ระชาสัมพันธ์ที่ทางโครงการม้งไซเบอร์ หน่วยงาน อสารออกไป มีนักท่องเที่ยวเพิ่มมากขึ้น 50% องที่พักผ่านบริษัท ม้งไซเบอร์ โซเชียล เอนเตอร์ าวิทยาลัยตาใความสนใจของตนเองมากขึ้น ร้อย งไซเบอร์ น เช่น แม่บ้าน ก่อสร้าง ทำ สวน ขายอาหาร ไกด์ รีพื้นบ้าน การแสดงระบำ ต้อนรับ งการดำ เนินมา 4 ปี..
บทความแนะนำ
Face the facts: CULTURAL DIVERSITY • 2014
The Australian Human Rights Commission encourages the dissemination and exchange of information provided in this publication. All material presented in this publication is provided under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia, with the exception of: • the Australian Human Rights Commission Logo • photographs and images • any content or material provided by third parties. The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website, as is the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0 AU licence. Attribution Material obtained from this publication is to be attributed to the Australian Human Rights Commission with the following copyright notice: © Australian Human Rights Commission 2014. Face the Facts: Cultural diversity • 2014 ISBN 978-1-921449-67-3 Design and layout Dancingirl Designs Infographic Design Firefly Interactive Content James Iliffe, Black and White Media Australia Electronic format This publication can be found in electronic format on the website of the Australian Human Rights Commission: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications Contact details For further information about the Australian Human Rights Commission, please visit www.humanrights.gov.au or email [email protected]. You can also write to: Communications Team Australian Human Rights Commission GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001
Face the Facts: Cultural diversity • 2014 • 1 www.humanrights.gov.au/face-facts
2 Cultural diversity • One in ten Australians (1.5 million of the nation’s adult population) believe that some races are inferior or superior to others.7 • Around 20 per cent of Australians have experienced race-hate talk;8 11 per cent have experienced racebased social exclusion;9 six per cent reported physical attacks based on their race and/or traditional dress; and 19 per cent reported discrimination because of their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion.10 • Of the 500 complaints lodged under the Racial Discrimination Act in 2012-2013, 192 related to incidents of racial hatred. This was a 59 per cent increase over the previous year, with a large proportion of the complaints (41 per cent) involving material on the Internet.11 • People born in countries where English is not the main spoken language are three times as likely to experience discrimination in the workplace,12 twice as likely to experience discrimination in education13 and around four times as likely to experience discrimination in policing and housing.14 • Around one in three (35 per cent) recent migrants said they faced hurdles to finding their first job due to a lack of Australian work experience or references (64 per cent), language difficulties (33 per cent), a lack of local contacts or networks (23 percent) or difficulties having their skills or qualifications recognised (15 per cent).15 Australia is a vibrant, multicultural country. We are home to the world’s oldest continuous cultures, as well as Australians who identify with more than 270 ancestries. Since 1945, almost seven million people have migrated to Australia. This rich, cultural diversity is one of our greatest strengths. It is central to our national identity. In 1975, the Racial Discrimination Act came into force, making discrimination in different parts of public life against the law. The Act, which was Australia’s first federal antidiscrimination law, continues to send a strong message about our common commitment to racial equality and the importance of a fair go for all. In 1995, the Act was extended to make public acts of racial hatred against the law. Despite this legal protection, too many people in Australia continue to experience prejudice and unfair treatment because of how they look or where they come from. About • One in four of Australia’s 22 million people were born overseas; 46 per cent were born overseas or have a parent who was born overseas; and nearly 20 per cent of Australians speak a language other than English at home.1 • In 2012-2013, overseas migration represented 60 per cent of Australia’s population growth in the year.2 • People born in the United Kingdom continue to be the largest group of overseas-born residents (5.3 per cent), followed by New Zealand (2.6 per cent), China (1.8 per cent), India (1.6 per cent) and Vietnam (0.9 per cent).3 In 2012-13, 123,438 people from more than 190 countries were approved to become Australian citizens.4 • Migrants make an enormous contribution to Australia’s economy and provide an estimated fiscal benefit of over 10 billion dollars in their first ten years of settlement.5 In 2010-11, international education contributed $16.3 billion to the Australian economy.6 • Barriers to racial equality
Face the Facts: Cultural diversity • 2014 • 3 Positive developments • Most new migrants say they feel a strong sense of belonging to Australia and that this feeling deepens over time.16 • Most Australians (86 per cent) support action to tackle racism in Australia.17 • Since being launched in 2012, over 200 organisations – from the business, sports, education, local government and community sectors – have signed on as supporters of the national anti-racism campaign, Racism. It Stops with Me. Did you know? • The vast majority of Australians (84 per cent) believe that multiculturalism has been good for Australia.18 Find out more • Australian Human Rights Commission; National Anti-Racism Strategy 2012-2015 (2012) • Australian Human Rights Commission; Racism. It Stops with Me (2012- ) • Department of Immigration and Border Protection; The People of Australia – Australia’s Multicultural Policy (2011) • Australian Bureau of Statistics, Reflecting a Nation: Stories from the 2011 Census (2012-2013) • University of Western Sydney, Challenging Racism: The Anti-Racism Research Project (2008) Our role The Commission helps people resolve complaints of discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act. The Act protects people across Australia from unfair treatment on the basis of their race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. It also makes racial vilification against the law. The Race Discrimination Commissioner undertakes a wide range of activities to address racism and racial discrimination, which includes implementing the National Anti-Racism Strategy and coordinating the national anti-racism campaign, Racism. It Stops with Me. The Commissioner also undertakes research projects and provides policy advice on issues affecting different groups in the community. Find out more about our work in this area.
4 1 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4102.0-Australian Social Trends (April 2013). 2 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 3101.0-Australian Demographic Statistics, September 2013 (March 2014). 3 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 3412.0-Migration, Australia, 2011-12 and 2012-13 (December 2013). 4 Department of Immigration and Border Protection: Facts and Statistics (2013) 5 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Immigration update 2010–2011 (2011), p 109. 6 Australian Education International, Export Income to Australia from Education Services in 2010–11 (November 2011). 7 University of Western Sydney, Challenging Racism: The Anti-Racism Research Project (2008). 8 University of Western Sydney, above. 9 University of Western Sydney, note 7. 10 Scanlon Foundation, Mapping Social Cohesion: The Scanlon Foundation Survey 2013 (2013), p 2. 11 Australian Human Rights Commission, Annual Report 2012-2013 (2013). 12 Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), More than tolerance: Embracing diversity for health: Discrimination affecting migrant and refugee communities in Victoria, its health consequences, community attitudes and solutions (2007). 13 VicHealth, above. 14 VicHealth, note 12. 15 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 6250.0-Characteristics of Recent Migrants, Australia, November 2010 (May 2011). 16 The Ipsos McKay Report: SBS Immigration Nation (2011) found that 60 per cent of first-generation migrants felt a strong sense of belonging to Australia, which rose to 80 per cent by the second generation, in line with the national average. 17 University of Western Sydney, note 7. 18 Scanlon Foundation, note 10. Endnotes
Face the Facts: Cultural diversity • 2014 • 5 Further Information Australian Human Rights Commission Level 3, 175 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Telephone: (02) 9284 9600 General enquiries and publications: 1300 369 711 TTY: 1800 620 241 Fax: (02) 9284 9611 Website: www.humanrights.gov.au For detailed and up to date information about the Australian Human Rights Commission visit our website at: www.humanrights.gov.au To order more publications from the Australian Human Rights Commission download a Publication Order Form at: www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/index.html or call: (02) 9284 9600 fax: (02) 9284 9611 or e-mail: [email protected]
6 Australian Human Rights Commission www.humanrights.gov.au
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117753306 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2018, Vol. 49(2) 165–170 © The Author(s) 2018 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0022022117753306 journals.sagepub.com/home/jcc Introduction Culture, Creativity, and Innovation Letty Y.-Y. Kwan1, Angela K.-y. Leung2, and Shyhnan Liou3 Abstract This special issue enriches the study of creativity and innovation as a cultural and social process. Authors of nine articles jointly contribute to a nuanced and systematical inquiry into the cultural perspective of creativity. Their topics of investigation include lay conceptions of creativity in different cultures, different natures and manifestations of creativity and innovation, the influence of cultural values, norms, and multiculturalism on creativity, and the dialogical coevolvement between culture and creativity. The collection of articles in this issue presents cutting-edge evidence and lays the groundwork for an active dialogue about integrating the study of culture and creativity. Keywords Culture, creativity, innovation, cultural process Economic success and innovation accompany each other. In 2017, the five countries with the highest rankings in the Global Innovation Index (Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, the United States, and the United Kingdom) are wealthy countries. Besides, citizens in these countries value creativity and innovation; Google Trend revealed that among citizens in these countries, there is a steady growth in concerns over “creativity,” “innovation,” “how to increase creativity,” and “how to innovate.” Research on creativity and innovation has flourished; a Web of Science search showed that peer-reviewed publications with the keyword of creativity or innovation have quadrupled over the past decade. Building on the conceptual definitions of creativity and innovation offered by Schumpeter (1947), Amabile (1986), and Sternberg and Lubart (1991), creativity and innovation research has developed dynamically in several directions, one of which is the reciprocal relationship between culture and creativity/innovation. On one hand, culture is a source of creative inspiration, and culture influences how people understand creativity. On the other hand, creativity and innovation transform culture. 1The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong 2Singapore Management University, Singapore 3National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City, Taiwan Corresponding Author: Angela K.-y. Leung, School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University, 90 Stamford Road, Level 4, Singapore 178903, Singapore. Email: [email protected] 753306JCCXXX10.1177/0022022117753306Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyKwan et al. research-article2018
166 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 49(2) Taking a cultural perspective to creativity and innovation offers a new look on the psychology of creativity. In psychology, creativity is often studied as an intrapersonal cognitive process or performance. However, within the same culture, what is creative to one person may not be perceived to be so by others. Likewise, what is perceived to be creative in one culture may not be perceived to be so in another. This special issue recognizes creativity and innovation as a cultural and social process. Specifically, the authors questioned the meaning of creativity across cultures; identified the diverse types of innovation; uncovered the cultural values, norms, and multicultural ideologies that affect creativity; and explored how creativity and culture coevolve. Together, the articles in this special issue provide a bird’s-eye view of the reciprocal relationship between culture and creativity/innovation. In the following sections, we will introduce the major themes of the collection of articles in this special issue: (a) different criteria of creativity across cultures and different types of innovation; (b) how cultural norms, cultural values, and multicultural ideologies influence creativity and innovation; and (c) how culture, creativity, and innovation reciprocally make up each other. Dimensions and Types of Creativity and Innovation Creativity is defined as something both novel and useful (Amabile, 1986). This definition of creativity does not assume that there is a universal norm for judging novelty and usefulness. The originality of an idea is audience dependent; evaluation of novelty depends on what the audience already know and the norms that the audience have adopted. Likewise, creative ideas that are accepted to be appropriate and valuable in one context can be deemed as useless in another context. Studies on cross-cultural differences in creativity found that people from East Asian (vs. Western) cultures are, on average, less creative (Bond, 1993; Erez & Nouri, 2010; Fielding, 1997; J. Kim & Michael, 1995; K. H. Kim & Sergent, 2004; Rudowicz & Ng, 2003). These studies have focused on creativity as novelty and overlooked the dimension of usefulness. Evidently, there is tension between novelty and usefulness (J. S. Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012). While novelty prioritizes divergent ideas or ideas that deviate from traditional norms and assumptions, usefulness values ideas that provide effective and practical ways to address current needs. Given the seemingly incompatible focus, some researchers have attributed a paradoxical relationship to novelty and usefulness (Miron-Spektor & Erez, in press), and some studies have found a negative relationship between the evaluations of a product’s usefulness and novelty (S. L. Mueller & Thomas, 2001; Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2010). Thus, some product developers often feel that they should have useful but not necessarily highly original products that simply provide incremental changes to existing products. What is not well understood is how culture influences the relative importance of novelty and usefulness in creativity evaluations (see K. Leung & Morris, 2010; Morris & Leung, 2010). McCarthy, Chen, and McNamee (2018) traces the trade-off between novelty and usefulness to culturally typical cognitive styles, arguing that the trade-off between novelty and usefulness looms larger for Easterners than Westerners because of the prevalence of holistic (vs. analytic) thinking and field dependence (vs. object dependence) in Eastern cultures. Creativity is a building block of innovation, the process whereby creative ideas are implemented (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD], 2010). Innovation and economic growth are linked, but how strong the link is depends on the types of innovations. For example, the link of economic growth with knowledge outputs, such as patents and trademarks, is stronger than that with creative outputs, including outputs from the creative industries (e.g., visual art, cultural performance, entertainment, films, and broadcasting). Further differences between different types of innovation outputs are highlighted in Bendapudi, Zhan, and Hong’s research (2018). They showed that protective cultural values can dampen the positive
