Last Thursday, Steve Portigal introduced a great cautionary note on the dangers of bad (read: quick and uninformed) survey design. Steve's argument was that design educators do their students a disservice by implying that quantitative online surveying is easy and quick. That it's important to know that a survey is not something that anyone can do without planning and forethought, an understanding of appropriate methodologies, and an understanding of effective nuances of survey flows and guides. (Steve, if I'm extrapolating too much, I apologize!). I think Steve's point is well made, and I would extend this cautionary note to ineffective ethnography.
The marketplace is full of companies and individuals claiming an ability to conduct ethnographic research to support all kinds of things: business strategies, product innovation, customer segmentation, etc. While many businesses and business leaders may recognize the value of deeper insight generated by ethnographies, there is a disconcerting tendency to assume that "this ethnography thing can't be that hard" and to assume that anyone who can interview a consumer in their home is qualified to design, execute, and analyze ethnographic research. As nice as that would be (really!), it's simply not the case. Based on our deep ethnographic experience at Cheskin, I'd argue that there are three distinctions between ethnographers (in the rich sense of the word) and interviewers (in the limited sense of the word): needlessly shallow research design, passive interviewing tactics, and insufficiently limited analysis.
Needlessly shallow research design is the first indication that "ethnography" may be only an interview. To prepare for an interview, researchers find and recruit the interviewee, schedule an interview and write a questionnaire or guide to keep the interview on track. So far, so good - no real difference at this level between interviews and ethnography. But take a closer look at the nature of that questionnaire, and the first area of difference starts to come into focus.
Planning for ethnography requires extensive thought and preparation regarding how the discussion should take place. It requires an understanding of the appropriate location / context for conducting the discussion. It requires taking into account the participant's surroundings and environment to supplement the verbal interaction. It requires a firm perspective on how to best communicate and develop rapport with the participant (particularly important in international contexts). In short, ethnographic discussion guides must draw the interaction, insight and investigation deeper than simple verbal interactions. This deeper interaction and focus allows access into meanings and frameworks that guide participants' interactions and perceptions. It requires thinking through exercises and points of observation beyond simple open-ended question and answer.
But the differences don't stop at the discussion guide. Deep research design calls for a consideration of what will be done with the insight gathered. How will interactions be captured? What hypotheses will be tested and how will we know if those hypotheses have been proven or disproven? What is the analytical framework that will be brought to bear? All these questions must be carefully answered and thought through before research is under way. But often this is left undone in many "ethnographic studies". At Cheskin, our teams can spend weeks thinking through the variables that should be considered and addressed in an ethnographic study. We rely heavily on prior experience, academic insight and frameworks, and a collaborative perspective that leads to a deeper, more holistic research design. It's harder than it looks!
READ THE REST : :Cheskin Blog
Via: @marcfonteijn
POSTED ON CONTAGIOUS IDEAS : 2.0 strategic planning
BY : andreea hirica
THE BEST OF OUR BLOGS PSST.FR
AN INITIATIVE OF POURQUOI TU COURS ?
2.0 STRATEGIC PLANNING AGENCY
jérémy dumont DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC PLANNING
