~ bog nr.

: L~ JU
Bibliotek ex.: /
o.
7
93 D1~' UDK: 001. 13
Ethnographic Field Method s
PARTICIPATORY and The ir Relation to Desi gn
DESIGN:
P rinciples and Practices
Jeanette Blomberg
Xe rox Palo Alto Research Center

Je an Gi acomi
And rea Mosher
Edited by Pat Swento n-Wa ll
D OUGLAS SCHULER X erox Corporation '
AKI NAMIOKA
Boeing Computer Services
Comp uter Professionals f or Social Responsibility In this chapter we explore the relationship between developing a descriptive
understanding of human behavior and designing artifacts which ostensibly sup-
port the activities described. Although there is growing recognition that an under-
standing of users' current work practices would be useful in the design of new
technologies, the debate about what it would mean to acquire such understanding
and to link it with design is only beginning. What are the implications of
developing ways of representing the views and activities of communities of
practice outside one's own such that the knowledge would be useful in design?
The ethnographic approach, with its emphasis on " natives' point-of-view,"
holism. and natural settings . provides a unique perspective to bring to bear on
understanding users' work activities. However, anthropology is mute when it
comes to ways of integrating such an understanding with design. The languages
of design and of ethnography evolved in quite different contexts and in relation to
different concerns. While the ethnographer is interested in understanding human
behavior as it is reflected in the lifeways of diverse communities of people , the
designer is interested in designing artifacts that will support the activities of these
communities. The current challenge is to develop ways of linking these two
undertakings.

We wish to thank members of the Industrial Design/Human Interface Participatory Design

Project who worked with us in our exploration of the relevance and power of ethnographic field
LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES , PUBLISHERS methods for design. '
1993 Hillsdale. New Jersev Hove and London
 124 BLOM BERG. GIACOMJ. MOSHER. A ND SWENTON.WA LL
Aspracticed by most ethnographers, developing an understanding of human
behavior requi res a period of field work where the ethnographer becomes im-
mersed in the ac tivities of the people studied. Typically, field work involves
some,combination of observation, informal interviewing, and participation in the
ongo ing events of the commu nity. Thro ugh exte nsive contact with the people
studied ethn ographers develop a descriptive understanding of the observed be-
haviors .
. Designe~, on the other hand , are interested in understanding human behavior
Insofar as rt enables them to design artifacts better suited to the needs of the
~sers . ~signers J there fore . spend more time testing and eval uating the ir desi gns
In rel ~tIon to users' needs.and abilities and Jess on understanding the supported
behavior per se. When designers do attempt to gain a clearer view of the users for
whom they design technologies. they tradi tionally have been limited in the ways
such a view IS acquired (see sec tion on Traditi onal Approa ches, pp. 143-1 47).
Ethnography provides an a1 teroative method ology for designers to use , which
gives them access to people's everyday practices as members of social groups.
MOTIVATION FOR USING AN
ETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACH
In the 1980s there was a refocusing of interest on the part of systems designers
away from the view that technology supported individual tasks and toward the
view that human activities were in large part carried out in co operation with
others. Therefore new technologies should be designed to support the cooper-
ative nature of most human activities. A new field evolved called CSCW (com-
puter suppo rt for coopera tive work), which was concerned with the design of
computer tools for the suppo rt of gro up work (Greif, 1988). As a consequence of
this shift In focus, there was a realization that the methods most often used to
~alyze users' needs and activities, and to evaluate designs , were not suited to
this changed focus. Looki ng at individual psychological and cog nitive processes
and evaluating the fit between isolated tasks, users , and technologies would not
provide the perspective needed to d esign and eval uate tech nologies for gro up
work . Interest In exp lonng the possi ble applicab ility of eth nographic methods for
understanding gro up work practices and for linking this understanding to design
COInCIded With , and may have been motivated by, this refoc using of interest.
THE ETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACH
There is co nsiderable deba te in anthropology about what it means to be " doing"
ethnography. At a minimum , most would agree that eth nography requires a
penod of field work where the ethnographer becomes involved in the every day
7. ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD METH ODS 125
activities of the people st udied . Whil e eth nography often includes a description
of the activities and practices of those studied, it is more importantly an attempt
to interpret and give meaning to those activities. This interpretation mos t often
takes its final form as a text writte n in a somewhat stylized form at (see Van
Mannen 1988, for a discussion of vario us ethnographic forms). Although many
books have been written about ethnography and ethnogra phic field methods ,
there is no agreed upon set of principles that guide anthropologi cal field work,
nor is there a cookbook of methods and techniques applicable in all situations.
We offer here some general guidelines for those interested in exploring the
usefulness of an ethnographic approach for the design of new technologies and
present a brief descriptio n of some common ly employed research methods . How-
ever, we would falsely portray the field if we left the impression that what we
write here is either complete or without challenge . We have chosen not to dwell
on the con troversies that exist co nce rning what constitutes an adequate ethnogra -
phy to avoid complicating the disc ussion. Those interested in delving furth er into
the controvers ies should co nsult Agar (1980 , 1986), Clifford (1988), Clifford and
Marc us ( 1986), Geertz (1973, 1983), Harris (1979), Naroll and Cohen (1970),
Pelto (1970 ), Tyler (1979), and Van Mannen (1988 ), among others .
Guid ing Prin cip les of Ethnography
At the risk of overly simplifying the ethnographic endeavor, we begin by describ-
ing four main principles that guide much ethnographic work.
Natural Settings
Ethnography is grounded in field work. By this we mean that there is a
commitment to study the activities of people in their everyday settings. T his
requires that the research be conducted in a field setting as opposed to a laborato-
ry or experimental setting (see Fig. 7.1). T he underlying ass umption here is that
to learn about a wo rld you don 't understand yo u must encounter it firsthand .
Holism
Thi s emphasis on natural settings derives in part from a belief that particular
behaviors can only be understood in the every day context in which they occ ur. To
remove a behavior from the larger social co ntext is to change it in important,
nontrivial ways. This co ncern with how particular behaviors fit into the larger
whole is often referred to as holi sm (see Fig . 7. 1).
Descriptive
Based on field work ethnographers deve lop a descriptive understanding of the
lifeways of the group studied. Eth nographers describe how people actually be-
have , not how they ought to behave . This distinction is similar to one made in
 126 BLOMBER G, GIAC OM I, M OSHER, ANO SWENTON -WAL L 7. ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELO METH OOS 127

mmmI'-- _ 1!IImILDL-_ _ - - - - - - -
Particu lar behavi ors understood in relation to how Judgements of the efficacy of
they are embedded in the soc ial and historical fabri c behaviors observed are
of every day life. w~hh.ld

Focus o n relatio nship between the parts

Resear cher/Designer

DESCR IPTIVE ln"eado( PRESC RIPTIVE _

"Several people handle the "They're still manually

documen t before it is completed. processing these -routine-
All Invo lved discove r probl ems documents. Passing hardcopy
and are asked to account fo r from person to pe rso n is such
Learn about a world you don 't unde rstand b y changes to the document," an ineffide nt way to update
documents. An electronic mail
encou nte ring it first hand. Focus on natu rally
system linked to an intelligent
occu rring, everyday ta lk and a ction. database could rea lly improve
their pre cess."
NATURAL lABORATORY
FIG. 7.1. Two princip les o f eth nograpy. FIG. 7.2. Contrast between descriptive and pr escripti ve charact eriza-
ti on s o f act ivity.

linguistics betwee n descriptive linguists (how people speak) and prescrip-

tive linguistics (how peo ple ought to speak). The orientation toward the de-
scriptive leads ethnographers to assume a nonjudgemental stance with respe ct
to the behaviors they study. Maintaining such a nonjudgemental stance is
sometimes referred to as cultural relativism , the notion that other people's
behaviors should not be j udged by the standards of some other gro up (see Fig.
7.2 for an illustratio n of how descriptive and prescripti ve characterizations con-
tras!.)
Members' Poin t-oF- View
Ethn ograph y involves understanding the world from the point-of-view of
those studied. Anthropologists attempt to understand how peo ple orga nize their
behavior and make sense of the world around them . With the reali zation that one
can never truly get inside the head of another or see the world exactly as another
does , researc h methods are aimed at getting as close to an insider's view of the
situation as possible. With such an orientation, ethnographers are concerned with
 7. ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD METHODS 129
128 BLOM BERG, GIACOMI, MO SHER, AND SWENTO NWA LL
Contrasled With _
describi ng behavior in terms relevant and meaningful to study participants . Th is
co ntrasts with the requirements of survey researc h where releva nt categories
must be kno wn before the study begin s and must not vary across participant
communi ties . As such , the terms in which behavior is characteri zed often are
Descriptive categories are
those of the researcher, not the study part icipants (see Figs . 7 .3a and 7 .3b for an those of t he resear cher
illustration of this principle).
In ge neral then , ethnography is co ncerned with understan ding other people 's Book shelv es
______ ~4 only partial ly
File ~ u sed
Cab inet " c:o i'\.
I
c:l <l Desk w ith no
MEMBERS ' POINT OF VIEW
Understand other peoples' behavior ~ / IOC\~Y
from t heir point of view

Nrf . 6
EJ
Descriptive catego ries a re
t bose of the com munity of practice

Top "",,,,,,,
ctKrent cases ---... ~
I .
Meet ing room to
support _
Table w ith IBM
286, Xerox
I

Rese archer!

\VE:J-:::_
~ ~7
Midd le dra wer: ~ <l Place 'Of shared Designer
dead storage ., c::::I ~ reference books;

Jr !- Bot1om dlOl'M!r:
personal bclongings

~
K::I
pla ce to post
reminders, notes

lom\,

RW
I ....
PC; nh~;I"" .~
(romMarw .
Don 't know
how to use
mo st of the .... I
;.,.
Room wher~ we sohware Typewriter still my
can meet pnvately old standby. Used
fo<envelopes ,
~. forms, quick notes
'-J to bos s

Researcher!
Designer th rough the\
eyes of partici pants \K Only copi er that
will handle my
over;ized origina ls
~ /

FIG. 7.3b . Descrip tive catego ries of t he researcher as cont raste d w ith
th ose of the study pa rt ici pants (Fig . 7.3a) .
~----
~ . to meet
Place
rriends and find out behavio r in the co ntext in whi ch it occ urs and from the po int-of-view of the
a bou t one another s'
activities
peo ple studied .

ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD METHODS

Ethnog raphic field work requ ires the personal involvement of the investigator, a
willingness to be in situations out of one's co ntro l and as such an abandonme nt of
FIG.7.3a. Descri ptive cate gories of th e stu dy part ici pants as con-
tra sted with tho se of t he researcher (Fig. 7.3b l. strict " scientific co ntro l." It also involves an iterative , impro vizational approach

130 BLOMB ERG, GIACOMI, MOSHER, AND SWENTON-WA LL
to understanding, wherein partial and tentative formulations are revised as new
observatio ns challenge the o ld, and where adjustments in research strategy are
made as more is leam ed about the particular s ituation at hand.
Alth ough ethnography cannot be reduced to a set of methods or techniques,
but must be unders tood in relation to the abo ve principles, we discuss a few
commonly employed field techniques that have prove n useful to anthropo logists
in the field .
Observation
Because ethnog raphers are interested in understanding human acti vity in the
everyday settings in which it occurs . most ethnographic investigations invo lve
some period of observation. Th e ahility to observe and record ongoi ng activities
becomes critical to the succes s of the endeavor.
Why Observe?
Th ere is a well-know n axio m in anthropology that what peop le say and what
they do are not the same . Thi s is one of the principal motivation s for including
ohservations of ongo ing acti vity in any study of human behavi or. Th e distinction
betwee n what people say and what they do is related to the distinction between
ideal and manifest behavior. Ideal behavior is what eve ry " good " member of the
comm unity should do , whereas manifest behavior is what people actu ally do.
Sometimes asking people abou t their behavior will yield respo nses closer to the
ideal than the manifest. People may distort , either knowingly or unknowingly,
accounts of the ir own behavio r, often s imply providing an approximation con-
structed either for the questioner 's benefit Ot to match cultural expectation s. W ith
regard to this latter point, Wh iting and Whiting (l 970 ) give examples from
studies of child rearing where women 's description s of their child reari ng prac -
tices we re at odds w ith their observed practice s. Wom en in the U nited States
repo rted that their children could dress and toilet themselves earlier than they
actual ly could. Whit ing and Wh iting assert that this supported the value these
mo thers placed o n independence.
The distinction betwee n what peo ple do and what they say is also related to
the fact that people often don 't have acce ss to the inarticul ated , tacit know ledge
assoc iated with ce rtain ac tivities . There are many activities that are so much a
part of our every day lives that we are unable to provide accurate accounts eve n
when asked to reflec t upon the se activiti es . In so me cases . we may not have the
vocabulary to talk abou t them .
Observational Role
There are many ways to conduct observations . At one extreme one may
atte mpt to beco me the proverhi al " fl y on the wall," in which case the field
worker tries to be as unobtrusive as poss ible . Maintaining the strictly observer
7. ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD METHODS 131
role is difficult and frequ entl y requi res bei ng given some culturally appropria te
tole that allows the obse rver to " hang around " and obse rve .? Some have char ac-
terized this role as that of the observer pa rticipant, where the participant co mpo -
nent is simply the culturally appropri ate status given to the ethnograph er.
At the other extreme is the participant observe r . In this case the fiel~ worke r
beco mes a full participant in the activities studied] and has the op portunity to be
an ohserver as well . Th ere are both adv antages and liab ilities in atte mptmg to be
both ohse rver and particip ant. One major adva ntage is that the field worker h as
firsthand experience of the events under study due to the fact of aCl1v~ parncip a-
tion . In some settings the only way of gaining acc ess to the actrvmes of the
community is by assuming an active role ; simply being an o bserver to events IS
not acceptable (K1uckhohn, 1940). . .
On the other hand , the liahil ities of being bo th obse rve r and parncipant are
many. Logistics alone can be overwhel ming if one is try ing to participate and
take field note s at the same time . It often hecomes necessary to wnte-up field
notes as after the fact recollection s of events participated in . Becau se the eth-
nographer is ofte n new to the activities participated in, a gr~t deal. of energy can
be expe nded simply figuring out what a next appropri ate acti on might he . Und er
these conditions participating at the same time you are rrym g to make sense of
the total ity of events as they unfold may be impo ssibl e . . .
As a participant one has hoth the advantage and di sa~vantage of having a view
of the act ivities fro m a part icular van tage po int, one s partICIpatory role . Par-
ticip atin g in a different capacity would provide a somewhat different perspective
on the events . Whil e this may seem like a problem , every account pro vides a
view from so mewhere , if not fro m a participant's standpo int, th~n from the
outside and some particular outside at that. Th ere are always multiple vantage
points from which to gain an understanding of the acti vities of a community and
each will enli ghten in different ways .
The unobtrusi ve and participant obse rver role s are two e xtremes along so me \
continuum . Most often one moves back and forth betw een partic ipation and I
obse rvation, variously wearing the h at of the insider and outsider. Different
studies and observational episodes within the same study provide different oppor-
tunities to e ither take an unobtrusiv e obse rver role or to particip ate in the ongo ing
activities of the community. One should not feel bound to choose among these
obse rvational extrem es .
Observations of whateve r varie ty requ ire that the field worker maintain good
2While unobtrusive observation may be desirable, there areethical issues that surround observing
or videotaping people for study without their awareness. To the great~st e~t~~t possible , study
participants should be informed about observations or videotaping of their acnvtues.
3Full participation in the activities of the community under study ~as some advan.tages. However,
anthropologists have cautioned fieldworkers that "going. nativ~ " might .h~ve negauve consequence
both for the research project andfor the well being of the mvesttgator. TIns IS a greater problem when
field work is conducted far from home, among markedly different cultural groups.
 132 BLOMB ERG, GIACOMI, MOSHER, A ND SWENTON-WALL
relations with the peop le ohserved. The field worker must be socially skilled and
aware of the sensitivities of those whose activities arebeing observed. Jeopardiz-
ing one's position in the community by insisting on observing or participating in
an activity, when doing so is dee med inappro pria te by the co mmunity, could
easily spe ll disaster for the project. It is more advantageous to proceed slowly,
ga imng trust before insisting on access to certain events, people , and activities .
Often patience and greate r familiarity with local custom will pay off. What was
off limits initially may become open in time.
Focus of Observation
Once the deci sion to observe is made . there are still many questions to
answer. On e must decide what to observe, when to observe , where to observe,
and whe n yo u've ohserved enoug h (Wh iting & Whi ting , 1970). Answers to these
and ot her questions will depe nd on research direct ion. One might decide to
observe meetings (eve nt focu s), or individuals as they go through their daily
rout ine (person foc us), or the activities at and around a receptionist's desk ( place
focu s), or the life history of a document as it moves fro m office to office and
person to person (ohject focus) (see Suchman & Trigg, 199 1, for a slight varia -
tion ). Choices like these become necessary beca use of the impossibility of takin g
m all that is going on in a particul ar sett ing and beca use different research
questions require different observational strategies.
Although there is no fixed rule co ncern ing when one has obse rved eno ugh, a
general principle is that when you're no longer surprised by what yo u' re observ-
ing, you've probably see n enough. In other words, when you can predict what
wiJI occ ur durin g some period and these predi ction s are consistently born out by
repeated observation. you can be secure in believing that a range of behaviors
and activi ties have been adeq uately sampled. However, this confidence depen ds
on appro pria te sam pling strategies for the observat ional periods. For example , if
one's interest is in the activities at or around a particular location, it is important
to observe those activities at various times of the day. The morning activities
around a receptionist's desk may differ sig nificantly from those at the clos e of the
day. Th e issue of sampling strategy is important no matter what the focus of
observation (person, event, place , or object).
Note Taking
No te taking is a very individual activity, but it is one of the important links
between the field experience and how one later interpre ts that expe rience (Jack-
so n, 1990). Al though field notes are never a complete record of the experiences
and observations of the field worke r, they are often used to evoke memori es of
experienced eve nts . As such, field notes are most useful to the orig inal field
worker.
Th ere are many strategies that have been developed for takin g field notes.
7. ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD METHODS 133
Different situations and different observational rol es will influence the pos-
sibilities for taki ng field notes . As mention ed ear lier, the full participant role may
make it impo ssible to take notes while event s are unfold ing. Some situations may
dictate that only sketc hy, temporary notes can be take n at the time of obse rva tion,
the intent being to expand the notes soon after the event is over. Other situations
may allow takin g very extensive notes which might include verbatim tran scrip ts ,
paraphrases of things said, interpre tations of activities observed, as well as
descrip tions , maps , or diagrams of the setting or the movements of people and
artifacts within the setting . Wh en field notes include different types o f informa-
tion, it is often important to indicate the status of the information. Is it ~ v~rbatim
tran script or simply a rough para phr ase ; is it a member's stated motivanon for
particip ating in the event or a conje cture on the part of the ethnographer? Wh ile
these distinctions may seem clear enough at the time the notes are taken, one
must remember that field notes may be referen ced months or years after they
were taken . In this light it is critical tha t field note s include at a minimum a date ,
time, place , and listing of the persons present.
Videotaped Records as N otes
Video camer as have come to play an increasingly impo rtant role in eth-
nograph ic studies (see section on Video Anal ysis). Th ey are sometimes used as a
supplement or eve n substitute to field notes . Wh en mem ory fails or field notes
are inadequ ate , the videotape may be able to provide some of the missing
information. However, caution needs to be exercised when relying on the video
record for a co mplete reco rd of observed eve nts . Viewing a videotape at a later
date and experiencing an event firsthand provide the researcher with different
kinds of access to the activities in question. While the camera records those
activities within its field of view, part icip atin g in the activity allows one to abso rb
the " taste, smell, and feel " of the activity, and to refocu s attention in response to
unfoldin g events . A video tape can not capture the ways the eve nt is experienced
by the obse rver/ partici pant.
Suppl ementing videotape d record s with field notes also can help with later
analysis of the video tapes . Anyone who has record ed hours of video tape know s
how labo rious it is log the tapes for conte nt. Careful, pain staking analysis often
is conducted on only a very small portion of the available videota pe . Field notes
can be a great help in se lecting segments of the tape for more foc used anal ysis.
Observations Coupled Wi th Interviews
Observations seldom stand alone and are freq uen tly coupled with interviews
and informal discussions. Because ethnographers make no assumption that ap-
propriate questions or ways of asking them are known in advance. observations
provide ethnogra phers with o ne way to learn how to ask appropriate qu estion s
from the point-of-view of the memb ers of the community under study. Ob serva-

