Ken Anderson on using ethnographic translation for strategy at Intel

Dr John Curran on 2009/04/28:

As an anthropologist, I question this assumption of what anthropology does. What Ken Anderson touches on is that an anthropologist’s role is one of a cultural broker. This is not really the case and restricts anthropological creativity. What an anthropologist should be doing is creatively interpret one culture (consumers, users) and translate meaning from their interpretations so that others can understand. This therefore becomes a creative process and leads to insights and innovation. Crucially, it moves away from anthropology being simply an advocate or broker.

jaimes on 2009/05/02:

Thanks John. Your comments made me question my assumptions about this process.

My interest in the topic is in application and the ‘role’ that anthro/ethno/etc researchers often have to play as representatives of the people they’ve met in the field. I’ve argued on this blog before that I’m more comfortable representing the ‘field’ than claiming to represent people who the nature of commercial ethnography means I’ve spent fairly little time with.

It’s an interesting and confusing space to be in, this is where the designer or innovator often sits in projects and flipping between those roles can be tough to do.

However I’m not sure I’d call this role brokerage, not in my experience anyway, it’s too complex an amalgamation of roles. Brokerage to me implies the representation of one party in a negotiation.

I’d be interested to hear more specifically how you differentiate your categories of brokerage and interpretation?

Dr John Curran on 2009/05/02:

Hi Jaimes

I really like what you are saying here especially this:

“I

jaimes on 2009/05/04:

Hi John, thanks for the kind words, it’s still a bit of a work in progress here! And congrats on the growing family ;)

You’ve jumped the gun on me a little here as I have been trying to sort out my thoughts on this subject in preparation for doing a post on it.

In lieu of actually getting that done - I’m moving house so the chaos is reflected on this side - I’ll just say that I think this is at the centre of the whole debate between anthropology and design. Or perhaps research and practice to abstract the roles a bit.

For me, I think the core of the debate is often too centred on resource based factors, specifically theory and time. I think the depth and creative reach you have described is better understood in a more abstract way as quality.

This opens things up a bit and allows a more interdisciplinary route to achieving that quality. While anthropological theory may work for some people, others might take a different approach. Designers for example may reference previous work, that’s the lineage in their field.

I guess I’m arguing that the road taken is not a good enough marker of quality. That lands us in the territory of promoting one road over another regardless of the traveller. The destination has to be the criteria by which something is judged.

Again, these are early thoughts, but I’m trying to find a way out of the turf wars and into the better space that I think people from both sides of the design / research continuum are really talking about.