Is Microethnography an Ethnographic Case Study? and/or a mini-ethnographic case study? An analysis of the literature

Abstract

Selecting the research approach that addresses the research question is often challenging for novice researchers. However, getting a better understanding of the research approaches available in the field, is likely to help novice researchers identify and choose the research approach that fits their situation. In this paper, we discuss microethnography, ethnographic case study, and mini-ethnography case study in order to show that these approaches may have similarities but are different. The author hopes that this discussion will help researchers get a better understanding of these approaches and dissipate the confusion that may exist.

Keywords

micro-ethnography ethnography case study methods in qualitative inquiry focused ethnography

Introduction

Qualitative research continues to evolve and develop as new research questions, and technologies emerge, and researchers are more and more faced with constraints of time and costs. Researchers increasingly choose research approaches that allow them to work within their constraints at a given time. Qualitative research offers a variety of research approaches that sometimes appear challenging to scholars. The challenge often stems from scholars' difficulty in selecting the approach that best suits their research questions based on the constraints they may be experiencing. For instance, ethnography is a research approach that requires long-term participant observation, which means that the scholar needs time to complete the data collection. For a scholar with limited time, conducting traditional ethnography may not be effective and even appropriate (Daynes & Williams, 2018). Yet, there are other research approaches that emerged from ethnography. These research approaches can address the research questions of a scholar also interested in understanding the culture of people under investigation within the constraints of time and/or cost. Reviewing research approaches such as microethnography, ethnographic case study, and mini-ethnographic case study is a step toward making these approaches more accessible to scholars, especially researchers with limited time and resources. This discussion will not only highlight the similarities and differences, but also elucidate any confusion that may exist given that these approaches have in common the term ethnography. Interested in knowing whether ethnographic case study, microethnography, and mini-ethnographic case study are similar research approaches, in the following sections I discuss these research approaches.

My encounter with other researchers and my experience in the field prompted me to examine ethnographic case study, microethnography, and mini-ethnographic case study. During a debate in one of my graduate seminar classes, a student stated that microethnography was an ethnographic case study. The conversation that followed formed the basis of this paper. The purpose of this paper is an attempt to shed light on these terms and contribute to researchers’ understanding of these research approaches; how and where it is more appropriate to use them.

Defining Research Approaches

Ethnographic Case Study

An ethnographic case study is the combination of two approaches to inquiry: ethnography and case study. The combination of two research approaches allows the researcher to use the best of each design and mitigate the weaknesses of each research approach (Fusch et al., 2017). Ethnography is the study of groups or communities of people for a long period of time in their natural settings and in their everyday lives (Côté-Boileau et al., 2020). Hallet and Barber (2014) insists that ethnography is the study of the relationship between people and their environment. It is important to note that ethnography uses data collection techniques such as observations, field notes, and interviews (Hammersley, 2018).

A case study is an in-depth examination of a situation, an event, a policy, or an institution, which uses different methods to unravel the complexity and peculiarity of this event, person, or situation (Tight, 2017). Therefore, a case study is the exploration of an individual, an event, or situation within its natural context (Yin, 2014). The case study approach can employ a variety of data collection techniques (Yin, 2014). In other words, a case study, contrary to ethnography, is not limited to a specific data collection technique. Yet, it can also examine communities, individuals, and their culture. Hence, an ethnographic case study is defined as “prolonged observations over time in a natural setting within a bounded system.” (Angers & Machtmes, 2005, p. 777). It is about drawing on culture to explore a phenomenon or issue in a specific context, natural setting, and within a limited scope (Mccullough et al., 2015). For instance, an ethnographic case study approach is best suited when the research aims to understand a specific group or culture through the researcher’s immersion in a school, organization, or family (Angers & Machtmes, 2005). Ethnographic case study can be bounded by time, space, or activity. Hence, an ethnographic case study can be used to explore the teaching practices of a new teacher. Ethnographic techniques are used, yet, within a bounded system. Essential to ethnographic case study is the focus because it involves being selective and specific in determining the parameters of the ethnographic case such as the participants, location, process to be examined, and the timeframe for conducting the ethnography (Harrison et al., 2017; Yin, 2014).

As Chen and Rhoads (2016) put it, an ethnographic case study is the combination of traditional ethnographic data collection techniques (e.g., participant observation) with case study design. This means that the researcher can focus on one or multiple research sites/cases. The time for the ethnographic case study is still prolonged, but it centers on a clearly identified event or phenomenon, on an individual, group of individuals, or a community. Angers and Machtmes (2005) study of three teachers’use of technology is a good example of an ethnographic case study. The authors selected three individuals (cases) within the context of a school, and with interviews and prolonged observations explored “actions and events of three exemplary technology teachers.” (p. 777). In this ethnographic case study, Schwieger (2022) explored how farmers living in the drylands in different villages (cases) in Namibia identified and anticipated desertification tipping points. In-depth interviews and field notes were the data sources as the researcher spent 12 months in the field.pt

Microethnography

Microethnography is an approach to qualitative research that is also called focused ethnography (Erickson, 1977), constitutive ethnography (Mehan, 1978), video ethnography (LeBaron, 2006), and ethnographic microanalysis (Erickson, 1992). Atkinson (2013) argues that microethnography is not essentially different from other ethnographic research but has variations. Indeed, microethnography is the analysis of “small” moments of video recorded human activities as they occur naturally (LeBaron, 2006). In analyzing video recordings of human activities, microethnography seeks to understand how people create what they create, or how what happens during people’s interactions occur (Erickson & Wilson, 1982; Streeck & Mehus, 2005).

Streeck and Mehus (2005) added that microethnography captures “the work of humanist researchers who study how human realities are produced, activities are conducted, and sense is made by inspecting video recordings of actual events frame by frame” (p. 382). It’s the moment-by-moment analysis of video recorded interactions occurring in a setting between individuals or among groups of people, which makes microethnography different and unique. This research approach implies a fine-grained sequential analysis of interactions of activities in specific settings (Mehus, 2006). As Mehus (2006) explains, microethnography focuses on “aspects of bodily communication, such as gaze, gesture, postural configurations, and interactions with artifacts and the built environment” (pp. 73-74). With the focus on verbal and nonverbal communication, according to Atkinson (2013), microethnography uses audiovisual recordings as the primary source of data. Yet, it should be noted that microethnography also uses participant observation recorded in fieldnotes. The use of fieldnotes as a data collection technique points to the similarity between microethnography and other ethnographic research approaches such as ethnography case study. Still, the microanalysis of people interactions (Erickson & Wilson, 1982) differentiates microethnography from ethnographic case study. In the words of Streeck (1983), microethnography is a fine-grained analysis of microbehaviors involved in the enactment of communicative events (p. 9). LeBaron (2012) summarized microethnography as follows:

Microethnography, sometimes called video ethnography, addresses “big” social and organizational issues through careful analysis of “small” moments of human activity. Working at a particular site or institution, such as an archeological dig or an investment bank, researchers create video recordings of activities as they naturally occur, i.e., activities that would have happened whether or not a camera was present. These recordings are then analyzed repeatedly and rigorously, with attention to the participants’ talk (who says what, when, and how), their embodied behaviors (the relative location, orientation, and movement of people), and their use of things (objects, artifacts, tools, etc.). Video analyses are combined with other kinds of information, such as ethnographic data gathered through observations and interviews, altogether providing a variety of macro- and micro-views of social activity (p. 3120).

Microethnography is then about analyzing small moments using audiovisual data with the goal of addressing a big issue in the society or an organization. However, in keeping with ethnography practices, microethnography can also combine interviews and observations to a complete picture of the phenomenon understudy. As in ethnography, the researcher remains an instrument of data collection as the investigator participates in the fieldwork.

Research investigating interactions or trying to understand behaviors among learners or people in a specific setting and at different moments of their interactions lends itself well with microethnography. Different moments of an interaction can be captured and be the focus of a microanalysis/fine-grained analysis. For instance, exploring students’ interactions during a group activity can provide insights into students’ behaviors during the group activity, and can shed light into the group dynamic. It should be noted that microethnography can also be used to examine how museum visitors engage with an interactive exhibit. Thus, microethnography is about moment-by-moment interactions using audiovisual recordings as an essential source of data collection. There is no microethnography without reliance on the microanalysis of data not limited to audiovisual records but including interviews and/or observations. Gathering audiovisual data, interviews, or observations without a microcospic analysis of naturally occurring human activities and interactions will not count for a microethnography. Thus, key to microethnographic research approach is the microanalysis of moment-by-moment human activities and interactions (verbal and/or nonverbal).

