How Ethnographic Practices Are Reconﬁgured with 360-degree Cameras

Naoya Tojo

1 a

, Tomoko Oto

and Sumaru Niida

1 b

KDDI Research, 2-1-15 Ohara, Fujimino, Saitama, Japan

JAIST, 1-1 Asahidai, Nomi, Ishikawa, Japan

Keywords:

Ethnography, Qualitative Research, Observational Research, 360-degree Camera, Technology Intervention.

Abstract:

Ethnography has become common in human-computer interaction research as both a methodology and a re-

search subject. Ethnographic practices have historically been enhanced with the introduction of new technolo-

gies. Responding to the emergence of 360-degree panoramic technology that enables comprehensive visual

recording and an immersive viewing experience, we speciﬁcally explore how 360-degree cameras bring new

value to ethnography. To examine this concept, we conducted a focus group discussion with seven ethno-

graphers and an interview study in which an additional ﬁve ethnographers were asked about experiences in

the use of 360-degree cameras. From the results, we constructed distinct aspects to start a discussion on the

future research and practice of ethnography using 360-degree cameras. We also report the early challenges

that ethnographers encountered and discuss supporting technologies to overcome the challenges. Reﬂecting

on the ﬁndings, this paper contributes to the design implications of ethnography with 360-degree cameras.

1 INTRODUCTION

Ethnography is the most representative genre of qual-

itative research (Marshall and Rossman, 2001) and

a fundamental feature of design that is researched

in human-computer interaction (HCI) communities.

In ethnography, researchers coordinate and integrate

multiple methods and tools to collect data and de-

scribe subjects (Coffey et al., 2006). Recent de-

velopment in multimedia technology has accelerated

the collection, utilization, and presentation of vari-

ous forms of data (Emmison et al., 2012) and has

enabled digitally enhanced and advanced ethnogra-

phy (Pink et al., 2015). In particular, digital cam-

eras are the major recording medium along with ﬁeld-

notes and have made visual recording and presenta-

tion of events, subjects, and interactions during re-

search much easier (Marshall and Rossman, 2001).

After the 2010s, 360-degree cameras that enable om-

nidirectional recording and presentation were intro-

duced, and in the late 2010s, practices using them in

ethnographic context were seen in the research com-

munity (Mendonca and Ray, 2017; Cruz, 2017).

Notably, 360-degree cameras provide comprehen-

sive visual recording and immersive viewing experi-

ences that are limited when using traditional cameras.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5454-384X

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2208-8819

Our research examines how the methodologies and

practices of ethnography can be developed by 360-

degree panoramic technology; however, intervention

in research processes by new tools and methods in-

ﬂuences the relationships between researchers and re-

search subjects (Alvero and Austin, 2004; Faklaris

et al., 2020) and raises new challenges for ethnog-

raphy (Crabtree et al., 2006). Therefore, to enhance

the reliability of ethnography with new tools or meth-

ods, their inﬂuences need to be identiﬁed throughout

the process and scrutinized. Discussing the impact

of the use of 360-degree cameras on ecosystems of

ethnography and their academic implications is just as

important as testing 360-degree cameras in practice.

However, although practices of the use of 360-degree

cameras in ethnography are emerging (Mendonca and

Ray, 2017; Cruz, 2017), there is a lack of coherent un-

derstandings regarding the basis of discussion for re-

searchers and practitioners to incorporate 360-degree

cameras into this ﬁeld.

To explore this topic, we examined the potential

values of ethnography with 360-degree cameras with

researchers and practitioners. We report on a series

of studies based on a design approach for speculating

about future experiences of emerging technologies

(Dunne and Raby, 2013). We ﬁrst conducted a focus

group discussion (FGD) with seven ethnographers to

speculatively explore opportunities and challenges of

Tojo, N., Oto, T. and Niida, S.

How Ethnographic Practices Are Reconﬁgured with 360-degree Cameras.

DOI: 10.5220/0010639000003060

In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications (CHIRA 2021), pages 115-122

ISBN: 978-989-758-538-8; ISSN: 2184-3244

115

ethnography with 360-degree cameras. Then, we con-

ducted the interview study in which we interviewed

ﬁve participants including pioneering users of 360-

degree cameras in their ethnographic practices, and

we deepened aspects formed from the FGD.

