Institutional Ethnography

  • Michelle LaFranceEmail author
Reference work entry


Institutional ethnography (IE), a form of critical ethnography introduced to the social sciences in the late 1990s by Canadian sociologist Dorothy J. Smith, poises researchers to uncover how “work” (a concept defined generously) is co-constituted within institutional environments. The IE approach reframes institutional sites as dynamic shape shifters that use texts to mediate, organize, and lend value to the social practices of diverse and knowing individuals. Workplaces and practices can be said to reproduce the broader spheres of influence, prestige, and value that structure society at large. As such, IE seeks out the (often implicit and/or erased) connections between work processes and institutional discourses, revealing how work is coordinated across time and space. More plainly, the methodology uncovers how things happen – how institutional discourse compels and shapes practice(s) and/or how norms of practice speak to, for, and over individuals. IE research offers opportunities for more situated and finely grained understandings of the sites where we work, the people we work most closely with, the generative power of institutional texts and discourse, and the ways that our participation in work then gives material face to the institutions that govern the social world.


Institutional ethnography Ethnography Feminist methodology Cultural materialism Standpoint Material relations Institutional discourse Textual analysis 


  1. Brodkey L. Academic writing as social practice. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1987.Google Scholar
  2. Brotman SL. An institutional ethnography of elder care: understanding access from the standpoint of ethnic and “racial” minority women. PhD diss, University of Toronto; 2000.
  3. Campbell M. Dorothy Smith and knowing the world we live in. J Sociol Soc Welf. 2003;30(1): 3–22.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell M, Gregor F. Mapping social relations: a primer in doing institutional ethnography. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  5. Devault ML. What is institutional ethnography? Soc Probl. 2006;53(3):294–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Devault ML. People at work: life, power, and social inclusion in the new economy. New York: New York University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  7. DeVault ML, Gross G. Feminist qualitative interviewing: experience, talk, and knowledge. In: Hesse-Biber SN, editor. Handbook of feminist research: theory and praxis. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2012. p. 206–36.Google Scholar
  8. DeVault ML, McCoy L. Institutional ethnography: using interviews to investigate ruling relations. In: Smith DE, editor. Institutional ethnography as practice. London: Rowman & Littlefield; 2006. p. 15–43.Google Scholar
  9. Geertz C. Deep hanging out. The New York review of books. October 22, 1998.
  10. Griffith AI, Smith DE. Under new public management: institutional ethnographies of changing front-line work. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hammersly M. Ethnography: problems and prospects. Ethnogr Educ. 2006;1(1):3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haraway D. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem Stud. 1988;14(3):575–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harding S. Introduction: standpoint theory as a site of political, philosophic, and scientific debate. In: Harding S, editor. Feminist standpoint theory reader: intellectual and political controversies. New York: Routledge; 2004. p. 1–15.Google Scholar
  14. Kawulich BB. Participant observation as a data collection method. FORUM Qual Soc Res. 2005;6(2).Google Scholar
  15. LaFrance M, Nicolas M. Institutional ethnography as materialist framework for writing program research and the faculty-staff work standpoints project. Coll Compos Commun. 2012;64(1): 130–50.Google Scholar
  16. LeCompte MD, Goetz JP. Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Rev Educ Res. 1982;52(1):31–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lubet S. Interrogating ethnography: why evidence matters. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018.Google Scholar
  18. Luken PC, Vaughan S. ‘… Be a genuine homemaker in your own home’: gender and familial relations in state housing practices, 1917–1922. Soc Forces. 2005;83(4):1603–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marx, K. The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International publishers; 1852; 1913.Google Scholar
  20. Nader L. Up the anthropologist: perspectives gained from ‘studying up’. In: Hymes D, editor. Reinventing anthropology. New York: Random House; 1969. p. 284–31.Google Scholar
  21. Nader L. Ethnography as theory. HAU J Ethnogr Theory. 2011;1(1):211–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith DE. Women’s perspective as a radical critique of sociology. Sociol Inq. 1974;44(1):7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith DE. Texts and the ontology of organizations and institutions. Stud Cult Organ Soc. 2001;7(2):159–98.Google Scholar
  24. Smith DE. Institutional ethnography: a sociology for people. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  25. Smith DE. Institutional ethnography as practice. New York: Rowman & Littlefield; 2006.Google Scholar
  26. Wall S. Focused ethnography: a methodological adaptation for social research in emerging contexts. FORUM Qual Social Res. 2015;16(1).Google Scholar
  27. Wright UT, Rocco TS. Institutional ethnography: a holistic approach to understanding systems. Int J Adult Vocat Educ Technol. 2016;7(3):27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations