefit any co-designer who struggled to use the response buttons on MS teams. The co-facilitators co-created the Yes, No, and In-the-middle response cards (Fig.  2 ) and were guided by recommendations by Schwartz and Kramer [ 29 ]. They found that people with intellectual disability were more likely to respond “yes” if the negative option included a frowning face or red-coloured images, as choosing these types of alternatives was perceived as being negative or would cause offence [ 29 ].

Non-verbal response cards

A summary of the structure and purpose of each of the five workshops is shown in Fig.  3 , followed by a more in-depth discussion of the strategies employed in each workshop.

Outline of workshop and group structures

Workshop 1: the beginning

Human Bingo was the first workshop activity, as it aimed to support relationship building in an inclusive way for both in-person and online attendees. The activity asked each co-designer to place a name in each worksheet box of someone who fit the described characteristic of that square(for example, someone who likes cooking). To include the two online attendees, laptops were set up with individual videocall streams and noise cancelling headphones enabling the online co-designers to interact one-on-one with others during the activities.

The second activity used The Real Deal cards by Peak Learning [ 36 ] to ask the co-designers to sort cards to prioritise the top five experiences and feelings they would want in a future version of telepractice. This activity aimed to set initial priorities for the redesign of telepractice [ 1 ]. Small groups with a mix of lived experience experts and staff were tasked with negotiating and collaborating to produce their top five desired experiences and feelings for future service success.

A follow-up email was sent after the session to thank co-designers, provide closure, invite feedback and let co-designers know what to expect from the next session.

Workshop 2: mapping the journey

In the second workshop, held online, the co-facilitators explained the journey mapping process and showed a draft of how the visual representation would likely look (Fig.  4 ). As the first step, co-designers were tasked with completing a series of activities to analyse lived experience interview data on the current experience of telepractice for lived experience experts. Small mixed groups were created, prioritising the needs of the lived experience experts to have staff who would be the best fit in supporting them to work through the task [ 1 ]. The small groups were allocated interview quotes corresponding to the steps of a customer journey through telepractice and asked to identify strengths, challenges and emotions associated with the current Telepractice service journey at Rocky Bay [ 1 ]. Further details on the journey map analysis are described in Appendix 1 (Supplementary Material 1) and in a published article co-authored by the co-designers (Benz et al. [ 37 ]).

Draft journey map visualisation

After workshop two, the embedded researcher drafted a journey map by compiling the co-designer group responses to the analysis activity, which was then circulated for feedback and confirmation. The completed journey map is published with further details on the process in an article co-authored with the co-designers, Benz et al. [ 37 ].

Workshop 3: ideas for addressing pain points

For the third workshop, the co-facilitators selected activities to be completed separately by lived experience and staff co-designers. The lived experience expert activity involved exploring preferences for improving pain points identified through the journey map. The lived experience expert activity was facilitated by the peer researcher and support person and included questions such as, how would it be best to learn how to use telepractice? Visual prompt cards were shared to support idea creation, where lived experience expert co-designers could choose any option or suggest an alternative (Fig.  5 ).

Option cards for Lived experience expert co-designer workshop activity

Simultaneously, the staff co-designers completed a parallel activity to address pain points from a service delivery point of view. These pain points were identified in the clinical and non-clinical staff interviews and from the journey map summary of lived experience expert interviews (analysed in Workshop 2). Staff co-designers completed a mind map based on service blueprinting guidelines by Flowers and Miller [ 38 ]. The activity used service blueprinting to identify a list of opportunities for improvement, with four prompts for co-designers to commence planning the actions required to implement these improvements. The foci of the four prompts were roles, policies, technology and value proposition [ 38 ] (described further in Appendix 1 (Supplementary Material 1)). Each of the four prompts were completed for the ten proposed opportunities for improvement to draft plans for future telepractice service delivery.

Workshop 4: story telling and generation of future state solutions

In the fourth workshop, we introduced the concept of prototyping [ 39 ] as a designerly way to test co-designers’ ideas for improving telepractice according to desirability, feasibility and viability with a wider audience of lived experience experts and staff. The co-designers helped to plan the prototyping, and accessibility was a key consideration in selecting a prototype, as the group were conscious of the target audience.

Creating the prototype was collaborative, allowing co-designers to produce an output representing their ideas. They selected a video storyboard prototype with a staff and customer version formatted similarly to a children’s book. It included cartoon animations completed on PowerPoint, voiceover narration, closed captioning and an introductory explanation from two co-designers.

After workshop four, the co-designers collaborated on the customer and staff prototypes during the two weeks between workshops four and five, with support and input from the facilitators. The prototype files were co-produced, with different co-designers working on the visual aspects, the script for the main audio narration and the introductory explanation.

Workshop 5: finishing the story

The co-design group reviewed the draft prototypes in the final workshop, with specific attention paid to the story’s cohesiveness.

The feedback questionnaire was then created to be completed by viewers outside of the co-design group after engaging with either the staff or the customer prototype. The survey allowed Rocky Bay customers and staff to contribute ideas. Following thoughtful discussions, consensus was reached by all co-designers on the final survey questions (Appendix 2 (Supplementary Material 1)).

A reflection activity concluded the final workshop, allowing co-designers to provide feedback on the co-design process, elements for improvement and aspects they valued in participating in the project. Their reflections on the benefits and challenges of co-design in this study are included in the section Co-designer’s perspectives of the workshop series , with the reflection questions included in Appendix 3 (Supplementary Material 1).

Post prototype reflection session

The prototype feedback responses were reviewed with co-designers in a final reflection session. The group then discussed adaptations to the implementation plan for proposal to Rocky Bay. Following the survey discussion, co-designers reviewed proposed service principles for the new telepractice implementation recommendations. These principles aim to align any future decisions in the implementation and service provision stages of the telepractice project with the intentions of the co-designers. An additional reflection activity was completed, specific to the telepractice proposal they had produced and the prototyping process. Feedback relevant to subsequent discussions of the challenges and benefits of co-design is included in the following section: Co-designer’s perspectives of the workshop series , with the reflection prompts in Appendix 3 (Supplementary Material 1).

Benefits and challenges

Learnings derived from completing a study of this kind are complex. However, it is necessary to reflect on which strategies used in the project were beneficial and which strategies created challenges - anticipated and unexpected. These reflections are discussed in two sections, the first being the challenges and benefits reflected upon by co-designers. The second set of reflections relates to organisational and research project-level benefits and challenges from the perspective of clinical department managers and researchers involved in the project.

Co-designer’s perspectives of the workshop series

Co-designers were positive overall about the workshop series. Responses to a prompt for one-word descriptors of their experience included “captivating, innovative, fulfilling, exciting, insightful, helpful, eye-opening and informative ” .

Co-designing as a team

A foundational strategy implemented in this project was the intentional collaboration of lived experience experts with staff; this linked to the co-design principle of prioritising relationships and sharing power. Multiple reflections commented on feeling like a team and that having diverse perspectives across the group was beneficial.

It was especially interesting to hear the perspective of clinicians (for us, the other side of Telepractice). [Lived experience expert Co-designer]

Additionally, the combination of facilitators, including an embedded researcher with an allied health clinical background, a peer researcher with lived experience and a support person with strengths in breaking down tasks, provided different facets of support and task modelling to the co-designers throughout the process.

Balancing idealism and realism

There is an inherent challenge in collaboration between lived experience experts and service providers, whereby co-designers formulate ideas for service improvement and then, in good faith, propose required changes to be implemented. Strategies to support imagination and idealism while being honest about the constraints of what can be delivered were implemented in the context of this project. This was essential to reinforce to co-designers that their contributions and ideas are valid while tempering their hopes with the truth that organisational change is challenging and funding for change is limited. Co-designers were encouraged to be cognisant of ideas that would require high investment (cost and time) and which ideas faced fewer barriers to implementation. This strategy did not prevent the ideation of changes and prioritising what mattered most to them, and co-designers felt it was beneficial in adding a level of consideration regarding what investments they deemed necessary versus those that would be nice to have. For example, having a person to call for help was viewed as necessary, while a nice to have was more advanced technological features.

I feel that the prototype is useful; however, I worry that nothing will be carried over to the Rocky Bay Service. I feel like more customers will want to access telepractice, and Rocky Bay now needs to start the implementation process to ensure that telepractice is utilised, including processes, education and training. [Clinician Co-designer]

The value of small groups

Working in small groups was another beneficial strategy, aiming to create a more hospitable environment for co-designers to voice their thoughts. The small groups varied across activities and workshops, with facilitators intentionally pairing groups that would best support the lived experience of expert co-designers completing activities. As described in the workshop sections, some activities suited mixed groups, whereas others suited lived experience expert and staff-specific groups. Two reflective comments demonstrated the benefit of the small groups, one from a clinician who reflected on supporting a fellow co-designer:

I found that in our group, all of us had a say; however, [Lived Experience Co-designer name] was a bit overwhelmed at times, so I tried to support her with that. [Clinician Co-designer]

And a lived experience expert co-designer additionally reflected:

The breakout rooms were a very good idea. It can be quite intimidating speaking in front of the main group. I found it much easier to participate in the smaller groups . [Lived experience expert Co-designer]

The second session included an unplanned whole group activity, which challenged co-designers. Co-designers reflections of this experience demonstrate the benefits of smaller groups:

I did feel that at the end when the whole group did the task, there wasn’t as much collaboration as there were quite a few more assertive participants, so the quieter ones just sat back. [Clinician Co-designer]

Accessibility and choice

A challenge navigated throughout the workshop series with a diverse group of co-designers was meeting their varying individual health and other needs. This required responding in sensitive, non-judgemental, and supportive ways to encourage co-designers to engage fully. Examples of support include the presence of a support person and adaption of resource packs for co-designers who have difficulty swallowing (re: refreshments), as well as the previously mentioned non-verbal response cards and accessible name tags.