Our analysis presents how the overall activity of

ethnography will be reconﬁgured by the introduction

of 360-degree cameras. In particular, the main contri-

bution of our ﬁndings is a framework comprising dis-

tinct aspects which may be employed to start a discus-

sion on ethnography using 360-degree cameras. We

additionally present the initial challenges encountered

during the early stages of the application of these

cameras in ethnographic practices. These challenges

simultaneously imply the need for future technolo-

gies to support ethnography with 360-degree cameras.

Note that we emphasize that the focus of this paper is

not necessarily to suggest that ethnographers should

make full use of 360-degree cameras and related tech-

nologies in the future, but rather enable in-depth con-

sideration of ethnography and its methodology.

2 RELATED WORK

In this section, we ﬁrst summarize the cycle of ethno-

graphic research practices and technology interven-

tions for it. Then, we review the literature on digital

tools and methods in ethnography.

The ethnographic research process can be outlined

by cyclical pattern that consists of generating ethno-

graphic research questions, collecting ethnographic

data, creating ethnographic records, analyzing ethno-

graphic data, and producing ethnographic deliver-

ables (Spradley, 2016). Ethnographers use mixed

methods, multimodal approaches, and various tools

to collect data. The most basic means are taking

ﬁeldnotes, acquiring photographs and videos, audio

recordings, and collecting primary source references

(Marshall and Rossman, 2001). Ethnographers con-

vert those data into ﬁndings by editing, coding, or

clustering them (Patton, 2002). Our study in this pa-

per discussed not only speciﬁc aspects of ethnogra-

phy but also the inﬂuences of introducing 360-degree

cameras on practices in the entire cycle of ethno-

graphic research.

Digitization is one of the major trends of ethnog-

raphy in recent years and is an important contact

between ethnography and HCI research. Ethno-

graphic research has historically been enhanced with

the introduction of new technologies (Anderson et al.,

2009). For example, online tools such as web ques-

tionnaires and email interviews have reduced time

and monetary costs for researchers (Murthy, 2008).

Online sites such as social networks and chatrooms

have brought about new exploration spaces (Chap-

man and Lahav, 2008; Postill and Pink, 2012). Previ-

ous studies reported ethnographic data collection ap-

proaches using Google Street View (Kostakos et al.,

2019), YouTube (Paay et al., 2015), or wearable

devices (Thoring et al., 2015). Because ﬁeldwork

provides a vast number of qualitative (and some-

times quantitative) data, ethnographers increasingly

use computer-assisted qualitative data analysis soft-

ware (Coffey et al., 2006). The traditional manner

of ethnographic representation has long been paper-

based form, whereas recent hypertext and multime-

dia technologies have enabled qualitative and ethno-

graphic representation on the web and through com-

puter applications (Lemke, 2002).

Photographs and videos have a particularly long

history in ethnographic ﬁeldwork (Coffey et al.,

2006). Digital cameras are the most accepted tools

and have enabled us to visually record sharp images

and videos of ethnographic sites (Murthy, 2008). Pho-

tographs and videos have been used in a variety of

scenes such as documentation, representation, and re-

ﬂection (White, 2009; Buur et al., 2010).

In comparison with traditional cameras, 360-

degree cameras provide more comprehensive visual

records and 360-degree contents provide immersive

experiences for viewers. We consider that the intro-

duction of such cameras and contents into ethnogra-

phy enables more advanced recording and represen-

tation of physical space information. However, while

360-degree cameras and contents are well recognized

in the context of consumer applications (Jokela et al.,

2019), to our knowledge, the basis for ethnogra-

phy with 360-degree cameras has not yet been dis-

cussed. Accordingly, intermediate-level knowledge is

required to bridge the gap between research and prac-

tices.

To summarize this section, ethnography is com-

mon in both HCI practice and research. Its cycle con-

sists of various steps. In ethnography, digital tech-

nologies are now valuable tools and resources en-

abling researchers to deeply understand their subjects.

Some practical reports suggest the potential for 360-

degree cameras to advance ethnography (Mendonca

and Ray, 2017; Cruz, 2017); however, there is no

common basis for discussion on the use of 360-degree

cameras in ethnography. We aim to extend the scope

of previous works and provide the basis for discussion

on new practices.

CHIRA 2021 - 5th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

116

3 RESEARCH APPROACH

To discuss the potential of a previously unexamined

topic in ethnography, namely, 360-degree cameras,

we used a speculative approach in HCI (Dunne and

Raby, 2013) and our designed research approach. The

most difﬁcult task in our study was the recruitment

of participants with experience in ethnography using

360-degree cameras.

