INTRODUCTION: FIELDNOTES IN THE DISCIPLINE OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND IN APPLIED ETHNOGRAPHIC PRAXIS

In both academic and applied ethnography, we rarely talk about fieldnotes – and when we do, we are often not entirely sure what we are talking about. Fieldnotes have an air of secrecy around them. Scholars have described fieldnotes as “mystique” (Jackson 1990), a “muted” medium (Lederman 1990), and the “secret papers of social research” (Van Maanen 2011). There are few resources to guide ethnographers, both academic and applied, and two texts from the 1990s (Sanjek 1990, Emerson et. al. 1995/2011) remain the key references for ethnographic fieldnote theory and practice. There seems to be no standardized or formalized way to create and use fieldnotes (Jackson 1990, Lederman 1990, Goodall 2000). Although this may be part of what makes ethnography a distinctly flexible, creative, and adaptive methodology in the social sciences (Van Maanen 2011), it has led to an underdeveloped practice and level of critical thought around fieldnotes. We believe there is more consensus on the what, why, and how of fieldnotes than is actually the case (Jackson 1990).

There are many understandings of what a fieldnote can be (Clifford 1990, Sanjek 1990, Lederman 1990) – fieldnotes could mean anything from notes scribbled during an event, typed transcripts from an interview, or musings in a diary. Drawing on various theoretical definitions of ethnographic fieldnotes (Jackson 1990, Goodall 2000), I here take fieldnotes to mean a written account of fieldwork happenings at the end of each day in the field, in a form that is more coherent and reflective than the notes taken in-the-moment, but nowhere near the level of analysis and insight of the finished product that arises from the fieldwork.

Although extensive critical discussion of fieldnotes in the academic discipline of anthropology (which claims the strongest relation to ethnographic practice) is lacking, there is a general agreement in academia that fieldnotes are central to ethnography. Ethnographic fieldwork is not just the in-depth participant-observation of people in their environments, but also “thick description” (Geertz 1973), the consistent reflecting on and interpreting of those observations through notes – “[t]hese two interconnected activities comprise the core of ethnographic research” (Emerson et.al. 2011). It is through the process of writing fieldnotes that “afterthoughts kick in” (Taussig 2015), and we begin to develop meaningful data and analysis beyond pure observation.

In applied ethnography, the discussion around ethnographic fieldnotes has also been thin. Many papers in past Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference (EPIC) proceedings have focused on improving fieldwork practice by proposing new methods for stakeholders to immerse themselves in the fieldwork (Cramer et. al. 2008, Dalsgaard 2008), for better collaboration among ethnographers in multi-sited projects, and for more flexibility in communication and data management so that ethnographers can alter their methods in situ and the data can answer new questions in the future (Churchill and Elliott 2009). Di Leone and Edwards (2010) come closest to proposing innovation in fieldnotes practice in their case example of using ETHNOKEN, an online annotation and storage system, to share ethnographic data and build conversations while in the field. As I will return to later, the paper argues for more collaborative ethnographic practice and knowledge sharing both among researchers and with stakeholders (Di Leone and Edwards 2010). However, the ETHNOKEN platform is primarily for video footage and transcripts, and there is no theoretical discussion in the paper explicitly addressing the practice of fieldnotes as central to ethnography. Indeed, in the conference proceedings from 2008 to present, direct mention or discussion of fieldnotes as part of our praxis has been virtually nonexistent. This suggests that, just as with academic ethnographic discourse, applied ethnographic discourse has too remained silent on the topic of fieldnotes.

Given that fieldnotes are so integral to ethnographic praxis – there is no ethnography without both the doing and the writing (Lederman 1990, Emerson 2011) – and that we as applied ethnographers distinguish ourselves from others in the applied social sciences because we are rooted in this methodology, it is imperative that we think meaningfully about our fieldnotes practice and emphasize fieldnotes as essential to our praxis. The way we think about, talk about, and generate fieldnotes lends us credibility as practitioners of ethnography out in the world. Corporations, research labs, and other organizations in various industries are increasingly turning towards applied ethnography to solve some of their toughest human questions, but as Forsythe (1999) points out, this places ethnography in the paradox of seeming like “invisible work”: “[e]thnography from outside looks to the uninitiated as a semi-respectable form of hanging out” (Van Maanen 2011), and hides the depth of anthropological and ethnographic training and technique required to turn participant-observation into insight. At the same time, we also risk the of “de-skilling” of ethnography: increased demand for applied ethnographic research at lower prices leads to dividing up ethnography into piecemeal and disconnected labor tasks that can be done faster and cheaper by separate individuals with more limited training (Lombardi 2009). These two phenomena, the “invisible work” of ethnography and the potential “de-skilling” of what we do, means that we should assess whether we are really doing the deep work of ethnography in applied contexts. This would help ensure both the genuineness of our work as ethnography and our ability to deliver differentiated value to our stakeholders.