Accessibility supports were also provided for the peer researcher during facilitation activities, including pre-written scripts to provide clarity when explaining tasks to the co-design group, written reminders and regular check-ins. A lived experience expert co-designer reflected that it was beneficial that they could tell the peer researcher was nervous but appreciated that he was brave and made them feel like they did not need to be perfect if the peer researcher was willing to give it a go.

When facilitating the sessions, the embedded researcher and peer researcher identified that the workshops were long and, at times, mentally strenuous. One co-designer requested “more breaks during each session” . Breaks were offered frequently; however, upon reflection, we would schedule regular breaks to remove the need for co-designers to accept the need for a break in front of the group. The instructions for each activity were visual, verbal and written and given at the start of a task. However, once the co-designers were allocated to breakout rooms, they could no longer review the instructions. Many co-designers suggested that having the instructions in each breakout room’s chat window would have been a valuable visual reminder.

One thing I think might of helped a little is having the instructions in the chat as I know I that I listened but couldn’t recall some of the instructions for the group task. [Lived experience expert Co-designer]

Learning new skills and gaining new insight

The co-designers considered that the benefits of working together included learning new skills and widening their understanding of research, the services they provide or use, and the differences between the priorities of lived experience experts and staff. Two lived experience experts commented that the opportunity to learn collaboration skills and create cartoons using PowerPoint were valuable skills for them to utilise in the future. One clinician reflected that the process of co-design had improved their clinical practice and increased their use of telepractice:

My practice is 100% better. I am more confident in using telepractice and more confident that, as a process, it doesn’t reduce the impact of the service- in some ways, it has enhanced it when customers are more relaxed in their own environments. I have not seen my stats, but my use of telepractice has increased significantly, too. [Clinician Co-designer]

The management co-designer acknowledged that although ideas across the group may be similar, prioritisation of their importance can vary dramatically:

Whilst all the feedback and potential improvements were very similar, some things that I viewed as not an issue, was very different to a customer’s perspective. [Management Co-designer]

Overall, the workshop series challenged co-designers. However, the provision of a supportive and accessible environment resulted in mutual benefits for the research, organisation, and co-designers themselves. The strategy for facilitating the workshops was to pose challenges, support the co-designers in rising to meet them, and take into account their capabilities if provided with the right opportunity. A lived experience expert co-designer summarised the effectiveness of this strategy:

I found the activities to be challenging without being too difficult. Each activity provided enough guidance and structure to encourage interesting group discussions and make collaboration easy. [Lived experience expert Co-designer]

Research and organisational reflections of benefits and challenges of co-design

A significant challenge in completing this project was that building foundational relationships and trust takes time. While the authors view this trust as the foundation on which community-based participatory research and co-design are built, they note the direct tension of the time needed to develop these foundational relationships with the timeline expectations of academic and organisational decision-making. The flexibility required to deliver a person-centred research experience for the co-designers resulted in regular instances when timeline extensions were required to prioritise co-designer needs over efficiency. The result of prioritising co-designer needs over research timeline efficiency was an extended timeline that was significantly longer than expected, which sometimes created a disconnect between the flexibility of co-design and the rigidity in traditional academic and organisational processes.

The impacts of a longer-than-expected timeline for completion of the co-design process included financial, project scope, and sponsorship challenges. The project’s initial scope included a co-implementation and co-evaluation phase; however, due to the three-year time constraint, this was modified to conclude following the prototyping process. Whilst the three-year period set expectations for project sponsors and other collaborators from Rocky Bay, the wider context for the project varied significantly and rapidly over this period. This included two changes in Rocky Bay supervisor and one change in Rocky Bay project sponsor. Additionally, one of the academic supervisors left Curtin. This challenge indicates that the project would benefit from key role succession planning.

The peer researcher role was beneficial in providing an opportunity for a person with lived experience to join the study in a strength-based role and experience academic and business processes. However, challenges arose with the timeline extensions, which required this part-time, casual role to be extended by seven months. While the contract extension posed budgetary challenges, the role was viewed as vital to the completion of the project.

While an essential component of research, particularly involving vulnerable populations, ethical approvals proved challenging due to the non-traditional research methods involved in co-design. It was evident to the authors that while the ethics committee staff adhered to their processes, they were bound by a system that did not have adequate flexibility to work with newer research methods, such as co-design. Multiple methods in this study were heavily integrated into the community, including embedded research, peer research and co-design.

The present ethics process provided a comprehensive review focusing on planned interactions within research sessions (e.g. interviews and workshops). Unfortunately, this failed to account for a wider view, including the initial co-production prior to ethical application and anecdotal interactions that occurred regularly in the organic co-design process. In addition to the repeated submissions required to approve the sequential study format, these interactions created a significant workload for the research team and ethics office. These challenges were compounded by the need to navigate Rocky Bay’s organisational processes and changing business needs within ethical approval commitments.