134 BLOMBERG , GIACOMI, MOSH ER, AND SWENTON -WALL
tions and informal discussions also follow interviews providing the opportunity
to observe behaviors previou sly described by interview respond ents.
Int e rv iewin g
Inform al interviewing is a part of most ethnographic research. Early in field work
these interviews are intentionall y unstructured and open-ended to allow the par-
ncipants to help shape the discourse, the topics to be discussed , and the relevant
ways of talking about them . There are few assumptions going in about what
questions to ask or how best to ask them ' The ethnograph er may have general
areas of interest to explore, but if the discussion moves away from these areas to
issues more "relevant" to the respondent. this is likely to be viewed as an
oppo rtunity to learn about the commu oity rather than a situation to be avoided
lest field work proceed too slowly. Throu gh participation in community activities
and through informal interviews the ethnographer begins to learn enough abou t
the community to conduct more structured, systematic interviews. The moti-
vation to begin with informal interviews, as opposed to structured ones. derives
from a belief that asking highly constrained questions before enough is under-
stood about the situation likely will produce poor quality answers. In such a
situation questions may be understood in unknown ways or may be irrelevant to
the respondent, in which case the researcher might get a mistaken sense of the
relationship between the ques tions asked and the responses given.
It also should be noted that interv iewing, whether formal or inform al, is not a
simple way of recording objective fact (Mishler, 1986). As mentioned in the
preceding section on observation, what people say and what they do are not the
same thing. Asking people to describe some activity in which they engage will
not produce the same insights as one would gain by observing people engaged in .
the activity. In the same way asking people about their beliefs will not tell you
about how those beliefs are manifest in their everyday activi ties. If we simply
relied on the interview as our window to some objective reality, we might come
to some very erroneous conclusion about the lifeways of the communities we
study.
If instead we view the interview (following Briggs, 1986) as a communicative
event, we must know some thing of the interactional dynam ics that shaped the
interview to make se nse of the discourse (the questions and responses). As Briggs
(1986) states , " Like speech events in general, it (the soc ial situation created by
the interview) shapes the form and content of what is said" ( p. 22). The implica-
"When field work is conducted among people who speak a different language from rbe eth -
nographer. a point is madeto learn their language so that questions can be askedin the language and
vernacular of the study participants.
7. ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD METHODS 135
tions of this are twofold. First, the co ntext' in which the interview takes place is
not neutral with respect 10 the discourse that ensues . Seco nd, to make se nse of
what is said during an interview one needs to exami~e th~ ~ial co nstruction of
the questions and respon ses in relation to the SOCIal Situalton created by the
interview itself (Suchman & Jordan , 1990 ).
Interview Location
Because ethnography is field-work based , interviews most often occur i? the
local setting. There are advantages to interviewing in the respondent ~s envl~~n
ment. ot only are the responde nts more likely 10 feel co mfortable In familiar
surroundings , but they have access to people and objects that may figure into the
talk as it unfolds. If a respond ent is trying to describe an activity ID which he
participates , having available the artifacts, physical surroundings, and peopl e
that typically belp shape the activity can be a resource for the talk . Th is said one
must also be aware of situations where the respo ndent's environment does not
provide the privacy needed 10 talk about'some subje cts. If other members of the
commu niry can ove rhear, respo ndents may restrict what they are willi ng to talk
about. The point here is that the setting for Ihe intervie w is never n.eutral with
respect to how the interview unfolds and this must be taken into consideration m
any subsequent analysis of the responses .
Contextual Interviewing
Interviewing can be combined with observation w~e.re the re.sea:che~ inter-
views respondents while they are engaged in some aCI'v,~y, In thts situauo n the
researcher " interrupts" the observed activity to ask quesnons, moti vated by the
observations being made . However, there is a trade off here. By asking a ques-
tion about some activ ity, in the context in which the activity is takin g place , one
will influence the course of the activity. Bearin g this in mind , the co ntextual
interview can provide access to information that observation alone might fail to
uncover.
Who to Interview?
Becau se it often is impossible to interview all members of a community,
decisions must be made concerning who to interview. These choices are influ-
enced by the research questions being posed , the availability of respondents , the
.5'The context is not simply thesum total of lhe physical andsocial characteristics of lhe situa~n _
The context is conlinu.ally being jointly produced by the participants and as such cannot be easily
separated from me activities and talk in question. See Cicourel ( 1982) and Mehan (1979) for a
discussion of these issues.

136 BLOMBERG , GIACOMI , MOSH ER, AND SWENTON-WALL
project time frame, and a co ncern with sampling the views and activities of a
cross-section of the co mmunity. This issue of representative ness was not always
a concern for ethn ographers . Early ethn ograph ers were not particul arly con-
ce rned to find themsel ves in situations where they were relying on information
elicited from one individual because they held the view tha t any member of a
co mmunity co uld provide information about the beliefs, values , and customs of
the entire community. However, as ethnographers began to question assumptions
about cultural shar ing , the practice of relying on a single informant (eth-
nographers' traditional term for respondent) all but disappeared . Ethn ograph ers
questioned whether the chosen informant (o ften a "wes ternized" or marginal
member of the community or one who shared characteristics with the researcher)
could adequately represent the beliefs and practices of all community members .
Rely ing on a single informant became kno wn in anthro pological circles as the
" well-info rmed inform ant problem."
Rules of Thumb in Interviewing
The ethnog raphic interv iew is not bound by explic it rule s. To the contrary, a
great dea l of latitud e is given to the intervi ewer to exp loit the particulars of any
given interview situation (see Suchman and Jordan , 1990 for a discussion of the
pitfalls of rigid inte rviewer guidelines). Neverth eless, there are still a few basic
rules , or what mig ht be better described as interactional style considerations , that
sho uld be menti oned . First, it is important to allow resp ondents to help shape the
conte nt and character of the interaction. In keep ing witb this precept, it is
gen erally not advisable to interrupt unne cessari ly, to complete the respo ndents'
utterances , or to answe r your own questions . While the interviewer may be able
to anticipate what a respondent is going to say, much more is learned by allowing
the respondent to answer the question unaided by the interviewers' presupposi-
tions . If the interviewer is mistaken about the answe r contemplated by the re-
spo ndent, there is the risk that the respondent will accept the interviewer's
respon se, thinkin g it "sounds better " than the one contemplated or will not want
to co ntradict the interviewer. In any event, an opportunity to learnmore about the
respondent's world will be lost.
A second guideline in ethnographic interviewing is that rapport with the
respo ndent should not be sacrificed to obtain a response. Th e respondent may
choo se not to answer a question for any number of reasons (e. g., too personally
revealin g , co ncern that the information will get to other parties, inability to
understand wh y the interviewer wants to know such information, etc .). Eth-
nographers rely on being able to find new, more appropriate ways of asking
questions as they learn more about the setting and as the respondents become
more famili ar with them .
Third , it is important that tbe interv iewer be willing to acknowledge knowing
less than the respo ndent. After all, the point of the interview is to learn some-
7. ETHNOGRAP HIC FIELD M ETHODS 137
thing about what the respondent know s or how the respondent sees the ~orld .
Altho ugh the interv iewer may be more knowledgeable abo ut some topi c , the
objective of the interview is not to produce the most accurate or co mplete
understanding of the topic, but to gain a better unde rstanding of what the respon-
dent know s and thinks about the topic . The purpose of the intervi ew may be
defe ated if the interviewer is more co ncerned with self-aggrandizeme nt than
listening to what the respond ent ha s to say. A related pro blem whe n ethnography
is part of a design project is the tend ency of some designers , whose Job after all is
to solve problems, to come up with solutions to a respo ?dent's expres sed prob-
lem befo re takin g the time to get an adequate understanding of the problem. The
push to solve design problems may conflic t with taki ng the time to fully apprec i-
ate the nature of the problem .
Vid eo Ana lys is
The use of video cameras in ethnographic research is on the increase with the
growi ng availability of inexpe nsive , small , portable equipment '. There are a
vari ety of ways ethnographers make use of video rec ord s of activity. For some
they are a supplement to field notes , for others they are used in teaching and
repo rting situations, and for still others they are the pri mary data for analysis."
Space limitations preclude a detailed discussion of the techmques used 10 the
analysis of video records , but we offer a few general argum ents for bringing
video cameras to the field .
Wh y Videotape?
One of the strongest arguments in favor of videotaping is tha t human activities
unfold so fast that it is impossible to capture the ir complexity by observation
alone (Jordan , Henderson, & Tatar, in preparation). Field notes are onl y a partial
record of activiti es observed or participated in, and words are often inadequate to
describe what is observed , including bodily movem ents relevant to the analysis .
The videotape preserv es these acti ons for careful viewing and analysis. V id-
eotaped records also allow one to look at an activity from different perspectives
from the one held at the time the video record was made.
As the field work pro gres ses and the researcher develops new unders tandings
of the activities , new perspectives can be brought to bear on the activities pre-
viou sly recorded . The abi lity to review videotapes also allows the researcher the
opportunity to co rrect e rroneous characterizations and interpretations (Suchman
& Trigg , 1990). In this sense the researcher can corroborate the field record
(notes) with the video rec ord .
6Many ethnographers employ analytic techniques developed in the ~ of conversational .and
interactional analysis. Those interested in learning more about these techniques andthe assumptions
that underlie them should refer to Atkinson and Heritage (1984) and Goodwin and Heritage (1990).
 138 BLOMBER G, GIACOM I, MO SHER, AND SWENTON -WALL
Another advantage of having a video record is that it can be made available to
people not presen t at the time the recording was made. Field note s absent an
acco mpany ing elaboration by the person who took them, are of limited use to
anyone but the original note taker. On the other hand, videotapes of activity can
be viewed and ana lyzed by a wide range of people (other researchers, designers ,
product developers, etc.). The participation in the analysis by people involved in
the original videotap ing often can facilitate the analysis and contribute to what
can be learned from the tape .
Videotaping ongoing activi ty also provides another example of unobtrusive
observation since a camera can be se t up and the researchers can leave the
scene." Despite the opportunity to observe without influencing the course of
events, in some circumstances it may not be desirable for the researcher to leave
the ~cene '. There are times when the investigator's presence is appropriate; when
~he In: estIgator wants to be a participant in the recorded activity or when the
in vestigator wants to be present to ask for clarifica tion and el aboration . The
investig~tor's presence in the scene should not determine whether video taping is
appropriate , but an awareness of the possib le influence of the investigator 's
p.resence on the activities should be taken into co nsideration in subsequent analy-
SIS.
Problems With Videotaping
Videotaping is not problem free . Because one can quickly generate large
quantrnes of tape all of which cannot be analyzed in detail, the researcher faces
the. problem.of identifying sectio ns of the tapes for care ful, painstaking analysis.
This IS facilitated by logging the tapes soon after they are made, annotating them
WIth general descriptions of activities and highlightin g places where particular
researc h questio ns are addressed. Field notes can be useful in producing these
content Jogs, but if one was not present when the tape was made , the content
logging activity will require viewing the entire tape at least once to produce an
adequate content log. This can amo unt to hours of work. Once the co ntent log is
com pleted, particular sections of the tape can be selected for later carefu l analy-
SIS.
Analyzing videotapes is a time-consuming activity that cannot be de legated to
others. Unlike survey researc h where interviewing participants, codi ng re-
sponses , and conducting statistical analys is can be done by others, the job of
analyzing VIdeotapes by repeated viewing can be done only by those who will be
engaged in interpretation. Insights come only through partici pating in careful
analysis (Heritage & Atkinson, 1984; Suchman & Trigg, 1990).
1While. (he influence of (he camera's presence on behavior cannot be ruled out, in most cases (he
camera quickly becomes part of the background and only occasionally surfaces in the participants'
awareness.
7. ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD METH ODS 139
Another problem with the use of video cameras is that some human activities
are difficult to record on videotape . There are times when a space may be too
small to get an acceptable view w ith the camera, or when noi se level s are not
adequate for suitable audio recording. The spatial distribution of an activity may
require multiple cameras to adequately record the activity and the changin g
locati on of an activity may require mobile cameras . Multiple (mo bile) cameras
are not possi ble in all settings and one may have to settle for reco rding only part
of the activity. If it is poss ible to use more than one camera, new analytic
challenges emerge. While the use of split screen images , time code to syn-
chronize multiple recordin g, and com puter co ntrolled editing eq uipment makes
such analys is possib le vi t is difficult nonetheless.
UNDERSTANDING HUMAN BEHAVIORS AS A
MECHANISM FOR CHANGE
As mentioned, ethnography is a way of developing a descriptive understan ding
of human activities . Insofar as such an understanding can be brought to bear on
designing new technologies, its role as a mechani sm for change must be consid-
ered. To greater and lesser degrees new technologies always resul t in change for
the communities into which they are introduce d. As Ehn (1988) puts it, " What
we design is not ju st artifacts but by interventi on a changed or reformed practice "
( p. 128). As such those involved in linking ethnog raphy and design must be
aware of their role as "change age nts." This raises the question . as it doe s for
anthropologists who act as change agents in mo re traditional settings ; " In whose
interest doe s one operate?" Does one serve the people for whom new technolo-
gies are des igned (those whose activities are the subjec t of the inquiry) or does
one serve the spo nsors of the work? Arensberg and Niehoff (1971) co ntend the
main concern of the anth ropologist involved in promoting change" . .. must be
with the people who he hopes will accept the new ideas" ( p. 7). In man y cases
the se are the end-users of the new tecbnologies .
Because ethnogra phy typically involves extensive contact with the people
studied and an attempt to " see" the world through their eyes, ethnog raphers
frequently identify with the interes ts of those studied regard less of researc h
sponsorship. Van Mannen (1988) writes, " . .. the fieldworker not only repre-
sents but takes the side of the studied" ( p. 42). This orientati on toward the
co ncerns of the people studied is a central characteristic of anthropo logy and has
been codified in the " Principles of Professional Responsibility " adopted by the
American Anthropological Association in 1971. The first principle states, " In
research, an anthro pologist's paramount responsibility is to those he studies.
When there is a conflic t of interest, these individuals must co me first." (Ethics
and Anthropology: Dilemmas in Field work , p. 183). As anthropologists beco me
more involved in systems design and development, and as ethnographi c field
 14 0
BLOMBERG. GIACOMI. MOSHER. AN D SWENTON.WALL
7. ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD METHODS 141
methods becom e more widely used in such ffi ".
invol ved in this work to reflect upo th the orts, It IS unportant for those studied it is possible to gain new understandings of the studied activi ties in
whose wo rk is su d n ese e leal co ncerns. In particular, those relation to the evolving design . Second , insofar as researchers and designers
" bo th user advoc~:"Jrte d technology compa nies must ask ifi t is possible to be
by
ope rate as "change agents," they need to re spect the interests of those studied in
'. es an p urveyors of technology?" (Kat hleen Carte I
comm unIcatIOn). r, persona whatever technology so lutions are develope d. Third , in those case s where those
studied will become the actual users of the new technology, their early involve -
ment may aid in adoption later on.
PARTICIPATION IN FORMULATING DESCRIPTIONS OF
NATIVE PRACTICES EXPECTATIONS OF THOSE PARTICIPATING IN AN
ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY
Little has bee n written abo ut the role of those studi d i .
of their own practices Wh 'j th h em formulatmg descriptio ns Ethnographers typically promise little in return for the opportunity to study a
. l e e et nographer may tt
experiences of those studied from th " . , . a emp t to represent the co mmunity of people other than to avoid major dis ruptions in the community's
. . e natives pomt-of-vlew " act i . .
n on of the studied in reviewing and J ' . ive part tcipa , activi ties and to look after the community's interests in subseq uent interactio ns
rare . At most , the studied may be ana yzmg the e thnographer's form ulations is with outs iders (e.g. , public ation s , presentation s, discussions). Th e arg ument has
aspects of the ethnogra hers field come mvolved 10 check ing the "accuracy " of bee n made that ethnog raphy is exp loitive to the degree that it is not concerned
se ntations of native p~tjces ofte~O::'d~e;I~th~ographer's accounts and repre- with the use of the knowledge gained to better the condi tions of the study
ticipat ion of those studied is rarel . pe .far from the field where par- participants. Strath em (198 7) write s that people may expe rience exploitatio n
practice of not in volving the studi~l:slbl~. eve~ if desirable In defense of the
studied are not in a goo d posit'
most likel sim I II:
t 0; irect y, Some have argued that those
Ion 0 re . ect on their Own behaviors and would
" .. . when [they] perceive that others have the po wer to tum data into materials
whose value can not be shared or yielded back to them in return ( p. 20) . Some
have argued that one reaso n eth nogra phers often study the less adv antaged is
iors if as: ed t/pYart er PO t st hoc ratIOnalization s or j ustifications for their behav-
rcrpa e 10 analysis , because these communiti es are not in a position to demand something in return
Ethnograp hers beco me concerned with issu f " . for particip ation in the study. Nader ( 1974) states, "Anthro polog ists might in-
come involved directly in maki es 0 partIcIpatIOn when they be- deed ask themsel ves whethe r the entirety of field wo rk does not depend upon a
tices. Whe n they take the role OI;;h';,commendatJOns for changes to native prac- . ce rtain power relation ship in favor of the anthropologist, and whether indeed
material effects on those studied ge age nts and their form ulations could have such domin ant- subordinate relationships may not be affecting the kinds of theo-
Niehoff ( 1966) " ' partrcipatinn becomes an import ant issue .
writes In a case book of soc ial change , ries we are weaving" ( p. 289). Issue s of access beco me salient as ethnographers
attempt to study franchised and more powerful co mmunities .
No project which will effect soc ioeconomic cha . When ethnography is a part of a technology develop ment effo rt issues of
recipi ents do not panicipate It . " nge can posslbty succeed if the
access and reciprocity must be co nfronted. In some situations membe rs o f fran-
neglected to make Su re th~y' it IS Surp~smg ho~ frequently action agents have
ave co mmitted partICipation on th - . chised communities must be co nvinced to allow acces s to the settings in which
appears [hat the principal reaso n Why this ' ' . err projects. It
so o ften is that many technical advi hPnm":Y mgredlent has been o verlooked
they work , without the promise of prov iding them with a techn ology solution.
. . . rsers ave viewed their task as ' ) Th is may be the case beca use the techn ology unde r deve lopme nt may never
providi ng so me kind of tec hnical solution ( p. 18). Simp y one o f
become commercially available or, if it doe s , it might be years before it is on the
market. Th e abili ty to gain access to the communities of study and the promi ses
Anthropologists ofte n are brought into action - ' . . that can be made about materially bettering the lot of those studied is directly
reali zation that the change agents need a be oriente d proje cts when there IS the
beliefs of the " beneficiaries" of th . tter understanding of the practices and linked to the type of technology development effort undertaken.
i~volved in the specification and i~t~r~~~~~na~~ : at these jndi.v iduals need to be
gres. The anthropolog ist beco me a li~k to th
new
ed pract ices and technolo- WHY IS ETHNOGRAPHY RELEVANT TO DESIGN?
In attempting to link eth h ~se In rgenous comm unities .
nograp y to design it i .
involving those studied in the specification of the ~~w I:e::~rtant that ways of Ethnography is relevant to design for several rea son s . First , since designers often
be develope d. Thi s is needed fo al . no ogles and practices create artifacts for work settings they know little abo ut, some understan din g o f
r sever reasons: First , by involVing those
those settings is needed so that the technologies suit the situations of their use .
 142
BLOM BERG, GIACOM I, MOSHER, AN D SWENTON-WALL
7. ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD METHODS 143
Second, because tech nolog ' h I h
(Ehn, 1988' Blom berg 1987 '~~88e )p s ape the work practices of their users Because of differences betwee n the languages and perspectives of ethnography
, be', " , a , It IS Important that the designers' w Id and design and beca use the ethnographer is likely to have little knowledge or
;:;:;i~~ th~m:::t~~::~~r:~~a~e::C~::I~;~~I:~;::;;~rs~av':lin~ informa~~n appreciation for the immediate co ncerns of the designers , this is not a simple
rely on the ir ow n experiences and im . . ~ e s.t ey can do IS task . Making the findings of an ethnographic study useful for day-to-day design
technologies better suited to their ne:~~n~~a:n ::~~~~~ng the nlsk of designing concerns becomes a major undertaking .
Third there - . . e actua users. Second, an ethnographic study might be undertake n by a tea m of investigators
uses are,~nkno= ~~~~lJ~~~a;;:::e~~~7:~~;~~t~:~~~~~~~gie: whose possible co nsisting of ethnographers and designers. In this case the insights and under-
an applica tion. Some understanding of the work in which nOtogy~n search of standings, in part, would be embodied in the experiences of the desig ners who
:~~aged can help identify possible uses aod refi ne the Origi: 1~:hno~~~ :~ were firsthand participants in the study. As Pen niman (1974) ohserved, experi-
ence underlies all unde rstanding of social life. Active involvement by designers
Fourth, since the user's experience of a techn I " in the field work and in cons tructing interpre tations of the work activities at the
context of its use (Blomberg 1987 1988 ) " a ogy IS Influenced by the study site also would help focus the ethnographic study on issues more central to
technology use than that arriv '. , a ~~mmg a broader perspective on the design task and would make the interp retat ions more relevant to the design .
focus on the human-machin: d ~ough tradit IOnal operabihry testing (with its
d at
Third , a project could be undertaken by a team of ethnographers. desig ners .
Approaches p 144 Tor a d ya. IS Important (see secnon on Traditional and users. The understandings and insights derived from the study would not
. , . ,' . escn pno n of operability tests).
giv=,~~~:::e~~~:gm~g radical ly new technologies , users often are unahle to necessarily be represented in a wrinen report, but instead would be reflected in a
codesigned art ifact. User partnership in developing and evaluating the tech-
gies. They n~ed to : :P::i~Juenthes about how they might use such techno 10- nology in relation to current and imagined work activities would be aided by
WI a way of en vtstoning and expe . . th
tee h nology in the context of their o w k uracti n encing e designer participation since designers would bring knowled ge of technology
n wa r practices before they ib
to such a discussion. To create the context for such a discus . cdan cbentn ute constraints and opportunities to the collaboration. The success of the project
partners ' th . . sron an to useful would be evaluated on the basis of how well the technology supported the work
. In e JOint exploration of the relation between work d h
:::~~~~r~ :;;t have some understand ing of the user's work (BI::~~; ~o~:~:
activities " In this last situation the ethnographer would adopt . in part, the
designer's orientation of seeking to understand human behavior insofar at it