Kwan et al. 167 association between basic education and innovation outputs in the creative industries but not those in the science and technology domain. This result attests to the importance of understanding innovation as a multifaceted construct. The Role of Cultural Values, Norms, and Multiculturalism Creativity is culture-bound. As mentioned above, individuals across cultures understand creativity differently, and cultural values can dampen certain types of innovation outputs (Bendapudi et al., 2018). Values such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, collectivism, and cultural tightness can discourage individuals from choosing unique ideas for further development during the idea selection stage (Harzing & Hofstede, 1996; Li, Kwan, Liou, & Chiu, 2013; Westwood & Low, 2003). In contrast, high individualism, low power distance, low uncertainty avoidance, and high cultural looseness are values that are conducive to expressing and sampling unique ideas for further development (Harzing & Hofstede, 1996; Li et al., 2013; Westwood & Low, 2003). These values lessen conformity pressure and anxiety over ambiguities, thus they support greater exploration of alternative and counter-normative ideas and approaches. A recent research linking cultural norms and creativity showed that members of East Asian (vs. Western) cultures have a higher tendency to harmonize conflicts and to compromise contradictions by finding a middle ground (Leung et al., 2017). As a result, East Asian participants were less likely than Western participants to reap the creative benefits from their experience of paradoxes or contradictions. It is because the practice of harmonizing conflicts discourages people from engaging in integrative complex thinking to scrutinize tensions and to search for synthesis that fulfills competing elements simultaneously. Consistent with the evidence that Western cultures tend to endorse creativity-supporting values or practices, it was found that bicultural Asian Americans are more creative after being primed of their American (vs. Asian) cultural identity (Mok & Morris, 2010). Aside from cultural values and norms, cultural knowledge can serve as a source of intellectual inspirations to evoke creativity. Having exposure to multiple cultures benefits creative productions as demonstrated by Leung and Chiu’s (2008, 2010) studies, in which participants who had access to more diverse cultural knowledge produced more creative outputs. The effects of cultural values and knowledge on creativity are clearly observed when creativity and innovation are measured at the country level. Using cross-cultural and multilevel data, three articles in the current issue extend our understanding of the cross-cultural psychology of creativity in important ways. Adair and Xiong (2018) showed that the cultural value of uncertainty avoidance mediates cross-cultural differences in the relative preference for novelty versus usefulness as the criteria for evaluating creativity. In another article, Chiu, Lun, and Bond (2018) reported that individuals high on creative value orientation are more likely to have creative work engagement, especially when they feel that they have job autonomy, and this relationship is stronger when individuals have been socialized to be self-directed at an early age. With in-depth qualitative analyses of interview data, Güss, Tuason, Göltenboth, and Mironova (2018) explored how creative processes manifest in culturally similar and dissimilar ways by interviewing professional artists from Cuba, Germany, and Russia. Their results revealed that there are meaningful cultural differences in the multifaceted nature of creative processes, which cover cognitive, motivational, emotional, and sociocultural domains. There is some, but weak evidence that individuals from Western (vs. East Asian) cultures have higher creative performance. However, these results are difficult to interpret because creativity is not an intrapersonal quality, but the result of person–environment interactions. For example, in an earlier study, the researchers measured the creative performance of Singaporeans and Israelis. The two groups did not differ in their performance when they completed the task alone. However, when asked to work in groups, Singaporean (vs. Israeli) groups produced less novel ideas. The
168 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 49(2) Singaporean groups also elaborated more on the usefulness (vs. novelty) of their ideas (Nouri et al., 2013). One possible explanation is that when working in groups, individuals are more likely to reference the norms of their team and choose ideas that are perceived to be acceptable to other team members. Of import, this effect is more prevalent in East Asian cultures where group (vs. individual) preferences and goals are of greater emphasis. Liou and Lan (2018) conducted a cross-cultural analysis of Taiwanese and Americans to show how normative processes of culture are implicated in creative behaviors. They found that Taiwanese and American participants showed differences in performance measures of originality and usefulness only when the originality and usefulness norms were made salient by the requirements to select (vs. generate) ideas and to work in a group (vs. alone). Interestingly, results revealed that both Taiwanese and American teams were equally creative when they were at the idea generation stage and when they worked individually. The results are consistent with existing research, and attest to the relevance of social norms in team creativity. If norm conformance confines creativity, exposure to culturally diverse experiences may have a cognitively liberating effect on creative productions. At the individual level, there is evidence that exposure to foreign cultures, such as biculturalism, is often beneficial to creative performance (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008). However, exposure to diversifying experiences in culturally mixed teams may hurt team creative performance. On one hand, exposure to diverse ideas in culturally mixed groups can motivate individuals to break cultural frames. On the other hand, it can create conflicts among team members (Chiu, Kwan, & Liou, 2016). Gocłowska, Damian, and Mor (2018) have proposed a curvilinear relationship between diversifying experiences and creativity. They postulate that too much diversifying experiences could be threatening, while too few such experiences provide inadequate stimulation. Furthermore, whether the individuals have the resources to manage diversifying experiences can enhance or inhibit creativity. The Reciprocal Relationship Between Culture and Creativity/ Innovation Culture and creativity are interlinked. Whereas much research has studied how culture affects creativity, creativity also shapes culture. While culture provides the inspiration for creativity and innovation, innovation outcomes may inspire cultural change (Galambos, 1997). For example, it is plausible that the increased prevalence of certain disease may motivate the invention of medical treatments to mitigate the spread of such disease, which could in turn change the disease’s developmental pattern, as well as how social interactions are conducted in the culture. Kwan (2018) argues that innovation can shape cultures by mitigating the discomfort of challenging climates. Specifically, she argues that cultures that can use innovation to attenuate the negative effect of harsh climates are more likely to favor cultural pluralism. Her results revealed that societies with demanding climate and high innovation performance tend to be more pluralistic, implying that innovation could invoke evolutionary process of a culture. Kwan (2018) focuses on how innovation can change culture by altering the material condition in the society. Interestingly, Grigoryan, Lebedeva, and Breugelmans (2018) explore how mental constructions of innovation carry cultural values and beliefs. They measured individual differences in the lay beliefs about the individual and social aspects of innovation and documented how these beliefs embody cultural values and norms. In summary, creativity, innovation, and culture are intricately linked. In this special issue, the authors illustrate with theories and empirical evidence how creativity is understood differently across cultures and culture’s role in different types of creativity and innovation outputs. The collection of articles also highlights how cultures influence individual and team creativity through cultural values and norms, and through learning from the knowledge traditions of multiple
Kwan et al. 169 cultures. This special issue showcases the reciprocal nature of the culture–creativity/innovation relationship. It is our hope that this collection of work will open up research avenues to further enrich understanding of the cultural processes of creativity and the creative processes of culture. 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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. References Adair, W. L., & Xiong, T. X. (2018). How Chinese and Caucasian Canadians Conceptualize Creativity: The Mediating Role of Uncertainty Avoidance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 223-238. Amabile, T. M. (1986). The personality of creativity. Creative Living, 15(3), 12-16. Bendapudi, N., Zhan, S., & Hong, Y-y. (2018). Cultural Values Differentially Moderate the Benefits of Basic Education on Two Types of National Innovation Outputs. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 199-222. Bond, M. H. (1993). Emotions and their expression in Chinese culture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 245-262. Chiu, C., Kwan, L. Y., & Liou, S. (2016). The institutional and cultural contexts of creativity and innovation in China. In A. Lewin, J. P., Murmann, & M. Kenny (Eds.), China’s Innovation Challenge: Overcoming the middle income trap (pp. 368-394). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Chiu, C.-y., Lun, V. M., & Bond, M. H. (2018). Engaging in Creative Work: The Influences of Personal Value, Autonomy at Work, and National Socialization for Self-Directedness in 50 Nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 239-260. Erez, M., & Nouri, R. (2010). Creativity: The influence of cultural, social, and work contexts. Management and Organization Review, 6, 351-370. Fielding, R. (1997). A socio-cognitive perspective on cross cultural attitudes and practices in creativity development. Australian Art Education, 20(1-2), 27-33. Galambos, L. (1997). Global perspectives on modern business. Business History Review, 71, 287-290. Güss, C. D., Tuason, M. T., Göltenboth, N., & Mironova, A. (2018). Creativity Through the Eyes of Professional Artists in Cuba, Germany, and Russia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 261- 289. Gocłowska, M. A., Damian, R. I., & Mor, S. (2018). The Diversifying Experience Model: Taking a Broader Conceptual View of the Multiculturalism-Creativity Link. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 303-322. Grigoryan, L. K., Lebedeva, N., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2018). A Cross-Cultural Study of the Mediating Role of Implicit Theories of Innovativeness in the Relationship Between Values and Attitudes Toward Innovation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 336-352. Harzing, A., & Hofstede, G. (1996). Planned change in organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 14, 297-340. Kim, J., & Michael, W. B. (1995). The relationship of creativity measures to school achievement and to preferred learning and thinking style in a sample of Korean high school students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 60-74. Kim, K. H., & Sergent, D. F. (2004, August). The relationship between Confucianism and creativity among American and Korean teachers for gifted children. Poster Session Presented at the International Council of Psychologists (ICP) Conference Held in Jinan, Shandong, China. Kwan, L. Y. Y. (2018). Institutional and Value Support for Cultural Pluralism Is Stronger in Innovative Societies With Demanding Climate. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 323-335.
