field work research method

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case AskWhy Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

What is Field Research: Definition, Methods, Examples and Advantages

What is Field Research?

Field research is defined as a qualitative method of data collection that aims to observe, interact and understand people while they are in a natural environment. For example, nature conservationists observe behavior of animals in their natural surroundings and the way they react to certain scenarios. In the same way, social scientists conducting field research may conduct interviews or observe people from a distance to understand how they behave in a social environment and how they react to situations around them.

Learn more about: Market Research

Field research encompasses a diverse range of social research methods including direct observation, limited participation, analysis of documents and other information, informal interviews, surveys etc. Although field research is generally characterized as qualitative research, it often involves multiple aspects of quantitative research in it.

Field research typically begins in a specific setting although the end objective of the study is to observe and analyze the specific behavior of a subject in that setting. The cause and effect of a certain behavior, though, is tough to analyze due to presence of multiple variables in a natural environment. Most of the data collection is based not entirely on cause and effect but mostly on correlation. While field research looks for correlation, the small sample size makes it difficult to establish a causal relationship between two or more variables.

LEARN ABOUT: Best Data Collection Tools

Methods of Field Research

Field research is typically conducted in 5 distinctive methods. They are:

• Direct Observation

In this method, the data is collected via an observational method or subjects in a natural environment. In this method, the behavior or outcome of situation is not interfered in any way by the researcher. The advantage of direct observation is that it offers contextual data on people management , situations, interactions and the surroundings. This method of field research is widely used in a public setting or environment but not in a private environment as it raises an ethical dilemma.

• Participant Observation

In this method of field research, the researcher is deeply involved in the research process, not just purely as an observer, but also as a participant. This method too is conducted in a natural environment but the only difference is the researcher gets involved in the discussions and can mould the direction of the discussions. In this method, researchers live in a comfortable environment with the participants of the research design , to make them comfortable and open up to in-depth discussions.

• Ethnography

Ethnography is an expanded observation of social research and social perspective and the cultural values of an  entire social setting. In ethnography, entire communities are observed objectively. For example,  if a researcher would like to understand how an Amazon tribe lives their life and operates, he/she may chose to observe them or live amongst them and silently observe their day-to-day behavior.

LEARN ABOUT: Behavioral Targeting

• Qualitative Interviews

Qualitative interviews are close-ended questions that are asked directly to the research subjects. The qualitative interviews could be either informal and conversational, semi-structured, standardized and open-ended or a mix of all the above three. This provides a wealth of data to the researcher that they can sort through. This also helps collect relational data. This method of field research can use a mix of one-on-one interviews, focus groups and text analysis .

LEARN ABOUT: Qualitative Interview

A case study research is an in-depth analysis of a person, situation or event. This method may look difficult to operate, however, it is one of the simplest ways of conducting research as it involves a deep dive and thorough understanding the data collection methods and inferring the data.

Steps in Conducting Field Research

Due to the nature of field research, the magnitude of timelines and costs involved, field research can be very tough to plan, implement and measure. Some basic steps in the management of field research are:

• Build the Right Team: To be able to conduct field research, having the right team is important. The role of the researcher and any ancillary team members is very important and defining the tasks they have to carry out with defined relevant milestones is important. It is important that the upper management too is vested in the field research for its success.
• Recruiting People for the Study: The success of the field research depends on the people that the study is being conducted on. Using sampling methods , it is important to derive the people that will be a part of the study.
• Data Collection Methodology: As spoken in length about above, data collection methods for field research are varied. They could be a mix of surveys, interviews, case studies and observation. All these methods have to be chalked out and the milestones for each method too have to be chalked out at the outset. For example, in the case of a survey, the survey design is important that it is created and tested even before the research begins.
• Site Visit: A site visit is important to the success of the field research and it is always conducted outside of traditional locations and in the actual natural environment of the respondent/s. Hence, planning a site visit alongwith the methods of data collection is important.
• Data Analysis: Analysis of the data that is collected is important to validate the premise of the field research and  decide the outcome of the field research.
• Communicating Results: Once the data is analyzed, it is important to communicate the results to the stakeholders of the research so that it could be actioned upon.

LEARN ABOUT: Research Process Steps

Field Research Notes

Keeping an ethnographic record is very important in conducting field research. Field notes make up one of the most important aspects of the ethnographic record. The process of field notes begins as the researcher is involved in the observational research process that is to be written down later.

Types of Field Research Notes

The four different kinds of field notes are:

• Job Notes: This method of taking notes is while the researcher is in the study. This could be in close proximity and in open sight with the subject in study. The notes here are short, concise and in condensed form that can be built on by the researcher later. Most researchers do not prefer this method though due to the fear of feeling that the respondent may not take them seriously.
• Field Notes Proper: These notes are to be expanded on immediately after the completion of events. The notes have to be detailed and the words have to be as close to possible as the subject being studied.
• Methodological Notes: These notes contain methods on the research methods used by the researcher, any new proposed research methods and the way to monitor their progress. Methodological notes can be kept with field notes or filed separately but they find their way to the end report of a study.
• Journals and Diaries: This method of field notes is an insight into the life of the researcher. This tracks all aspects of the researchers life and helps eliminate the Halo effect or any research bias that may have cropped up during the field research.

LEARN ABOUT: Causal Research

Reasons to Conduct Field Research

Field research has been commonly used in the 20th century in the social sciences. But in general, it takes a lot of time to conduct and complete, is expensive and in a lot of cases invasive. So why then is this commonly used and is preferred by researchers to validate data? We look at 4 major reasons:

• Overcoming lack of data: Field research resolves the major issue of gaps in data. Very often, there is limited to no data about a topic in study, especially in a specific environment analysis . The research problem might be known or suspected but there is no way to validate this without primary research and data. Conducting field research helps not only plug-in gaps in data but collect supporting material and hence is a preferred research method of researchers.
• Understanding context of the study: In many cases, the data collected is adequate but field research is still conducted. This helps gain insight into the existing data. For example, if the data states that horses from a stable farm generally win races because the horses are pedigreed and the stable owner hires the best jockeys. But conducting field research can throw light into other factors that influence the success like quality of fodder and care provided and conducive weather conditions.
• Increasing the quality of data: Since this research method uses more than one tool to collect data, the data is of higher quality. Inferences can be made from the data collected and can be statistically analyzed via the triangulation of data.
• Collecting ancillary data: Field research puts the researchers in a position of localized thinking which opens them new lines of thinking. This can help collect data that the study didn’t account to collect.

LEARN ABOUT: Behavioral Research

Examples of Field Research

Some examples of field research are:

• Decipher social metrics in a slum Purely by using observational methods and in-depth interviews, researchers can be part of a community to understand the social metrics and social hierarchy of a slum. This study can also understand the financial independence and day-to-day operational nuances of a slum. The analysis of this data can provide an insight into how different a slum is from structured societies.
• U nderstand the impact of sports on a child’s development This method of field research takes multiple years to conduct and the sample size can be very large. The data analysis of this research provides insights into how the kids of different geographical locations and backgrounds respond to sports and the impact of sports on their all round development.
• Study animal migration patterns Field research is used extensively to study flora and fauna. A major use case is scientists monitoring and studying animal migration patterns with the change of seasons. Field research helps collect data across years and that helps draw conclusions about how to safely expedite the safe passage of animals.

LEARN ABOUT:  Social Communication Questionnaire

Advantages of Field Research

The advantages of field research are:

• It is conducted in a real-world and natural environment where there is no tampering of variables and the environment is not doctored.
• Due to the study being conducted in a comfortable environment, data can be collected even about ancillary topics.
• The researcher gains a deep understanding into the research subjects due to the proximity to them and hence the research is extensive, thorough and accurate.

Disadvantages of Field Research

The disadvantages of field research are:

• The studies are expensive and time-consuming and can take years to complete.
• It is very difficult for the researcher to distance themselves from a bias in the research study.
• The notes have to be exactly what the researcher says but the nomenclature is very tough to follow.
• It is an interpretive method and this is subjective and entirely dependent on the ability of the researcher.
• In this method, it is impossible to control external variables and this constantly alters the nature of the research.

LEARN ABOUT: 12 Best Tools for Researchers

MORE LIKE THIS

Experimental vs Observational Studies: Differences & Examples

Sep 5, 2024

Interactive Forms: Key Features, Benefits, Uses + Design Tips

Sep 4, 2024

Closed-Loop Management: The Key to Customer Centricity

Sep 3, 2024

Net Trust Score: Tool for Measuring Trust in Organization

Sep 2, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

What is Field Research? Definition, Types, Methods, Examples

Appinio Research · 05.04.2024 · 30min read

Have you ever wondered how researchers gather data about real-life situations, behaviors, and interactions? Field research holds the answer. Field research is like stepping into the world around us to study things as they naturally happen. It's about going beyond the confines of a lab or a controlled environment to observe, interact with, and collect data from people, communities, or natural settings. Whether it's understanding how people make decisions, studying the behavior of animals in their habitats, or exploring cultural practices in different societies, field research offers a window into the complexities of our world. It's a hands-on approach that allows you to immerse yourself in the context you're studying, gaining firsthand insights and uncovering patterns that might not be apparent in artificial settings. From interviewing participants to conducting observations and surveys, field researchers employ a variety of techniques to capture the richness and diversity of human experiences and natural phenomena. In this guide, we'll explore the ins and outs of field research, from its importance and applications to practical tips for planning, conducting, and analyzing field studies.

What is Field Research?

Field research is a qualitative data collection method that involves studying phenomena in their natural settings. Unlike laboratory experiments or simulations, field research takes place in real-world environments, allowing you to observe, interact with, and gather data from participants or phenomena as they naturally occur. This approach enables researchers to gain firsthand insights into complex social, behavioral, or environmental dynamics, providing rich and contextually embedded data for analysis and interpretation.

Importance of Field Research

Field research plays a crucial role in various disciplines and industries, serving as a cornerstone for generating new knowledge, understanding real-world phenomena, and informing decision-making and practice.

Here is why field research is important:

• Contextual Understanding:  Field research allows researchers to study phenomena in their natural contexts, providing a nuanced understanding of the social, cultural, and environmental factors that shape behavior, attitudes, and experiences. By immersing themselves in the field, you can capture the intricacies and complexities of real-life situations that may not be apparent in controlled laboratory settings.
• Insights into Human Behavior:  Field research provides valuable insights into human behavior, interactions, and relationships in diverse contexts. By observing and interacting with participants in their natural environments, researchers can uncover patterns, motivations, and social dynamics that influence individual and group behaviors. This understanding is essential for addressing societal challenges, designing interventions, and improving policy and practice.
• Generating Grounded Theory:  Field research often serves as the foundation for grounded theory development, where theoretical frameworks and hypotheses emerge from empirical observations and data analysis. By systematically collecting and analyzing data from the field, you can generate new theories, concepts, or models that are grounded in real-world phenomena and have practical relevance and applicability.
• Validating and Supplementing Existing Knowledge:  Field research provides an opportunity to validate or supplement existing knowledge derived from laboratory studies, surveys, or secondary data sources. By corroborating findings across different methods and contexts, you can enhance the credibility and robustness of their conclusions and contribute to the accumulation of knowledge in their respective fields.
• Informing Policy and Practice:  Field research findings have direct implications for policy development, program planning, and practice in various sectors such as healthcare, education, social services, and environmental management . By generating evidence-based insights and recommendations, field research can inform decision-making processes, guide resource allocation, and improve the effectiveness and relevance of interventions and policies.

Field research offers a unique opportunity to explore, understand, and address real-world phenomena in their natural contexts. By embracing the complexities and nuances of the field, researchers can generate valuable insights, advance theoretical understanding, and make meaningful contributions to scholarship, practice, and society at large.

How to Prepare for Field Research?

Laying the groundwork for your research journey is crucial before diving into the field. This involves a series of preparatory steps aimed at ensuring clarity, focus, and feasibility in your approach.

1. Define Research Objectives

Your research objectives serve as the guiding light throughout your field research endeavor. They delineate the purpose of your study and provide a clear direction for your investigative efforts. When defining your objectives, consider the overarching goals you aim to achieve and the specific outcomes you hope to attain through your research. Whether it's understanding a particular phenomenon, exploring a societal issue, or testing a theoretical proposition, articulate your objectives with precision and clarity.

2. Choose a Research Topic

Selecting the right research topic is paramount to the success of your field research project. Your topic should be aligned with your interests, expertise, and the broader context of your field of study. Consider the relevance, novelty, and significance of potential topics, and choose one that resonates with your intellectual curiosity and research goals. Additionally, ensure that your chosen topic is feasible within the constraints of time, resources, and access to data or participants.

3. Develop Research Questions

Research questions serve as the compass that guides your inquiry and shapes the trajectory of your research journey. These questions should be framed in a way that allows for systematic investigation and exploration of the phenomenon under study. When developing your research questions, strive for clarity, specificity, and relevance to your chosen topic. Consider the scope of inquiry, the level of detail required, and the potential implications of your questions for theory, practice, or policy.

4. Formulate Hypotheses

Hypotheses provide a framework for hypothesis-driven research, allowing you to make predictions about the relationships or patterns you expect to observe in your data. If your research is hypothesis-driven, formulate clear and testable hypotheses that articulate the expected outcomes or associations based on existing theory or empirical evidence. Ensure your hypotheses are falsifiable, meaning they can be rigorously tested and potentially disproven through empirical investigation.

5. Review Existing Literature

Before venturing into the field, take the time to immerse yourself in the existing literature relevant to your research topic. A comprehensive literature review not only provides valuable insights into the current state of knowledge but also helps you identify gaps, contradictions, or areas needing further exploration. Synthesize and critically evaluate the findings, theories, and methodologies presented in the literature, and use this knowledge to inform your own research design , questions, and hypotheses.

6. Secure Necessary Permissions and Resources

Obtaining the requisite permissions and resources is essential for the smooth execution of your field research project. Depending on the nature of your study, you may need to seek ethical approval from institutional review boards or obtain permits for conducting research in specific locations or with certain populations.

Additionally, ensure you have access to the necessary resources, such as funding, equipment, transportation, and logistical support, to carry out your research effectively. Be proactive in addressing potential challenges or barriers that may arise during the planning phase, and seek guidance or assistance as needed to navigate the regulatory and logistical requirements of your research endeavor.

How to Plan Field Research?

As you transition from the preparatory phase to the implementation stage, meticulous planning becomes essential to ensure the success and efficiency of your field research endeavors. Let's delve into the key components of planning field research, from selecting appropriate methodologies to anticipating and mitigating potential challenges.

1. Select Suitable Research Methods

Choosing the proper research methods is pivotal to the success of your field research project. Your research objectives, questions, and the nature of the phenomenon under investigation should guide the selection process. Consider the strengths and limitations of various research methodologies, such as qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods approaches, and choose the one that best aligns with your research goals. Factors to consider include:

• The level of depth and detail required.
• The type of data you aim to collect.
• The accessibility of research participants or sites.

Be prepared to adapt and refine your chosen methods as you gain insights and experience in the field.

2. Design Research Instruments

Once you've identified your research methods, the next step is to design the instruments or tools you'll use to collect data. Whether it's interview guides, survey questionnaires , observation protocols, or experimental materials , your research instruments should be meticulously crafted to elicit relevant and reliable information from your participants.

Pay attention to the clarity, comprehensiveness, and validity of your instruments, ensuring that they align with your research objectives and are appropriate for your target population or context. Pilot testing your instruments with a small sample of participants can help identify and address any ambiguities or issues before full-scale implementation.

3. Determine Sampling Techniques

Sampling is a critical aspect of field research, influencing the representativeness and generalizability of your findings. There are various sampling techniques available, each suited to different research designs and objectives. Consider factors such as the size and diversity of your target population, the accessibility of potential participants, and the level of precision required for your study.

Standard sampling techniques include probability sampling methods like simple random sampling, stratified sampling , or cluster sampling , as well as non-probability sampling methods like convenience sampling, purposive sampling, or snowball sampling. Choose the sampling technique that best balances practical considerations with the need for valid and reliable data.

4. Create a Research Schedule

Developing a well-structured research schedule is essential for keeping your field research project on track and ensuring you meet your deadlines and milestones. Start by breaking down your research activities into manageable tasks and allocating timeframes for each stage of the process, from pre-fieldwork preparation to data analysis and reporting.

• Be realistic in your estimations and build in buffer time for unexpected delays or challenges that may arise during fieldwork.
• Consider factors such as seasonal variations, logistical constraints, and the availability of participants when scheduling your research activities.
• Regularly review and update your schedule as needed to accommodate changes or revisions to your plans.

5. Identify Potential Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

Field research is inherently unpredictable, and you're likely to encounter various challenges and obstacles along the way. Anticipating these challenges proactively and developing mitigation strategies can help minimize their impact on your research outcomes. Common challenges in field research include logistical issues, recruitment difficulties, ethical dilemmas, and interpersonal conflicts.

Take the time to identify potential risks and vulnerabilities inherent in your research design and context, and develop contingency plans or alternative courses of action to address them. Collaborate with peers, mentors, or experienced researchers to brainstorm solutions and draw on their insights and expertise. By being prepared and adaptable, you can navigate the complexities of field research with confidence and resilience.

How to Conduct Field Research?

Now that you've laid the groundwork and meticulously planned your field research project, it's time to roll up your sleeves and immerse yourself in the field.

Data Collection Techniques

Data collection is the heart of field research, enabling you to gather firsthand insights and observations from the field. You can employ several techniques to collect data, depending on your research objectives, context, and the nature of your study.

• Observational Methods:  Direct observation involves systematically observing and documenting behaviors, interactions, or phenomena in natural settings without interfering or influencing the subjects. This method is particularly useful for studying social interactions, environmental dynamics, or animal behavior.
• Interviewing:   Interviews allow researchers to engage in structured, semi-structured, or unstructured conversations with participants to gather in-depth insights, perspectives, or experiences related to the research topic. Depending on logistical constraints and participant preferences, interviews can be conducted face-to-face, over the phone, or via digital platforms.
• Surveys and Questionnaires :  Surveys involve administering standardized questionnaires or surveys to a sample of respondents to collect quantitative data on their attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, or demographics. Surveys can be distributed in person, via mail, email, or online platforms, depending on the target population and accessibility.
• Focus Groups :  Focus groups bring together a small group of participants to engage in facilitated discussions or brainstorming sessions around specific topics or issues. This method allows you to explore group dynamics, consensus, or dissent among participants and generate rich qualitative data through interaction and dialogue.

Choose the data collection techniques that best align with your research objectives, methodology, and participants' preferences. Be mindful of ethical considerations, informed consent procedures, and the need to maintain confidentiality and privacy during data collection.

As you navigate the intricacies of data collection in your field research journey, imagine streamlining the process and gaining valuable insights in a fraction of the time. With Appinio 's intuitive platform, you can accelerate your research endeavors, transforming hours of data collection into minutes of actionable insights. Empower yourself to make informed decisions swiftly and seamlessly, all while embracing the dynamic nature of field research.   Ready to experience the efficiency of Appinio firsthand? Book a demo now and unlock the power of real-time data collection and research!

Book a Demo

Fieldwork Logistics

Effective management of fieldwork logistics is essential for the smooth execution of your research project and the well-being of both researchers and participants. This entails careful planning, coordination, and organization of various logistical aspects, including participant recruitment, site selection, equipment management, and safety protocols.

• Recruiting Participants:  Identify and recruit eligible participants using appropriate sampling techniques and recruitment strategies. Clearly communicate the purpose and expectations of the study, obtain informed consent, and address any concerns or questions raised by participants.
• Establishing Field Sites:  Select and secure suitable field sites or locations where data collection will take place. Consider factors such as accessibility, safety, privacy, and the relevance of the site to your research objectives. Obtain any necessary permits or permissions required for conducting research in specific locations.
• Managing Equipment and Supplies:  Ensure that you have all the necessary equipment, materials, and resources required for data collection, recording, and storage. This may include audio or video recording devices, notebooks, pens, measuring instruments, or digital devices for data entry.
• Ensuring Research Ethics and Safety:  Adhere to ethical principles and guidelines governing research with human subjects, animals, or sensitive environments. Prioritize participant welfare and safety by implementing appropriate risk management measures, emergency procedures, and protocols for handling sensitive or confidential information.

Regularly assess and reassess the logistical needs and challenges encountered during fieldwork, and be prepared to adapt and improvise as needed to overcome obstacles and ensure the successful completion of your research objectives.

Data Recording and Management

Accurate and systematic data recording is crucial for maintaining the integrity and reliability of your research findings. Establish clear protocols and procedures for recording, organizing, and managing your data throughout the fieldwork process.

• Data Recording:  Document observations, interviews, survey responses, or other forms of data systematically and consistently. Use standardized formats, codes, or identifiers to ensure uniformity and ease of analysis. Consider using digital tools or software for data collection and recording to streamline the process and minimize errors.
• Data Storage and Backup:  Store your data securely and responsibly to prevent loss, theft, or unauthorized access. Back up your data regularly using reliable storage devices or cloud-based platforms to safeguard against data loss or corruption. Implement encryption, password protection, or other security measures to protect sensitive or confidential information.
• Data Validation and Quality Control:  Conduct periodic checks and validations to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and validity of your data. Double-check entries, reconcile discrepancies, and address any outliers or inconsistencies identified during the data collection process. Maintain detailed documentation of any revisions or corrections made to the dataset.

By implementing robust data recording and management practices, you can enhance the reliability, transparency, and reproducibility of your research outcomes and facilitate the analysis and interpretation of your findings.

Field Research Examples

Field research plays a pivotal role in helping businesses understand their customers, market dynamics, and competitive landscape. Here are some examples of how field research can be applied in real-world scenarios.

Customer Observation and Ethnography

Imagine a retail company seeking to improve its store layout and enhance customers' shopping experience. By conducting field research through customer observation and ethnographic studies , researchers can immerse themselves in the retail environment, observing how customers navigate the store, interact with products , and make purchasing decisions.

Through careful observation and note-taking, you can uncover valuable insights into customer preferences, behaviors, and pain points, informing strategic decisions around product placement, signage, and store design.

In-Depth Interviews and Focus Groups

A tech startup developing a new mobile app wants to gather feedback from potential users to refine its features and user interface. Through in-depth interviews and focus groups conducted in the field, researchers can engage directly with target users, exploring their needs, preferences , and usage patterns.

Asking probing questions and facilitating group discussions can elicit rich qualitative insights into user experiences, pain points, and desired functionalities. This firsthand feedback can guide the iterative development process, ensuring that the app meets the needs and expectations of its intended audience.

Market Research and Competitive Analysis

A multinational corporation launching a new product in a foreign market conducts field research to assess market demand and understand local competitors. Researchers may conduct surveys, interviews, and market observations to gather data on consumer preferences, buying behavior, and competitor offerings.

By analyzing this data, the company can identify market opportunities, refine its marketing strategy, and tailor its product offerings to meet the specific needs and preferences of the target market . Field research also provides valuable insights into competitive positioning, allowing the company to differentiate itself and capitalize on its unique strengths.

User Testing and Usability Studies

A software development company wants to ensure that its website is user-friendly and intuitive for visitors. Through field research methods such as user testing and usability studies , researchers can observe real users interacting with the website in a naturalistic setting.

By monitoring users' actions, navigation patterns, and feedback, you can identify usability issues, areas of confusion, and opportunities for improvement. This iterative process of testing and refinement helps optimize the website's design and functionality, ultimately enhancing the user experience and driving customer satisfaction and loyalty.

Employee Feedback and Organizational Culture

A large corporation embarks on a field research initiative to better understand employee satisfaction, engagement, and organizational culture. Through surveys, focus groups, and participatory observation, researchers gather feedback from employees across different departments and hierarchical levels.

By exploring topics such as work-life balance, communication channels, and leadership effectiveness, you can identify areas of strength and areas for improvement within the organization. This insights-driven approach enables the company to implement targeted interventions, policies, and initiatives to foster a positive and inclusive work environment, ultimately enhancing employee morale, productivity, and retention.

In each of these examples, field research serves as a valuable tool for generating actionable insights, informing strategic decision-making, and driving business success. By embracing a hands-on, experiential approach to research, businesses can gain a competitive edge in today's dynamic and rapidly evolving marketplace.

How to Analyze Field Research Data?

Once you've collected data in the field, the next critical step is to analyze it to derive meaningful insights and draw conclusions.

1. Clean and Organize Data

Before delving into the analysis, it's essential to clean and organize your data to ensure its quality and integrity. Data cleaning involves identifying and rectifying errors, inconsistencies, or missing values in your dataset. Data cleaning tasks include:

• Removing Outliers:  Identify and remove any extreme or erroneous data points that may skew your analysis or distort your findings.
• Handling Missing Data:  Address missing values by imputing them using appropriate techniques such as mean imputation, regression imputation, or multiple imputation.
• Standardizing Variables:  Ensure consistency in measurement units, scales, or formats across variables to facilitate comparison and analysis.
• Checking for Data Entry Errors:  Review data entries for typos, duplicates, or other inaccuracies that may arise during data collection or recording.

Once the data cleaning process is complete, organize your dataset in a structured and systematic manner to facilitate analysis. Create variables, labels, or categories as needed, and document any transformations or manipulations applied to the data for transparency and reproducibility.

2. Apply Analytical Techniques

With a clean and organized dataset in hand, you can now apply analytical techniques to uncover patterns, relationships, or trends within the data. The choice of analytical techniques will depend on your research questions, objectives, and the nature of your data.

Analytical methods used in field research include:

• Descriptive Statistics :  Calculate measures of central tendency, variability, and distribution to summarize and describe your data.
• Inferential Statistics :  Use statistical tests such as t-tests , chi-square tests , regression analysis , or analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test hypotheses, compare groups, or examine relationships between variables.
• Qualitative Analysis:  Employ qualitative data analysis techniques such as thematic analysis , content analysis, or grounded theory to explore themes, patterns, or meanings embedded within textual or narrative data.
• Mixed Methods Analysis:  Integrate quantitative and qualitative data to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the research phenomenon through triangulation or data transformation techniques.

Chi-Square Calculator :

t-Test Calculator :

One-way ANOVA Calculator :

Select analytical techniques appropriate for your research design, data type, and research questions. Ensure your analyses are conducted rigorously and transparently, adhering to established standards and guidelines in your field.

3. Interpret Findings

Once the analysis is complete, it's time to interpret the findings and draw meaningful conclusions from your data. Interpretation involves making sense of the results in the context of your research objectives, theoretical framework, and empirical evidence.

• Contextualizing Results:  Situate your findings within the broader context of existing literature, theoretical perspectives, or real-world phenomena to provide meaningful insights and interpretations.
• Identifying Patterns and Trends:  Highlight recurring patterns, trends, or relationships observed in the data and discuss their implications for theory, practice, or policy.
• Exploring Alternative Explanations:  Consider alternative explanations or interpretations of the findings and discuss their potential implications for the validity and reliability of your conclusions.
• Addressing Unexpected Findings:  Acknowledge and address any unexpected or counterintuitive findings that may challenge existing assumptions or theories and offer plausible explanations or avenues for further exploration.

Communicate your interpretations clearly and concisely, using evidence from your data to support your claims and conclusions. Be transparent about the limitations and uncertainties inherent in your findings, and discuss their implications for future research or practice.

4. Address Limitations and Bias

No research study is without limitations or biases, and it's essential to acknowledge and address these shortcomings transparently. To address limitations and bias in your field research:

• Methodological Limitations:  Discuss any limitations or constraints inherent in your research design, sampling methods, or data collection techniques that may have influenced the validity or generalizability of your findings.
• Selection Bias :  Be mindful of selection bias, where certain groups or individuals are overrepresented or underrepresented in your sample, and consider its potential impact on the reliability and validity of your results.
• Social Desirability Bias:  Recognize the influence of social desirability bias, where participants may provide responses that are perceived as socially acceptable rather than truthful, and consider strategies to mitigate its effects.
• Researcher Bias:  Reflect on your own biases, assumptions, or preconceptions that may have influenced the research process or interpretation of findings, and strive for objectivity and reflexivity in your analysis and reporting.

By acknowledging and addressing limitations and biases transparently, you demonstrate intellectual honesty and integrity, and contribute to the credibility and robustness of your research outcomes.

How to Report Field Research Results?

Communicating your research findings effectively is essential for sharing your insights with the academic community, policymakers, practitioners, and other stakeholders. Here are some strategies for reporting and presenting your results:

• Structuring the Research Report:  Organize your research report in a clear and logical manner, following the conventions of academic writing. Include sections such as introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions. Each section should flow cohesively, guiding the reader through the research process from inception to conclusion.
• Writing Techniques and Guidelines:  Use clear, concise, and jargon-free language to convey your findings to a diverse audience. Structure your sentences and paragraphs logically, and use headings, subheadings, and bullet points to enhance readability. Pay attention to grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and adhere to the formatting style prescribed by your discipline or publication venue.
• Creating Visual Representations: Enhance your research report or presentation with visual representations such as tables, charts, graphs, heatmaps , or diagrams. Choose visual formats that effectively illustrate key findings or trends in your data. Ensure that your visuals are clear, accurate, and appropriately labeled, and provide a brief caption or explanation to contextualize the information presented.
• Preparing Presentations:  Design engaging and informative presentations highlighting your research's main findings and implications. Use slides, visuals, and storytelling techniques to capture your audience's attention and convey your message effectively. Structure your presentation logically, with a clear introduction, main body, and conclusion, and allow time for questions and discussion.
• Sharing Findings with Stakeholders:  Share your research findings with relevant stakeholders, including academic peers, policymakers, practitioners, or community members. Tailor your communication approach to the needs and preferences of your audience, and choose appropriate dissemination channels such as conferences, seminars, publications, or social media platforms. Invite feedback or collaboration whenever possible, and be open to engaging in dialogue and knowledge exchange with your audience.

Effective reporting and presentation of research results not only showcase the significance and impact of your work but also contribute to knowledge dissemination, collaboration, and informed decision-making in your field. Strive for clarity, coherence, and engagement in your communication efforts, and consider your audience's diverse needs and interests when crafting your messages.

Conclusion for Field Research

Field research is a powerful tool for gaining a deeper understanding of the world around us. By venturing into real-life settings, you can uncover valuable insights into human behavior, societal dynamics, and natural phenomena. Whether studying the behavior of animals in their natural habitats or exploring the intricacies of human interactions, field research offers a unique perspective that complements other research methods. By embracing the complexities and nuances of the field, researchers can generate knowledge that is grounded in real-world experiences and has practical implications for addressing pressing societal challenges. Furthermore, field research isn't just about collecting data—it's about making a difference. The i nsights gained from field studies can inform policy decisions, shape interventions, and drive positive change in communities and organizations . By sharing their findings with stakeholders, you can contribute to evidence-based decision-making and foster collaboration between academia, government, and civil society.

How to Conduct Research in Minutes?

Introducing Appinio , your gateway to lightning-fast market research within the realm of field research. As a real-time market research platform, Appinio revolutionizes how companies access consumer insights, empowering them to make swift, data-driven decisions. With Appinio, conducting your own market research becomes a breeze, eliminating the challenges typically associated with field research.

Here's why Appinio stands out:

• From questions to insights in minutes:  Say goodbye to lengthy research processes. With Appinio, you can gather crucial consumer insights in mere minutes, allowing you to keep pace with the dynamic business landscape.
• Intuitive platform for everyone:  No need for a PhD in research. Appinio's user-friendly interface makes it accessible to anyone, empowering you to delve into market research without the hassle of complex technicalities.
• Rapid response time:  With an average field time of less than 23 minutes for 1,000 respondents, Appinio ensures swift data collection without compromising quality or accuracy.

Get free access to the platform!

Join the loop 💌

Be the first to hear about new updates, product news, and data insights. We'll send it all straight to your inbox.

Get the latest market research news straight to your inbox! 💌

Wait, there's more

03.09.2024 | 3min read

Get your brand Holiday Ready: 4 Essential Steps to Smash your Q4

03.09.2024 | 8min read

Beyond Demographics: Psychographics power in target group identification

29.08.2024 | 32min read

What is Convenience Sampling? Definition, Method, Examples

A guide to field studies

Last updated

18 April 2023

Reviewed by

Cathy Heath

Short on time? Get an AI generated summary of this article instead

Field studies allow researchers to observe and collect data in real-world settings. Unlike laboratory-based or traditional research methods, field studies enable researchers to investigate complex phenomena within their environment, providing a deeper understanding of the research context.

Researchers can use field studies to investigate a wide range of subjects, from the behavior of animals to the practices of businesses or the experiences of individuals in a particular setting.

Make research less tedious

Dovetail streamlines research to help you uncover and share actionable insights

• What is a field study?

A field study is a research method that involves conducting observations and collecting data in a natural setting. This method includes observing, interviewing, and interacting with participants in their environment, such as a workplace, community, or natural habitat.

Field studies can take many forms, from ethnographic studies involving extended periods of observation and using an anthropological lens to shorter-term studies focusing on specific behaviors or events. Regardless of its form, a successful field study requires careful planning, preparation, and execution to ensure the data collected is valid and reliable.

• How to plan a field study

Planning a field study is a critical first step in ensuring successful research. Here are some steps to follow when preparing your field study:

1. Define your research question

When developing a good research question , you should make it clear, concise, and specific. It should also be open-ended, allowing for various possible answers rather than a simple yes or no response. Your research question should also be relevant to the broader field of study and contribute new knowledge to the existing literature.

Once you have a defined research question, identify the key variables you need to study and the data you need to collect. It might involve developing a hypothesis or research framework outlining the relationships between different variables and how you’ll measure them in your study.

2. Identify your research site

A research site is a location where you’ll conduct your study and collect data. Here are the types of research sites to consider when planning a field study:

Natural habitats: For environmental or ecological research, you may need to conduct your study in a natural habitat, such as a forest, wetland, or coral reef.

Communities : If your research relates to social or cultural factors, you may need to study a particular community, such as a neighborhood, village, or city.

Organizations : For questions relating to organizational behavior or management, your location will be in a business environment, like a nonprofit or government agency.

Events : If your research question relates to a particular event, you may need to conduct your study at that event, such as, at a protest, festival, or natural disaster.

Ensure your research site represents the population you're studying. For example, if you're exploring cultural beliefs, ensure the community represents the larger population and you have access to a diverse group of participants.

3. Determine your data collection methods

Choosing a suitable method will depend on the research question, the type of data needed, and the characteristics of the participants. Here are some commonly used data collection methods in field studies:

Interviews : You can collect data on people's experiences, perspectives, and attitudes. In some instances, you can use phone or online interviews.

Observations : This method involves watching and recording behaviors and interactions in a specific setting. 

Surveys : By using a survey , you can easily standardize and tailor the questions to provide answers for your research. Respondents can complete the survey in person, by mail, or online.

Document analysis : Organizational reports, letters, diaries, public records, policies, or social media posts can be analyzed to gain context. 

When selecting data collection methods, consider factors such as the availability of participants, the ethical considerations involved, and the resources needed to carry out each method. For example, conducting interviews may require more time and resources than administering a survey.

4. Obtain necessary permissions

Depending on the research location and the nature of the study, you may require permission from local authorities, organizations, or individuals before conducting your research. 

This process is vital when working with human or animal subjects and conducting research in sensitive or protected environments.

Here are some steps you can take to obtain the necessary permissions:

Identify the relevant authorities , including local governments, regulatory bodies, research institutions, or private organizations, to obtain permission for your research.

Reach out to the relevant authorities to explain the nature of your study. Be ready to hand out detailed information about your research. 

If you're conducting research with human participants, you must have their consent . You'll also need to ensure the participants have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

Obtain necessary permits from regulatory bodies or local authorities. For example, if you're conducting research in a protected area, you may need a research permit from the relevant government agency.

The process of obtaining permissions can be time-consuming, and failure to obtain the necessary permits can lead to legal and ethical issues.

• Examples of field research

Researchers can apply field research to a wide range of disciplines and phenomena. Here are some examples of field research in different fields:

Anthropology : Anthropologists use field research methods to study different communities' social and cultural practices. For instance, an anthropologist might conduct participant observation in a remote community to understand their customs, beliefs, and practices.

Ecology : Ecologists use field research methods to learn the behavior of organisms and their interactions with the environment. For example, an ecologist might conduct field research on the behavior of birds in their natural habitat to understand their feeding habits, nesting patterns, and migration.

Sociology : Sociologists may use field research methods to study social behavior and interactions. For instance, a sociologist might conduct participant observation in a workplace to understand organizational culture and communication dynamics.

Geography : Geographers use field research methods to study different regions’ physical and human contexts. For example, a geographer might conduct field research on the impact of climate change on a particular ecosystem, such as a forest or wetland.

Psychology : Psychologists use field research methods to study human behavior in natural settings. For instance, a psychologist might conduct field research on the effects of stress on students in a school setting.

Education : Researchers studying education may use field research methods to study teaching and learning in real-world settings. For example, you could use field research to test the effectiveness of a new teaching method in a classroom setting.

By using field research methods, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of the natural world, human behavior, and social interaction theory and how they affect each other.

• Advantages of field research

Field research has several advantages over other research methods, including:

Authenticity : Field research conducted in natural settings allows researchers to observe and study real-life phenomena as it happens. This authenticity enhances the validity and accuracy of the data collected.

Flexibility : Field research methods are flexible and adaptable to different research contexts. Researchers can adjust their strategies to meet the specific needs of their research questions and participants and uncover new insights as the research unfolds.

Rich data : Field research provides rich and detailed data, often including contextual information that’s difficult to capture through other research methods. This depth of knowledge allows for a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the research topic.

Novel insights : Field research can lead to discoveries that may not be possible with other research methods. Observing and studying phenomena in natural settings can provide unique perspectives and new understandings of complex issues.

Field research methods can enhance the quality and validity of research findings and lead to new insights and discoveries that may not be possible with other research methods.

• Disadvantages of field research

While field research has several advantages, there are also some disadvantages that researchers need to consider, including:

Time-consuming : Researchers need to spend time in the field, possibly weeks or months, which can be challenging, especially if the research site is remote or requires travel.

Cost : Conducting field research can be costly, especially if the research site is remote or requires specialized equipment or materials.

Reliance on participants : It may be challenging to recruit participants, and various factors, such as personal circumstances, attitudes, and beliefs, may influence their participation.

Ethical considerations : Field research may raise ethical concerns, mainly if the research involves vulnerable populations or sensitive topics. 

Causality: Researchers may have little control over the environmental or contextual variables they are studying. This can make it difficult to establish causality and then generalize their results with previous research. 

Researchers must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of field research and select the most appropriate research method based on their research question, participants, and context.

What is another name for field study?