theF~~~ir; ~fet~~nhg~:;:~i~:';;;~: ~~;;,":: :: c:nology design efforts is ill-s uited to

enabled the design of artifacts better suited to the needs of the users.

single task or the tasks of the single use . s lnte: ratlOn. SImply focusing on a
articulates with that of many others Ii r Ignores ow the work of one individual
may rely on the work of documen . or examp le , a pn nt shop operator's work TRA DITI ON A L APPROAC HES
artists, sales representatives and ~a~~~~~~W;rdtroc~Slng specialisu , g raphic
operator 's work should be desi . . ys ems at support the pont shop To put the preceding discussion of ethnographic field methods in perspective , it
work of these oth . . esigned WIth Some larger understanding of how the is useful to describe some traditional approaches used to provide designers with
ers Impinges upon the work of the print shop operator.
some understanding of user need s and behaviors. Following these descriptions
we discuss difference s betwee n these approaches and ethnog raphy.
LINKING ETHN OG RA PHY A ND DESIG N
8Wolcott (1990) questions whether such an undertaking should be co nsidered ethnography at all
There are various ways one mi ht ' . . .
ring the knOWledge gained fro~ .,:magme acq~mng , representing. and transfer-
since , ". . . the research process deserves the label ethnography o nly when the intended product is
ethnography (e. g ., some written acco unt or cultural interpretation)" ( p. 47). Van Mannen (1988)
in the context of technology design ~eno~PhIc analysIs of user work practices makes a similar point in distinguishing between doing ethnographic field work and producing an
trained ethnographer mi ht be as ' W I m en ti on only a few of them . First, a ethnography: ..Ethnography as a written product, then has a degree of independence (how culture is
The insights from this ~tudY mi~:r t~h:~% ~e w~r~actices of Some gro up. portrayed) from the field work on which it is based (how culture is known )" ( p. 4). In situati ons
written reports a d I ' ans e to deSIgners through where there never was the intention of developing a written accou nt of the practices studied other than

identifyi ng the r~le~:t ~:~:~~~~ . The deSi! ners would then have the task of
as required by the design effort, can we truly consider such activity ethnog raphy? If not , how is the
field work that accompanies such a technology development effort different from more traditional
e reports .or their particular design efforts .
ethnographic studies?
 7. ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD METHODS 145
144 BLOMBERG. GIACOMI. MOSHER. AND SWENTON-WALL
designers are given video taped summary documents which highl ight signific ant
Customer Surveys
issues talked about during the focus groups.
Customer.surveys i.n~oJ ve administering a standard questionnaire to customers De signers and market researchers rece ntly have been exploring the use of
abofillt po te ntial, or e~l stlng . products with the intention of determining custome storyboards, scenarios of use , mock-ups, models, and concept videotapes to
pre erences for certa in technologies and technology features Th r eli cit comments from foc us group partici pants about the relevance of new tech -
tempt to provide information about the nature of the custome~' Y
eseks.urveI s.at- nology co ncepts to the ir wo rk . Customers are asked to react to these representa-
to the tech nology i . C' . wor In re atron tions of technology concepts from the standpoint of the ways in which these
h hi Y In question. r or example, customers may be questioned about
technologies might suppo rt current work or might enable them to accomplish
~~~ t~:;gSt~: ~yepete~~n~I';;ie~ currently in use, the frequency with which they
, as s t ey perform on them, and how the view work in the future . The use of such representations addresses the problem of how
features or technologies. Customer surveys typically are conducte: by m;~: to provide adequate verbal descriptions of a technology concept such that focu s
:~:::;v~ ~Ither : t the very early or late stages of produ ct developmen t. The group participants might imagine uses for the technology.
n age 0 customer surveys IS that they provide responses from a lar e
; prese ntatlve sample of customers in a short amount of time . Typically ~'
.esl~ comm umty receives a tally of responses and a summary statement o~tlin~ Field Trips
ing e results of the survey. Field trips provide desig ners with one of their only opportunities to observe
and interact directly with users in the users' workplace . Field trips typically are
Operability Assessments of two kinds; field visits and field tests .
task: approach i nvolves asking potential users of a product to perform several
as s or operations USing a simulator or worki ng prototy pe. Users are asked 1. Field Visits. Field visits are intended to familiarize product developers
perform tasks designed to test features of the user interface . Measurements are with customers and the use of products within particular market segments. These
t~en to . reco rd the amo unt of time required to complete a task the f uenc e visits, typically lasting no longer than two hours at each of several custo mer
sites, take place anytime during the design cycle . The product development
WIth which tasks were successfully completed , etc. Problem are':' are i':e:,tifi';;
teams help set up the visits but, once on site , designers and other team members
~n~ highlighted as the test proceed s. Designers not involved in the operability
interact on their own with customers. Questionnaires , interviews , and brief ob-
es are.given use.f perfo~ance ~tatistics , short descriptions of problems encoun-
servations are used to obtain information about the use of current products at the
tered , and potential
usually d d . solutions to Identified prob lems . Operabilit
I Yassessments are
co n ucte In a laboratory setting by members of the design communit site , as well as possible future customer requirements.
most frequently at very late stages of product development .? y,
2 . Field Tests. Field tests usually take place following the placement of a
Focus Groups new product in the customer's wo rk place and are used to gauge the success of a
product as well as to identify opportunities for its improvement. Such tests are
b Foeus groups bring together individuals from a cross-section of the cust
conducted by the organizations responsible for product sales and installation,
ase to evaluate products and product concepts in a discussion grou format .
r:tarket researchers work WIth designers to obtain a description or ch:acteriza~ with support from the product developmen t teams. Questionnaires and informal
interviews are used to obtain users' views on product perform ance . Th e results of
tlon of the product or concept under review. While designers may .d .
o n tOpICS to be covered in the focus group, they rarely participate e dre'::~ ;:~~ the tests are made available to the produc t development teams.
group d ISCUSSIons usually include some consideration of the k PartiCipan~'
acuvi nes , environment , and future needs Although th di d f wor Each of the traditional approaches sketched above has strengths and weak -
videotaoes someti . e une tte rocus group nesses. Some are more appropriate in the early phases of the design cycle , when
apes sometimes can be obtained for independent analysis, most frequently
knowledge about the customer and potential uses of a product can be used to
shape the characteristics and definition of the produ ct. Often in later stages of the
interface design or with the f~nctiona~tyo::i~: blest:l : y reveal some ~roblems wi~h the user
9Blomberg ( 198Sb) notes "WhiJ [ bT
cycle, the designer can do little more than verify that the design is acceptable to
laboratory environment has distinc t characteristics W~Ch d~ff, ~olo~y ~heY
. fad to recog mze that the users or make minor changes to those aspects of the product with which the users
ments in which the technol ogy will be used d I er 10 srgm icant ways from the environ-
on a ay-to-day basis in the labo I . are most uncomfortable . Issues of cost , impe nding design schedule , and the
user has none o f the soc ial resources that are avarilable In
" most work
" " " . environments."
" ra ory sem ng the
 146
BLOMBERG. GIACOM I. MOSHER. AND SWENTON-WALL
7. ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD M ETliO DS 147
availability of key pe ople all are .
of one approach over another. Important factors that can influence the selection
which take place on single occasions (e. g . in focus group discussion or oper-
ability tests).
Contrasts Between Traditional and Ethnogra phy on the other hand has the potential of providing a context where -
Ethnographic Approaches in mutual understanding between use rs and designers can evo lve . Armed with
knowledge of user work practices gained thro ugh direct observation of users at
Traditionally, the User interface desi ner' . . work, design ers are in a much better position to accurately, and more fully,
functionality of the techn ology avail gbl s rhole has been limited to maki ng the incorpor ate users' perspectives in the design , with the potenti al of improving
. I a e to t e end-u ser Id 11 d .
be considered user-advocates in that they . ea y, esrgners might existing products as we ll as identifying opportunities for new products . However,
the sys tem by articulati ng their ed redp resent users as the human element in incorpo rating the ethnog raphic approac h into design and product development
.
des ign ne s an req uirem ents . .
solutions with the devel . In uegouations abou t efforts requ ires some reorientation. Des igners must develop skills in interview-
oprnenr team AIl too ft h
contact designers have with .. ' 0 en, .owever, the only
ing , observation, analysis, and interpretation, while development teams must be
. users IS 10 laboratory 0 bili
product IS placed in the user" . pera rty test s or after a willing to shift their emphasis to suppo rt ear ly and co ntinued user involv ement.
. s environment Since th .
dun ng critical phases of design th des i e user IS out of the loop These are considerable investments, but the po tential ben efit s also are high .
experience and imagination Cre'all" e eSlgnerfmu~t represent the user based on
B ng a sort 0 " virtual" user
Y contrast ethnography provides for an on oi .. .
based on desig ners' firs thand k I d g mg relationship with Users
. now e ge of the users' rk .
109 are som e of the ways tradi tional wo setn ng. Th e follow- A PROJECT TO LINK ETHNOGRAPHY AND DESIGN
ethnography differ. approa ches to understanding users and
Researchers at the Palo Alto Research Ce nter (PARC) and designers in the
The Context of the Designer-User Interaction' Indu strial Design /Human Interface (ID/ HI) department at Xerox recentl y bega n
collaborating to explore new ways o f directly linkin g ethnogra phy and design.
All of the approaches listed earlier exce t field .
the users' work place Prod uct ' p tnps , are conducted outside This project, the Parti cipatory Design (PO) Project, bri ngs together individuals
are viewed and eval~ated in a~o~:::ts, ~ototypes or ear ly engineering models with background s in anthropology, graphic design, human factors, and industrial
g lOe seltmg design . Togeth er with users from selected field sites , they form the Participatory
tasks . The qu ality of the infonnaf o l , often utilizing hypothetica l
I n IS un ited by the des ' , bili Design team .
represent the conce pt in relation to ' . igner s a I ity to
ability to envision themsel ves using t~~~~~:~7..med workplace and the users'

rs). . Goals of the Project

ocus IS on the Technolog y, not the Work
Traditional approaches to understandin Th e PD project has multiple , interrelated goals which invol ve understanding user
driven. Th e focus is on obtainin ans g user needs are largely technology work practices, deve loping new ways of incorpora ting such an understanding
ability of a particular techno! g wers to specific quesu ons about the accept- into everyday design practice , and integratin g the lessons learned from this
understanding the relationshi;g~~oncep~ prototype or product, rather than on project into Xerox product development.
sign-ed to support Technology ~ ised i e technology and the work it is de-
.
d eslgners . - ocus techniqa es pro vide Iittl
to learn abo ut the eve ryd k nracti I e opportu nity for Characterizing User Work Practices
ay wor prac tices of po tential users .
Users are not Collaborators in the The PD project is concerned with giv ing desi gners new and better ways of
Technology Development gaining an understanding of users' everyday work practice s, with a foc us on the
relation between techn ology and human activity. Of parti cul ar concern are the
Traditional approaches provide little room for . ways current technologies support work activities and how work practices inte-
ers and users over the evolving desi but i collaboratIOn between design- grate a collection of techn ologies into a system of activity. T he application of
verbalize their needs Or to expos es~gnd ut Instead rely on the users' ability to
e ina equac res of the des ign in isolated tests ethnogra phic field methods is the vehicle by which such an understand ing is
being developed .
 7. ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD METHODS 149
148 BLOMBERG. GIACOMI . M OSHER. A ND SWENTON- WALL

VIDEO ANALYSIS ' WAl l ' _

Developing New Design Practices
Layered documentation of ideas, issues
The PO project also is aimed at changing curre nt design practices to allow for and opportunities for change resulting
user parti cip ation from the begin ning of prod uct design . The use of eth- fromvideo analysis
nographic-sty le field work places designers in the users' work setting which
provides an opportunity for cont inued involvement of users in the desi gn process
and for des ig n iteration in relation to actual situations of use.

Integration With Product Development

Post-it -lH.1W
The PO proje ct also is focused on buildin g on the experiences of this project to no'"
help shape new, more participatory prod uct developme nt processes thro ugbout
the co mpany. The strategy is to introduce the benefi ts of a participatory approac h
to produ ct design by exam ple and by involving individuals from othe r organ iza-
tions (Marketing and Product Planning) in some of the work.

New Ways of Working

Th e PO project has requ ired that desig ners learn new skills for acquiring an
Fcamccr e
understanding o f users' wo rk practices and that anthropologists learn new, 000- board
text ba sed, ways of representing the insights gained fro m an ethnogra phic study. Acetate overlays to
Because most trad itional appro aches to understanding users are not field work draw on and add
mo re notes
based, des igners involved in the projec t wanted some gro unding in ethnographic
field meth ods be fore they embarked on this projec t. Two workshops were held on
the topics of Ethnographic Field Meth ods and Qu alitative Data Analysis. The
first workshop provided designers with a perspec tive on eth nography, as well as
pract ical skills related to observ ing wo rk practices , co nducting ope n-ended inter-
view s, and makin g audio and video reco rdings in the field (see Appendix 1-for
field exercises used in Ibis works hop). Th e second workshop focu sed on ways of
analyzing and interpreting the information acquired from interviews, observa-
tions . and video rec ordings .

Scope of the Project
Th e PO team has worked prima rily with one user co mmunity that was se-
lected beca use (a) a broad range of technologies (fax, computers , printers, type-
wri ters , etc.) were in use at the site , (b) the wo rk was shaped by a rich array of
docume nts (bo th paper and electron ic), (c) gro ups were linked through a variety
of media, and (d) peop le at the site were eager to take part in the projec t. Th is
combi nation of characteristic s enabled the team to exp lore how information was
organized and disseminated, how various activities we re coordinated, ho w docu -
ments helped struc ture activities, and how work practices integrated stand-alone
office technologies into a coherent system. These were all important issues for
the kinds of technologies membe rs of the PO team were being asked to design.
FIG. 7.4. One of the techniques developed by designers to aid in vid-
eo analysis.
Th e team beg an its field work by interviewing users . Th ese open -end ed
interviews served as introd uctions to peo ple, activities, and technologies. Dunng
these interviews users were asked to give a guided tour or walk throu gh of their
office s which included a description of the artifacts they used , the peo ple with
whom 'they interac ted , and the activities in which they engaged. The interv iews
were videotape d and were the basis upon which the team chose one gro up to
observe more closely and invol ve in the actual codesign effort.
 150 BLOMB ERG. GIA COMI. M OSHER. A ND SWENTON-WA l l
7. ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD METH ODS 151
THE"ENYISIO NER"
At the same time the team was developing new ways of representing both the
A 3 dimensional representation work at the sites and possible new technologies to support it. They explored the
of an office layout use of co ncept videotapes, 3-D representations. graphical depictions. story-
boards, and scenarios of use to represent possible relationships between work
and e merging technolog y concepts . These representations aided communicatio n
amo ng team member s and between them and users. One such representation tool
developed by the team was the Envisioner, which allowed a 3-D scaled (Y. scale
and Y, scale to show different levels of detail) model of the studied work settings
to be constructed (see Fig. 7 .5). The layout of particular offices and the equip-
ment and other artifacts used were depicted with foam core pieces which had
magnetic bases that sat on a magnetic grid and could be easily moved and
rearranged . A sheet of acetate sat on top of a Plexiglass roof so designers could
make annotations, draw connections between objects, people. technologies. and
explore design ideas . The Envisioner supported looking beyond the design of a
particular technology by making the relationship between work, people and
technology the focus of the representation .
The Participatory Design project continue s at the time of this writing with user
co-design sessions being the current focus of activity. The team has agreed on a
technology design direct ion and is now exploring possible design solutions with
users. Concurrent with this activity members of the team are becoming involved
as work practice analysts and participatory design experts in some mainstream
Xerox product development projects. With little time to reflect on their recent
Plexiglas top w ith experiences. project membe rs are being asked to adapt their new partic ipatory
Foamcore acetate overlay to design skills and practices to the requirements of product development . While
pieces draw on
the value of closer, more extended contact with users is beginning to be under-
stood outside the small participatory design project described here , how suc-
cessful we will be in migrating the approach into Xerox product development
projects remains to be seen.

CONCLUSION
FIG. ~.5. Phot~g~ap h of indu strial design techniques adapt ed to w ork
practice analysis.
Linking ethnographic field methods and design has the poten tial both to provide
designers with new ways of gaining a deeper understanding of user work prac-
tices and to provide a context for designers to collaborate with users over the
The activities of the group selected were observed and videotaped over several
design of new technologies. However, realizing the benefits of a link between
weeks . By jo intly analyzmg both the interview and observational videotapes , the
ethnography and design presents many challenges including learning how to
PD team began to build a shared understanding of the work at these sites .
translate the insights from an ethnographic study into terms relevant to design,
Drawing on skills In graphic and industrial design, the team began to construct a
providing designers with the skills necessary to be reasonably accomplished field
collage of Ideas, Issues. and opportunities for change that surfaced during the
workers , and altering the mind set of product planners and developers so that
joint VIdeo analysis (see Fig . 7.4). The collage helped the designers articulate
extensive, in-depth user involvement is viewed as necessary throughout the
and translate what they were learning into possible design concepts.
design and development process. It is our hope that this paper, and the PD project

152 BLOMBE RG, GIACO MI, M OSHER, AND SW ENTO N-WA LL
repo rted upon here, wilJ help move us closer to a successful linkage between the
two undertaki ngs.
REFERENCES
Agar, M . (1980 ). The professional strange r, New York: Academi c Press .
Agar. M . (1986). Spe ak ing o f ethnogra phy. Qualitative Research Methods. 2 . 11-78.
Are nsber g . C . & Niehoff, A . ( 197 1). i ntroducing social chan ge: A manualfo r community devel op-
ment . Ch icago: Aldine l Athenan .
Atkin son , J. M ., & Heritage , J. (Eds .). (l 984). Structures a/social action: Studies in conve rsation
analysis . Cambridge . UK: Cam bridge University Press.
Blombe rg , 1. ( 1987). Soci al intera ction and office comm unication : Effects on user evaluation of new
technologies: In R . Kraut (Ed.), Technol ogy and the transfonnation of white col/ar work ( pp.
195- 210). HiIldaJe, NJ: Lawrenc e Erlba um Assoc iates.
Blomberg , J. ( 1988a). The varia ble impact of computer tech nologies on the organ ization of work
acti vities. In I. Greif (Ed.), Computer-supp orted coope rative work: A book 0/ readings ( pp. 771-
78 1). San Mateo , CA: Morgan Kaufman n.
Blomberg . J. ( 1988b , February ). Soc ial aspects of ope rabi lity: Ethno graphy cfphotocopiers. Pape r
Prese nted at the Ame rican Associat ion for the Advancement of Science Annua l Meeting , Boston .
Blom berg . J. ( 1989). Workshop on etbnog raphic field methods and their relation to design . Present-
ed to Xerox Indu stri al Des ign/ Human Interface Department. Roch ester, NY.
Blom berg , J. & Hende rson . A. (1990). Reflections on part icipato ry design: Lessons from the
Trilliu m co mmunity. In J. C. Chew & 1. Whiteside (Eds .). Human / actors in comp uting systems .
C HI '90 Co nferenc e Proceedings (pp. 353-359). New York: ACM .
Briggs, C . ( 1986). l1aming how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in
soc ial scien ce rese arch . Camb ridge , UK: Cambridge Un iversi ty Press .
Cicourel, A . (1982 ). Interviews . surveys, and the problem of eco logical validity. Am erican So-
cio logist , 17, 11-20 .
Clifford , J. (1988). The predicament of culture : Twent ieth -century ethnography. lite rature. and art.
Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press .
Clifford, J. , & Marcus , G . B. (Ed s.). (1986). Writing culture. Berk eley: University of Californ ia
Press .
Council of the Am erican Anthropological Associ ation (19 71). Statements on ethics: Principles of
profe ssional respo nsibility. In J. Casse ll & S . Jacobs (Eds.}, Handbook on ethical issues in