170 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 49(2) Leung, A. K.-y. & Chiu, C.-y. (2008). Interactive effects of multicultural experiences and openness to experience on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 376-382. Leung, A. K.-y. & Chiu, C.-y. (2010). Multicultural experience, idea receptiveness, and creativity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 723-741. Leung, A. K.-y., Liou, S., Miron-Spektor, E., Koh, B., Chan, D., Eisenberg, R., & Schneider, I. (2017). Middle ground approach to paradox: Within- and between-culture examination of the creative benefits of paradoxical frames. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/pspp0000160 Leung, A. K.-y., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. Y. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63, 169-181. Leung, K., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Culture and creativity: A social psychological analysis. In D. De Cramer, J. K. Murnighan, & R. van Dick (Eds.), Social psychology and organizations (pp. 371-390). New York, NY: Routledge. Li, C., Kwan, L. Y. Y., Liou, S., & Chiu, C. Y. (2013). Culture, group processes, and creativity. In M. Yuki & M. Brewer (Eds.), Culture and group processes (pp. 145-165). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Liou, S., & Lan, X. (2018). Situational Salience of Norms Moderates Cultural Differences in the Originality and Usefulness of Creative Ideas Generated or Selected by Teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 290-302. McCarthy, M., Chen, C. C., & McNamee, R. C. (2018). Novelty and Usefulness Trade-Off: Cultural Cognitive Differences and Creative Idea Evaluation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 171-198. Miron-Spektor, E., & Erez, M. (in press). Looking at creativity through a paradox lens: Deeper understanding and new insights. In M. W. Lewis, W. K. Smith, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational paradox: Approaches to plurality, tensions, and contradictions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Mok, A., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Asian-Americans’ creative styles in Asian and American situations: Assimilative and contrastive responses as a function of bicultural identity integration. Management and Organization Review, 6, 371-390. Morris, M. W., & Leung, K. (2010). Creativity East and West: Perspectives and parallels. Management and Organization Review, 6, 313-327. Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23(1), 13-17. Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 51-75. Nouri, R., Erez, M., Rockstuhl, T., Ang, S., Leshem-Calif, L., & Rafaeli, A. (2013). Taking the bite out of culture: The impact of task structure and task type on overcoming impediments to cross-cultural team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 739-763. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2010). The OECD innovation strongly getting a head start on tomorrow. Paris, France: Author. Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2010). The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: Choosing between creativity and impact. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 47-68. Rudowicz, E., & Ng, T. T. (2003). On Ng’s why Asians are less creative than Westerners. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 301-302. Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. The Journal of Economic History, 7, 149-159. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). Creating creative minds. The Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 608-614. Westwood, R., & Low, D. R. (2003). The multicultural muse: Culture, creativity, and innovation. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3, 235-259.
Design meets Ethnography 1 Design meets Ethnography Reflections on design, innovation, value creation and ethnography Frøydis Sollie Rønning Department of Product Design Norwegian University of Science and Technology ABSTRACT There is an increasing attention towards users in today’s business. Focusing on creating value for users can be a source to innovation and a way for firms to achieve competitive advantage. Ethnographic methods can lead to a deep understanding of users, and has been in the spotlight of design as a discipline for some while. Ethnography appeal to designers as it provides a deep understanding of the meaning their design have for others, and as it can help them to create more compelling solutions that are of value for the users. The paper is based on a literature review, and provides an insight into the relevance of ethnography for innovation, design and value creation, and seeks to answer whether combining ethnography to design can lead to value-added innovation for the users. Research indicates that ethnographic observation methods can be used for gaining valuable insight, which in turn can lead to designers creating innovations that are of value for the users. Methods for integrating ethnography to the design process are addressed, and findings suggest a way in which designers and ethnographers collaborating as desirable. KEYWORDS: Design, ethnography, innovation, value creation 1. INTRODUCTION Today, customers live in a rapidly changing technical environment [1], and the firms access to information and new markets has dramatically increased due to the globalization. This has led to bigger international competition [2] and to greater opportunities [3], and firms are searching for new ways to achieve competitive advantage [4]. Innovation has become an important factor for this [1, 5], and good design is shown to be one of the major determinants for success in the competitive marketplace [6]. The velocity of research on innovation in the area of design is thus increasing [7]. Von Hippel identified the users as a source to innovation already in the late 70’s, and argued that three out of four successful innovation projects were a result of initiating projects based on users needs rather than on technological opportunities [8]. Today, many businesses feel that it is necessary to understand consumers in context in order to be competitive and have shifted their focus towards users. Businesses need to have knowledge about what drives people, human behaviour and what is meaningful to people. Companies are increasingly open to approaches that develops products and services based on the users need [9], and many businesses have thus extended their innovation process to include human-centered, observationbased research methods often referred to as ethnographic methods [10].
Design meets Ethnography 2 Given the fact that both design and ethnography seems to play an important role for innovation with the user in focus, this paper seeks to answer the research question: Can combining ethnography and design lead to value-added innovation for the user? And in which way is ethnography relevant for design, innovation and value creation? The article is based on a literature review on innovation, design, value creation and ethnography, and is structured as follows: The first sections provide an insight into ethnography, innovation, design and value creation, and how ethnography is relevant for each of the terms. The article then refers to a method for how to combine ethnography to design, followed by a discussion and a conclusion. 1.2 Ethnography Ethnography is a research method in the field of anthropology [11], which is based on observing people in their natural environments to see the world through the users eye. This provides a unique way of discovering the underlying meanings behind behaviour, to get a holistic understanding of how people comprehend their world, and to see patterns of behaviour in a real world context [1, 12-15]. As LiAnne Yu, a cultural anthropologist, states; “If you want to understand what motivates a guy to pick up skateboarding, you could bring him into a sterile laboratory and interrogate him, or you could spend a week in a skate park observing him interacting with his friends, practicing new skills and having fun” [12, p. 5]. Also, what people say they do is often not what they actually do. Reasons for this can be that people are not aware of what they actually do, or they do not have the vocabulary to talk about it. By doing observations, one can reveal what people actually do [15]. The most fundamental approach in ethnography for gaining insight in consumer behaviour is participants observations [16]. This can be done by placing the observer in the role of the customer, or by living together with the people studied and becoming involved in their activities and daily life [1, 15]. Ethnographers also conduct non-participant observations, which can be done by for example “shadowing a person throughout his or her daily activities or by setting up video cameras to track multiple persons behaviours” [1, p. 35]. Interviews are also common approaches in ethnography, and the observations can provide ethnographers a way to learn how and which questions to ask. Field notes and videotaping are common tools for capturing and documenting the research [1, 15]. 2. INNOVATION The practice of innovation goes far back and is as old as human activity itself [7]. It historically occurred as a direct response to a user need [1, p. 36]. In 1976, Downs and Mohr stated that “innovation has emerged over the last decade as possibly the most fashionable of social science areas” [17, p. 700]. The Oslo manual, an international standard for the measure and analysis of innovation, defines innovation as “the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new organizational method in business practices, workplace organization or external relations” [2, p. 46]. There are many types of innovation and the classification may vary according to the intention behind the innovation [18]. This article will briefly look into four types of innovation that are relevant for the discussion part, and for the knowledge of innovation focusing on the user aspect. 2.1 Incremental and Radical Innovation Two categories of innovation for products and services are incremental and radical innovation, explained by Norman and Verganti [18, p. 82] as;