For instance, Asare (2020) investigated the use of proverbs, proverbial language, and surrogate languages in an Akan royal court in Ghana. The research was interested in the situational use of the proverbs and in the behaviors of different members of the royal court. The author combined interviews, participant observations, with audio and video recordings of meetings and events he was given access to. The data was collected for a period of 18 weeks. Asare’s (2020) focus on how proverbs were employed and behaviors of members of this court necessitated a microanalysis of verbal and nonverbal interactions as well as actions of the study participants. However, Nolbeck et al. (2022) give another example of microehnography. The authors were interested in the everyday life social interactions of youth with psychosocial problems, or criminal behavior involuntarily looked after in a special home. The authors collected data for 60 hours in two special homes for girls and boys. The data collection techniques in this study included no audiovisual recordings, but interviews and observations, which makes it different from microethnography as defined above by LeBaron (2012) and Atkinson (2013).

The microethnographic studies discussed above used different data collection techniques. While Asare (2020) coupled audiovisual data with interviews and observations, Nolbeck et al. (2022) rely on interviews and field observations to conduct a microscopic analysis of the actions and interactions of the study participants. Yet, as discussed above, an essential characteristic of this research approach, is the fine-grained analysis of microbehaviors or actions as they occur in a natural setting. This research approach is not limited to a specific discipline. A research study that necessitates a detailed analysis of human verbal and nonverbal actions and communication to address the research questions, lends itself well with microethnography. Both studies also show that the time spent in the field is shorter for microethnography compared to ethnography. I should add that authors such as Giddings (2009) call for a microethnography approach that centers also on the agency of nonhuman objects in a setting (e.g., camera, computer), the setting itself (e.g., culture), and people. The microanalysis of the intersection between human and nonhuman entities challenges microethnography “to attend to nonhuman as well as human agencies in [interactions]” (Gidding, 2009, p. 149).

Mini-Ethnographic Case Study

A discussion about ethnographic case study and microethnography we found, cannot be complete without mentioning mini-ethnographic case study. Mini-ethnographic case study is another qualitative approach that stems from ethnography, and could be taken for ethnographic case study, and even for microethnography. For example, in the literature, mini-ethnographic case study is also known as focused ethnography because of the narrowing of the investigation on a specific phenomenon such as doctor and patient communication (Kelly, 2022; Fusch et al., 2017). Mini-ethnographic case study needs less time than ethnography to complete fieldwork (Alfonso et al., 2012). Though the researcher still seeks to understand the cultural norms and values that shape people’s behaviors or actions, less time is needed in the field, and data collection can be done in two or 3 weeks (Fusch et al., 2017; White, 2009). With the focus on a specific issue, it is not surprising that mini-ethnographic case study is also termed focused ethnography in the literature. However, referring to mini-ethnographic case study as focused ethnography, just like microethnography in the literature is likely to confuse and even discourage from employing this research approach. Given the short time needed to conduct mini-ethnographic case study, and the focus on few participants (Fusch et al., 2017), this approach is appropriate for any researcher with limited time and/or resources. This makes it slightly different from the other research approaches discussed in this article. For instance, the limited time required for microethnography is more related to the interactions recorded (e.g., need to record an event from the beginning to the end), and not to the time spent in the field. For this reason, mini-ethnographic case study differs from microethnography. Dobbins et al. (2021) explain that

mini-ethnography case study allows for focused inquiry in the field by analyzing sociocultural systems ethnographically while bounding the subject of inquiry within a specific case, encouraging researchers to investigate relationships between what is observed and experience in the field, specifically focusing on very specific aspects within the sociocultural system (p. 398).

Interestingly, mini-ethnography case study is also called focused ethnography in the literature because of its focus on a particular area, and not because of the microanalysis of recorded interactions. Yet, I contend that the term focused ethnography should not be used for both research approaches. It is my understanding that scholars would likely engage with these research approaches if terms were not interchangeably employed. In addition, ethnographic case study differs from mini-ethnographic case study given that the former requires more time than the latter. Dobbins et al. (2021) provide a good example of mini-ethnography case study as they research students’ experience with this research approach in the field. For instance, the time spent in the field was 2 weeks. This points to what separates mini-ethnography case study from ethnographic case study. Compared to ethnographic case study, mini-ethnography case study is more appropriate for researchers who have very short time to spend in the field, but who still want to have an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon understudy (Dooley et al., 2020). Mini-ethnographic case study is critical for researchers with short time in the field, time shorter than ethnographic case study (Dooley et al., 2020). Still, these research approaches can employ similar data collection techniques (i.e., interviews, observations, and fieldnotes). However, the time spent in the field, (less time for mini-ethnographic case study compared to ethnographic case study); the approach to data analysis (fine-grained analysis of data for microethnography while the other approaches use a variety of analytical strategies); and the study interest (nonverbal and verbal actions/communications for microethnography and varied for mini and ethnographic case study) are characteristics that distinguish each approach from the other.

Is Microethnography an Ethnographic Case Study or a Mini-Ethnography Case Study?

As stated above, microethnography is about the microcospic analysis of data, including, but not limited to audiovisual recordings (Asare, 2020; Atkinson, 2013). Ethnographic case study approach bounds the research in time and space (Fusch et al., 2017), and can rely on different data collection techniques as data sources (Friess, 2012). Ethnographic case study is an ethnographic approach bound within a case study protocol, which allows for more flexibility (Fusch et al., 2017), whereas microethnography allows for the detailed analysis of recorded interactions in particular settings (Giddings, 2009; Streeck, 1983). Furthermore, microethnography, unlike ethnographic case study and traditional ethnography, does not require immersion in a setting for a long period; it has “smaller scope” in terms of time in the field and analyzes interactions frame by frame (Kim, 2006, p. 39). Though there are some similarities, microethnography is not an ethnographic case study. Microethnography is neither a mini-ethnographic case study. The microanalysis of interactions cannot be assimilated to an approach that is bound by time and space, but also allows the researcher to use other analysis strategies. Yet, microethnographic research does not create room for any other analysis of data than the microanalysis of actions.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to examine two research approaches that grew out of ethnography and understand whether microethnography was an ethnographic case study, or a mini-ethnographic case study. Our analysis shows that these research approaches are different in their focus, and analysis approach, even though all emerge from ethnography, thus have some similarities. The author contends that microethnography, ethnographic case study, and mini-ethnography case study shorten the time spent in the field. For instance, the blended design of ethnography and case study constraints the researcher to a time and space because of the case study design ( Amaechi & Fusch, 2019); while microethnography centers on moment-by-moment interactions and does not require long periods of recordings; mini-ethnography case study though bound by time and space, requires less time than ethnographic case study. In other words, what makes microethnography different from ethnographic case study, and mini-ethnography case study is the fine-grained analysis of verbal and nonverbal actions or communications. Even though these research approaches emerge from ethnography; unlike ethnography, these approaches do not necessitate several months of fieldwork to obtain the kind of data the researcher needs to address the study research questions (Fusch et al., 2017).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Game in Lab.

ORCID iD

Rebecca Y. Bayeck

References

Alfonso

M. L.

Nickelson

Cohen

(2012). Farmers’ markets in rural communities: A case study. American Journal of Health Education, 43(3), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2012.10599231.

Amaechi

E. C.

Fusch

P. I.

(2019). Investigator’s reflections on the process and experience of a mini-ethnographic case study research in Nigeria. The Qualitative Report, 24(3), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3097.

Angers

Machtmes

(2005). An ethnographic-case study of beliefs, context factors, and practices of teachers integrating technology. The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 771–794. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-4/angers.pdf.

Asare

(2020). Unraveling the knot: A microethnography of the use of proverbs, proverbial language, and surrogate languages in an Akan royal court. Oral Tradition, 34, 45–72.

Atkinson

(2013). The mastersingers: Language and practice in an operatic masterclass. Ethnography and Education, 8(3), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2013.792673.

Chen

A. C. R.

Rhoads

R. A.

(2016). Undocumented student allies and transformative resistance: An ethnographic case study. The Review of Higher Education, 39(4), 515–542. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2016.0033.

Côté-Boileau

É.

