Buenas, mira que el tiempo mínimo de una etnografia depende de la estrategia de investigación que logres identificar, en este caso debes de tener en cuenta si es un trabajo trasversal o un trabajo longitudinal, esto es clave que lo tengas en cuenta, te sugiero el trabajo de J. P. Goetz y M. D. LleCompte, el cual tiene como titulo: "Etnografia y diseño cualitativo en investigación educativa", en este texto puede encontrar algunos desarrollo que remiten a lo que estas preguntando. Un buen día y espero que todo marche bien en tu proceso Wilmer Villa 

It depends on the setting and how long it may take you to feel immersed enough to connect with participants there. In my research I used ethnography as a basis for engagement which I augmented with a novel embodied approach (methodology currently in press) to enable me to gather my data in just 4 full weeks at each field site (5 sites in 4 countries). What is your study, your aims and your outcomes?  

If you do not have any previous connection with the study area/community you need at least 2 to 3 months to stay in the research locale, to build rapport with the community members, to get access to research participant and to facilitate data collection process. In addition to collecting data, you will need to observe various aspects of local peoples' way of living. Remember, spending much time in the field will give you more opportunity to have rich data and a better understanding about culture(s)/society/social phenomena that you are observing/studying! If you want to have an in-depth understanding of a culture you must stay longer in the field, there is no short-cut way of doing this! 

Ethnography work involves an emic perspective of the people. it is the researcher's judgment when he/she feels immersed in the culture. There is no time rules but it is the researcher's feelings of understanding the inside meanings of this culture. To my experience I feel the longer the better and that depends on the size you are observing and the time until they feel "relaxed" to be themselves with your presence.

ethnography is about studying issues holistically, it requires becoming an "imaginary" citizen of your study area. so. I suggest minimum of one year.

Historically, about 12 months has been typical. But, as several people have noted above, it's also a rather subjective judgement of the ethnographer, based on her/his sense of having fitted into the subject community/ group for achieving the research objective(s).

Typically it is 12 months for all departments, except Anthropology where it is 18 months. Rule of thumb is that you leave when you feel you have developed a deep understanding of what your are observing or participating. Need to look at how active you want to be in the community/group that you want to study also.

There is no formalized and universal minimum time since it will depend on your fieldwork, its specific conditions of access, the time of acculturation, and so on... Some fieldworks are limited in time by the insiders themselves, but these restrictions should be taken as data in their own right in your analysis.

I would think the minimum would be anything from 3 to 6 months depending on how data collection is progressing and that clear patterns of information are  becoming evident to the researcher. Let the revelation of data be you guiding principal based on your research question.  This is your project the clearer your evidence is the better you mark as you prove your hypotheses to your peers and the market by body in your college. A good piece of research should be capable of developing int a master's or  PhD.

The time frame depends on a number of considerations, many of which have already been mentioned. The major concerns are what the ethnographic objectives are.  If only one, specific question needs to be answered, then the amount of time may be as little as a few days, but more complex "questionnaires" may require several weeks, even months.  The amount of time also depends on how familiar with the setting (Community) the ethnographer is.  Long-term, in-depth familiarity can reduce the time substantially.  I would consider also as a major variable, how experienced the ethnographer is.  An ethnographer very experienced can accomplish objectives much quicker than someone with fewer skills and experience.  

While I agree with most advice already given, my guide for (PhD) fieldwork has depended on the advice of my field consultants and anthro ancestors-- minimum one year to sense at least a repeatable seasonal, calendric, or more specified cycle.  What we think we know can vary with time spent and as relationships develop.  This is particularly true in 21st century field research where members of the studied "family" or institutional group often reverse fieldwork and come to spend time in the culture of the "adopted family member."  This can bring new understandings to "completed" field research.

Among my students, major fieldwork has generally followed a month or two or three of personal connection to families, groups, or institutions (usually for their MA investigations). Thereafter (post-doctoral research), fieldwork has gradually gotten shorter due to the experience of ready referencing similar or connected data, but even then, a year of comparative data has always given me more reliable foundations for my conclusions. 

En mis estudios de licenciatura nos dieron 6 meses para hacer trabajo de campo para la tesis, pero un huracán azotó la península de Yucatán y por tres meses no pude hacer trabajo de campo. Así que sólo realice tres meses de campo y logre recabar los datos que necesitaba para la tesis. 

Thank you all for the wounderful contributions. My take from all  the discussion is that several factors come to play on the time required for an ethnographic approach in the ellicitation of data. Some of the  factors to consider are familiarity with the study area, the experience of the ethnographer. allowing the revelation of the data to be the guiding principle. As such the time to leave the  field is when  a deep understanding of what one is observing has been attained based on the objective set from the begining.

