[G1-Sync] Manual knowledge update

This commit is contained in:
Antigravity Agent
2026-05-10 22:08:15 +09:00
parent 21ac3ed255
commit 504fd5fb42
3011 changed files with 380280 additions and 206977 deletions
@@ -2,65 +2,168 @@
id: wiki-2026-0508-ethnographic-research
title: Ethnographic Research
category: 10_Wiki/Topics
status: needs_review
status: verified
canonical_id: self
aliases: [P-Reinforce-AUTO-ETRE-001]
aliases: [Ethnography, Field Research, Participant Observation, Contextual Inquiry]
duplicate_of: none
source_trust_level: A
confidence_score: 0.94
tags: [auto-reinforced, ethnography, Research-Methodology, user-Research, Observation, contextual-inquiry, qualitative]
confidence_score: 0.88
verification_status: applied
tags: [research, qualitative, hci, ux, anthropology]
raw_sources: []
last_reinforced: 2026-04-20
last_reinforced: 2026-05-10
github_commit: pending
inferred_by: Claude Opus 4.7 (auto-normalize 2026-05-08)
tech_stack:
language: Python
framework: Dovetail, Otter.ai, NVivo, ATLAS.ti
---
# [[Ethnographic-Research|Ethnographic-Research]]
# Ethnographic Research
## 📌 한 줄 통찰 (The Karpathy Summary)
> "삶 속으로의 잠입: 설문조사나 인터뷰 데이터가 말해주지 않는 사용자의 '진짜 행동'을 발견하기 위해, 그들의 실제 일상 속에 들어가 자연스러운 맥락(Context)을 관찰하고 숨겨진 요구를 포착하는 리서치의 정수."
## 한 줄
> **"매 people-in-context 의 deep, in-situ, often-long observational study"**. Malinowski (Trobriand 1922), Geertz "thick description" (1973) → 매 industry: Xerox PARC (Suchman 1980s) → 매 modern UX/HCI/Product 의 staple. 매 "what people **say** vs what people **do**" 의 gap 의 reveal 의 가장 강력한 method.
## 📖 구조화된 지식 (Synthesized Content)
민속지학적 리서치(Ethnographic-Research)는 인류학에서 유래한 방법론으로, 특정 그룹의 문화와 행동을 그들이 활동하는 실제 환경에서 직접 관찰하고 참여하여 깊이 있게 이해하는 질적 연구 방법입니다.
## 매 핵심
1. **핵심 기법**:
* **Participant Observation**: 연구자가 커뮤니티의 일원이 되어 생활하며 관찰.
* **In-situ Interviews**: 행동이 일어나는 현장에서 즉석 질문 수행.
* **Shadowing**: 사용자의 하루 일과를 그대로 따라다니며 페인 포인트(Pain point) 기록. ([[Customer-Journey-Mapping|Customer-Journey-Mapping]]와 연결)
2. **왜 중요한가?**:
* 사용자 자신도 인지하지 못했던 '당연한 불편함'을 발견하여, 기존 시장에 없던 파괴적 혁신 제품 정책(Blue ocean)의 단초를 제공하기 때문임. ([[Innovation|Innovation]]와 연결)
### 매 vs neighbors
- **Survey/usability test**: 매 controlled / artificial / "say".
- **Interview**: 매 retrospective / "say".
- **Ethnography**: 매 in-situ / longitudinal / "do" + meaning.
- **Contextual Inquiry** (Beyer & Holtzblatt 1998): 매 industry-condensed ethnography (12 hr in real workplace).
- **Diary study**: 매 self-report longitudinal.
- **Auto-ethnography**: 매 researcher = subject.
## ⚠️ 모순 및 업데이트 (Contradictions & Updates)
- **과거 데이터와의 충돌**: 과거에는 오프라인 오지 탐험 정책 위주였으나, 현대 정책은 커뮤니티 활동 로그, SNS 포스팅 등을 분석하는 '디지털 에스노그라피(Netnography) 정책'으로 진화함(RL Update).
- **정책 변화(RL Update)**: 이제는 단순 관찰 정책을 넘어, AI 가 수억 명의 디지털 활동 궤적 정책을 분석하여 거시적인 문화적 흐름 정책을 민속지학적으로 해석해 주는 'Computational Ethnography 정책'이 부상 중임. ([[Text-Mining|Text-Mining]]와 연결)
### 매 process (Spradley DRS / 12-step adapted)
1. **Locate setting** (gatekeeper, access, ethics/IRB).
2. **Participant observation** (4 modes: complete observer → complete participant).
3. **Field notes** (jottings → expanded → analytic memos).
4. **Domain analysis** (cultural categories).
5. **Taxonomic analysis** (relations within domain).
6. **Componential analysis** (attributes / contrasts).
7. **Theme synthesis** (cross-domain patterns).
8. **Member checks** (validate with participants).
9. **Thick description write-up**.
## 🔗 지식 연결 (Graph)
- [[Customer-Journey-Mapping|Customer-Journey-Mapping]], [[Innovation|Innovation]], [[Text-Mining|Text-Mining]], [[Research-Methodology|Research-Methodology]], [[Continuous-Discovery|Continuous-Discovery]], UX-Design-and-Engagement
- **Key [[goal|goal]]**: Emic perspective (내부자의 시각).
---
### 매 typical artifacts
- Field notes (jotted + expanded), photo / video / audio (with consent), artifacts collected, journey maps, persona-from-data, JTBD jobs.
## 🤖 LLM 활용 힌트 (How to Use This Knowledge)
## 💻 패턴
**언제 이 지식을 쓰는가:**
- *(TODO)*
### Field-note template (Markdown)
```markdown
# Field Note — 2026-05-10 — site:Hospital ER, observer:RP
## Setting
- 14:0017:00, Triage desk, 3 nurses, ~40 patients.
## Activities (chronological)
- 14:03 nurse A swivels between EHR (slow) + paper backup …
## Verbatim quotes
- "I never trust the system after a shift change." — Nurse A, 14:22
## Surprises / breakdowns
- EHR auto-logout at 5 min idle → workaround = mouse jiggler.
## Analytic memo
- Domain: trust in tools. Hypothesis: short timeout drives shadow IT.
## Next steps
- Interview Nurse B; check audit logs for jiggler signatures.
```
**언제 쓰면 안 되는가:**
- *(TODO)*
### Coding qualitative data (open + axial, in Python)
```python
import pandas as pd
notes = pd.read_csv("interviews.csv") # cols: pid, turn, text
codes = {
"trust-tool": ["never trust", "doesn't work", "I just write it down"],
"workaround": ["mouse jiggler", "shared password", "screenshot"],
"time-pressure":["no time", "rushing", "back-to-back"],
}
def code(t):
return [c for c, kws in codes.items() if any(k in t.lower() for k in kws)]
notes["codes"] = notes.text.apply(code)
notes.explode("codes").groupby("codes").size().sort_values(ascending=False)
```
## 🧪 검증 상태 (Validation)
### Affinity diagram digitization (Miro-style → DataFrame)
```python
import pandas as pd
stickies = pd.DataFrame({
"note": ["EHR logout 5 min", "Paper backup chart", "Phone snapshots", ...],
"cluster": ["timeouts", "shadow records", "shadow records", ...]
})
clusters = stickies.groupby("cluster")["note"].apply(list)
```
- **정보 상태:** needs_review
- **출처 신뢰도:** A
- **검토 이유:** *(P-Reinforce Phase 1 자동 정규화. 본문 검증 필요.)*
### Journey-map dataclass
```python
from dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import List
@dataclass
class Step:
actor: str; action: str; tool: str; emotion: str; pain: str
journey: List[Step] = [
Step("nurse", "log in", "EHR", "neutral", "5-min timeout"),
Step("nurse", "triage", "paper+EHR", "stress", "duplicate entry"),
]
```
## 🧬 중복 검사 (Duplicate Check)
### LLM-assisted thematic analysis (with caching)
```python
import anthropic
client = anthropic.Anthropic()
def themes(transcript: str) -> str:
return client.messages.create(
model="claude-opus-4-7",
max_tokens=1500,
system=[{"type":"text","text":"You are a senior qualitative researcher."
,"cache_control":{"type":"ephemeral"}}],
messages=[{"role":"user","content":
f"Identify 3-7 emergent themes (open-coding style) with quote evidence.\n\n{transcript}"}]
).content[0].text
```
- **기존 유사 문서:** *(TODO: 인덱서 클러스터 리포트 참조)*
- **처리 방식:** UPDATE (자동 정규화)
- **처리 이유:** Phase 1 정규화 — 옛 템플릿/누락 필드 보강.
### Dovetail-style consent + redaction
```python
import re
def redact_pii(s: str) -> str:
s = re.sub(r"\b\d{3}-\d{2}-\d{4}\b", "[SSN]", s)
s = re.sub(r"\b[\w.+-]+@[\w-]+\.[\w.-]+\b", "[EMAIL]", s)
return s
```
## 🕓 변경 이력 (Changelog)
## 매 결정 기준
| 상황 | Approach |
|---|---|
| Need rich context, hidden practice | **Full ethnography (weeksmonths)** |
| Industry, tight timeline | **Rapid / focused ethnography (days)** |
| Workplace tool design | **Contextual Inquiry** |
| Distributed / remote users | **Diary study + remote shadowing** |
| Sensitive populations | **Auto-ethnography or co-design** |
| Quantify after | **Mixed methods: ethnography → survey → A/B** |
| 날짜 | 변경 내용 | 처리 방식 | 신뢰도 |
|------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| 2026-05-08 | P-Reinforce Phase 1 정규화 (frontmatter + 헤더 표준화) | UPDATE | A |
**기본값**: 매 product discovery 의 **5-7 contextual inquiries (90 min each)** + open coding + affinity diagram.
## 🔗 Graph
- 부모: [[Qualitative-Research]] · [[Anthropology]] · [[HCI]]
- 변형: [[Contextual-Inquiry]] · [[Diary-Study]] · [[Auto-Ethnography]] · [[Digital-Ethnography]] · [[Netnography]]
- 응용: [[UX-Research]] · [[Product-Discovery]] · [[Service-Design]] · [[Jobs-To-Be-Done]]
- Adjacent: [[Grounded-Theory]] · [[Thematic-Analysis]] · [[Persona]] · [[Journey-Map]] · [[Thick-Description]]
## 🤖 LLM 활용
**언제**: 매 transcript 의 first-pass open coding, 매 affinity cluster 의 candidate, 매 quote retrieval, 매 persona drafting.
**언제 X**: 매 final theme 의 sole arbiter (매 researcher judgment 필수), 매 sensitive raw data 의 unconsented external API call.
## ❌ 안티패턴
- **"Asking" 만 하기**: 매 ethnography 의 essence = observing, not interviewing alone.
- **One-shot 1-hour visit + claim "ethnography"**: 매 contextual inquiry 라고 부르는 의 정직.
- **No reflexivity**: 매 observer effect / bias 의 acknowledged 없으면 매 weak.
- **Confirmation bias coding**: 매 second coder + inter-rater reliability (Cohen's κ) 의 add.
- **Thin description**: 매 "users were frustrated" — 매 thick description 의 absent (no actor, action, meaning).
- **Skip consent / IRB**: 매 ethical 의 mandatory.
## 🧪 검증 / 중복
- Verified (Malinowski 1922; Geertz 1973; Spradley 1979/1980; Beyer & Holtzblatt *Contextual Design* 1998; Kuniavsky *Observing the User Experience* 2nd ed.).
- 신뢰도 A.
## 🕓 Changelog
| 날짜 | 변경 |
|---|---|
| 2026-05-08 | Phase 1 placeholder |
| 2026-05-10 | Manual cleanup — Spradley process + 6 patterns + LLM coding |