In the authors’ opinion, prioritising the inclusion of lived experience experts in co-creating outputs to disseminate findings was beneficial. The co-creation enabled an authentic representation of the study to audiences regarding community-based participatory research and co-design method implementation. For example, the presentation of a panel discussion at a conference in which the peer researcher could prerecord his responses to questions as his preferred method of participation. All posters presented by the project were formatted to be accessible to lay consumers and were collaboratively produced, with the additional benefit of the posters being displayed across Rocky Bay hubs for customers and staff to gain study insights.

Due to the co-design method’s dynamic nature, some budgetary uncertainty was challenging to navigate. However, financial and non-financial remuneration for all non-staff participants in the project was prioritised. As previously discussed, the position of peer researcher was a paid role; additionally, all lived experience expert participants were remunerated at a rate of AUD 30/hour in the form of gift cards. The carer representative on the steering committee recommended using gift cards to avoid income declaration requirements from government benefits people may receive. Non-financial remuneration for the valuable time and contribution of the co-designer group included co-authorship on an article written regarding the Journey Map they produced (Benz et al. [ 37 ]) and acknowledgement in any other appropriate outputs. The implementation proposal provided to Rocky Bay included recommendations for continued inclusion and remuneration of co-designers.

Setting a new bar for inclusion

Another benefit to reflect upon, which may be the most significant legacy of the project, was setting the precedence for the inclusion of people with disability in decision-making roles in future projects and research conducted by the University and Rocky Bay. After this project commenced, other Rocky Bay clinical projects have similarly elevated the voices of lived experience in planning and conducting subsequent quality improvement initiatives.

I’m lucky enough to have been part of a lot of projects. But I guess I probably haven’t been a part of continuous workshops, pulling in all perspectives of the organisation perfectly… So, collaboration and getting insight from others I haven’t usually was a very unique experience, and I definitely found value if this were to continue in other projects. [Manager Co-designer]

In summary, the findings from using a co-design method for the telepractice research study produced a series of benefits and presented the researchers with multiple challenges. The findings also addressed a literature gap, presenting in-depth descriptive methods to demonstrate how co-design can be applied to a specific case.

Drawn from these findings, the authors identified six main points which form the basis of this discussion. These include (1) the fact that the necessary time and resources required to commit to co-design process completion adequately were underestimated at the outset, (2) there is a need to support the health, well-being and dignity of lived experience expert participants, (3) academic ethical processes have yet to adapt to address more participatory and integrated research methods, (4) strategies used to foster strong collaborative relationships across a diverse group were valued by all participants, (5) better delineation between terminologies such as co-design and community-based participatory research or patient and public involvement would improve the clarity of research methods and author intent and, (6) broader non-traditional impacts that participatory research can create should be better quantified and valued in the context of research impact. Each point will now be discussed in further detail.

In underestimating the time and resources required to complete the telepractice study, a scope reduction was required. This scope reduction removed the study’s originally planned co-implementation and co-evaluation phases. While Harrison et al. [ 40 ] and Bodden and Elliott [ 41 ] advocate for more frequent and comprehensive evaluation of co-designed initiatives, the authors acknowledge that this became no longer feasible within the study constraints. A growing body of literature indicates expected timelines for completed co-production projects from co-planning to co-evaluation. An example by Pearce et al. [ 5 ] indicated that a timeline of five years was reasonable. In contrast, a more limited co-design process was completed with a shorter timeline by Tindall et al. [ 13 ]. Although neither of these articles were published when this study commenced, they are complementary in building an evidence base for future research to anticipate an adequate timeline.

While co-design and other co-production processes are resource and time-intensive, the investment is essential to prioritise the health and other needs of potentially vulnerable population groups in the context of an imbalance of power [ 42 ]. In exploring the concept of dignity for people with disability, Chapman et al. [ 34 ] indicated that recognising the right to make decisions and proactively eliminating or minimising barriers to inclusion are key to protecting dignity. Community participation in decision-making processes such as this study can result in messy and unpredictable outcomes. However, the onus must be placed on policymakers, organisations, and academia to acknowledge this sufficiently rather than demand conformity [ 15 ].

The authors posit that the study would have benefited from an alternative ethics pathway, which may provide additional required flexibility while upholding the rigour of the ethical review process. The increasing frequency of participatory research studies indicates that challenges experienced by the authors of this study are unlikely to be isolated. Lloyd [ 43 ] described challenges regarding information gathered in-between, before and after structured research sessions, reflecting that they relied on personal judgement of the intent to consent for research use. Similarly, Rowley [ 44 ] reflected on the ethical complexities of interacting with families and respecting their confidentiality within the context of being integrated within an organisation. While these studies were co-production in child protection and education, the ethical challenges of their reflections parallel those experienced in the telepractice study. The risks posed by inadequate ethical support in these contexts are that increased poor ethical outcomes will occur, especially in the in-between times of co-design. Therefore, an ethics pathway that involves more frequent brief liaisons with a designated ethics representative to update project progress and troubleshoot ethical considerations may better support researchers to safeguard study participants.