Anthropo logy ( pp. 96- 1(0). Washington , DC: Ame rican Anthro pological Assoc iation .
Crane, J. , & Angros ino , G . ( 974 ). Field projects in ant hropology : A student handbook . 2nd
edition . Prospec t Heights, lL: Waveland Press.
Elm, P. ( 1988). Work -orien ted design of computer artifacts, Stockho lm: Gummessons.
Geertz , C . (1973). Th e interpretation 0/ cultures. New York.: Basic Boo ks .
Gee rtz , C. ( 1983 ). Local know ledge : Fur ther essays in inte rpretive anthropology . New York : Basic
Book s.
Good win , C ., & Heritage , J. ( 1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropol ogy , 19 ,
283-307 .
Gre if, I. (Ed.). ( 1988). Computer-suppo rted cooperative work : A boo k of read ings . San Mateo , CA:
Morgan Kaufmann .
Harris, M . ( 1979 ). Cu ltura l mate rialism: The struggle f or a scie nce 0/ culture . New York: Random
House .
Heritage . J. , & Atkinson . J. M. (1984). Introduction: In 1. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.),
7. ETH NO GRAPH IC FIELD METHODS 153
Structures of social action : Studies in conversation anal ysis ( pp. 1-1 5). Cambridge , UK: Cam-
bridge University Press. .
Jackson , J. ( 1990). " Deja en tendu" : Th e liminal qualities of anthropolog ical fieldnotes . Journal of
Contemporary Ethn og raphy , 19. 8-43. . . .,
Jordan , B . (1987). Method in sociocultural ant hropology. Course notes , Mlchl~an Sta te U~lverslty.
Jorda n. B. , Henderson , A. , & Tatar, D . (in preparation). Interac tion analysts: Fou ndati ons and
practice. Palo Alto : Institute for Research on Leaming and Xerox Palo Alto Rese arch Cente~.
Kluckhohn , C. (1940 ). The conceptual structure in middle America n studies. Th e Ma ya and their
neighbors. New York: Appleton-Century. .
Mehan, H. (1979) . Learning less ons : Social organ izat ion in the classroom . Cambndge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press . .
Mishler, E. G . ( 1986). Research intervi ewing: Conte xt and narrative . Cam bridge, MA : Harv ard
Univers ity Pres s. . '
Nade r, L. (1974). Up the anthro pologist: Perspectives gamed by studyi ng up: In D. Hymes (Ed. ),
Reinvent ing anthropology ( pp. 284-3 11). New York: Vintage Books .
Naroll , R ., & Cohen . R . (Eds .). ( 1970). Handbook o/ method in cultural anthropology. New York:
Columb ia Uni versity Press .
Niehoff, A . (1966 ). A casebook of social change . Chi cago : A ldine .
Pelto . P. J. ( 1970). Anthropological resea rch . New York: Harpe r and Row.
Penniman , T. K. (1974). A hundred years of anthropology . New York: Morro w.
Strathe m , M. ( 1987). The limits of auto-anthropology: In A. Jackson (Ed .), A nthropo logy at home
( pp. 16-37). London : Tavistock Publishe rs . . . . .
Suchma n, L. & Jordan , B. (1990). Validity and the co llabo rative co nstruction of mean ing Jnfa~e.
to-face survey interviews : An intera ction analysis. Palo Alto : Institute for Research on Learning
Report No . IRL 90-00 19. .
Sucbma n , L. , & Trigg , R. ( 1990 ). Unders tanding practice: Video as a medium for refl~hon ~nd
desi gn . In J. Gree nbaum & M . Kyng (Eds.), Design at w.0rk : Approaches to cottabo ra uve design
( pp. 65- 89). Hillsdale , NJ: Lawrence Eatlbaum ASSOCiates . .
Tyler, S . (19 79). The said and the unsaid : Mind . meanin~ an~ culture ".New York: Academic Pre ss.
Van Maanen , J. ( 1988). Tales 0/ the field . Chicago: Univers ity of Chicago Press .
Whiting, B ., & Wh iting, 1. (197 0). Methods for observi ng and recording beha vior: In R. Naro ll ~
R . Cohen (Eds .), Handbook of me thod in cultural anthropo logy ( pp. 282-3 15). New York.
Columbia Univers ity Press .
Wolcott , H . F. ( 1990). Makin g a study " more ethnogra phic. " Journal o/ Conte mpo rary Ethnog ra-
phy , 19, 44-72.
AP PENDIX 1: FIELD EXERCISES
Th e following is a list of field exercises developed for a workshop on Eth-
nographic Field Methods. Alth ough these exercises are most profitably employed
in conjunction with a general discussion of eth nogra phy and ethnographI c .field
meth od s, they are presented here to provide some ideas for practic al acnvmes In
wh ich people intere sted in developing skills in ethn ography might engage (from
Blomberg , 1989: adapted from Cra ne & Angro sino (1974) and Jord an ( 1987).
I . Through observation and careful note takin g investigate how space is
employe d in some area of this buil ding. Explore the extent to which the area yo u
 154 BLOMBERG, GIACOMI , MOSHER, AND SWENTON-WALL
study and the furniture within it tend to keep people apart or to draw them
toget her. How does the arrangement of walls, doorways, hall ways, furniture,
machines , etc. effect the patterns of interaction you observe?
. 2. Cons~ct a m ap of an office area . Your map should show where people
Sit, thCLCrelation ship to o ne ano ther, the acti vities that go on at various loca tion s
where " significant" objects are located . Describe how you gathered the informa-
non represented o n yo ur map (through ob servation, interview, available docu-
ments, etc). You' ll probably want to include a key or legend to help others
Interpret your map.
3. Find a specia list (accountant, machine ope rator, drafts person, etc.) who
would be willing to talk to you about the work they do. Ask them to show you
how they accomplish some aspect of their work (complete a transfer of funds
prepare and distribute a memo for a gro up meeting, create a drawing). On the
basis of your observati ons and questioning of the specialist, prepare a description
of how the activity IS accompli shed, the materi als used , the people consulted ,
etc. so that someone who is completely unfamiliar with the activ ity would be
able to get a good idea of what's involved . The object of this exercise is to
sharpe n your powers of observation and description, and to develop your ability
t~ ask more and moreprecisequestions of yoursubject. Audio record the interac-
non. .
4. Collect the work life history of someone working in your organization.
Collec tmg hfe histories requires that the interviewer be as nondi recti ve as pos-
SIble, interrupting as little as possible, and allowing the person prov iding the
informati on to decide what 's important to tell. You might want to start by asking
a nondirective question like, " Tell me about the jobs you 've had ?" If the conver-
sation fal ters, you might ask abou t specific jobs, what was involved in eac h, why
they moved on, what they learned at each position, what they hope to be doing in
the future etc . AudIO record the interaction so that you are able maintain an
appropriate interactio nal relationship with the. subject.
5 . Do a semantic analys is of the kinds of documents found in someone 's
office , or the kinds of telephone calls they make or receive. Ask them to give you
the name of each type of document found in their office or the calls they make or
recei ve. If they don 't have a name for some category of documents or calls, ju st
mclude. a desc ription of the ca tego ry. Be careful not to impose you're own
categones and names . Ask if there are sub categories within particular classes
( personal cal l of less than 2 minutes, routine reque sts, etc.) Ask them the
characteristicsof each document or call included in a particu lar categ ory and ask
them to explain how these characteristics are used to distinguish one type of
docum ent from another. If possible, locate actual docum ents or inquire abo ut
actual calls made or received while you were present and ask which category
each falls into and why. Their idealized classification system may need to be
adj usted to accommoda te actual instances . If you have time you might want to
7. ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD METHODS 155
repeat the procedure w ith another informant and then compare their cla ss ificati o n
systems.
6 . Thi s exercise should be coo rdinated with exercise 7 . Locate a publi c area
where a video camera can be set up. Decide on the best location for the camera.
Make note of the issues you co nsidered when deciding where to locate the
camera (facial expressions captured, lighting, movement in and out of the space ,
close-up shots of buttons pushed etc.). Record no more than 30 min utes of the
activity at the chosen location . While the camera is running, observe what's
go ing and take notes , paying particular attention to things the camera is unable to
record.
7. In the same location selected for exercise 6 , take 10 photographs. Ch oose
the shots so that they are representative of the activities and the physical arrange-
ment of objects relative to one another. Attempt to capture interaction and the
physical and social context of the activity. Describe eac h photograph (when it
was taken , what it repr esents , its relationship to the other photograph s, etc .).
Together with the person doing exercise 6 , compare what you were able to
capture with the video camera, your observations , and the still photos.
8 . Locate an area where you can unobtrusively observe some activity. Ob-
serve the activity for 30 minutes or so. Take detailed notes of the what's going
on, including a sketch o f the area , time of day, movement in and out of the scene ,
participants' relation to one another. You might want to devel op a table to
facilitate recordin g your observations. Review your notes and prepare a descrip-
tion of what you observed .
9. Interview someone with the goal of developing a description of their
" social network." Describe the working relationship (lines of authority, rel a-
tionship between tasks each engages in, etc .) that exi sts among co -workers .
Represent this information in an "organization chart" where the nature of the
relationship between co-workers is represented.
10. Go to a public area where peopl e meet (cafeteria, coffee room, etc.).
Select a small group of peop le to observe (2-6). Based only on your powers of
observation try and determine who these people are (age , occ upation , education,
etc .), their relationship to one another, what they're talking about, etc . After
observing them for a few minutes and writing down your hunches, interview
them and find out to what extent your impressions were related to what you
learned from interviewing . Reflect on how you misread certain cues , the infor-
mation unobtainable through observation alone , etc .
I I . Interview someone about the " life history " of some small co llection of
documents (i.e ., the ones curre ntly on their de sk or in their " in" basket}. Talk
with other people involved in creating , processing , or acting upon the docu-
ments . Prepare a description of each document's life history.