To address this difﬁculty, we ﬁrst designed a for-

mative and speculative FGD with ethnographers who

had no experiences in the use of 360-degree cameras.

It was relatively easy to recruit such participants. We

gave them the opportunity to use these cameras, tak-

ing photographs and videos, and to watch 360-degree

content to help them obtain a more concrete under-

standing of the application of this technology in the

future. From the FGD results, we framed aspects

of ethnography with 360-degree cameras. Reﬂect-

ing on the aspects, we designed an interview study

with ethnographers who “had experience” in the use

of 360-degree cameras. Since the number of such pi-

oneering participants was limited, we conducted in-

depth interviews to obtain deeper insights.

3.1 Focus Group Discussion

This subsection outlines the FGD wherein we specu-

lated with ethnographers regarding future experience

with 360-degree cameras in an ethnographic context.

Participants. We recruited seven ethnographers

through social networking services from an ethnog-

rapher’s community. They participated in the FGD

without a reward. Three participants were practi-

tioners in companies who incorporate ethnographic

approaches into their work. The other four partici-

pants were researchers who conduct research related

to ethnography at universities. The participants had

an average of 9.7 years (2-16 years) of ethnographic

experience. In addition to the seven participants, two

researchers participated in the workshop as facilita-

tors.

Facilitation. First, we explained the context and aim

of our study and introduced trends of technologies

and devices related to 360-degree cameras to the par-

ticipants. Then, two facilitators facilitated two types

of work in parallel, respectively. One was the FGD

for which we prepared three different types of 360-

degree cameras (RICOH Theta V, Samsung Gear 360,

and kodak PIXPRO SP360). Participants discussed

the use of 360-degree cameras in ethnography while

handling cameras and trying to take photographs and

videos. The other was hands-on activity in which

participants watched 360-degree videos we recorded

in past ﬁeldwork on a headmounted display (HMD,

Samsung Gear VR with Galaxy S8), a PC monitor,

and a smartphone screen, respectively. Participants

basically participated in the FGD, during which each

participant participated in the hands-on activity work

in turn. The FGD and the hands-on activity lasted 50

minutes. In this way, participants speculated about

future applications through the experiences of watch-

ing, acquiring, and being captured with 360-degree

panoramic technologies. The dialogue during the

FGD was recorded by a voice recorder. Finally, the

facilitators summarized the discussion.

Analysis. We transcribed the audio data of the FGD

in full. We constructed a conceptual framework from

the transcript using thematic analysis to extract as-

pects of ethnography related to the use of 360-degree

cameras. A conceptual framework is a coding tech-

nique used to understand user expectations and ex-

periences regarding a particular application or tech-

nology (Aladwan et al., 2019). The ﬁrst author un-

dertook coding as a coder. First, the transcript was

divided into 1822 blocks depending on the speaker

and the content of the dialogue. Then, after itera-

tive open coding, axial coding was conducted to con-

solidate codes under coherent groups. These codes

formed categories and core concepts. Finally, three

researchers including the coder reviewed and reﬁned

them.

3.2 An Interview Study

This subsection outlines the interview study that re-

ﬂected the aspects extracted from the FGD and was

conducted to capture early practice regarding the use

of 360-degree cameras in ethnography.

Participants. Recruitment of appropriate participants

was a major difﬁculty in our research process because

the use of 360-degree cameras in ethnography is still

in the pioneering phase. We recruited ﬁve participants

via snowball sampling (Goodman, 1961) from the

surrounding ethnographer community without offer-

ing a reward. The small sample size reﬂects the emer-

gent state of our topic. The participants had an aver-

age of 16.3 years of ethnographic experience. Three

participants in the industrial sector were staff mem-

bers of a system integrator (P1), a consulting ﬁrm

(P2), and an electronics company (P4) and have been

involved in ethnography for the purposes of under-

standing customers and market research. The approx-

imate size (the number of employees) of the organiza-

tions varied from less than 50 (P2) to 1,500 (P1) and

100,000 (P4). The other two participants in the aca-

demic sector were a cultural anthropologist (P3) and

a political economist (P5) who have been involved in

How Ethnographic Practices Are Reconﬁgured with 360-degree Cameras

117

ethnography for academic research and educational

purposes. P1, P2, and P3 had used 360-degree cam-

eras in ethnography,and P4 had used one in another

context. P5 had purchased a 360-degree camera for

use in ethnography but had not used it.

Design and Analysis. Each interview lasted approx-

imately two hours and was conducted via a video

conferencing system (Zoom). Two researchers (in-

terviewers) and a participant entered the Zoom meet-

ing and conducted the interview with the video acti-

vated. The interviews were semi-structured and fo-

cused on what tools are used in ethnographic prac-

tices, how 360-degree cameras are understood and

differentiated from other tools, how 360-degree con-

tent is handled, and what challenges the participants

faced. We recorded video and dialogue during the

interviews. We transcribed the audio data of the in-

terviews in full and iteratively categorized them to-

gether into major themes using an inductive approach

(Corbin and Strauss, 2008).

4 RESULTS

Our ﬁndings are twofold: a conceptual framework

and early applications in ethnography using 360-

degree cameras. This section describes the concep-

tual framework and several aspects of the discussion

on ethnography using 360-degree cameras.

As a result of the coding from the FGD, four

distinct but closely interrelated categories comprising

function, action, analysis, and delivery emerged. Sev-

eral design considerations regarding the introduction

of 360-degree cameras into ethnography were identi-

ﬁed as components of the categories. Consolidating

all of these, we propose the conceptual framework

shown in Table 1 to facilitate effective discussion on

the use of these cameras in ethnography in the future.

The following subsections describe each category and

the related components.

4.1 Function

The category of function includes components that

could inﬂuence the design of ethnography. There

were comments on the recording time of videos, with

participants reporting that, ideally, approximately 2-4

hours of recording time were required for ﬁeldwork.

However, currently, typical 360-degree cameras can

record continuously for only several minutes up to

tens of minutes due to constraints of the heat gen-

eration and memory capacity. Hemispherical cam-

eras are more suitable for recording for longer time

periods than omnidirectional cameras. Moreover, as

an alternative, we can choose the option of designing

surveys in slots of a few minutes. To ensure record-

ing, redundancy of data and batteries is required. One

participant commented “I formerly used one voice

recorder and failed to record. I use two now. I don’t

fully believe in machines ...” It is necessary to con-

sider and prepare for a weak battery and insufﬁcient

memory.

There were comments about the resolution of 360-

degree content, for example, “need a higher image

quality.” Although most currently available 360-

degree cameras already support 4K resolution, the ac-

tual quality of the ﬁeld of view is not 4K because the

user views a part of the image projected onto a spher-

ical surface through a monitor or an HMD (Hebbel-

Seeger, 2017). On the other hand, there was a com-

ment indicating acceptance of low image quality: “I

am wondering what the priority is, and I don’t think I

care about the number of pixels.” Therefore, we can

choose the option of capturing the overall dynamics

of the ﬁeld with a 360-degree camera, and if neces-

sary, capture photographs or videos of the part that

a researcher wants to record in higher quality with a

conventional digital camera.

Regarding the operability of the cameras, it was

found that the user interface (UI) between the cam-

era and its related devices was complex. There were

many comments about the difﬁculty of pairing be-

tween the cameras and smartphones and about the

procedures for operating the devices and software ap-

plications. It is necessary to ensure that operational

aspects do not interfere with conducting a smooth sur-

vey. Additionally, a more user-friendly UI is desired.

In terms of viewpoint, when users watched 360-

degree content, there were comments of “there’s a

feeling of ﬂoating” and “there is only one viewpoint

even if I can see in 360 degrees, there is a limitation.”

Therefore, when using 360-degree cameras, the loca-

tion and number of cameras may also need to be in-

corporated into the design. It is necessary to consider

how the viewpoint decided by the location of a camera

affects the viewer’s observation and interpretation.

In the FGD, some of the participants experi-

enced VR sickness after watching for only a few

seconds. The VR sickness was particularly severe

when the participants were watching handheld videos.

For this reason, 360-degree videos have to be taken

in a ﬁxed position or with a handheld stabilizer.

As countermeasures, image stabilization technologies

and watching methods to reduce VR sickness are in

the research phase (e.g. (Kasahara et al., 2014)).

CHIRA 2021 - 5th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

118

Table 1: Themes and components to facilitate discussion on the applications of 360-degree cameras to ethnography.

Function Action Analysis Delivery

Recording time Planning Collaboration Editing

Redundancy Shooting Searchability Digital archiving

Resolution Attitude Reinterpretation Open source

Operability Modality Overviewing Presentation

Viewpoint Comprehensiveness Listening

VR sickness Consciousness

4.2 Action

Components related to the planning of ﬁeldwork were

provided. For example, researchers can reduce un-

certainty in a survey by forming an impression of

the ﬁeld with 360-degree content (e.g., Google Street

View) in advance.

Regarding the action of shooting photographs and

videos, it was mentioned that, unlike conventional

cameras, it is not necessary to consider the compo-

sition of a picture. That is, 360-degree cameras en-

able us to create holistic visual records, which may

open up new opportunities for observation. There

were also suggestions for qualitative biologging by at-

taching cameras to dogs and cats and recording video

from a child’s viewpoint.

Ethnographers mainly use ﬁeldnotes, voice

recorders, and cameras to record events during their

observation; however, the introduction of 360-degree

cameras may reconﬁgure attitudes about what re-

searchers should record in each medium. For exam-

ple, “there is a limit to what a researcher can do in

ﬁeldwork, so I want to allocate visual perception to

this [360-degree camera], and if possible, I’ll concen-

trate on what I feel.” Accordingly, consciousness of

data collection may change. A researcher can take

the approach of recording more subjective informa-

tion such as one’s emotions and sensations of temper-

ature, smell, and wind in ﬁeldnotes while recording

objective information through the audiovisual func-

tions inherent in 360-degree cameras. Moreover, one

participant’s comment of “I don’t feel like I’m being

ﬁlmed much” implied that a subject’s awareness of

being observed decreases in the case of 360-degree

cameras more than with conventional cameras. In

general, viewing subjects through the lens of a camera

causes discomfort to some subjects (Larcher and Ox-

ley, 2015). The inﬂuence of 360-degree cameras on

subjects’ feelings of being ﬁlmed requires compari-

son with other types of cameras.

Capturing a ﬁeld with all ﬁve senses is a require-

ment in ethnographic observation. On the other hand,

360-degree cameras record audiovisual information.

This fact led to the participants’ concerns about the

modality of the events being recorded. For example,

one participant said “feeling coolness in the morning,

feeling relieved in the daytime, people are working,

and then saying ‘I’m tired’ in such an environment,

and saying ‘I’m tired’ in an air-conditioned room like

this one [a meeting room], these are different.”

Comprehensiveness of visual information was

mentioned. During ﬁeldwork, researchers can obtain

visual information only from the direction in which

they are looking; however, by using 360-degree cam-

eras, they can record videos of a ﬁeld including the

“condition of the surroundings” with fewer blind an-

gles and can review them later. This feature allows

the researcher to concentrate on recording nonvisual

information in the ﬁeld. On the other hand, this fea-

ture may also arise ethical concerns and we mention

in the following section.

4.3 Analysis

The possibility of collaboration in analysis was men-

tioned. In classical ethnography, a single researcher

tends to undertake ﬁeld research and engage in anal-

ysis and description that is dependent upon his or her

individual expertise. In contrast, the FGD participants

expected that the use of 360-degree videos particu-

larly enhances team ethnography involving multiple

members: “I think it’s possible to perform ethnogra-

phy with a team. Especially in business ethnography,

several members participate in analysis.”

There were concerns about the low searchability

of scenes in 360-degree videos. It is necessary to

move the scene in the 360-degree video not only tem-

porally but also spatially in order to watch a speciﬁc

scene. A panoramic viewing may be better in this

case. Moreover, a researcher should record the times

when characteristic events occurred during ﬁeldwork

to facilitate access to speciﬁc scenes during analy-

sis; otherwise, technological intervention would be

required.

It was mentioned that the interpretation of events

may differ between direct observations by a re-

searcher in the actual ﬁeld and observations made

through 360-degree content, leading to a concern be-

ing raised about reinterpretation. However, changes

in interpretation due to iterative references to data

How Ethnographic Practices Are Reconﬁgured with 360-degree Cameras

119

often occur in traditional observational studies, as a

participant indicated by stating that “isn’t it exactly

the same as when we look back at the ﬁeldnotes we

took in the ﬁeld, interpretation changes?” Whether

the reinterpretation that occurs with ﬁeldnotes, pho-

tographs, videos, and the other media in a conven-

tional study is the same as the reinterpretation that

occurs with 360-degree content and how they differ

are matters open to discussion.

In the FGD, 360-degree videos were also pre-

sented in a panoramic format. Related to this view-

ing method, there were comments concerning the dis-

comfort of not being able to intuitively understand

the positional relationships among people and objects.

On the other hand, there were positive comments that

the viewing method allows overviewing an environ-

ment from a bird’s-eye view. An effective selection

strategy of a method of viewing is required to be dis-

cussed. Concerns were raised about spatial audio lis-

tening. Although the viewpoint of a researcher who

watches a 360-degree video is tied to a speciﬁc direc-

tion within a 360-degree image, it is difﬁcult to relate

the direction of the audio source to the 360-degree

video. To achieve a spatial audio recording and expe-

rience, it is necessary to use a combination of other

audio recording methods.

4.4 Delivery

Before using ethnographic videos for academic pre-

sentations or reports to stakeholders, a researcher

edits the videos. If 360-degree cameras are intro-

duced and become commonly used in ethnography

and 360-degree content comes into greater use, how

the footage will be edited and the interfaces employed

for editing the 360-degree content are subjects open to

discussion. Regarding the presentation of 360-degree

content, there were comments that it is difﬁcult to in-

struct viewers regarding where to look and that view-

ers may be afraid of standing up when wearing an

HMD. In addition, a concern was raised about how

to integrate 360-degree content into printed media in-

cluding books and papers.

There were comments about the advantage of dig-

ital archiving. Archives of 360-degree content allow

researchers to later conﬁrm viewpoints that they did

not pay attention to during a survey. Archives may

also allow comparison of the same research ﬁeld over

long periods of time. Making those archives open

sources enables comparison of research ﬁelds not

only by the researchers and team members directly

involved in the study but also by other researchers,

which may lead to more multifaceted interpretations.

5 PRIMARY CHALLENGES

Reﬂecting on the experiences of pioneering users who

used 360-degree cameras in ethnography, we summa-

rize the ﬁve main sets of challenges that they faced

in the applications of these cameras. Each challenge

is related to not only a single but several categories

and components of the conceptual framework that we

constructed. The following analysis is not an attempt

to summarize all of the issues involving the use of

360-degree cameras in ethnography. Rather, we aim

to use these as a starting point for a discussion on the

design implications.

5.1 Ethical Considerations

Regardless of the use of 360-degree cameras, the

use of cameras and media in ethnography is al-

ways accompanied by ethical issues including con-

sent, anonymization, presentation, and access to data

(Coffey et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2019). Because scenes

that are not originally intended to be recorded are

also recorded inadvertently due to the “comprehen-

siveness” of recording when 360-degree cameras are

used, nontraditional ethical issues will arise. This

concern must be considered more carefully when cre-

ating digital archives of ethnographic data and mak-

ing open sources from them. In our study, all partic-

ipants agreed that ethical considerations must be dis-

cussed. In particular, our participants had high expec-

tations for automatic anonymization processing tech-

nology for 360-degree content. Previous research on

guidelines for the use of cameras in qualitative re-

search and privacy protection technology in videos

(Lee et al., 2019) may be helpful to discuss the use

of 360-degree cameras in the same way. Moreover,

there is a need to examine observer effects and the

differences in a subject’s reactions and feelings in the

cases in which 360-degree cameras are used since a

previous study has indicated that a subject’s reactions

and feelings differ depending on the particular record-

ing devices used (Singhal et al., 2016).

5.2 Positioning on Ethnography: A Tool

or Genre?

The challenging question of how 360-degree cam-

eras can be integrated into existing ethnography was

raised. In terms of the desirability of using 360-

degree cameras as a new genre derived from classi-

cal ethnography such as digital ethnography and busi-

ness ethnography, P3 and P5 agreed that it has signiﬁ-

cance. There is room for exploration in a new ethnog-

raphy oriented to the 360-degree recording. P5 said

CHIRA 2021 - 5th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

120

“comprehensively understand ... isn’t that great an-

thropology? From that point of view, I’m thinking it’s

great I can take 360-degree images.”

On the other hand, in terms of use as a tool, none

of the participants used 360-degree cameras effec-

tively in the academic context. The fundamental rea-

son is that no one has yet explained what 360-degree

cameras and content are in the ethnographic context.

For discussions from the perspective of academic (and

particularly classical) ethnography, it is important to

deﬁne 360-degree cameras in the context of ethnogra-

phy, as P5 said “without a clear deﬁnition of the con-

cept of ethnography [with 360-degree cameras], we

cannot move.” To introduce 360-degree cameras into

more classical ethnography, the semiotic and interpre-

tive implications of the corresponding content need to

be clearly deﬁned.

5.3 Cost-effectiveness

Evaluation and decision-making regarding cost-

effectiveness are important in design processes (Bo-

letsis, 2018), particularly in a business context. P1

and P2 said that it is difﬁcult to introduce 360-degree

cameras into ethnographic projects because their ef-

fectiveness had not been demonstrated. P5 also men-

tioned that some were hesitant to introduce this tech-

nology due to the lack of precedent: “if there is good

precedent, we’re going to actually try to use it.”

It was found that it was difﬁcult for ethnographers

in companies to allocate resources for reviewing and

analyzing 360-degree content because they had car-

ried out their work by balancing the various tasks in-

cluding not only ﬁeldwork and interviews but also

analysis and reporting to the client. P2 mentioned

that searchability of scenes also decreases the cost-

effectiveness of ethnography with 360-degree cam-

eras.

Since ethnographers have yet to ﬁnd an effective

method for analyzing the massive quantity of quali-

tative data generated by 360-degree cameras, techno-

logical interventions for data analysis are expected.

For example, the participants mentioned a method of

compressing the duration of the video and a method

for creating highlights from the original video. These

methods will reduce both the burden on the researcher

and the time costs. Most participants felt that there

was a strong need for a method that automatically

processes, encodes, and summarizes 360-degree data.

Such a method will allow a researcher only to inter-

pret the extracted ﬁndings. This concept is related

to machine learning and ethno-mining (Murray-Rust

et al., 2019) which involves ethnographic big data

analysis. These technologies can contribute not only

to cost-effectiveness but also to deepening our under-

standing of the subjects and may provide insights that

produce more developed HCI designs.

5.4 Security Risk

The strict rules governing security risk management

such as the loss, leakage, or tampering of customer

or conﬁdential information, have presented barriers

to the introduction of 360-degree cameras and related

software in companies. P1, who was an ethnographer

in a large company, said, “it’s hard to introduce it be-

cause of the problems of information leaks and secu-

rity.” Security issues also arise for ethnographers in

academia who participate in the industrial ﬁeld. For

example, P5 mentioned that it may be difﬁcult or im-

possible to use cameras for participatory observation

in company ofﬁces or in factories due to conﬁdential-

ity concerns. Moreover, 360-degree cameras can in-

advertently record people and objects targeted by a

researcher. These features become a barriers to the

use of 360-degree cameras in ﬁelds where there are

concerns about privacy or security issues. To over-

come this issue, technologies are required to automat-

ically protect personal and conﬁdential information.

Assuming the use of this protective technology, infor-

mants’ psychological barriers to the use of 360-degree

cameras in a survey can be overcome. Moreover, se-

curity guidelines for the introduction and use of 360-

degree cameras need to be discussed. These consid-

erations will facilitate the introduction of 360-degree

cameras into the ethnographic practices of data col-

lection and presentation.

6 CONCLUSION

In this study, we presented a framework for discus-

sion on the use of 360-degree cameras in ethnography

constructed on the basis of the exploration with ethno-

graphers. By speculating about future experiences

and gaining an understanding of practices, our study

elicited both opportunities and challenges to ethnog-

raphy. These ﬁndings relate not only to ethnographers

and 360-degree cameras but also to the corresponding

ecosystem including research subjects, technological

interventions for ethnography, and organizations. Go-

ing forward, by drawing upon the ﬁndings of this pa-

per, we hope that researchers and practitioners will be

able to smoothly initiate discussions on ethnography

with 360-degree cameras.

However, we consider our study to be a prototype

based on early practices and recognize the lack of suf-

ﬁcient accumulation of case studies of ethnography

How Ethnographic Practices Are Reconﬁgured with 360-degree Cameras

121

using 360-degree cameras. Future work will reﬁne

the framework presented in this paper by accumulat-

ing real-world experience within the ﬁeld to deepen

the discussion.

REFERENCES

Aladwan, A., Kelly, R. M., Baker, S., and Velloso, E.

(2019). A tale of two perspectives: A conceptual

framework of user expectations and experiences of in-

structional ﬁtness apps. In Proc. CHI ’19, pages 1–15.

Alvero, A. M. and Austin, J. (2004). The effects of con-

ducting behavioral observations on the behavior of

the observer. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,

37(4):457–468.

Anderson, K., Nafus, D., Rattenbury, T., and Aipperspach,

R. (2009). Numbers have qualities too: Experiences

with ethno-mining. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry

Conference Proceedings, pages 123–140.

Boletsis, C. (2018). Virtual reality for prototyping service

journeys. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction,

2(2).

Buur, J., Fraser, E., Oinonen, S., and Rolfstam, M. (2010).

Ethnographic video as design specs. In Proc. OZCHI

’10, pages 49–56.

Chapman, C. N. and Lahav, M. (2008). International ethno-

graphic observation of social networking sites. In CHI

EA ’08, pages 3123–3128.

Coffey, A., Renold, E., Dicks, B., Soyinka, B., and Mason,

B. (2006). Hypermedia ethnography in educational

settings: Possibilities and challenges. Ethnography

and Education, 1(1):15–30.

Corbin, J. M. and Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of Qualita-

tive Research: Techniques and Procedures for Devel-

oping Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications.

Crabtree, A., Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Tennent, P.,

Chalmers, M., and Brown, B. (2006). Supporting

ethnographic studies of ubiquitous computing in the

wild. In Proc. DIS ’06, page 60–69.

Cruz, E. G. (2017). Immersive reﬂexivity: Using 360°

cameras in ethnographic ﬁeldwork. In Cruz, E. G.,

Sumartojo, S., and Pink, S., editors, Reﬁguring Tech-

niques in Digital Visual Research, pages 25–38. Pal-

grave Macmillan, London, UK.

Dunne, A. and Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything:

Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. The MIT

Press.

Emmison, M., Smith, P., and Mayall, M. (2012). Research-

ing the Visual (Second Edition). SAGE Publications.

Faklaris, C., Cafaro, F., Blevins, A., O’Haver, M. A., and

Singhal, N. (2020). A snapshot of bystander attitudes

about mobile live-streaming video in public settings.

Informatics, 7(2).

Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The Annals of

Mathematical Statistics, 32(1):148–170.

Hebbel-Seeger, A. (2017). 360 degrees video and VR for

training and marketing within sports. Athens Journal

of Sports, 4(4):243–261.

Jokela, T., Ojala, J., and V

anen, K. (2019). How people

use 360-degree cameras. In Proc. MUM ’19.

Kasahara, S., Nagai, S., and Rekimoto, J. (2014). Live-

sphere: Immersive experience sharing with 360 de-

grees head-mounted cameras. In Proc. UIST’14 Ad-

junct, pages 61–62.

Kostakos, P., Alavesa, P., Oppenlaender, J., and Hosio, S.

(2019). VR ethnography: A pilot study on the use of

virtual reality ’go-along’ interviews in Google street

view. In Proc. MUM ’19.

Larcher, J. and Oxley, N. (2015). Current dilemmas of the

ethnographer behind the camera. Anthrovision, 3(2).

Lee, B., Lee, M., Zhang, P., Tessier, A., Saakes, D., and

Khan, A. (2019). Skeletonographer: Skeleton-based

digital ethnography tool. In CSCW ’19 Companion,

pages 14–17.

Lemke, J. L. (2002). Travels in hypermodality. Visual Com-

munication, 1(3):299–325.

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B. (2001). Designing Quali-

tative Research (Sixth Edition). SAGE Publications.

Mendonca, K. and Ray, A. (2017). Immersive perspectives:

Virtual reality and ethnographic research. Ethno-

graphic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings,

2017(1):499.

Murray-Rust, D., Gorkovenko, K., Burnett, D., and

Richards, D. (2019). Entangled ethnography: To-

wards a collective future understanding. In Proc.

HTTF ’19.

Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination

of the use of new technologies for social research. So-

ciology, 42(5):837–855.

Paay, J., Kjeldskov, J., and Skov, M. B. (2015). Connecting

in the kitchen: An empirical study of physical interac-

tions while cooking together at home. In Proc. CSCW

’15, pages 276–287.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation

Methods (3rd Edition). SAGE Publications.

Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., and

Tacchi, J. (2015). Digital Ethnography: Principles

and Practice. SAGE Publications.

Postill, J. and Pink, S. (2012). Social media ethnography:

The digital researcher in a messy web. Media Interna-

tional Australia, 145(1):123–134.

Singhal, S., Neustaedter, C., Schiphorst, T., Tang, A., Patra,

A., and Pan, R. (2016). You are being watched: By-

standers’ perspective on the use of camera devices in

public spaces. In CHI EA ’16, pages 3197–3203.

Spradley, J. P. (2016). Participant Observation. Waveland

Press.

Thoring, K. C., Mueller, R. M., and Badke-Schaub, P.

(2015). Ethnographic design research with wearable

cameras. In CHI EA ’15, pages 2049–2054.

White, M. (2009). Ethnography 2.0: Writing with digital

video. Ethnography and Education, 4(3):389–414.

CHIRA 2021 - 5th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

122