Design meets Ethnography 3 1. Incremental innovation: Improvements within a given frame of solutions (“doing better what we already do”) 2. Radical innovation: A change of frame (“doing what we did not do before”). While incremental innovation happens frequently and is the dominant type of innovation, radical innovation happens rarely. They are, however, both important. As Norman and Verganti states: “Without radical innovation, incremental innovation reaches a limit. Without incremental innovation, the potential enabled by radical change is not captured” [18, p. 83]. 2.2 User-driven innovation As mentioned in the introduction, businesses are increasingly focusing on understanding their costumers and on uncovering their needs as a competitive advantage. Companies strive towards delivering products or services that provides a special value or experience to the costumer. This has led to an increased use of the term user-driven innovation [5]. A user-driven innovation process focuses on the customer needs [5] and refers to the process of gaining information about the user [19]. The involvement of the end-user in the innovation research can be done through different ways like: design for users, design with users and design by users. “When a product is designed for users, data and theories regarding the user are used as a knowledge base for design. A design with users denotes an approach where user studies are included, together with feedback from the user. When users are actively involved in the design of the product or service, the term design by users can be applied” [20, p. 14]. 2.3 Meaning based innovation The term ‘innovation of meaning’ relates to the purpose of a product or service as perceived by the user. The purpose can be explained as the “why”, rather than the “what” [21]. According to Öberg and Verganti, the level of meaning is a level of innovation that has been overlooked People are constantly searching for meaning, and therefor also for new solutions to serve their existing purposes better. “Innovation of meaning is a change in in the purpose of a product or service from a users interpretation in a given context of use” [21, p. 83]. Meaning as a driver to innovation can be seen in light of the development in the watch industry during the 1970’s. Before 1970’s watches were considered as jewelleries that were past along for generations. But with the emerging electronic technology, a small number of Japanese companies transformed the watch from a jewellery item to a tool for telling time with a numerous of subsidiary functions such as timers, games and calculators. This meaning change made the Japan, at that time, to become the world leading of watch production [18]. The importance of meaning based innovation can be seen in Verganti’s diagram on the dimensions of innovation consisting of three modes of innovation [22, p. 452], as shown in figure 1. Design driven innovation is in this diagram presented as a result of the generation of new meanings. Figure 1: Verganti’s dimensions of innovation 2.4 The relevance of Ethnography in Innovation In order to “sustain innovative thinking and provide long-term breakthrough ideas that resonates deeply with consumers, we need to
Design meets Ethnography 4 look for deeper, less obvious patterns to inspire and inform out thinking” [10, p. 247]. A deep understanding of customer and user needs can be gained through observations and ethnographic research that seeks to understand the meaning-based needs and not only the fundamental use and usability needs of the customer or user [23]. Beckman and Barry have developed an innovation process to be used to generate new products, services, business models, and other design. It consists of four steps: observation, framework, imperatives and solutions. Sara L. Beckman and Michael Barry argue that the core of the innovation process is observation, requiring the innovating team to understand their target groups needs in the level of meaning [1]. In IDEO’s ‘The ten faces of innovation’ by Tom Kelley, the anthropologist is one of them. They argue that people who adopt the learning roles will be open to new insights every day. The anthropologist is according to IDEO the one who “brings new learning and insights into the organization by observing human behaviour and developing a in-depth understanding of how people interact physically and emotionally with products and services” [24, p. 5]. 3. DESIGN Design is formulated by Heskett as the deliberate and reasoned shaping and making of our environment in ways that satisfy our needs and give meaning to our lives [25]. Some claims that design comes from the Italian word ‘disengnare’, which means drawing or preliminary study and planning [26]. Others see design as the discipline which emerged as a result of the industrial revolution and modern methods of mass production, where the work of designing objects began to develop as a separate role in the manufacturing process [16]. Today, the advances in technology has led to an expansion of opportunities in design that impact people’s behaviour and experience beyond the specific designing of the object itself [27]. Design as a profession has expanded, and the term design can among others be used about interaction, experience, products and services [28]. According to Simon, design is about “changing existing situations into preferred ones” [29, p. 111]. Design has shifted focus towards more acceptance and incorporation of user studies and towards enabling user experiences and designing with consideration of people’s current and desired experiences with products and services [14, 27, 30]. It has been claimed that a good designer is “able to see things in different ways, to determine the users meanings, to organize them in a structured whole, and to reorganize them depending on the result” [31, p. 534]. The change can partly be seen by the development of computing and communication systems that demanded ‘user experiences’, and not standingalone items [30]. As the scope of the designer’s field is being enlarged, and the knowledge of user studies grows, the boundaries and connections to other fields expand [30]. One important mission of the designer is to identify and meet the users needs and wants. This can be hard as consumers often have complex, multiple needs which they are not always able to express. But designers may develop products or services that meets certain needs in which consumers did not know they had. An example is the popular Post-it notes [16], and the well-known example with Henry Ford who said that if he had asked his customer what they wanted they would have answered a faster horse. One can not expect customers to always know what they want and to envision the future [24]. 3.1 Design in the field of innovation Organizations seek competitive advantage through innovation, and design is as mentioned one of the major determinants for success. An innovation solution can be presented “in which
Design meets Ethnography 5 the designer serves as articulator of cultural values and emotions to renovate existing products and communications strategies, to design new products with cultural content and meaning based on cultural values” [32, p. 498]. Consuming a product implies to experience it, not only buying, owning and using it [32]. The Oslo Manual states that “design is an integral part of the development and implementation of product innovations (good or services)” [2, p. 48]. Design has a strategic relevance, and can bring a sustainable competitive advantage when used systematically [33]. “The role of design has changed from developing new products to developing mechanism for organizations and societies to deliver better and innovative products and services for customers and citizen“[34]. 3.2 User-centered design As designers can be seen as ambassador for users [14], terms like user-centered design and humancentered design are in focus. The terms are often used interchangeably, and human-centered design is the ISO term for user-centered Design, ISO 9241-210 [14]. Sanders has presented usercentered design as a zone of activity within the landscape of human-centered design (research) [9]. User-centered design is today often used about the approach where the users needs, wants and behaviour linked with both products and services are given much attention during the design process [14]. AIGA, the professional association for design, states that great design always connects with people. And to be able to truly connect, designers need to understand the meaning their products have for others [12]. The methods are often based on an iterative cycle of investigations, where each iteration commonly consists of observations, ideation phases, and rapid prototyping and testing. Each iteration builds upon the lesson learned from the previous iteration [18]. 3.3 The relevance of Ethnography in Design Ethnography migrated into the field of design through human-computer interface design (HCI), studies on how humans interact with computer software in the workplace, called ‘computersupported cooperative work’ or CSCW [1, 11, 14, 16]. Before this, software designers used to develop programs based on their own intuition and thoughts on how users would interact with these programs [16]. The Participatory Design (PD) community with roots in the design of workplace environments in Scandinavian countries [30] also contributed to the adoption of ethnographic techniques in the field of design by aiming at involving users in the design process to reflect their needs and interest in products [14]. By integrating ethnographic methods, designers received help to better understand the needs of the users [13, 15]. Ethnography appeals to designers because it can provide a window into the ways users interact with products in their everyday lives [16]. Ethnography can be a tool for better design by helping designers to reveal a deep understanding of people, how they perceive their world, and the meaning their design has for others, and by that create more compelling solutions [12]. Dharrel Rhea, a design research consultancy, says that “A designer should care about ethnography because It can help produce more compelling, innovative design that really connects with users – in a way that creates delight” [12, p. 3]. Factors that influence people’s experiences can be factors designers can influence and control like sound, smell, texture, sequence, logic and so on. These factors are interpreted in different ways due to personal, social and cultural meaning. It is therefor critical for designers to understand as much as possible about how these factors are interpreted in order to develop design that support people’s experiences in desirable ways [27]. Suri argues that one key area for the practice of designing for experiences is to understand what matters. What qualities matter to the users and how can design enhance their
Design meets Ethnography 6 experiences. This includes learning about a broad range of activities, thoughts and feelings. And a helpful tool for achieving this are ethnographic methods from anthropology [27]. An example on the importance of understanding the underlying needs of the users when designing for innovation is the U.S. Governments try to improve the production of acorn grinding in the early 1990s. This production was mostly done by Native American tribes by providing them with iron grinders. The attempt failed due to not understanding that the Native American tribes also used the place to pass along traditions and tell stories. As the U.S. Government tried to improve the production by only consider it as a food production place, and not understanding the tribes meaning of the place, the iron grinder solution failed [1]. 4. VALUE CREATION The term value is used in a number of disciplines like design, anthropology, psychology, economics and marketing [3]. Consumer value has been defined by Hilliard as an interactive relativistic preference experience [35], which typically refers to the evaluation of an object (both products and services) by a subject (consumer or costumer) [36]. The anthropological approach sees value as determined through social and cultural constructs and that an object can not contain value [3]. 4.1 User-value There is, as mentioned before, a growing recognition that design focusing on providing value for users is important for business success [37]. User value is according to Boztepe something that is “created as a result of the harmonious combination of product properties and what users and their local context bring to the interaction with the product” [38, p. 62]. Prahalad and Ramaswamy argue that the meaning of value and the process of value creation are rapidly shifting from a product- and firm-centric view to personalized consumer experiences [39]. Gutman has made a means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. The model suggests that “consumers choose actions that produce desired consequences and minimize undesired consequences” [40, p. 61], and attempts to explain how value is formed in the interface between products attributes (made by designer’s intentions) and users needs. It suggests that product attributes can lead to psychological or social advantages like the feeling of happiness or comfort, and to the social and personal values. In order for designers to understand how products and services will be perceived by users, an understanding of higher user goals and how they will be related to consequences is required [3]. For example, “knowing that consumers want to look well dressed doesn’t tell us much unless we know why they want to look that way (sexual attractiveness, accomplishment, neatness etc., which are value-level considerations) and what attributes in clothing they associate with being well dressed” [40, p. 60]. Boztepe also highlights the definition of ‘value as experience’, as important for the discussion on value in design. She argues that the terms consumer value and costumer value, and the focus of value as the evaluation of some object/product by some subject/user is relevant for the field of design as it examines the term value within the relationship of user and product [38]. She expresses that “users interact with products within the context of their goals, needs, cultural expectations, physical context, and emotions. And products, with their tangible and intangible qualities, can influence the way users interact with them. What we call user value is thus created as a result of the interaction between what the product provides and what the users bring in terms of their goals, needs, limitations, etc” [38, p. 58]. 4.2 The relevance of Ethnography in Value Creation
Design meets Ethnography 7 People in different cultures can have different behaviours and experiences with products but still share common values [3], and value can change from one context to another [38]. It is thus essential to understand the user’s goal and that the same goals can be achieved in different ways. By observing the activities around the use of products one can learn which products lead to desired consequences [3]. Tools from ethnographic research focusing on value assignment are needed to handle the concept of value and to build a better understanding of user value assignment [38]. To examine how user value is developed in relation to the users experiences and interaction with products, an ethnographic research using observations, interviews is valuable [30]. People often invest in objects that give them meaning which are not aligned with the producers intended meaning or the objects functions, but for what the object signify. In this view, the value is not in the object itself, but in the context and message it conveys. It is thus important to consider how goods are made sense of and what they provide to users including status, prestige and identity [37]. 5. ETHNOGRAPHY IN THE DESIGN PROCESS There are many ways of how ethnography could come into the design process. The ethnographer could do observations alone, and then give the insight from the study to the designer, the designer could actively be a part of the participatory observations, or a project could consist of a team based on both ethnographers and designer [15]. Ethnography within design has often been done by ethno-methodologically informed design and participatory design [15]. Ethno-methodologically informed design involves a fieldworker who provides the designers with detailed observation. The fieldworker does not engage in the actual design work and the providing of information may be the only point of connection between the fieldworkers and designers. Participatory design aims to benefit from the users own knowledge about their own behaviour, and are using this directly in the design process to develop appropriate solutions for the user [41]. Hughes et al have identified four different usage of ethnography in system design [13, p. 432]: 1. Concurrent ethnography: where design is influence by an on-going ethnographic study taking place at the same time as systems development 2. Quick and dirty ethnography: where brief ethnographic studies are undertaken to provide a general but informed sense of the setting for designers 3. Evaluative ethnography: where an ethnographic study is undertaken to verify or validate a set of already formulated design decisions 4. Re-examination of previous studies: where previous studies are re-examined to inform initial design thinking. The most common usage associated with design is according to Hughes et al ‘concurrent ethnography’. This usage includes an iterative process where ethnography is followed by a debriefing session involving both the ethnographer and the designer. The process is as follows fieldwork > debriefing > prototyping > fieldwork, and goes on until the team are satisfied [13]. AIGA, The Professional Association for Design, has suggested a way including six steps for the collaboration of ethnographers and designers in the design process [12]: 1. Define the problem 2. Find the people 3. Plan an approach 4. Collect data 5. Analyse data and interpret opportunities 6. Share insight Each step includes the role of both the ethnographer and the designer. Based on this information, a chart has been created.
Design meets Ethnography 8 Chart 1: AIGA’s six-step collaboration between ethnographers and designers 6. DISCUSSION The previous sections have shed light upon the relevance of ethnography for innovation, design and value creation, and showed ways of integrating ethnography into the design process. This section investigates the research question, ‘if combining ethnography and design can lead to value-added innovation for the user’, further by discussing how all the terms are related to each other, and the role of ethnography in the design process. 6.1 Innovation, Design and Value Creation, and how Ethnography comes into the picture Creating value for customers has as mentioned been pointed out as the source of sustainable competitive advantage. It is claimed that successful innovation is the one who creates customer value [42]. Kim and Mauborgne argue that firms need to focus on promoting value innovation in order to achieve sustained profitable growth. And in order to value innovate, companies must have insight in if they offer value for their costumers [43]. This is supported by Trueman and Jobber’s research where they argue that one of the most important thing in order to succeed in the complex business environment is to raise the users perceived value [44]. In Gutman’s means-end chain model, value is explained as formed in the interface between the designer’s intention and the users needs. Gutman emphasizes the importance of designers to understand user goals and their relation to consequences in order to understand how products and services will be perceived by users [3]. This is also discussed by Walsh et al who states that design can be a tool for firms to innovate and compete on user value by delivering products and services that increases the customer’s perceived value of new products and services [45]. It is however claimed that the designers research methods, that typically include surveys, focus groups, interviews and usability tests, never can lead into large-scale improvements as it often are limited by the participants’ current expectations [46]. This can be seen in light of Boztepe who argues that there is a need for tools and research frames to help designers plan and conduct research that will lead to highly relevant information [37]. Kumar and Whitney highlights the importance of ethnographic observation methods which they argue can be used to gain valuable insight, which in turn can lead designers to create innovations that are of value for the users [46]. Blomberg et al also emphasizes the importance of ethnography to design, and argues by presenting six specific reason in which ethnography can be relevant for design [15]. Ethnographic methods can in light of this thus be argued of being much valuable to design. On the other hand, gaining an understanding on how users experience their world and how they Step Ethnographer Helps all stakeholders ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĞƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ and the role research can play ĞĮŶĞƐĂŶĚĮŶĚƐƚŚĞďĞƐƚ types of people to study ĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĮĐ ŵĞƚŚŽĚĨŽƌĐŽůůĞĐƟŶŐĚĂƚĂ and develops the tools for ĐŽŶĚƵĐƟŶŐĮĞůĚǁŽƌŬ Uses a trained eye to ƉƌŽďĞ͕ĂƐŬƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐĂŶĚ ŽďƐĞƌǀĞƐŵĂůůĚĞƚĂŝůĞƐĂŶĚ nuances >ĞĂĚƐƚŚĞĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐďLJ ŐƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĮĞůĚǁŽƌŬŝŶ research training and outside experience dĞůůƐƚŚĞƐƚŽƌLJŝŶĂǁĂLJ ƚŚĂƚŚĞůƉƐƉĞŽƉůĞĞŵďƌĂĐĞ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐĂŶĚ create a shared vision ƌƟĐƵůĂƚĞƐĂĐůĞĂƌ ďƌŝĞĨĂŶĚŚĞůƉƐĚĞĮŶĞ ƚŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ ĚĞůŝǀĞƌĂďůĞƐŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽ communicate research ĮŶĚŝŶŐƐĞīĞĐƟǀĞůLJƚŽƚŚĞ client ŽŶĮƌŵƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉĞŽƉůĞ meet the criteria of the ďƌŝĞĨ WƌĞƉĂƌĞƐƚŚĞƐƟŵƵůŝ that the ethnographer ǁŝůůƵƐĞĚƵƌŝŶŐƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ ĂŶĚƐĞƚƐĨƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬƐĨŽƌ understanding data WĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƚĞƐĂŶĚŵĂŬĞƐ ŽďƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶƐŽĨǁŚĂƚ͛Ɛ taking place ŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚĞƐǁŝƚŚ the ethnographers to ƚƌĂŶƐĨŽƌŵŽďƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶƐ and data into a coherent and compelling story ƌĞĂƚĞƐĂǀŝƐƵĂůŶĂƌƌĂƟǀĞ ƚŽĂĐĐĞůĞƌĂƚĞŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ ƚƌĂŶƐĨĞƌĂŶĚďƵLJͲŝŶǁŝƚŚŝŶ ĂŶŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƟŽŶ Designer 1 2 3 4 5 6
Design meets Ethnography 9 value products requires time and resources, as argued by Melican [30]. Hughes et al, however, claims that ignoring the value ethnography can bring could be much more costly in terms of insufficient systems and dissatisfied customers [13]. Elliot and Elliot claim that ethnography reaches parts other research approaches cannot. Ethnography can according to them among other access what people really do rather than what they say they do. Many parents may for example claim that they do not allow their children to watch violence on television. But observations done on this area has shown that children often see violence on television, and that it is the parents who wants to believe that they do not let their children watch things on television that might give them nightmare [1]. Based on this, it can be indicated that ethnography might play a positive role for design by observations leading to highly relevant information, and that the value gained from adding ethnography to design can compensate for the required time and resources that might follow. The importance of observation for innovation is also discussed by Beckman and Barry, who highlight observation as the core in their innovation process, and claims that observations are needed in order to understand the users needs in the level of meaning [1]. This is supported by Elliot and Elliot, who argues that ethnographic observations seeking to understand the meaning-based needs can lead to a deep understanding of users [23]. Verganti and Normann supports the importance of meaning based innovation and states that breakthrough design-driven innovations reflect radical innovations of meanings [22]. They, however, claim that meaning-driven innovation have potential to be design-driven if the observations are rooted in an understanding of how society and culture are changing, and fundamental questions of new meaning and their interpretations are addressed. According to Verganti and Normann, the more time researchers use on studying existing human behaviour, activities and products, the more they get trapped into existing paradigms leading to incremental innovations. An understanding of the changing human behaviour can thus seem to lead to radical innovations. Meaning as a driver to innovation can also be seen in the cited example of the development of watch industry in section 2.3. This example shows that the new innovation on watches is due to the changing human behaviour. Verganti’s model of the innovation dimensions, presented in section 2.1, shows that a user-centered (market pull) approach can lead to incremental innovation, while an design-driven approach where the generation of new meanings are in focus can lead to both incremental and radical innovation. As ethnography can be seen as not only the understanding of current human behaviour, but also about how and why it is changing [47], it can be a helpful tool for understanding the patterns of changes in human behaviour. Adding ethnography to design can in light of this be seen as a source to both radical and incremental innovation. However, it can be indicated that ethnography in the field of design has its biggest potential in leading into incremental innovations, but might lead into radical innovation if the level of new meaning is addressed. But regardless of radical or incremental innovation, the research question considers value-added innovation for users. The last section thus indicates that ethnographic observation methods can be used for gaining valuable insight, which in turn can lead to designers creating innovations that are of value for the users. 6.2 The role of Ethnography in the Design process Hughes et al argue that if it is to be accepted that ethnography is an important mean for design in order to gain knowledge about social matters, then “serious attention needs to be given to the variety of ways in which ethnographic studies can be used by designers” [13, p. 431]. Their study of ‘concurrent ethnography’, show that the contribution of fieldwork to design has a declining rate of utility during the iterations. They
