Fieldwork

Observational research is usually done in during fieldwork. This approach avoids the artificial settings typical of controlled or laboratory conditions, where the emphasis is placed on the collection of first-hand data by a researcher. Immersion in the natural setting enables the researcher to identify patterns of behavior over time that are typical of the group being observed (Mathison, 2005; Pole & Hillyard, 2016). Whilst it is important for fieldwork to be carefully planned in advance, there are limits to the degree to which this is possible. Social life is difficult to predict, and the fieldworker must maintain a degree of flexibility in his/her work. Unlike an experimental scientist, he/she needs to react and adapt to situations as they occur, rather than stick rigidly to a set research procedure in the interests of uniformity and a notion of scientific replication and reliability. One of the key reasons for conducting fieldwork is to capture the significance and meaning of a situation, a set of events, or the people (social actors) who are taking part in those events. In this sense, it is subjective insofar as it seeks to capture and portray the internal reality of the situation being researched. In other words, fieldwork is about finding ways to portray the subjective reality of social action in terms of its meaning for the social actors, and it brings a broad theoretical position for fieldwork research based on interpretivism. This means that fieldwork facilitates an approach to understanding the social world, which is based upon the interpretation of social action from the position of the social actors who create or construct that action. Fieldwork is not an approach to research that will facilitate large generalizations or social trends and behaviors across large populations.

When planning the fieldwork, researchers should also be aware that there might be some risks involved. Although very rare, but occasions have certainly been recorded where researchers have suffered death, rape, injury, robbery, infectious disease, mental illness, intimidation, and harassment. Obviously, fieldworkers in anthropology, criminology, and sociology are most at risk, both because of the nature of the settings in which they operate and because of their prolonged periods of exposure in the field (Bloor & Wood, 2006). There is a distinction between ‘ambient’ and ‘situational’ fieldwork risks: ambient risks are those encountered in inherently dangerous fieldwork settings, such as war zones, while situational risks are those that derive not from the setting itself but from the fieldworker’s presence or actions (for example, the risks to female researchers in all-male environments) (Lee, 1995).

The possible danger can be diminished by taking particular actions. Such procedures include ‘doubling up’ fieldworkers or interviewers in hazardous environments, requiring researchers to phone in an ‘all-clear’ at the end of an interview or fieldwork session, and providing a third party (supervisor or project secretary) with contact details in advance of all fieldwork or interview sessions (Bloor & Wood, 2006).