Field study is also known as field research or fieldwork. These terms are often used interchangeably and refer to research methods that involve observing and collecting data in natural settings.

What is the difference between a field study and a case study?

Why is field study important.

Field study is critical because it allows researchers to study real-world phenomena in natural settings. This study can also lead to novel insights that may not be possible with other research methods.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 22 August 2024

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 August 2024

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 4 July 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

Child Care and Early Education Research Connections

Field research.

Field research is a qualitative method of research concerned with understanding and interpreting the social interactions of groups of people, communities, and society by observing and interacting with people in their natural settings. The methods of field research include: direct observation, participant observation, and qualitative interviews. Each of these methods is described here. Terms related to these and other topics in field research are defined in the  Research Glossary .

Direct Observation

Participant observation, qualitative interviews.

Direct observation  is a method of research where the researcher watches and records the activities of individuals or groups engaged in their daily activities. The observations may be unstructured or structured. Unstructured observations involve the researcher observing people and events and recording his/her observations as field notes. Observations are recorded holistically and without the aid of a predetermined guide or protocol. Structured observation, on the other hand, is a technique where a researcher observes people and events using a guide or set protocol that has been developed ahead of time.

Other features of direct observation include:

• The observer does not actively engage the subjects of the study in conversations or interviews, but instead strives to be unobtrusive and detached from the setting.
• Data collected through direct observation may include field notes, checklists and rating scales, documents, and photographs or video images.
• Direct observation is not necessarily an alternative to other types of field methods, such as participant observation or qualitative interviews. Rather, it may be an initial approach to understanding a setting, a group of individuals, or forms of behavior prior to interacting with members or developing interview protocols.
• Direct observation as a research method is most appropriate in open, public settings where anyone has a right to be or congregate. Conducting direct observation in private or closed settings -- without the knowledge or consent of members -- is more likely to raise ethical concerns.

Participant observation  is a field research method whereby the researcher develops an understanding of a group or setting by taking part in the everyday routines and rituals alongside its members. It was originally developed in the early 20th century by anthropologists researching native societies in developing countries. It is now the principal research method used by ethnographers -- specialists within the fields of anthropology and sociology who focus on recording the details of social life occurring in a setting, community, group, or society. The ethnographer, who often lives among the members for months or years, attempts to build trusting relationships so that he or she becomes part of the social setting. As the ethnographer gains the confidence and trust of the members, many will speak and behave in a natural manner in the presence of the ethnographer.

Data from participant observation studies can take several forms:

• Field notes are the primary type of data. The researcher takes notes of his/her observations and experiences and later develops them into detailed, formal field notes.
• Frequently, researchers keep a diary, which is often a more intimate, informal record of the happenings within the setting.
• The practice of participant observation, with its emphasis on developing relationships with members, often leads to both informal, conversational interviews and more formal, in-depth interviews. The data from these interviews can become part of field notes or may consist of separate interview transcripts.

There are a number of advantages and disadvantages to direct and participant observation studies. Here is a list of some of both. While the advantages and disadvantages apply to both types of studies, their impact and importance may not be the same across the two. For example, researchers engaged in both types of observation will develop a rich, deep understanding of the members of the group and the setting in which social interactions occur, but researchers engaged in participant observation research may gain an even deep understanding. And, participant observers have a greater chance of witnessing a wider range of behaviors and events than those engaged in direct observation.

Advantages of observation studies (observational research):

• Provide contextual data on settings, interactions, or individuals.
• A useful tool for generating hypotheses for further study.
• Source of data on events and phenomena that do not involve verbal interactions (e.g., mother-child nonverbal interactions and contact, physical settings where interactions occur).
• The researcher develops a rich, deep understanding of a setting and of the members within the setting.

Disadvantages of observation studies:

• Behaviors observed during direct observation may be unusual or atypical.
• Significant interactions and events may take place when observer is not present.
• Certain topics do not necessarily lend themselves to observation (e.g., attitudes, emotions, affection).
• Reliability of observations can be problematic, especially when multiple observers are involved.
• The researcher must devote a large amount of time (and resources).
• The researcher's objectivity may decline as he or she spends more time among the members of the group.
• The researcher may be faced with a dilemma of choosing between revealing and not revealing his or her identity as a researcher to the members of the group. If he or she introduces him/herself as a researcher, the members may behave differently than if they assume that he or she is just another participant. On the other hand, if the researcher does not, they may feel betrayed upon learning about the research.

Qualitative interviews  are a type of field research method that elicits information and data by directly asking questions of individuals. There are three primary types of qualitative interviews: informal (conversational), semi-structured, and standardized, open-ended. Each is described briefly below along with advantages and disadvantages.

Informal (Conversational) Interviews

• Frequently occur during participant observation or following direct observation.
• The researcher begins by conversing with a member of the group of interest. As the conversation unfolds, the researcher formulates specific questions, often spontaneously, and begins asking them informally.
• Appropriate when the researcher wants maximum flexibility to pursue topics and ideas as they emerge during the exchange

Advantages of informal interviewing:

• Allows the researcher to be responsive to individual differences and to capture emerging information.
• Information that is obtained is not constrained by a predetermined set of questions and/or response categories.
• Permits researcher to delve deeper into a topic and what key terms and constructs mean to study participants.

Disadvantages of informal interviewing:

• May generate less systematic data, which is difficult to classify and analyze.
• The researcher might not be able to capture everything that the interviewee is saying and therefore there is potential for important nuance or information to be lost. For example, the researcher might not have a tape recorder at that moment due to the spontaneous nature of these interviews.
• Quality of the information obtained depends on skills of the interviewer.

Semi-Structured Interviews

• Prior to the interview, a list of predetermined questions or probes, also known as an interview guide, is developed so that each interviewee will respond to a similar series of questions and topics.
• Questions are generally open-ended to elicit as much detail and meaning from the interviewee as possible.
• The researcher is free to pursue and probe other topics as they emerge during the interview.

Advantages of semi-structured interviewing:

• Systematically captures data across interviewees.
• The researcher is able to rephrase or explain questions to the interviewee to ensure that everyone understands the questions the same way and probe (follow-up) a response so that an individual's responses are fully explored.
• Interviewee is allowed the freedom to express his or her views in their own words.

Disadvantages of semi-structured interviewing:

• Does not offer as much flexibility to respond to new topics that unfold during the interview as the informal interview.
• Responses to questions that have been asked in slightly different ways can be more difficult to compare and analyze.
• Interviewer may unconsciously send signals about the types of answers that are expected.

Standardized, Open-Ended Interviews

• Similar to a survey since questions are carefully scripted and written prior to the interview, which serves to minimize variability in question wording and the way questions are asked.
• The researcher asks a uniform series of questions in the same order to each interviewee.
• The questions are open-ended to capture more details and individual differences across interviewees.
• Particularly appropriate for qualitative studies involving multiple interviewers.

Advantages of standardized interviewing:

• All questions are asked the same to each study participant. Data are comparable across interviewees.
• Reduces interviewer effects when several interviewers are used.
• Standardization helps to facilitate the processing and analysis of the data.

Disadvantages of standardized interviewing:

• Does not offer as much flexibility to respond to and probe new topics that unfold during the interview.
• Standardized wording of questions may limit the responses of those being interviewed.

Both standardized and semi-structured interviews involve formally recruiting participants and are typically tape-recorded. The researcher should begin with obtaining informed consent from the interviewee prior to starting the interview. Additionally, the researcher may write a separate field note to describe the interviewee's reactions to the interview, or events that occurred before or after the interview.

See the following for additional information about field research and qualitative research methods.

• Ethnography, Observational Research and Narrative Inquiry  (PDF)
• An Introduction to Qualitative Research  (PDF)

The content on this page was prepared by Jerry West. It was last updated March 2019.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Submit?
• About International Studies Review
• About the International Studies Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, what is fieldwork, purpose of fieldwork, physical safety, mental wellbeing and affect, ethical considerations, remote fieldwork, concluding thoughts, acknowledgments, funder information.

• < Previous

Field Research: A Graduate Student's Guide

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Ezgi Irgil, Anne-Kathrin Kreft, Myunghee Lee, Charmaine N Willis, Kelebogile Zvobgo, Field Research: A Graduate Student's Guide, International Studies Review , Volume 23, Issue 4, December 2021, Pages 1495–1517, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viab023

• Permissions Icon Permissions

What is field research? Is it just for qualitative scholars? Must it be done in a foreign country? How much time in the field is “enough”? A lack of disciplinary consensus on what constitutes “field research” or “fieldwork” has left graduate students in political science underinformed and thus underequipped to leverage site-intensive research to address issues of interest and urgency across the subfields. Uneven training in Ph.D. programs has also left early-career researchers underprepared for the logistics of fieldwork, from developing networks and effective sampling strategies to building respondents’ trust, and related issues of funding, physical safety, mental health, research ethics, and crisis response. Based on the experience of five junior scholars, this paper offers answers to questions that graduate students puzzle over, often without the benefit of others’ “lessons learned.” This practical guide engages theory and praxis, in support of an epistemologically and methodologically pluralistic discipline.

¿Qué es la investigación de campo? ¿Es solo para académicos cualitativos? ¿Debe realizarse en un país extranjero? ¿Cuánto tiempo en el terreno es “suficiente”? La falta de consenso disciplinario con respecto a qué constituye la “investigación de campo” o el “trabajo de campo” ha causado que los estudiantes de posgrado en ciencias políticas estén poco informados y, por lo tanto, capacitados de manera insuficiente para aprovechar la investigación exhaustiva en el sitio con el objetivo de abordar los asuntos urgentes y de interés en los subcampos. La capacitación desigual en los programas de doctorado también ha provocado que los investigadores en las primeras etapas de su carrera estén poco preparados para la logística del trabajo de campo, desde desarrollar redes y estrategias de muestreo efectivas hasta generar la confianza de las personas que facilitan la información, y las cuestiones relacionadas con la financiación, la seguridad física, la salud mental, la ética de la investigación y la respuesta a las situaciones de crisis. Con base en la experiencia de cinco académicos novatos, este artículo ofrece respuestas a las preguntas que desconciertan a los estudiantes de posgrado, a menudo, sin el beneficio de las “lecciones aprendidas” de otras personas. Esta guía práctica incluye teoría y praxis, en apoyo de una disciplina pluralista desde el punto de vista epistemológico y metodológico.

En quoi consiste la recherche de terain ? Est-elle uniquement réservée aux chercheurs qualitatifs ? Doit-elle être effectuée dans un pays étranger ? Combien de temps faut-il passer sur le terrain pour que ce soit « suffisant » ? Le manque de consensus disciplinaire sur ce qui constitue une « recherche de terrain » ou un « travail de terrain » a laissé les étudiants diplômés en sciences politiques sous-informés et donc sous-équipés pour tirer parti des recherches de terrain intensives afin d'aborder les questions d'intérêt et d'urgence dans les sous-domaines. L'inégalité de formation des programmes de doctorat a mené à une préparation insuffisante des chercheurs en début de carrière à la logistique du travail de terrain, qu'il s'agisse du développement de réseaux et de stratégies d’échantillonnage efficaces, de l'acquisition de la confiance des personnes interrogées ou des questions de financement, de sécurité physique, de santé mentale, d’éthique de recherche et de réponse aux crises qui y sont associées. Cet article s'appuie sur l'expérience de cinq jeunes chercheurs pour proposer des réponses aux questions que les étudiants diplômés se posent, souvent sans bénéficier des « enseignements tirés » par les autres. Ce guide pratique engage théorie et pratique en soutien à une discipline épistémologiquement et méthodologiquement pluraliste.

Days before embarking on her first field research trip, a Ph.D. student worries about whether she will be able to collect the qualitative data that she needs for her dissertation. Despite sending dozens of emails, she has received only a handful of responses to her interview requests. She wonders if she will be able to gain more traction in-country. Meanwhile, in the midst of drafting her thesis proposal, an M.A. student speculates about the feasibility of his project, given a modest budget. Thousands of miles away from home, a postdoc is concerned about their safety, as protests erupt outside their window and state security forces descend into the streets.

These anecdotes provide a small glimpse into the concerns of early-career researchers undertaking significant projects with a field research component. Many of these fieldwork-related concerns arise from an unfortunate shortage in curricular offerings for qualitative and mixed-method research in political science graduate programs ( Emmons and Moravcsik 2020 ), 1 as well as the scarcity of instructional materials for qualitative and mixed-method research, relative to those available for quantitative research ( Elman, Kapiszewski, and Kirilova 2015 ; Kapiszewski, MacLean, and Read 2015 ; Mosley 2013 ). A recent survey among the leading United States Political Science programs in Comparative Politics and International Relations found that among graduate students who have carried out international fieldwork, 62 percent had not received any formal fieldwork training and only 20 percent felt very or mostly prepared for their fieldwork ( Schwartz and Cronin-Furman 2020 , 7–8). This shortfall in training and instruction means that many young researchers are underprepared for the logistics of fieldwork, from developing networks and effective sampling strategies to building respondents’ trust. In addition, there is a notable lack of preparation around issues of funding, physical safety, mental health, research ethics, and crisis response. This is troubling, as field research is highly valued and, in some parts of the field, it is all but expected, for instance in comparative politics.

Beyond subfield-specific expectations, research that leverages multiple types of data and methods, including fieldwork, is one of the ways that scholars throughout the discipline can more fully answer questions of interest and urgency. Indeed, multimethod work, a critical means by which scholars can parse and evaluate causal pathways, is on the rise ( Weller and Barnes 2016 ). The growing appearance of multimethod research in leading journals and university presses makes adequate training and preparation all the more significant ( Seawright 2016 ; Nexon 2019 ).

We are five political scientists interested in providing graduate students and other early-career researchers helpful resources for field research that we lacked when we first began our work. Each of us has recently completed or will soon complete a Ph.D. at a United States or Swedish university, though we come from many different national backgrounds. We have conducted field research in our home countries and abroad. From Colombia and Guatemala to the United States, from Europe to Turkey, and throughout East and Southeast Asia, we have spanned the globe to investigate civil society activism and transitional justice in post-violence societies, conflict-related sexual violence, social movements, authoritarianism and contentious politics, and the everyday politics and interactions between refugees and host-country citizens.

While some of us have studied in departments that offer strong training in field research methods, most of us have had to self-teach, learning through trial and error. Some of us have also been fortunate to participate in short courses and workshops hosted by universities such as the Consortium for Qualitative Research Methods and interdisciplinary institutions such as the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Recognizing that these opportunities are not available to or feasible for all, and hoping to ease the concerns of our more junior colleagues, we decided to compile our experiences and recommendations for first-time field researchers.

Our experiences in the field differ in several key respects, from the time we spent in the field to the locations we visited, and how we conducted our research. The diversity of our experiences, we hope, will help us reach and assist the broadest possible swath of graduate students interested in field research. Some of us have spent as little as ten days in a given country or as much as several months, in some instances visiting a given field site location just once and in other instances returning several times. At times, we have been able to plan weeks and months in advance. Other times, we have quickly arranged focus groups and impromptu interviews. Other times still, we have completed interviews virtually, when research participants were in remote locations or when we ourselves were unable to travel, of note during the coronavirus pandemic. We have worked in countries where we are fluent or have professional proficiency in the language, and in countries where we have relied on interpreters. We have worked in settings with precarious security as well as in locations that feel as comfortable as home. Our guide is not intended to be prescriptive or exhaustive. What we offer is a set of experience-based suggestions to be implemented as deemed relevant and appropriate by the researcher and their advisor(s).

In terms of the types of research and data sources and collection, we have conducted archival research, interviews, focus groups, and ethnographies with diplomats, bureaucrats, military personnel, ex-combatants, civil society advocates, survivors of political violence, refugees, and ordinary citizens. We have grappled with ethical dilemmas, chief among them how to get useful data for our research projects in ways that exceed the minimal standards of human subjects’ research evaluation panels. Relatedly, we have contemplated how to use our platforms to give back to the individuals and communities who have so generously lent us their time and knowledge, and shared with us their personal and sometimes harrowing stories.

Our target audience is first and foremost graduate students and early-career researchers who are interested in possibly conducting fieldwork but who either (1) do not know the full potential or value of fieldwork, (2) know the potential and value of fieldwork but think that it is excessively cost-prohibitive or otherwise infeasible, or (3) who have the interest, the will, and the means but not necessarily the know-how. We also hope that this resource will be of value to graduate programs, as they endeavor to better support students interested in or already conducting field research. Further, we target instructional faculty and graduate advisors (and other institutional gatekeepers like journal and book reviewers), to show that fieldwork does not have to be year-long, to give just one example. Instead, the length of time spent in the field is a function of the aims and scope of a given project. We also seek to formalize and normalize the idea of remote field research, whether conducted because of security concerns in conflict zones, for instance, or because of health and safety concerns, like the Covid-19 pandemic. Accordingly, researchers in the field for shorter stints or who conduct fieldwork remotely should not be penalized.

We note that several excellent resources on fieldwork such as the bibliography compiled by Advancing Conflict Research (2020) catalogue an impressive list of articles addressing questions such as ethics, safety, mental health, reflexivity, and methods. Further resources can be found about the positionality of the researcher in the field while engaging vulnerable communities, such as in the research field of migration ( Jacobsen and Landau 2003 ; Carling, Bivand Erdal, and Ezzati 2014 ; Nowicka and Cieslik 2014 ; Zapata-Barrero and Yalaz 2019 ). However, little has been written beyond conflict-affected contexts, fragile settings, and vulnerable communities. Moreover, as we consulted different texts and resources, we found no comprehensive guide to fieldwork explicitly written with graduate students in mind. It is this gap that we aim to fill.

In this paper, we address five general categories of questions that graduate students puzzle over, often without the benefit of others’ “lessons learned.” First, What is field research? Is it just for qualitative scholars? Must it be conducted in a foreign country? How much time in the field is “enough”? Second, What is the purpose of fieldwork? When does it make sense to travel to a field site to collect data? How can fieldwork data be used? Third, What are the nuts and bolts? How does one get ready and how can one optimize limited time and financial resources? Fourth, How does one conduct fieldwork safely? What should a researcher do to keep themselves, research assistants, and research subjects safe? What measures should they take to protect their mental health? Fifth, How does one conduct ethical, beneficent field research?

Finally, the Covid-19 pandemic has impressed upon the discipline the volatility of research projects centered around in-person fieldwork. Lockdowns and closed borders left researchers sequestered at home and unable to travel, forced others to cut short any trips already begun, and unexpectedly confined others still to their fieldwork sites. Other factors that may necessitate a (spontaneous) readjustment of planned field research include natural disasters, a deteriorating security situation in the field site, researcher illness, and unexpected changes in personal circumstances. We, therefore, conclude with a section on the promise and potential pitfalls of remote (or virtual) fieldwork. Throughout this guide, we engage theory and praxis to support an epistemologically and methodologically pluralistic discipline.

The concept of “fieldwork” is not well defined in political science. While several symposia discuss the “nuts and bolts” of conducting research in the field within the pages of political science journals, few ever define it ( Ortbals and Rincker 2009 ; Hsueh, Jensenius, and Newsome 2014 ). Defining the concept of fieldwork is important because assumptions about what it is and what it is not underpin any suggestions for conducting it. A lack of disciplinary consensus about what constitutes “fieldwork,” we believe, explains the lack of a unified definition. Below, we discuss three areas of current disagreement about what “fieldwork” is, including the purpose of fieldwork, where it occurs, and how long it should be. We follow this by offering our definition of fieldwork.

First, we find that many in the discipline view fieldwork as squarely in the domain of qualitative research, whether interpretivist or positivist. However, field research can also serve quantitative projects—for example, by providing crucial context, supporting triangulation, or illustrating causal mechanisms. For instance, Kreft (2019) elaborated her theory of women's civil society mobilization in response to conflict-related sexual violence based on interviews she carried out in Colombia. She then examined cross-national patterns through statistical analysis. Conversely, Willis's research on the United States military in East Asia began with quantitative data collection and analysis of protest events before turning to fieldwork to understand why protests occurred in some instances but not others. Researchers can also find quantifiable data in the field that is otherwise unavailable to them at home ( Read 2006 ; Chambers-Ju 2014 ; Jensenius 2014 ). Accordingly, fieldwork is not in the domain of any particular epistemology or methodology as its purpose is to acquire data for further information.

Second, comparative politics and international relations scholars often opine that fieldwork requires leaving the country in which one's institution is based. Instead, we propose that what matters most is the nature of the research project, not the locale. For instance, some of us in the international relations subfield have interviewed representatives of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), whose headquarters are generally located in Global North countries. For someone pursuing a Ph.D. in the United States and writing on transnational advocacy networks, interviews with INGO representatives in New York certainly count as fieldwork ( Zvobgo 2020 ). Similarly, a graduate student who returns to her home country to interview refugees and native citizens is conducting a field study as much as a researcher for whom the context is wholly foreign. Such interviews can provide necessary insights and information that would not have been gained otherwise—one of the key reasons researchers conduct fieldwork in the first place. In other instances, conducting any in-person research is simply not possible, due to financial constraints, safety concerns, or other reasons. For example, the Covid-19 pandemic has forced many researchers to shift their face-to-face research plans to remote data collection, either over the phone or virtually ( Howlett 2021 , 2). For some research projects, gathering data through remote methods may yield the same if not similar information than in-person research ( Howlett 2021 , 3–4). As Howlett (2021 , 11) notes, digital platforms may offer researchers the ability to “embed ourselves in other contexts from a distance” and glimpse into our subjects’ lives in ways similar to in-person research. By adopting a broader definition of fieldwork, researchers can be more flexible in getting access to data sources and interacting with research subjects.

Third, there is a tendency, especially among comparativists, to only count fieldwork that spans the better part of a year; even “surgical strike” field research entails one to three months, according to some scholars ( Ortbals and Rincker 2009 ; Weiss, Hicken, and Kuhonta 2017 ). The emphasis on spending as much time as possible in the field is likely due to ethnographic research traditions, reflected in classics such as James Scott's Weapons of the Weak , which entail year-long stints of research. However, we suggest that the appropriate amount of time in the field should be assessed on a project-by-project basis. Some studies require the researcher to be in the field for long periods; others do not. For example, Willis's research on the discourse around the United States’ military presence in overseas host communities has required months in the field. By contrast, Kreft only needed ten days in New York to carry out interviews with diplomats and United Nations staff, in a context with which she already had some familiarity from a prior internship. Likewise, Zvobgo spent a couple of weeks in her field research sites, conducting interviews with directors and managers of prominent human rights nongovernmental organizations. This population is not so large as to require a whole month or even a few months. This has also been the case for Irgil, as she had spent one month in the field site conducting interviews with ordinary citizens. The goal of the project was to acquire information on citizens’ perceptions of refugees. As we discuss in the next section, when deciding how long to spend in the field, scholars must consider the information their project requires and consider the practicalities of fieldwork, notably cost.

Thus, we highlight three essential points in fieldwork and offer a definition accordingly: fieldwork involves acquiring information, using any set of appropriate data collection techniques, for qualitative, quantitative, or experimental analysis through embedded research whose location and duration is dependent on the project. We argue that adopting such a definition of “fieldwork” is necessary to include the multitude of forms fieldwork can take, including remote methods, whose value and challenges the Covid-19 pandemic has impressed upon the discipline.

When does a researcher need to conduct fieldwork? Fieldwork can be effective for (1) data collection, (2) theory building, and (3) theory testing. First, when a researcher is interested in a research topic, yet they could not find an available and/or reliable data source for the topic, fieldwork could provide the researcher with plenty of options. Some research agendas can require researchers to visit archives to review historical documents. For example, Greitens (2016) visited national archives in the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United States to find historical documents about the development of coercive institutions in past authoritarian governments for her book, Dictators and Their Secret Police . Also, newly declassified archival documents can open new possibilities for researchers to examine restricted topics. To illustrate, thanks to the newly released archival records of the Chinese Communist Party's communications, and exchange of visits with the European communist world, Sarotte (2012) was able to study the Party's decision to crack down on Tiananmen protesters, which had previously been deemed as an unstudiable topic due to the limited data.

Other research agendas can require researchers to conduct (semistructured) in-depth interviews to understand human behavior or a situation more closely, for example, by revealing the meanings of concepts for people and showing how people perceive the world. For example, O'Brien and Li (2005) conducted in-depth interviews with activists, elites, and villagers to understand how these actors interact with each other and what are the outcomes of the interaction in contentious movements in rural China. Through research, they revealed that protests have deeply influenced all these actors’ minds, a fact not directly observable without in-depth interviews.

Finally, data collection through fieldwork should not be confined to qualitative data ( Jensenius 2014 ). While some quantitative datasets can be easily compiled or accessed through use of the internet or contact with data-collection agencies, other datasets can only be built or obtained through relationships with “gatekeepers” such as government officials, and thus require researchers to visit the field ( Jensenius 2014 ). Researchers can even collect their own quantitative datasets by launching surveys or quantifying data contained in archives. In a nutshell, fieldwork will allow researchers to use different techniques to collect and access original/primary data sources, whether these are qualitative, quantitative, or experimental in nature, and regardless of the intended method of analysis. 2

But fieldwork is not just for data collection as such. Researchers can accomplish two other fundamental elements of the research process: theory building and theory testing. When a researcher finds a case where existing theories about a phenomenon do not provide plausible explanations, they can build a theory through fieldwork ( Geddes 2003 ). Lee's experience provides a good example. When studying the rise of a protest movement in South Korea for her dissertation, Lee applied commonly discussed social movement theories, grievances, political opportunity, resource mobilization, and repression, to explain the movement's eruption and found that these theories do not offer a convincing explanation for the protest movement. She then moved on to fieldwork and conducted interviews with the movement participants to understand their motivations. Finally, through those interviews, she offered an alternative theory that the protest participants’ collective identity shaped during the authoritarian past played a unifying factor and eventually led them to participate in the movement. Her example shows that theorization can take place through careful review and rigorous inference during fieldwork.

Moreover, researchers can test their theory through fieldwork. Quantitative observational data has limitations in revealing causal mechanisms ( Esarey 2017 ). Therefore, many political scientists turn their attention to conducting field experiments or lab-in-the-field experiments to reveal causality ( Druckman et al. 2006 ; Beath, Christia, and Enikolopov 2013 ; Finseraas and Kotsadam 2017 ), or to leveraging in-depth insights or historical records gained through qualitative or archival research in process-tracing ( Collier 2011 ; Ricks and Liu 2018 ). Surveys and survey experiments may also be useful tools to substantiate a theoretical story or test a theory ( Marston 2020 ). Of course, for most Ph.D. students, especially those not affiliated with more extensive research projects, some of these options will be financially prohibitive.

A central concern for graduate students, especially those working with a small budget and limited time, is optimizing time in the field and integrating remote work. We offer three pieces of advice: have a plan, build in flexibility, and be strategic, focusing on collecting data that are unavailable at home. We also discuss working with local translators or research assistants. Before we turn to these more practical issues arising during fieldwork, we address a no less important issue: funding.

The challenge of securing funds is often overlooked in discussions of what constitutes field research. Months- or year-long in-person research can be cost-prohibitive, something academic gatekeepers must consider when evaluating “what counts” and “what is enough.” Unlike their predecessors, many graduate students today have a significant amount of debt and little savings. 3 Additionally, if researchers are not able to procure funding, they have to pay out of pocket and possibly take on more debt. Not only is in-person fieldwork costly, but researchers may also have to forego working while they are in the field, making long stretches in the field infeasible for some.

For researchers whose fieldwork involves travelling to another location, procuring funding via grants, fellowships, or other sources is a necessity, regardless of how long one plans to be in the field. A good mantra for applying for research funding is “apply early and often” ( Kelsky 2015 , 110). Funding applications take a considerable amount of time to prepare, from writing research statements to requesting letters of recommendation. Even adapting one's materials for different applications takes time. Not only is the application process itself time-consuming, but the time between applying for and receiving funds, if successful, can be quite long, from several months to a year. For example, after defending her prospectus in May 2019, Willis began applying to funding sources for her dissertation, all of which had deadlines between June and September. She received notifications between November and January; however, funds from her successful applications were not available until March and April, almost a year later. 4 Accordingly, we recommend applying for funding as early as possible; this not only increases one's chances of hitting the ground running in the field, but the application process can also help clarify the goals and parameters of one's research.

Graduate students should also apply often for funding opportunities. There are different types of funding for fieldwork: some are larger, more competitive grants such as the National Science Foundation Political Science Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant in the United States, others, including sources through one's own institution, are smaller. Some countries, like Sweden, boast a plethora of smaller funding agencies that disburse grants of 20,000–30,0000 Swedish Kronor (approx. 2,500–3,500 U.S. dollars) to Ph.D. students in the social sciences. Listings of potential funding sources are often found on various websites including those belonging to universities, professional organizations (such as the American Political Science Association or the European Consortium for Political Research), and governmental institutions dealing with foreign affairs. Once you have identified fellowships and grants for which you and your project are a good match, we highly recommend soliciting information and advice from colleagues who have successfully applied for them. This can include asking them to share their applications with you, and if possible, to have them, another colleague or set of colleagues read through your project description and research plan (especially for bigger awards) to ensure that you have made the best possible case for why you should be selected. While both large and small pots of funding are worth applying for, many researchers end up funding their fieldwork through several small grants or fellowships. One small award may not be sufficient to fund the entirety of one's fieldwork, but several may. For example, Willis's fieldwork in Japan and South Korea was supported through fellowships within each country. Similarly, Irgil was able to conduct her fieldwork abroad through two different and relatively smaller grants by applying to them each year.

Of course, situations vary in different countries with respect to what kinds of grants from what kinds of funders are available. An essential part of preparing for fieldwork is researching the funding landscape well in advance, even as early as the start of the Ph.D. We encourage first-time field researchers to be aware that universities and departments may themselves not be aware of the full range of possible funds available, so it is always a good idea to do your own research and watch research-related social media channels. The amount of funding needed thereby depends on the nature of one's project and how long one intends to be in the field. As we elaborate in the next section, scholars should think carefully about their project goals, the data required to meet those goals, and the requisite time to attain them. For some projects, even a couple of weeks in the field is sufficient to get the needed information.

Preparing to Enter “the field”

It is important to prepare for the field as much as possible. What kind of preparations do researchers need? For someone conducting interviews with NGO representatives, this might involve identifying the largest possible pool of potential respondents, securing their contact information, sending them study invitation letters, finding a mutually agreeable time to meet, and pulling together short biographies for each interviewee in order to use your time together most effectively. If you plan to travel to conduct interviews, you should reach out to potential respondents roughly four to six weeks prior to your arrival. For individuals who do not respond, you can follow up one to two weeks before you arrive and, if needed, once more when you are there. This is still no guarantee for success, of course. For Kreft, contacting potential interviewees in Colombia initially proved more challenging than anticipated, as many of the people she targeted did not respond to her emails. It turned out that many Colombians have a preference for communicating via phone or, in particular, WhatsApp. Some of those who responded to her emails sent in advance of her field trip asked her to simply be in touch once she was in the country, to set up appointments on short notice. This made planning and arranging her interview schedule more complicated. Therefore, a general piece of advice is to research your target population's preferred communication channels and mediums in the field site if email requests yield no or few responses.

In general, we note for the reader that contacting potential research participants should come after one has designed an interview questionnaire (plus an informed consent protocol) and sought and received, where applicable, approval from institutional review boards (IRBs) or other ethical review procedures in place (both at one's home institution/in the country of the home institution as well as in the country where one plans to conduct research if travelling abroad). The most obvious advantage of having the interview questionnaire in place and having secured all necessary institutional approvals before you start contacting potential interviewees is that you have a clearer idea of the universe of individuals you would like to interview, and for what purpose. Therefore, it is better to start sooner rather than later and be mindful of “high seasons,” when institutional and ethical review boards are receiving, processing, and making decisions on numerous proposals. It may take a few months for them to issue approvals.

On the subject of ethics and review panels, we encourage you to consider talking openly and honestly with your supervisors and/or funders about the situations where a written consent form may not be suitable and might need to be replaced with “verbal consent.” For instance, doing fieldwork in politically unstable contexts, highly scrutinized environments, or vulnerable communities, like refugees, might create obstacles for the interviewees as well as the researcher. The literature discusses the dilemma in offering the interviewees anonymity and requesting signed written consent in addition to the emphasis on total confidentiality ( Jacobsen and Landau 2003 ; Mackenzie, McDowell, and Pittaway 2007 ; Saunders, Kitzinger, and Kitzinger 2015 ). Therefore, in those situations, the researcher might need to take the initiative on how to act while doing the interviews as rigorously as possible. In her fieldwork, Irgil faced this situation as the political context of Turkey did not guarantee that there would not be any adverse consequences for interviewees on both sides of her story: citizens of Turkey and Syrian refugees. Consequently, she took hand-written notes and asked interviewees for their verbal consent in a safe interview atmosphere. This is something respondents greatly appreciated ( Irgil 2020 ).

Ethical considerations, of course, also affect the research design itself, with ramifications for fieldwork. When Kreft began developing her Ph.D. proposal to study women's political and civil society mobilization in response to conflict-related sexual violence, she initially aimed to recruit interviewees from the universe of victims of this violence, to examine variation among those who did and those who did not mobilize politically. As a result of deeper engagement with the literature on researching conflict-related sexual violence, conversations with senior colleagues who had interviewed victims, and critical self-reflection of her status as a researcher (with no background in psychology or social work), she decided to change focus and shift toward representatives of civil society organizations and victims’ associations. This constituted a major reconfiguration of her research design, from one geared toward identifying the factors that drive mobilization of victims toward using insights from interviews to understand better how those mobilize perceive and “make sense” of conflict-related sexual violence. Needless to say, this required alterations to research strategies and interview guides, including reassessing her planned fieldwork. Kreft's primary consideration was not to cause harm to her research participants, particularly in the form of re-traumatization. She opted to speak only with those women who on account of their work are used to speaking about conflict-related sexual violence. In no instance did she inquire about interviewees’ personal experiences with sexual violence, although several brought this up on their own during the interviews.

Finally, if you are conducting research in another country where you have less-than-professional fluency in the language, pre-fieldwork planning should include hiring a translator or research assistant, for example, through an online hiring platform like Upwork, or a local university. Your national embassy or consulate is another option; many diplomatic offices have lists of individuals who they have previously contracted. More generally, establishing contact with a local university can be beneficial, either in the form of a visiting researcher arrangement, which grants access to research groups and facilities like libraries or informally contacting individual researchers. The latter may have valuable insights into the local context, contacts to potential research participants, and they may even be able to recommend translators or research assistants. Kreft, for example, hired local research assistants recommended by researchers at a Bogotá-based university and remunerated them equivalent to the salary they would have received as graduate research assistants at the university, while also covering necessary travel expenses. Irgil, on the other hand, established contacts with native citizens and Syrian gatekeepers, who are shop owners in the area where she conducted her research because she had the opportunity to visit the fieldwork site multiple times.

Depending on the research agenda, researchers may visit national archives, local government offices, etc. Before visiting, researchers should contact these facilities and make sure the materials that they need are accessible. For example, Lee visited the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Archives to find the United States’ strategic evaluations on South Korea's dictator in the 1980s. Before her visit, she contacted librarians in the archives, telling them her visit plans and her research purpose. Librarians made suggestions on which categories she should start to review based on her research goal, and thus she was able to make a list of categories of the materials she needed, saving her a lot of her time.

Accessibility of and access to certain facilities/libraries can differ depending on locations/countries and types of facilities. Facilities in authoritarian countries might not be easily accessible to foreign researchers. Within democratic countries, some facilities are more restrictive than others. Situations like the pandemic or national holidays can also restrict accessibility. Therefore, researchers are well advised to do preliminary research on whether a certain facility opens during the time they visit and is accessible to researchers regardless of their citizenship status. Moreover, researchers must contact the staff of facilities to know whether identity verification is needed and if so, what kind of documents (photo I.D. or passport) should be exhibited.

Adapting to the Reality of the Field

Researchers need to be flexible because you may meet people you did not make appointments with, come across opportunities you did not expect, or stumble upon new ideas about collecting data in the field. These happenings will enrich your field experience and will ultimately be beneficial for your research. Similarly, researchers should not be discouraged by interviews that do not go according to plan; they present an opportunity to pursue relevant people who can provide an alternative path to your work. Note that planning ahead does not preclude fortuitous encounters or epiphanies. Rather, it provides a structure for them to happen.

If your fieldwork entails travelling abroad, you will also be able to recruit more interviewees once you arrive at your research site. In fact, you may have greater success in-country; not everyone is willing to respond to a cold email from an unknown researcher in a foreign country. In Irgil's fieldwork, she contacted store owners that are known in the area and who know the community. This eased her process of introduction into the community and recruiting interviewees. For Zvobgo, she had fewer than a dozen interviews scheduled when she travelled to Guatemala to study civil society activism and transitional justice since the internal armed conflict. But she was able to recruit additional participants in-country. Interviewees with whom she built a rapport connected her to other NGOs, government offices, and the United Nations country office, sometimes even making the call and scheduling interviews for her. Through snowball sampling, she was able to triple the number of participants. Likewise, snowball sampling was central to Kreft's recruitment of interview partners. Several of her interviewees connected her to highly relevant individuals she would never have been able to identify and contact based on web searches alone.

While in the field, you may nonetheless encounter obstacles that necessitate adjustments to your original plans. Once Kreft had arrived in Colombia, for example, it transpired quickly that carrying out in-person interviews in more remote/rural areas was near impossible given her means, as these were not easily accessible by bus/coach, further complicated by a complex security situation. Instead, she adjusted her research design and shifted her focus to the big cities, where most of the major civil society organizations are based. She complemented the in-person interviews carried out there with a smaller number of phone interviews with civil society activists in rural areas, and she was also able to meet a few activists operating in rural or otherwise inaccessible areas as they were visiting the major cities. The resulting focus on urban settings changed the kinds of generalizations she was able to make based on her fieldwork data and produced a somewhat different study than initially anticipated.

This also has been the case for Irgil, despite her prior arrangements with the Syrian gatekeepers, which required adjustments as in the case of Kreft. Irgil acquired research clearance one year before, during the interviews with native citizens, conducting the interviews with Syrian refugees. She also had her questionnaire ready based on the previously collected data and the media search she had conducted for over a year before travelling to the field site. As she was able to visit the field site multiple times, two months before conducting interviews with Syrian refugees, she developed a schedule with the Syrian gatekeepers and informants. Yet, once she was in the field, influenced by Turkey's recent political events and the policy of increasing control over Syrian refugees, half of the previously agreed informants changed their minds or did not want to participate in interviews. As Irgil was following the policies and the news related to Syrian refugees in Turkey closely, this did not come as that big of a surprise but challenged the previously developed strategy to recruit interviewees. Thus, she changed the strategy of finding interviewees in the field site, such as asking people, almost one by one, whether they would like to participate in the interview. Eventually, she could not find willing Syrian women refugees as she had planned, which resulted in a male-dominant sample. As researchers encounter such situations, it is essential to remind oneself that not everything can go according to plan, that “different” does not equate to “worse,” but that it is important to consider what changes to fieldwork data collection and sampling imply for the study's overall findings and the contribution it makes to the literature.