Gaboury

Breton

Denis

J.-L.

(2020). Organizational ethnographic case studies: Toward a new generative in-depth qualitative methodology for health care research? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920926904.

Daynes

Williams

(2018). On ethnography. John Wiley and Sons.

Dobbins

C. E.

Edgar

L. D.

Dooley

K. E.

(2021). Facilitating the scholarship of discovery: Using the mini-ethnographic case study design. Journal of Experiential Education, 44(4), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825921999685.

10.

Dooley

Dobbins

Edgar

Borges

Jones

Hernandez

Birnbaum

(2020). A cross case synthesis of the social and economic development of three guatemalan coffee cooperatives. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.15.

11.

Erickson

(1977). Some approaches to inquiry in school-community ethnography. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 8(2), 58–69.

12.

Erickson

(1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In LeCompte

Millroy

W. L.

Preissle

(Eds), (pp. 201–225). The handbook of qualitative research in education. Academic Press.

13.

Erickson

Wilson

(1982). Sights and sounds of life in schools: A resource guide to film and videotape for research in education (research series No. 125)5 east lansing. Institute for Research on Teaching.

14.

Friess

(2012). Personas and decision making in the design process: An ethnographic case study. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1209–1218). New York, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.

15.

Fusch

P. I.

Fusch

G. E.

Ness

L. R.

(2017). How to conduct a mini-ethnographic case study: A guide for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 22(3), 923–942. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2580.

16.

Giddings

(2009). Events and collusions: A glossary for the microethnography of video game play. Games and Culture, 4(2), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412008325485.

17.

Hallett

R. E.

Barber

(2014). Ethnographic research in a cyber era. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 43(3), 306–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241613497749.

18.

Hammersley

(2018). What is ethnography? Can it survive? Should it? Ethnography and Education, 13(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2017.1298458.

19.

Harrison

Birks

Franklin

Mills

(2017). Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 18(1). Article 19, https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-18.1.2655.

20.

Kelly

L. M.

(2022). Focused ethnography for research on community development non-profit organisations. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 23(2), https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-22.2.3811.

21.

Kim

(2006). An ethnographic study of the culture of a third-grade ESL class: ESL education for whole child development. Indiana University.

22.

LeBaron

(2006). Microethnography. In Jupp

(Ed), The Sage dictionary of social research methods (pp. 177–179). Sage Publications.

23.

LeBaron

(2012) Microethnography. In Wolfgang

(ed.), The international. Encyclopedia of communication (pp. 3120–3124). Blackwell.

24.

McCullough

M. B.

Chou

A. F.

Solomon

J. L.

Petrakis

B. A.

Kim

Park

A. M.

Benedict

A. J.

Hamilton

A. B.

Rose

A. J.

Rose

A. J.

(2015). The interplay of contextual elements in implementation: An ethnographic case study. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0713-7.

25.

Mehan

(1978). Structuring school structure. Harvard educational review, 48(1), 32–64.

26.

Mehus

S. E.

(2006). Coordinating care: A microethnographic investigation into the interactional practices of childcare workers (Publication No. 3244334). [Doctoral dissertation. University of Texas]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

27.

Nolbeck

Wijk

Lindahl

Olausson

(2022). Claiming and reclaiming settings, objects, and situations: A microethnographic study of the sociomaterial practices of everyday life at Swedish youth homes. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 51(6), 816–844. https://doi-org.dist.lib.usu.edu/10.1177/08912416221082701.

28.

Schwieger

D. A. M.

(2022). Exploring pastoralists’ perceptions of desertification tipping points in Namibia’s communal drylands: An ethnographic case study from okakarara constituency. Pastoralism, 12(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-022-00231-x.

29.

Streeck

(1983). Social order in child communication: A study in microethnography. John Benjamins Publishing.

30.

Streeck

Mehus

(2005). Microethnography: The study of practices (pp. 381–404). Handbook of Language and Social Interaction.

31.

Tight

(2017). Understanding case study research: Small-scale research with meaning. Sage.

32.

White

K. L.

(2009). Meztizaje and remembering in afro-Mexican communities of the costa chica: Implications for archival education in Mexico. Archival Science, 9(1-2), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-009-9102-5.

33.

Yin

R. K.

(2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.