INTRODUCTION

Successful ethnography in a business setting depends upon the effective sharing of observations, analytic interpretations, and understandings between research team members and with clients. Getting the fullest meaning and value from ethnographic data requires exposure to the research setting and immersion in the analytic process (Howard and Mortensen, 2009; Cramton, 2001). In addition, the team must keep client needs and priorities connected to and informed by the ongoing insights that the ethnographic research is uncovering. Ethnographic researchers must have shared context, a mutual knowledge base, and strong trust in order to conduct situated analysis, as well as to work with clients and develop business recommendations in a way that fully demonstrates the value of ethnography.

Because ethnographic knowledge is based on interpretation, it is particularly difficult to share between individuals and across time and space while preserving meaning. First-hand, direct experience of both the process and the results is the most effective way to understand the process and gain necessary empathy for the subjects of research, but it is impossible to bring the client and all team members into the field at all times. To make things even more complicated, it is increasingly important to gather data from global markets to gain broad, multifaceted insights, which means research teams and clients are often widely geographically dispersed, and even individual researchers are finding it necessary to work remotely. This global dispersion makes effective communication more essential to the analytic process (Mohrman, 1999) while at the same time rendering it more difficult, necessitating new ways of communicating data and results.

This paper will explore the challenges of sharing knowledge, experiences, and insights in collaborative ethnographic research. It will begin by discussing several analyses of the issue of collaborative communication in the existing literature and identifying key problems in effective knowledge sharing in ethnography. Cramton (2001) explores sharing among team members and identifies the ways that a “mutual knowledge problem” can disrupt effective collaboration. Similarly, Mohrman (1999) studies the challenges of dispersed collaborative research to point to successful organizational contexts that support such work. Meanwhile, Arnal and Holguin (2007) detail a list of “dissemination factors” which can enable researchers to best share knowledge with clients, incorporating them into an interactive, immersive ethnographic research process. Howard and Mortensen (2009) explain in depth the importance of sharing the entire research process with clients in order to effectively share meaning and value and ensure lasting impact.

Examining the intersection of these analyses of communication with both team and client, this paper will identify four key needs for successful collaborative ethnography: direct experience of the research context, even distribution of knowledge, coordinated development of analysis, and management of the client experience. It will then introduce an innovative internet-based tool that points in the direction of new solutions to these problems. It will explore, through the basic stages of a research project, how this type of internet-based tool allows for the four key needs to be met in a globally dispersed setting to enable remote collaboration. As ethnographic research becomes more often an exercise in dispersed and virtual collaboration, researchers will benefit from exploring innovative solutions that support contextual knowledge sharing by wholly addressing these four key needs, both for quality of results and in order to continuously demonstrate value to the client.

KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH

The benefits of collaborative research come from developing insights through the combined capacities of multiple researchers. Collaborative research can incorporate a greater number and range of observations, and it allows for the development of more complex insights as researchers build off one another’s ideas. But researchers must continually communicate to unite these perspectives into a coherent final product. And as Krauss and Fussell (1990) note, communication can only occur in the presence of “mutual knowledge”, that is, knowledge that communicating parties share, and which they know they share.

Mutual knowledge serves as a foundation upon which to share new information and develop new understandings, as well as to move forward effectively through analysis, synthesis, and development of resultant strategies. The more knowledge two people share by mutual experience or observation, the less time they have to spend communicating these concepts and establishing a shared knowledge foundation, leaving them free to generate new ideas. Additionally, knowledge that is shared or pooled by multiple collaborators is more likely to be brought up, discussed, and incorporated in collaborative discussions than information held by only a single party (Stasser and Titus, 1985). In a collaborative ethnographic research setting, establishing a broad base of mutually shared qualitative data is thus likely to result in more rich and nuanced conclusions.

The negative effects of a lack of mutual knowledge are well established in the literature. Stasser and Titus (1985) find that discussions that involve unevenly shared knowledge are likely to lead only to conclusions that support the biases the parties held upon entering the discussion. This effect is exhibited even more strongly in dispersed groups using computer-mediated communication (Hightower and Sayeed, 1995). Cramton (2001) proposes that such groups may attempt to avoid discussion biases by spending more time on communication, leading to a trade-off between decision quality and productivity. A lack of mutual knowledge may also have a negative impact on collaborator relationships, since differences in understanding can lead to attributions of personal failure (Blakar, 1973). Once again, these problems are likely to be exacerbated by reliance on computer-mediated communication (Siegal, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, and McGuire, 1986).

In her study of geographically dispersed collaborative work, Cramton (2001) found that episodes of frustration, conflict, and confusion typically resulted from five types of problems:

(1) failure to communicate or retain contextual information, (2) unevenly distributed information, (3) differences in the salience of information to different individuals, (4) relative differences in the speed of access to information, and (5) misinterpretation of the meaning of silence (347).

The first four types directly involve differing or ineffectually communicated knowledge, while the fifth type, misinterpretation of silence, is generally caused by a lack of contextual information that would have led to a more accurate interpretation. This demonstrates the importance of effectively establishing a mutual knowledge base in order to avoid serious difficulties in the collaborative process.

In a finding particularly relevant to ethnographic collaboration in business, Cramton further observes that “exacerbating factors” that most strongly contribute to breakdowns in mutual knowledge “can be expected to include heavy cognitive load, a complex, interdependent task, tight time limits, and a complex team design” (367). The first two factors in particular are characteristic of the type of qualitative and interpretive work of ethnography, while the latter two are typical in ethnographic research in business.

Mohrman (1999) indicates a number of reasons that dispersed teams may be especially susceptible to breakdowns in mutual knowledge and the resultant challenges such breakdowns cause. Membership in different departments or organizations often implies different business objectives and priorities. On a deeper level, it may also result in incompatible “thought worlds”—that is, divergent sets of knowledge, systems of meaning, and organizational routines—among collaborators, posing particular difficulties to the process of business innovation (Dougherty, 1992). Being situated in different geographical locations also roots researchers in different cultural contexts, opening up additional possibilities for mutual knowledge deficiencies. Potential results of these circumstances, according to Mohrman, include uncomfortable interpersonal dynamics, poor working relationships, inconsistency, misunderstandings, time delays, conflict, and uncertainty.

Mutual knowledge is, therefore, a key concern of collaborative research. Establishing mutual knowledge fosters effective, unbiased research and prevents a host of analytic and interpersonal difficulties. Because members of dispersed teams are situated in distinct contexts, not only will it be more technically difficult for them to establish mutual knowledge, but they will also hold less knowledge initially in common. It will thus be particularly critical for such teams to find ways to share their knowledge in order to ensure fruitful collaboration.

KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATION AND CLIENT COMMUNICATION

While the above analyses focus on identifying the problems that arise from ineffective communication within the research team, Arnal and Holguin (2007), Howard and Mortensen (2009), and others address some potential problems and solutions of effective communication with the client, emphasizing ways to ensure implementation and convey the value of research results. Ultimately, many of the insights about effective communication gained by considering the researcher-client relationship can also be applied to enhance communication within research teams, and vice versa. However, as the literature shows, considering each perspective separately can lead to a richer, more encompassing understanding of the collaborative process.

It is necessary to effectively share the process and results of ethnographic research with clients in order to convey the real value of that work and ensure the findings will have a meaningful impact on the organization. Arnal and Holguin discuss six factors that serve to maximize the dissemination of ethnographic research: speed, transcendence, compellingness, reach, exposure, and involvement. Communicating results with increased speed (for instance by sharing analysis as it is developed rather than waiting until the end of the project) ensures that insights will be incorporated while still relevant. Greater transcendence—that is, connection to high-level business policies—allows ethnographic research to have a more significant organizational impact. Compelling research is more memorable and thus more likely to impact future decisions. The more people, departments, and levels research reaches, the more value it can provide to a company. When clients are frequently exposed to the insights emerging from the research process, they will internalize those insights and come to recognize their implications and importance. Finally, involving clients in the research process increases their understanding of and commitment to the insights gained.

Howard and Mortensen (2009) advocate similar principles. They attest to the power of directly involving clients in the ethnographic process—even bringing them into the field when possible. This overcomes skepticism about the value of ethnographic research, results in the deep empathy necessary for user-centered innovation, and helps businesses to break free from constraining preconceptions. In this way, several well-established organizations (including Mercedes-Benz, Nike, and Harley Davidson) have managed to overcome the limitations of their existing business models in order to expand into new markets and rejuvenate their corporate image.

There may be risks in sharing too freely with the client without actively guiding them through the process. Because clients are not trained in ethnographic research, difficulties including misunderstanding and reinforcement of previously held bias can arise if clients are exposed to partially developed analysis or incomplete data. Ultimately, though, ethnographers in business understand that, if done carefully, involving the client in the process builds trust, depth of perceived investment, and a culture of open communication (Diaz and Rideout, 2007).