We should note that conducting interviews is very taxing—especially when opportunities multiply, as in Zvobgo's case. Depending on the project, each interview can take an hour, if not two or more. Hence, you should make a reasonable schedule: we recommend no more than two interviews per day. You do not want to have to cut off an interview because you need to rush to another one, whether the interviews are in-person or remote. And you do not want to be too exhausted to have a robust engagement with your respondent who is generously lending you their time. Limiting the number of interviews per day is also important to ensure that you can write comprehensive and meaningful fieldnotes, which becomes even more essential where it is not possible to audio-record your interviews. Also, be sure to remember to eat, stay hydrated, and try to get enough sleep.

Finally, whether to provide gifts or payments to the subject also requires adapting to the reality of the field. You must think about payments beforehand when you apply for IRB approval (or whatever other ethical review processes may be in place) since these applications usually contain questions about payments. Obviously, the first step is to carefully evaluate whether the gifts and payments provided can harm the subject or are likely to unduly affect the responses they will give in response to your questions. If that is not the case, you have to make payment decisions based on your budget, field situation, and difficulties in recruitment. Usually, payment of respondents is more common in survey research, whereas it is less common in interviews and focus groups.

Nevertheless, payment practices vary depending on the field and the target group. In some cases, it may become a custom to provide small gifts or payments when interviewing a certain group. In other cases, interviewees might be offended if they are provided with money. Therefore, knowing past practices and field situations is important. For example, Lee provided small coffee gift cards to one group while she did not to the other based on previous practices of other researchers. That is, for a particular group, it has become a custom for interviewers to pay interviewees. Sometimes, you may want to reimburse your subject's interview costs such as travel expenses and provide beverages and snacks during the conduct of research, as Kreft did when conducting focus groups in Colombia. To express your gratitude to your respondents, you can prepare small gifts such as your university memorabilia (e.g., notebooks and pens). Since past practices about payments can affect your interactions and interviews with a target group, you want to seek advice from your colleagues and other researchers who had experiences interacting with the target group. If you cannot find researchers who have this knowledge, you can search for published works on the target population to find if the authors share their interview experiences. You may also consider contacting the authors for advice before your interviews.

Researching Strategically

Distinguishing between things that can only be done in person at a particular site and things that can be accomplished later at home is vital. Prioritize the former over the latter. Lee's fieldwork experience serves as a good example. She studied a conservative protest movement called the Taegeukgi Rally in South Korea. She planned to conduct interviews with the rally participants to examine their motivations for participating. But she only had one month in South Korea. So, she focused on things that could only be done in the field: she went to the rally sites, she observed how protests proceeded, which tactics and chants were used, and she met participants and had some casual conversations with them. Then, she used the contacts she made while attending the rallies to create a social network to solicit interviews from ordinary protesters, her target population. She was able to recruit twenty-five interviewees through good rapport with the people she met. The actual interviews proceeded via phone after she returned to the United States. In a nutshell, we advise you not to be obsessed with finishing interviews in the field. Sometimes, it is more beneficial to use your time in the field to build relationships and networks.

Working With Assistants and Translators

A final consideration on logistics is working with research assistants or translators; it affects how you can carry out interviews, focus groups, etc. To what extent constant back-and-forth translation is necessary or advisable depends on the researcher's skills in the interview language and considerations about time and efficiency. For example, Kreft soon realized that she was generally able to follow along quite well during her interviews in Colombia. In order to avoid precious time being lost to translation, she had her research assistant follow the interview guide Kreft had developed, and interjected follow-up questions in Spanish or English (then to be translated) as they arose.

Irgil's and Zvobgo's interviews went a little differently. Irgil's Syrian refugee interviewees in Turkey were native Arabic speakers, and Zvobgo's interviewees in Guatemala were native Spanish speakers. Both Irgil and Zvobgo worked with research assistants. In Irgil's case, her assistant was a Syrian man, who was outside of the area. Meanwhile, Zvobgo's assistant was an undergraduate from her home institution with a Spanish language background. Irgil and Zvobgo began preparing their assistants a couple of months before entering the field, over Skype for Irgil and in-person for Zvobgo. They offered their assistants readings and other resources to provide them with the necessary background to work well. Both Irgil and Zvobgo's research assistants joined them in the interviews and actually did most of the speaking, introducing the principal investigator, explaining the research, and then asking the questions. In Zvobgo's case, interviewee responses were relayed via a professional interpreter whom she had also hired. After every interview, Irgil and Zvobgo and their respective assistants discussed the answers of the interviewees, potential improvements in phrasing, and elaborated on their hand-written interview notes. As a backup, Zvobgo, with the consent of her respondents, had accompanying audio recordings.

Researchers may carry out fieldwork in a country that is considerably less safe than what they are used to, a setting affected by conflict violence or high crime rates, for instance. Feelings of insecurity can be compounded by linguistic barriers, cultural particularities, and being far away from friends and family. Insecurity is also often gendered, differentially affecting women and raising the specter of unwanted sexual advances, street harassment, or even sexual assault ( Gifford and Hall-Clifford 2008 ; Mügge 2013 ). In a recent survey of Political Science graduate students in the United States, about half of those who had done fieldwork internationally reported having encountered safety issues in the field, (54 percent female, 47 percent male), and only 21 percent agreed that their Ph.D. programs had prepared them to carry out their fieldwork safely ( Schwartz and Cronin-Furman 2020 , 8–9).

Preventative measures scholars may adopt in an unsafe context may involve, at their most fundamental, adjustments to everyday routines and habits, restricting one's movements temporally and spatially. Reliance on gatekeepers may also necessitate adopting new strategies, such as a less vehement and cold rejection of unwanted sexual advances than one ordinarily would exhibit, as Mügge (2013) illustratively discusses. At the same time, a competitive academic job market, imperatives to collect novel and useful data, and harmful discourses surrounding dangerous fieldwork also, problematically, shape incentives for junior researchers to relax their own standards of what constitutes acceptable risk ( Gallien 2021 ).

Others have carefully collected a range of safety precautions that field researchers in fragile or conflict-affected settings may take before and during fieldwork ( Hilhorst et al. 2016 ). Therefore, we are more concise in our discussion of recommendations, focusing on the specific situations of graduate students. Apart from ensuring that supervisors and university administrators have the researcher's contact information in the field (and possibly also that of a local contact person), researchers can register with their country's embassy or foreign office and any crisis monitoring and prevention systems it has in place. That way, they will be informed of any possible unfolding emergencies and the authorities have a record of them being in the country.

It may also be advisable to set up more individualized safety protocols with one or two trusted individuals, such as friends, supervisors, or colleagues at home or in the fieldwork setting itself. The latter option makes sense in particular if one has an official affiliation with a local institution for the duration of the fieldwork, which is often advisable. Still, we would also recommend establishing relationships with local researchers in the absence of a formal affiliation. To keep others informed of her whereabouts, Kreft, for instance, made arrangements with her supervisors to be in touch via email at regular intervals to report on progress and wellbeing. This kept her supervisors in the loop, while an interruption in communication would have alerted them early if something were wrong. In addition, she announced planned trips to other parts of the country and granted her supervisors and a colleague at her home institution emergency reading access to her digital calendar. To most of her interviews, she was moreover accompanied by her local research assistant/translator. If the nature of the research, ethical considerations, and the safety situation allow, it might also be possible to bring a local friend along to interviews as an “assistant,” purely for safety reasons. This option needs to be carefully considered already in the planning stage and should, particularly in settings of fragility or if carrying out research on politically exposed individuals, be noted in any ethical and institutional review processes where these are required. Adequate compensation for such an assistant should be ensured. It may also be advisable to put in place an emergency plan, that is, choose emergency contacts back home and “in the field,” know whom to contact if something happens, and know how to get to the nearest hospital or clinic.

We would be remiss if we did not mention that, when in an unfamiliar context, one's safety radar may be misguided, so it is essential to listen to people who know the context. For example, locals can give advice on which means of transport are safe and which are not, a question that is of the utmost importance when traveling to appointments. For example, Kreft was warned that in Colombia regular taxis are often unsafe, especially if waved down in the streets, and that to get to her interviews safely, she should rely on a ride-share service. In one instance, a Colombian friend suggested that when there was no alternative to a regular taxi, Kreft should book through the app and share the order details, including the taxi registration number or license plate, with a friend. Likewise, sharing one's cell phone location with a trusted friend while traveling or when one feels unsafe may be a viable option. Finally, it is prudent to heed the safety recommendations and travel advisories provided by state authorities and embassies to determine when and where it is safe to travel. Especially if researchers have a responsibility not only for themselves but also for research assistants and research participants, safety must be a top priority.

This does not mean that a researcher should be careless in a context they know either. Of course, conducting fieldwork in a context that is known to the researcher offers many advantages. However, one should be prepared to encounter unwanted events too. For instance, Irgil has conducted fieldwork in her country of origin in a city she knows very well. Therefore, access to the site, moving around the site, and blending in has not been a problem; she also has the advantage of speaking the native language. Yet, she took notes of the streets she walked in, as she often returned from the field site after dark and thought she might get confused after a tiring day. She also established a closer relationship with two or three store owners in different parts of the field site if she needed something urgent, like running out of battery. Above all, one should always be aware of one's surroundings and use common sense. If something feels unsafe, chances are it is.

Fieldwork may negatively affect the researcher's mental health and mental wellbeing regardless of where one's “field” is, whether related to concerns about crime and insecurity, linguistic barriers, social isolation, or the practicalities of identifying, contacting and interviewing research participants. Coping with these different sources of stress can be both mentally and physically exhausting. Then there are the things you may hear, see and learn during the research itself, such as gruesome accounts of violence and suffering conveyed in interviews or archival documents one peruses. Kreft and Zvobgo have spoken with women victims of conflict-related sexual violence, who sometimes displayed strong emotions of pain and anger during the interviews. Likewise, Irgil and Willis have spoken with members of other vulnerable populations such as refugees and former sex workers ( Willis 2020 ).

Prior accounts ( Wood 2006 ; Loyle and Simoni 2017 ; Skjelsbæk 2018 ; Hummel and El Kurd 2020 ; Williamson et al. 2020 ; Schulz and Kreft 2021 ) show that it is natural for sensitive research and fieldwork challenges to affect or even (vicariously) traumatize the researcher. By removing researchers from their regular routines and support networks, fieldwork may also exacerbate existing mental health conditions ( Hummel and El Kurd 2020 ). Nonetheless, mental wellbeing is rarely incorporated into fieldwork courses and guidelines, where these exist at all. But even if you know to anticipate some sort of reaction, you rarely know what that reaction will be until you experience it. When researching sensitive or difficult topics, for example, reactions can include sadness, frustration, anger, fear, helplessness, and flashbacks to personal experiences of violence ( Williamson et al. 2020 ). For example, Kreft responded with episodic feelings of depression and both mental and physical exhaustion. But curiously, these reactions emerged most strongly after she had returned from fieldwork and in particular as she spent extended periods analyzing her interview data, reliving some of the more emotional scenes during the interviews and being confronted with accounts of (sexual) violence against women in a concentrated fashion. This is a crucial reminder that fieldwork does not end when one returns home; the after-effects may linger. Likewise, Zvobgo was physically and mentally drained upon her return from the field. Both Kreft and Zvobgo were unable to concentrate for long periods of time and experienced lower-than-normal levels of productivity for weeks afterward, patterns that formal and informal conversations with other scholars confirm to be common ( Schulz and Kreft 2021 ). Furthermore, the boundaries between “field” and “home” are blurred when conducting remote fieldwork ( Howlett 2021 , 11).

Nor are these adverse reactions limited to cases where the researcher has carried out the interviews themselves. Accounts of violence, pain, and suffering transported in reports, secondary literature, or other sources can evoke similar emotional stress, as Kreft experienced when engaging in a concentrated fashion with additional accounts of conflict-related sexual violence in Colombia and with the feminist literature on sexual and gender-based violence in the comfort of her Swedish office. This could also be applicable to Irgil's fieldwork as she interviewed refugees whose traumas have come out during the interviews or recall specific events triggered by the questions. Likewise, Lee has reviewed primary and secondary materials on North Korean defectors in the national archives and these materials contain violent, intense, emotional narratives.

Fortunately, there are several strategies to cope with and manage such adverse consequences. In a candid and insightful piece, other researchers have discussed the usefulness of distractions, sharing with colleagues, counseling, exercise, and, probably less advisable in the long term, comfort eating and drinking ( Williamson et al. 2020 ; see also Loyle and Simoni 2017 ; Hummel and El Kurd 2020 ). Our experiences largely tally with their observations. In this section, we explore some of these in more detail.

First, in the face of adverse consequences on your mental wellbeing, whether in the field or after your return, it is essential to be patient and generous with yourself. Negative effects on the researcher's mental wellbeing can hit in unexpected ways and at unexpected times. Even if you think that certain reactions are disproportionate or unwarranted at that specific moment, they may simply have been building up over a long time. They are legitimate. Second, the importance of taking breaks and finding distractions, whether that is exercise, socializing with friends, reading a good book, or watching a new series, cannot be overstated. It is easy to fall into a mode of thinking that you constantly have to be productive while you are “in the field,” to maximize your time. But as with all other areas in life, balance is key and rest is necessary. Taking your mind off your research and the research questions you puzzle over is also a good way to more fully soak up and appreciate the context in which you find yourself, in the case of in-person fieldwork, and about which you ultimately write.

Third, we cannot stress enough the importance of investing in social relations. Before going on fieldwork, researchers may want to consult others who have done it before them. Try to find (junior) scholars who have done fieldwork on similar kinds of topics or in the same country or countries you are planning to visit. Utilizing colleagues’ contacts and forging connections using social media are valuable strategies to expand your networks (in fact, this very paper is the result of a social media conversation and several of the authors have never met in person). Having been in the same situation before, most field researchers are, in our experience, generous with their time and advice. Before embarking on her first trip to Colombia, Kreft contacted other researchers in her immediate and extended network and received useful advice on questions such as how to move around Bogotá, whom to speak to, and how to find a research assistant. After completing her fieldwork, she has passed on her experiences to others who contacted her before their first fieldwork trip. Informal networks are, in the absence of more formalized fieldwork preparation, your best friend.

In the field, seeking the company of locals and of other researchers who are also doing fieldwork alleviates anxiety and makes fieldwork more enjoyable. Exchanging experiences, advice and potential interviewee contacts with peers can be extremely beneficial and make the many challenges inherent in fieldwork (on difficult topics) seem more manageable. While researchers conducting remote fieldwork may be physically isolated from other researchers, even connecting with others doing remote fieldwork may be comforting. And even when there are no precise solutions to be found, it is heartening or even cathartic to meet others who are in the same boat and with whom you can talk through your experiences. When Kreft shared some of her fieldwork-related struggles with another researcher she had just met in Bogotá and realized that they were encountering very similar challenges, it was like a weight was lifted off her shoulders. Similarly, peer support can help with readjustment after the fieldwork trip, even if it serves only to reassure you that a post-fieldwork dip in productivity and mental wellbeing is entirely natural. Bear in mind that certain challenges are part of the fieldwork experience and that they do not result from inadequacy on the part of the researcher.

Finally, we would like to stress a point made by Inger Skjelsbæk (2018 , 509) and which has not received sufficient attention: as a discipline, we need to take the question of researcher mental wellbeing more seriously—not only in graduate education, fieldwork preparation, and at conferences, but also in reflecting on how it affects the research process itself: “When strong emotions arise, through reading about, coding, or talking to people who have been impacted by [conflict-related sexual violence] (as victims or perpetrators), it may create a feeling of being unprofessional, nonscientific, and too subjective.”

We contend that this is a challenge not only for research on sensitive issues but also for fieldwork more generally. To what extent is it possible, and desirable, to uphold the image of the objective researcher during fieldwork, when we are at our foundation human beings? And going even further, how do the (anticipated) effects of our research on our wellbeing, and the safety precautions we take ( Gifford and Hall-Clifford 2008 ), affect the kinds of questions we ask, the kinds of places we visit and with whom we speak? How do they affect the methods we use and how we interpret our findings? An honest discussion of affective responses to our research in methods sections seems utopian, as emotionality in the research process continues to be silenced and relegated to the personal, often in gendered ways, which in turn is considered unconnected to the objective and scientific research process ( Jamar and Chappuis 2016 ). But as Gifford and Hall-Clifford (2008 , 26) aptly put it: “Graduate education should acknowledge the reality that fieldwork is scholarly but also intimately personal,” and we contend that the two shape each other. Therefore, we encourage political science as a discipline to reflect on researcher wellbeing and affective responses to fieldwork more carefully, and we see the need for methods courses that embrace a more holistic notion of the subjectivity of the researcher.

Interacting with people in the field is one of the most challenging yet rewarding parts of the work that we do, especially in comparison to impersonal, often tedious wrangling and analysis of quantitative data. Field researchers often make personal connections with their interviewees. Consequently, maintaining boundaries can be a bit tricky. Here, we recommend being honest with everyone with whom you interact without overstating the abilities of a researcher. This appears as a challenge in the field, particularly when you empathize with people and when they share profound parts of their lives with you for your research in addition to being “human subjects” ( Fujii 2012 ). For instance, when Irgil interviewed native citizens about the changes in their neighborhood following the arrival of Syrian refugees, many interviewees questioned what she would offer them in return for their participation. Irgil responded that her primary contribution would be her published work. She also noted, however, that academic papers can take a year, sometimes longer, to go through the peer-reviewed process and, once published, many studies have a limited audience. The Syrian refugees posed similar questions. Irgil responded not only with honesty but also, given this population's vulnerable status, she provided them contact information for NGOs with which they could connect if they needed help or answers to specific questions.

For her part, Zvobgo was very upfront with her interviewees about her role as a researcher: she recognized that she is not someone who is on the frontlines of the fight for human rights and transitional justice like they are. All she could/can do is use her platform to amplify their stories, bringing attention to their vital work through her future peer-reviewed publications. She also committed to sending them copies of the work, as electronic journal articles are often inaccessible due to paywalls and university press books are very expensive, especially for nonprofits. Interviewees were very receptive; some were even moved by the degree of self-awareness and the commitment to do right by them. In some cases, this prompted them to share even more, because they knew that the researcher was really there to listen and learn. This is something that junior scholars, and all scholars really, should always remember. We enter the field to be taught. Likewise, Kreft circulated among her interviewees Spanish-language versions of an academic article and a policy brief based on the fieldwork she had carried out in Colombia.

As researchers from the Global North, we recognize a possible power differential between us and our research subjects, and certainly an imbalance in power between the countries where we have been trained and some of the countries where we have done and continue to do field research, particularly in politically dynamic contexts ( Knott 2019 ). This is why we are so concerned with being open and transparent with everyone with whom we come into contact in the field and why we are committed to giving back to those who so generously lend us their time and knowledge. Knott (2019 , 148) summarizes this as “Reflexive openness is a form of transparency that is methodologically and ethically superior to providing access to data in its raw form, at least for qualitative data.”

We also recognize that academics, including in the social sciences and especially those hailing from countries in the Global North, have a long and troubled history of exploiting their power over others for the sake of their research—including failing to be upfront about their research goals, misrepresenting the on-the-ground realities of their field research sites (including remote fieldwork), and publishing essentializing, paternalistic, and damaging views and analyses of the people there. No one should build their career on the backs of others, least of all in a field concerned with the possession and exercise of power. Thus, it is highly crucial to acknowledge the power hierarchies between the researcher and the interviewees, and to reflect on them both in the field and beyond the field upon return.

A major challenge to conducting fieldwork is when researchers’ carefully planned designs do not go as planned due to unforeseen events outside of our control, such as pandemics, natural disasters, deteriorating security situations in the field, or even the researcher falling ill. As the Covid-19 pandemic has made painfully clear, researchers may face situations where in-person research is simply not possible. In some cases, researchers may be barred entry to their fieldwork site; in others, the ethical implications of entering the field greatly outweigh the importance of fieldwork. Such barriers to conducting in-person research require us to reconsider conventional notions of what constitutes fieldwork. Researchers may need to shift their data collection methods, for example, conducting interviews remotely instead of in person. Even while researchers are in the field, they may still need to carry out part of their interviews or surveys virtually or by phone. For example, Kreft (2020) carried out a small number of interviews remotely while she was based in Bogotá, because some of the women's civil society activists with whom she intended to speak were based in parts of the country that were difficult and/or dangerous to access.

Remote field research, which we define as the collection of data over the internet or over the phone where in-person fieldwork is not possible due to security, health or other risks, comes with its own sets of challenges. For one, there may be certain populations that researchers cannot reach remotely due to a lack of internet connectivity or technology such as cellphones and computers. In such instances, there will be a sampling bias toward individuals and groups that do have these resources, a point worth noting when scholars interpret their research findings. In the case of virtual research, the risk of online surveillance, hacking, or wiretapping may also produce reluctance on the part of interviewees to discuss sensitive issues that may compromise their safety. Researchers need to carefully consider how the use of digital technology may increase the risk to research participants and what changes to the research design and any interview guides this necessitates. In general, it is imperative that researchers reflect on how they can ethically use digital technology in their fieldwork ( Van Baalen 2018 ). Remote interviews may also be challenging to arrange for researchers who have not made connections in person with people in their community of interest.

Some of the serendipitous happenings we discussed earlier may also be less likely and snowball sampling more difficult. For example, in phone or virtual interviews, it is harder to build good rapport and trust with interviewees as compared to face-to-face interviews. Accordingly, researchers should be more careful in communicating with interviewees and creating a comfortable interview environment. Especially when dealing with sensitive topics, researchers may have to make several phone calls and sometimes have to open themselves to establishing trust with interviewees. Also, researchers must be careful in protecting interviewees in phone or virtual interviews when they deal with sensitive topics of countries interviewees reside in.

The inability to physically visit one's community of interest may also encourage scholars to critically reflect on how much time in the field is essential to completing their research and to consider creative, alternative means for accessing information to complete their projects. While data collection techniques such as face-to-face interviews and archival work in the field may be ideal in normal times, there exist other data sources that can provide comparably useful information. For example, in her research on the role of framing in the United States base politics, Willis found that social media accounts and websites yielded information useful to her project. Many archives across the world have also been digitized. Researchers may also consider crowdsourcing data from the field among their networks, as fellow academics tend to collect much more data in the field than they ever use in their published works. They may also elect to hire someone, perhaps a graduate student, in a city or a country where they cannot travel and have the individual access, scan, and send archival materials. This final suggestion may prove generally useful to researchers with limited time and financial resources.

Remote qualitative data collection techniques, while they will likely never be “the gold-standard,” also pose several advantages. These techniques may help researchers avoid some of the issues mentioned previously. Remote interviews, for example, are less time-consuming in terms of travel to the interview site ( Archibald et al. 2019 ). The implication is that researchers may have less fatigue from conducting interviews and/or may be able to conduct more interviews. For example, while Willis had little energy to do anything else after an in-person interview (or two) in a given day, she had much more energy after completing remote interviews. Second, remote fieldwork also helps researchers avoid potentially dangerous situations in the field mentioned previously. Lastly, remote fieldwork generally presents fewer financial barriers than in-person research ( Archibald et al. 2019 ). In that sense, considering remote qualitative data collection, a type of “fieldwork” may make fieldwork more accessible to a greater number of scholars.

Many of the substantive, methodological and practical challenges that arise during fieldwork can be anticipated. Proper preparation can help you hit the ground running once you enter your fieldwork destination, whether in-person or virtually. Nonetheless, there is no such thing as being perfectly prepared for the field. Some things will simply be beyond your control, and especially as a newcomer to field research, and you should be prepared for things to not go as planned. New questions will arise, interview participants may cancel appointments, and you might not get the answers you expected. Be ready to make adjustments to research plans, interview guides, or questionnaires. And, be mindful of your affective reactions to the overall fieldwork situation and be gentle with yourself.

We recommend approaching fieldwork as a learning experience as much as, or perhaps even more than, a data collection effort. This also applies to your research topic. While it is prudent always to exercise a healthy amount of skepticism about what people tell you and why, the participants in your research will likely have unique perspectives and knowledge that will challenge yours. Be an attentive listener and remember that they are experts of their own experiences.

We encourage more institutions to offer courses that cover field research preparation and planning, practical advice on safety and wellbeing, and discussion of ethics. Specifically, we align with Schwartz and Cronin-Furman's (2020 , 3) contention “that treating fieldwork preparation as the methodology will improve individual scholars’ experiences and research.” In this article, we outline a set of issue areas in which we think formal preparation is necessary, but we note that our discussion is by no means exhaustive. Formal fieldwork preparation should also extend beyond what we have covered in this article, such as issues of data security and preparing for nonqualitative fieldwork methods. We also note that field research is one area that has yet to be comprehensively addressed in conversations on diversity and equity in the political science discipline and the broader academic profession. In a recent article, Brielle Harbin (2021) begins to fill this gap by sharing her experiences conducting in-person election surveys as a Black woman in a conservative and predominantly white region of the United States and the challenges that she encountered. Beyond race and gender, citizenship, immigration status, one's Ph.D. institution and distance to the field also affect who is able to do what type of field research, where, and for how long. Future research should explore these and related questions in greater detail because limits on who is able to conduct field research constrict the sociological imagination of our field.

While Emmons and Moravcsik (2020) focus on leading Political Science Ph.D. programs in the United States, these trends likely obtain, both in lower ranked institutions in the broader United States as well as in graduate education throughout North America and Europe.

As all the authors have carried out qualitative fieldwork, this is the primary focus of this guide. This does not, however, mean that we exclude quantitative or experimental data collection from our definition of fieldwork.

There is great variation in graduate students’ financial situations, even in the Global North. For example, while higher education is tax-funded in most countries in Europe and Ph.D. students in countries such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland receive a comparatively generous full-time salary, healthcare and contributions to pension schemes, Ph.D. programs in other contexts like the United States and the United Kingdom have (high) enrollment fees and rely on scholarships, stipends, or departmental duties like teaching to (partially) offset these, while again others, such as Germany, are commonly financed by part-time (50 percent) employment at the university with tasks substantively unrelated to the dissertation. These different preconditions leave many Ph.D. students struggling financially and even incurring debt, while others are in a more comfortable financial position. Likewise, Ph.D. programs around the globe differ in structure, such as required coursework, duration and supervision relationships. Naturally, all of these factors have a bearing on the extent to which fieldwork is feasible. We acknowledge unequal preconditions across institutions and contexts, and trust that those Ph.D. students interested in pursuing fieldwork are best able to assess the structural and institutional context in which they operate and what this implies for how, when, and how long to carry out fieldwork.

In our experience, this is not only the general cycle for graduate students in North America, but also in Europe and likely elsewhere.

For helpful advice and feedback on earlier drafts, we wish to thank the editors and reviewers at International Studies Review , and Cassandra Emmons. We are also grateful to our interlocuters in Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Kenya, Norway, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States, without whom this reflection on fieldwork would not have been possible. All authors contributed equally to this manuscript.

This material is based upon work supported by the Forskraftstiftelsen Theodor Adelswärds Minne, Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation(KAW 2013.0178), National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program(DGE-1418060), Southeast Asia Research Group (Pre-Dissertation Fellowship), University at Albany (Initiatives for Women and the Benevolent Association), University of Missouri (John D. Bies International Travel Award Program and Kinder Institute on Constitutional Democracy), University of Southern California (Provost Fellowship in the Social Sciences), Vetenskapsrådet(Diarienummer 2019-06298), Wilhelm och Martina Lundgrens Vetenskapsfond(2016-1102; 2018-2272), and William & Mary (Global Research Institute Pre-doctoral Fellowship).

Advancing Conflict Research . 2020 . The ARC Bibliography . Accessed September 6, 2020, https://advancingconflictresearch.com/resources-1 .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Archibald Mandy M. , Ambagtsheer Rachel C. , Casey Mavourneen G. , Lawless Michael . 2019 . “ Using Zoom Videoconferencing for Qualitative Data Collection: Perceptions and Experiences of Researchers and Participants .” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 18 : 1 – 18 .

Beath Andrew , Christia Fotini , Enikolopov Ruben . 2013 . “ Empowering Women Through Development Aid: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Afghanistan .” American Political Science Review 107 ( 3 ): 540 – 57 .

Carling Jorgen , Erdal Marta Bivand , Ezzati Rojan . 2014 . “ Beyond the Insider–Outsider Divide in Migration Research .” Migration Studies 2 ( 1 ): 36 – 54 .

Chambers-Ju Christopher . 2014 . “ Data Collection, Opportunity Costs, and Problem Solving: Lessons from Field Research on Teachers’ Unions in Latin America .” P.S.: Political Science & Politics 47 ( 2 ): 405 – 9 .

Collier David . 2011 . “ Understanding Process Tracing .” P.S.: Political Science and Politics 44 ( 4 ): 823 – 30 .

Druckman James N. , Green Donald P. , Kuklinski James H. , Lupia Arthur . 2006 . “ The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science .” American Political Science Review 100 ( 4 ): 627 – 35 .

Elman Colin , Kapiszewski Diana , Kirilova Dessislava . 2015 . “ Learning Through Research: Using Data to Train Undergraduates in Qualitative Methods .” P.S.: Political Science & Politics 48 ( 1 ): 39 – 43 .

Emmons Cassandra V. , Moravcsik Andrew M. . 2020 . “ Graduate Qualitative Methods Training in Political Science: A Disciplinary Crisis .” P.S.: Political Science & Politics 53 ( 2 ): 258 – 64 .

Esarey Justin. 2017 . “ Causal Inference with Observational Data .” In Analytics, Policy, and Governance , edited by Bachner Jennifer , Hill Kathryn Wagner , Ginsberg Benjamin , 40 – 66 . New Haven : Yale University Press .

Finseraas Henning , Kotsadam Andreas . 2017 . “ Does Personal Contact with Ethnic Minorities Affect anti-immigrant Sentiments? Evidence from a Field Experiment .” European Journal of Political Research 56 : 703 – 22 .

Fujii Lee Ann . 2012 . “ Research Ethics 101: Dilemmas and Responsibilities .” P.S.: Political Science & Politics 45 ( 4 ): 717 – 23 .

Gallien Max . 2021 . “ Solitary Decision-Making and Fieldwork Safety .” In The Companion to Peace and Conflict Fieldwork , edited by Ginty Roger Mac , Brett Roddy , Vogel Birte , 163 – 74 . Cham, Switzerland : Palgrave Macmillan .

Geddes Barbara . 2003 . Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics . Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press .

Gifford Lindsay , Hall-Clifford Rachel . 2008 . “ From Catcalls to Kidnapping: Towards an Open Dialogue on the Fieldwork Experiences of Graduate Women .” Anthropology News 49 ( 6 ): 26 – 7 .

Greitens Sheena C. 2016 . Dictators and Their Secret Police: Coercive Institutions and State Violence . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Harbin Brielle M. 2021 . “ Who's Able to Do Political Science Work? My Experience with Exit Polling and What It Reveals about Issues of Race and Equity .” PS: Political Science & Politics 54 ( 1 ): 144 – 6 .

Hilhorst Dorothea , Hogson Lucy , Jansen Bram , Mena Rodrigo Fluhmann . 2016 . Security Guidelines for Field Research in Complex, Remote and Hazardous Places . Accessed August 25, 2020, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/93256 .

Howlett Marnie. 2021 . “ Looking At the ‘Field’ Through a Zoom Lens: Methodological Reflections on Conducting Online Research During a Global Pandemic .” Qualitative Research . Online first .

Hsueh Roselyn , Jensenius Francesca Refsum , Newsome Akasemi . 2014 . “ Fieldwork in Political Science: Encountering Challenges and Crafting Solutions: Introduction .” PS: Political Science & Politics 47 ( 2 ): 391 – 3 .

Hummel Calla , El Kurd Dana . 2020 . “ Mental Health and Fieldwork .” P.S.: Political Science & Politics 54 ( 1 ): 121 – 5 .

Irgil Ezgi. 2020 . “ Broadening the Positionality in Migration Studies: Assigned Insider Category .” Migration Studies . Online first .

Jacobsen Karen , Landau Lauren B. . 2003 . “ The Dual Imperative in Refugee Research: Some Methodological and Ethical Considerations in Social Science Research on Forced Migration .” Disasters 27 ( 3 ): 185 – 206 .

Jamar Astrid , Chappuis Fairlie . 2016 . “ Conventions of Silence: Emotions and Knowledge Production in War-Affected Research Environments .” Parcours Anthropologiques 11 : 95 – 117 .

Jensenius Francesca R. 2014 . “ The Fieldwork of Quantitative Data Collection .” P.S.: Political Science & Politics 47 ( 2 ): 402 – 4 .

Kapiszewski Diana , MacLean Lauren M. , Read Benjamin L. . 2015 . Field Research in Political Science: Practices and Principles . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Kelsky Karen . 2015 . The Professor Is In: The Essential Guide to Turning Your Ph.D. Into a Job . New York : Three Rivers Press .

Knott Eleanor . 2019 . “ Beyond the Field: Ethics After Fieldwork in Politically Dynamic Contexts .” Perspectives on Politics 17 ( 1 ): 140 – 53 .

Kreft Anne-Kathrin . 2019 . “ Responding to Sexual Violence: Women's Mobilization in War .” Journal of Peace Research 56 ( 2 ): 220 – 33 .

Kreft Anne-Kathrin . 2020 . “ Civil Society Perspectives on Sexual Violence in Conflict: Patriarchy and War Strategy in Colombia .” International Affairs 96 ( 2 ): 457 – 78 .

Loyle Cyanne E. , Simoni Alicia . 2017 . “ Researching Under Fire: Political Science and Researcher Trauma .” P.S.: Political Science & Politics 50 ( 1 ): 141 – 5 .

Mackenzie Catriona , McDowell Christopher , Pittaway Eileen . 2007 . “ Beyond ‘do No Harm’: The Challenge of Constructing Ethical Relationships in Refugee Research .” Journal of Refugee Studies 20 ( 2 ): 299 – 319 .

Marston Jerome F. 2020 . “ Resisting Displacement: Leveraging Interpersonal Ties to Remain Despite Criminal Violence in Medellín, Colombia .” Comparative Political Studies 53 ( 13 ): 1995 – 2028 .

Mosley Layna , ed. 2013 . Interview Research in Political Science . Ithaca : Cornell University Press .

Mügge Liza M. 2013 . “ Sexually Harassed by Gatekeepers: Reflections on Fieldwork in Surinam and Turkey .” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16 ( 6 ): 541 – 6 .

Nexon Daniel. 2019 . International Studies Quarterly (ISQ) 2019 Annual Editorial Report . Accessed August 25, 2020, https://www.isanet.org/Portals/0/Documents/ISQ/2019_ISQ%20Report.pdf?ver = 2019-11-06-103524-300 .

Nowicka Magdalena , Cieslik Anna . 2014 . “ Beyond Methodological Nationalism in Insider Research with Migrants .” Migration Studies 2 ( 1 ): 1 – 15 .

O'Brien Kevin J. , Li Lianjiang . 2005 . “ Popular Contention and Its Impact in Rural China .” Comparative Political Studies 38 ( 3 ): 235 – 59 .

Ortbals Candice D. , Rincker Meg E. . 2009 . “ Fieldwork, Identities, and Intersectionality: Negotiating Gender, Race, Class, Religion, Nationality, and Age in the Research Field Abroad: Editors’ Introduction .” P.S.: Political Science & Politics 42 ( 2 ): 287 – 90 .

Read Benjamin. 2006 . “ Site-intensive Methods: Fenno and Scott in Search of Coalition .” Qualitative & Multi-method Research 4 ( 2 ): 10 – 3 .

Ricks Jacob I. , Liu Amy H. . 2018 . “ Process-Tracing Research Designs: A Practical Guide .” P.S.: Political Science & Politics 51 ( 4 ): 842 – 6 .

Sarotte Mary E. 2012 . “ China's Fear of Contagion: Tiananmen Square and the Power of the European Example .” International Security 37 ( 2 ): 156 – 82 .

Saunders Benjamin , Kitzinger Jenny , Kitzinger Celia . 2015 . “ Anonymizing Interview Data: Challenges and Compromise in Practice .” Qualitative Research 15 ( 5 ): 616 – 32 .

Schulz Philipp , Kreft Anne-Kathrin . 2021 . “ Researching Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: A Conversation Between Early Career Researchers .” International Feminist Journal of Politics . Advance online access .

Schwartz Stephanie , Cronin-Furman Kate . 2020 . “ Ill-Prepared: International Fieldwork Methods Training in Political Science .” Working Paper .

Seawright Jason . 2016 . “ Better Multimethod Design: The Promise of Integrative Multimethod Research .” Security Studies 25 ( 1 ): 42 – 9 .

Skjelsbæk Inger . 2018 . “ Silence Breakers in War and Peace: Research on Gender and Violence with an Ethics of Engagement .” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender , State & Society 25 ( 4 ): 496 – 520 .

Van Baalen Sebastian . 2018 . “ ‘Google Wants to Know Your Location’: The Ethical Challenges of Fieldwork in the Digital Age .” Research Ethics 14 ( 4 ): 1 – 17 .

Weiss Meredith L. , Hicken Allen , Kuhonta Eric Martinez . 2017 . “ Political Science Field Research & Ethics: Introduction .” The American Political Science Association—Comparative Democratization Newsletter 15 ( 3 ): 3 – 5 .

Weller Nicholas , Barnes Jeb . 2016 . “ Pathway Analysis and the Search for Causal Mechanisms .” Sociological Methods & Research 45 ( 3 ): 424 – 57 .

Williamson Emma , Gregory Alison , Abrahams Hilary , Aghtaie Nadia , Walker Sarah-Jane , Hester Marianne . 2020 . “ Secondary Trauma: Emotional Safety in Sensitive Research .” Journal of Academic Ethics 18 ( 1 ): 55 – 70 .

Willis Charmaine . 2020 . “ Revealing Hidden Injustices: The Filipino Struggle Against U.S. Military Presence .” Minds of the Movement (blog). October 27, 2020, https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/blog_post/revealing-hidden-injustices-the-filipino-struggle-against-u-s-military-presence/ .

Wood Elizabeth Jean . 2006 . “ The Ethical Challenges of Field Research in Conflict Zones .” Qualitative Sociology 29 ( 3 ): 373 – 86 .

Zapata-Barrero Ricard , Yalaz Evren . 2019 . “ Qualitative Migration Research Ethics: Mapping the Core Challenges .” GRITIM-UPF Working Paper Series No. 42 .

Zvobgo Kelebogile . 2020 . “ Demanding Truth: The Global Transitional Justice Network and the Creation of Truth Commissions .” International Studies Quarterly 64 ( 3 ): 609 – 25 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-2486
• Print ISSN 1521-9488
• Copyright © 2024 International Studies Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 12: Field Research: A Qualitative Research Technique

12.1 Field Research: What Is It?

Field research is a qualitative method of data collection aimed at understanding, observing, and interacting with people in their natural settings. In the context of research, observation is more than just looking. It involves looking in a planned and strategic way with a purpose (Palys & Atchison, 2014, p. 189). As such, when social scientists talk about being in “the field,” they are talking about being out in the real world and involved in the everyday lives of the people they are studying. Sometimes researchers use the terms ethnography or participant observation to refer to this method of data collection; the former is most commonly used in anthropology, while the latter is used commonly in sociology. For our purposes, we will use two main terms: field research and participant observation . You might think of field research as an umbrella term that includes the myriad activities that field researchers engage in when they collect data: they participate; they observe; they usually interview some of the people they observe; and they typically analyze documents or artifacts created by the people they observe.

Researchers conducting participant observation vary in the extent to which they participate or observe. Palys and Atchison (2014, p. 198) refer to this as the “participant-observer continuum,” ranging from complete participant to complete observer. This continuum is demonstrated in Figure 12.1. However, these researchers, as to do other researchers, question whether a researcher can be at the “complete observer” end of the continuum. Rather, they contend, it is increasingly acknowledged that, even as an observer, the researcher is participating in what is being studied and therefore cannot really be a complete observer.

Indeed, it is important to acknowledge that there are pros and cons associated with both aspects of the participant/observer’s role. For example, depending upon how fully researchers observer their subjects (as opposed to participating), they may miss important aspects of group interaction and may not have the opportunity to fully grasp what life is like for the people they observe. At the same time, sitting back and observing may grant researchers opportunities to see interactions that they would miss, were they more involved.

Ethnography is not to be confused with ethnomethodology. Ethnomethodology will be defined and described in Chapter 13

Participation has the benefit of allowing researchers a real taste of life in the group that they study. Some argue that participation is the only way to understand what it is that is being investigated. On the other hand, fully immersed participants may find themselves in situations that they would rather not face but from which cannot excuse themselves because they have adopted the role of a fully immersed participant. Further, participants who do not reveal themselves as researchers must face the ethical quandary of possibly deceiving their subjects. In reality, much field research lies somewhere near the middle of the observer/participant continuum. Field researchers typically participate to at least some extent in their field sites, but there are also times when they may strictly observe.

Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Field research is a qualitative method of data collection aimed at understanding, observing, and interacting with people in their natural settings. In the context of research, observation is more than just looking. It involves looking in a planned and strategic way with a purpose (Palys & Atchison, 2014, p. 189). As such, when social scientists talk about being in “the field,” they are talking about being out in the real world and involved in the everyday lives of the people they are studying. Sometimes researchers use the terms ethnography or participant observation to refer to this method of data collection; the former is most commonly used in anthropology, while the latter is used commonly in sociology. For our purposes, we will use two main terms: field research and participant observation . You might think of field research as an umbrella term that includes the myriad activities that field researchers engage in when they collect data: they participate; they observe; they usually interview some of the people they observe; and they typically analyze documents or artifacts created by the people they observe.

Researchers conducting participant observation vary in the extent to which they participate or observe. Palys and Atchison (2014, p. 198) refer to this as the “participant-observer continuum,” ranging from complete participant to complete observer. This continuum is demonstrated in Figure 12.1. However, these researchers, as to do other researchers, question whether a researcher can be at the “complete observer” end of the continuum. Rather, they contend, it is increasingly acknowledged that, even as an observer, the researcher is participating in what is being studied and therefore cannot really be a complete observer.

Figure 12.1 (Palys & Atchison, 2014)

Indeed, it is important to acknowledge that there are pros and cons associated with both aspects of the participant/observer’s role. For example, depending upon how fully researchers observer their subjects (as opposed to participating), they may miss important aspects of group interaction and may not have the opportunity to fully grasp what life is like for the people they observe. At the same time, sitting back and observing may grant researchers opportunities to see interactions that they would miss, were they more involved.

Ethnography is not to be confused with ethnomethodology. Ethnomethodology will be defined and described in Chapter13

Participation has the benefit of allowing researchers a real taste of life in the group that they study. Some argue that participation is the only way to understand what it is that is being investigated. On the other hand, fully immersed participants may find themselves in situations that they would rather not face but from which cannot excuse themselves because they have adopted the role of a fully immersed participant. Further, participants who do not reveal themselves as researchers must face the ethical quandary of possibly deceiving their subjects. In reality, much field research lies somewhere near the middle of the observer/participant continuum. Field researchers typically participate to at least some extent in their field sites, but there are also times when they may strictly observe.

Research Methods, Data Collection and Ethics Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Memberships

Field Research: the Definition and Methods

Field research: this article explains the concept of field research in a practical way. The article starts with the definition of this term, followed by a general explanation and some practical examples of field research. You will also find an explanation of the various methods and a step-by-step plan for conducting field research. Enjoy reading!

What is field research?

Field research, also known as fieldwork, is a method of collecting raw data outside of the lab, library, or usual workplace.

It involves observing and interacting with people, animals or phenomena in their natural environment to gain a deeper understanding of their behavior, social interactions and the dynamics of their environment. Read more about experimental research .

Field research methods vary by field. For example, biologists observe animals in their natural habitats, and social scientists conduct interviews and observations to study human societies.

The definition of Field research

Field research is a qualitative research method that focuses on observing and understanding individuals, groups, communities or society as a whole.

It aims to capture authentic and contextual data by immersing researchers in the environments they study.

Through direct observation and interaction with subjects, field researchers gain firsthand insight into their behaviour, beliefs, cultural practices and social structures.

It encompasses a wide variety of well-defined methods, including:

• Formal interviews
• Informal interviews

Direct observation

Participating observation.

• Collective discussions
• Analysis of personal documents
• Self-analysis
• Offline and online activities

Although this type of research is mainly qualitative, it can also contain quantitative aspects, depending on the research goals and methodologies applied.

History and the origin of Field research

Field research has a long history, especially within cultural anthropology . Anthropologists have made extensive use of field research to study different cultures, often focusing on so-called primitive cultures or cultural differences based on factors such as class.

The term “field” refers to defined areas of research, such as education, industrial environments or Amazon rainforests, where social research is conducted.

Influential figures in the early development of this type of research include Alfred Radcliffe-Brown and Bronisław Malinowski, who laid the foundations for future work in anthropology.

Field research versus laboratory research

Field research and laboratory research differ in their approach to data collection.

Field research takes place in natural environments, where researchers make direct observations and interact. It provides contextual data and insight into complex processes, but may be limited in establishing causal relationships.

On the other hand, laboratory research takes place in controlled environments, where variables are manipulated and repeatability is ensured.

It is well suited for testing hypotheses and obtaining accurate measurements, but may lack the complexity of natural environments.

Both approaches complement each other and the choice depends on the research questions and available resources .

Methods for field research

Field research involves the use of various methods to collect valuable data and gain insight into the phenomena under investigation.

Here are some common methods applied in field research:

This method involves carefully observing people, animals, or events in their natural environment. By watching closely, researchers can study behaviors, interactions, and responses to specific situations without actively participating.

In this method, the researcher actively participates in the group, community, or environment under study. By participating in activities, having conversations and being involved in daily routines, researchers can develop a deep understanding of the social structures, norms and values, and the meaning attached to certain actions.

Qualitative interviews

This includes conducting interviews with individuals or groups to find out their perspectives, experiences and opinions. By asking open-ended questions and delving deeper into topics, researchers can gain insight into participants’ thoughts and feelings.

Data analysis of documents

In this method, documents, such as letters, diaries, reports, or other written materials, are analyzed to obtain information and insights. These documents can provide valuable context and provide a historical perspective on the issues examined.

Informal conversations

Sometimes having informal conversations with people in the research environment can yield useful information. These can be casual chats during breaks or informal gatherings where people talk freely about their experiences and perspectives.

The use of these different methods allows researchers to collect a wide range of data and develop an in-depth understanding of the social, cultural and behavioral aspects of the phenomena under study.

Case studies

Case studies are a useful approach in field research to gain in-depth insights into specific situations, groups or phenomena.

Step-by-step plan for conducting field research

Follow the steps below to get started conducting field research yourself.

Step 1: define your research goal

Determine the specific goal of your research. What do you want to discover, understand or observe? Clearly formulate your research question(s) and objective(s).

Step 2: design your research plan

Consider which methods and approaches are best suited to your research question. Consider the location, participants/population, data collection methods and time frame.

Step 3: Get permission

If necessary, obtain permission from relevant agencies, organizations or individuals to access the study site and collect data. Make sure you follow ethical guidelines and procedures.

Step 4: collect data

Go to the research site and start collecting data according to your research plan. This may include direct observation, interviews, surveys, participant observation or collection of documentation.

Step 5: Analyze and interpret your data

Evaluate and analyze the collected data . Identify patterns, themes or trends relevant to your research question. Interpretation of the data should be based on accurate and systematic analysis.

Step 6: draw conclusions and formulate results

Based on your analysis and interpretation, you come to conclusions that answer your research question . Formulate clear results and present them in a structured way .

Step 7: Report and share your findings

Write a research report describing the methodology, findings and conclusions. Share your results with the scientific community, stakeholders or the wider public through publications, presentations or other appropriate channels.

Step 8: Reflect and Evaluate your field research

Take the time to evaluate your research experience . What were the strengths and challenges of your research? What would you do differently in the future? Reflect on possible improvements and learning points for subsequent studies.

Examples of known field studies

Numerous interesting discoveries have been made while conducting research. Here are three examples of discoveries made while conducting this type of research:

New animal species

Field research has led to the discovery of several new animal species. For example, in 2018, during a field research expedition in the rainforests of Ecuador, researchers discovered a new species of tree frog.

This discovery highlighted the importance of field research in identifying biodiversity and understanding the ecological systems in which these species live.

Ecological changes

Field research has also helped identify ecological changes and understand their causes.

For example, by studying coral reefs in different parts of the world, scientists have found that coral bleaching, a consequence of climate change, is having a devastating effect on coral reef health.

It’s Your Turn

What do you think? Do you recognize the explanation about field research? Have you ever heard of this type of research before? Have you ever conducted this yourself? What do you think are the advantages compared to, for example, research in a laboratory? Do you have tips or other comments?

Share your experience and knowledge in the comments box below.

More information

• Barick, R. (2021). Research Methods For Business Students . Retrieved 02/16/2024 from Udemy.
• Burgess, R. G. (Ed.). (2003). Field Research: A sourcebook and field manual (Vol. 4) . Routledge.
• Burgess, R. G. (2002). In the field: An introduction to Field Research (Vol. 8) . Routledge.
• Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management Field Research . Academy of management review, 32(4), 1246-1264.
• McKinnon, J. (1988). Reliability and validity in Field Research: some strategies and tactics . Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 1(1), 34-54

How to cite this article: Janse, B. (2023). Field Research . Retrieved [insert date] from Toolshero: https://www.toolshero.com/research/field-research/

Original publication date: 08/21/2023 | Last update: 09/05/2024

Add a link to this page on your website: <a href=”https://www.toolshero.com/research/field-research/”>Toolshero: Field Research</a>

Did you find this article interesting?

Your rating is more than welcome or share this article via Social media!

Average rating 4.2 / 5. Vote count: 5

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Ben Janse is a young professional working at ToolsHero as Content Manager. He is also an International Business student at Rotterdam Business School where he focusses on analyzing and developing management models. Thanks to his theoretical and practical knowledge, he knows how to distinguish main- and side issues and to make the essence of each article clearly visible.

Related ARTICLES

Univariate Analysis: basic theory and example

Contingency Table: the Theory and an Example

Research questions explained plus examples

Research Proposal explained and guide

Research Ethics in Research: the Definition and Principles

Observational Research Method explained

Also interesting.

Likert Scale Survey: Definition, Basics and Questions

Interview Techniques in Research explained

Hypothesis: the Definition and Guide

Leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

BOOST YOUR SKILLS

Toolshero supports people worldwide ( 10+ million visitors from 100+ countries ) to empower themselves through an easily accessible and high-quality learning platform for personal and professional development.

By making access to scientific knowledge simple and affordable, self-development becomes attainable for everyone, including you! Join our learning platform and boost your skills with Toolshero.

POPULAR TOPICS

• Change Management
• Marketing Theories
• Problem Solving Theories
• Psychology Theories

ABOUT TOOLSHERO

• Free Toolshero e-book
• Memberships & Pricing

Project Enquiry

We Can Help You With Your Ideas, Challenges & Ambitions!!

Want to be part of Octet design Studio?

Jul 11, 2024

What is field research? Meaning, methods, and examples

Insights • Aakash Jethwani • 11 Mins reading time

In the realm of research methodologies, field study, often called field research, stands out as a pivotal approach to understanding real-world phenomena through direct observation and interaction within natural settings. 

Unlike controlled experiments, it captures genuine behaviors and social interactions, providing rich and detailed insights. Field research offers a firsthand look at reality, whether you’re exploring cultural traditions, studying social issues, or understanding consumer habits. 

For businesses, this method is invaluable for improving product design, enhancing usability, and making informed decisions based on real-life data. 

Let’s start with this blog to explore field research meaning and significance and provide field research examples to illustrate its diverse applications.

Field research meaning

Field research encompasses the systematic study conducted outside controlled environments, where researchers directly engage with subjects in their natural contexts. It involves observation, interaction, and data collection in real-world settings, aiming to capture user behaviors, interactions, and phenomena as they naturally occur. 

Unlike experiments conducted in artificial setups, field study enables researchers to explore and understand the complexities of human societies, wildlife habitats, consumer behaviors, and cultural practices within their natural environments. 

This methodological approach provides rich, contextual insights that contribute to a deeper understanding of various disciplines and phenomena, enhancing the validity and applicability of research findings in practical and real-world contexts. 

Let’s look at some field research examples to understand this concept better.

Field research examples

1. study of indigenous tribes.

Researchers visit and live among indigenous communities to study their cultures, traditions, languages, and social structures firsthand. 

They observe daily life, participate in rituals and activities, and conduct interviews to understand how these communities function and interact with the surrounding environment.

2. Urban ethnography

This involves studying people’s behaviors, interactions, and cultures in urban settings like cities or neighborhoods. 

Researchers immerse themselves in these environments to observe social dynamics, community relationships, and cultural practices unique to urban life. This helps them understand how urban societies work and evolve.

3. Wildlife tracking

Researchers use various techniques, such as GPS collars, camera traps, and direct observation, to track and study animals in their natural habitats. 

The behaviors of wildlife, migration patterns, preferred habitats, and the effects of environmental changes on animal populations are all better understood by researchers because of this fieldwork.

4. Consumer behavior studies

Researchers conduct field research in shopping malls, retail stores, or online platforms to observe and analyze consumer behavior. 

They study how people make purchasing decisions, their preferences for products or services, and their overall shopping experiences. This research is crucial for businesses to understand market trends and consumer needs.

5. Usability testing in context

This involves testing the usability of products or services in real-world settings where they are used. Researchers observe how users interact with devices, software, websites, or apps to identify usability issues, user preferences, and areas for improvement. 

Usability testing in context provides insights into how well products meet user needs and expectations in their everyday environments.

You may like to read about the difference between field studies vs ethnographic studies vs contextual inquiry

Reasons for conducting a field study

Field study is essential for gaining deep insights and understanding across various disciplines due to several key reasons:

1. Contextual understanding

Field research allows researchers to study phenomena in their natural environments, providing a contextual understanding beyond controlled settings. It lets them observe how environment, culture, and social dynamics influence behaviors and outcomes. 

For example, studying how people interact in their neighborhoods gives insights that might be missed in a lab.

2. Behavioral insights

Field research yields authentic and nuanced behavioral insights by observing behaviors directly in real-world settings. Researchers can see how people react in specific situations, which helps them understand decision-making processes, habits, and responses to stimuli. 

This direct observation is crucial for developing theories that accurately reflect real-life behaviors.

3. Cultural and social insights

Field research is invaluable for studying cultural practices, traditions, and social structures within natural contexts. It provides opportunities to immerse in diverse communities and understand their values, rituals, and daily lives. 

This field research fosters cultural sensitivity and enhances understanding of societal norms, helping researchers appreciate and respect cultural diversity.

4. Exploratory research

Field research often serves as exploratory research, where researchers explore new phenomena or test hypotheses in real-world settings. It allows for flexible and adaptive methods to uncover unexpected findings or patterns that might not be apparent in theoretical frameworks alone. 

This exploratory nature of field research contributes to expanding knowledge and generating new ideas.

5. Intervention and application

Field research also plays a crucial role in applied research and interventions. By studying problems or challenges in situ, researchers can develop and test practical solutions tailored to specific contexts. 

This approach ensures that interventions are relevant, practical, and feasible, addressing real-world issues directly.

Also, read why field research is needed across different disciplines

When is field research conducted?

Field research is conducted across diverse contexts and disciplines to explore, describe, evaluate, and monitor phenomena in their natural settings. It provides invaluable insights into real-world complexities and behaviors.

1. Exploratory studies

Field research is often conducted in exploratory studies when researchers aim to investigate new phenomena or explore unfamiliar topics. 

By immersing themselves in the field, researchers gather preliminary data and insights that help formulate hypotheses or refine research questions for further study.

2. Descriptive studies

In descriptive studies, field research describes and documents specific behaviors, characteristics, or phenomena in their natural settings. 

Researchers observe and record details without manipulating variables, aiming to comprehensively understand what exists and how it functions in real-world contexts.

3. Evaluation and monitoring

Field research is crucial for evaluating programs, policies, or interventions implemented in real-world settings. Researchers conduct ongoing monitoring to assess outcomes, measure impacts, and identify areas for improvement. 

This type of research helps stakeholders make informed decisions based on empirical data and feedback from the field.

4. Longitudinal studies

Longitudinal studies involve observing subjects over extended periods, sometimes years or decades, to track changes or developments over time. 

Field research in longitudinal studies allows researchers to capture evolving behaviors, trends, and influences within natural environments, providing insights into developmental trajectories or long-term effects.

5. Cross-cultural comparisons

Field research is essential for cross-cultural comparisons to understand how behaviors, beliefs, or social practices vary across different cultures or geographical regions. 

Researchers collect data from multiple cultural contexts, comparing similarities, differences, and underlying factors that shape cultural variations.

Types of field research

Field research encompasses various methodologies tailored to different research objectives and data collection approaches:

1. Qualitative field research

This type of field research focuses on understanding phenomena through in-depth exploration and interpretation of experiences, behaviors, and social interactions within natural settings. 

Researchers use participant observation, interviews, and open-ended surveys to gather rich, descriptive data. This approach emphasizes capturing meanings, perceptions, and contextual factors that shape individuals’ experiences and behaviors.

2. Quantitative field research

Quantitative field research involves collecting numerical data and analyzing it statistically to identify patterns, relationships, and trends. Researchers use structured surveys, experiments, or systematic observations to gather data from large samples in real-world environments. 

This approach emphasizes measurement, objectivity, and generalizability of findings, allowing researchers to draw statistically valid conclusions about populations or phenomena.

3. Mixed methods field research

Mixed methods is a type of field research that combines qualitative and quantitative approaches to leverage their strengths and comprehensively understand complex phenomena. Researchers integrate data collection methods and analyses to triangulate findings, enhancing the validity and depth of research outcomes. 

This method gives researchers a more comprehensive understanding of research issues by enabling them to capture both the depth of qualitative insights and the breadth of quantitative data.

Field research methods

The field research methods employ various ways to collect data and gain insights directly from natural settings:

1. Participant observation

Researchers immerse themselves in the studied environment, actively participating in activities and observing behaviors firsthand. With this approach, social interactions, user behaviors, and cultural customs can be thoroughly understood in natural settings.

2. Interviews and focus groups

Researchers conduct structured or semi-structured interviews with individuals or facilitate group discussions in focus groups. These methods gather qualitative data through direct interaction, probing questions, and group dynamics, offering insights into attitudes, perceptions, and experiences.

3. Surveys and questionnaires

This type of field study method collects large quantitative data from respondents. Researchers design structured instruments to gather information on attitudes, behaviors, preferences, or demographics, providing statistical insights into population patterns and trends.

4. Document analysis

Researchers analyze written or recorded materials relevant to the research topic, such as texts, reports, archives, or multimedia sources. Document analysis uncovers historical context, policy documents, organizational records, or cultural artifacts, offering valuable insights into trends, perspectives, and changes over time.

5. Sampling techniques

This technique selects a representative subset of the population for study. Researchers use methods such as random, stratified, or purposive sampling to ensure the sample reflects the diversity and characteristics of the larger population, enhancing the generalizability of findings.

6. Field experiments

Researchers carry out controlled experiments in natural environments to change variables and track their impact on relevant outcomes. Field experiments allow researchers to study cause-and-effect relationships in real-world conditions, providing empirical evidence to test hypotheses and inform practical applications.

Steps to conduct a field study

Conducting a field study involves several systematic steps to ensure rigorous research and meaningful findings:

1. Define research objectives

Define the objective and goal of the study, outlining what you aim to achieve and the questions you seek to answer through your research in the field.

2. Literature review

Conduct a thorough examination of existing literature on your research topic. This will assist you in identifying knowledge gaps, understanding theoretical frameworks, and guiding your research design and methods.

3. Research design

Develop a research design that aligns with your objectives and chosen methodology (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). Decide on data collection methods, sampling strategies, and experimental or observational techniques.

4. Obtain permissions and clearances

Obtain necessary permissions and clearances from relevant authorities or stakeholders, especially if your study involves human subjects, sensitive environments, or requires access to restricted areas.

5. Prepare data collection tools

Design and prepare data collection tools, such as interview guides, survey questionnaires, observation protocols, or experimental setups. Ensure these tools are valid, reliable, and appropriate for your research context.

6. Pilot testing

Launch a pilot test of your data collection tools and procedures to identify and address any practical issues, refine questions, and ensure the effectiveness of your approach before full-scale implementation.

7. Data collection

Collect data according to your planned methodology and procedures. This may involve conducting interviews, administering surveys, observing behaviors, or performing experiments in the field setting.

8. Data analysis

Examine the collected data using appropriate analytical techniques. This may involve coding, thematic analysis, or narrative interpretation for qualitative data. Using statistical methods to analyze patterns, relationships, and trends for quantitative data.

9. Validation and triangulation

Validate your findings by comparing and contrasting data from different sources or methods (triangulation). This helps to ensure the reliability and credibility of your results by corroborating evidence across multiple perspectives.

10. Report and dissemination

Compile your findings into a comprehensive report with an introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions. Communicate your findings, implications, and recommendations for future research or practical applications.

In conclusion, understanding field research meaning is essential for understanding real-world user needs and informing the design of effective, user-centered solutions. By immersing themselves in the natural environment, researchers can gain invaluable insights that may not be captured through other methods. 

At Octet , our experienced field researchers leverage various field research methods to uncover these insights, which we then translate into actionable recommendations to drive innovation and foster deeper connections between products/services and users. 

By partnering with Octet, you can harness the power of field research to create solutions that truly resonate with your target audience.

1. Why is field study important?

Field research is essential because it allows researchers to gain a deep, contextual understanding of real-world user needs and behaviors. 

By immersing themselves in the natural environment, researchers can uncover insights that may not be captured through other research methods, such as surveys or lab studies. 

These insights can inform the design process, leading to more effective, user-centered solutions that resonate with the target audience.

2. What is the objective of the field study?

The primary objective of field research is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the user’s environment, experiences, and pain points. 

Through the observation of users in their natural environments, researchers are able to determine the fundamental aspects that impact their decisions and behaviors. 

This information can then guide the design and development of products, services, or interventions more appropriate for the target population.

3. What do you mean by field of study?

The term “field of study” refers to the specific academic or professional discipline in which field research is conducted. 

This can include various fields, such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, marketing, product design, or human-computer interaction. 

The field of study determines the research methods, theoretical frameworks, and analytical approaches used to collect and interpret the data gathered through field research.

Read more on:

What is cognitive walkthrough? Methods and examples

What is contextual inquiry? Definition and example

What is participatory design? Learn how to conduct it

Aakash Jethwani

Consulting Enterprise and SaaS Tech Companies

A design leader known for creating and offering pixel-perfect design by striking a balance between design and technology to his clients while also managing his team and business.

Inspire the next generation of designers

Related blogs, benefits of ui ux design: how it transforms user experience.

Reading Time: 9 minutes In the dynamic world of digital interactions, UI/UX design stands as the backbone of creating meaningful and seamless experiences for users.  Whether you’re a seasoned designer or just stepping into the realm of UI/UX, understanding the advantages of UI/UX Design and benefits of user experience design can significantly impact your approach to crafting interfaces that […]

Dec 28, 2023 • By Aakash Jethwani

Essential UI UX design tips for outstanding UX experiences

Reading Time: 9 minutes In the rapidly changing digital landscape, UI/UX Design holds unparalleled importance. Its significance lies in crafting experiences that resonate with users, ensuring their satisfaction and loyalty. A meticulously designed UI/UX becomes a secret weapon in the competitive tech space, setting a product apart from the crowd.  Beyond aesthetics, it plays a pivotal role in increasing […]

Dec 27, 2023 • By Aakash Jethwani

• What is Field Research: Meaning, Examples, Pros & Cons

Introduction

Field research is a method of research that deals with understanding and interpreting the social interactions of groups of people and communities by observing and dealing with people in their natural settings. 

The field research methods involve direct observation, participant observation, and qualitative interviews.

Let’s take a deeper look at field research, what it entails, some examples as well as the pros and cons of field research.

What is Field Research

Field research can be defined as a qualitative method of data collection focused on observing, relating, and understanding people while they are in their natural environment. It is somewhat similar to documentaries on Nat Geo wild where the animals are observed in their natural habitat. 

Similarly, social scientists, who are sometimes called men watchers carry out interviews and observe people from a distance to see how they act in a social environment and react to situations around them.

Field research usually begins in a specific setting and the end game is to study, observe and analyze the subject within that setting. It looks at the cause and effect as well as the correlation between the participants and their natural setting. Due to the presence of multiple variables, it is sometimes difficult to properly analyze the results of field research. 

Field research adopts a wide range of social research methods, such as limited participation, direct observation, document analysis, surveys, and informal interviews. Although field research is generally considered qualitative research , it often involves multiple elements of quantitative research.

Methods of Field Research

There are 5 different methods of conducting Field Research and they are as follows;

1. Direct Observation

In this method of research, the researcher watches and records the activities of groups of people or individuals as they go about their daily activities. Direct observation can be structured or unstructured.

 Structured here means that the observation takes place using a guide or process developed before that time. 

Unstructured, on the other hand, means that the researcher conducted the observation, watching people and events, and taking notes as events progressed, without the aid of any predetermined technique.

Some other features of direct observation include the following;

• The observer does not attempt to actively engage the people being observed in conversations or interviews, rather he or she blends into the crowd and carries out their observation.
• Data collected include field notes, videos, photographs, rating scales, etc.
• Direct observation most times occurs in the open, usually public settings, that requires no permission to gain entry. Conducting direct observation in a private setting would raise ethical concerns.
• The outcome of direct observation is not in any way influenced by the researcher.

2. Participant Observation

This research method has an understanding with a group of individuals, to take part in their daily routines and their scheduled events. In this case, the researcher dwells among the group or community being observed for as long as is necessary to build trust and evoke acceptance.

Data from the participant’s observation take the following varying forms;

• Field notes are the primary source of data. These notes are taken during the researcher’s observations and from the events they experienced and later developed the notes into formal field notes.
• A diary is used to record special intimate events that occur within the setting.
• The process of participant observation is intent on developing relationships with the members which breed conversations that are sometimes formal or informal. Formal here refers to deliberate depth interviews, while informal could stem from everyday conversations that give insight into the study. 

Data from these events can be part of the field notes or separate interview transcripts.

The method of participant observation aims to make the people involved comfortable enough to share what they know freely without any inhibition.

3. Ethnography

Ethnography is a form of field research that carries out observation through social research, social perspective, and the cultural values of a social setting. In this scenario, the observation is carried out objectively, hence the researcher may choose to live within a social environment of a cultural group and silently observe and record their daily routines and behavior.

4. Qualitative Interviews

Qualitative interviews are a type of field research method that gets information by asking direct questions from individuals to gather data on a particular subject. Qualitative interviews are usually conducted via 3 methods namely;

• Informal Interviews
• Semi Structured Interviews
• Standardized Open ended Interviews

Let’s take a look at each of them briefly along with their advantages and disadvantages.

This kind of interview is often conversational and occurs during participant and direct observations.

The interview is triggered, most times spontaneously by conversing with a member of the group on the areas of interest and as the conversation progresses, the researcher fluidly introduces the specific question.

• Semi-Structured Interviews

In this scenario, the researcher already has a list of prepared questions, that are open-ended and can evoke as much information as possible. The researcher can venture into other topics as the interview progresses, using a call-and-response style.

This method of field research can adopt a mix of one-on-one interviews or focus groups.

• Standardized, Open-Ended Interviews

These are scripted interviews with the questions prepped and written before the interview following a predetermined order. It is similar to a survey and the questions are open-ended to gather detailed information from the respondents and sometimes it involves multiple interviewers.

5. Case Study

A case study research is a detailed analysis of a person, situation, or event. This method may seem a bit complex, however, it is one of the easiest ways of conducting research. difficult to operate, however, it is one of the simplest ways of researching as it involves only a detailed study of an individual or a group of people or events. Every aspect of the subject life and history is analyzed to identify patterns and causes of behavior.

Steps to Conduct Field Research

Due to the nature of field research, the tight timelines, and the associated costs involved, planning and implementing can be a bit overwhelming. We have put together steps to adopt that would make the whole process hitch free for you.

Set Up The Right Team : To begin your field research, the first step is to have the right team. The role of the researcher and the team members has to be well defined from the start, with the relevant milestones agreed upon to measure progress.

Recruiting People for the Study : The success of field research largely depends on the people being studied. Evaluate the individuals selected for the research to be sure that they tick all the boxes required for successful research in the area of study that is being researched.

Data Collection Methodology : The methodology of data collection adopted must be suited to the area or kind of research being conducted. It could be one of the methods or a combination of two or more methods.

Visit The Site: A prior visit to the site is essential to the success of the field research. This should be done to also help determine the best methodology that would be suitable for the location. 

Data Analysis: Analyzing the data gathered is important to validate the hypothesis of the field research. 

Communicating Results : Once the data is analyzed, communicate the results to the stakeholders involved in the research so that the relevant action required based on the results can be decided and carried out promptly. 

Reasons to Conduct Field Research

Field research has been widely used in the 20th century in the social sciences. However, it can be time-consuming and costly to implement. Despite this fact, there exist a lot of reasons to conduct field research.

Here are 4 major reasons to conduct field research:

Solves the problem of lack of data : Field research fixes the issue of gaps in data, especially in cases where there is very little or no data about a topic. In cases like this, the only way to validate any hypothesis is through primary research and data. Conducting field research solves the problem of data lapses and provides material evidence to support any findings.

Understanding the context of the study : In many cases, the data collected is appropriate, however for a deep understanding of the data gathered there is a need for field research to help understand other factors in the study. For instance, if data show that students from rich homes generally do well academically. 

Conducting field research can bring to the fore other factors like, discipline, well-equipped teachers, motivation from their forebears to excel in whatever they do, etc. but field research is still conducted. 

Increasing data quality: Since this research, method employs the use of multiple tools to collect data and varying methodologies, the quality of data is higher.

Collecting ancillary data : Field research puts the researchers in a position of being at the center of the data collection process, in terms of location, one on one relationship with the participants, etc. This exposes them to new lines of thought that would have hitherto been overlooked and they can now collect data, that was not planned for at the beginning of the study.

Examples of Field Research

1. Interprete social metrics in a slum By employing the use of observation methods and formal interviews, researchers can now understand the social indicators and social hierarchy that exist in a slum.

Financial independence and the way the slum is run daily are part of the study and data collected from these areas can give insight into the way a slum operates differently from structured societies.

2. Understand the impact of sports on a child’s development This method of field research takes years to conduct and the sample size can be quite huge. Data collected and analyzed from this study provides insight into how children from different physical locations and backgrounds are influenced by sports and the impact of sporting activities on a child’s development. 

3. The study of animal migration patterns Field research is used immensely to study flora and fauna. A major use case is scientists observing and studying animal migration patterns alongside the change of seasons and its influence on animal migration patterns.

Field research takes time and uses months and sometimes years to help gather data that show how to safely expedite the passage of animals.

Advantages of Field Research

Field research and the various methodology employed have their pros and cons.

Let’s take a look at some of them.

• Provide context to the data being analyzed in terms of settings, interactions, or individuals.
• The source of data does not require or involve verbal interactions, and there is no intrusion of anyone’s personal, space because everything is done quietly, from a distance.
• The researcher develops a  deep and detailed understanding of a setting and the members within the setting.
• It is carried out in a real-world and natural environment which eliminates tampering with variables.
• The study is conducted in a comfortable environment, hence data can be gathered even about an ancillary topic, that would have been undiscovered in other circumstances.
• The researcher’s deep understanding of the research subjects due to their proximity to them makes the research thorough and precise. 
• It helps the researcher to be flexible and respond to individual differences while capturing emerging information. Allows the researcher to be responsive to individual differences and to capture emerging information.

Disadvantages of Field Research

• The researcher might not be able to capture all that is being said and there is the risk of losing information.
• The quality of the information derived is dependent, on the researcher’s skills.
• Significant interactions and events may occur when an observer is not present.
• Some topics cannot easily be interpreted by mere observation.g., attitudes, emotions, affection).
• The reliability of observations can be complex due to the presence of multiple observers with different interpretations.
• It requires a lot of time (and resources)and can take years to complete.
• The researcher may lose objectivity as they spend more time among the members of the group.
• It is a subjective and interpretive method that is solely dependent on the researcher’s ability.

Field research helps researchers to gain firsthand experience and knowledge about the events, processes, and people, being studied. No other method provides this kind of close-up view of the everyday life of people and events. It is a very detailed method of research and is excellent for understanding the role of social context in shaping the lives, perspectives, and experiences of people. Alongside this, it may uncover aspects of a person that might never have been discovered.

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• Data Collection
• field research
• qualitative research
• Angela Kayode-Sanni

You may also like:

Research Summary: What Is It & How To Write One

Introduction A research summary is a requirement during academic research and sometimes you might need to prepare a research summary...

The McNamara Fallacy: How Researchers Can Detect and to Avoid it.

Introduction The McNamara Fallacy is a common problem in research. It happens when researchers take a single piece of data as evidence...

Unit of Analysis: Definition, Types & Examples

Introduction A unit of analysis is the smallest level of analysis for a research project. It’s important to choose the right unit of...

Projective Techniques In Surveys: Definition, Types & Pros & Cons

Introduction When you’re conducting a survey, you need to find out what people think about things. But how do you get an accurate and...

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

Methods and Aspects of Field Research

• Open Access
• First Online: 10 December 2020

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Francis Müller   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0705-6846 3  

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Anthropology ((BRIEFSANTHRO))

7787 Accesses

2 Citations

This chapter lays out the history of ethnography, which began with travel narratives in antiquity and came to be used as a method in anthropology and urban sociology in the early twentieth century. Discussed, among other things, are the researcher’s role in the field and ethical considerations, as well as methods such as observation, interviews, digital, visual, and participatory ethnography, and the question of the documentation of design ethnography research. These are dealt with here within the specific context of design ethnography, which is usually significantly shorter in duration than the typical ethnographies in anthropology and cultural sociology and may seek not only to investigate a situation but also potentially to alter it.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

• Participatory action research
• Defamiliarization
• Digital ethnography
• Ethnographic interview
• Ethnographic observation
• Visual research

The term ethnography can be traced back to the ancient Greek éthnos (foreign people) and graphé (writing). A description of a foreign society presupposes two things: First, people who are engaged in ethnography must be mobile in order to have come into contact with foreign societies to begin with. Second, they require media such as writing, drawing, images, etc., in order to record their observations. The oldest ethnographies are travelogues, some of which had already been composed in ancient Greece: The geographer Skylax, the merchant Pytheas von Massalia, and the historian Herodotus reported on their journeys to the Near East. In the fourteenth century, the Muslim scholar Ibn Battûta wrote about his travels to Mekka, India, and China. Marco Polo’s reports of his travels in China—the authenticity of which, by the way, was doubted at the time because there were too few marvelous creatures described in them—are of course well known. Equally disputed was the travelogue of the German adventurer Hand Staden, who journeyed to Brazil in the sixteenth century with Portuguese conquerors and was supposedly held captive there by cannibals.

Later, ethnographic reports were written by missionaries, who explored indigenous societies in order to Christianize them. It was not until the nineteenth century that such investigations would be liberated from missionary ambitions, thus clearing a path for actual anthropological research. In the late nineteenth century, ethnography became a sociological and anthropological method. The American anthropologist Frank Hamilton Cushing, who spent many years during the 1880s with the indigenous Zuni tribes in New Mexico, was one of the first to write ethnographic reports in the social scientific sense ( 1988 ). The actual foundation of the method as such is ascribed to the Polish anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, who conducted long-term field work on the Trobriand Islands in Papua New Guinea in the 1910s ( 1932 ).

5.1 The Foreign Worlds Next Door and Defamiliarization

The ethnographic method was also developed around the same time, in the early twentieth century, by the Chicago School of sociology—although here the encounter with the foreign took place not on the far-off Trobriand Islands but just next door (Deegan 2009 , pp. 11–25, 119–164). Robert E. Park, on of the founders of the Chicago School, said to his students:

You have been told to go grubbing in the library, thereby accumulating a mass of notes and liberal coating of grime. You have been told to choose problems wherever you can find musty stacks of routine records based on trivial schedules prepared by tired bureaucrats and filled out by reluctant applicants for aid or fussy do-gooders or indifferent clerks. This is called “getting your hands dirty in real social research.” Those who counsel you are wise and honorable; the reasons they offer are of great value. But one more thing is needful; first hand observation. Go and sit in the lounges of luxury hotels and on the doorsteps of the flophouses; sit on the Gold Coast settees and the slum shakedowns; sit in the orchestra hall and in the Star and Garter burlesque. In short, gentlemen, go to get the seat of your pants dirty in real social research. (Park, cited in Prus 1996 , p. 119)

It is not by chance that Park calls on his students to go out to the luxury hotels and to the emergency shelters in the slums. In the late nineteenth century, migration led to a great degree of urbanization and pluralization of society, particularly in the northeast of the USA, but also in other major centers. Cities like Chicago and New York developed into gigantic metropolises in the span of a few decades. But it was not only the quantitative dimension of these urbanization processes that was new. The influx of immigrants also altered society qualitatively. It undermined the cultural dominance of the WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) in the northeast. The predominantly Protestant society was now confronted with Jews from Ukraine, Catholics from Ireland and Italy, and Germans, who were thought to be beer-guzzling atheists. To this day, the China Towns and Little Italies in Chicago, New York, and other major cities bear witness to the exoticization of society from within that was just beginning then. The next side street could lead to another world.

The emerging Penny Press showed interest in this social pluralization. It “discovered what was close at hand, but at the same time deviant and curious, as newsworthy material” (Lindner 2007 , p. 19). Reporters began to investigate mortuaries, bordellos, factories, and slaughterhouses. Jacob A. Riis (Harper 2012 , p. 24 ff.), who emigrated to New York from Denmark, exemplifies this development. The police reporter, who is regarded as the founder of social photojournalism, took pictures of subcultural lifeworlds in Lower Manhattan in the 1880s, which first appeared as illustrations in newspaper and were later published in the photography book How the Other Half Lives ( 1997 ). Riis shows social realities that are geographically close but culturally far away. His work consists of ethnographic lifeworld analyses , mapped spaces and photographic portraits of street boys, Chinese opium smokers, bohemians, and Jews. Riis was however not only an ethnographer, but also a social reformer. His aim was to point out social grievances.

Even more radical were the “girl stunt reporters” who published social reportage in major American daily newspapers in the late 1880s. On commission from the papers, they went undercover to the prisons, factories, and poorhouses of large cities and reported on the abuses there. Elisabeth Cochrane, writing under the pseudonym Nellie Bly, was the most famous representative of this women’s movement. In 1887, she had herself admitted to a New York psychiatric clinic. Her report, Ten Days in a Mad-House (Bly 2009 )—which revealed inhumane conditions and triggered a political scandal—helped develop the participatory, covert practice of undercover research. Lindner points out the reciprocal influence of urban reportage and ethnography ( 2007 , p. 115): Both thematize the foreignness that is found next door; both are explorative and based on experience. This development was anticipated by reporters in the nineteenth century and not taken up by the social sciences until some decades later.

Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess of the Chicago School of sociology understood the metropolis as a laboratory in which human behavior could be investigated (Park and Burgess 1967 , p. 1). Within the Chicago School milieu, the primary concern of study was societal marginality: thieves (Sutherland 1989 ), migrant workers (Anderson 1998 ), ghettos (Wirth 1998 ), slums (Zorbaugh 1929 ), vice (Reckless 1969 ), ethnically mixed marriages (Adams 1975 ), or the Italian quarter in Boston (Whyte 1981 ). Just as in investigative journalism, research was conducted by going undercover. Frances R. Donovan, for instance, worked as a sales girl in a department store for 2 months and wrote a report about it ( 1988 ). This tradition was continued by others, such as James P. Spradley, who wrote—among other things—about urban itinerants and alcoholics ( 1999 ), the deaf (Spradley and Spradley 1985 ) and barmaids (Spradley and Mann 1975 ). The immersive approach was also followed by Loïc Wacquant, who spent several years training at a boxing gym on the South Side of Chicago ( 2006 ).

Ethnography aimed to map the processes through which people created their world (Dellwing and Prus 2012 , p. 53). The main focus of ethnography is: “What people do, what people know, and the things people make and use” (Spradley 1980 , p. 5). Fundamentally, ethnography is an empirical process that involves linguistic, mental, visual, sensory, and corporeal aspects (Pink 2015 , p. 26 ff.). To investigate ethnographically means collecting data by exposing oneself—that is, one’s own body—to the unpredictable influences of another lifeworld (Coffey 1999 , p. 59 ff.; Goffman 1989 , p. 125). In contrast to ethnographic field work in anthropology, design ethnography usually takes place in the context of one’s “own” society. We do not have to travel like Malinowsky to the Trobriand Islands in order to experience the foreign. A “journey” to a nursing home, or a Thai boxing club, or a hole-in-the-wall bar will lead us to an adventure around the corner.

In this context, George E. Marcus poses the question of whether lifeworlds can still be conceived of as closed, microscopic entities at all, as in Malinowski’s work. Marcus proposes a multi-sited ethnography , which follows ensembles of people, things, metaphors, scripts, biographies, and conflicts that circulate globally ( 1995 , p. 106 ff.). This may be illustrated with reference to a research project I conducted together with the designer Bitten Stetten on landmine victims, disability, and creative practices in Angola (Müller 2016 ). The energetic Kuduro music produced, sung, and danced in the musseque Footnote 1 —the slums in Luanda—is a mixture of western Techno and Angolese Kilapanga and Semba. The long fingernails, rhinestone earrings, and knee socks with flip-flops that we observed on young Kudoro dancers in Sambizanga (a musseque in Luanda) (Stetter 2016 , p. 90) are not an isolated phenomenon, but can be read in a global context. Here, elements of a global pop culture are mixed with Angolan culture. Many young people in Angola have a smartphone and a Facebook profile. They know the football stars from Madrid and Barcelona. They are connected with students in Rio de Janeiro and Lisbon. Because socialization still continues to occur in microsocial contexts, however, societies still develop differently as before. This is why a globally uniform culture has not emerged (Tilley 2009 , p. 267). Consumer goods and global brands are inculturated, adapted, and imbued with new meanings. For this reason, globalization leads not to uniformity but rather to transformation.

In her understanding of ethnography, Sarah Pink links knowledge gained from field work with individual experience. She defines ethnography “as a process of creating and representing knowledge or ways of knowing that are based on ethnographers’ own experiences and the ways these intersect with the persons, places and things encountered during that process” (Pink 2013 , p. 35). When we are familiar with a lifeworld, it is all the more challenging not to classify things prematurely and instead to observe the familiar with a phenomenological gaze, which is also referred to as “defamiliarization” (Bell et al. 2006 ).

5.2 Focused Ethnographies and Design Anthropology

A fundamental distinction may be drawn between classical and focused ethnography (Knoblauch 2006 ). Classical ethnography in the tradition of the Chicago School is characterized by long-term immersion in the field, openness, and description of impressions and experiences. Focused ethnographies are practiced in applied fields such as architecture (Cranz 2016 ), business and marketing (Salvador et al. 1999 ), Human Computer-Interaction (HCI) (Bannon and Bødker 1991 ; Nardi 1993 ; Suchman 1987 ) and Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (Crabtree et al. 2009 ; Hughes et al. 1994 , 1995 ; Shapiro 1994 ). In contrast to the knowledge-oriented classical ethnographies, the goal of focused ethnography consists in the implementation of a new technology, a system design, and artifact, a building, etc. While classical ethnographies are intensive in terms of time and experience , focused ethnographies are data-intensive. Technical recording devices are used to gather detailed data from specific lifeworlds within a relatively brief period of time (Knoblauch 2001 , p. 130). Accordingly, these data-intensive approaches are also known as “wired ethnography” (Knoblauch 2001 , p. 127). In business contexts—for instance, innovation management—ethnographic investigation can take as little as a single or even half a day (Salvador et al. 1999 , p. 36).

In the 1980s, the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center in California produced Workplace Studies : Lucy A. Suchman intertwined cultural anthropology with engineering in her dissertation, Plans and Situated Actions: The problem of human-machine communication ( 1987 ), in which she argued that human behavior cannot be determined by machines but that it arises in situ. Suchman introduced into technological discourse the ethno-methodological concept of situated action , which posits that actions deviate from plans. One of the findings is that human action does not conform to what the engineers conceived but rather follows from specific situations.

In the 1980s, there were some collaborations between anthropologists from the USA and design researchers from Scandinavia (Bloomberg and Karasti 2013 , p. 87), where participatory design research had already developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as visionary social models and new technologies began to receive more attention (Bjerknes et al. 1987 ; Kensing and Greenbaum 2013 , p. 27 ff.; Mareis et al. 2013 ). Alison J. Clarke notes that starting as early as 1968, anthropological approaches had already entered into design discourses, which had previously been oriented strongly on industrial productivity ( 2016 , p. 71). This is the environment in which participatory Action Research arose (Blomberg and Karasti 2013 ; Reason 2004 ; Reason and Bradbury 2008 ). At that time, designers were conducting workshops with users, testing new technologies, developing mock-ups, and constructing future scenarios. Design ethnography established itself in the 1990s in this rather technology- and market-driven environment (Nova 2014 , p. 29 ff.). In the article “Ethnographic Field Methods and Their Relation to Design” Jeanette Blomberg et al. identifies the central reason why ethnography is important when it comes to the implementation of new technologies in workplaces (Blomberg et al. 1993 , p. 141 f.): because designers create artifacts for workplace contexts about which they know very little—and will therefore pursue their own needs and conceptions.

This accords with the notion of User-Centered Design , which became a topic of discussion in the 1980s (Gould and Lewis 1985 ): the center is, so to speak, the lifeworld of the user and the “member’s point of view,” which the researcher closes in on through methods such as on-site observation, informal interviews, and video recording (Blomberg et al. 1993 , p. 127 ff.). Hughes et al. described four types of ethnographic approaches ( 1994 , p. 432 ff.) Footnote 2 applied in CSCW that also have potential for design ethnography:

Concurrent ethnography : A technical system or a “rapid prototype” is introduced into praxis at the same time as it is observed ethnographically, whereby iterative loops, such as field research—debriefing—design of a prototype—field research, are played through several times. The observations are focused on the human-object or human-interface interactions. This type of research usually lasts a year or a little longer.

Quick and dirty ethnography : This refers primarily to quick forays into the field. Such ethnographies are “dirty” because they are not very detailed. This process can provide an overview of an area that has been defined in advance. Length: 2–3 weeks.

Evaluative ethnography : This ethnography is performed after the implementation of a new technology or system. It is focused. Various forms of interview are utilized as the main method. Length: 2–4 weeks.

Re-examination of previous studies : This refers to analyses of earlier ethnographic studies. It is therefore purely desk research with no visit to the field.

Yana Milev criticizes the kind of applied design research that serves to generate prospering branches of industry and multiple labels as “design governance” ( 2015 , p. 144). In contrast, the design anthropology she proposes places “the complex habitat of cultures as well as the anthropological techniques of constructing meaning and survival at the center of the theory and practice of design” ( 2015 , p. 145).

Keith M. Murphy and George E. Marcus have mapped out the similarities between design and ethnography in social research, which they describe as follows (Murphy and Marcus 2013 , p. 257 ff.): (1) Design and ethnography exist as product and process , (2) Design and ethnography are focused on research , (3) Design and ethnography are people-centered , (4) Design and ethnography are at the service of more than the thing itself , and (5) Design and ethnography are reflexive . At the same time, differences come into play that are related to the fact that design is characterized by being future oriented , interventionist , and collaborative (Otto and Smith 2013 , p. 3 f.).

Ethnography in the social sciences is primarily interested in observing the “naturalistic backdrops of foreign groups” (Dellwing and Prus 2012 , p. 54 ff.) and deriving theories from this. This is why structured interviews, which are “artificial” situations, are perceived as a problem and “conversations” are preferred (Dellwing and Prus 2012 , p. 117). Design intervenes and orients itself on the future, which to some extent it itself creates (Yelavich and Adams 2014 ). Future, in this context, should be understood less as a linear exploration of the present than as a multitude of ideas, critiques, and possibilities that is embedded in the narrative, objects, and practices of our everyday world (Kjærsgaard et al. 2016 , p. 1). In design ethnography, situations are disrupted, data is interpreted more quickly, and the processes are iterative. Moreover, fieldwork, analysis, and the transfer to design cannot always be sharply distinguished (Bratteteig et al. 2013 , p. 134 f.). In this context, Crabtree et al. posit:

Fieldwork is not about going out and looking at what people do, gathering some “data,” and then analyzing it when you get back to the ranch. Analysis is part and parcel of fieldwork. It permeates fieldwork. When you go into a field—into a setting—you should be doing analysis. (Crabtree et al. 2012 , p. 130)

In the context of design ethnography, iterative processes continually produce hypotheses, out of which prototypes, workshops, mock-ups, future scenarios, etc., are developed. Murphy and Marcus postulate that it is not just that design can learn from ethnography, but that enrichment also flows in the other direction: ethnography can also learn from design—for instance, from its iterative, less linear and more playful approach to the field and the data ( 2013 , p. 253 ff.).

The design researcher Nicola Nova provides a descriptive treatment of ethnography in his book Beyond Design Ethnography. How Designers practice Ethnographic Research ( 2014 ). Nova interviews designers about how they apply the methods in practice. To distinguish design ethnography as compared to ethnography in the social sciences, Nova lists the following characteristics:

The time spent in the field is shorter, the focus is more narrow, the analysis of the material is closely linked to the design practices with the production of intermediary objects […], the field data are widely heterogenous, the ways that ‘results’ are presented are so distinct from anthropology that it’s sometimes difficult to draw a clear line between “field results” and “design work”. (Nova 2014 , p. 117)

Design ethnography is not about a fixation on methods, but rather about immersion in social lifeworlds. Curiosity and a fundamentally open attitude toward people and social lifeworlds is paramount. It is about a radical attentiveness to social realities, whereby the methods for achieving this are only a means and not an end in themselves (Charmaz and Mitchell 2009 , p. 161). Crabtree et al. even maintain that methods should be eschewed completely ( 2012 , p. 67), which on a philosophical level accords with the epistemological anarchism of Paul Feyerabend ( 2010 ). Salvador et al. plead for using methods creatively, by always developing them specifically for an individual field context ( 1999 , p. 41). Nonetheless, there are certain aspects—such as for instance access to the field or the researcher’s role in the field—that are relevant to any field research and which will therefore be discussed in more detail in the next sections.

5.3 Access to the Field

To explore a particular lifeworld, it is best to simply go where it is located (this could be a digital as well as a physical space). This, however, might turn out to be a considerable challenge, depending on the place. While there are some lifeworlds that one can simply enter spontaneously, for others—such as for instance “total institutions” (Goffman 1961 ) such as prisons or mental hospitals—a formal permit would be needed. While certain groups are very accessible, other react to foreign visitors with hostility or even aggression. Robert Prus proposes four ways of accessing the field: (a) utilizing our own experiences , (b) accessing mutual settings , (c) finding sponsors , and (d) making “ cold calls ” ( 1997 , p. 216 ff.).

In each of these cases, it is important to have a gatekeeper—that is, a person who knows the field and is trusted there in ways that can carry over to the ethnographer. The impression one makes when entering the field is also critical. In certain areas, to enter the field without a gatekeeper is dangerous or nearly impossible. For our fieldwork in Angola, we made use of the contacts of a half-Angolese architect with whom I have long been personally acquainted. This man accompanied us during our first 3 days in Luanda and introduced us to important people to whom he had previously reached out—such as leaders of an NGO that assists victims of war and people with disabilities. Together with these officials, we could go into the field and conduct interviews within the local lifeworlds with those who were affected (Müller 2016 , p. 69 ff.). In the case of Larissa Holaschke, who investigated the subversive strategies of women in Iran in her master’s thesis, couch surfing turned out to be a successful mode of entry into the field. In this manner, Holaschke came into direct contact with people from the liberal-minded milieus that were the focus of her research ( 2016 ). She gained direct insight into the lifeworlds and limited spaces of freedom that were found behind closed doors.

The situations looks different when it comes to experiments, focus groups, and interventionist methods such as cultural probes. In those cases, test subjects must be identified in advance. This raises the question—particularly with qualitative methods, which are used with small groups—of what criteria should be used to select them. Nicholas Nova asked designers what process they used to form their test groups and encountered the following methods of selection (Nova 2014 , p. 48 f.):

Random : Arbitrary people chosen from the population

Homogenous : A focus group of people with common characteristics

Comparative method : Various groups for comparison

Extreme cases : People and groups with patterns of behavior or characteristics that deviate sharply from the norm

According to reputation : Recruiting test subjects based on recommendation

Beyond-users : non-users or abstainers as a focus group

Analog situations : Focusing on situations similar to what is characteristic for the field being investigated

When selecting test subjects, it is important to consider what is motivating them to participate. In some field work, there may be little understanding for a research project. People in certain environments might not even understand that there is something like a specific research interest in them. If they are willing to collaborate, then, this mainly has to do with a liking for the researcher. Or they may see possible economic advantages in participation, which should be openly discussed and negotiated.

5.4 Researcher’s Role in the Field

The researcher’s role in the field has been variously handled in anthropology, and there has been no lack of self-critical and occasionally ironic judgment. The anthropologist John van Maanen describes ethnographers as “dull visitors,” “meddlesome busybodies,” “hopeless dummies,” “social creeps,” “anthropofoologists,” “management spies,” and “government dupes” ( 2011 , p. 2). In some societal milieus, anthropology is a foreign concept—and consequently, the presence of researchers in the field can be alienating. The situation in the field thus ceases to be “natural,” as the researcher in fact wants it to be. Their presence alters the field.

It is rather rare for designers to conduct fieldwork in Angola or the south of Mexico. Mostly, they operate in environments that are not entirely remote from them. But even those who deal with the milieus of computer games, rock climbing, dementia, or insect eaters are challenged to engage with the genuinely specific aspects of the corresponding lifeworlds and realms of consumption. And if they are no strangers to these worlds—for instance, if they themselves are active gamers—they will attempt to distance themselves artificially.

When I was conducting fieldwork in a Ghanian and a Swiss evangelical community in the greater Zurich area (Müller 2015 ), I was received openly by both. On my first visit to the Ghanian Sunday service, I was asked to come to the front and introduce myself to the attendees. In the course of my visits, I was able to convince the pastor of the relevance of my research and could move about freely throughout the spaces. However, not everyone was aware of my role as an ethnographer. My attempts to maintain distance at ceremonies such as healings and exorcisms were often ignored by the faithful because they saw me as a potential convert and encouraged me to participate. One day, when I was attending a baptism, a pastor wanted to baptize me alongside. She said I had been there long enough after all and knew enough about the faith. As an agnostic who personally has no use whatsoever for evangelicalism, I of course declined.

Distance and proximity, among other things, are thematized in the sociology of religion in connection with methodological agnosticism. This refers to an attitude that brackets the content of religion as ontological truth. For example, whether religious testimonials—such as conversion narratives—are “true” cannot be determined by the sociologist of religion, but only within the limited social lifeworld of religious practice. There—in the field—is where the “truth” that is of interest to the researcher will be intersubjectively negotiated. For “[…] the task of the ethnographer is not to determine ‘the truth’ but to reveal the multiple truths apparent in others’ lives” (Emerson et al. 1995 , p. 3).

Dellwing and Prus note that ethnography has “hot” phases of participation, during which one is passionately involved and contrasting “cooler” phases, in which one is calmer and more distanced ( 2012 , p. 69). Goffman advocates for an immersive approach:

The sights and sounds around you should get to be normal. You should be able to even play with the people, and make jokes back and forth […]. The members of the opposite sex should become attractive to you. You should be able to engage in the same body rhythms, rate of movement, tapping your feet, that sort of thing, as the people around you. (Goffman 1989 , p. 129)

This leads to a temporary immersion in specific lifeworld contexts. Ethnographers adapt to situations. They are chameleons. Fieldwork alters them. It is important to set aside one’s own values, at least temporarily, and conform to the field. Within intercultural constellations, in particular, one’s own convictions and ideologies could become obstacles. For instance, Marimar Sanz Abbul and Mariam Bujalil reported at the MX Design Conference in Mexico City:

When a group of students from Mexico City visited an indigenous community in the mountains and did not touch the food because it had meat and many of them were vegetarians, the target community’s trust toward the class immediately broke down and the project had to be prematurely terminated. (cited in Sierach 2016 , p. 57)

Ethnographers should be open, curious, empathetic, adaptable, and ready to revise their opinions, preconceptions, and values—at least to a certain extent. Anne Honer advocates taking people in the field seriously and not overwriting them with one’s own moral ideals ( 2011 , p. 87). Those who only judge and are not prepared to reconsider their own opinions are rather unsuitable for ethnographic fieldwork. Salvador et al. therefore write about design ethnography: “We will study people. It’s their voice, their story, not our own […]” ( 1999 , p. 41).

5.5 Observation

Observations are always intentional. We cannot see everything. Our biological make-up does not allow us to see the world in 360°. Even within our field of vision, we only see a portion in sharp focus and the rest is unclear. Maturana and Varela have called attention to the epistemological consequences of this biological structure. They speak of a blind spot : “We do not see that we do not see” ( 2003 , p. 8). The gaze is singular, given that it originates in the consciousness of a biological individual whose body is situated in a particular place. Ethnographic observation is always based on selection (Katz 2019 ).

What do these epistemological considerations mean for ethnographic observation, which Roland Girtler calls the “queen of fieldwork methods” ( 2001 , p. 147)? For one thing, they relativize the faith in objectivity. Objectivity is based on reduction. I can, for instance, count the number of people in a certain space. This number is objective. But this objectivity obscures a universe of other attributes—for example, the gender, age, ethnicity, etc., of the people in the room, the clothes they are wearing, their behavior, whether they are meditating, sitting on chairs, boxing, working at computers, dancing, etc. Obviously, I can operationalize each of these individual attributes in turn. I can quantify the gender, ethnicity, age, etc. and capture these statistically, but this does not overcome the basic problem that objectivity is attained only through reductionism. Seeing is thus always a form of classification. Seeing is based on prior knowledge:

We, people of today, directly see a railroad station, a form that a primitive man would be unable to see. He would look at the mass of ironwork in tangled “laths” fixed to the ground, at houses on wheels, at a hard-breathing monster exhaling fire and smoke, and he would probably see his own forms: the dragon, the devil, perhaps many other things, but not our good old railway. (Fleck 1986 , p. 137)

When we observe ethnographically, then, we should attempt to set aside such acquired knowledge, at least partially. In this process, the familiar is particularly problematic because it is classified all too rapidly. That is why Manfred Lueger calls for the familiar and the mundane to be transformed into an unfamiliar state “by decomposing it, treating it as something new, looking for conceivable connections of meaning” (Lueger 2000 , p. 111).

5.6 Dimensions of Observation

On epistemological grounds, then, we cannot see everything and therefore always define a focus. Lueger distinguishes three possible areas of focus in observation ( 2000 , p. 107 ff.): (1) actors , (2) events and actions , (3) objects and products. These three dimensions can be used to describe any social situation, since they are found in all of them. There are people involved who are carrying out actions (even if they are passively meditating, that is an action) and there are always objects—for instance clothing—on hand. Even in places where people are naked—doctor’s offices, swinger clubs, and nude beaches—there are culturally specific objects present. James P. Spradley descries ethnographic observation as follows: “We observe what people do (cultural behavior); we observe things people make and use such as clothes and tools (cultural artifacts); and we listen to what people say (speech messages)” (Spradley 1980 , p. 10).

Spradley differentiates between grand tour observations and mini-tour observations ( 1980 , p. 77 ff.). He compares grand tour observations with a tour of a house, a school, or a business, in which someone is shown the basic structure of the building. If one then goes into the individual rooms and examines them, to stick with the building metaphor, then those are mini-tour observations. Spradley emphasizes that the observations are actually made in an identical manner, but the main difference is that the focus is on units of a different scale. He distinguishes between nine dimensions of observation ( 1980 , p. 78):

Space : the physical place

Actor : the people involved

Activity : a set of various actions

Object : the physical things

Act : individual acts carried out by the people

Event : a set of activities carried out by the people

Time : the chronological sequence

Goal : the aims people wish to accomplish

Feeling : the emotions that are expressed

Spradley is interested in the interactions between the nine dimensions, which he presents in his descriptive question matrix ( 1980 , pp. 82–83), which results in 81 fields (Table 5.1 ).

These 81 fields create a grid that is an effective way of bringing to light the complexity in a social situation on the one hand and reducing it analytically on the other. Along the diagonal line of the matrix, where the same two categories meet, is where the detailed description of that category takes place—which Spradley calls the “grand tour questions” ( 1980 , p. 81). Next to this, in the fields in which the interdependencies between the various dimensions are investigated, are the “mini-tour questions” (Spradley 1980 , p. 81). Such a matrix can be helpful in looking for certain dimensions. It could be used to more closely examine a relevant focus—for instance, time, objects, or emotions. This focus might arise during the fieldwork, or it could already be determined in advance. If the design project consists in creating a new object, it makes most sense to intensively investigate all the questions that are related to objects.

5.7 Front and Back Regions

Goffman called attention to some other dimensions relevant for observation: A setting has what he called a front and a back stage (Goffman 1956 , p. 66 ff.), which should be understood as relational and not substantive entities. The classic example is in the theater. While on the front region of the stage, the actors play a specific role and are exposed to a great degree of scrutiny, backstage they act more relaxed, make jokes, or rest. This is similar in expensive restaurants: there, the servers behave toward the guests in accordance with particular rules, while back in the kitchen the interaction is gruff. The servers alter their behavior depending on the space in which they find themselves. The speak a different language, use different words, carry themselves differently, etc. In short, place determines social identity.

These categories are, as mentioned, relational. If we define the church service as the front stage, then the bible study group can be defined as back stage. At the front stage, normative identities are constituted through sermons, while in the bible group, as a back stage, communication can be personal and intimate (Müller 2015 , p. 146 ff.). Within the bible group itself there are also front and back stages. The front stage, for instance, can be the entire space in which interaction happens among the group. The back stage could be the kitchen, where snacks are being prepared, or the office where the bible group is organized. The theatrical metaphor suggests that the identity on the front stage should be seen as “played” while the one back stage is “authentic.” But in American Pragmatism and symbolic interaction theory there is no such thing as “authentic” identity. Identity is always produced through naming and classification (Strauss 2017 , p. 17 ff.)—and is therefore contingent.

A situation will not necessarily be conclusively understood through observation alone, which is why ambiguities might be cleared up through interviews (Honer 2011 , p. 31).That observation can have its limits is something I would like to illustrate by an example from my own fieldwork, which involved a visit to the Sunday service at a Ghanian evangelical church in Zurich (Müller 2015 , p. 122). It was Pentecost, and the mood of the worshippers was excited from the start. The pastor invoked the Holy Spirit. He called on everyone—including me—to come up front, where we all stood close together in a semicircle. He went from one to another and put his hand on their brow. One woman at the start fell to the ground and began to speak in tongues. Other women followed. The mood was ecstatic. Then a young woman walked quite calmly up to the front. She seemed completely untouched by the ecstatic mood. She did not fall to ground after the pastor laid hands on her, but rather lay down gently and slowly. Finally, she lay motionless on her stomach while another woman put a white cloth on her back. I could describe these actions, but the meaning was not conclusive. Why were there such obviously different reactions to the workings of the Holy Spirit? Why did it have an ecstatic effect on most, while this young woman was contemplative in behavior? At a later point, I asked the pastor about this situation. He explained to me that the Holy Spirit manifests in different ways. If a person twitches sharply after the laying on of hands, as most women did, then this indicates a conflict taking place inside them between evil spirits and the Holy Spirit. The young woman who lay down calmly did not have any evil spirits inside her—and accordingly, the Holy Spirit manifested itself gently. The Holy Spirit could even be at work while someone was deeply asleep. Only now did another observation that I had made repeatedly for some time finally become conclusive. I had seen people sleeping in the service. That this sleep had religious connotation would not have become evident from pure observation alone.

5.8 Interviews and Conversations

When situations do not become conclusive on the basis of observation, interviews and conversations are then warranted for clarification. I use the two terms consciously, since they refer to two different types of face-to-face communication. The interview arose during the nineteenth century in the context of American journalism. Crime beat reporters working on human interest stories began to orient themselves on police interrogation and incorporated quotations from them into their texts. Interviewing as a method of social science became established only later.

Question-answer situations are based on the assumption that there are disparities in knowledge (if this were not that case, there would be no reason to ask the questions). Furthermore, social science interviews are artificial situations that do not exist in everyday communication—similar to confession, psychoanalytic talk therapy, or police interrogation. These settings are subject to certain framings and power dynamics that are more (police interrogation) or less (psychoanalysis) explicit, raising various questions: What does the interviewee hope for? What are their goals and motivations for participating in the interview? Does the interviewee understand the role in which they are being addressed in the interview? Has the interviewee agreed to audio recording of the interview?

In principle, interviews in the social sciences are divided into qualitative and quantitative , open and structured types, in which soft and hard and open and closed questions can be asked. In the context of ethnographic interviews, it is important to ask open rather than closed questions—that is, the questions should be able to open up new horizons and not simply be answered with a yes or no (Liebold and Trinczek 2009 , p. 38).

In the qualitative context, there are focused interviews (Flick 2014 , p. 211 ff.; Merton 1987 ), semi-structured interviews (Flick 2014 , p. 217 ff.), problem-centered Interviews (Flick 2014 , p. 223 ff.) and expert interviews (Flick 2014 , p. 227 ff.), which require extensive preparation and are therefore described by Michaela Pfadenhauer as a “conversation between an expert and a quasi-expert” ( 2002 ). Further, there are narrative (Schütze 1983 ) and ethnographic interviews (Spradley 1979 ), which will be discussed later. Another distinction concerns classic and idealist approaches to interviews, where subjects present their real lifeworlds and experiences in the former, and their wishes in the latter (Byrne 2012 , p. 208).

Video recording of interviews is generally discouraged because this can negatively impact that atmosphere of the conversation. Whenever possible, interviews should be documented through audio recording, since no one can take notes and conduct a conversation at the same time. Of course, recording is not always possible, and especially with informal conversations, a recorder can be disturbing to the interlocutor. Turning on the recording mode on a smart phone can equally lead to a break—from that point on, conversations often become suddenly formal and “artificial,” although this feeling may dissipate after a short time. I have often had the experience in interviews that after the recording device is turned off—that is, as soon as the formal part is over—this is when the interviewee really begins to tell the story. Such situations demonstrate how strongly the technology impacts our behavior.

In any case, the interviewer needs the competence “ to understand roles , to grasp ‘as who’ he himself is seen and ‘as who’ his interlocutor acts and speaks” (Hermanns 2008 , p. 364). Harry Hermanns describes the interview as a drama that is substantially shaped by the interviewer. He offers the following stage directions ( 2008 , p. 367):

The framework and objectives of the interview should be made transparent to the interviewee through a briefing.

A pleasant atmosphere should be created during the interview.

The interviewee should be given space to show several aspects of themselves. If the interviewer is embarrassed by anything, they should make clear that they will not avoid the content and subject.

The drama must be allowed to develop. This is facilitated by posing brief and easily understandable questions about the lifeworld of the interviewee. Jargon should not be used.

The conversation should not explore any theoretical concepts but rather focus on the lifeworld of the interviewee. This also means that the interviewer should ask follow-up questions if something is unclear and allow the interviewee to explain situations with precision.

5.9 Narrative Interview

The narrative interview was developed by the German sociologist Fritz Schütze. This type of interview deals primarily with autobiographical aspects and themes (Svasek and Domencka 2012 ). In the narrative interview process, the initial question is particularly significant: it should induce the freest possible narrative flow, upon which the interviewer should step back so as not to disturb it. The narrative interview is divided into three phases (Schütze 1983 , p. 285):

Narrative prompt : The prompt can refer to the entire biography or can be focused on a specific phase of life—for instance, a religious conversion, an illness, or a period of unemployment. This initial question should be formulated openly and not be suggestive. The interviewee marks the end of this sequence with phrases such as “so, that was it.”

Immanent follow-up questions : Here the interviewer takes up certain statements from the initial narrative and probes them with deeper questions. It is important that these follow up questions, too, are open and evoke new narrative flows.

Exmanent follow-up questions : Here, the interviewer will introduce their own topics of interest into the interview that have not yet been discussed. These questions may relate to other interviews or theoretical knowledge.

A narrative interview lasts at least an hour. Whether the initial question will actually be sufficient to set the narrative flow in motion depends on a number of factors—the mutual sympathy between the two interlocutors (narrative interviews should be conducted in private, since people open up significantly more to just one listener); the interviewee’s trust in the interviewer; the situation and place where the interview is conducted; the negotiated timeframe; the agreed-upon conditions of anonymity; and cultural influences. It should be noted in this context that interviews do not represent realities but rather reconstruct them narratively. Thus, they are not mirror reflections of events and experiences (Hahn 1995 , p. 140).

5.10 Ethnographic Interviews

Roland Girtler criticizes the narrative interview because in his view the researcher’s initial question puts the interviewee on the spot. Moreover, interviews are designed to elicit specific information as quickly and pointedly as possible, which also puts pressure on the interviewee ( 2001 , p. 147 f.). Girtler instead suggests the ero-epic dialogue , “in which the point is narratives and stories that might refer to pretty much anything within a culture or group” (Girtler 2001 , p. 147). Anne Honer, in turn, speaks of the explorative interview , which is intended to open up “the widest possible, ‘unknown’ and latent areas of the interviewee’s knowledge” ( 2011 , p. 41). These approaches resemble the ethnographic interview (Maeder 1995 , p. 66 f.; Spradley 1979 ). This type of interview is characterized by the idea “that the researcher must first learn from their informants what the right questions to pose even are” (Maeder 1995 , p. 66). Ethnographic interviews begin as open interviews and become increasingly more closed. In this way, hypotheses are developed during an interview through an abductive process that are then woven into new questions. Spradley emphasizes that ethnographic interviews are quite similar to “friendly conversations”: “It is best to think of ethnographic interviews as a series of friendly conversations into which the researcher slowly introduces new elements to assist informants to respond as informants” (Spradley 1979 , p. 58).

The place where a conversation or interview takes place is important. Is it happening within the lifeworld being investigated or is it in a “laboratory setting”—for instance, in a seminar room at a university? The proponents of the laboratory setting argue that this “neutral” environment helps to clarify connections more precisely. This however begs the question of how “neutral” a laboratory—such as a seminar room—actually is. Most likely, “there are no decontextualized, that is, ‘pure,’ interview situations” (Liebold and Trinczek 2009 , p. 40). One does not go into an interview as a neutral quantity; rather, one has a habitus, a biographical background, a gender, etc. Clothes, hairstyles, and habitus also convey symbolic information that influence the course of the interview.

Conversations situated within the lifeworld under investigation enable direct reference to the things on hand. Daniel Miller has demonstrated this with his study of objects in one hundred apartments in a London street and their biographical significance for the inhabitants ( 2008 ). Because there are certain things present in the context of every lifeworld, one can refer to them in a conversation. At the same time, however, there may be other people present as well, who may influence the interviewee’s portrayals. It is possible that the respondent may not articulate certain sentiments when people from their personal milieu are there within earshot. During our fieldwork in Angola it was quite disconcerting for us to speak with disabled people while their friends and family were around. It contradicted our conception of the private sphere.

A meeting within the lifeworld context of the interviewee develops an entirely different atmosphere. The conversation develops quite differently when one is drinking or eating together. Even the question of whether one sits together at a table or stays on the move—for instance, while taking a tour of a building or a home or taking a walk—produces a different kind of conversation. A walk with a person on their own familiar territory shows how people adapt to spaces (Holliday 2007 , p. 256; Kusenbach 2008 ; Lee and Ingold 2006 ; Pink 2007b , p. 240 ff.). This provides information about the “native’s view point” (Geertz 1999 ), which refers not to the subjective individual consciousness, but rather to the cultural grammar with which people access their world.

5.11 The Senses

In western societies, it is assumed that we have five senses: seeing, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. This classification, however—which goes back to Aristotle—is not in fact universal. In her research with the Ewe in Ghana, Kathryn Lin Geurts found terms that denote perceptions that are at once psychological and physical, suggesting that the duality of mind and body that shapes western thought does not exist there ( 2002 , p. 197). If there are cultural differences in how other societies classify the senses, then this has consequences for perception (Pink 2015 , p. 59 ff.). This draws attention to a problem inherent to any engagement with questions of sensory perception: We experience the world sensorially, but are not able to express these personal perceptions through language because in doing so we always operate with reference to an already given language and cultural classification. Neither can sensory perception be measured (Pink 2015 , p. 136). One can merely attempt to describe it, which is a genuinely interpretive process.

Quite likely, it is these epistemological difficulties of dealing with the sensorily perceptible world that have contributed to making an “Anthropology of the Senses” (Howes 1991 ) a marginal phenomenon for a long time. The idea has however received more attention recently. Footnote 3 Different places have specific olfactory and sound environments. A hospital, a Catholic church, a used book shop, a boxing gym, an Irish pub, a Mexican taqueria—they all have their own specific smell. Objects have scents too—not just food, but also books, furniture, laundry, the interiors of cars. Things have their own haptics, which we experience through touch (Classen 2005 ), and their own acoustics (Vokes 2007 ). Smells, scents, and stench are everyday experiences that help us ascribe things to categories such as dirty and clean, which are anthropological ordering schemes (Douglas 1966 ). In this respect, a description of subjective sensory perceptions in the context of an ethnographic study must be understood less as a representation of an experience and rather more as part of a cultural classification system, in which the researcher themself is embedded. The assumption is that the relevant classifications are a fundamental part of the culture. To research such “sensory categories” (Pink 2015 , p. 148 ff.) interactive and participatory processes in which the researcher themself plays a part are most suitable.

In this regard, Sarah Pink speaks of a “multisensory approach” ( 2011 ), “digital-visual-sensory-design anthropology” ( 2014 ), and “sensory ethnography” ( 2015 ). Arantes and Rieger also speak of sensory ethnography ( 2014 ). Footnote 4 Pink calls attention to the fact that subjective as well as intersubjective sensibility have their relevance ( 2015 , p. 62). Subjective sensibility refers to the personal perception of the researcher. Intersubjective signifies that this experience of the researcher is embedded within a cultural context and within social relationships. Since the “translation” of sensory experience into text entails the aforementioned difficulties, Pink proposes to carry out interventions ( 2007a , 2015 , p. 7). By this, she means events such as jointly producing a film, cooking a recipe, or singing a song with the participants: “The practice of eating food prepared by people with whom one is doing research (or preparing food with or for them) is an obvious way to participate in their everyday lives” (Pink 2015 , p. 108).

