It was a short timeline (getting ready for CataCAMP) but we were fairly prepared upon arrival, as we had carried out a Cultural Immersion dinner where we learned the trip logistics, practiced some Navajo phrases, cooked and ate traditional food and watched a video about customs. From there, we took home materials (books) about the Navajo way of life – language, spiritual well-being, history. It might have made sense to read all of that beforehand, but we also wanted to try out going in as semi blank-slates, so as to be able to take everything in, absorb it, and to fully utilize our five senses. All in all, we learned a great deal about the lives, motivations and values of our Navajo hosts.

On the first full day, we conducted the Cultural Research Methods workshop, which explored ways in which to carry out research in unfamiliar and diverse cultural settings. Much of what we learned in this workshop was employed throughout our time there, on purpose or simply by default. Here is just a peek into what we did and what we noticed or learned:

We all paid close attention to cultural norms — Navajos are handshakers, and appreciate a confident shake. Many of them wear traditional turqouise and silver jewelry, both the men and the women. Fry bread is made and eaten at many of the meals. [On a side note, we did encounter a story about a group that was trying to give a presentation on energy usage but that used incorrect/atypical words in Navajo. Audience members were offended and confused by such words, and thus the message was rendered ineffective. (This was because cultural norms and language practices were not taken into consideration...interesting!)]

Lots of trucks in parking lot

We surveyed cultural artifacts, both modern and ancient — A huge portion of locals drove trucks or big cars. We gathered that they were used mostly for fitting bigger families and for transporting goods, water (huge tanks!), and pulling livestock. And we felt very Anthropologist-esque when I found some ancient Pueblo artifacts (pottery) at White House Ruins, in Canyon de Chelly in the dried riverbed. (I left them there, of course!)

We immersed ourselves, but didn’t try to “fit in” completely  — We all tried to learn a bit of the Navajo language. Heather had been taught some as a child by her mother and assisted us in our endeavors. Morgan was by far the quickest to catch on, and is considered our language expert/enthusiast. At the very least, moving our tongues in very unfamiliar ways and huffing air to make the appropriate sounds led to laughter all around. It became a way to connect to older Navajo generations, especially at the Begay family cookout. They appreciated our curiosity, willingness to try new things, and our respect for their sacred language. And, at the end of our trip we were all given gracious gifts – traditional Navajo jewelry – by Leonard so we could take a piece of the experience home with us.

Snake crossing

We listened to stories and myths — We learned from Deenise about the warning related to a snake crossing…right after I had a snake encounter at Canyon de Chelly, oops! Luckily I had done the right thing, which was to let it go on its way undisturbed, and for me to not let is cross directly in front of me.

At the Grand Canyon

We carried out different roles — At times we were the ethnographers/researchers (in workshops, in excursions), at other times we were colleagues (visiting off-the-grid communities with the NTUA), but mostly we were visitors and friends (with the Begay family and others). And then at the Grand Canyon we were, of course, tourists!

Poster with traditional jewelry

We observed the “trivial” — We noticed that there were multiple beds in the one-roomed hogan at Bessie’s. We gathered that this was for multiple family members to spend the night. Since it was their summer land many of them spent time up there, off and on. We noticed in an NTUA poster about energy and water usage that the woman model was wearing traditional Navajo jewelry. We noticed an over-sized grill near the campfire, which was used for huge Begay family cookouts.

We closely investigated familiar environments by making them unfamiliar — We visited Basha’s, the local grocery store, to see what types of items families were buying, and what the shelves were stocked with. We were only there for a short time, but we noticed many canned and dried foods, limited fresh produce, lots of bottled water, no alcohol (not sold on Reservation) and an incredible amount of snowcone ingredients! On the highways, we noticed a plethora of McDonald’s billboards…which should be no news to us as they are all over San Francisco, too, but what we did see on the signs was “Open 24 Hours.” That was news to us. We visited an old trading post, and assessed the types of objects they were selling. Clearly it was targeting tourists.

Kenneth and group at IHS

We heard multiple perspectives — When we went to see Dr. Rand at the Indian Health Services, Kenneth (friend of the Begay family) came along with us. It was obvious that he became upset when Dr. Rand was discussing high suicide and alcoholism rates on the Reservation, as this was not the case for the Begay family (thankfully). This was an extraordinarily insightful interaction to witness (Kenneth making this fact known to Dr. Rand). It gave us a more holistic view, and allowed us to see the diverse experiences and realities within one culture and community.

Again, these are just a few of the snapshots of our cultural research expedition. If you are interested in learning tips for cross-cultural immersions and research, download the Cultural Research Methods Workshop.

Fire Rock, the first Navajo casino, outside Gallup, NM.

A week of CataCAMP changed our group’s perception of casinos on Native land. We’ll be the first to admit that we interacted with only a sliver of the Navajo population (there are 180,000+ individuals on the Res). Yet each testimonial of the casino was alarmingly positive. People really enjoyed themselves there! It was a local attraction – a place to go with friends, to spend some set aside cash, to let loose. We won’t go as far to say it was a core value of the Navajo Nation, but it was part of life and was recognized as valuable.

Values shape our perception of and interaction with the world. They help determine what is important to us, and structure our motivations and priorities. At CataCAMP, we were constantly uncovering values.

In workshop, doing the values card activity

Throughout CataCAMP we were privileged to be in the presence of extraordinarily generous and curious individuals, all of whom wanted to share their experiences and tell us about their culture. Much of the values insight we received came from “innocent” conversation, chit-chat in the car, while other information came from more structured questioning. We would notice a particular behavior characteristic and ask about it, would listen to stories of Navajo myths and relate them to today, or would observe the interactions of family members and friends. And we asked “why?” a lot.

Our cookout with homestay family

In the short time we were there, the values of the individuals with whom we stayed (and much of the Navajo Nation at large) became clear. It was evident that, to our homestay family, fostering strong familial relationships was most important. Outings and celebrations became a family activity, and all are encouraged to participate. In Navajo culture, your family includes everyone from your immediate family to your extended relatives (your female cousin would be considered your sister, called “sister cousin”).

Leonard, in traditional Navajo silver and turqouise jewelry

Mud hogan, for traditional ceremonies

Navajo culture – the language, myths, food, dress and ceremonies – is at the center of life. The older generations we met would speak to each other almost solely in Navajo, while the younger generations would slip in and out of Navajo and English, or just stick to English. In talking with a grandmother at the homestay, we learned that she wished her grandchildren would learn Navajo; she valued the linguistic preservation of her culture. Many stories and myths were told to us by Leonard, our host, who is practicing to be a medicine man. He told us of the importance of native plants and herbs, of the four corners of the Earth and of the sacred mountains, of the Navajo creation story, of cleansing ceremonies like the Enemy Way, and of the changing ways of Navajo people. Deenise, our friend and guide at the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, told us of the significance of animal crossings (snakes or owls passing in front of you), of where and how to collect Navajo Tea in the wild, of the strength of words and how they hold meaning, and of ways to make peace with the world and stay out of harm’s way by containing that which belongs to you (when you brush your hair, and strands fall out, you are supposed to dispose of, or burn, the hair so as to remove it from area, lest some ill-willed individual collects it to use it against you. Similar to our concept of voodoo, she said).

Bessie's herd of sheep

Other entities that held significance included traditional food (fry bread, which is served with almost every meal, and mutton), land (land ownership is important for building upon or farming and herding, and homesteads are passed down through the family, although with large extended families, land ownership is quite tricky and often contested), livestock (our family owned 70 sheep, a herd of cattle and several horses), access to water (our homestay father spent half of his time hauling water from the water source to his home and back, and lamented that he wished it were less), electricity (18,000 homes throughout the Navajo Nation are without utility services), and good health (a high percentage of the population is affected by obesity, diabetes, alcoholism and hypertension, and there are increasing measures to combat these epidemics).

Our group came away from the week-long experience with a deeper understanding of the values, priorities and desires of the Navajo people. We met many resilient, generous, warm people, and started many new friendships. Our eyes were opened to alternative ways of viewing and experiencing the world, and for that we are thankful.

Land near Sawmill

As researchers and designers, it is our job to explore values, and to uncover the “why” behind the “what” when it comes to what is important, be it objects, relationships or social systems. Designers who understand specific cultural values have a huge, and very valuable, advantage in their ability to create products and services that will meaningfully and effectively meet people’s needs. Although this was not our primary goal, Catapult now has a better sense of ways in which we might be able to assist organizations on the Res in the design/tech realm in the near future. Stay tuned for more information!

Interaction Designer Carolina Vallejo, a native of Bogotá, Colombia, first thought of this competition idea as a design student at NYU. When asked to create a “social design” project for the developing world in one week and without any context, she was extremely put off. She thought, “Why would you assume you can design something to solve a problem for the so called Third World – a world you don’t know – in a week?”

In response to the assignment, Vallejo decided to create the first ever 2010 International Year of the First World in Need. Her intention: to break down the assumption that the people of developing world have nothing substantive to give. In doing so, she hoped to help others recognize and value cultural diversity, to expand the decision-making playing field and to grant agency. She wanted to give others, those who are more often than not the audience, a voice.

Design for the First World Competition (Dx1W) is “a competition for designers, artists, scientists, makers and thinkers in developing countries to provide solutions for First World problems.” Participants are currently submitting ideas to redesign the future of the First World. Dx1W has identified four main areas to address:

1) Food Production and Eating Disorders (e.g. reducing obesity)
2) Aging population and Low Birth rate (e.g. family planning, access to health care)
3) Immigration and Integration to Society (e.g. integrating the immigrant population)
4) Sustainability and Over consumption (e.g. reducing consumption rate of mass-produced goods)

So, what makes this model so different? For decades, the flow of presumed innovation has traveled from the developed world to the developing world – from the so-called First World to the Third World. Critique of such solutions (those which are dropped in from the outside) – from parachute design to systems of international aid – is not new. For as long as there’s been an international development industry, there have been critiques like Barbara Harrell-Bond and David Rieff.

Speaking as a developing world citizen now living in the developed world, Vallejo laments, “We’ve created a culture that relies on aid and we (and them) often discard our responsibility in improving our present conditions and shaping a better future.” The future of the world is for all of us to help build. In creating this competition, Vallejo is not insisting that well-intentioned efforts in the developing world cease – there are many very important endeavors currently underway to help solve the needs of communities the world over. She is simply asking that we try to break down the traditional, pervasive “Us vs. Them” paradigm in the aid and design work focused on the developing world.

A $1,000 prize is attached to the winning idea, which is “intended to support designers whose entries reflect systems thinking, sustainability, accessibility, materials exploration, technology, and cultural relevance.”

It’s a fascinating contest that is sure to get people talking. Ultimately, though, it’s worth asking what the ultimate purpose is. Is the contest meant to simply get people thinking differently, or is it actually meant to enable the creation of interesting new ideas? And if it’s the latter, does this contest suffer from the same presumptions about how one group of people can know what would be good for another?

Regardless, we’re excited to see how this contest plays out. It’ll particularly informative for design firms like Catapult, who are working in this space.

Do you think the Rest has something to teach the West? If so, there’s still one week to get involved. Submit your ideas by the contest deadline: July 1, 2010 11:59 pm EST. To be eligible, you must be at least 13 years of age and a legal resident of a developing nation. For more information, visit the contest site: www.designforthefirstworld.com.

The two products, which were designed for educational (classroom, recess) environments, are 1) the “Max” chair and 2) the Playground Fence. Both products exist to solve a problem, and in doing so, fill a need. Neither of the products are present in developing countries, but both products were created within a similar ethnographic framework that is human-centered (that focuses on the end user) and that uses participant observation – watching closely in the classroom, paying attention to how students sit in or tilt their chairs; and engaging on the playground, paying attention to how students treat – and interact (or don’t) with – barriers to their playspace.

The “Max” chair was a project thought up by Tom Wates, a British math and physical education instructor. The chair’s purpose? To get kids to stop clowning around in class! Wates designed a chair that is physically impossible to tip over backwards (trying hard, one can only tilt it a few centimeters!).

In a 2008 interview, Wates told Reuters, “The reason I went into it was because of the irritation of children leaning back…You would get into the flow of the lesson, the kid would fall off the chair, everyone would laugh and you would have to start again.” At Wates’ school, and in many schools in Britain, students would tip traditional chairs back so far they would often tumble over, causing injury to that student (each year, as many as 7,000 British children go to the hospital for injuries related to this type of fall) and a major disruption to the flow of classroom lessons and activities.

The chair is designed primarily for safety, but along with that comes additional benefits. By changing the design of the chair itself, Wates was able to diminish the frequency of reprimands. The most recent version of the chair – black in color – is made out of recycled plastic, so it is increasingly durable and offers a low carbon footprint (the chair also comes in five other colors). The chair is ergonomically designed for safety and comfort (it provides lower back support, encouraging good posture), and in four different sizes, any student – young or old – can find it useful and beneficial. [The chair costs about $30 USD].

The “Playground Fence” was designed by Dutch designers Tejo Remy and Rene Veenhuizen. In 2004, they were commissioned to re-design and transform the playground at De Noorderlicht primary school in the Netherlands. In taking on this project, Remy and Rene had their sights set on something that would “add” to the space without adding any new materials. The addition they hoped to make was one that would be inspiring, would encourage collaboration and interaction, and that would be useful.

Minimalist but effective in their solution, they took note of the pieces in the existing playground – the play structures, the floor, and the fence that enclosed the playspace. The fence particularly captured their attention. What was initially built as a “barrier” (two-dimensional: inside vs. outside), could be reinterpreted as a “gateway” or “portal” and become an interactive form, facilitating the coming together of people and ideas (three-dimensional: inside vs. outside vs. within). They re-designed the fence to have nooks, crannies, seats, benches, playspaces, and more. The fence went from being entrapping to being inviting. The re-vamped fence design encouraged exploration and new experiences. It became a part – in fact an integral piece – of the playspace and playground, not simply the structure that enclosed it. Intrigued students can use such spaces to continue conversations, to play make-believe, to interact with parents or individuals outside of the fence (safely). The playground is an important learning environment for students, and increased opportunity for interaction and exploration can be a beneficial addition to the standard subjects taught in school.

What you can see from these two products is that with some participation, some observation, some research and a bit of imagination, you can recreate critical educational environments, furthering the opportunity for better, safer, more engaging learning and playing experiences.

Each year, the World Economic Forum identifies 200-300 exceptional individuals – all young leaders – from all regions of the world and from nearly every sector. The World Economic Forum’s hope is that these individuals will dramatically impact the global future through their socially progressive work in their respective companies, organizations, governments and universities.

Heather joins an amazing group of 196 other Young Global Leaders, which include, among others: Evan Williams, CEO of Twitter (USA), Wyclef Jean, Singer and Founder of Yélé Haiti Foundation (Haiti), and Jacob Lief, Co-Founder and President Ubuntu Education Fund (South Africa). Learn more about the program and see the full list of Leaders here.

The Forum’s choice in Heather and Catapult Design, a non-profit design firm, indicates a growing acceptance of the important role design and design thinking has to play in unleashing the capacity of the developing world and ending the plight of global poverty.

A product has a better chance of success (implementation and adaption) if it is designed with a holistic understanding of the actual conditions in which someone will use this product, as well as a forecasting of how this product might be adapted to suit changing environments.

To highlight the importance of understanding – and acting upon – environmental constraints, I have chosen to explore two products designed for the developing world. Both products – and project experiences – highlight why understanding a product – and the end user’s – environment is a critical piece to the implementation and adaptation of a new product. Both design teams, having researched and prototyped heavily, were realistic about their product design.

We will first explore a product that tackles the problem of access to clean water. Created by the E-Team at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, OsmoPure is a low-cost water purification device for developing countries. The device is an organic-based, low cost product made from asymmetric membrane. It is able to purify – completely – 20 liters of water per day. The membrane’s lifespan is one month, but can be replaced for just $1. The device requires no energy input besides the manual placement of the filter on a (soda) bottle and the occasional shaking of the bottle to clean the filter.

