1. INF5220 22.september 2005 Ethnographic methods observations and interviews

2. INF5220 22.september 2005 Interviews First we’ll discuss the 3rd assignment… Using interviews in your research? Here are two questions that you need to think about:  What status do you allocate to the data? I.e. what do you think about the relation between the interviewee’s accounts and the world(s) they describe?  What do you think about the relation between the interviewee and the interviewer?

3. INF5220 22.september 2005 What status do the data have? Geertz, 1973; p.9: ”What we call our data are really our own constructions of other people’s constructions of what they and their compatriots are up to”. Van Maanen, 1979:  Interviewee’s constructions: first-order data  Researcher’s constructions: second-order concepts, which rely on good theory and insightful analysis

4. INF5220 22.september 2005 What status do you assign to your data? Are they facts (e.g. about attitudes and behaviour)?  That is, if you have designed and conducted the interview properly, and avoided problems such as bias. Do the interview give you accounts of authentic experiences?  That is, if you have managed to engage emotionally and achieved understanding and ’depth’. Are the interviews ’jointly constructed encounters of focused interaction’?  Do you have your focus on how participants actively create meaning and perform during the interview?

5. INF5220 22.september 2005 Corresponds to: The three categories and their focus:  Positivism: prescheduled and standardised interviews  Emotionalism: open-ended interviews aimed at acquiring ’depth’  Constructionism: also open-ended interviews, reflective Not one correct category, choice depends on your purpose.  Your practical concerns should guide your analytic position  Ask yourself whether interviews really help you address your research topic (Refer to Silverman chapter 4)

6. INF5220 22.september 2005 A bit more on constructionism Within this approach the interview is not (only) a source for data, but a research topic in itself The ’how’ and the ’what’ issue (form and content). Ref. Silverman:  4.6 Adolescent cultures  4.7 Membership work  4.8 Moral tales of parenthood

7. INF5220 22.september 2005 On interviewing and questioning Ways to question:  Closed versus open questions  How and What-questions versus Why-questions  Some helpful phrases Eliciting response without manipulating Be aware of your own body language and engagement

8. INF5220 22.september 2005 Ethnographic research (1) Origins: anthropology. Focus: ’tribes’, subcultures, the public realm, organizations In-depth and extended studies, ’immersion’ and ’thick descriptions’ Aimed at exploration (”what is going on here?”) rather than testing of theories

9. INF5220 22.september 2005 Ethnographic research (2) Participant observation: what is the researcher’s identity, what is known about the research? Ethical issues (e.g. informed consent) Theoretical and methodological choices (access, data collection methods, focus, analysis etc)

10. INF5220 22.september 2005 Ethical issues Aim and focus: A scientific, but also an ethical issue:  The ’romantic’ impulse to focus on ’underdogs’  Do you treat the ’heroes’ and the ’villains’ equally (in analytic terms)? ’Overt’ versus ’covert’ observation Informed consent How do you handle the data?  Physically: locking up tapes and transcripts?  Analytically: how do you consider and treat those whom you write about?

11. INF5220 22.september 2005 Participant observation Problematising the role of the participant observer:  Confusion: ’what’ is the site?  What is expected from the researcher?  What do we mean by ’intervention’?  Involvement into organisational politics Using these tensions and confusions as an analytic resource – showing the multiple realities and interests in the case Teun Zuiderent: ”Blurring the center. On the Politics of Ethnography”. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 14, no. 2, 2002.

12. INF5220 22.september 2005 Deciding your theoretical basis Read again section 2.6 in Silverman’s book, + section 3.4 Take your field notes from the observations and attempt to do exercise 3.4, (3.5), 3.6. How did you work:  As a naturalist ethnographer?  As an ethnomethodologist?  With a grounded theory approach?

13. INF5220 22.september 2005 Using ethnography in IS research Six misconceptions (1-3):  Is it just about common sense? No, you should problematize things that are taken for granted.  Is an ’insider’ view best? Not necessarily, the task is not to replicate the insiders’ perpsectives  ’Anything goes’ in terms of methods? Preformulated study design are avoided, but epistemological discipline and systematic method are pursued Diane Forsythe: ’”It’s just common sense”. Ethnography as invisible work’ Journal of CSCW, vol. 8 (March 1999), no. 1-2, pp. 127-145.

14. INF5220 22.september 2005 Using ethnography in IS research Six misconceptions (4-6):  ”Doing fieldwork is just chatting with people and reporting what they say”. No, people’s views are data, not results. Understanding and analyzing.  ”To find out what people do, just ask them”. Well, the predictive value of verbal representations and the generality of short-term observations are questionable. Complement with extended observations.  ”Behavioural/organisational patterns exist, we must just discover them”. Not a matter of ’looking’, the expertise rests with the analyst, not in the recording technique. Diane Forsythe: ’”It’s just common sense”. Ethnography as invisible work’ Journal of CSCW, vol. 8 (March 1999), no. 1-2, pp. 127-145.

15. INF5220 22.september 2005 Bardram and Bossen A case study using ethnographic methods, with the aim of ’informing design’ (i.e. not purely descriptive)