5 Common Pitfalls Ministers and Missionaries Make Using Ethnography for Practical Ministry

A common excitement awakens when a cross cultural worker or pastor learns about qualitative research. They begin to dream about how the results can add nuance to the understanding of their church, network, or ministry. However, practically speaking, design often falls short of the daydreams. The following symptoms come to the surface if we shortcut good methodology.

Uncontrolled Atmosphere (or no research design)

A common temptation is to use ethnographic tools on your own, and therefore not bring a formality to the process. To be clear, ethnography cannot not be practiced alone. First, the formal process of a review board is not only helpful in solidifying research objectives and finding key informants; it also protects the researcher. Second, the researcher is highly influential in the interpretative process. Therefore, as much as we can formalize ethnography, the bias of the researcher can be accounted for and reflected upon. An uncontrolled atmosphere can shade knowledge gleaned from observation.

Lack of clear research question (too vague)

Imagine a new pastor or missionary moving into their context. I prefer if they say to themselves, “I want to understand my new community.” However, it will take a long immersive process to understand the community. Better short term ethnographic research asks one research question at a time. For instance, there is a large difference in saying, “I want to understand the community, so that I can understand their marriage ceremony.” Versus saying, “I want to understand their marriage ceremony, so I can better understand their community.” The latter is a “stepping stone” research question that builds a knowledge base over time. Usually, ministers and missionaries will utilize rapid ethnographic assessment processes (REAP), and these questions are more focused in nature versus the larger, in-depth study of an entire group that will take years.

Lack of Saturation (only ask a few people)

Christian workers may make unintentional mistakes because they do not reach a level of saturation to their question. Saturation is where we cross test knowledge across local groups, people, and contexts until we only receive predictable answers. Without saturation, the most common result is a lack of nuance. For instance, we will miss sub-group knowledge within a city. For example, in Puebla, where we lived for language school, there are many strata of classes. Due to trade and influence from franchises and manufacturers outside of Mexico, Puebla had a whole sub-group of people that didn’t act like “normal” or “stereotypical” Poblanos (people from the area) from the way they organize schedules, spend family time, or practice daily life. This example is very typical as urban areas grow. As cities grow more complex, so do the answers to our research questions.

Lack of Literature Review (no background study)

A literature review is the way a researcher extends their knowledge back to the past and extending past their social reach. Culture builds upon itself, and so reading the history of thought within the research design will help see different perspectives. Also, in a world of globalization, no doubt most research questions will have mixed with ideas from other cultures. Taking the time learn the history of our research question will only enhance the nuances of our understanding. No one would dream of doing a research project without a literature review, but it is common to forget this step as we interact with practical ministry strategy and vision.

Losing Nuance (too wide of application)

Knowing something truly, does not mean we know something universally. I have seen this misunderstanding within missionary contexts because of the nature of crossing cultures and the felt-need to understand what we experience. This pitfall happens when we move to near culture contexts that seem the same on the surface. For example, two ministers working in Mexico would have vastly different experiences from living in Puebla and Oaxaca. Yes, citizens are both Mexicano, but there is a layer of Poblano and Oaxacan just like there would be a layer of distinction between a Tennessean and Californian in the United States. A big oversight in ethnographic research is to overemphasize your familiarity from context to context without being committed to local nuance.

Conclusion (how to fix the problem)

Recognizing common problems is useless unless there is a plan to improve. The strategy to improve ethnographic research in the field is to treat the discipline with clear, precise methodology. First, write a research proposal. Know where you are going, in regards to activity, before you start any data gathering. Second, involve others. When a researcher submits a proposal before a review board, automatic accountability heightens the level of excellence in the research. While these suggestions sound too formal to be practical, a solid rapid ethnographic assessment can take as little as 2-3 weeks. Will these two steps avoid every pitfall? No, but it’s my experience that if you start the process more formally, we will tend to execute excellent ethnography: a worthy goal indeed to understand our ministry contexts