The environmental constraints and challenges they faced with this product:
1. Product must be relatively inexpensive
2. Product should be easily understood and easy to use, even for an illiterate population
3. Product must withstand muddy or murky water

While there are a number of water filtration devices currently on the market, many of them have serious drawbacks because environmental constraints were either not fully understood or were not tackled appropriately. Often, water purification products can be too expensive, too taxing (require too much energy input or maintenance), too confusing (many instructions, not accessible to illiterate populations), too unpredictable (could clog in murky water), too incomplete (doesn’t remove all of the contaminants).

The team behind OsmoPure not only explored and understood human behavior and environmental conditions on the ground, they researched the shortcomings of other products currently on the market. OsmoPure successfully tackles each of the three environmental constraints they were faced with: it can be manufactured for less than a dollar; it is easy to use and requires no energy input; it will not clog in murky or muddy water. Additionally, the product removes all necessary contaminants, it is self-cleaning, it is compact and lightweight, and it can be manufactured locally as the materials are prevalent (it attaches to any standard soda bottle). I think maybe the coolest thing about OsmoPure’s promo video (seen here) is that the founder, Dave Perry, tries out the product himself – showing not only how easy to use it is, but also that it functions properly and is safe to use. On camera, he fills a bottle with dirty water, attaches the filter, squeezes out the water, and drinks it! What better way to “prove” the product than to use it yourself.

The second product we will explore is one that tackles the challenges faced by mobility-challenged individuals living in – and needing to operate on -  unpredictable terrain in the developing world. Quick fact: A whopping 20 million people in developing countries require wheelchairs and it is believed that 70 percent of those individuals reside in rural areas where traditional wheelchairs simply do not function (not stable, no gear system, not adaptable). The Leveraged Freedom Chair, a project designed and carried out by a team at the MIT Mobility Lab, is a mobility aid designed specifically for developing countries, where the diverse, unpredictable and often changing terrains (often unpredictable and ever-changing) render traditional wheelchairs at best insufficient and at worst not functional. In settings where traditional wheelchairs – if even available – are rendered useless and other options do not exist, individuals with mobility handicaps are left to either be carried by others or to remain immobile at home.

The environmental constraints and challenges they faced with this product:
1. Product must be able to operate on diverse terrain: dirt roads, rocky surfaces, muddy pathways
2. Product must be easy to repair, with locally-available materials
3. Product must be easily understood and relatively easy to use (intuitive, and easily adapted to)

The LFC is able to function in diverse terrain because it is made up of a gear system – similar to that of a bike. With increased gear options, users are able to power through terrain that a traditional wheelchair would not be able to navigate. The wheelchair is relatively easy to use, with gears being switched by modifying the position of user’s hands on the levers. It is a push-pull system. Besides a simple gear system, the LFC has a small third wheel in the front, which further stabilizes the device (similar to a tricycle, which is very difficult to tip over). Tested and successfully implemented in East Africa, the Leveraged Freedom Chair successfully tackles each of the three environmental constraints they were faced with: it is able to successfully navigate diverse terrain (thanks to the gear system and the third, stabilizing wheel); it is easy to repair by locally-available materials (the majority of the parts are those used to make bicycles, which are prevalent in most developing countries); and it is recognizably a mobility device, as it looks like a hybrid between a wheelchair and a bicycle (with handles that look ready to be pulled and pushed!). Additionally, the product is affordable (made from cheap bicycle parts) and is small enough to use within a home setting (multi-functional). I had the privilege of seeing one of these in person – on display at Autodesk in San Francisco – and while it seemed a bit bulky to me, after seeing it in action (in the video) I’m convinced of its power and its potential! [You can learn more about the LFC by watching their video and reading project updates].

BONUS! Check out our very own Heather Fleming trying out the LFC. Look at her go! (Another bonus: our amazing Advisory Board member Ralf Hotchkiss, founder and designer of Whirlwind Wheelchair, was an advisor for the LFC).

While I’ve given just two examples above, I hope it has been made clear how and why understanding – or not understanding – environmental constraints can “make” or “break” your product. Alternatives to the products mentioned above failed primarily because they did not understand the environmental factors that would inevitably effect the product, and in the process, did not address one or more of the obvious constraints. Observing the actual conditions where someone will use a product, and being realistic about the product’s design, has the potential to lead to a well-implemented and well-received product.

This blog post retains much of its original style – written as an email to the Cata Team – so read it as such and glean what you will. It is by no means a comprehensive list; it is just what we stumbled upon in our research stint. It was written several months ago – so exact numbers may have since slightly changed, as well as Catapult’s own opinion on what might work best for us. Looks like we may stick with PayPal and have our amazing web developer create code that connects our PayPal account (which will have a live link on our website) with our Salesforce account. We’ll see if this is possible!

If you have any advice – or additional information that you’d like to make known – by all means, comment below. This blog post can be an open source platform for the sharing of best systems and practices. Enjoy!

ONLINE DONATIONS RESEARCH

“Looking into the way that nonprofits process donations online, I’ve gotten more convinced that the complication of payment gateways and merchant accounts are far more complex than is necessary for a small nonprofit like Catapult, and that the costs are not significantly lower anyway. What Catapult needs is a simple system, optimized for nonprofit payment processing, with a reasonable fee, the right basic features (particularly recurring payments and the ability to automatically request that people tack on the transaction fee), and no headaches. In terms of live-event payment processing, the simplest and most effective strategy is going to be to just take credit cards and enter them into an interface. This is what more and more stores are even doing now anyway.

Network for Good has some great options, specifically their “DonateNow” service. The cost is $30/mo + 3% payment processing fee, which is pretty standard. The overarching reason is that they are 1) by far, the nonprofit field leader for online donation processing, 2) because of that, they have both trust with donors and a reputation to uphold and 3) the trends are for them to add more/better features and to decrease the price. Specific bonus features are the ability to customize payment forms to look just like your website, recurring payments, and the ability to request people to add on the 3% transaction fee, etc. The downside is the $200 one time setup + $30/mo. Learn more about how they work with nonprofits here. 

The three next best options are the biggies of automatic payment processing: PayPal, Google Checkout, and Amazon Payments. None of these are particularly focused on nonprofits, but all of them have nonprofit capabilities + public trust.

PayPal has its own set of issues and capabilities. It can be confusing for newbies since it’s a little unclear whether or not you have to create a new account when you want to make a donation. (This can turn people off). It is, however, highly recognized and vastly used. It’s a common, well-known name and many people are used to paying through this system/platform. It may also be one of the least expensive processor options. Just for reference, here is their data: 2.2% + .30 cents per transaction. Learn about PayPal and nonprofits from their website here.

Google Checkout has no setup fee and no monthly fees. It charges 2.9% + .30 cents per transaction for under $3000 a month and then goes down for there. What it doesn’t have are any of the recurring monthly features or things like that. Still, if you want absolutely bare bones, it’s hard to beat. For more details visit their site for FAQs here and here.

Amazon Payments is another decent option. Has the benefit of people being able to use their existing Amazon accounts but the downside is it requires a Amazon payment to work. Has features like monthly recurring and is definitely thinking about how to serve nonprofits. Here’s the basic info and here are their FAQs. Total cost is the same as Google – 2.9% + .30 per transaction.

In terms of the iPhone application (iPhone app for credit cards!) we looked at, it is an option, but it’s ONLY good for mobile processing – it doesn’t do anything for your online interface/Catapult website. The cost is $50 for the application, plus $15/mo, plus 2.09-3.09% per transaction. This is a fine option, but doesn’t have any of the features that make something like Network for Good appealing, and is really about the convenience of mobile. It wouldn’t answer your day-to-day internet based giving needs. It would also involve signing up with Authorize.net, which is a merchant account/payment gateway system, which can be complicated and which would include use fees, a monthly fee, then we would have to pay for the iPhone app itself which would only go on one phone…I think. I think this service/feature is best suited for individual merchants who are always on the go and always in different places.

Finally, there is one random wildcard option, which is to sign up for a site like UniversalGiving, which handles the back end for you. The cost is the same as Paypal – they just use PayPal processing – and they don’t add an additional fee. (They’re able to make their money from consulting with corporations so they don’t need to charge for this). The downside is then you have to do everything through their website, which may not be the most desirable.

Finally, just for reference, here is an article about this. Some of the information is out of date but it’s still a pretty nice overview.

In terms of hosting events (fundraisers, etc.) and having a payment processor there, the best bet is just taking information and manually entering it into online credit card forms, or even just taking it with pen. The biggest conclusion is just that merchant account stuff is just way more complicated than necessary right now. In the long run, as the volume of donations and transactions increases, it may make sense, but right now my feeling is that it’s a lot of headache and complication for not a lot of benefit.

Other options we have come across include GlobalGiving, JustGive, and Kickstarter.”

On a final note, we recently acquired Salesforce at Catapult, and are now looking to integrate a payment processor with Salesforce – if possible. We want to keep our records straight. Regarding those SalesForce applications that exist to enable online donations, the following are the ones that we have found:

• eGiving by Mobile Metrics
• PaymentConnect by Linvio
• Chargent by Rogue IT
• Trio by Click and Pledge

Ethnography was born in the social science sphere (Anthropology, Sociology), but can be – and I think should be – applied to many different contexts. Ethnography is a research method in which the researcher observes people in their natural environment so as to gain insight into the ways in which people inhabit their spaces, use their products and interact with the various physical, social, economic and ecological systems around them. It is a heavily qualitative research method, involving much participant-observation — observing and recording the actions and decision-making processes of individuals and groups in a given environment.

The anthropologist’s – or ethnographer’s – tool-kit is especially relevant (and vital) to the design world, especially the design for the developing world sphere. The ethnographic method is a foundational research framework, but is particularly important for human-centered design innovation and problem-solving. Ethnography provides a more holistic understanding of a certain group’s needs, desires, and their various ways of operating. In studying, questioning and working closely with their end-users, designers are able to make more educated decisions and ultimately produce a product that is accepted by and integrated into an end-user’s daily life. Essentially, if ethnographic methods are used effectively by product designers, there’s a better chance that the product will fill its intended purpose.

There are several different ways in which ethnographic methods can be used in the design world:

• an ethnographer collects data and reports to a designer
• an ethnographer and designer work together and study a certain population
• an ethnographer, designer and end-user collaborate as a team

and so on…

I think, however, that the ultimate combination of individuals and research frameworks is a multidisciplinary team made up of trained ethnographers/social scientists, product designers who understand and employ ethnographic methods, and end-users (who ultimately understand how best this product or system will be used or maintained). Today, many design firms and companies, including Catapult Design, are employing such a team framework. To name just a few in the Bay Area alone: IDEO, Frog Design, fuseproject, Project H and Jump Associates.

There is a unique challenge that ethnography seeks to address. It’s common knowledge that what people say they do, isn’t necessarily what they do. A stark for-example: if someone was being interviewed about their eating habits, where do you think they would answer more truthfully? In an unfamiliar research lab setting, or in their own kitchen (being observed)? Which setting do you think would yield the most accurate, telling information?

When a designer has the goal of understanding – to the best of their ability – how people operate, why they do the things they do, what their daily schedule is like, when they make important decisions, and so on, it pays dividends to experience that information first hand by participating in and observing the end-users patterns.

This post is the first in a series called “The Ethnography of Design” about the relationship between anthropology and design and how the ethnographer’s toolkit can be applied to build more effective world-changing, problem-solving products and systems. Each post in the series will be paired with – and will explore – a video or article that highlights an innovative design solution or product that has taken into account (successfully or unsuccessfully – and why) ethnographic research methods and human-centered design thinking frameworks.

I am always looking for new material to profile. Know of a good product or initiative? of products that were created without a real understanding of the local context that failed? of design solutions that have excelled even years later? Get in touch! Add your suggestion in the comment box below!

In the meantime, learn more about ethnographic methods and how they relate to design, by checking out a great document put together by AIGA and Cheskin. Click to learn more about and download ‘An Ethnography Primer.’