Harold Garfinkel’s “breaching experiments,” in which everyday norms were shaken, are worth recalling in this connection. Drawing on this tradition, Kelvin E. Y. Low conducted a study about gender and scent in which he sprayed himself with women’s perfume and questioned his social milieu about it ( 2005 , p. 407). At the methodological level, Inga Reimers proposes three approaches to investigating sensory experience ( 2014 , p. 85 ff.):

Ethno-mimesis : Developed by Maggie O’Neill and Phil Hubbard, Ethno - Mimesis ( 2010 ) aims to produce sensory knowledge through creative means. O’Neill und Hubbard have implemented this approach with asylum seekers, with whom they walked together on city streets and spoken with immediately afterward about their experiences.

Experimental procedures : Researchers plan and realize specific settings together. This might, for instance, be a meal in which eating practices are investigated, where feelings are articulated and exchanged. This open-ended and experimental process helps make internalized classification patterns explicit.

Situational group discussions : Researchers create multi-sensory settings—such as a meal—and involve specific groups of test subjects with whom group discussions are then held afterward. The hierarchies between the researchers and the subjects should be as flat as possible.

5.12 Things and Material Culture

Whether we are in a library, a laboratory, a department store, or a museum—we are surrounded by man-made, designed objects. We have internalized implicit knowledge of how to deal with these things and our handling of them is complex and variable: We buy them, use them, consume them, repair them, alter them, throw them away, destroy them. The things in question can be very simple or highly technologically complex. Flatware, for instance, is technically simple—from a cultural perspective, however, even a technically simple fork can turn out to be very complex: “Once a more or less consistent functional core develops and, importantly, becomes historically stable, then forks begin to vary with cultural standards” (Böhme 2012 , p. 102). The fact that even something like a mechanical toaster is complex has been demonstrated by Thomas Thwaites in his “Toaster Project” ( 2011 ). He obtained and processed his own raw materials and used them to build a replica of a mass-produced toaster by hand. In this way he made visible the complexity of mass-produced objects. What is already a very time-consuming process in the case of a toaster would be completely impossible with a smartphone. In under a decade, smartphones have fundamentally altered the way we communicate, interact, behave in private and public, indeed how we live (Bell and Kuipers 2018 ; Ictech 2019 ). Virtually no one who uses a smartphone knows how it actually functions technologically. Neither is this necessary, given that it fully suffices to just know how to use it in everyday life. It is only in a crisis—that is, when the smartphone stops working—that the complexity normally concealed by its smart interface is revealed (Berger and Luckmann 1967 , p. 24; Latour 2002 , p. 223; Schön 1983 , p. 59 ff.).

Every society has its own material culture, which is variously dealt with in anthropology (Appadurai 1986 ; Böhme 2012 ; Clarke 2017 ; Habermas 1999 ; Hahn 2014 , 2015 ; Hahn and Schmitz 2018 ; Lueger and Froschauer 2018 ; Miller 2008 , 2009a ; Müller 2019 ; Tilley 2009 ; Tilley et al. 2013 ). The microcosms of small social lifeworlds are filled with a variety of things: The things inside a Buddhist temple are different from the ones in a Catholic church or a mosque—even though all these places contain both holy and mundane objects. The things in a Kung Fu school are different from the ones in a boxing club. A lab contains different things than a law office. A Korean restaurant has different things than a Spanish one. Things in a bathroom are different from the kitchen. At the same time, there are objects that are present in all of these places: for instance, screws, lightbulbs, light switches, etc.

Things have certain material properties. They can be hard, soft, elastic, rough, smooth, matte, bright, light, heavy, etc. Their existence is conditional (Lueger and Froschauer 2018 , p. 65 ff.): They have been produced under specific circumstances and in specific contexts. They have functions and meanings, whereby the latter have less to do with their material properties but rather rest on social attributions. We own some things that have a particular meaning for us and others of which we take no notice. We do not pay the same degree of attention to all things—significantly more to a smartphone than to a screw, although screws are certainly fundamental. Some things—such as toothbrushes, towels, or sheets—are a part of our completely private sphere, and accordingly we do not like to share them with other people. Habermas describes these things as our “identity kit” ( 1999 , p. 122 f.). Living spaces contain collections of personal things that manifest a certain lifestyle and individuality. Hartmut Böhme describes them as “storehouse and performative organ of the self” ( 2012 , p. 99). We own things that have a special emotional significance because of their biographical connections—so-called “memory objects” (Hahn 2014 , p. 37 ff.). These include souvenirs, which embody an extraordinary experience and evoke a temporally or geographically distanced perspective (Habermas 1999 , p. 291 ff.). Family heirlooms transcend the here and now in a similar way. They “lend a social (family) identity, distinction, and belonging, as well as historical identity” (Habermas 1999 , p. 292). What we value emotionally is dependent not just on economic value, but also on the habitus and cultural milieu in which we move, our age, the historical era in which we live, etc. At the same time, our personal relationship to things cannot be explained by sociological factors alone, since the relationships that a person has with such things is highly individual.

Things are designed, produced, adapted, further developed, appropriated for different purposes—the latter known as “non-intentional design”: being used in a way that the designer did not intend. Such is the case, for instance, when I keep my pens and pencils in a beer glass. Furthermore, objects can also be used as markers to reserve personal space. Sun glasses and a tube of sun block signal someone’s claim to a lounge chair on the beach; a drink on the bar lays claim to the bar stool in front of it (Goffman 2010 , p. 41). The idea then is that all people practice design and therefore have design knowledge (Cross 2007 , p. 47).

5.13 Consumption Is Not Superficial

In the age of modern consumption, a critique of consumerism has also been established to shed some critical light on it. A central argument of this critique has to do with the distinction between (necessary) basic needs and (superfluous) luxury needs. According to this critique, which has gained strength in recent years in sufficiency discourses, we consume more than we truly need. Wasteful, excessive consumption must be disciplined. A further critique claims the objects of consumption are superficial, suggesting that there is a deep inner self that has been coopted by external, “superficial” things. The sociological Frankfurt School and French post-structuralism in particular have branded consumer culture as superficial in judgments dripping with the sort of morality one would sooner expect from puritanical lay preachers than from sociologists.

Daniel Miller rightly points out that the emergence of mass consumption has also greatly contributed to reducing poverty ( 2013 , p. 341). The distinction between things that are necessary and superfluous is not a universal one; rather, it goes back to puritanical Protestant values (Hahn 2014 , p. S78 ff.; Campbell 1998 , p. 238). It is in this context that Miller speaks of the Poverty of Morality ( 2011 ): Anyone who judges one lifestyle to be “wrong” implicitly considers another to be “right.” Positions critical of consumerism are less concerned with analyzing the facts of a situation than with branding consumption. As the ethnologist Hans Peter Hahn points out: “On the one hand, the line between luxury and need is subject to an emic, culturally dependent definition; on the other, the European concept of need is influenced by a very particular rhetoric […]” (Hahn 2014 , p. 81). This also contradicts Maslow’s pyramid of needs and the mechanistic conception of man associated with it, which posits that self-actualization becomes a goal only after material, rudimentary, and social needs have been met. In his essay “Why Clothing is not Superficial” ( 2009b ), Daniel Miller shows that everyday and consumer culture shapes identity to a great degree and is anything but trivial. Miller debunks the assumption—which is particularly wide-spread in the German-speaking world, that superficiality is a distraction from something deeper:

We possess what could be called a depth ontology . The assumption is that being —what we truly are—is located deep inside ourselves and is in direct opposition to the surface. A clothes shopper is shallow because a philosopher or a saint is deep. (Miller 2009b , p. 16)

Consumer goods do not simply satisfy needs; rather, they convey symbolic statements. Mary Douglas and Baron Isherwood have fundamentally refuted the theory of consumption as the satisfaction of need, which is grounded in economics:

Instead of supposing that goods are primarily needed for subsistence plus competitive display, let us assume that they are needed for making visible and stable the categories of culture. It is standard ethnographic practice to assume that all material possessions carry social meanings and to concentrate a main part of cultural analysis upon their use as communicators. (Douglas and Isherwood 1978 , p. 62)

To define eating, drinking, clothing, etc. simply as the satisfaction of need assumes a mechanistic model of mankind and obscures symbolic categories. Douglas describes the manner in which we nourish ourselves as an information system (Douglas 2011 , p. 82 ff.). We define ourselves through eating: from veganism to from-nose-to-tail , whether one’s eating habits are ascetic and self-disciplined or hedonistic and pleasure-oriented makes a social statement. Clothing also significantly constructs a social identity, which is why it is also described as a “social skin” (Turner 1980 ). We are different people when we walk around town in scruffy jeans or in a suit. We make a different impression and experience the world differently. The things with which we surround ourselves form our identity. Accordingly, Habermas posits that clothing is experienced as a part of our person that defines our physical boundaries ( 1999 , p. 67). Mary Douglas describes our entire everyday world as meaningful and symbolically loaded: “we do not seize upon as theatrical props to dramatize the way we want to play our roles and the scene we are playing in” (Douglas 1966 , p. 101).

5.14 The Contingency of Things

Anselm Strauss write: “An object which looks so much like an orange—in fact which really is an orange—can also be a member of an infinite number of other classes” ( 2017 , p. 22). An orange can be the fruit of a citrus plant from the Rutaceae family. It can be a food source rich in vitamins. It can be sold as a product in a supermarket or an informal street market. It can be used as the subject of a still life at an art school. At the Basel Carneval it can serve as a projectile, while at the Día de los Muertos in Mexico, it is an offering for the dead. An orange can thus be an object of biology, nourishment, economics, religion, etc. Its identity is contingent, which contradicts the concept of identity that posits that a thing is one. The definitiveness of naming thus brings into the world the contingency that it seeks to overcome. At the same time, the orange has an undeniable materiality. As soon as we begin to describe this materiality in more detail, however, a field of ambiguity opens up again: Do we describe the orange only on the basis of its external appearance? Do we limit ourselves only to its size, color, and form? Do we cut it open, which again produces a different image? Do we squeeze the juice out of it? Do we describe only the isolated orange or do we consider that it grows on a tree that needs water, light, and air? The questions proliferate. This demonstrates that material culture is far more ambiguous than it appears to us in daily life. Or, as Böhme puts it: “Things are deeply familiar to us. When we want to know what they are, they become alien” ( 2012 , p. 35).

5.15 Field Notes

As previously discussed, observation is based on selection: We make decisions, in part conscious ones and in part intuitive. We make further decisions when we take notes. What do we note down? When do we take notes? Do we write notes using key words or complete sentences? What does it actually mean to “translate” an observation into a textual note? Is it a translation or a construction of something new? And why do we take notes at all when we can simply photograph or film the situations in the field with a smart phone?

To begin with, it is important to recognize that working with visual data is fundamentally different from taking notes. Which approach one chooses, or whether one combines several, depends on the research project, its context, and one’s personal preferences. It should be kept in mind that notes do not just describe actions—rather, the taking of notes is itself an action (Emerson et al. 1995 , p. 15).

Emerson et al. speak of “jottings,” which build the foundation for “full notes” ( 1995 , p. 51). Spradley calls these brief notations, which are composed of key words rather than fully composed sentences, “condensed accounts” ( 1980 , p. 69). He recommends composing “expanded accounts” immediately after the fieldwork and keeping a “fieldwork journal” in which not only observations but also feelings, associations, and impressions are articulated. The last step is writing up the “analyses and interpretation,” which is the final ethnographic report (Spradley 1980 , p. 69 ff.).

Taking notes can unsettle people in the field. When we take notes we are signaling that we consider a situation or a statement significant, which the people in the field may see differently. Goffman therefore recommends not writing notes down during the observation itself, because people would then know which actions were being documented (Goffman 1989 , p. 130). This raises the question of whether such evasive tactics are necessary. Ultimately, acceptance of note-taking naturally depends on the field itself and not least on the situations in which one finds oneself. For instance, if you are conducting participant observation of gang members, it will be difficult to take notes during a fight. I had more luck in my fieldwork in the Ghanaian evangelical church community in Zurich: there, many of the worshippers took notes on the pastor’s sermons during the Sunday service. In that context, my behavior conformed to the norm—to such an extent, indeed, that many of the attendees took me for a convert.

5.16 Sketches and Illustrations

Sketching is often done so automatically by designers that it is not even perceived as a method of fieldwork. In fact, sketching—called “graphic anthropology” (Tondeur 2016 )—is a highly useful approach in fieldwork, especially in situations where photography and video recording is not possible. The designer Franz James employed this method in an investigation of prisons in South Africa, where photography is not allowed ( 2016 , p. 163). Sketching has various advantages (Tondeur 2016 , p. 666). First, paper and pencil are cheap. Second—in marked contrast to electronic media—it leads to a more relaxed form of observation. Third, it is considerably less intrusive than photography or filming. And fourth, it often leads to conversations and new forms of encounter in the field. The anthropologist Michael Taussig made the sketches he produced over decades of fieldwork in Columbia into a springboard for the autoethnographic and literary reconstructions in his book I Swear I Saw This . Taussig writes: “[…] photography is a taking , the drawing a making […]” ( 2011 , p. 21). This active element of sketching leads to more sensitivity and openness in perception. Sketching and drawing can be made by the researcher themselves or—in a participatory approach—by the people within a certain field (Pink 2015 , p. 89 f.) Forgoing audiovisual technology leads to more contemplative observation in the field.

5.17 Photography and Video

With smartphones now omnipresent, an enormous amount of visual data is created every day, which is shared, evaluated, commented on, adapted, filtered, deleted, or archived. In 2017, 1.8 trillion photographs were produced, 85% of these with smartphones. Footnote 5 According to the German portal statistica , 3.26 billion people worldwide had a smartphone in 2019 and the number is projected to reach 3.76 billion in 2021. Footnote 6 With 5G technology, upload speeds will become massively faster again, which will significantly increase the production of visual data. But it is not just the quantity but also the quality that is fundamentally changing. Many companies that never had an infrastructure for traditional land-line communication are leaping directly from face-to-face oral interaction into the digital world. In the future, smartphones will be even cheaper and more widely distributed globally, which will further increase the production of photos and video. Ultimately, the smartphone alters not only our culture of interaction and communication, but also the presence and meaning of visuality in our everyday world (Eberle 2017b , p. 111).

This development lends a new relevance to the Iconic Turn (Boehm 1994 ). The new visual worlds require new methodological approaches. Social science journals such as Visual Ethnography Footnote 7 or Visual Studies , Footnote 8 which is published by the International Visual Sociology Association Footnote 9 (IVSA), deal with these visual approaches. Despite the flood of images, visual data in sociology continue to stand in the shadow of text. Aside from visual sociology (Harper 2012 ) and videography (Knoblauch 2006 ; Schnettler and Raab 2012 ; Tuma et al. 2013 ), visual data in sociology often have merely a documentary function: they supplement texts, which continue to stand at the center. Thomas S. Eberle attributes this to the dominance of positivism in the foundational ideas of sociology, which must be called into question by a turn to the image. He calls attention to the fact that

images have to be interpreted by recipients and due to their more open horizon of interpretive possibility as compared to verbal descriptions always produce a surfeit of meaning. Images can therefore never be fully represented or substituted by text. Conversely, due to their ambiguity and the need for them to be interpreted, images also cannot provide any definitive statement that can be verified intersubjectively. (Eberle 2017a , p. 20)

Anthropology is more open to images than sociology, and accordingly it has long since developed a visual tradition (Harper 2012 , p. 5). The anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski took many photographs during his investigations on the Trobriand Islands ( 1932 ). Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead established a visual ethnography with their study of “Balinese Character” ( 1942 ). Harper advises sociology to “open the eyes of the discipline to a wider and infinitely more interesting perceptual world than a computer screen filled with numbers” ( 2012 , p. 4).

As advances in technological reproduction in the late nineteenth century allowed photography to enter into print media, this went along with a new faith in objectivity. At the time, the photograph was considered the reflection of reality—in contrast to text, in which an author “formed” the events through narrative. This assumption is now outdated—and not only because of the technical possibilities of image manipulation. Every image is made from a particular perspective, since it is people—and not cameras—who take the pictures. An arbitrary component is therefore always manifest (Ball and Smith 2009 , p. 305). Photos are “subjectively re-shaped by the photographer” (Baur and Budenz 2017 , p. 93). They are not objective representations. On Howard S. Becker’s account, the difference between journalistic and sociological photos consists entirely in their context ( 1995 , p. 12): The same photograph can appear in a social science journal or a newspaper. It can be situated within a sociological or a journalistic context. The context determines what sort of image we see.

Such theoretical considerations of images are as relevant for a photograph used in ethnography as for photojournalism. Take for instance the aforementioned crime beat reporter Jacob A. Riis ( 1997 ). In the late nineteenth century, he went around the streets of lower Manhattan, where immigration was giving rise to neighborhoods like Little Italy, China Town, and the Jewish Lower East Side. Riis was among the first to use the flash at night in order to show and shed light on the flip side of life—the life of the marginalized. He presented “night-time people in a surreal visual universe” (Harper 2012 , p. 24). His photos are hybrids of journalistic and ethnographic photography. The photographer and visual ethnographer Camilo Jose Vergara, who took documentary photos of ghettos in the USA, among other things, operated within a similar tradition ( 2014 ).

In the early twentieth century, film was increasingly employed in anthropological fieldwork (Tuma et al. 2013 , p. 24 ff.). A classic of ethnographic film released in the early 1920s is Nanook of the North by Robert J. Flaherty, who lived for several months with the Inuit and documented their everyday lives. The documentary film demonstrates that the genre is not without dramaturgical elements: The film produces a romanticized image of the Innuit lifeworld with stylistic means and music. Film and photos are—like texts—constructions and not reflections of reality. They are “transformations of lifeworld situations” (Schnettler and Knoblauch 2009 , p. 277) and the producers of the visual data are enmeshed in this process.

A person with a camera is not neutral. Their behavior is fundamentally determined by technology (Eberle 2017a , p. 28, 2017b , p. 100 ff.). Photography itself is a physical act, in which the photographer bends, kneels, lies down on the ground, or even climbs up to high places (Eberle 2017b , p. 108). And every shot with the camera is preceded by a selection. “Even the decision as to when the investigation is concluded and the camera unpacked represents a selection—just like the focus and duration of the shooting” (Tuma et al. 2013 , p. 12).

In the context of the contingent conditions of the production of visual data, it is also important to consider that people in the field will be conscious of the presence of the researcher’s camera and will react to it (Pink 2015 , p. 48; Tuma et al. 2013 , p. 13). The nature of this reaction depends substantially on how the camera is handled: whether it is mounted on a tripod in the field or whether filming is simply done with a smartphone produces not just a different type of reaction in the field, but also different kinds of aesthetic representations of the course of social activity in the field.

5.18 Factors that Influence Production of Visual Data

Photography can facilitate the first contact in the field: The question of whether one might be allowed to take photographs is—depending on the field—well-suited for establishing contact and possibly conducting a spontaneous interview. In our fieldwork with the disabled in Angola the visibility of the camera often led to the landmine victims posing for the picture. This proved to be fruitful during one excursion to a musseque where the designer Bitten Stetter and the photographer Flurina Rothenberger were also there gathering audiovisual material during a Kuduro production. This was later edited into a video clip, which then became part of the exhibition “Sometimes people in Luanda shine.” Footnote 10

Tuma et al. have identified three factors that influence the production of visual data (Tuma et al. 2013 , p. 37 ff.):

Research situation

This dimension relates to the aforementioned dichotomy between natural and artificial situations. Would the situation being filmed be taking place without the presence of the researchers? Do the people in the field know that they are being filmed? Are they reacting to the investigator’s camera?

Operation of the camera

How the camera is used is central. Will it be mounted in place to film a particular part of the space over some length of time? Is the researcher filming with a subjective, moving camera, such that the film represents their perspective? Or will film material be included that was produced by the people in the field independently of the investigation? In the last case, the aesthetics with which the people in the field produce their films would also be investigated, among other things.

Post-processing

Post-processing is relevant for visual data that have been produced independently of the investigation. Here, it is not only the filmed or photographed events, objects, and actions that play a role, but also how these have been edited afterward. This can include cuts, color filters, time-lapse, dubbing, etc. Such stylistic devices make visible the aesthetic specific to a milieu, a group, or a scene.

Tuma et al. define video ethnography as follows: “Researchers go ‘into the field’ and focus the video camera on everyday situations in which people are engaged in actions and analyze how they are doing it” (Tuma et al. 2013 , p. 10). This data—whether still photographs or film—serves primarily as documentation. While field notes are reconstructive, photos and video recordings are simultaneous technical recordings of a fluid moment or timespan. In contrast to notes, visual data—in particular moving images with sound—are highly complex and enable microscopic analysis of individual details and sequences of events, which would not be possible with classical reconstructive survey methods (Schnettler and Knoblauch 2009 , p. 276).

The production of film has become technologically easier and has a much lower threshold. Whereas entire film and photography crews once went into the field with tripods and technical equipment, operating there as a collective and colonizing the field, today a single researcher with a smartphone can produce video material. Such researchers are more agile—physically and mentally—and more empathetic and less disruptive of a situation, because smartphones are ubiquitous. At the same time, this can lead to the production of an enormous amount of video material, which can in turn make analysis more difficult. The ethnologist Barbara Keifenheim therefore sees something disciplined in working with 16-mm film: one knows that the recording time is limited and the processing costs high, which demands a focused eye when the camera is turned on ( 2008 , p. 278 f.).

5.19 Participant Produced Images

“Participant produced images” (Pink 2013 , p. 86 ff.) describes visual data created by the people in the field—for instance, for posting on social media. The resulting images and videos are then “liked,” evaluated, and commented on there. Such data are “natural”—produced in the field without the researcher actively eliciting them. These data can serve as the basis for in-depth interviews or discussions in focus groups. Of course, analog images can function similarly. For instance, in her ethnographic investigations of bullfighting, Sarah Pink has conducted interviews about photographs in clubs for bullfighting aficionados ( 2013 , p. 95 ff.).

Digital photography fundamentally changes image-making practices. In this regard, Nina Baur and Patrick Budenz list the following techniques ( 2017 , p. 77 ff.): staging and retouching , choice of framing , focal distance to the object, depth of field, and coloration. Eisewicht and Grenz describe digital photography as interpretative conservation and identify three levels ( 2017 , p. 121 f.):

Camera software for shooting : Tools to improve image quality, tools that preset certain picture modes, and tools with special trigger mechanisms

Camera software for editing existing images : Editing of existing image data, editing through addition of material and through rearrangement

Camera software for managing images : Sharing, sorting, and backing up photos

The various processing technologies give rise to new aesthetic dimensions that are particularly relevant when analyzing visual data that was produced by participants in the field.

5.20 Digital Ethnography

In the wake of digitization, a flood of new textual and above all visual data has been created. Not only has the quantity of data increased dramatically, but the quality has also fundamentally been altered, which manifests itself in new methods such as Online Ethnography (Boellstorff et al. 2012 ; Hine 2015 ), Netnography (Kozinets 2010 , 2019 ), Digital Ethnography (Pink et al. 2016 ) and Armchair Anthropology (Ge 2017 ), in which visuality must be methodologically taken into account (Gómez Cruz et al. 2017 ). Every special interest community exchanges experiences through social media. They communicate about diseases, addictions, extreme sports, politics, anxiety, and sexual practices. A distinction should however first be made between “online communities” and “communities online” (Kozinets 2010 , p. 63 ff.). Communities online are actually existing communities that have a supplemental platform on the internet. Online communities, on the other hand, are communities that have formed solely on the internet, whose members in most cases never see each other face-to-face.

Similarly to the way the emergence of the novel in the eighteenth century privileged subjectivity and individualization, the internet also gives rise to new forms of visual identity. Codes, symbols, and signs are used as resources in order to express subjective states or desired identities that orient themselves on existing patterns of identity. In this way, digital realities become a site where “expression and perception of the self are pre-structured in a specific way but are also malleable” (Muri 2010 , p. 87). Norms are negotiated through likes and comments (Müller 2018 ). Selfies exhibit a standardized pattern and they objectivize normative patterns of self-representation. These can pertain to the pose, the social constellation (selfies with friends), the facial expression (“duckface”), or even individual body parts (“belfies”). At the same time, however, these normative patterns are continually transformed subjectively. Style and aesthetics are worked out through filters, through which process however adaption and new interpretations repeatedly favor precisely the objectivization (Baur and Budenz 2017 , p. 93). In the context of selfies, Neumann-Braun speaks of photographer and feedbacks being “part of a glo c al peer review system” ( 2017 , p. 345). Pink notes:

Moreover, the rapid rise in popularity on the ‘selfie’ practice of photographing oneself with a smartphone, indicates the closeness that these technologies have to the ways people view and represent their own identities, thus suggesting that the personalization, closeness and affective qualities of the smartphones create potential to similarly create empathetic and corporal connections with audiences through sensory ethnography media. (Pink 2015 , p. 165)

Selfies are produced in certain contexts—such as in museums, in front of tourist attractions, at parties, at home in the bathroom, or in bed. The poses are rehearsed and normative. They display a generalized other (Mead 2015 , p. 152 ff.) and a social front region (Goffman 1956 , p. 67). A photo that deviates from the norm would not be published; it would damage the image of the depicted person. Which norm applies depends on the social environment. There is great differentiation in this regard. For instance, in the context of mental health, where teens and young adults negotiate psychological suffering and subjective mental sates in digital media, quite particular self-representations are practiced: Young people touch their faces with their hands or show themselves in vulnerable poses in bed, which becomes a symbolic Safe Space (Schmocker 2018 , p. 51 ff.).

Kozinets defines netnography ( 2010 ) as “participant-observational research based in online fieldwork. It uses computer-mediated communications as a source of data to arrive at the ethnographic understanding and representation of a cultural and communal phenomenon” ( 2010 , p. 50). The specific aspect of his netnography consists in the fact that—just as in ordinary ethnography—the interaction of the researcher with the participants occurs in the field ( 2010 , p. 50). This means that the researcher participates actively in forum discussions, posts images to generate comments, and responds to these: “Online interaction forces the learning of additional codes and norms, abbreviations, emoticons, sets of keystrokes and other technical skills in order to transfer the emotional information vital to social relations” (Kozinets 2010 , p. 69). The principle of active participatory observation is translated to digital reality. Further, Kozinets proposes a “blended ethnography,” in which online research is combined with research in real-world situations ( 2010 , p. 55 ff.). The process enables identification of the following:

Integration vs. Separation of Social Worlds : What constitutes the similarities and differences in the patterns of behavior in internet and face-to-face situations?

Observation vs. Verbalization of Relevant Data : What it the relationship between observing physical behavior and articulating its description? Are there deviations?

Identification vs. Performance of Members : How relevant are demographic characteristics such as age, ethnicity, gender, etc. of members of a particular community? Or do they distinguish themselves solely through certain contributions or actions?

With Mediated Sensory Ethnography (Pink 2015 , p. 117 ff.), the action is not reduced to virtual reality; the sensory dimension is also included. The focus is thus on visual, auditory, tactile, and other sensory experiences that occur with digital practices (Pink 2006 , p. 44 ff.). For digital technologies continue to appear object-like to us. There is (still) some physical interaction with a device—for instance, a touch screen, a keyboard, a microphone, etc.

5.21 Participatory Action Research

In a certain sense, ethnography is always participatory, since the researcher participates to a greater or lesser extent in the field. Most design processes also have participative elements, given that designers do not just tinker in a lab but rather develop their solutions interactively with particular groups. However, the concept would become diluted if every study and every design were described as participatory. The methods described as participatory in what follows, therefore, are specifically those in which researchers work together with the participants to produce ethnographic data and/or design solutions, or brief them about producing data and solutions themselves. The basic principle is: “Good research is research conducted with people rather than on people” (Heron and Reason 2006 , p. 179).

Participative research and design approaches emerged in Scandinavia in the late 1960s and 1970s (Bjerknes et al. 1987 ; Blomberg and Karasti 2013 , p. 87; Kensing and Greenbaum 2013 , p. 27 ff.). “Design Participation” was the theme of the annual conference of the Design Research Society in Manchester in 1971 (Robertson and Simonsen 2013 , p. 2). In terms of theoretical background, participatory approaches draw on a Marxist-oriented critique of society (Rahman 2008 , p. 49) and a critique of positivist sciences (Gergen and Gergen 2008 , p. 159). The Marxist idea posits that underprivileged people and societies can improve their situations in collaboration with researchers (Rahman 2008 , p. 49). A problem to be solved together serves as the starting point. Robertson and Simonsen define Participatory Design as

a process of investigating, understanding, reflecting upon, establishing, developing, and supporting mutual learning between multiple participants in collective ‘reflection-in-action.’ The participants typically undertake the two principal roles of users and designers where the designers strive to learn the realities of the users’ situation while the users strive to articulate their desired aims and learn appropriate technological means to obtain them. (Robertson and Simonsen 2013 , p. 2)

The participants thus are designers and users—and by articulating their concerns and aims they figure out how to achieve the latter. In this process, all the parties involved in the research project should benefit from it: Designers develop design approaches, anthropologists gain insights, and participants solve problems through collaboration. In practice, this means that privileged academics work together with underprivileged people, which requires ethical consideration. Castillo-Burguete et al. describe participation in local communities as a form of cultural capital , in Pierre Bourdieu’s sense, that must be incorporated and mobilized jointly ( 2009 , p. 532). This does not mean that the communities in question are to be colonized but rather that an exchange of ideas takes place.

5.22 Participatory Photography and Cultural Probes

Participative photography and video means handing out cameras and letting people in the field use them themselves. This approach was employed by Ruth Holliday, who called upon participants to produce “video diaries” ( 2000 ). Holliday also explored queer identities this way by asking 15 people from the queer scene to take pictures of their clothing practices at home, going out, and at work ( 2007 , p. 257 ff.). Eric Michaels and Francis Kelly ( 1984 ) proceeded similarly when they gave out cameras to Aborigines and had them produce images. In our project in Angola, we gave disposable cameras to students of rehabilitation medicine, who in turn passed these out to physically disabled people so they could take photographs from within their own lifeworlds. The response rate was relatively low, which was in part due to the fact that we did not give out the cameras directly but via a social node. This made the channels of communication significantly more challenging. It was much more productive when we actually included one of these students in the project. Domingos João Pedro Bernardo, who was himself a victim of polio, produced a poem (Bernardo 2016 , p. 35) and photos from his lifeworld that were incorporated in our publication (Müller 2016 ).

Even when researchers are physically absent during the production of the photographs, they are still part of the process through the briefings (Pfadenhauer 2017 , p. 136 f.). Such briefings might put the focus on various realms of the everyday world—for instance, things in one’s home that are considered beautiful, disruptive, clean, or dirty. The issue here is not just what people will film or consider relevant, but also how they will film: that is, how is the camera deployed and moved, what framing is chosen, etc. (Keifenheim 2008 , p. 282).

Giaccardi et al. suggest delegating the filming to things and employing them as “co-ethnographers” or “autographers” ( 2016 , p. 235 ff.). In their research project “Thing Tank” they attached small cameras that took photos automatically to three everyday objects—a kettle, a refrigerator, and a tea cup. These “autographers” uncover blind spots, such as the contact or interaction they have with other objects. “A thing perspective opens up possibilities for understanding the limits of human action on time and space and the ways in which non-human things are directly informing and creating the everyday realities in which people live” (Giaccardi et al. 2016 , p. 243).

Photovoice was developed by Caroline Wang and Mary Ann Burris ( 1997 ). In a study, Wang encouraged women in a rural area in China to take pictures relating to their health situation in their everyday work context. The impetus for the study was the hypothesis that health problems existed there. The procedure had three objectives: First, it aimed to motivate the women to empower themselves to represent and reflect upon their personal and shared strengths and worries. Second, the photos were intended to generate a dialogue about the personal and shared concerns. Third, it sought to reach the level of politics and engage it in dialogue. The method was grounded in the assumption that photos show how we live and how we define ourselves in relation to the world. The methodological approach is described as follows (Wang 1999 , p. 187 ff.):

Select and recruit a target audience and community leaders

Recruit a group of photovoice participants

Introduce the photovoice methodology to participants and facilitate a group discussion

Obtain informed content

Pose an initial theme for taking pictures

Distribute cameras to participants and review how to use them

Provide time for participants to take pictures

Meet to discuss photographs

Plan with participants a format to share photographs and stories with policy makers or community leaders

A different direction is taken by the method suggested by Sarah Pink—“Walking with Video” ( 2007b , 2015 , p. 111)—in which the researcher accompanies the participants on walks while simultaneously filming them. This method is based on the assumption that routes and paths do not simply connect start and end points in a functional way but also represent subjective sensory microcosms. By filming directly, the researcher can make reference to the things that are present and make them an immediate subject of the conversation: “Walking with video, I suggest, can generate a more involved approach to the question of how places and identities are constituted” (Pink 2007b , p. 250).

The cultural probes process developed by Bill Gaver in the late 1990s is an extension of the participatory approach (Gaver et al. 1999 , 2004 ; Brandes et al. 2009 , p. 168 ff.). The background for it was a study on the elderly in Oslo, Amsterdam, and an area near Pisa. Gaver et al. distributed sets of several postcards to the participants that posed questions about their wishes, everyday worlds, and objects. The sets also contained cards with poetic and sometimes direct questions, such as where participants prefer to meet people, where they are alone, or where they would most like to go but are can’t. The participants were given disposable cameras and were asked to photograph where they lived, something they wished for, and something boring. In addition, they received a photo album in which they were supposed to tell their life story in six to ten images. Finally, they were to keep a media diary in which they would record their media consumption—that is, which newspapers they read, which radio programs they heard, and what they watched on television (and with whom they did so) (Gaver et al. 1999 , p. 22 ff.). Cultural probes are conceived as an open method that lends itself easily to expansion, supplementation, and alteration (Gaver et al. 2004 ).

5.23 Photo Elicitation

In “photo elicitation” (Harper 2002 , 2012 , pp. 155 ff., 81 ff.; Pink 2015 , p. 92 ff.) pictures are not simply analyzed by researchers but also function as the basis for interviews with the participants in the field. This method was developed in the 1950s by John Collier ( 1957 , p. 846 ff., 1967 , p. 46 ff.). At the time, Collier was conducting interviews with and without photos for a 3-year study on the lifeworlds of workers in Canada. He came to the conclusion that in the interviews with photos, the responses were more precise because the images built a “language bridge” (Collier 1957 , p. 858).

The driving assumption here is that the meanings of photographs are not inherent but ascribed (Harper 2002 , p. 13; Pink 2013 , p. 92). Multiple perspectives on an image open up multiple schemes of interpretation. These interpretations should not be understood as purely subjective processes because categories of cultural signification impact these processes as well. Photo elicitation leads to a new definition of the sociological interview “because it centers an object in a photo that both parties are looking at and trying to make sense of” (Harper 2012 , p. 157). As Sarah Pink demonstrates in her empirical investigations of bullfighting in Spain, opponents and aficionados of the practice interpret images differently. In her study, Pink defines three groups that hold diverging positions on bullfighting and female bullfighters: First, bullfighting aficionados who favor female bullfighters; second, bullfighting aficionados who are opposed to female bullfighters; and third, opponents of bullfighting as such ( 2013 , p. 77). Pink conducted interviews focused on images of the bullfighter Cristina Sánchez with people from all three of these groups, which demonstrated that they ascribed varying meanings to the pictures. For instance, if a picture showed Christina Sánchez in a challenging situation, then for the proponents of female bullfighting it was proof that women are capable of mastering it. In contrast, the aficionados opposed to female bullfighters saw in the image a confirmation of their preconceived belief that women are unsuited for it, while the opponents of bullfighting as such saw the superiority of the bull. The interviews that are centered around images thus seek to pluralize perspectives:

Photo-elicitation relies on the idea of the photograph becoming a visual text through which the subjectivities of researcher and participant intersect. It can evoke memories, knowledge and more in the research participant, which might have otherwise been inaccessible, while simultaneously allowing the researcher to compare her or his subjective interpretation of the image with that of the research participant. (Pink 2015 , p. 88)

The image functions as a starting point for seeking out new contexts of meaning and new patterns of interpretation. This can take place in various settings. Researchers can ask participants to comment on photographs in writing. Photos can serve as the basis for face-to-face interviews, group discussions, and focus groups. In the context of a netnography, photos and videos could be posted online, where they can be commented on, evaluated, and/or altered.

Anna Brake points to several factors that play a relevant role in photo elicitation and are as pertinent to the production of visual materials as to the manner in which the interviews are conducted ( 2009 , p. 376 f.):

Photographic material : This material can come from either the researcher or from the people in the investigated field. There, in turn, it can be produced explicitly for the study or be pre-existing (for instance, family or travel photos, profile pictures from Facebook, Instagram, etc.).

Interviews : The photographic material can be employed quite differently in the interviews. With a structured approach, the sequence, time frame, and questions are defined in advance. With an open approach, respondents can choose the photographs and the duration of the commentary themselves

Social constellation : The inquiry can be conducted in different constellations—in pairs (an interviewer and a respondent) or in larger groups.

Media : The visual materials can be displayed in various media—as prints, on a screen, or projected onto a wall. The medium in which the material is produced can also vary—from photos, sketches, journals, or design tasks to film.

Text and visual analysis : The comments of the respondents are recorded and transcribed and the transcriptions and visual data are interpreted and analyzed, whereby the relative weight given to text and image-based data can vary.

5.24 Interventions

Ethnography in social science research is interested in the natural environment of foreign groups. As already noted, however, researchers also bring forth the world that they observe and identify. In contrast to descriptive ethnography, design intervenes in and alters situations. Design ethnography is based on iterative steps that cycle between description, interpretation, and intervention:

These include interventionist forms of fieldwork and design that work through iterative cycles of reflection and action, and employ methods and tools such as video feedbacks, scenarios, mock-ups, props, provo- and prototypes, tangible interactions, and various forms of games, performances and enactment. (Otto and Smith 2013 , p. 11)

Collaborative approaches such as co-production of a film, joint preparation of a recipe, or participatory design of a prototype are interventions (Pink 2015 , p. 7). A design object, after all, does not yet exist during the design process, which is why it cannot be investigated with a conventional ethnographic research approach (Halse 2013 , p. 282). The “natural” context in which a new design object will be used cannot be empirically investigated. This is why it is necessary to design prototypes that can be used to intervene in everyday situations. These design interventions can be described broadly as experiments (Hegel et al. 2019 ), in the sense of open-ended experiments, not those that confirm or refute a hypothesis. Joachim Halse and Laura Boffi speak of “Design Interventions as a Form of Inquiry” and define the method as

a form of inquiry that is particularly relevant for investigating phenomena that are not very coherent, barely possible, almost unthinkable, and consistently under-specified because they are still in the process of being conceptually and physically articulated. (Halse and Boffi 2016 , p. 89)

Fundamental design methods such as prototyping and sketching are used to intervene in order to see lifeworld contexts and segments of reality in a new light. According to Friedrich Stephan, designers take on “the role of creatively destroying certainties and seek occasions for disruptions that call for and enable new adaptations” ( 2010 , p. 86). Footnote 11 Gatt and Ingold write that “anthropology-by-means-of-ethnography” is a practice of description while “anthropology-by-means-of-design” in contrast is a practice of correspondence and mediation ( 2013 , p. 144). Barbara Tedlock writes of a development “from Participant Observation to the Observation of Participation” ( 1991 ).

