As we have become more experienced ethnographers, we have come to understand being genuinely curious and interested in how the ‘other’ perceives the world, what we call the ‘ethnographic stance’, has begun to permeate our everyday interactions with people in all areas of our lives. This sensitivity towards other humans has not only made us humbler about their (and our) different perceptions of the world, but it has helped us to understand that the ethnographic stance also provides an opening towards understanding how problems arise, what they involve, and perhaps even how to solve them.

When we started out as HE teachers, we sought to engage our students with what we were passionate about. As we became more experienced, we realized that it is better to engage students with what they are passionate about. When they become aware of their passion, what was important to them and what they would like to change, they engaged with learning as a (transformative) process. 

The process of being both researchers and teachers has led to us becoming more experienced learners. As we became more experienced learners, we realized that our ethnographic stance has equipped us to not only be more open to other’s perceptions of the world and of important burning issues, but that this has often led to insights that allow for transformation and changes in authentic practices. 

Over a number of years, one of the authors developed an innovative learning design, called the change-maker model (Robinson, 2020) that, rather than beginning with knowledge, begins with the student. A central method in the change-maker model is the ethnographic stance. This involves igniting curiosity about the world, equipping students to critically reflect with others and analyze both the practices they encounter and connect with the practitioners they meet along the way. Through this learning design, students are empowered towards transformative learning and change-making. Students become central to the practices they engage with while at the same time developing sensitivity towards those they interact with. 

Like many institutions in contemporary society, higher education has become more focused on instrumental reason (Taylor, 1991). For so many policy makers and higher education administrators in Europe, and other parts of the world, their vision of the university is creating a workforce for the economy and creating new innovative products and services (Wright et al. 2020). But the original Humboldt vision, was a much broader vision of what the university could be, with its emphasis on the relationship between open and free exploration and communication and the processes of creating new knowledge. That original Humboldtian vision was central to many of the advancements in the modern world.  Ironically, we now have a much more restricted vision, that the elites of the world hope will usher in a new phase of growth in knowledge and the creation of new and expanding forms of value that are good for people and society. This instrumental market vision is the very thing that will rob universities of their creative potential. Rather we pursue a more literal return to a Humboldtian vision through the change maker model.  We argue that the ethnographic stance can help students, and faculty, become change-makers.   

We describe the phases of the change-maker model and show how they are ethnographic. Rather placing knowledge centrally to teaching it is instead the student who comes into focus. Who is the student, what do they know, what can they do and what is important (of value) to them? By asking such questions, the student begins to reflect on and articulate their identity in relation to others. In the second phase, students begin to work in groups with the central elements of collaboration developing meaningful relationships. They find that diversity is a strength and that by being able to listen to what others say, find out how communication is a vehicle to find common interests and values. They are able to reflect on and articulate their own positioning in relation to others, both in their group but also towards the practitioners they meet outside the university. The third phase, discovery, requires the group to identify organizations that they are interested in and who could potentially be disciplinary partners. Having investigated organizational practices surrounding the issues they are interested in, through participant observation and interviews they then imagine what the practices might look like if the issues did not exist. In the fourth phase, experimentation, the group designs and tinker with prototypes, test assumptions and work closely with practitioners. The last phase, consolidation, sees the presentation of the project, the results and an articulation of the learning gained. The change-maker model has been developed to focus on the process of learning rather than on learning as outcomes. While the broad goal of ‘creating value for others’ will always be linked to meaningful learning, what is learned along the way, and how the learner is ‘transformed’, is determined by the learner themselves.

If the ethnographic stance is something that we can incorporate into our teaching – what does that mean and how would you as a teacher do it? What would you need to think about in order to bring the processual nature of learning into the consciousness of students? We challenge the reader to think about what teaching an ethnographic stance could contribute to the learning experience of students. In a world where knowledge is readily accessible, having knowledge is not the issue, however being able to act on that knowledge is. Ethnography is, at its core, about engagement, interactions, relationships, sensitivity and ethical and moral judgements. To be able to use an ethnographic approach critical thinking is required. When the individual reflects on those experiences, a number of things are triggered e.g., ‘disciplinary wonder’ (Barnett, 2004) a ‘social imaginary’ (Mills, 2000), an ‘interpretive craft’ (Van Maanen, 2011).

Barnett, R. (2004) Learning for an unknown future Higher Education Research and Development 23 (3) 247-260 Mills, C.W. (2000) The Sociological Imagination; Fortieth Anniversary Edition Oxford University Press London Robinson, S. (2020) Ethnography for engaging students with higher education and societal issues in C. Wieser and A. Pilch Ortega (eds.) Ethnography in Higher Education Springer pp. 93-110 Taylor, C. (1991). The Ethics of Authenticity. Boston: Harvard University Press. Van Maanen, J. (2011) Ethnography as work; Some rules of engagement Journal of Management Studies 48 (1) 218-234 Wright, S., Carney, S., Krejsler, J. B., Nielsen, G. B., Ørberg, J. W. (2020). Enacting the University: Danish University Reform in an Ethnographic Perspective. Springer Nature B. V. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1921-4