It seems taken-for-granted that fieldnotes are a long, arduous, and individual practice, and thus a less-than-exciting selling point when applied ethnographers are persuading stakeholders about the capabilities and benefits of ethnography. But despite relative silence on the topic of fieldnotes in both academic and applied ethnography, there have been efforts to innovate both the theory and the practice of fieldnotes (and of course, ethnographers have been thinking critically and reflexively about ethnographic writing more broadly since Writing Culture (Clifford and Marcus 1986)). Ethnographers have been turning to data analysis software like Atlas.ti and online note-taking platforms like Evernote to organize, develop, and archive their fieldnotes (Fuji 2007), and are exploring the use of “live fieldnotes” shared with a broader audience as in-the-moment snippets from the field through social media platforms (Wang 2012). It is in this vein of innovative engagement that I propose we think of fieldnotes as a social practice.

FIELDNOTES AS A SOCIAL PRACTICE

As applied ethnographers, we have much to gain by thinking creatively about the practice of fieldnotes in ethnographic research. Having a strong fieldnotes practice, and making this practice known, visible, and accessible to our stakeholders, helps stakeholders see the uniqueness and skill of the otherwise “invisible work” (Forsynthe 1999) of ethnography, increasing the value and saliency of our insights and recommendations. Most crucially, a strong fieldnotes practice helps ensure that we are generating thick descriptions (Geertz 1973), and not just observations from the field.

Our applied projects have opportunities and challenges that are unique from those of academic anthropology and its ethnographic praxis. Our work is often more directly grounded in addressing (or attempting to solve, or innovate towards) today’s most pressing human phenomena, and has the potential for very immediate (and industry-specific) impact. We are usually faced with the challenges of a limited time frame to conduct research, teams dispersed in multiple field sites, and working with or for stakeholders who may have limited knowledge about ethnography. Under these circumstances, applied ethnography attempts to build bridges between researchers, and between researchers and stakeholders.

A fieldwork practice that incorporates innovative use of fieldnotes has the potential to build these bridges more seamlessly and strongly. I am here arguing for moving fieldnotes from a private practice of writing alone in the field and towards a social practice that engages teams and stakeholders, as one means of innovation. Collaborative methods present certain vulnerabilities and challenges to creating fieldnotes, but the benefits can help heighten the quality and value of our work. In the next sections, I will outline how fieldnotes can build bridges between researchers, and between researchers and stakeholders, by using an online collaboration tool as a case example for possible innovation.

CASE STUDY: ONLINE COLLABORATION TOOL PODIO.COM

For the past two years at ReD Associates – a strategy consultancy based in Copenhagen and New York that applies the social sciences to solve today’s business problems in various industries – we have been using the online collaboration tool Podio to create team workspaces for each of our projects. Podio is a flexible service accessible on any computer, phone, or tablet using the internet. It allows organizations to create a network and various workspaces that they can customize to their own needs. For example, in ReD Associates’ Podio network we have a general home page where we can share with one another interesting articles and news, and we have sections to organize training materials for new employees, catalogue the books in our library, and create an individual space for each of our projects. No coding experience is required, the general network is only accessible to members of the organization, and each project space is accessible only to invited members.

Within each project space, we create various subsections. For instance, we might have a subsection for collecting and discussing relevant theoretical sources, a section for notes from interviews with experts, and a section for organizing fieldwork logistics. One of the subsections we started to create was for producing fieldnotes. Prior to using Podio, we were writing fieldnotes as text documents and as slides in a PowerPoint template, using the taken-for-granted platforms of the consulting world. The main issue we were encountering with these formats was that the fieldnotes were not easily accessible to the dispersed team during fieldwork, and the team would return from the field with little knowledge about what each researcher had experienced. We then began using Podio as a way to share initial impressions from particular moments in the fieldwork. As these posts from the field became longer and more in-depth, and teams began referring back to the conversations that emerged on the Podio posts, we realized that Podio better fit our needs as applied ethnographers, and it is now our primary tool for fieldnotes.

The fieldnotes subsection in each project space allows us to upload fieldnotes-in-progress so that other researchers who are often in disparate field sites can also immediately access the notes. The fieldnotes are posted in a roughly open-ended template guided by each project’s general research themes. Photographs, video files, and other documents may be attached to a fieldnote post. Generally each fieldnote post corresponds to one participant whom we spend time with in the field, and we use pseudonyms at all times when writing about each participant. We spend at least one full working day writing up fieldnotes for each participant we meet. We also create fieldnote posts about events, places, or other activities that occur while in the field. Throughout the fieldwork, we read each other’s notes and leave comments on posts, developing a social practice around fieldnotes. The next two sections outline the benefits and challenges of this practice.

BUILDING BRIDGES BETWEEN RESEARCHERS IN A TEAM

Although ethnographic fieldnotes have traditionally been thought of as an act of “turning away” from the field and engaging in “solitary writing” (Clifford 1990), fieldwork in applied ethnography has particular needs that make “turning away” less viable and useful than joining together. As Di Leone and Edwards (2010) point out, ethnography in business or other applied settings is usually collaborative – researchers are often working as a team and working for external stakeholders (more on this in the next section) – and in this setting there are four key needs for knowledge-sharing to ensure good communication and analytical rigor: