This event was intended to provide an introduction to ethnographic methods, as employed by anthropologists, for those who are interested in how these methods might be used in applied settings whether that is in business, government or development contexts. It was attended by a cross section of students from third year undergraduates in anthropology to PhD students from across the faculty including the Manchester Business School, the School of Environment and Development and the School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures. This wide array of academic backgrounds shows that there is an interest in applying ethnographic methods in a variety of contexts across the disciplines and made for a day of interesting discussions. What was interesting to me is that although ethnography means different things in different contexts there was a high level of common ground about how it can add value to a research project.

As well as myself and Dr Keir Martin from Social Anthropology the day was facilitated by inputs from Dr Lucy Pickering who teaches at the University of Glasgow and has done applied research on drug users’ access to medical services; Martine Zeuthen and Marie-Louise Hoilund-Carlsen from Integrity Research Consultancy who are professional anthropologists who specialise in doing research in applied contexts and Dr Damian O’ Doherty from the Manchester Business School who is working on an ethnographic study of Manchester Airport. All these experts provided inputs on different aspects of using ethnographic methods in applied contexts while students worked on developing example research projects. Issues discussed during the day included different disciplinary understandings of ethnography, maintaining a critical distance and designing a project with the users in mind whilst retaining academic integrity. Ethical issues took centre stage in the afternoon as questions were raised about obtaining consent, insider ethnography, protecting the interest of both participants and users and how to deal with illegal activity taking place during fieldwork. The ethics of online ethnography were also raised and debated.

Ian Fairweather

By methods@manchester and the Office for National Statistics. Monday 4 April 2011, 5.00 – 6.30pm

How much would you sell your spouse for? This would be a tough question for (most) people. Asking people directly about how happy they are is a similar tough question as weighing up the different dimensions and concepts that make people happy is difficult to do. Instead of directly asking people how happy they are, Andrew Oswald and colleagues have developed a battery of questions that ask people:

• “How satisfied are you with your life nowadays?”
• “How happy did you feel yesterday?”
• “How anxious were you yesterday?”
• “To what extent do you feel things you do in your life are worthwhile?”

These questions will be asked in the large sample of around 200,000 people in the Integrated Household Survey.

There was some debate amongst the panel discussion members and the audience about how useful these and other survey questions on well-being are. Richard Wilkinson suggested that cultural differences in the meaning of these questions prevent international comparisons of such subjective well-being questions. Some members of the audience emphasised how well-being varies greatly from person to person, suggesting it is futile to measure well-being at a national or regional level.

However there was also consensus on the idea that GDP and economic growth are poor measures of national well-being. Being poor is not the same as being miserable. Poor people in poor and rich countries enjoy their lives in culturally relevant ways and many are happy. There was also consensus on the need to take account of objective indicators as well as subjective measures of well-being. Everyone agreed that a lot more work needs to be done on what can improve well-being. This suggests that measuring it well in the first place is pretty important.

Pete Wade, organiser of the day, set the scene by describing how the role of universities has developed over time. He pointed  out  the irony that that role of teaching has been integral to universities over centuries – but is not part of  the current REF system and was not part of the old RAE!  Listen to the full talk here: http://www.methods.manchester.ac.uk/video/impact1/impact1intro/

Lucy Suchman, University of Lancaster,reflected on her long experience working with the private sector at Xerox Park, California. She considered the unique role of the anthropologist in the production of new technologies and innovation and the way in which US anthropologists have worked to make themselves relevant to the private sector.  Anthropologists can make sense of the cultural in a way that is not available to other disciplines and can transform the mundane and banal to something interesting and exotic.

Lucy’s view on working with the private sector raised some very interesting questions and answers with respect to ownership, charging and patenting. The fact that research students at Xerox Park had primary accountability to their academic supervisor was very important and helped in arguments to ensure that Phd dissemination remained in the public domain. Listen to the full talk here: http://www.methods.manchester.ac.uk/video/impact1/impact2consuminganthropology/

Mike Savage’s talk on the impact of social science in the UK helped to uncover some of the ways in which  social research methods  have an agency of their own.  I’ve pulled out just a few points here to give a taste of the topics Mike covered. He drew on Luke’s classic work on power to suggest three ways in which social science has influenced policy.  Firstly, by influencing decisions through providing research results but, secondly, by  keeping things  off the agenda because they cause trouble , eg Thatcher and the Black report into health inequalities. Thirdly, Mike talked about how social science seeps into social and cultural relations in ways that are not easily detected. A few examples of the seepage of social science into everyday life include the huge growth of social science since 1948, its generation of labels which are now embedded in the language, eg, globalization, affluence, post-industrialisation, and the development of the national sample survey and the qualitative interview.

Mike problematised the development of the interview which he saw as emerging from a contestation between social workers and academics and an alliance with literary tradition, The interview was readable, but at that point men were not seen as appropriate interviewers.

Mike talked in more detail about the huge growth in social scientists since 1948 and, alongside this, the growth in funding for social science research. He concluded that the ‘social science device’ has had a massive impact, in a contested process with winners and losers. However, the current impact agenda requires us to reflect on the emerging confidence of natural scientists. Mike’s  new book, Identities and Social Change in Britain since 1940 has a deeper discussion of these ideas and the full talk is available here: http://www.methods.manchester.ac.uk/video/impact1/impact3postwar/.

Helga Nowotny, President of the European Research Council, considered the vulnerability and sustainability of ‘impact’ seen from the perspective of the European Research Council. Helga  gave a historical perspective, drawing on Germany, the UK and US, to explain the  differences in how the university systems have developed over time. She then went on to consider the consequences for research funding and the criteria used to assess research and its impact.

Helga raised the importance of basic research and the question of what should be considered as basic research. Linking back to Pete’s earlier point, she argued that unless you fund basic research in universities you will not get the outflow of well educated graduate and post-graduate students that are needed by the economy.  

The European Research Council, in a radical development, only focusses on scientific excellence, and has no requirements for impact.  The ERC has agreed to eliminate terms like ‘deliverables’, or ‘useful’ because you cannot predict this with basic research.  Elsewhere, however, the debate has been closed on basic research, and has moved  to the simplistic command ‘show me the evidence’. ERC grants are very competitive and greatly prized by universities. Because of this universities are now competing to obtain/retain ERC-grant holders, who are free to decide where they hold their grants.

Asked why grant applications could  only be submitted in English, Helga explained that, in the first funding round, it was agreed applications that were not in English and would be translated. In year one, there were about  9,000 applications and only four not in English. Now, all applications are in English and this has been accepted. There are no preconditions on what ERC will fund and it has 25 different panels to cope with this.

Marilyn Strathern, formerly professor of Anthropology at Manchester and Cambridge, described the research proposal as a promissory note. She saw hope and disappointment as two sides of the same promissory coin. She suggested that people have to hype up claims to be visible and being able to anticipate is what constitutes a successful promise. She recalled a letter from the Chair of AHRC saying that basic research with no immediate impact would still be funded, but then, for the rest of the letter, talking about the impact statement required in all research applications by all RCs. In similar vein to Helga, Marilyn argued that the deviousness of appeals to impact is in the requirement to pre-specify the outcomes.

Penny Harvey’s rounding-up comments brought out a lot of the key point made during the day and also provided a good starting point for the final discussion. Penny suggested that to make your case for impact you have to narrate it, but it must also be backed by fully authenticated evidence. We need to consider which devices are effective and which less effective? How do they resonate with our own research? All devices, eg interviews, surveys, maps, have different promises and have the capacity to disappoint.

Angela Dale

The European Social Survey

January 19, 2011

Professor Jaak Billiet introduced the European Social Survey (ESS). It is a Rolls-Royce survey that has been running since 2002. It now contains 26 different countries and receives major funding from the EU. Surveys are conducted every two years.

ESS measures changes in attitudes and values over time and between countries. There is a core with fixed modules and also rotation modules. There is a formal process to apply for rotation modules. Two modules are chosen for each survey, with 50 questions in each. Getting a module is highly competitive.

Data quality – the survey aims for a 70 percent response rate. Poland and Greece obtain this level and the aim is to bring up other countries to this level. There are large differences between countries. Germany is the lowest, at just over 40% response. All samples are random. There should be less than 3% non-response, but this varies. For most countries the sample size is over 2,000.

A lot of work is spent on reducing non-response. Data collection is face-to-face, with no substitutions. Interviewers make at least four calls on each household. There is much country variation in the extent to which respondents increase with each successive attempt.

It is very important to record all information about non-respondents, date, neighbourhood characteristics, reason for refusal, estimated age, gender etc.

Documentation of ESS is complete and very high quality. Data is available one year after collection and is free.

After this introduction to the ESS, Jaak continued to discuss the difficulty of equivalence.

For example, has the concept of religiosity the same meaning across all countries? Are correlations between religiosity and other variables equivalent across all countries. Items do not function in the same way in all cultural groups; in particular questions may work differently for different educational groups.

All overheads are on the methods@Manchester web-site. Go to http://www.methods.manchester.ac.uk/events/2011-01-19-2/index.shtml

Add your comments.

Ethical issues which she discussed included gaining informed consent. It is helpful to you and the interviewee to clarify the issues; need to work within the university requirements, but written consent can be challenging for some participants, eg if their literacy is not good, or if they have concerns about legalistic requirements. However, for other people signing a contract may give them control.

The participants should drive the conversation and pace. They have the right to stop the conversation. Taking notes during the interview is not a good idea as you are not listening well, and not giving time and attention to the person. They wonder why you write some things and not others. Tape recorders best but because of confidentiality they need to be used carefully and with full consent.

Tammy talked about prophetic listening (Elise Boulding); when you listening so well that  people have greater understanding of themselves than before. Allows people to validate themselves.

Tammy also conducted a great exercise to get participants working in pairs with one person talking and the other listening. Doing exercises learning to listen can be useful preparation for interviewing.

Tammy says she allows participants 10-15 minutes to interview her beforehand to decide whether or not they will take part. Working with a vulnerable community it is hard to do one-off interviews. It takes time to build a relationship and you need to develop rapport slowly. You also need to be comfortable with the subject matter – otherwise, better to choose a different subject.

Remember to allow the participants to hold the stage – it is not about you. Allow for pauses in the conversation; don’t worry about pauses. You need to be knowledgeable about the topic area but remember you are an outsider. Participants should not feel judged or judged unfairly. They want their experiences to be validated and to be recognized. How do you validate them? Not by saying they were right but by giving them your time and attention. . Valuable to write up field notes immediately, for example to record facial expressions, behaviour.

Also need to de-brief with respondents at the end of the research, for example through an exit interview.  Show gratitude for the time people had given. Also think about caring for yourself – you are taking on a lot of emotional energy. Need to look after yourself in whatever way is best for you.

What do you think? add your comments

Angela Dale, December 8, 2010

The overheads from his talk are on the web and they point to lots of excellent links to helpful materials on, for example, how to choose a software package and how to get started with an analysis.  The materials cover a wide range of issues and aspects of analysis and the approaches and theories found in qualitative research along with tutorials with audio and video materials. The introductory section explains how the information and tutorials are arranged and makes some suggestions about how to use this site.

There are also various videos that provide excellent materials for teachers and students. Topics covered include: transcription, using Memos, coding, Procedural analysis and analytic induction, The Grounded Theory Approach, Template Analysis,  and Interview with a PhD student about her analysis and talks given at the  2010 ESRC Research Methods Festival, University of Oxford, for example by Ann Lewins on how to decide on what software you need.

For those who wanted to attend the workshop and were not able to, the methods@manchester website has an audio-recording of Graham’s talks, linked to his overheads.

Have you used the materials? add your comments, particularly highlighting the parts you found most helpful.

Angela Dale, December 8, 2010

Anyone using statistical analysis should visit the learning materials on this web-site. there is something for everyone. Under the Learning section of the web-site: http://www.cmm.bristol.ac.uk/learning-training/index.shtml – there are seven detailed models starting with basics and moving onto various kinds of multilevel models for continuous and binary responses. The module headings are listed, below:

Module 1: Using quantitative data in research

Module 2: Introduction to quantitative data analysis

Module 3: Multiple regression

Module 4: Multilevel structures

Module 5: Introduction to multilevel modelling

Module 6: Regression Models for Binary Responses

Module 7: Multilevel Models for Binary Responses

There are also downloadable materials from workshops, a set of FAQs, information about obtaining free software and much more. Most of the materials have been developed with ESRC funding.

These materials are being very widely used around the world. There is no charge for access. Simply register on-line by providing your name and a password.

posted by Angela Dale

On Wednesday Bren Neale, director of Timescapes, gave an excellent talk on ‘Thinking Qualitatively through Time’. Bren talked about temporal understandings of the life course. The life-course may be used as an imaginative framework for understanding the relationship between biography, generation and history. She identified a number of key concepts that included:

• biographical time – how people make journeys through their life, what is the experience like. She argues that the nature of the journey is as important of the destination with turning points, critical moment or epiphanies often being identified.
• generational time  sees individuals as part of a generational convoy  and allows a focus on linked lives and an intergenerational research design
• historical time, takes longer to grasp and is often access by oral life history work, or documentary research

Bren emphasised the Importance of reflection and working through causality in a  backwards direction. Times lines allow one to go backwards and also to predict forwards.

Qualitative longitudinal work could be seen as ‘walking alongside people’, either over a long time (eg a number of years) or over a much shorter time period (eg a period in hospital). Research designs can combine prospective and retrospective perspectives, and also qualitative and quantitative elements.

However, analysis is complex and time consuming; in many ways much harder than the data collection.  Tools for analysis include: Framework (a software package developed by NatCen), life history charts and the use of timelines.

Bren also talked about the ethical issues that may be rather greater with longitudinal qualitative data  than with cross-sectional qualitative data.

Overheads from Bren’s talk are at here.

Libby Bishop, Timescapes and UK Data Archive, followed up with an excellent talk on  reusing qualitative data. Libby outlined the Timescapes seven empirical projects, collected over 10 years with over 400 participants, that are currently archived and available for re-use. She provided a number of examples of how qualitative data can be used in way that are quite different to the purposes for which they were collected. Analysis is so hard  that reusing some existing data gives you more time for analysis issues such as causal mechanisms, methods developments, theory development. It is often possible to use ‘blended strategies’ which use some of your own data alongside some archived data, for example, comparing a subsample of your data with a subsample of archived data. Timescapes datasets have some common information to allow comparisons across the different studies.  Overheads from Libby’s talk are at the same web-site, above.

Angela Dale, November 18th, 2010

I enjoyed the dynamic atmosphere of the day which got underway with some ethnographers tales from anthropologist colleagues Tony Simpson and Andrew Hodges and then took a a surprising turn as Uwe Groschel from Drama invited us to watch a performance of interperative dance and convey our imprsessions of it in plasticene!

Entertaining though all this was, it was also the result of an approach to discussing research methods that M@M is keen to encourage. All the talks were prefixed with the phrase ‘why I use…’ and speaker’s brief was to try and give a sense of why they considered the method on question to have been successful in their own research. This starting point provided an interesting alternative to workshops on how to use a particular method and made it much easier to to appreciate the potential of methods you hadn’t considered using and think about how they might be used in your own research area. The next three sessions By Ahmed Derbala from Management Accounting about his use of case studies, Julia Bennet from Sociology on photo diaries and Carol Smart from ‘Realities’ on in-depth interviews provided fascinating new takes on what, for me, are familiar methods.

By this time, parallel sessions had begun in the Bridgeford street building and the lunchbreak provided only just enough time to look at the wide variety of poster showcasing the research methods being used by postgraduates and the exhibitors stands providing an introduction to some of the resources and support on offer.

After lunch I joined in a fascinating workshop session on ethnography, my own preferred research method, hosted by Virinder Kalra and once again, it was fascinating to hear about the different ethnographic projects that the participants were planning and the session was an excellent opportunity to discuss their fears and concerns.

The day was really about becoming aware of new things, however and the next workshop I attended on CAQDAS packages hosted by Christine Rivers from the University of Surrey was very well attended, suggesting that many people, like myself are curious about these packages and wanted to know more. It was very helpful to see four different packages compared and get a sense of what they can do.

For me, the best thing about the day was the energy generated by people meeting, exchanging ideas and generating new ones. A number of people commented to me that they really valued the opportunity to meet others and to ‘meet the experts’ at the informal meeting sessions many held in the exhibition rooms after their talks.

The powerpoint presentations used by the speakers on the day can be found here.

Posted By Dr Ian Fairweather, Deputy Director , Methods@Manchester