This article reviews innovations in ethnographic methods that have developed over the past 25 years, specifically the emergence of multisited and short-term fieldwork, digital ethnography, various kinds of participatory and collaborative ethnography, and the use of interviews. Ethnographic methods, once primarily employed by anthropologists, have now been embraced by many other social science practitioners. The article discusses the strengths and weaknesses of how these methods are being implemented and applied; the ethical challenges their use raises; and the kinds of novel modes of interpretation, analysis, and representations of research findings they are producing.
ArkushE. (2012). Violence, indigeneity, and archaeological interpretation in the Central Andes. In ChaconR.J.MendozR. G. (Eds.), The ethics of anthropology and Amerindian research: Reporting on environmental degradation and warfare (pp. 289-309). New York, NY: Springer.
3.
BernardH. R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
4.
BiehlJ. (2013). Vita: Life in a zone of social abandonment. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 2005)
5.
BoellstorffT. (2008). Coming of age in second life: An anthropologist explores the virtually human. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
BoellstorffT.NardiB.PearceC.TaylorT. L. (2012). Ethnography and virtual worlds: A handbook of method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
BurfordG.KissmannS.Rosado-MayF. J.Alvarado DzulS. H.HarderM. K. (2012). Indigenous participation in intercultural education: Learning from Mexico and Tanzania. Ecology and Society, 17, 676-688. doi:10.5751/ES-05250-170433
8.
BurrellJ. (2016). “Through a screen darkly”: On remote, collaborative fieldwork in the digital age. In SanjekR.TratnerS. W. (Eds.), eFieldnotes: The makings of anthropology in the digital world (pp. 133-152). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
CliffordJ.MarcusG. (Eds.). (1986). Writing ethnography: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
CollinsS.DuringtonM. (2015). Networked anthropology: A primer for ethnographers. New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
CrateS. (2011). Climate and culture: Anthropology in the era of contemporary climate change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40, 175-194.
13.
De LeonJ. (2015). The land of open graves: living and dying on the migrant trail. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
DirksenV.HuizingA.SmitB. (2010). Piling on layers of understanding: The use of connective ethnography for the study of (online) work practices. New Media & Society, 12, 1045-1063.
15.
EstesB. (2008). Writing the war: Military institutions, military blogs, and social networks in the Iraq war (Unpublished master’s thesis). George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
16.
FabianJ. (1983). Time and the other: How anthropology makes its object. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
17.
FieldL. (2008). Abalone tales: Collaborative explorations of sovereignty and identity in native California. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
18.
Fine-DareK. (2002). Grave injustice: The American Indian repatriation movement and NAGPRA. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
19.
GoodaleM.MerryS. (Eds.). (2011). The practice of human rights: Tracking law between the global and the local. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20.
GottliebA. (Ed.). (2012). The restless anthropologist: New field sites, new visions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
GuptaA. (2014). Authorship, research assistants and the ethnographic field. Ethnography, 15, 394-400.
22.
GustersonH. (Ed.). (2005). Why America’s top pundits are wrong: Anthropologists talk back. Berkeley: University of California Press.
23.
HakkenD. (1999). Cyborgs @ Cyberspace. New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
HaleC.StephenL. (Eds.). (1995). Otros Saberes: Collaborative research on indigenous and Afro-descendent cultural politics. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research.
25.
HartblayC. (2018). This is not thick description: Conceptual art installation as ethnographic process. Ethnography, 19, 153-182.
IngoldT. (2014). That’s enough about ethnography. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), 383-395.
30.
ItoM. (1997). Virtually embodied: The reality of fantasy in a multi-user dungeon. In PorterD. (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 87-110). New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
JacksonJ. (2016). Changes in fieldnotes practice over the past thirty years in U.S. anthropology. In SanjekR.TratnerS. (Eds.), eFieldnotes: The makings of anthropology in the digital world (pp. 42-62). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
32.
JacksonJ. B.AndersonR. (2014). Anthropology and open access. Cultural Anthropology29(2), 236-263. doi:10.14506/ca29.2.04
33.
JohnstonB. R. (2008). The consequential damages of nuclear war: The Rongelap report. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
34.
JohnstonB. R. (2010). Social responsibility and the anthropological citizen. Current Anthropology, 51(Suppl. 2), S235-S248.
35.
KӓihkӧI. (2018). Conflict chatnography: Instant messaging apps, social media and conflict ethnography in Ukraine. Ethnography. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1466138118781640
36.
KawaN.MichelangeliC. J.ClarkJ.GinsbergD.McCartyC. (2018). The social network of US academic anthropology and its inequalities. American Anthropologist, 121, 14-29. doi:10.1111/aman.13158
LaneJ. (2016). The digital street: An ethnographic study of networked street life in Harlem. American Behavioral Scientist, 60, 43-58.
39.
LassiterL. E. (2005). The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40.
LassiterL. E.GoodallH.CampbellE.JohnsonM. N. (2004). The other side of Middletown: Exploring Muncie’s African American community. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
41.
LeanderK.McKimK. (2003). Tracing the everyday “sitings” of adolescents on the Internet: A strategic adaptation of ethnography across online and offline spaces. Education, Communication & Information, 3, 211-240.
42.
LedermanR.BradburdD.KatzJ.SchwederR. (2006). American ethnologist forum: IRB’s, bureaucratic regulation, and academic freedom. American Ethnologist, 33, 477-548.
43.
LowS. M.MerryS. E. (2010). Engaged anthropology: Diversity and dilemmas. Current Anthropology, 51(Suppl. 2), S203-S226.
44.
MarcusG. (Ed.). (1983). Elites, ethnographic issues. Santa Fe, NM: School of Advanced Research.
45.
McGranahanC.CollinsJ. E. (Eds.). (2018). Introduction. In McGranahanC.CollinsJ. E. (Eds.), Ethnographies of U.S. empire (pp. 1-26). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
46.
MeadR. (2018, November19). Binge listening: The golden age of podcasts. The New Yorker, pp. 48-57.
47.
MihesuahD. A. (Ed.). (2000). The repatriation reader: Who owns American Indian remains?Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
48.
MitchellS. (2018). Empire as accusation, denial, and structure: The social life of U.S. power at Brazil’s spaceport, In McGranahanC.CollinsJ. E. (Eds.), Ethnographies of U.S. empire (pp. 369-390). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
49.
OrtaA. (2018). Making global MBAs: The culture of business and the business of culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
50.
PertierraA. (2018). Media anthropology for the digital age. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
51.
PinkS.HorstH.PostillJ.HjorthL.LewisT.TacchiJ. (Eds.). (2016). Digital ethnography: principles and practice. London, England: Sage.
52.
PostillJ.PinkS. (2012) Social media ethnography: The digital researcher in a messy web. Media International Australia, 145, 123-134.
53.
RappaportJ. (2017). Rethinking the meaning of research in collaborative relationships. Collaborative Anthropologies, 9, 1-31. doi:10.1353/cla.2016.0009
54.
RathjeW.MurphyC. (1992). Rubbish! The archaeology of garbage. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
55.
ReidE. M. (1991). Electropolis: Communication and community on Internet relay chat (Honors dissertation). University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
56.
RheingoldH. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
57.
RheingoldH. (1995). Virtual community: Finding connection in a computerized world. London, England: Minerva.
58.
RosaldoR. (1989). Introduction: grief and a headhunter’s rage. In RosaldoR. (Ed.), Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis (pp. 1-21). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
59.
Sánchez-JankowskiM. (2018). Introduction: Innovations in ethnographic methodology. Ethnography, 19, 149-152.
60.
SanjekR. (2004). Going public: Responsibilities and strategies in the aftermath of ethnography. Human Organization, 63, 444-456.
SchiltzJ.BüscherK. (2018). Brokering research with war-affected people: The tense relationship between opportunities and ethics. Ethnography, 19, 124-146.
65.
SchragZ. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965-2009. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
66.
SeligmannL. (2005). Ethnographic methods and field research in conditions of conflict. In DruckmanD. (Ed.), Doing research: Methods of inquiry for conflict analysis (pp. 229-254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
67.
SeligmannL. (2012). Traditions and transitions: From market women in the Andes to adoptive families in the U.S. In GottliebA. (Ed.), The restless anthropologist: New fieldsites, new visions (pp. 123-137). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
68.
SeligmannL. (2013). Broken links, enduring ties: American adoption across race, class, and nation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
69.
TurkleS. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
WeschM., & The Digital Ethnography Class of Spring 2009. (2012). Anonymous, anonymity, and the end(s) of identity and groups Online. In WhiteheadN.WeschM. (Eds.), Human no more: Digital subjectivities, unhuman subjects, and the end of anthropology (pp. 89-104). Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