Design meets Ethnography 10 argue that the ‘quick and dirty ethnography’ can be capable of providing much valuable knowledge in a short matter of time, and that the ‘payoff’ from ‘quick and dirty’ ethnography is greater in terms of time spent in relation to the utility of the observations. This might indicate that an approach where ethnographers undertake brief ethnographic studies which in turn informs designers is a desired approach. It is, however, not enough data to support this statement, as the four usages of ethnography presented in their article all include ethnographers and designers working independently. A problem with this type of approach is also raised by Hughes et al which see a problem with the communication of the findings from the ethnographers to the designers [13]. This is supported by Melican who argues that the application of ethnography to design can lead to disagreements due to lack of alignment between the designers and ethnographers conducting the user research. Disagreements can according to him typically be concerning the “role and value of the research, and how the designers are to make use of the research data” [30, p. 181]. To reduce the disagreements between ethnographers and designers, an approach where designers conduct ethnographic methods could be considered. Designers are also interested in human behaviour and are used to conducting observations and interviews. Blomberg et al has explained the difference between the interests of ethnographers in relation to designers in that the designer is more interested in understanding human behaviour in order to design artefacts that meet the needs of the users, whilst the ethnographer is interested in understanding human behaviour as it is reflected in the life of people. The designer therefore spend much time on testing and evaluating a certain design in relation to the users need whilst the ethnographer focuses on understanding and observing human behaviour per se [15]. HEAD claims that ethnography conducted by designers differ from its roots in anthropology [14]. Their study show that designers spend shorter time in the field compared to ethnographers, and that the designers focus is narrower. According to them, ethnography done by designers is often “too instrumental and limited to deriving ‘implications for design’: lists of needs, problems and requirements” [14, p. 37]. An approach where designers conduct ethnographic research can hence not be seen as desirable. According to Blomberg et al, ethnography within design has often been done by ethnomethodologically informed design and participatory design, explained in chapter 5 [15]. Kjærsgaard and Otto argue that the role of ethnography within design cannot be like in the ethno-methodologically informed design and participatory design. They suggest a design anthropological approach where context and practices of use, and design are intersected in order to develop a holistic understanding both in the field and in the design studio. It should be a collaborative process between ethnography and design [41]. An approach where ethnographers and designers collaborate during the process can thus seem to be preferred. This might in turn indicate that the ‘six step-collaboration’ between ethnographers and designers, presented in section 5, can be a possible way for the combining of ethnography and design. 7. CONCLUSION The discussion indicates the importance of ethnography in design for ensuring innovations that are of value for the users. As mentioned in the introduction, firms are searching for new ways to achieve competitive advantage. Ethnography can be a tool for this by providing companies with a better understanding and alignment with their consumer’s values. Adding ethnographic observations to design can lead to a deeper understanding of human needs and be used for gaining valuable insights, which in turn can lead to designers creating innovations that are of value for the users. By the collaboration of designers and ethnographers, a deep understanding of users can be developed in order to ensure that the products and services
Design meets Ethnography 11 designed are of value for the users [37]. And the value products provide for users is one of the key attributes that distinguishes breakthrough products and services from their closest followers [48]. The discussion indicates that the desired way of integrating ethnography into the process of design is by designers and ethnographers collaborating rather then by the designer conducting ethnographic research, or by ethnographers doing observations alone and then gives the insight from the study to the designer. A way of doing this has been presented by AIGA. However, as this article only considers one way of performing this collaboration, it is not sufficient data to validate the process presented by AIGA. More research is needed on the collaboration between ethnographers and designers, and how to integrate ethnography into the design process. 8. REFERENCES 1. Beckman, S.L. and M. Barry, Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California Management Review, 2007. 50(1): p. 25-+. 2. OECD/Eurostat, Oslo Manual. OECD Publishing. 3. Boztepe, S. The notion of value and design. in Journal of the Asian Design International Conference. 2003. 4. Woodruff, R.B., Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 1997. 25(2): p. 139-153. 5. Rosted, J., User-driven innovation. Results and recommendations. Copenhagen: Fora, 2005. 6. HERTENSTEIN, J., M. PLATT, and R. VERYZER, WHAT IS “GOOD DESIGN”?: AN INVESTIGATION OF THE STRUCTURE AND COMPLEXITY OF DESIGN. LEADING THROUGH DESIGN, 2012: p. 175. 7. Cruickshank, L., The Innovation Dimension: Designing in a Broader Context. Design Issues, 2010. 26(2): p. 17-26. 8. Von Hippel, E., The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research policy, 1976. 5(3): p. 212-239. 9. Sanders, E.B.-N. and P.J. Stappers, Cocreation and the new landscapes of design. Codesign, 2008. 4(1): p. 5-18. 10. Suri, J.F. and S.G. Howard, Going deeper, seeing further: Enhancing ethnographic interpretations to reveal more meaningful opportunities for design. Journal of Advertising Research, 2006. 46(3): p. 246-250. 11. Dourish, P. Implications for design. in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. 2006. ACM. 12. AIGA. An Ethnography Primer. [cited 2015 22 oct]. 13. Hughes, J., et al. Moving out from the control room: ethnography in system design. in Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 1994. ACM. 14. HEAD, Beyond Design Ethnography: How Designers Practice Ethnographic Research. 2014: SHS (Berlin). 15. Blomberg, J., et al., Ethnographic field methods and their relation to design. Participatory design: Principles and practices, 1993: p. 123-155. 16. Wasson, C., Ethnography in the field of design. Human Organization, 2000. 59(4): p. 377- 388. 17. Downs Jr, G.W. and L.B. Mohr, Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976: p. 700-714. 18. Norman, D.A. and R. Verganti, Incremental and Radical Innovation: Design Research vs. Technology and Meaning Change. Design Issues, 2014. 30(1): p. 78-96. 19. De Moor, K., et al., User-driven innovation? Challenges of user involvement in future technology analysis. Science and Public Policy, 2010. 37(1): p. 51-61. 20. Schuurman, D. and L. De Marez. Usercentered innovation: towards a conceptual integration of lead users and Living Labs. in Proceedings of COST298-conference The Good, The Bad and The Challenging. 2009. 21. Öberg, Å. and R. Verganti, Meaning: An Unexplored Path of Innovation. International Journal of Innovation in Management, 2014: p. 77. 22. Verganti, R., Design, meanings, and radical innovation: A metamodel and a research agenda.
Design meets Ethnography 12 Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2008. 25(5): p. 436-456. 23. Elliott, R. and N. Jankel-Elliott, Using ethnography in strategic consumer research. Qualitative market research: An international journal, 2003. 6(4): p. 215- 223. 24. Kelley, T. and J. Littman, The ten faces of innovation: IDEO's strategies for defeating the devil's advocate and driving creativity throughout your organization. 2006: Crown Business. 25. Heskett, J., Toothpicks and Logos: Design in Everyday Life: Design in Everyday Life. 2002: OUP Oxford. 26. Perks, H., R. Cooper, and C. Jones, Characterizing the role of design in new product development: An empirically derived taxonomy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2005. 22(2): p. 111-127. 27. Suri, J.F., The experience of evolution: developments in design practice. The Design Journal, 2003. 6(2): p. 39-48. 28. Council, D., Eleven lessons: managing design in eleven global companies Desk research report. Design Council, 2007. 29. Simon, H.A., The sciences of the artificial. Vol. 136. 1996: MIT press. 30. Melican, J., User studies: Finding a place in design practice and education. Visible Language, 2004. 38(2): p. 168. 31. Louridas, P., Design as bricolage: anthropology meets design thinking. Design Studies, 1999. 20(6): p. 517-535. 32. LASCAR, A. and M.A. BARRERA, EMOTIONAL DESIGN METHODOLOGY BASED ON CULTURAL VALUES AS TOOL FOR INNOVATION: AN APPROACH. LEADING THROUGH DESIGN, 2012: p. 487. 33. ABECASSIS-MOEDAS, C. and J. PEREIRA, Incremental vs. Radical Innovation as a Determinant of Design Position. LEADING THROUGH DESIGN, 2012: p. 563. 34. Lee, Y. and M. Evans, A Framework for Design-Led Culture within the Fast Moving Consumer Goods Industry. 2012. 35. Hilliard, A.L., The forms of value: The extension of a hedonistic axiology. 1950: Columbia University Press. 36. Holbrook, M.B., Introduction to consumer value. Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research, 1999: p. 1-28. 37. Boztepe, S., Toward a framework of product development for global markets: a user-value-based approach. Design Studies, 2007. 28(5): p. 513-533. 38. Boztepe, S., User Value: Competing Theories and Models. International Journal of Design, 2007. 1(2): p. 55-63. 39. Prahalad, C.K. and V. Ramaswamy, Cocreation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 2004. 18(3): p. 5-14. 40. Gutman, J., A MEANS-END CHAIN MODEL BASED ON CONSUMER CATEGORIZATION PROCESSES. Journal of Marketing, 1982. 46(2): p. 60-72. 41. Kjærsgaard, M. and T. Otto, Anthropological fieldwork and designing potentials. 2012. 42. Lockwood, J., M. Smith, and I. McARAMcWILLIAM, Work-well: creating a Culture of Innovation through Design. 2011. 43. Kim, W.C. and R. Mauborgne, Strategy, value innovation, and the knowledge economy. Sloan Management Review, 1999. 40(3): p. 41-+. 44. Trueman, M. and D. Jobber, Competing through design. Long Range Planning, 1998. 31(4): p. 594-605. 45. Walsh, V., et al., Winning by design: technology, product design and international competitiveness. 1992: Blackwell Publishers. 46. Kumar, V. and P. Whitney, Faster, cheaper, deeper user research. Design Management Journal (Former Series), 2003. 14(2): p. 50- 57. 47. Linton, R., The study of man: an introduction. 1936. 48. Cagan, J. and C.M. Vogel, Creating breakthrough products: Innovation from product planning to program approval. 2002: Ft Press.