We believe the decision to complete a sequential workshop series with a consistent group of diverse co-designers, led by co-facilitators, was a strength of the co-design process implemented in the telepractice re-design project. The group worked together across a series of workshops, which enabled them to build solid working relationships. Pearce et al. [ 5 ], Rahman et al. [ 16 ] and Tindall et al. [ 13 ] also demonstrated a collaborative whole-team approach to co-design. By contrast, studies that involved separate workshops with different cohorts or multiple of the same workshop did not demonstrate strong collaboration between co-designers [ 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Nesbitt et al. [ 19 ] explicitly highlighted that they would improve their method by completing sequential workshops with a continuous cohort. Stephens et al. [ 45 ] found that small mixed groups were not sufficient to support the participation of people with disability, indicating that the choice to intentionally balance groups to meet the lived experience expert co-designer’s needs may have been an impacting factor on our success.

A lack of clarity in the terminology used in co-design and community-based participatory practice was identified during the completion of this study. We found that co-design frequently meant either a collaborative design process or good participatory practices [ 46 ]. When viewing the structure of the telepractice re-design project, the overarching research approach was community-based participatory-research, and the method was co-design [ 9 ]. The delineation between the overarching approach and methods clarifies the misappropriation of the term co-design with the intent of meaning public participation [ 46 ] rather than the joint process of creative thinking and doing to design an output [ 11 ]. The use of the two-level structure appears more prominent in the United Kingdom, whereas Fox et al. [ 47 ] systematic review assessing public or patient participants identified that 60% of studies originated from the United Kingdom, compared to the next highest 16% for Canada or 4% from Australia and the United States. To improve clarity and reduce confusion about the terminology used, the authors advocate for greater awareness and implementation of the delineation between the concepts of a community-based-participatory-research/patient or public involvement approach versus the co-design method.

An example of co-design being used where alternate terms such as community-based participatory processes (or research) may be more relevant was the most recent amendment to the act governing the NDIS under which this project resided [ 48 ]. The term co-design could be interpreted as an intent to collaborate with people with disability for equitable involvement in all aspects of the NDIS [ 48 ]. It is proposed that the differentiation of these terms would assist in clarifying the intent of the study and dissuade inaccurate expectations of community involvement or design processes.

Implementing community-based participatory research has demonstrated the potential to create an impact that expands further than the original aim of the study. The skills learned by co-designers, the learning of the research team in collaboration with people with disability, the engagement and skill-building of a peer researcher with lived experience, the organisations who engaged in the co-design process and the academic and lay people who engaged with research outputs, all carry a piece of the impact of the co-design process. Rahman et al. [ 16 ] contend that co-design processes positively impact communities. In the context of this study, the peer researcher was included in the National Disability Insurance Agency’s quarterly report as an example of strength-based employment opportunities, which significantly positively impacted his career prospects [ 49 ]. This project provided skills for people with disability that they value and improved the clinical practice of clinician co-designers, which echoes the conclusions of Ramos et al. [ 15 ], who described that participants felt valued and experienced improved self-esteem. There is additional intent from the authors to positively impact disability providers and academia, to advocate for greater collaboration, and to provide open-access publications to provide a stronger evidence base for co-design in clinical practice and service delivery.

Strengths and limitations

The study provides reflective evidence to support the challenges and benefits experienced during the implementation of the study. However, a limitation in the project’s design was the exclusion of outcome measures to assess the impact of process design choices directly. Stephens et al. [ 45 ] completed targeted outcome measures correlating to accessibility adaptations in co-design and conceded that the variability of findings and individual needs reduced the usefulness of these measures.

The reduction of project scope enabled the completion of the study within the limitations of budgeting and timeline restrictions. Although the scope of the project had some flexibility, there were limitations to how far this could be extended as resources were not infinite, and staffing changes meant that organisational priorities changed. Including implementation and evaluation would have improved the study’s rigour. However, Rocky Bay now has the opportunity to implement internally without potential research delays and restrictions.

The blended and flexible approach to the co-design process was a strength of the study as it met the co-designers needs and maximised the project’s potential inclusivity. This strength has the potential to positively impact other studies that can modify some of the process design choices to suit their context and increase inclusivity [ 11 ]. It is believed that the messiness of co-design is important in meeting the needs and context of each individual study; therefore, no two co-design processes should look the same.

The authors concede that the inclusion of a cohort of people with disability and clinical staff does not represent the entirety of their communities, and their proposed changes may cause some parts of the disability community to experience increased barriers [ 50 ]. It is important to note that while the co-designers who participated in this project provided initial design developments, future opportunities remain to iterate the proposed telepractice service and continue to advocate for equitable access for all.

Recommendations for future studies

Recommendations from this study fall into two categories: recommendations for those intending to utilise the described methods and recommendations for future avenues of research inquiry. For those intending to implement the methods, the primary recommendations are to build ample time buffers into the project schedule, implement key role succession planning and set remuneration agreements at the outset, and work together as partners with the mindset that all contributors are creative [ 51 ] with important expertise and invaluable insights if supported appropriately.

Regarding avenues for future inquiry, we recommend investigating a more dynamic and flexible ethics process that may utilise more frequent short consultations to respond to ethical considerations during the emergent co-design and participatory research.

In the authors’ opinion, supported by co-designers experiences, co-design is a useful and outcome-generating methodology that can proactively enable the inclusion of people with disability and service providers in a community-based participatory research approach. The process is both time and resource-intensive; however, in our opinion, the investment is justified through the delivery of direct research benefits and indirect wider community benefits. We advocate for using community-based participatory-research/processes paired with co-design to generate creative thinking within service design processes. Through co-design processes, we recommend collaborating with a single diverse group of co-designers who have the time and space to build trusting working relationships that enable outputs representative of the group consensus.

Data availability

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is predominantly included within the article (and its additional files). However, due to the small number of co-designers reflecting upon the research, despite deidentification, there is a reasonable assumption of identification; therefore, the reflection activity response supporting data is not available.

Abbreviations

Australian Dollar

Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 Checklist

Human Research Ethics Committee

Doctor of Philosophy

Patient and Public Involvement

Microsoft Teams

National Disability Insurance Scheme

McKercher KA. Beyond Sticky Notes doing co-design for Real: mindsets, methods, and movements. 1 ed. Sydney, NSW: Beyond Sticky Notes; 2020. p. 225.

Google Scholar  

Mullins RM, Kelly BE, Chiappalone PS, Lewis VJ. No-one has listened to anything I’ve got to say before’: co-design with people who are sleeping rough. Health Expect. 2021;24(3):930–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13235 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ekman I, Swedberg K, Taft C, Lindseth A, Norberg A, Brink E, et al. Person-centered Care — Ready for Prime Time. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011;4248–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2011.06.008 . [cited 3/9/2022];10.

National Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. Partnering with Consumers Standard. Australia: National Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. 2021. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/standards/nsqhs-standards/partnering-consumers-standard .

Pearce T, Maple M, McKay K, Shakeshaft A, Wayland S. Co-creation of new knowledge: good fortune or good management? Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00394-2 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bordeaux BC, Wiley C, Tandon SD, Horowitz CR, Brown PB, Bass EB. Guidelines for writing manuscripts about community-based participatory research for peer-reviewed journals. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2007;1(3):281–8. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2007.0018 .

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2 .

Ostrom E, Baugh W, Guarasci R, Parks R, Whitaker G. Community Organization and the Provision of Police Services. Sage; 1973.

Masterson D, Areskoug Josefsson K, Robert G, Nylander E, Kjellström S. Mapping definitions of co-production and co-design in health and social care: a systematic scoping review providing lessons for the future. Health Expect. 2022;25(3):902–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13470 .

Bibb J. Embedding lived experience in music therapy practice: Towards a future of co-designed, co-produced and co-delivered music therapy programs in Australia. Australian Journal of Music Therapy [Journal Article]. 2022 [cited 2023/08/21];33(2):25–36. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.829441047529429 .

Davis A, Gwilt I, Wallace N, Langley J. Low-contact Co-design: considering more flexible spatiotemporal models for the co-design workshop. Strategic Des Res J. 2021;14(1):124–37. https://doi.org/10.4013/sdrj.2021.141.11 .

Claborn KR, Creech S, Whittfield Q, Parra-Cardona R, Daugherty A, Benzer J. Ethical by design: engaging the community to co-design a Digital Health Ecosystem to Improve Overdose Prevention efforts among highly vulnerable people who use drugs. Front Digit Health [Original Research]. 2022;4:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.880849 .

Tindall RM, Ferris M, Townsend M, Boschert G, Moylan S. A first-hand experience of co‐design in mental health service design: opportunities, challenges, and lessons. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2021;30(6):1693–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12925 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wahlin DW, Blomkamp DE. Making global local: global methods, local planning, and the importance of genuine community engagement in Australia. Policy Des Pract. 2022;5(4):483–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2022.2141489 .

Ramos M, Forcellini FA, Ferreira MGG. Patient-centered healthcare service development: a literature review. Strategic Des Res J. 2021;14(2):423–37. https://doi.org/10.4013/sdrj.2021.142.04 .

Rahman A, Nawaz S, Khan E, Islam S. Nothing about us, without us: is for us. Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00372-8 .

Harrison R, Manias E, Ellis L, Mimmo L, Walpola R, Roxas-Harris B, et al. Evaluating clinician experience in value-based health care: the development and validation of the Clinician experience measure (CEM). BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08900-8 .

Kerr JAS, Whelan M, Zelenko O, Harper-Hill K, Villalba C. Integrated Co-design: a model for co-designing with multiple stakeholder groups from the ‘Fuzzy’ front-end to Beyond Project Delivery. Int J Des. 2022;16(2):1–17. https://doi.org/10.57698/v16i2.06 .

Nesbitt K, Beleigoli A, Du H, Tirimacco R, Clark RA. User experience (UX) design as a co-design methodology: lessons learned during the development of a web-based portal for cardiac rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2022;21(2):178–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvab127 .

