Ethnographic Research in the Construction Industry: A Critical Review

A decade ago, there were multiple calls for more ethnographic research in the construction industry in order to provide deeper insights into industry practice. Since those calls, methods under the umbrella of ethnographic methods have been more regularly applied, with various data collection techniques being adopted, often as part of multifaceted research designs. It is argued that it is now an appropriate time to critically review ethnographic research studies over the past 10 years in order to establish the kinds of knowledge they generate and the intervention they may inform. In doing so, this also begins to identify contributions and areas that deserve more attention. We reviewed 57 relevant studies that adopted approaches such as autoethnography, quasi-ethnography, ethnographic-action research, retrospective ethnography, and ethnographic interviewing, used both to explore problems and confirm results. Interesting intense forms of ethnography dominated, with alternative and shorter-term ethnographic work (as opposed to classic long-term approaches) forming the basis of the majority of the studies reviewed. The methods explicated within these papers suggested they were rooted within different ontological positions, with there being little consistency in terms of how the rigor of the approaches used was evaluated. There was also a distinct lack of researcher reflexivity on their emotions. This means that many researchers fail to reflect on their role within the social worlds they study, which, in a Western construction context, can be a macho, masculine, and potentially dangerous (physically and mentally) environment. Greater levels of appreciation and consistency in judging ethnographic research, and greater reflexivity on the influence of the researcher’s position and influence on the practices studied, are prerequisites for robust ethnographic practice.