5.25 Withdrawing from the Field

Especially during longer and more actively participatory fieldwork, relationships and possibly even friendships between the researcher and the participants develop. There grows a mutual empathy and intimacy. While at the start of the process the researcher may still be an irritant, the participants will have soon become used to him. But every research project must come to a temporal end, at which point the researcher retreats from the field—at least in his role as researcher. If the researcher remains emotionally and socially connected to the people in the investigated lifeworld, this is described as “going native” (Knoblauch 2003 , p. 96 ff.). But even where the researcher does not become a “convert” to the group in question, other forms of relationship still arise—for instance, a moral one, as when the researcher has investigated a socially marginalized group and afterwards engages in political activism on their behalf, which may be seen as what César Cisneros Puebla has called “activemia” ( 2016 , p. 173 ff.), a combination of political activism and academic knowledge. Another ethically important point, of course, comes when the researcher publishes about the studied group. In this regard, Roland Girtler recommends sharing the data and texts with the participants prior to publication and discussing them together ( 2001 , p. 128 ff.). The ethical questions raised by the retreat from the field will be dealt with in the next chapter.

5.26 Ethics

In contrast to morality, which is based on socially accepted values and norms, ethics is reflective. It begins at the point where moral concepts are questioned and considered (Luhmann 2008 , p. 372). Ethnographic fieldwork gives rise to numerous ethical concerns (Roth and von Unger 2018 ) that often have to do with various kinds of disparities between the researcher and the participants in the field. While such disparities do not speak against the project at all, still they need to be taken into consideration. The American Anthropological Association advocates the following seven points on the question of ethics: Footnote 12

Be Open and Honest Regarding Your Work

Obtain Informed Consent and Necessary Permissions

Weigh Competing Ethical Obligations Due Collaborators and Affected Parties

Make Your Results Accessible

Protect and Preserve Your Records

Maintain Respectful and Ethical Professional Relationships

Concretely, the ethical questions concern primarily personal rights. In contrast to quantitative research, where reports are based mainly on statistical data, ethnography sketches out people’s lifeworlds. Participants tell their life stories, offer a view into their everyday worlds, and perhaps reveal intimate and embarrassing details. If this information is published, it can harm those involved, which must absolutely be avoided. The issues that are associated with this must be weighed carefully, especially in research with children or people will impaired judgment. Consent must be obtained from parents or appropriate authorities.

An important point concerns the way in which research data is made available to the public. In the case of textual data, there are varying degrees of anonymization. But visual data is different (Pink 2015 , p. 67 ff.; Schnettler and Knoblauch 2009 , p. 279; Tuma et al. 2013 , p. 67 f.): Since people are photographed or filmed, they are identifiable. They should therefore be informed of any publication and give their consent. Sarah Pink recommends involving the people from the investigated lifeworlds in the research process rather than defining them as objects ( 2015 , p. 68).

The concept comes from Kimbundu ( Mu-seke ) and means something like a sandy place, which describes the unpaved ground of the Luandan slums (Moorman 2008 , p. 32).

These four types of ethnographic approaches are also described in Crabtree et al. ( 2012 , p. 77 f.) and Knoblauch ( 2001 , p. 128).

Noteworthy in this context, for instance, is the Master’s thesis of Priscille Jotzu ( 2018 ), who aims to convey future scenarios with scents. https://digitaltag.zhdk.ch/en/conference/masterclasses/masterclass-10-smell-o-topia/ (accessed 4 July 2019).

See also the Sensory Ethnography Lab at Harvard University (Cambridge, MA): https://sel.fas.harvard.edu (accessed 4 July 2019).

https://blog.wiwo.de/look-at-it/2017/09/14/12-billionen-digitale-fotos-werden-allein-2017-geschossen-davon-85-prozent-per-smartphone/ (accessed 4 July 2019).

https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/309656/umfrage/prognose-zur-anzahl-der-smartphone-nutzer-weltweit/ (accessed 4 July 2019).

http://www.vejournal.org/index.php/vejournal (accessed 4 July 2019).

https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rvst20/current (accessed 8 August 2019).

http://visualsociology.org (accessed 4 July 2019).

The exhibition “Sometimes people in Luanda shine. About landmines, disability and creativity in urban landscapes,” curated by Bitten Stetter and Flurina Rothenberger, was shown March 9–16, 2015 in the Zurich Hochschule der Künste. The video “Throbosis,” which was edited by the ethnologist Sandra Gysi, can be seen at http://www.bittenstetter.com/sometimes-people-in-luanda-shine/ (accessed 30 June 2019).

Noteworthy in that regard is the work of Andrea Staudacher, who experiments in her Future Food Lab with the cultural acceptance of insects and in-vitro meat ( 2015 ). The aim is to show that social norms surrounding food can be reconsidered and reflected upon and new patterns of consumption can be explored. Staudacher wants to create awareness for the nutritional possibilities of the future. https://www.futurefoodlab.ch . accessed 17 August 2019.

http://ethics.americananthro.org/category/statement/ (accessed 11 July 2019).

Adams, R. (1975). Interracial marriage in Hawaii . New York: AMS Press.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, N. (1998). On hobos and homelessness. Heritage of sociology . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Appadurai, A. (1986). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Arantes, L. M., & Rieger, E. (2014). Ethnographien der Sinne. In Wahrnehmung und Methode in empirisch kulturwissenschaftlichen Forschungen [Ethnographies of the senses: Perception and method in empirical cultural studies]. Bielefeld: Transcript.

Ball, M., & Smith, G. (2009). Technologies of realism. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 302–319). London: Sage.

Bannon, L. G., & Bødker, S. (1991). Beyond the interface: Encountering artifacts in use. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 227–253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bateson, G., & Mead, M. (1942). Balinese character . New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Baur, N., & Budenz, P. (2017). Fotografisches Handeln. Subjektive Überformung von fotografischen Repräsentationen von Wirklichkeit [Photographic action: Subjective transformation of photographic representations of reality]. In T. S. Eberle (Ed.), Fotografie und Gesellschaft. Phänomenologische und wissenssoziologische Perspektiven [Photography and society: Phenomenological and sociological perspectives] (pp. 73–96). Bielefeld: Transcript.

Becker, H. S. (1995). Visual sociology, documentary photography, and photojournalism: It’s (almost) all a matter of context. Visual Sociology, 10 (1–2), 5–14.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bell, J. A., & Kuipers, J. C. (2018). Linguistic and material intimacies of cell phones . New York: Routledge.

Bell, G., Blythe, M., & Sengers, P. (2006). Making by making strange. ACM ToCHI, 12 (2), 149–173.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge . New York: Anchor.

Bernardo, D. J. P. (2016). An mein Luanda [To my Luanda]. In F. Müller (Ed.), Mit Behinderung in Angola leben. Eine ethnografische Spurensuche in einer von Tretminen verletzten Gesellschaft [Living with disabilities in Angola: An ethnographic search for clues in a society injured by mines] (p. 35). Bielefeld: Transcript.

Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (1987). Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge . Aldershot: Avebury.

Blomberg, J., & Karasti, H. (2013). Ethnography: Positioning ethnography within participatory pesign. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), International handbook of participatory design (pp. 86–116). London: Routledge.

Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., Mosher, A., & Swenton-Wall, P. (1993). Ethnographic field methods and their relation to design. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 123–155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bly, N. (2009). Ten days in a mad-house . Rockville, MD: Wildside Press.

Boehm, G. (1994). Jenseits der Sprache? Anmerkungen zur Logik der Bilder [Beyond language? Comments on the logic of pictures]. In C. Maar & H. Burda (Eds.), Iconic Turn. Die neue Macht der Bilder [Iconic turn: The new power of images] (pp. 28–43) . Cologne: Dumont.

Boellstorff, T., Nardie, B., Pearce, C., & Taylor, T. L. (2012). Ethnography and virtual worlds: A handbook of method . Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Böhme, H. (2012). Fetischismus und Kultur. Eine andere Theorie der Moderne [Fetishism and culture: Another theory of modernity]. Reinbek: Rowohlt.

Brake, A. (2009). Photobasierte Befragung [Photo-based survey]. In S. Kühl, P. Strodtholz, & A. Taffertshofer (Ed.), Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung. Quantitative und qualitative Methoden [Handbook of methods of organizational research. Quantitative and qualitative methods] (pp. 369–388) . Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Brandes, U., Erlhoff, M., & Schemmann, N. (2009). Designtheorie und Designforschung [Design theory and design research] . Paderborn: Fink.

Bratteteig, T., Bødker, K., Dittrich, Y., Morgensen, P. H., & Simonsen, J. (2013). Methods: Organising principles and general guidelines for participatory design projects. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), International handbook of participatory design (pp. 117–144). London: Routledge.

Byrne, B. (2012). Qualitative interviewing. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching society and culture (pp. 206–226). London: Sage.

Campbell, C. (1998). Consumption and the rhetorics of need and want. Journal of Design History, 11 , 235–246.

Castillo-Burguete, M. T., Viga de Alva, M. D., & Dickinson, F. (2009). Changing the culture of dependency to allow successful outcomes in participatory research: Fourteen years of experience in Yucatan, Mexico. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 522–533). London: Sage.

Charmaz, K., & Mitchell, R. G. (2009). Grounded theory in ethnography. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 160–174). London: Sage.

Cisneros Puebla, C. A. (2016). Sometimes it is only madness that makes us what we are. International Review of Qualitative Research, 9 (2), 173–177.

Clarke, A. J. (2016). The new ethnographers 1968–1974: Towards a critical historiography of design anthropology. In R. C. Smith, K. T. Vangkilde, M. G. Kjærsgaard, T. Otto, J. Halse, & T. Binder (Eds.), Design anthropological futures (pp. 71–85). London: Bloomsbury.

Clarke, A. J. (2017). Design anthropology: Object cultures in transition . London: Bloomsbury.

Classen, C. (2005). The book of touch . Oxford: Berg.

Coffey, A. (1999). The ethnographic self: Fieldwork and the representation of identity . London: Sage.

Collier, J. (1957). Photography in anthropology: A report on two experiments. American Anthropologist, 59 , 843–859.

Collier, J. (1967). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method . New York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston.

Crabtree, A., Rodden, R., Tolmie, P., & Button, G. (2009). Ethnography considered harmful. In: The status of ethnography in system design (pp. 879–888). Boston: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).

Crabtree, A., Roucefield, M., & Tolmie, P. (2012). Doing design ethnography . London: Springer.

Cranz, G. (2016). Ethngraphy for designers . New York: Routledge.

Cross, N. (2007). From a design science to a design discipline: Understanding designerly ways of knowing and thinking. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now (pp. 41–54). Basel: Birkhauser.

Cushing, F. H. (1988). The mythic world of the Zuni . Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Deegan, M. J. (2009). The Chicago school of ethnography. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethno-graphy (pp. 11–25). Los Angeles: Sage.

Dellwing, M., & Prus, R. (2012). Einführung in die interaktionistische Ethnografie. Soziologie im Außendienst [Introduction to interactionist ethnography: Sociology in the field] . Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Donovan, F. R. (1988). The saleslady . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of the concept of pollution and taboo . New York: Routledge.

Douglas, M. (2011). In the active voice . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (1978). The world of goods: Towards an anthropology of consumption . New York: Penguin Books.

Eberle, T. S. (2017a). Fotografie und Gesellschaft. Theoretische Rahmung [Photography and society: Theoretical framing]. In T. S. Eberle (Ed.), Fotografie und Gesellschaft. Phänomenologische und wissenssoziologische Perspektiven [Photography and society: Phenomenological and sociological perspectives] (pp. 11–70). Bielefeld: Transcript.

Eberle, T. S. (2017b). Der Akt des Fotografierens. Eine phänomenologische und autoethnografische Analyse [The act of taking pictures: A phenomenological and auto-ethnographic analysis]. In T. S. Eberle (Ed.), Fotografie und Gesellschaft. Phänomenologische und wissenssoziologische Perspektiven [Photography and society: Phenomenological and sociological perspectives] (pp. 97–116). Bielefeld: Transcript.

Eisewicht, P., & Grenz, T. (2017). Zur Veralltäglichung interpretativer Konservierung [On the everyday use of interpretive conservation]. In T. S. Eberle (Ed.), Fotografie und Gesellschaft. Phänomenologische und wissenssoziologische Perspektiven [Photography and society: Phenomenological and sociological perspectives] (pp. 117–132). Bielefeld: Transcript.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Feyerabend, P. (2010). Against methods . New York: Verso.

Fleck, L. (1986). To look, to see, to know. In R. S. Cohen & T. Schnelle (Eds.), Cognition and fact: Materials on Ludwik Fleck . Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4498-5 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research . London: Sage.

Gatt, C., & Ingold, T. (2013). From description to correspondence: Anthropology in real time. In W. Gunn, T. Otto, & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Design anthropology: Theory and practice (pp. 139–159). London: Bloomsbury.

Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Cultural probes. Interactions, 1 , 21–29.

Gaver, W. G., Boucher, A., Penington, S., & Walker, B. (2004). Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions, 11 (5), 53–56.

Ge, Z. (2017). Armchair anthropology. In S. Pink (Ed.), The future of digital ethnography (pp. 18–19). Melbourne: RMIT University.

Geertz, C. (1999). “From the native’s point of view”: On the nature of anthropological understanding. In R. T. McCutcheon (Ed.), The insider/outsider problem in the study of religion (pp. 50–63). New York: Cassell.

Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (2008). Social construction and research as action. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 159–171). London: Sage.

Geurts, K. L. (2002). On rocks, walks, and walks in West African culture: Cultural categories and anthropology of the senses. Ethos, 30 (3), 178–198.

Giaccardi, E., Speed, C., Cila, N., & Caldwell, M. L. (2016). Things as co-ethnographers: Implications of a thing perspective for design and anthropology. In R. C. Smith, K. T. Vangkilde, M. G. Kjærsgaard, T. Otto, J. Halse, & T. Binder (Eds.), Design anthropological futures (pp. 235–248). London: Bloomsbury.

Girtler, R. (2001). Methoden der Feldforschung [Field research methods]. Cologne: Böhlau.

Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life . Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.

Goffman, E. (1961). On the characteristics of total institutions: The inmate world. In D. R. Cressey (Ed.), The prison: Studies in institutional organization and change (pp. 15–67). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Goffman, E. (1989). On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 18 , 123–132.

Goffman, E. (2010). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order . New Brunswick: Transaction.

Gómez Cruz, E., Sumartojo, S., & Pink, S. (2017). Refiguring techniques in digital visual research . Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gould, J. D., & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers thank. Communications of the ACM, 28 (3), 300–311.

Habermas, T. (1999). Geliebte Objekte: Symbole und Instrumente der Identitätsbildung [Beloved objects: Symbols and instruments of identity formation] . Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Hahn, A. (1995). Identität und Biografie [Identity and biography]. In M. Wohlrab-Sahr (Ed.), Biographie und Religion [Biography and religion] (pp. 127–151). Main: Campus.

Hahn, H. P. (2014), Materielle Kultur. Eine Einführung [Material culture: An introduction]. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.

Hahn, H. P. (2015). Vom Eigensinn der Dinge: Für eine neue Perspektive auf die Welt des Materiellen [On the stubbornness of things: For a new perspective on the world of the material] . Berlin: Neofelis Verlag.

Hahn, H. P., & Schmitz, G. (2018). Market as place and space of economic exchange: Perspectives from archaeology and anthropology . Oxford: Oxford Books.

Halse, J. (2013). Ethnographies of the possible. In W. Gunn, T. Otto, & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Design anthropology: Theory and practice (pp. 180–196). London: Bloomsbury.

Halse, J., & Boffi, L. (2016). Design interventions as a form of inquiry. In R. C. Smith, K. T. Vangkilde, M. G. Kjærsgaard, T. Otto, J. Halse, & T. Binder (Eds.), Design anthropological futures (pp. 89–103). London: Bloomsbury.

Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo-elicitation. Visual Studies, 17 (1), 13–26.

Harper, D. (2012). Visual sociology . New York: Routledge.

Hegel, C., Cantarella, L., & Marcus, G. E. (2019). Ethnography by design: Scenographic experiments in fieldwork . New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Hermanns, H. (2008). Interviewen als Tätigkeit [Interviewing as an activity]. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch [Qualitative research: A handbook] (pp. 360–368). Reinbek: Rowohlt.

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2006). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research “with” rather than “on” people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 179–188). London: Sage.

Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the internet: Embedded, embodied and everyday . New York: Bloomsbury.

Holaschke, L. (2016). Lipstick Tehran. Master’s thesis. Zurich University of the Arts, Zurich.

Holliday, R. (2000). We’ve been framed: Visualizing methodology. Sociological Review, 48 (4), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00230 .

Holliday, R. (2007). Performances, confessions, and identities. Using video diaries to research sexualities. In G. C. Stanczak (Ed.), Visual Research Methods. Image, Society, and Representation (pp. 255–305). London: Sage.

Honer, A. (2011). Kleine Leiblichkeiten. Erkundungen in Lebenswelten [Small corporealities: Explorations in living environments]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Howes, D. (1991). The varieties of sensory experience: A sourcebook in the anthropology of the senses . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Hughes, J., King, V., Rodden, T., & Andersen, H. (1994). Moving out of the control room: Ethnography in system design. In R. Futura & C. Neuwirth (Eds.), Transcending boundaries: Proceedings of the conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 429–439). New York: ACM.

Hughes, J., King, V., Rodden, T., & Anderson, H. (1995). The role of ethnography in interactive system design. Interactions, 2 (2), 57–65.

Ictech, B. (2019). Smartphones and face-to-face interaction: Digital cross-talk during encounters in everyday life. Symbolic Interaction, 42 (1), 27–45.

Jotzu, P. (2018). Smell forward . Master’s thesis. Zurich University of the Arts, Zurich.

James, F. (2016). ‘Sketch and talk’: An ethnographic design method opening closed institutions. In C. Kung, E. Lam, & Y. Lee (Eds.), Open desing for everything (p. 163). Aalto (Finnland): Cumulus International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media.

Katz, J. (2019). On becoming an ethnographer. Contemporary Ethnography, 48 (1), 16–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241618777801 .

Keifenheim, B. (2008). Der Einsatz von Film und Video [The use of film and video]. In B. Beer (Ed.), Methoden ethnologischer Feldforschung [Methods of ethnological field research] (pp. 277–291). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.

Kensing, F., & Greenbaum, J. (2013). Heritage. Having a say. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), International handbook of participatory design (pp. 21–36). New York: Routledge.

Kjærsgaard, M. G., Halse, J., Smith, R. C., Vangkilde, K. T., Binder, T., & Otto, T. (2016). Introduction: Design anthropological futures. In R. C. Smith, K. T. Vangkilde, M. G. Kjærsgaard, T. Otto, J. Halse, & T. Binder (Eds.), Design anthropological futures (pp. 1–16). London: Bloomsbury.

Knoblauch, H. (2001). Fokussierte Ethnographie [Focused ethnography]. Sozialer Sinn [Social sense], 1 , 123–141.

Knoblauch, H. (2003). Qualitative Religionsforschung [Qualitative research on religion]. Paderborn: Schöningh.

Knoblauch, H. (2006). Videography: Focused ethnography and video analysis. In H. Knoblauch, B. Schnettler, J. Raab, & H. G. Soeffner (Eds.), Video analysis: Methodology and methods. Qualitative audiovisual data analysis in sociology (pp. 35–50). Main: Peter Lang.

Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online . London: Sage.

Kozinets, R. V. (2019). Netnography: The essential guide to qualitative social media research . London: Sage.

Kusenbach, M. (2008). Mitgehen als Methode: Der “Go-Along” in der phänomenologischen Forschungspraxis [Going along as a method: The ‘go-along’ in phenomenological research practice]. In J. Raab, M. Pfadenhauer, P. Stegmaier, J. Dreher, & B. Schnettler (Eds.), Phänomenologie und Soziologie. Theoretische Positionen, aktuelle Problemfelder und empirische Umsetzungen [Phenomenology and sociology: Theoretical positions, current problem areas and empirical implementations] (pp. 349–358). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Latour, B. (2002). Die Hoffnung der Pandora [Pandora’s hope]. Main: Suhrkamp.

Lee, J., & Ingold, T. (2006). Fieldwork on foot: Perceiving, routing, socializing. In S. Coleman & P. Collins (Eds.), Locating the field: Space, place and context in anthropology (pp. 67–85). Oxford: Berg.

Liebold, R., & Trinczek, R. (2009). Experteninterview [Expert interview]. In S. Kühl (Ed.), Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung. Quantitative und qualitative Methoden [Handbook of methods of organizational research: Quantitative and qualitative methods] (pp. 32–56) . Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Lindner, R. (2007). Die Entdeckung der Stadtkultur. Soziologie aus der Erfahrung der Reportage [The discovery of urban culture. Sociology derived from the experience of reporting] . Main: Campus.

Low, K. E. Y. (2005). Ruminations on smell as a sociocultural phenomenon. Current Sociology, 53 , 397–417.

Lueger, M. (2000). Grundlagen qualitativer Feldforschung [Foundations of qualitative field research]. Vienna: Vienna University.

Lueger, M., & Froschauer, U. (2018). Artefaktanalyse. Grundlage und Verfahren [Artifact analysis: Foundations and procedures] . Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Luhmann, N. (2008). Die Moral der Gesellschaft [The morality of society]. Main: Suhrkamp.

Maeder, C. (1995). In totaler Gesellschaft. Eine ethnografische Untersuchung zum offenen Strafvollzug [In total society: An ethnographic investigation into the open prison system]. Bamberg: Difo.

Malinowski, B. (1932). Argonauts of the Western Pacific . London: George Routledge & Sons.

Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/on the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24 , 95–117.

Mareis, C., Held, M., & Joost, G. (2013). Wer gestaltet die Gestaltung? Theorie, Praxis und Geschichte des partizipatorischen Designs [Who designs the design? Theory, practice and history of participatory design]. Bielefeld: Transcript.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (2003). El árbol del conocimiento. Las bases biológicas del entendimiento humano [The tree of knowledge: The biological basis of human understanding]. Buenos Aires: Lumen.

Mead, G. H. (2015). Mind, self & society . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Merton, R. K. (1987). The focused interview and focus groups: Continuities and discontinuities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51 , 550–556.

Michaels, E., & Kelly, F. (1984). The social organisation of an Aboriginal video workplace. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 84 , 26–34.

Milev, Y. (2015). Gestalten [Shape]. In J. Badura, S. Dubach, A. Haarmann, D. Mersch, A. Rey, C. Schenker & G. T. Pérez (Eds.), Künstlerische Forschung. Ein Handbuch [Artistic research: A handbook] (pp. 143–146) . Zurich: Diaphanes.

Miller, D. (2008). The comfort of things . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Miller, D. (2009a). Stuff . Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Miller, D. (2009b). Why clothing is not superficial. In D. Miller (Ed.), Stuff (pp. 13–41). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Miller, D. (2011). The poverty of morality. Journal of Consumer Culture, 1 (2), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/146954050100100210 .

Miller, D. (2013). Consumption. In C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Kuechler-Fogden, M. Rowlands, & P. Spyer (Eds.), Handbook of material culture (pp. 341–354). London: Sage.

Moorman, M. J. (2008). Intonations: A social history of music and nation in Luanda, Angola, from 1945 to recent times . Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

Müller, F. (2015). Selbsttransformation und charismatisch evangelikale Identität. Eine vergleichende ethnosemantische Lebenswelt-Analyse [Self-transformation and charismatic evangelical identity: A comparative ethnosemantic lifeworld analysis] . Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Müller, F. (2016). Mit Behinderung in Angola leben. Eine ethnografische Spurensuche in einer von Tretminen verletzten Gesellschaft [Living with disabilities in Angola: An ethnographic search for clues in a society injured by mines]. Bielefeld: Transcript.

Müller, F. (2018). Das ästhetische Echo des Sozialen. Identitätskonstruktion durch Mikropraktiken und kulturelle Ressourcen [The aesthetic echo of the social: Identity construction through micropractices and cultural resources]. In G. Muri, D. Späti, P. Klaus, & F. Müller (Eds.), Eventisierung der Stadt [Eventization of the city] (pp. 183–191). Berlin: Jovis.

Müller, F. (2019). Pluralizing perspectives on material culture: An essay on design ethnography and the world of things. DIS Journal 4 (3), 41–62. Mexico City: Diseño y Cultura [Design and Culture], Ibero-American University. Retrieved August 17, 2019, from http://disjournal.ibero.mx/index.php/DISJournal/issue/view/5/DIS_3_4?fbclid=IwAR21lhtn0RaoKQx-y8pUiC9fudZFe3v4xQlcukUH8CY3Wd7rBbPm-EbcwHQ

Muri, G. (2010). “Wer bin ich?”—Identitäten und Ressourcen [“Who am I?”—Identities and resources]. In C. Ritter, G. Muri, & B. Rogger (Eds.), Magische Ambivalenz. Visualität und Identität im transkulturellen Raum [Magical ambivalence: Visuality and identity in transcultural space] (pp. 78–96). Zurich: Diaphanes.

Murphy, K. M., & Marcus, G. E. (2013). Epilogue: Ethnography and design, ethnography in design … ethnography by design. In W. Gunn, T. Otto, & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Design anthropology: Theory and practice (pp. 251–268). London: Bloomsbury.

Nardi, B. A. (1993). A small matter of programming: Perspectives on end user computing . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Neumann-Braun, K. (2017). Selfies. Oder: kein fotografisches Selbstportrait ohne den Anderen [Selfies. Or. No photographic self-portrait without the other]. In T. S. Eberle (Ed.), Fotografie und Gesellschaft. Phänomenologische und wissenssoziologische Perspektiven [Photography and society: Phenomenological and sociological perspectives] (pp. 343–348). Bielefeld: Transcript.

Nova, N. (2014). Beyond design ethnography: How designers practice ethnographic research . Geneva: SHS & HEAD.

O’Neill, M., & Hubbard, P. (2010). Walking, sensing, belonging: Ethno-mimesis as performative praxis. Visual Studies, 25 (1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725861003606878 .

Otto, T., & Smith, R. C. (2013). Design anthropology: A distinct style of knowing. In W. Gunn, T. Otto, & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Design anthropology: Theory and practice (pp. 1–29). London: Bloomsbury.

Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1967). The city: Suggestions for investigation of human behavior in the urban environment . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pfadenhauer, M. (2002). Auf gleicher Augenhöhe reden. Das Experteninterview: Ein Gespräch zwischen Experte und Quasi-Experte [Speaking at the same eye level. The expert interview: A conversation between an expert and a quasi-expert]. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Das Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung [The expert interview: Theory, method, application] (pp. 113–130). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Pfadenhauer, M. (2017). Fotografieren (lassen) in der lebensweltlichen Ethnographie [(Allowing) photography in the ethnography of everyday lifeworlds]. In T. S. Eberle (Ed.), Fotografie und Gesellschaft. Phänomenologische und wissenssoziologische Perspektiven [Photography and society: Phenomenological and sociological perspectives] (pp. 133–145). Bielefeld: Transcript.

Pink, S. (2006). The future of visual anthropology: Engaging the senses . London: Routledge.

Pink, S. (2007a). Visual interventions: Applied visual anthropology . New York: Berghahn.

Pink, S. (2007b). Walking with video. Visual Studies, 22 (3), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860701657142 .

Pink, S. (2011). A multisensory approach to visual methods. In E. Margolis & L. Pauwels (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of visual research methods (pp. 601–614). London: Sage.

Pink, S. (2013). Doing visual ethnography . London: Sage.

Pink, S. (2014). Digital-Visual-Sensory-Design anthropology: Ethnography, imagination and intervention. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 13 (4), 412–427.

Pink, S. (2015). Doing sensory ethnography . London: Sage.

Pink, S., Heather, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice . London: Sage.

Prus, R. (1996). Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research: Intersubjectivity and the study of human lives experience . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Prus, R. (1997). Subcultural mosaic and intersubjective realities: An ethnographic research agenda for pragmatizing the social sciences . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Rahman, A. (2008). Some trends in the praxis of participatory action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 49–62). London: Sage.

Reason, P. (2004). Critical design ethnography as action research. Anthropology and Education Quarterly , 35(2), 269–276. Retrieved August 17, 2019, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3651406

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice . London: Sage.

Reckless, W. (1969). Vice in Chicago . Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.

Reimers, I. (2014). Ess-Settings als Versammlungen der Sinne [Dining settings as assemblies of the senses]. In L. M. Arantes & E. Rieger (Eds.), Ethnographien der Sinne. Wahrnehmung und Methode in empirisch kulturwissenschaftlichen Forschungen [Ethnographies of the senses: Perception and method in empirical cultural studies] (pp. 75–90). Bielefeld: Transcript.

Riis, J. A. (1997). How the other half lives . New York: Penguin.

Robertson, T., & Simonsen, J. (2013). Participatory design: An introduction. In T. Robertson & J. Simonsen (Eds.), International handbook of participatory design (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge.

Roth, W. M., & von Unger, H. (2018). Current perspectives on research ethics in qualitative research. FQS Forum Qualitative Social Research , 19 (3). Retrieved August 17, 2019, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/3155

Salvador, T., Bell, G., & Anderson, K. (1999). Design ethnography. Design Management Journal, 10 (4), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-7169.1999.tb00274.x .

Schmocker, A. (2018). Sick style: The new codes of sadness . Master’s thesis. Zurich: Zurich University of the Arts.

Schnettler, B., & Knoblauch, H. (2009). Videoanalyse [Video analysis]. In S. Kühl, P. Strodtholz, & A. Taffertshofer (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung. Quantitative und qualitative Methoden [Handbook of methods of organizational research: Quantitative and qualitative methods] (pp. 272–297) . Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Schnettler, B., & Raab, J. (2012). Video analysis: Methodology and methods: Qualitative audiovisual data analysis in sociology . Main: Peter Lang.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflexive practitioner: How professionals think in action . New York: Basic Books.

Schütze, F. (1983). Biografieforschung und narratives Interview [Biography research and narrative interview]. Neue Praxis. Kritische Zeitschrift für Sozialarbeit und Sozialpädagogik [New practice: Critical journal for social work and social education] 13 , 283–293. Retrieved August 17, 2019, from https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/5314/ssoar-np-1983-3-schutze-biographieforschung_und_narratives_interview.pdf

Shapiro, D. (1994). The limits of ethnography: Combining social sciences for CSCW. In CSCW’ 94 Proceedings on the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 417–428). Chapel Hill, NC: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/192844.193064 .

Sierach, B. (2016). Intercultural Link. Über die Rolle der Designer/innen in sozialen Projekten [Intercultural link: On the role of the designer in social projects]. Master’s thesis. Zurich: Zurich University of the Arts.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Spradley, J. P. (1999). You owe yourself a drunk: An ethnography of urban nomads . Longgrove, IL: Waveland Press.

Spradley, J. P., & Mann, B. J. (1975). The cocktail waitress . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Spradley, J. P., & Spradley, T. S. (1985). Deaf like me . Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Staudacher, A. (2015). MMH or HMM. Meinungsbildung durch Ereignisdesign [Formation of opinion through event design]. Master’s thesis. Zurich: Zurich University of the Arts.

Stephan, P. F. (2010). Wissen und Nicht-Wissen im Entwurf [Knowing and not knowing in design]. In C. Mareis, G. Joost, & K. Kimpel (Eds.), Entwerfen—Wissen—Produzieren. Designforschung im Anwendungskontext [Design—Knowledge—Production: Design research in an application context] (pp. 81–99). Bielefeld: Transcript.

Stetter, B. (2016). Lange Fingernägel [Long fingernails]. In F. Müller (Ed.), Mit Behinderung in Angola leben. Eine ethnografische Spurensuche in einer von Tretminen verletzten Gesellschaft [Living with disabilities in Angola: An ethnographic search for clues in a society injured by mines] (pp. 90). Bielefeld: Transcript.

Strauss, A. (2017). Mirrors and masks: The search for identity . New York: Routledge.

Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sutherland, E. H. (1989). The professional thief . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Svasek, M., & Domecka, M. (2012). The autobiographical narrative interview: A potential arena of emotional remembering, performance and reflection. In J. Skinner (Ed.), The interview: An ethnographic approach (pp. 107–126). London: Bloomsburg.

Taussig, M. (2011). I swear I saw this: Drawings in fieldwork notebooks, namely my own . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tedlock, B. (1991). From participant observation to the observation of participation: The emergence of narrative ethnography. Journal of Anthropological Research, 47 (1), 69–94.

Thwaites, T. (2011). The toaster project: Or a heroic attempt to build a simple electric appliance from scratch . New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Tilley, C. (2009). Ethnography and material culture. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 258–272). London: Sage.

Tilley, C., Keane, W., Kuechler-Fogden, S., Rowlands, M., & Spyer, P. (2013). Handbook of material culture . London: Sage.

Tondeur, K. (2016). Graphic anthropology field school: Report of a first edition. OMERTAA Journal of Applied Anthropology , 665–669. Retrieved August 17, 2019, from https://www.academia.edu/30888855/Graphic_Anthropology_Field_School_Report_of_a_First_Edition_2016_Omertaa_Journal_for_applied_anthropology_http_www.omertaa.org_archive_omer-taa0077.pdf

Tuma, R., Schnettler, B., & Knoblauch, H. (2013). Videographie. Einführung in die interpretative Videoanalyse sozialer Situationen [Videography: Introduction to the interpretive video analysis of social situations] . Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Turner, T. (1980). The social skin. In J. Cherfas (Ed.), Not work alone: A cross-cultural survey of activities apparently superfluous to survival (pp. 112–140). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Vergara, C. J. (2014). Harlem: The unmaking of a ghetto . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vokes, R. (2007). (Re)constructing the field through sound: Actor-networks, ethnographic representation and ‘radio elicitation’ in south-western Uganda. In E. Hallam & T. Ingold (Eds.), Creativity and cultural improvisation . Oxford: Berg.

Wacquant, L. (2006). Body & soul: Notebooks of an apprentice boxer . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wang, C. C. (1999). Photovoice: A participatory action research strategy applied to women’s health. Journal of Women’s Health, 8 , 185–192.

Wang, C. C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education and Behavior, 24 (3), 369–387.

Whyte, W. F. (1981). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Wirth, L. (1998). The ghetto . New Jersey: Transaction.

Yelavich, S., & Adams, B. (2014). Design as future-making . New York: Bloomsbury.

Zorbaugh, H. W. (1929). Gold Coast and the slum: Sociological study of Chicago’s near North Side . Chicago: University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Zurich University of the Arts, Zurich, Switzerland

Francis Müller

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Müller, F. (2021). Methods and Aspects of Field Research. In: Design Ethnography. SpringerBriefs in Anthropology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60396-0_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60396-0_5

Published : 10 December 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-60395-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-60396-0

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Human Relations Area Files

Cultural information for education and research, an introduction to fieldwork and ethnography.

Return to Teaching eHRAF: Tile View | Table View

View exercise overview

Francine barone, human relations area files at yale university, ethnographic fieldwork.

Ethnographic fieldwork is how anthropologists gather data. Fieldwork is the process of immersing oneself in as many aspects of the daily cultural lives of people as possible in order to study their behaviors and interactions. Nearly any setting or location can become “the field”: a village along the Amazon river, a large corporate office in Tokyo, a small neighborhood café in Seattle, or even a social networking site like Facebook.

Fieldwork takes time. Anthropologists enter the field location much like a newborn child. They may have trouble communicating until they have learned the local language. They will likely make mistakes, and locals will find them funny or strange. It can take months or years to begin to accustom themselves to the society or community within which they will live and learn. In the fieldwork process, anthropologists eventually piece together ideas about kinship, language, religion, politics, and economic systems, which allows them to build a picture of the society.

Ethnography

Ethnography can mean two things in anthropology:

a) the qualitative research methods employed during fieldwork b) the written descriptive and interpretive results of that research

Doing ethnography

The hallmark method of ethnographic field research in anthropology is known as participant-observation . This type of data-gathering is when the anthropologist records their experiences and observations while taking part in activities alongside local participants or informants in the field site. Anthropologists also engage in informal conversations, more formal interviews, surveys, or questionnaires, and create photos, sound or video recordings, as well as conduct historical or archival research into correspondence, public records, or reports, depending on their research area. Some anthropologists use quantitative methods when analyzing their research, such as producing statistics based on their findings.

Writing ethnography

Ethnographic writing differs from other types of academic, historical, journalistic, or travel writing about peoples and places. While ethnographers may also keep a fieldwork diary containing personal notes, ethnography is much more than a recounting of daily events. Ethnography engages with the theoretical foundations of anthropology and is written with cultural contextualization in mind, speaking to anthropology as a discipline as well as furnishing greater understanding of the cultural world that has been explored. The aim of ethnographic writing is to produce work that contributes to, and advances, the comparative interpretation of human cultures and societies.

An insider’s view

Ethnography is a collaborative effort between the ethnographer and their research participants. Anthropologists have ethical codes that guide their behavior in the field as they rely on relationships with others in order to conduct their research. In the ethnographic process, informants or key participants can help to induct the ethnographer into the society and explain its customs and ways.

Traditionally, anthropologists have attempted to arrive at an emic perspective or “insider’s point of view”. In other words, ethnographers wish to understand the structures, categories, and patterns of behavior as conceptualized by members of the culture they are studying. This is contrasted with etic models, which are analyses of cultural meaning as seen from the “outside” by an objective observer. This uneasy simplification of emic vs. etic gets at the heart of the paradox of doing ethnography: what people say they do, what they say they should do, and what they actually do, rarely – if ever – coincide.

Anthropologists today are increasingly aware of their own views and biases that they carry with them into the field from their home cultures, acknowledging wherever possible how this affects their methods and findings. Despite all of the best intentions, any practicing fieldworker can tell you that fieldwork is, at best, unpredictable. A reflexive approach to ethnography acknowledges that no researcher can be 100% objective, and that fieldwork constitutes an ongoing dialogue of consent and mutual respect between participants and the ethnographer.

Workbook Activity 1: The Fieldwork Experience

Read the following passages in eHRAF World Cultures that describe different aspects of fieldwork and conducting ethnography. Then, answer the questions.