Marwaa MN, Guidetti S, Ytterberg C, Kristensen HK. Using experience-based co-design to develop mobile/tablet applications to support a person-centred and empowering stroke rehabilitation. Res Involv Engagem. 2023;9(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00472-z .

Tariq S, Grewal EK, Booth R, Nat B, Ka-Caleni T, Larsen M, et al. Lessons learned from a virtual community-based Participatory Research project: prioritizing needs of people who have diabetes and experiences of homelessness to co-design a participatory action project. Res Involv Engagem. 2023;9(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00456-z .

Abimbola S, Li C, Mitchell M, Everett M, Casburn K, Crooks P, et al. On the same page: co-designing the logic model of a telehealth service for children in rural and remote Australia. Digit Health. 2019;5:2055207619826468–2055207619826468. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207619826468 .

Rocky Bay. Rocky Bay Annual Report FY 2021–2022. Perth. 2022. https://www.rockybay.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Rocky-Bay-Annual-Report-21-22.pdf .

National Disability Insurance Agency. What is the NDIS? [Internet]. 2021 [updated 14.08.2021. https://www.ndis.gov.au/understanding/what-ndis .

Reen G, Page B, Oikonomou E. Working as an embedded researcher in a healthcare setting: a practical guide for current or prospective embedded researchers. J Eval Clin Pract. 2022;28(1):93–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13593 .

Bell S, Aggleton P, Gibson A. Peer Research in Health and Social Development 1st Edition ed. London: Routledge; 2021. p. 286.

Book   Google Scholar  

Curran T, Jones M, Ferguson S, Reed M, Lawrence A, Cull N, et al. Disabled young people’s hopes and dreams in a rapidly changing society: a co-production peer research study. Disabil Soc. 2021;36(4):561–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1755234 .

Kelly B, Friel S, McShane T, Pinkerton J, Gilligan E. I haven’t read it, I’ve lived it! The benefits and challenges of peer research with young people leaving care. Qualitative Social work: QSW: Res Pract. 2020;19(1):108–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325018800370 .

Schwartz AE, Kramer JM. Inclusive approaches to developing content valid patient-reported outcome measure response scales for youth with intellectual/developmental disabilities. Br J Learn Disabil. 2021;49(1):100–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12346 .

Webb P, Falls D, Keenan F, Norris B, Owens A, Davidson G, et al. Peer researchers’ experiences of a co-produced research project on supported decision-making. Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00406-1 .

People with Disability Australia. PWDA Language Guide: A guide to language about disability. Sydney, Australia. 2021. https://pwd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/PWDA-Language-Guide-v2-2021.pdf .

Peters MDJGC, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E MZ, editor. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, JBI, 2020: JBI; 2020.

Australian Broadcasting Commission. ‘My purpose is changing perceptions’: Australian of the Year Dylan Alcott’s speech in full [Internet]. 2022 [cited 17.08.2023]. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-26/dylan-alcott-australian-of-the-year-speech-in-full/100783308 .

Chapman K, Dixon A, Ehrlich C, Kendall E. Dignity and the importance of acknowledgement of Personhood for people with disability. Qual Health Res. 2024;34(1–2):141–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323231204562 .

Flattery S. Stim Joy: Using Multi-Sensory Design to Foster Better Understanding of the Autistic Experience: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing; 2023.

Peak Learning. The Real Deal [Internet]. 2023 [cited 6.10.2023]. https://www.peaklearning.com/trd/ .

Benz C, Scott-Jeffs W, Revitt J, Brabon C, Fermanis C, Hawkes M, et al. Co-designing a telepractice journey map with disability customers and clinicians: partnering with users to understand challenges from their perspective. Health Expect. 2023;1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13919 .

Flowers E, Miller ME. Your Guide to Blueprinting The Practical Way. 1 ed. USA: Practical By Design 2022. 134 p. pp. 1-134.

Blomkvist J. Benefits of Service Level Prototyping. Des J. 2016;19(4):545–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2016.1177292 .

Harrison R, Ní Shé É, Debono D, Chauhan A, Newman B. Creating space for theory when codesigning healthcare interventions. J Eval Clin Pract. 2023;29(4):572–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13720 .

Bodden S, Elliott J. Finding space for Shared futures. Edinb Archit Res. 2022;37:90–104.

Page K. Ethics and the co-production of knowledge. Public Health Research & Practice. 2022:1–5. https://www.phrp.com.au/issues/june-2022-volume-32-issue-2/ethics-and-co-production/ .

Lloyd J. Life in a lanyard: developing an ethics of embedded research methods in children’s social care. J Children’s Serv. 2021;16(4):318–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-12-2019-0047 . [cited 2023/12/05];.

Rowley H. Going beyond procedure:engaging with the ethical complexities of being an embedded researcher. Manage Educ. 2014;28(1):19–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020613510119 .

Stephens L, Smith H, Epstein I, Baljko M, McIntosh I, Dadashi N, et al. Accessibility and participatory design: time, power, and facilitation. CoDesign. 2023;1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2023.2214145 .

Gardner G, McKercher KA. But is it co-design? And if it is, so what? 2021. https://healthvoices.org.au/issues/nov-2021/but-is-it-co-design-and-if-it-is-so-what .

Fox G, Lalu MM, Sabloff T, Nicholls SG, Smith M, Stacey D, et al. Recognizing patient partner contributions to health research: a systematic review of reported practices. Res Involv Engagem. 2023;9(1):1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00488-5 .

National Disability Insurance Agency. 2022 NDIS legislation amendments Australia; 2022. https://www.ndis.gov.au/news/7975-2022-ndis-legislation-amendments-july-update .

National Disability Insurance Agency. Report to disability ministers for Q4 of Y10 Summary Part A Australia. 2023. https://www.ndis.gov.au/about-us/publications/quarterly-reports .

Lid IM. Universal Design and disability: an interdisciplinary perspective. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(16):1344–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.931472 .

Sanders E, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the New landscapes of Design. CoDesign. 2008;4:5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contribution of Rocky Bay as the industry partner of this project and would like to thank the Co-designers of this project, without whom none of this was possible. The research team would also like to thank Katie Harris for her time and support throughout the workshop series, which were invaluable to the completion of the project and the formation of the published study.

The article forms part of a PhD project funded by the first author, CB’s Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Population Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia

Cloe Benz, Richard Norman, Delia Hendrie & Suzanne Robinson

Rocky Bay, Mosman Park, WA, Australia

Will Scott-Jeffs, Mai Welsh & Matthew Locantro

Beyond Sticky Notes, Sydney, Australia

K. A. McKercher

Therapy Focus, Bentley, Australia

Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia

Suzanne Robinson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CB and MW liaised with the steering committee and conceived the study and structure. SR, DH and RN guided the protocol development and ethics approval. KAM provided methodological support to the project and subject matter expertise. CB and WJS completed participant recruitment, facilitation of workshops and data collection. KAM and CB ideated the format and content of the article. CB completed data analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved of the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cloe Benz .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent.

The study was approved by the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (ID# HRE2021-0731), and all participants provided written informed consent before engaging in any research activity.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Cloe Benz, Richard Norman, Delia Hendrie & Suzanne Robinson do not have any competing interests to declare. Will Scott-Jeffs, Matthew Locantro and Mai Welsh, for all or part of the study period were employed by Rocky Bay a Not-For-Profit Disability Service provider who function as the industry partner for the project. K.A. McKercher is the author of a co-design method book referenced in the article. McKercher also runs a business that helps people co-design.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1:

Appendix 1–3

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Benz, C., Scott-Jeffs, W., McKercher, K.A. et al. Community-based participatory-research through co-design: supporting collaboration from all sides of disability. Res Involv Engagem 10 , 47 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00573-3

Download citation

Received : 13 November 2023

Accepted : 12 April 2024

Published : 10 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00573-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Community-based participatory-research
• Telepractice
• Lived experience
• Embedded researcher
• Digital health
• Patient and public involvement

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

• General enquiries: [email protected]

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

This article is part of the research topic.

Measuring Diets and Food Choice in the Context of a Changing World

Measuring and Shaping the Nutritional Environment via Food Sales Logs: Case Studies of Campus-Wide Food Choice and a Call to Action Provisionally Accepted

• 1 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne, Switzerland
• 2 Université de Fribourg, Switzerland
• 3 Microsoft Research (United States), United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Although diets influence health and the environment, measuring and changing nutrition is challenging. Traditional measurement methods face challenges, and designing and conducting behavior-changing interventions is conceptually and logistically complicated. Situated local communities such as university campuses offer unique opportunities to shape the nutritional environment and promote health and sustainability. The present study investigates how passively sensed food purchase logs typically collected as part of regular business operations can be used to monitor and measure on-campus food consumption and understand food choice determinants.First, based on 38 million sales logs collected on a large university campus over eight years, we perform statistical analyses to quantify spatio-temporal determinants of food choice and characterize harmful patterns in dietary behaviors, in a case study of food purchasing at EPFL campus. We identify spatial proximity, food item pairing, and academic schedules (yearly and daily) as important determinants driving the on-campus food choice. The case studies demonstrate the potential of food sales logs for measuring nutrition and highlight the breadth and depth of future possibilities to study individual food-choice determinants. We describe how these insights provide an opportunity for stakeholders, such as campus offices responsible for managing food services, to shape the nutritional environment and improve health and sustainability by designing policies and behavioral interventions. Finally, based on the insights derived through the case study of food purchases at EPFL campus, we identify five future opportunities and offer a call to action for the nutrition research community to contribute to ensuring the health and sustainability of on-campus populations-the very communities to which many researchers belong.

Keywords: food choice, Measurement, Monitoring, determinants, Digital traces, Health, sustainability, policy

Received: 30 May 2023; Accepted: 14 May 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Gligorić, Zbinden, Chiolero, Kiciman, White, Horvitz and West. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Dr. Kristina Gligorić, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne, Lausanne, 1015, Vaud, Switzerland

People also looked at