One should not forget that it is also possible to engage in what is known as "focused ethnography", an idea and research practice developed and advocated by the German researcher Hubert Knoblauch. (I provide a link to a version of his article on the topic in English: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/20/43). Likewise, from the 1980s onwards, some researchers have been practicing what is referred to as "mini-ethnography". This kind of ethnography seems to have been most frequently been practiced in closed institutional environments such as in hospitals and similar institutions. The shortest duration of such ethnographic field work is usually taken to be six weeks. The idea behind "focused" and "mini" ethnographies is that we live in a time with an accelerated, very fast pace of social life, and that in environments in which there are certain elements of constancy, one can reasonably engage in field work shorter than it usually is in the ethnographic context. In practical terms, this is also important because nowadays it is not easy to find project funding for research that is planned to last several years. So, in the end, yes, I think it is very reasonable to conclude that it depends on many factors what the duration of fileld work should be, and also that one should never base one conclusions on work that one judges to be of insufficient duration for the kind of project or topic researched.

Thanks Mirko for this insightful discussion and also link to German researcher Hubert Knoblauch's work.

I would say at least 3 years. Fists for getting to now ritual, production cycles; second to collect ethnographic data; third to check for doubts and transformations. 

From a temporal standpoint, one year is minimal since many important events in any society occur only once a year.

Stay till your research objective is met.

Stay as long as it's possible

Hi Isa

Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) offer a parsimonious explanation of the craft of ethnography as involving fairly lengthy contact with people in everyday, rather than experimental contexts; which involve participant observation and/or relatively open-ended interviews and the analysis of artefacts and documents associated with their lives. A process that for Van Maanen (2009) attempts to put into writing ‘what it is like to be somebody else’. The time spent in the field and what constitutes 'ethnography' is highly debated and there are arguments as to what constitutes ethnographic practice. Traditional ethnographic and anthropological approaches are often defined by a long period of framework but ethnography can feature in different ways where this time is not available and/or fields of interest are inaccessible. You might find this Open Access paper that I wrote with a colleague useful as it draws on these debates - http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/15/2/166 - Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique?: Reflections from the 'waiting field'

Lisa Morriss and Paul Atkinson also have a new paper out in Qualitative Inquiry - On ethnographic knowledge, which thinks about the craft of ethnography and ethnographic knowledge

I hope this is useful

best wishes

Dawn

It depends about what you want to understand. If it is neccesary to stay doing fieldwork 2 years or more, you must do it. If you understand your problem in 2 months it is OK.

In summarizing the variables that one should consider on the length of time needed to spend in the field, I would not emphasize the qualities of the ethnographer or the attainment of research objectives, although of course these are very important. Rather, I think the key is the attainment of rapport in the relationship between ethnographer and members of the studied group because without rapport one cannot achieve valid data, defined as approximating emic points of view as closely as possible. I say "points" in plural because even small communities can be composed of very complex social dynamics into which the ethnographer must find a plausible role (see Geertz, "Deep Play: Notes on a Balinese Cockfight." Auto-ethnography can shorten the fieldwork period, but it can also complicate these internal social dynamics. On the point of rapport, I agree with previous commenters that it will take at least two or three months in the field  for people to relax into their everyday patterns in the presence of the fieldworker. I also agree that an entire yearly cycle must be experienced, although not necessarily in the same year. 

Second, I agree with another commenter that the term "ethnography" Is not entirely clear, and used differently by different groups and in different circumstances. So, I think it important to distinguish between classic anthropological fieldwork based on extended stay participant observation and the use of extensive and thorough field notes and other qualitative data collecting methods (for which minimum one year immersion is recommended), and the "focused" or "mini" ethnographies noted above which rely on rapid research methods (RRM), which often include a two step strategy involving free listing or other techniques to quickly gain access to emic categories, and then surveys that include both qualitative and quantitative analysis methods. As the name suggests, these latter approaches can be achieved in much less time, and are often necessary nowadays in the climate of tightened budgets and timelines. Another difference to be considered is that participant observation methods are fundamentally inductive - that is, the research question arises from the emic perspectives in combination with the fieldworker's theorizing. In contrast, focused ethnographies are often deductive insofar as the researcher has a research question in advance that he or she wishes or needs to answer. "Need" arises in applied circumstances where the answer will affect real life policy decisions.

I don't think that we can find out a single answer to this question as it depend on number of factors. Think that Malinowski  stayed three years in Trobriand

I have been researching the practice of child cattle herders since last year August in Zambia and I am yet to achieve saturation. Thanks for this discussion

It completely depends on the ethnographic approach you choose. Traditionally ethnography would require longer immersion period but newer approaches like Focused Ethnography or REAP or Rapid Assessments can achieve the same in quite lesser time period.

If one looks for shorter approach, then the researcher needs to be better oriented with the culture, the problem/phenomenon (generally a single case), the participants and should use multiple tools to record larger amounts of data with intensive data analysis. The data collection and analysis could happen simultaneously as well.

Suggested Read :

Knoblauch, 2005

Higginbottom, Pillay, & Boadu, 2013

Wall, 2015

Bikker, et al., 2017

Depending on the contexts and nature of the study population/community, traditional ethnographic fieldwork may require you to stay in the field at least 6, especially if you are not a native ethnographer! Are you planning to conduct your ethnographic fieldwork in rural/remote village or in a sub-urban area? Do you have already a gatekeeper to get access to your research participants? Have you already established a connection to your research area/people? Do you need language training for yourself or for your research team? Or do you have plan to do research in your native society? All these factors can affect your decision how long you should spend your time with your research participants!

Re: Chetan Shah's take that "Focused Ethnography or REAP or Rapid Assessments can achieve the same in quite lesser time period". I would not agree that what these approaches can achieve is quite the "same", as the length of time and exposure, as well as the length of communication always play a role and change the ethnographic experience. This does not go to say that "focused" approaches do not yield relevant results, but that these are different experiences and therefore the results cannot be quite the "same". One should also say, however, that the length of field work (in and of itself) does not guarantee the quality of the resulting insights.

In Re: Mirko Petric.

Interpretation of the data that is collected is different for different ethnographers, therefore be it longitudinal or short ethnography, you would any which way will never get the same result, may be similar in certain aspects. Also as already pointed out by Mirko, length of time not necessarily guarantees better results.

I agree, that the word same is also not correct in the Ethnography context but the specification of a single problem or phenomenon can also be studied from FE as with traditional ethnography and will get you the same thick data.

Dear Chetan, I would say will "also potentially get you thick data" or "thick enough data". Again, as you see, I have a certain issue with the word "same" :) But this is my take on things of course, others are free to explore different avenues.

Dear Mirko, Thank you for your comments and insight on FE.

Dear Chetan, thank you for your contribution. Best regards

I do not think that a researcher can reliably have ethnographic data in less than a year of immersion in a field site. This is the minimum.

Dear Fadwa, thank you for your contribution to the discussion. I would be interested in finding out why no less than one year is the minimum, in your opinion. Why not two or three years? Or why not ten months? What exactly is the criterion for establishing that a year is a minimum?

I agree. No less than one year would be ideal. The idea of the "year", had in the past, for anthropology engaging in the agricultural cycle and with that an idea of the social structure and cultural dimension of the community we intended to study. At least to a certain extent. Also involving time to get rapport with the subjects to intended to talk to.

In current times, this idea has change. Speaking from a student perspective: master or PhD. There are several conditionals for not engaging to a long term fieldwork, mainly or all of them bureaucratic, institutional and grant-wise preconditions as the precarious for anthropologists has increased exponentially. In short, resources.

Dear Rodrigo, thank you very much for your answer. It gives a reasonable explanation of why a "year" is the basis for measuring the minimum length of field work in anthropology ("the agricultural cycle"). Also, it is quite clear that longer fieldwork is most frequently not practical in the current context, because of the limited duration of the project cycles and other restrictions imposed by the funding bodies.

However - going back to the "agricultural cycles" and "one year minimum requirement", one has to say that there is also "anthopology of contemporaneity" where agricultural cycles do not matter much, althought the mental and habitual frameworks are maintained, at least to some degree (not the least in the very idea of "one year minimum fieldwork that we are discussing!). In an anthropology of contempraneity obviously other, more short-term cyles, have relevance and there are activities that simply do not lend themselves to one year observation. Such activities (or a series of such activities) can of course be observed over a one year stretch, but this need not necessarily be so.

In other words, I would argue, that - depending on the character of the observed activitity - a field cycle could be shorter than a year. I would also argue that Knoblauch's "focused ethnography" can yield valuable results. And I would agree with Reema when she says that " There is no time rules but it is the researcher's feelings of understanding the inside meanings of this culture."

Till now, it seems that there are no framework or formula to determine, "how long is enough"... Most of what I have read or encountered, respectfully, based their assumptions on the minimum of 6 months or 1 year period, through gut feel? It might not be new but have anyone considered that the personal traits of the ethnographer plays a big part in how deep and fast his investigations can go? For example, in the crudest sense, if the ethnographer is a 'people person', he/she might be able to gain the trust of the informants/participants faster? Also, the level of engagement with the community plays a part too? For example, if the ethnographer spends 8 hours a day (540 hours in 3.8 months) with the participants, as compared to another who spends 3 hours a day (540 hours in 6 months). In essence he/she may be able to experience a more holistic view of daily activities even thought the total number of days spent are lesser? Just some thoughts...

The measure year is based on the academic cycle. Length of stay should be connected to prior ethnographic familiarity with the field in question. It is not intended as an exact measurement. But for someone who has field experience I cannot imagine someone getting valuable data for the first ethnographic encounter in less than a year with many years of follow-up. Remember the classic case of the Yanomamo when it was discovered that all the data gathered in the first few months were useless and were thrown out? This is a classic case. The rule should be as long as possible

Thank you everyone, for your valuable insights.

I think there's an element of what the 'academic norm' is. In Anthro, it's a one-year minimum, based on prior studies but also a general sub-culture in classical anthropology where this was necessary to 'cut your teeth' as an anthropologist. I'd suggest this is outdated, flawed logic and even potentially elitist. As such, I think Ben and Reema's perspectives on this are on point. Could be a year, could be longer, could be shorter.

We should look at fieldwork as anthropology's lab for data gathering. Elitism and researcher personality have nothing to do with it. It is the context for gathering data. The less familiar with the field the more the need to stay longer. After one gathers some data, there is still the need for cross-checking. The flawed logic is in dealing with fieldwork from an ideological perspective. Data become the driver for the length of stay.

Thank you all for the insightful discussion. i believe that duration depends on the subject of study and how fast the ethnographer is able to blend with the people whom he/ she is studying. More also the lenght of stay can also be affected by the major economic ativities of the the people. forxample, I have studied two cultural landscapes in which one of the community's main economic activity was farming while the second was fishing. I had to stay longer in the farming community than the fishing community. This was due the variations in the activities of the farming community through out the year. while that of the riverine community had little variations in their cultural activities. In Summary, I spend 8 months in the farming community and one month in the riverine community(I went back to the riverine community after 4 months for a short stay and still had no much variation in their daily activities). Nonetheless, I got very rich information in both studies.

In the ciber world that we live the rules are broken the ethnografhy like Malinoski work, today you need just do it whit secons and present the paper

Well, Gustavo you are breaking the rules of ethnography. If researchers start doing this shortcut in research, then you will not have in-depth and thick description of a culture, no matter how small or large this cultural group is. I mean to be there and live with the people makes a lot of difference in understanding the implicit interactions.

Well I agree wiht you and for example if you just had a minute of contact with some person o group, not is ethnografhy... (...?).

I think the world and the social sciencies are changing the cultural nature but if you are professor I glad... the time is important but what about if the time was years and the resercher have a lot of problems of values...

There should be no change in the rigor of data elicitation. You give it as much time as is needed to increase knowledge, Otherwise, it is not social science, or even data gathering.

The researcher needs a strong and long-term relationship with the study participants, which may require a long time to be able to understand and convey the details of their lives more accurately. Also, the time depends on many factors which include the nature of research problem and the time available for the research especially students who are part of academic programs.

Isa Bala Muhammad During the masters degree I had this same question. Then I performed a literature review in the nursing area with 30 included studies that showed: "Although eight studies did not specify the duration or period, there was a variation of 12 visits from approximately 6 hours each (one study) to 48 months (two studies), the most frequent being 3 months (five studies) ". It can be concluded that, in general, in nursing, research is in the spectrum of microethnographies. But it depends on the phenomenon to be investigated, in my case it was the relatively short pregnancy-puerperal cycle.

Anthropological approaches to field observation are not the only ones possible, nor the "first" ever. In the discipline of sociology, Harriet Martineau wrote How to Observe Morals and Manners in 1837-38 after her tour of America (a modernizing society). Her instructions for observation (probably the first structured observation guide) also relate to short encounters in modern settings. Hubert Knoblauch's notion of "focused ethnography" relates to present-day, technologically intensive society, in which many observation landscapes posses similar ("uniform") traits (as settings for research), and consequently do not require long process of getting acquainted with the field. On the other hand, "short-term ethnography" is certainly not a happily chosen term. The same probably goes for "focused ethnography". Could have been termed "focused sociological observation", perhaps, to describe more accurately what it is. The way sociologists reach conclusions and build theories is in many ways different from that of anthropologists, and this should also be reflected in the use of terminology, for the sake of disambiguation.

It depends on the requirement of your study and the skills of the researcher.

For us, anthropologists, ethnographic research lasts for one year at a research site. However, there are some works that uses short-term ethnography. In case of tourism studies, due to the research object being mobile, the idea of one year is hardly achieved.

I consider three variables to decide the time of your stay in the field getting desired data:

1. You rapport in the field I mean the location you have chosen for the study.

2. The extent of diversity in the catchment area of your study, and

3. The quality and quantity of data, which you have desired for your study.

When three three are satisfied, you can take a decision to close the data collection process and hence this will decide the time your stay rather simply defining timelines for any kind of data collection methods.

Please feel free to ask for any further query.

I am happy with these answers, as a novice, you always wonder, what is the right moment to close. I think one year in the field makes sense.