Malinowski (1922) – Argonauts of the Western Pacific , Chapter 1, Section VII, pages 17-21 on participant-observation  

• What is “the imponderabilia of actual life”?
• How does Malinowski suggest that ethnographers should observe and record this imponderabilia during fieldwork?
• According to Malinowski, why is it good for the ethnographer to sometimes put aside their notebook and camera?

Stross (1971) – Aspects of Language Acquisition by Tzeltal Children , “Appendix B: The Fieldwork”, pages 201-202 on data collection in the field  

• List the kinds of research methods that the ethnographer used during fieldwork.
• How did he familiarize himself with the field location?
• Describe the relationship(s) that the ethnographer had with informants.
• What unexpected problems did the ethnographer run into? How were they resolved?

  Textor (1973) – Roster of the Gods , Appendix One, pages 855-858 on working with key informants

• Describe the relationship between the ethnographer and his informants.
• How critical were the informants to completing the ethnographic research?
• Do you think that learning the local language is essential for doing fieldwork?

Landsman (1988) – Sovereignty and Symbol , pages 7-8 on taking notes with informants

• How did the emotions of informants/research participants impact the ethnographer’s fieldnotes?
• How were historical, archival, print, and photographic materials utilized in their study? How did informants assist with this?
• How critical do you think informants are to conducting ethnographic research?

  Hill (1972) – Rural Hausa: A Village and Setting , page 148 on the anatomy of poverty

• What do you think the author means by “the poor are usually unobserved”?
• Are there some types of insights that are difficult or impossible to ascertain through participant-observation? Why might this be the case?
• How do you think anthropologists should deal with sensitive information or vulnerable members of a culture?

Workbook Activity 2: Thinking Ethnographically

How would you observe the following cultural practices ethnographically?

• Shopping in a bookstore
• Traveling by public transportation
• Ordering takeout from your favorite restaurant
• Having coffee with friends at Starbucks

Choose one of these or select your own scenario. Write a brief ethnographic account of everyday events. Consider methods such as participant-observation, interviews, surveys, and engaging with informants. If you are unable to participate in these activities face-to-face, simply try and imagine how you would describe them to an outsider not familiar with your culture.

Begin by recording your “field notes”, keeping track of everything that you see and do, and what you observe others saying and doing.

Then, describe what’s happening from both emic and etic perspectives.

For the emic perspective , consider the activity you are engaged in and how it is viewed in your own culture. What are the established “rules” or patterns of each interaction that make up the scene you have chosen?

• For example, at a café, you might find that one of your friends buys coffee for the entire group, which is fairly typical among friends. If asked why they have done so, the buyer may simply reply that “it’s a nice thing to do”, and indicate that someone else would pay next time.

For the etic perspective , look beyond your notes and step outside your own cultural expectations. What over-arching structures, symbols, or meaning are at play in this setting?

• For example, why do you think people really take turns buying rounds of drinks? What happens if one person never pays for the coffee? Due to the fact that such a person would not be considered a good friend, an etic analysis might find that coffee exchange is meaningful for building and sustaining friendship rather than being about money.

Hill, Polly. 1972. Rural Hausa: A Village and Setting. Cambridge, England: University Press. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=ms12-018 .

Landsman, Gail H. 1988. Sovereignty and Symbol: Indian-White Conflict at Ganienkeh. Albuquerque, N.Mex.: University of New Mexico Press. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=nm09-058

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: George Routledge & Sons, Ltd. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=ol06-001 .

Stross, Brian. 1971. Aspects of Language Acquisition by Tzeltal Children. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=nv09-010 .

Textor, Robert B. 1973. “Roster of the Gods: An Ethnography of the Supernatural in a Thai Village.” In Ethnography Series, 3, 44, 911 leaves. New Haven, Conn.: Human Relations Area Files. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=ao07-011 .

How to Conduct Field Research Study? – A Complete Guide

There is a challenge in undergoing a research which involves a vast understanding of the environment and the study of subjects staying in that environment. Although the outcome of this study will help fill in the gaps evidently seen in the literature but the process involves a lot of planning. How does one plan such a humongous research study?  In this article, we will discuss how to conduct a field research and what are the different methods used to streamline the field study !

Research is much more than performing the experiment and analyzing results. It involves gathering raw data and understanding the subject of research in its environment. These type of researches are more elaborate and are the reason for producing real information on a large scale.

Table of Contents

What is Field Research?

Field research is a process where data is collected through a qualitative method. The objective of field study  is to observe and interpret the subject of study in its natural environment. It is used in the field of study of humans and health care professions. Furthermore, it connects theory and practical research study by qualitatively analyzing the data.

Why to Conduct Field Study?

Field study allows researchers to identify and observe the subjects and helps draw correlations between subjects and surroundings, and how the surroundings may influence the behavior.

It gives an in-depth information on subjects because they are observed and analyzed for a long period of time.

Field study allows researchers to fill the gaps in data which can be understood by conducting in-depth primary research.

How is a Field Research different from a Lab Research?

Different Methods of Field Study Research

There are four main types of methods for conducting a field research .

1. Ethnographic Field Notes

This type of field work is particularly associated with field work that records and analyzes culture, society or community. Most commonly this method of research is used in social anthropology, societies and communities.

2. Qualitative Interviews

Qualitative interviews give researchers detailed information. This vast information is segregated in order to make inferences related to the sample group. This data is gathered by conducting interviews either informally, conversationally or in an open ended interview.

3. Direct Observation

Researchers gather information on their subjects through close visual observation. The researcher can record the observations and events as field notes holistically without a guided protocol. This form of research approach is termed as unstructured observation. However, in a structured observation the researcher uses a guide or set protocols to observe people and events. Furthermore, in direct observation the observer is detached and does not obstruct the research setup. It does not work as an alternative method for conducting field research , and rather works as an initial approach to understand the behavior of the research. This type of method is extensively used in fields of sociology and anthropology wherein the researchers focus on recording social life details in a setting, community, or society.

4. Participant Observation

In this research method, the researcher takes part in the everyday life of the members chosen for observation. This gives the observer a better understanding of the study. Additionally, these observation notes are a primary type of data which the researchers later develop into detailed field notes.

Steps to Conduct a Field Study

1. identify and acquire researchers of the field.

It is essential to acquire researchers who are specialized in the field of research. Moreover, their experience in the field will help them undergo the further steps of conducting the field research .

2. Identify the topic of research

Post acquiring the researcher, they will work on identifying the topic of research. The researchers are responsible for deciding what topic of research to focus on based on the gaps observed in the existing research literature.

3. Identify the right method of research

After fine tuning the research topic, researchers define the right method to approach the aim and objectives of the research.

4. Visit the site of the study and collect data

Based on the objectives, the observations begin. Observers/Researchers go on field and start collecting data either by visual observation, interviews or staying along with the subjects and experiencing their surroundings to get an in-depth understanding.

5. Analyze the data acquired

The researchers undergo the process of data analysis once the data is collected.

6. Communicate the results

The researchers document a detailed field study report , explaining the data and its outcome. Giving the field study a suitable conclusion.

Advantages of Field Study

The major advantage of field study is that the results represent a greater variety of situations and environments. Researchers yield a detailed data analysis which can be used as primary data for many different research hypotheses. Furthermore, field research has the ability to find newer social facts which the setting or community and the participants may be unaware of. Most importantly, there usually is no tampering of data or variable, as data is collected from the natural setting.

Disadvantages of Field Study

Various methods of field study involve researchers conducting research study and immersing themselves on the research field to gather data. This collection of data can be expensive and time consuming. Moreover, the information acquired is usually undertaken through observation of small groups and this may lack understanding and implications to the larger group of study.

Did you ever conduct a field research? How did you find the process? Which type of field research method did you use? Let us know about it in the comment below.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Publishing Research
• Trending Now
• Understanding Ethics

Understanding the Impact of Retractions on Research Integrity – A global study

As we reach the midway point of 2024, ‘Research Integrity’ remains one of the hot…

• Diversity and Inclusion

The Silent Struggle: Confronting gender bias in science funding

In the 1990s, Dr. Katalin Kariko’s pioneering mRNA research seemed destined for obscurity, doomed by…

Addressing Barriers in Academia: Navigating unconscious biases in the Ph.D. journey

In the journey of academia, a Ph.D. marks a transitional phase, like that of a…

• Reporting Research

Research Interviews: An effective and insightful way of data collection

Research interviews play a pivotal role in collecting data for various academic, scientific, and professional…

Planning Your Data Collection: Designing methods for effective research

Planning your research is very important to obtain desirable results. In research, the relevance of…

Whichever Universe, It’s Not So STRANGE to Be a DOCTOR of Philosophy! (It’s a…

6 Tips to Get Back to Lab Work After a Long Career Break

9 Great Tools to Maintain Lab Notebook for Researchers

How to Write an Exceptional Research Scholarship Motivation Letter

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Industry News
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Career Corner
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

• Deskless workforce
• Mobile training

What is a field worker, and how can companies better support these critical team members?

• Posted by by Athena Marousis
• June 04, 2024
• 7 minute read

Years ago, if someone talked about a field worker, they would mean someone working in an actual field. These workers had agriculture jobs and could be found on a farm, working a plow, forking hay, and tending to animals. 

Nowadays the term “field worker” has grown to encompass not only agriculture employees, but any employee whose job demands that they work from outside of a traditional office setting. 

While the term may be relatively new, the jobs they refer to are not. In this guide we’ll discuss what is a field worker, how they differ from office and remote workers, and how companies can adapt their training strategies to better support these critical team members.

What is a field worker?

Who are field workers in different industries, the unique training needs of field workers, fundamental differences in training, the benefits of mobile training platforms for field workers, key takeaways.

A field worker is anyone who performs their job outside of a traditional office setting . Agricultural fields might come to mind first, but the broad definition includes various roles and industries. 

Today, the term “field worker,” meaning individuals ranging from home healthcare providers, to construction workers putting up skyscrapers, or salespersons who travel to meet clients, encompasses a diverse range of professions.

Many of these jobs that fall under the definition of a field worker —agriculture workers, doctors, police officers, firefighters, seafarers, miners— have been around for a very long time. 

Advancements in technology and evolving business needs have shifted how we understand the role of field employees, and have also blurred the lines between physical and digital work spaces. Nowadays, remote work has become commonplace, or the practice of working from a location outside of a traditional office environment, typically facilitated by digital communication tools and internet connectivity, allowing employees to perform their job duties from home, co-working spaces, or any other location.

But remote workers are not to be confused with field workers. Think of the difference like this: remote workers have the option to work away from traditional office settings, as a result of advancements in technology. Meanwhile, field workers do their jobs outside of traditional office settings because the nature of their work requires them to do so.

Food and beverage industry

The food and beverage industry relies on field workers who ensure that dining and food service operations run smoothly. These individuals are the backbone of restaurants, cafes, and delivery services, directly impacting the customer experience through their roles.

• Cooks prepare and cook food items, ensuring quality and compliance with recipes.
• Servers provide customer service, take orders, and serve food and beverages to guests.
• Bartenders mix and serve drinks to customers, manage the bar area, and engage with customers.
• Delivery drivers ensure timely and safe delivery of food items from restaurants to customers’ doorsteps.

Healthcare industry

The healthcare sector relies on a broad array of field workers who provide essential services and care to patients in various settings.

• Doctors and nurses offer diagnosis, treatment, and care in hospitals, clinics, and patients’ homes.
• EMTs and paramedics provide emergency medical services and transportation for patients in need of urgent care.
• Caregivers offer daily care and support to older adults or individuals with disabilities, ensuring their well-being.

Manufacturing industry

In manufacturing , field workers contribute to the production, design, and distribution of products. These roles are critical for the seamless operation and safety in manufacturing.  

• Engineers design and optimize production processes and products.
• Production workers operate machinery, assemble products, and monitor quality control.
• Machine operators manage and maintain the machinery used in the production process.
• Supply chain managers oversee the supply chain, from sourcing raw materials to distributing finished products.

Retail industry

Retail field workers are essential for the operation of brick-and-mortar stores, e-commerce fulfillment, and customer service.

• Sales clerks assist customers, manage inventory, and process sales transactions.
• Cashiers handle cash transactions, customer needs, and checkout processes.
• Managers oversee store operations, staff management, and customer service.

Construction industry

Companies in the contracting and construction industry are among those most significantly impacted by the labor shortage. Some common jobs include:

• Foremen who supervise and direct teams of builders during construction.
• Roofers who install, repair, and replace building roofs.
• Surveyors who measure and map plots of land in preparation for construction projects

And the list goes on. In many industries field workers are at the heart of daily operations. The diversity and complexity of their roles underscore the importance of proper tools and technical training that enhance their efficiency, knowledge, and connectivity while they work in the field.

Because of where they operate, field workers have unique training needs that differ from those of their office-based counterparts. Understanding these differences is critical in developing an effective training program for the specific demands of your deskless employees. 

Training challenges for field workers vs. office employees

Field workers often operate in dynamic, unpredictable environments that demand high adaptability and practical skill. In contrast, office staff typically work in more controlled settings where digital tools and stable internet access support their training and daily tasks. 

This fundamental difference means a training approach for field workers must prioritize flexibility and accessibility . Field roles frequently require hands-on training to safely and effectively perform physical tasks— a need less common in office settings.

Insights on deskless employee preferences

Research by TalentCards surveyed 900 managers responsible for onboarding field workers to uncover insights about the challenges that these managers are facing, as well as what preferences these employees have when it comes to training. 

Forty percent of onboarding managers say that access to smartphones or tablets would help speed up the onboarding process, but only 17% currently use them.

Further research also revealed a clear appreciation for the autonomy offered by field work. Field workers reported a strong preference for their roles over office jobs. 

When asked, the majority of deskless employees ( 64% ) stated they would not switch to desk jobs for the same pay and benefits, emphasizing the appeal of field work beyond monetary compensation . 

The preference for field workers to remain where they are shows the importance of creating strong training to increase retention. Focusing on flexibility, practical skills development, and mobile accessibility is key.

Field workers’ training is different from that of office employees in both content and delivery method. Findings from a TalentCards study highlight these differences:

• Skill gap challenge : A staggering 72% of onboarding managers report difficulty finding deskless employees with the necessary skills, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive training programs tailored to bridge these gaps.
• Technology adoption : Upon completing onboarding, 14% have no training material to access after the fact, and 28% only have paper copies of their material to reference back to. 
• Retention through training : 63% of deskless employees stated that access to additional training would help them feel more connected to their company’s mission. Targeted and relevant training can play a critical role in employee retention.

The unique training needs of field workers demand a distinct approach that addresses the practical challenges of their roles and leverages technology to provide flexible, accessible learning opportunities. 

By understanding and acting on the preferences of deskless workers, employers can enhance job satisfaction, improve skill levels, and, ultimately, retain valuable employees in these critical roles.

Leveraging the power of smartphones and tablets allows mobile training platforms to meet the needs of workers in the field. This innovative way of training enhances the effectiveness of training programs, and aligns with the evolving needs of the workforce. 

Here are some of the most impactful benefits of mobile training for field workers: 

1. Accessibility

Forty eight percent of onboarding managers said new hires lack the skills needed to do their job at the time of their hiring. Furthermore, 27% need help sharing training materials that new hires can access on the go. 

One of the top benefits of mobile training platforms is their ability to provide training anytime, anywhere. Field workers need increased accessibility due to their varying schedules and work locations.Increasing accessibility improves engagement and retention for difficult-to-fill positions. 

By providing these employees with a training platform that was actually designed and built for them, your company tangibly demonstrates that it’s invested in their learning and development.

2. Increased engagement

Mobile training platforms are designed for field employees’ on-the-go nature. Interactive, bite-sized learning modules make learning more engaging and memorable. Multimedia content like videos, quizzes, flashcard sets, and gamification only adds to this. The goal is to keep them engaged and not overwhelmed. 

3. Consistency

Consistency and continuous learning can be challenging when you have a distributed workforce that covers multiple locations. Mobile training platforms address this issue by providing standardized training materials that are accessible worldwide anytime. 

Thirty two percent of deskless employees recall less than half of their training one month after completing it , underscoring the importance of continuous access to learning resources to counter the forgetting curve . 

4. Real-time updates

The nature of field operations often means there’s a need to share immediate updates and critical information. Mobile training platforms allow you to push real-time updates directly to your field workers’ devices. With this, safety messages of the day and toolbox talk topics are easy to send out, as well as updates on operational changes.

Deliver training right to field workers’ smartphones with a powerful mobile app

What is a field employee?

A field employee is someone who works outside a traditional office setting. Their job requires them to be directly in the field. They are found in many industries, including construction, agriculture, manufacturing, and transportation. Their physical presence is necessary at various locations.

What is the meaning of a field work job?

A field work job is any work not done in a traditional office setting. For example, a doctor in a hospital, a cashier at a retail store, or a forklift operator in a warehouse are all instances of field workers.

What is a synonym for fieldworker?

A synonym for fieldworker is field employee or field staff. The term field worker is sometimes also used interchangeably with the word deskless worker, or mobile employee.

Empowering the future of field workers

Field workers often do the thankless jobs that we take for granted, ensuring that our day to day lives run smoothly. This fact, coupled with the rising skill and labor shortage in many industries that rely on deskless employees are reasons enough to invest in mobile training solutions for these employees. 

Embracing individualized training approaches and doubling down on the advantages that mobile training has to offer benefit both your employees as individuals, and your business as a whole.

• The meaning of field workers and field employees has changed over time, extending far beyond agriculture workers in actual fields. Today field workers are people whose jobs demand that they do their work outside of traditional office settings.
• The majority of field employees enjoy being out in the field, and wouldn’t trade their jobs for office jobs, even if given the same pay and benefits.
• Investing in mobile training for field employees ensures that they have access to critical job info no matter where the job takes them. A mobile learning app provides a knowledge repository that fits in your employees’ pockets, and is even accessible offline.

Create training your employees can access from anywhere with TalentCards

You might also like

Module 2: Sociological Research

Field research, learning outcomes.

• Explain the three types of field research: participant observation, ethnography, and case studies

The work of sociology rarely happens in limited, confined spaces. Sociologists seldom study subjects in their own offices or laboratories. Rather, sociologists go out into the world. They meet subjects where they live, work, and play. Field research refers to gathering primary data from a natural environment without doing a lab experiment or a survey. It is a research method suited to an interpretive framework rather than to the scientific method. To conduct field research, the sociologist must be willing to step into new environments and observe, participate, or experience those worlds. In field work, the sociologists, rather than the subjects, are the ones out of their element.

The researcher interacts with or observes a person or people and gathers data along the way. The key point in field research is that it takes place in the subject’s natural environment, whether it’s a coffee shop or tribal village, a homeless shelter or the DMV, a hospital, airport, mall, or beach resort.

Figure 1. Sociological researchers travel across countries and cultures to interact with and observe subjects in their natural environments. (Photo courtesy of IMLS Digital Collections and Content/flickr and Olympic National Park)

While field research often begins in a specific setting , the study’s purpose is to observe specific behaviors in that setting. Field work is optimal for observing how people behave. It is less useful, however, for understanding why they behave that way. You can’t really narrow down cause and effect when there are so many variables to be factored into a natural environment.

Many of the data gathered in field research are based not on cause and effect but on correlation. And while field research looks for correlation, its small sample size does not allow for establishing a causal relationship between two variables.

BeyoncÉ and LADY gaga as sociological subjects

Figure 2. Researchers have used surveys and participant observations to accumulate data on Lady Gaga and Beyonce as multifaceted performers. (Credit a: John Robert Chartlon/flickr, b: Kristopher Harris/flickr.)

Sociologists have studied Lady Gaga and Beyoncé and their impact on music, movies, social media, fan participation, and social equality. In their studies, researchers have used several research methods including secondary analysis, participant observation, and surveys from concert participants.

In their study, Click, Lee & Holiday (2013) interviewed 45 Lady Gaga fans who utilized social media to communicate with the artist. These fans viewed Lady Gaga as a mirror of themselves and a source of inspiration. Like her, they embrace not being a part of mainstream culture. Many of Lady Gaga’s fans are members of the LGBTQ community. They see the “song “Born This Way” as a rallying cry and answer her calls for “Paws Up” with a physical expression of solidarity—outstretched arms and fingers bent and curled to resemble monster claws.”

Sascha Buchanan (2019) made use of participant observation to study the relationship between two fan groups, that of Beyoncé and that of Rihanna. She observed award shows sponsored by iHeartRadio, MTV EMA, and BET that pit one group against another as they competed for Best Fan Army, Biggest Fans, and FANdemonium. Buchanan argues that the media thus sustains a myth of rivalry between the two most commercially successful Black women vocal artists.

Here, we will look at three types of field research: participant observation, ethnography, and the case study.

Participant Observation

In participant observation  research, a sociologist joins people and participates in a group’s routine activities for the purpose of observing them within that context. This method lets researchers experience a specific aspect of social life. A researcher might go to great lengths to get a firsthand look into a trend, institution, or behavior. Researchers temporarily put themselves into roles and record their observations. A researcher might work as a waitress in a diner, live as a homeless person for several weeks, or ride along with police officers as they patrol their regular beat.

Although these researchers try to blend in seamlessly with the population they study, they are still obligated to obtain IRB approval. In keeping with scholarly objectives, the purpose of their observation is different from simply “people watching” at one’s workplace, on the bus or train, or in a public space.

Figure 3.  Who is the sociologist in this photo? It’s impossible to tell! In participant observation, researchers immerse themselves in an environment for a time.  (Photo courtesy of zoetnet/flickr)

At the beginning of a field study, researchers might have a question: “What   really goes on in the kitchen of the most popular diner on campus?” or “What is it like to experience homelessness?” Participant observation is a useful method if the researcher wants to explore a certain environment from the inside.

Field researchers simply want to observe and learn. In such a setting, the researcher will be alert and open minded to whatever happens, recording all observations accurately. Soon, as patterns emerge, questions will become more specific, observations will lead to hypotheses, and hypotheses will guide the researcher in shaping data into results.

Some sociologists prefer not to alert people to their presence. The main advantage of covert participant observation is that it allows the researcher access to authentic, natural behaviors of a group’s members. The challenge, however, is gaining access to a setting without disrupting the pattern of others’ beha vior. Becoming an inside member of a group, organization, or subculture takes time and effort. Researchers must pretend to be something they are not. The process could involve role playing, making contacts, networking, or applying for a job. Whenever deception is involved in sociological research, it will be intensely scrutinized and may or may not be approved by an institutional IRB.  

Once inside a group, participation observation research can last months or even years. Sociologists have to balance the types of interpersonal relationships that arise from living and/or working with other people with objectivity as a researcher.  They must keep their purpose in mind and apply the sociological perspective. That way, they illuminate social patterns that are often unrecognized. Because information gathered during participant observation is mostly qualitative, rather than quantitative, the e nd results are often descriptive or interpretive. This type of research is well-suited to learning about the kinds of human behavior or social groups that are not known by the scientific community, who are particularly closed or secretive, or when one is attempting to understand societal structures, as we will see in the following example. 

Nickel and Dimed (2001, 2011)

Journalist Barbara Ehrenreich con ducted participation observation research for her book Nickel and Dimed . One day over lunch with her editor, Ehrenreich mentioned an idea. How can people exist on minimum-wage work? How do low-income workers get by? she wondered aloud. Someone should do a study. To her surprise, her editor responded, Why don’t you do it?

That’s how Ehrenreich found herself joining the ranks of the working class. For several months, she left her comfortable home and lived and worked among people who lacked, for the most part, higher education and marketable job skills. Undercover, she applied for and worked minimum wage jobs as a waitress, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a retail chain employee. During her participant observation, she used only her income from those jobs to pay for food, clothing, transportation, and shelter.

She discovered the obvious, that it’s almost impossible to get by on minimum wage service work. She also experienced and observed attitudes many middle and upper-class people never think about. She witnessed firsthand the treatment of working class employees. She saw the extreme measures people take to make ends meet and to survive. She described fellow employees who held two or three jobs, worked seven days a week, lived in cars, could not pay to treat chronic health conditions, got randomly fired, submitted to drug tests, and moved in and out of homeless shelters. She brought aspects of that life to light, describing difficult working conditions and the poor treatment that low-wage workers suffer.

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America , the book she w rote upon her return to her real life as a well-paid writer, has been widely read and used in many college classrooms. The first edition was published in 2001 and a follow-up post-recession edition was published with updated information in 2011. 

Figure 4. Field research happens in real locations. What type of environment do work spaces foster? What would a sociologist discover after blending in? (Photo courtesy of drewzhrodague/flickr)

Ethnography

Ethnography is a type of social research that involves the extended observation of the social perspective and cultural values of an entire social setting. Ethnogra phies involve objective observation of an entire community, and they often involve participant observation as a research method.

British anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, who studied the Trobriand Islanders near Papua New Guinea during World War I, was one of the first anthropologists to engage with the communities they studied and he became known for this methodological contribution, which differed from the detached observations that took place from a distance (i.e., “on the verandas” or “armchair anthropology”). 

Although anthropologists had been doing ethnographic research longer, sociologists were doing ethnographic research in the 20th century, particularly in what became known as The Chicago School at the University of Chicago. William Foote Whyte’s  Street Corner Society:  The Social Structure of an Italian Slum  (1943) is a seminal work of urban ethnography and a “classic” sociological text. 

The heart of an ethnographic study focuses on how subjects view their own social standing and how they understand themselves in relation to a community. An ethnographic study might observe, for example, a small U.S. fishing town, an Inuit community, a village in Thailand, a Buddhist monastery, a private boarding school, or an amusement park. These places all have borders. People live, work, study, or vacation within those borders. People are there for a certain reason and therefore behave in certain ways and respect certain cultural norms. An ethnographer would commit to spending a predetermined amount of time studying every aspect of the chosen place, taking in as much as possible.

A sociologist studying a tribe in the Amazon might watch the way villagers go about their daily lives and then write a paper about it. To observe a spiritual retreat center, an ethnographer might attend as a guest for an extended stay, observe and record data, and collate the material into results.

The Making of Middletown: A Study in Modern U.S. Culture

In 1924, a young married couple named Robert and Helen Lynd undertook an unprecedented ethnography: to apply sociological methods to the study of one U.S. city in order to discover what “ordinary” people in the United States did and believed. Choosing Muncie, Indiana (population about 30,000), as their subject, they moved to the small town and lived there for eighteen months.

Ethnographers had been examining other cultures for decades—groups considered minority or outsider—like gangs, immigrants, and the poor. But no one had studied the so-called average American.

Recording interviews and using surveys to gather data, the Lynds did not sugarcoat or idealize U.S. life (PBS). They objectively stated what they observed. Researching existing sources, they compared Muncie in 1890 to the Muncie they observed in 1924. Most Muncie adults, they found, had grown up on farms but now lived in homes inside the city. From that discovery, the Lynds focused their study on the impact of industrialization and urbanization.

They observed that the workers of Muncie were divided into business class and working class groups. They defined business class as dealing with abstract concepts and symbols, while working class people used tools to create concrete objects. The two classes led different lives with different goals and hopes. However, the Lynds observed, mass production offered both classes the same amenities. Like wealthy families, the working class was now able to own radios, cars, washing machines, telephones, vacuum cleaners, and refrigerators. This was a newly emerging economic and material reality of the 1920s.

Figure 5. A classroom in Muncie, Indiana, in 1917, five years before John and Helen Lynd began researching this “typical” U.S. community. (Photo courtesy of Don O’Brien/flickr)

As the Lynds worked, they divided their manuscript into six sections: Getting a Living, Making a Home, Training the Young, Using Leisure, Engaging in Religious Practices, and Engaging in Community Activities. Each chapter included subsections such as “The Long Arm of the Job” and “Why Do They Work So Hard?” in the “Getting a Living” chapter.

When the study was completed, the Lynds encountered a big problem. The Rockefeller Foundation, which had commissioned the book, claimed it was useless and refused to publish it. The Lynds asked if they could seek a publisher themselves.

As it turned out, Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture was not only published in 1929, but also became an instant bestseller, a status unheard of for a sociological study. The book sold out six printings in its first year of publication, and has never gone out of print (PBS).

Nothing like it had ever been done before. Middletown was reviewed on the front page of the New York Times . Readers in the 1920s and 1930s identified with the citizens of Muncie, Indiana, but they were equally fascinated by the sociological methods and the use of scientific data to define ordinary people in the United States. The book was proof that social data were important—and interesting—to the U.S. public.

Institutional Ethnography

Institutional ethnography is an extension of basic ethnographic research principles that focuses intentionally on everyday concrete social relationships. Developed by Canadian sociologist Dorothy E. Smith, institutional ethnography is often considered a feminist-inspired approach to social analysis and primarily considers women’s experiences within male-dominated societies and power structures. Smith’s work challenges sociology’s exclusion of women, both academically and in the study of women’s lives (Fenstermaker, n.d.).

Historically, social science research tended to objectify women and ignore their experiences except as viewed from a male perspective. Modern feminists note that describing women, and other marginalized groups, as subordinates helps those in authority maintain their own dominant positions (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, n.d.). Smith’s three major works explored what she called “the conceptual practices of power” (1990; cited in Fensternmaker, n.d.) and are still considered seminal works in feminist theory and ethnography.

Sometimes a researcher wants to study one specific person or event. A case study is an in-depth analysis of a single event, situation, or individual. To conduct a case study, a researcher examines existing sources like documents and archival records, conducts interviews, or engages in direct observation and even participant observation, if possible.

Researchers might use this method to study a single case of, for example, a foster child, drug lord, cancer patient, criminal, or rape victim. However, a major criticism of the case study method is that a developed study of a single case, while offering depth on a topic, does not provide broad enough evidence to form a generalized conclusion. In other words, it is difficult to make universal claims based on just one person, since one person does not verify a pattern. This is why most sociologists do not use case studies as a primary research method.

However, case studies are useful when the single case is unique. In these instances, a single case study can add tremendous knowledge to a certain discipline. For example, a feral child, also called a “wild child,” is one who grows up isolated from other human beings. Feral children grow up without social contact and language, which are elements crucial to a “civilized” child’s development. These children mimic the behaviors and movements of animals, and often invent their own language. There are only about one hundred cases of “feral children” in the world.

As you may imagine, a feral child is a subject of great interest to researchers. Feral children provide unique information about child development because they have grown up outside of the parameters of “normal” child socialization and language acquisition. And since there are very few feral children, the case study is the most appropriate method for researchers to use in studying the subject.

At age three, a Ukranian girl named Oxana Malaya suffered severe parental neglect. She lived in a shed with dogs, and she ate raw meat and scraps. Five years later, a neighbor called authorities and reported seeing a girl who ran on all fours, barking. Officials brought Oxana into society, where she was cared for and taught some human behaviors, but she never became fully socialized. She has been designated as unable to support herself and now lives in a mental institution (Grice 2011). Case studies like this offer a way for sociologists to collect data that may not be collectable by any other method.

• Modification, adaptation, and original content. Authored by : Sarah Hoiland for Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Research Methods. Authored by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:5y6RWnGd@14/Research-Methods . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]
• Section on content analysis, Introduction to Sociology 2e. Authored by : William Little. Provided by : BC Open Textbooks. Located at : https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Sociological Research Beyonce and Lady Gaga Example. Provided by : OpenStax. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/2-2-research-methods . Project : Introduction to Sociology 3e. License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Research on the collection characteristics of a hydraulic collector for seafloor massive sulfides.

1. Introduction

2. numerical method, 2.1. governing equation, 2.2. force acting on particles, 2.2.1. fluid–particle interaction, 2.2.2. particle collision force, 2.3. cfd-dem coupling method, 3. design parameters and modeling, 3.1. design parameters, 3.2. numerical modeling, 3.2.1. geometric model and mesh model, 3.2.2. initial state of particles, 3.2.3. numerical setups, 4. results and discussions, 4.1. analysis of flow field characteristics, 4.2. ore collection mechanism, 4.3. the effect of drum speeds on collection characteristics, 4.3.1. flow field characteristics, 4.3.2. particle dynamics characteristics, 4.3.3. the influence of drum speed on ore collection performance, 5. preliminary assessment of simulation results, 5.1. experimental setup and materials, 5.2. experimental assessment, 6. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Lusty, P.A.J.; Murton, B.J. Deep-ocean mineral deposits: Metal resources and windows into earth processes. Elements 2018 , 14 , 301–306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Petersen, S.; Krätschell, A.; Augustin, N.; Jamieson, J.; Hein, J.R.; Hannington, M.D. News from the seabed—Geological characteristics and resource potential of deep-sea mineral resources. Mar. Policy 2016 , 70 , 175–187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Webber, A.P.; Roberts, S.; Murton, B.J.; Mills, R.A.; Hodgkinson, M.R.S. The formation of gold-rich seafloor sulfide deposits: Evidence from the beebe hydrothermal vent field, cayman trough. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 2017 , 18 , 2011–2027. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leng, D.X.; Shao, S.; Xie, Y.C.; Wang, H.H.; Liu, G.J. A brief review of recent progress on deep sea mining vehicle. Ocean Eng. 2021 , 228 , 108565. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, Q.; Yang, J.M.; Lu, H.N.; Lu, W.Y.; Liu, L. Effects of heave motion on the dynamic performance of vertical transport system for deep sea mining. Appl. Ocean Res. 2020 , 101 , 102188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hein, J.R.; Mizell, K.K.A.; Conrad, T.A. Deep-ocean mineral deposits as a source of critical metals for high-and green-technology applications: Comparison with land-based resources. Ore Geol. Rev. 2013 , 51 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tao, C.H.; Li, H.M.; Jin, X.B.; Zhou, J.P.; Wu, T.; He, Y.H.; Deng, X.; Gu, C.H.; Zhang, G.Y.; Liu, W.Y. Seafloor hydrothermal activity and polymetallic sulfide exploration on the southwest indian ridge. Sci. Bull. 2014 , 59 , 2266–2276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, G.C.; Xiao, L.F.; Peng, T.; Zhang, M.Y. Experimental research on hydraulic collecting spherical particles in deep sea mining. Energies 2018 , 11 , 1938. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xia, Q.; Jia, H.; Sun, J.; Cui, J. Study on flow characteristics of hydraulic suction of seabed ore particles. Processes 2023 , 11 , 1376. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Y.X.; Xiong, H.; Cheng, H. Experimental study on the incipient motion of a single spherical particle in hydraulic collecting. J. Cent. South Univ. (Sci. Technol.) 2019 , 50 , 2831–2839. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, Y.X.; Xiong, H.; Cheng, H.; Yu, C.L.; Xie, J.H. Effect of particle motion on the hydraulic collection of coarse spherical particles. Acta Mech. Sin. 2020 , 36 , 72–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hong, S.; Choi, J.S.; Kim, J.H.; Yang, C.K. Experimental study on hydraulic performance of hybrid pick-up device of manganese nodule collector. In Proceedings of the Third ISOPE Ocean Mining Symposium, Goa, India, 8–10 November 1999; pp. 69–77. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yue, Z.Y.; Zhao, G.C.; Xiao, L.F.; Liu, M.Y. Comparative study on collection performance of three nodule collection methods in seawater and sediment-seawater mixture. Appl. Ocean Res. 2021 , 110 , 102606. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jia, H.; Yang, J.; Su, X.; Wang, Y.; Wu, K. Flow characteristics and hydraulic lift of coandă effect-based pick-up method for polymetallic nodule. Coatings 2023 , 13 , 271. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alhaddad, S.; Mehta, D.; Helmons, R. Mining of deep-seabed nodules using a coandă-effect-based collector. Results Eng. 2023 , 17 , 100852. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, P.J.; Li, L.; Wu, J.B. Research on the lightweight structural optimization design of the front collector of the polymetallic nodule miner. Ocean Eng. 2023 , 113275 , 113275. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xie, C.; Wang, L.; Yang, N.; Agee, C.; Chen, M.; Zheng, J.R.; Liu, J.; Chen, Y.X.; Xu, L.X.; Qu, Z.G.; et al. A compact design of underwater mining vehicle for the cobalt-rich crust with general support vessel part a: Prototype and tests. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022 , 10 , 135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, S.J.; Hu, J.H.; Zhang, R.Q.; Dai, Y. Development of mining technology and equipment for seafloor massive sulfide deposits. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 2016 , 29 , 863–870. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Orita, K.; Seiya, K.; Nakamura, S.; Igarashi, Y.; Shiokawa, S.; Nojiri, S.; Ueyama, Y.; Watanabe, K. Development of new mining machine for cobalt-rich ferromanganese crust and achievement of excavation and dredging test on the deep seafloor. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second (2022) International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, Shanghai, China, 5–10 June 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dai, H.; Li, Y.; Li, M.D. Experimental study on failure mechanical properties of two kinds of seafloor massive sulfides. Minerals 2021 , 11 , 1144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spagnoli, G.; Jahn, A.; Halbach, P. First results regarding the influence of mineralogy on the mechanical properties of seafloor massive sulfide samples. Eng. Geol. 2016 , 214 , 127–135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yamazaki, T.; Park, S. Relationships between geotechnical engineering properties and assay of seafloor massive sulfides. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth (2003) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 25–30 May 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shama, R. Deep-Sea Minig ; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, S.J.; Hu, J.H.; Dai, Y.; Hu, Q.; Lv, T. Flow field analysis and parameter optimization of deep-sea collector of SMS. J. Cent. South Univ. (Sci. Technol.) 2017 , 48 , 1120–1198. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, Y.; He, J. Numerical simulation of solid-liquid two-phase flow of the gathering process of seafloor massive sulfide. J. Cent. South Univ. (Sci. Technol.) 2022 , 53 , 461–470. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crowe, C.T.; Sommerfield, M.; Tsuji, Y. Multiphase Flows with Droplets and Particles ; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown, P.P.; Lawler, D.F. Sphere drag and settling velocity revisited. J. Environ. Eng. 2003 , 129 , 222–231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mei, R. An approximate expression for the shear lift force on a spherical particle at finite reynolds number. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 1992 , 18 , 145–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Renzo, A.D.; Maio, F.P.D. Comparison of contact-force models for the simulation of collisions in dem-based granular flow codes. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2004 , 59 , 525–541. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Dai, H.; Li, Y. Research on the Collection Characteristics of a Hydraulic Collector for Seafloor Massive Sulfides. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024 , 12 , 1534. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12091534

Dai H, Li Y. Research on the Collection Characteristics of a Hydraulic Collector for Seafloor Massive Sulfides. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering . 2024; 12(9):1534. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12091534

Dai, Huan, and Yan Li. 2024. "Research on the Collection Characteristics of a Hydraulic Collector for Seafloor Massive Sulfides" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 12, no. 9: 1534. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12091534

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals