field study research could happen anywhere except

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: 9 November 2024

Last updated: 24 October 2024

Last updated: 11 January 2024

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 4 July 2024

Last updated: 12 October 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 31 January 2024

Last updated: 23 January 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, a whole new way to understand your customer is here, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

Try the user interview platform used by modern product teams everywhere

Field Studies 101: Comprehensive Guide with Examples

Discover everything you need to know about field studies, from definition and planning to execution. learn about data collection methods, advantages, and real-world examples in this comprehensive guide., short on time get instant insights with an ai summary of this post., introduction.

Field studies are a cornerstone of qualitative research, offering researchers a unique opportunity to gather data in real-world settings. But what exactly are field studies, and why are they so important? Let's dive into the world of field research and explore its significance in various disciplines.

What Are Field Studies?

Field studies, also known as field research or fieldwork, are a type of research method where data is collected directly from real-world environments. Unlike controlled laboratory experiments, field studies take place in the natural settings where the phenomena being studied occur. This approach allows researchers to observe and interact with participants in their everyday contexts, providing rich, contextual data that can't be replicated in artificial settings.

The Importance of Field Studies in Research

Field studies play a crucial role in many areas of research, including sociology, anthropology, psychology, and even business. Here's why they're so valuable:

Authentic Data : By observing subjects in their natural environment, researchers can capture authentic behaviors and interactions that might not emerge in controlled settings.

Contextual Understanding : Field studies provide a deeper understanding of the context surrounding the research subject, which is often crucial for interpreting findings accurately.

Discovery of Unexpected Insights : Being immersed in the field often leads to unexpected observations and discoveries that wouldn't be possible with predetermined hypotheses or structured questionnaires.

Holistic Perspective : Field research allows for a more comprehensive view of complex social phenomena, considering various factors that influence behavior and experiences.

Flexibility : Researchers can adapt their methods and focus as they uncover new information, making field studies particularly useful for exploratory research.

What to Expect in This Guide

In this comprehensive guide, we'll walk you through everything you need to know about conducting effective field studies. We'll cover:

• The step-by-step process of planning and executing a field study
• Various data collection methods used in field research
• Ethical considerations and best practices
• Real-world examples of successful field studies
• Tips for analyzing and presenting your findings

Whether you're a seasoned researcher or just starting out, this guide will equip you with the knowledge and tools to conduct impactful field studies. And for those looking to streamline their research process, we'll also touch on how modern tools like Innerview can help automate transcription and analysis, saving valuable time and resources.

So, grab your notebook (or your favorite digital tool), and let's explore the fascinating world of field studies together!

Discover more insights in: Mastering Qualitative Observation: A Comprehensive Guide for Researchers

10x your insights without 10x'ing your workload

Innerview helps you quickly understand your customers and build products people love.

Understanding Field Studies

Field studies are a powerful research method that allows researchers to gather data directly from real-world environments. Unlike controlled laboratory experiments, field studies take place in the natural settings where the phenomena being studied occur. This approach provides researchers with the unique opportunity to observe and interact with participants in their everyday contexts, yielding rich, contextual data that can't be replicated in artificial settings.

Key Characteristics of Field Research

Natural Setting : Field studies are conducted in real-world environments, allowing researchers to observe authentic behaviors and interactions.

Direct Observation : Researchers can witness events and behaviors firsthand, rather than relying solely on self-reported data.

Flexibility : Field research methods can be adapted on the fly as new information emerges, making them ideal for exploratory studies.

Holistic Approach : Field studies consider multiple factors and their interrelationships, providing a comprehensive view of complex phenomena.

Qualitative Focus : While quantitative data can be collected, field studies often emphasize qualitative data to capture nuanced insights.

Extended Time Frame : Many field studies involve prolonged engagement with the research setting, allowing for in-depth understanding and observation of changes over time.

Comparing Field Studies to Other Research Methods

To better understand the unique value of field studies, let's compare them to other common research methods:

Field Studies vs. Laboratory Experiments

• Field studies occur in natural settings; lab experiments in controlled environments.
• Field studies prioritize ecological validity; lab experiments focus on internal validity.
• Field studies often yield qualitative data; lab experiments typically produce quantitative data.

Field Studies vs. Surveys

• Field studies involve direct observation; surveys rely on self-reported information.
• Field studies are more flexible; surveys follow a predetermined structure.
• Field studies provide rich, contextual data; surveys offer broader, more generalizable data.

Field Studies vs. Secondary Research

• Field studies generate primary data; secondary research analyzes existing data.
• Field studies offer current, tailored insights; secondary research may use outdated or less relevant data.
• Field studies require more resources; secondary research is often quicker and less expensive.

By understanding these distinctions, researchers can choose the most appropriate method for their specific research questions and goals.

When conducting field studies, researchers often generate large amounts of qualitative data through interviews, observations, and field notes. Tools like Innerview can be invaluable in managing and analyzing this data efficiently. With features like automatic transcription, AI-powered analysis, and customizable views, Innerview helps researchers save time and uncover deeper insights from their field study data.

Understanding the unique characteristics and advantages of field studies is crucial for researchers across various disciplines. By leveraging the power of direct observation and contextual data collection, field studies offer insights that can drive innovation, inform policy, and deepen our understanding of complex social phenomena.

Planning a Field Study

Planning a field study is a crucial step that can make or break your research. A well-thought-out plan ensures that you gather the right data efficiently and ethically. Let's explore the key components of planning a successful field study.

Defining Your Research Question

At the heart of any field study lies a clear, focused research question. This question serves as your compass, guiding every decision you make throughout the study. Here's why it's so important:

• It helps you stay focused and avoid getting sidetracked by interesting but irrelevant data.
• It informs your choice of research site, data collection methods, and analysis techniques.
• It makes it easier to explain your study to participants, gatekeepers, and other stakeholders.

To develop a good research question, consider these tips:

• Make it specific and answerable within the scope of your study.
• Ensure it's relevant to your field and contributes to existing knowledge.
• Frame it in a way that allows for exploration and discovery.
• Avoid questions that can be answered with a simple yes or no.

For example, instead of asking, "How do people use social media?", you might ask, "How do working professionals in their 30s use LinkedIn for career advancement?"

Once you have your research question, identify the key variables and data you'll need to answer it. This might include demographic information, behavioral observations, or participant opinions.

Selecting Your Research Site

Choosing the right research site is crucial for the success of your field study. The site should be a place where you can observe the phenomena you're interested in and access the participants you need. Types of research sites might include:

• Public spaces (parks, cafes, libraries)
• Schools or universities
• Online communities
• Neighborhoods or entire cities

When selecting your site, consider:

• Accessibility: Can you easily and regularly access the site?
• Safety: Are there any risks to you or your participants?
• Relevance: Does the site provide opportunities to observe behaviors related to your research question?
• Diversity: Does the site offer a range of perspectives or experiences?
• Permissions: Will you be able to obtain necessary approvals to conduct research there?

Ensuring representativeness is also key. While perfect representation is often impossible in field studies, strive to select a site (or multiple sites) that captures the diversity of experiences relevant to your research question.

Choosing Data Collection Methods

Field studies often employ multiple data collection methods to capture a comprehensive picture of the phenomenon under study. Common methods include:

• Participant observation
• In-depth interviews
• Focus groups
• Surveys or questionnaires
• Document analysis
• Photography or video recording

When selecting your methods, consider:

• Alignment with your research question
• Feasibility given your resources and time constraints
• Acceptability to your participants and research site
• Your own skills and experience as a researcher

It's often beneficial to use a mix of methods to triangulate your findings. For example, you might combine observations with interviews to understand both what people do and how they explain their actions.

Here's where tools like Innerview can be incredibly helpful. With features like automatic transcription and AI-powered analysis, Innerview can save you countless hours in processing and analyzing your interview data, allowing you to focus more on conducting the research itself.

Obtaining Necessary Permissions

Before you can begin your field study, you'll need to secure permissions from various stakeholders. This process is crucial not only for legal and ethical reasons but also for building trust with your research participants.

Start by identifying the relevant authorities. These might include:

• Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) at universities
• Managers or executives in workplace studies
• Community leaders in neighborhood studies
• School administrators for studies in educational settings

To obtain permissions:

• Prepare a clear, concise description of your study, including its purpose, methods, and potential benefits.
• Be transparent about any risks or inconveniences to participants.
• Explain how you'll protect participant privacy and confidentiality.
• Be prepared to make adjustments based on feedback from gatekeepers.

Ethical considerations should be at the forefront of this process. Ensure that you have a plan for obtaining informed consent from all participants. This means clearly explaining the study, its risks and benefits, and participants' rights (including the right to withdraw at any time).

Remember, obtaining permissions is not just a bureaucratic hurdle—it's an opportunity to refine your study design and build relationships that can enhance your research.

By carefully planning these aspects of your field study, you'll set yourself up for success. A well-designed study not only yields better data but also respects the time and contributions of your participants. With tools like Innerview to support your data collection and analysis, you'll be well-equipped to uncover valuable insights from your field research.

Discover more insights in: Face Validity: Definition, Importance, and Examples in Research

Field Research Examples

Field studies are not just theoretical concepts; they're powerful tools used across various disciplines to gather real-world data and insights. Let's explore some compelling examples of field research in different areas of study:

Anthropology Field Studies

Anthropologists have long been at the forefront of field research, immersing themselves in different cultures to understand human behavior and social structures. One famous example is Margaret Mead's study of adolescent girls in Samoa in the 1920s. Mead lived among the Samoan people for nine months, observing and interviewing young women to understand their experiences of growing up. Her work challenged Western assumptions about adolescence and sparked debates about cultural influences on human development.

More recently, anthropologists have adapted their methods to study modern phenomena. For instance, Daniel Miller's research on social media use in various cultures involves digital ethnography, combining traditional fieldwork with online observation to understand how different societies integrate platforms like Facebook into their daily lives.

Ecological Field Research

Ecologists rely heavily on field studies to understand ecosystems and the interactions between organisms and their environment. The Serengeti Lion Project, ongoing since 1966, is a prime example of long-term ecological field research. Researchers have spent decades observing lion prides in Tanzania, collecting data on behavior, population dynamics, and the impact of environmental changes. This study has provided invaluable insights into lion ecology and conservation strategies.

Another notable example is the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study in New Hampshire, which began in 1963. This long-term ecological research project examines the impact of natural and human-induced changes on forest and aquatic ecosystems. The study has contributed significantly to our understanding of acid rain, forest management, and climate change effects.

Sociological Field Studies

Sociologists use field research to study social phenomena and human interactions in real-world settings. A classic example is William Whyte's "Street Corner Society" (1943), where he spent four years observing and participating in the life of an Italian-American neighborhood in Boston. His study provided insights into social structures, leadership, and group dynamics in urban settings.

More recently, Matthew Desmond's "Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City" (2016) used ethnographic fieldwork to study the impact of evictions on low-income families in Milwaukee. Desmond lived in poor neighborhoods, followed families through the eviction process, and interviewed landlords and tenants. His work shed light on the housing crisis and its effects on poverty in America.

Geographical Field Research

Geographers conduct field studies to understand the physical and human aspects of different locations. The Glacier National Park Repeat Photography Project is an excellent example of geographical field research. Since the 1990s, researchers have been rephotographing sites within the park from the same vantage points used in historical photographs. This ongoing study visually documents the dramatic retreat of glaciers due to climate change, providing compelling evidence of environmental shifts.

Another example is the Urban Heat Island Effect studies conducted in cities worldwide. Researchers use mobile temperature sensors to map temperature variations across urban areas, identifying hot spots and cool zones. These field studies help urban planners design more climate-resilient cities and mitigate the health impacts of extreme heat.

Psychological Field Studies

While many psychological studies occur in controlled lab settings, field studies offer unique insights into human behavior in natural environments. Philip Zimbardo's controversial Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) is a well-known example, where participants were assigned roles as prisoners or guards in a simulated prison environment. Although ethically questionable by today's standards, this study highlighted how situational factors can influence behavior.

A more recent and ethically sound example is the "Good Samaritan" field experiments conducted in various cities. Researchers stage scenarios where a person appears to need help in public spaces and observe how passersby respond. These studies provide insights into altruism, bystander effects, and the influence of cultural and environmental factors on helping behavior.

Educational Field Research

Educational researchers often conduct field studies to understand learning processes and evaluate teaching methods in real classroom settings. The Project STAR (Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio) study, conducted in Tennessee from 1985 to 1989, is a landmark example. This large-scale field experiment involved randomly assigning students to classes of different sizes to study the impact of class size on student achievement. The study's findings have influenced educational policies worldwide.

Another example is the ongoing research on the effectiveness of technology in classrooms. Researchers observe and analyze how students and teachers interact with digital tools, assessing their impact on learning outcomes and engagement. These field studies help inform best practices for integrating technology into education.

When conducting field studies like these, researchers often generate vast amounts of qualitative data through interviews, observations, and field notes. Tools like Innerview can be invaluable in managing and analyzing this data efficiently. With features like automatic transcription across multiple languages and AI-powered analysis, Innerview helps researchers save time and uncover deeper insights from their field study data, allowing them to focus more on conducting the research itself.

These examples demonstrate the power and versatility of field studies across different disciplines. By observing phenomena in their natural settings, researchers can gain rich, contextual insights that laboratory experiments or surveys alone might miss. Whether you're studying animal behavior in the Serengeti or urban dynamics in a bustling city, field research offers a unique window into the complexities of the real world.

Advantages of Field Research

Field studies offer a unique set of advantages that make them invaluable in various research contexts. Let's explore the key benefits that make field research a powerful tool for gathering authentic, rich, and insightful data.

Authenticity of Data

One of the most significant advantages of field research is the authenticity of the data collected. Unlike controlled laboratory settings, field studies allow researchers to observe phenomena in their natural environment, capturing genuine behaviors and interactions.

Real-world Observations

In field studies, participants are observed in their everyday settings, whether it's a workplace, a community, or a natural habitat. This approach minimizes the artificial behaviors that can occur in lab experiments, where subjects might alter their actions due to the awareness of being studied.

Contextual Richness

Field research provides a wealth of contextual information that's often lost in more controlled environments. Researchers can observe not just the behavior itself, but also the surrounding circumstances, social dynamics, and environmental factors that influence it.

Flexibility in Research Approach

Field studies offer unparalleled flexibility, allowing researchers to adapt their methods as new information emerges or unexpected situations arise.

Adaptive Methodology

As researchers immerse themselves in the field, they can adjust their focus, refine their questions, or explore new avenues of inquiry based on their observations. This adaptability is particularly valuable in exploratory research, where the most important questions may not be apparent at the outset.

Serendipitous Discoveries

The open-ended nature of field research often leads to unexpected findings. Researchers might stumble upon phenomena or patterns they hadn't anticipated, opening up new and exciting research directions.

Rich and Detailed Data Collection

Field studies excel at capturing nuanced, multi-faceted data that can provide a comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena.

Multi-sensory Information

In the field, researchers can gather data using all their senses. They can observe body language, hear tone of voice, and even note environmental factors like smells or temperature that might influence behavior.

Longitudinal Insights

Many field studies take place over extended periods, allowing researchers to observe changes over time. This longitudinal perspective can reveal patterns and trends that might be missed in short-term studies.

Triangulation of Data

Field researchers often use multiple data collection methods, such as observation, interviews, and artifact analysis. This triangulation helps validate findings and provides a more complete picture of the phenomenon under study.

Potential for Novel Insights

The immersive nature of field research often leads to breakthrough discoveries and fresh perspectives on well-studied topics.

Challenging Assumptions

By observing phenomena firsthand, researchers can challenge existing theories or assumptions. What seems true in theory might look very different in practice, and field studies are uniquely positioned to reveal these discrepancies.

Uncovering Hidden Phenomena

Some behaviors or patterns only emerge in natural settings. Field studies can uncover these hidden aspects, providing insights that might be impossible to obtain through other research methods.

Generating New Hypotheses

The rich data collected in field studies often sparks new ideas and hypotheses. These can then be tested further, either in the field or through more controlled methods, driving the research field forward.

While field studies offer these significant advantages, they also come with challenges such as time-intensity and potential researcher bias. Tools like Innerview can help mitigate some of these challenges by streamlining data collection and analysis processes. With features like automatic transcription and AI-powered analysis, Innerview allows researchers to focus more on observation and interpretation, maximizing the benefits of field research while minimizing its logistical hurdles.

By leveraging the authenticity, flexibility, richness, and potential for novel insights that field studies offer, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of complex phenomena and drive meaningful advancements in their fields.

Challenges and Limitations of Field Research

Field studies offer invaluable insights, but they come with their own set of challenges and limitations. Understanding these hurdles is crucial for researchers to plan effectively and maximize the benefits of their field research. Let's explore the key challenges and limitations you might encounter when conducting field studies.

Time-Consuming Nature

Field research is notorious for being time-intensive, often requiring researchers to spend extended periods in the field. This can pose several challenges:

Extended Data Collection Periods

Gathering meaningful data often requires prolonged observation and interaction with participants. Depending on the research question, this could mean spending weeks, months, or even years in the field.

Slow Process of Building Trust

Establishing rapport with participants and gaining their trust is crucial for authentic data collection. This process can't be rushed and often requires significant time investment.

Data Analysis Bottlenecks

The rich, qualitative data gathered in field studies can be overwhelming to analyze. Transcribing interviews, coding observations, and identifying patterns can be incredibly time-consuming.

To address these time-related challenges, researchers can leverage tools like Innerview to streamline data processing. With features like automatic transcription and AI-powered analysis, Innerview can significantly reduce the time spent on data preparation and initial analysis, allowing researchers to focus more on interpretation and insight generation.

Cost Considerations

Field studies often come with substantial financial implications:

Travel and Accommodation Expenses

Researchers may need to travel to and live in the study location for extended periods, incurring significant costs.

Equipment and Resources

Depending on the nature of the study, specialized equipment for data collection and analysis might be necessary, adding to the overall budget.

Compensation for Participants

In many cases, researchers need to compensate participants for their time and involvement, which can add up quickly in larger studies.

Opportunity Costs

The time spent in the field often means researchers can't engage in other projects or responsibilities, representing a significant opportunity cost.

Reliance on Participant Cooperation

Field studies heavily depend on the willingness and availability of participants:

Recruitment Challenges

Finding suitable participants who are willing to be observed or interviewed can be difficult, especially for studies on sensitive topics or with hard-to-reach populations.

Participant Attrition

In longitudinal studies, maintaining participant engagement over time can be challenging. People may drop out due to various reasons, potentially impacting the study's validity.

Honesty and Accuracy of Responses

Researchers must rely on participants providing truthful and accurate information. The potential for social desirability bias or intentional misinformation can affect data quality.

Ethical Challenges

Field research often involves complex ethical considerations:

Maintaining Participant Privacy

Ensuring the confidentiality and anonymity of participants, especially in small communities or sensitive settings, can be challenging.

Informed Consent in Ongoing Studies

In long-term field studies, the nature of the research may evolve. Ensuring ongoing informed consent as the study progresses is crucial but can be complex.

Power Dynamics

Researchers must be aware of and navigate the power dynamics between themselves and participants, especially in cross-cultural or vulnerable population studies.

Unexpected Ethical Dilemmas

Field researchers may encounter unforeseen ethical challenges that require quick decision-making, potentially impacting the study's direction or validity.

Difficulties in Establishing Causality

While field studies excel at providing rich, contextual data, they often struggle with establishing clear causal relationships:

Multiple Influencing Factors

In real-world settings, numerous variables can influence observed phenomena, making it challenging to isolate specific cause-and-effect relationships.

Lack of Control Groups

Unlike controlled experiments, field studies typically can't employ randomized control groups, limiting the ability to make definitive causal claims.

Generalizability Concerns

The specific context of a field study may limit how broadly the findings can be applied to other settings or populations.

Despite these challenges and limitations, field studies remain an invaluable research method for gaining deep, contextual insights into real-world phenomena. By being aware of these potential hurdles, researchers can plan more effectively, implement strategies to mitigate risks, and maximize the benefits of their field research.

Tools like Innerview can help address some of these challenges by streamlining data collection and analysis processes. For instance, its ability to transcribe across multiple languages can be particularly useful in cross-cultural studies, reducing language barriers and saving valuable time and resources. However, it's important to remember that while technology can assist, it can't completely eliminate all the inherent challenges of field research. The researcher's skill, adaptability, and ethical judgment remain crucial for conducting successful field studies.

Best Practices for Conducting Field Studies

Conducting a successful field study requires more than just showing up with a notebook and keen observation skills. To ensure your research yields valuable insights and maintains ethical standards, it's crucial to follow best practices throughout the process. Let's explore some key strategies that can elevate your field research from good to great.

Thorough Preparation and Planning

Before you set foot in the field, invest time in comprehensive preparation. This groundwork can make or break your study.

Research Design

Craft a solid research design that aligns with your objectives. Define your research questions, choose appropriate methods, and create a timeline. Consider potential challenges and plan for contingencies.

Background Research

Dive deep into existing literature and previous studies related to your topic. This knowledge will help you ask more informed questions and recognize significant observations in the field.

Sort out practical details in advance. This includes:

• Securing necessary permissions and ethical approvals
• Arranging transportation and accommodation
• Preparing data collection tools (e.g., interview guides, observation sheets)
• Testing and familiarizing yourself with any technology you'll use

Cultural Sensitivity

If you're entering a different cultural context, educate yourself about local customs, etiquette, and potential sensitivities. This preparation shows respect and can help you avoid unintentional offense.

Building Rapport with Participants

The quality of your data often depends on the relationships you build with your participants. Establishing trust and rapport is crucial for authentic interactions.

First Impressions Matter

Approach participants with genuine interest and respect. Be clear about your role as a researcher and the purpose of your study.

Active Listening

Practice active listening skills. Show genuine interest in what participants say, ask follow-up questions, and avoid interrupting or imposing your own views.

Respect Boundaries

Be mindful of participants' time and personal space. Always obtain informed consent and respect their right to withdraw from the study at any time.

Reciprocity

Consider ways to give back to the community you're studying. This could be through sharing your findings, offering a skill, or contributing to a local cause.

Maintaining Objectivity

While building rapport is important, it's equally crucial to maintain a level of objectivity in your observations and analysis.

Recognize Your Biases

Be aware of your own biases and preconceptions. Regularly reflect on how these might influence your observations and interpretations.

Triangulation

Use multiple data collection methods to cross-verify your findings. This could involve combining observations with interviews and document analysis.

Peer Debriefing

Regularly discuss your observations and interpretations with colleagues or mentors. This can help you identify blind spots and maintain a more balanced perspective.

Reflexivity

Keep a reflexive journal to document your thoughts, feelings, and potential biases throughout the research process. This self-awareness can help you separate your personal reactions from objective observations.

Ensuring Data Quality and Reliability

The value of your field study hinges on the quality and reliability of the data you collect. Implement strategies to ensure your data is accurate, comprehensive, and trustworthy.

Systematic Data Collection

Develop and stick to a systematic approach for collecting and organizing data. This consistency helps ensure that you're capturing all relevant information across different observations or interviews.

Thick Description

Practice "thick description" in your field notes. This means recording not just what you see or hear, but also the context, non-verbal cues, and your interpretations.

Member Checking

When possible, verify your interpretations with participants. This can involve sharing transcripts or summaries of your findings to ensure you've accurately captured their perspectives.

Data Management

Implement a robust system for organizing and storing your data. This is where tools like Innerview can be invaluable. With features like automatic transcription and AI-powered analysis, Innerview can help you manage large amounts of qualitative data efficiently, ensuring no valuable insight is lost in the process.

Adapting to Unexpected Situations

Field research often throws curveballs. Your ability to adapt while maintaining research integrity is crucial.

Flexibility in Methods

Be prepared to adjust your methods if they're not yielding the expected results. This might mean tweaking your interview questions or changing your observation strategy.

Ethical Decision-Making

You may encounter unexpected ethical dilemmas in the field. Have a framework for making quick, ethical decisions, and don't hesitate to consult with supervisors or ethics boards when necessary.

Serendipitous Opportunities

Be open to unexpected avenues of inquiry that may emerge during your study. Some of the most insightful findings can come from unplanned observations or conversations.

Field research can be emotionally and physically demanding. Build in time for rest and reflection, and have strategies for managing stress and maintaining your well-being.

By adhering to these best practices, you'll be well-equipped to conduct field studies that are not only rigorous and insightful but also ethical and adaptable to the complexities of real-world research. Remember, tools like Innerview can support your efforts by streamlining data management and analysis, allowing you to focus more on the nuanced aspects of field observation and interpretation.

Discover more insights in: Comprehensive Guide to Qualitative Research Designs: Methods, Types, and Best Practices

Analyzing and Reporting Field Study Results

After the data collection phase of your field study, you're left with a wealth of information. But raw data alone doesn't tell a story or provide actionable insights. The real magic happens in the analysis and reporting stage. Let's explore how to turn your field observations, interview transcripts, and other collected data into meaningful findings that can drive decision-making and contribute to your field of study.

Organizing and Managing Field Data

Before diving into analysis, it's crucial to get your data in order. Field studies often generate a mix of data types - handwritten notes, audio recordings, photographs, and more. Here's how to wrangle that data effectively:

Create a Digital Archive

Convert all your physical notes and materials into digital format. This might involve scanning handwritten notes, uploading photos, and ensuring all audio recordings are in a compatible digital format.

Develop a Consistent Naming Convention

Establish a clear system for naming your files. This could include the date, participant ID (if applicable), and type of data. For example: "2023-07-15_P001_Interview.mp3".

Use a Centralized Storage System

Store all your data in one secure, accessible location. Cloud-based storage solutions can be particularly useful for collaborative projects.

Transcribe Audio Data

Convert audio recordings into text format. This step is crucial for easier analysis and searchability. Tools like Innerview can automate this process, saving you countless hours of manual transcription work.

Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis Techniques

Field studies often yield a mix of qualitative and quantitative data. Here's how to approach the analysis of each:

Qualitative Analysis

Coding : Read through your data and assign codes (labels) to relevant segments. This helps identify recurring themes and patterns.

Thematic Analysis : Group your codes into broader themes. This process helps you see the bigger picture emerging from your data.

Content Analysis : Examine the frequency and context of certain words or phrases in your data. This can reveal underlying patterns or emphases in your participants' responses.

Narrative Analysis : Look at how participants structure their stories or explanations. This can provide insights into how they make sense of their experiences.

Quantitative Analysis

Descriptive Statistics : Calculate measures like mean, median, and mode to summarize your numerical data.

Inferential Statistics : Use techniques like t-tests or ANOVA to test hypotheses and draw conclusions about larger populations based on your sample.

Correlation Analysis : Examine relationships between different variables in your data.

Trend Analysis : If you have data over time, look for patterns or changes that occur.

Interpreting Findings in Context

Raw data and initial analysis are just the starting points. The real value comes from interpreting these findings within the broader context of your research:

Consider the Research Setting

How might the specific environment of your field study have influenced your findings? Are there unique factors about the location or timing that need to be taken into account?

Triangulate Your Data

Compare findings from different data sources or methods. Do your quantitative results align with your qualitative observations? If not, what might explain the discrepancies?

Look for Outliers and Exceptions

Don't just focus on the average or typical responses. Often, the exceptions can provide valuable insights or point to areas for further investigation.

Connect to Existing Theory

How do your findings relate to existing research or theories in your field? Do they support, challenge, or extend current understanding?

Acknowledge Limitations

Be honest about the limitations of your study. What factors might have influenced your results? What questions remain unanswered?

Presenting Results Effectively

The final step is communicating your findings in a clear, compelling manner:

Know Your Audience

Tailor your presentation to your audience. A academic conference presentation will look very different from a report for business stakeholders.

Use Visual Aids

Graphs, charts, and diagrams can help make complex data more accessible. Choose visualizations that best represent your data and findings.

Tell a Story

Don't just present data points. Weave your findings into a coherent narrative that addresses your research questions and highlights key insights.

Balance Detail and Big Picture

Provide enough detail to support your conclusions, but don't lose sight of the overall message. Use an executive summary or abstract to highlight key findings.

Include Actionable Insights

If applicable, translate your findings into concrete recommendations or next steps. What are the practical implications of your research?

By following these steps, you can transform your raw field data into valuable insights that contribute to your field of study or inform real-world decisions. Remember, tools like Innerview can significantly streamline this process, especially when it comes to transcription and initial analysis of qualitative data. This allows you to focus more on the higher-level interpretation and presentation of your findings, ultimately maximizing the impact of your field study.

As we wrap up our comprehensive exploration of field studies, it's clear that this research method remains a cornerstone of qualitative research across various disciplines. Let's recap the key points we've covered and reflect on why field studies continue to be an invaluable tool for researchers.

Key Takeaways

• Field studies provide authentic, contextual data by observing phenomena in real-world settings
• Careful planning, including clear research questions and appropriate site selection, is crucial for success
• Ethical considerations, such as participant privacy and informed consent, are paramount
• Field research offers unique advantages like flexibility and the potential for novel insights
• Challenges include time constraints, costs, and difficulties in establishing causality
• Best practices involve building rapport, maintaining objectivity, and ensuring data quality
• Effective analysis and reporting are essential to maximize the impact of field study findings

The Enduring Value of Field Research

Despite the challenges, field studies offer unparalleled benefits:

• Capture real-world complexity that lab settings can't replicate
• Bridge the gap between theory and practice
• Uncover hidden insights and unexpected patterns
• Give voice to underrepresented or marginalized groups
• Inform evidence-based policies and practices across various domains

For researchers considering or currently engaged in field studies, remember that the challenges you face are part of what makes this method so rewarding. Embrace the unexpected, persevere through difficulties, and stay curious. Your work has the potential to make a real difference, whether you're informing policy decisions, improving products, or advancing scientific understanding.

As you venture into the field, armed with your research questions and a spirit of inquiry, you're part of a long tradition of researchers who have pushed the boundaries of knowledge through firsthand observation and engagement. Your field study is not just a research method—it's a journey of discovery that can yield insights that change how we understand the world around us.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between field studies and laboratory experiments? Field studies take place in natural, real-world settings, while laboratory experiments occur in controlled environments. This allows field studies to capture authentic behaviors and contextual factors that might be lost in a lab setting.

How long does a typical field study last? The duration of a field study can vary widely depending on the research goals. Some studies might last a few weeks, while others could span months or even years for longitudinal research.

What are some common data collection methods used in field studies? Common methods include participant observation, in-depth interviews, focus groups, surveys, and document analysis. Many researchers use a combination of these methods to triangulate their findings.

How do researchers maintain objectivity during field studies? Researchers strive for objectivity by recognizing their own biases, using multiple data collection methods, engaging in peer debriefing, and maintaining reflexive journals to document their thoughts and potential biases throughout the research process.

What ethical considerations are important in field research? Key ethical considerations include obtaining informed consent, protecting participant privacy and confidentiality, being transparent about the research purpose, and navigating power dynamics between researchers and participants.

How can technology assist in field studies? Technology can streamline data collection, organization, and analysis. Tools like Innerview can automate transcription of interviews, assist with AI-powered analysis, and provide platforms for collaborative research, saving time and enhancing the depth of insights.

What skills are essential for conducting effective field research? Important skills include keen observation, active listening, adaptability, cultural sensitivity, ethical decision-making, and the ability to build rapport with participants.

How do researchers analyze qualitative data from field studies? Common analysis techniques include coding, thematic analysis, content analysis, and narrative analysis. These methods help researchers identify patterns, themes, and insights from their collected data.

Can field studies establish cause-and-effect relationships? While field studies excel at providing rich, contextual data, establishing clear causal relationships can be challenging due to the lack of controlled conditions. Researchers often use multiple methods and careful analysis to suggest potential causal links.

How do field researchers ensure the reliability and validity of their findings? Researchers use strategies like triangulation (using multiple data sources or methods), member checking (verifying interpretations with participants), thick description (detailed contextual information), and peer review to enhance the reliability and validity of their findings.

Similar Posts

Face validity in research: a comprehensive guide.

Explore face validity in research: Learn its definition, importance, assessment methods, and examples. Improve your research design with our comprehensive guide.

Qualitative Observation: Definition, Types, and Examples

Discover the power of qualitative observation in research. Learn about its types, characteristics, and real-world applications across various fields. Perfect for researchers and students.

Qualitative Research Designs: A Complete Guide for Researchers

Explore the world of qualitative research designs with our comprehensive guide. Learn about different methods, types, characteristics, and best practices for conducting effective qualitative studies.

Exploratory Research Design: Methods, Types, and Best Practices

Discover the power of exploratory research design in product development and market research. Learn about methods, types, and best practices to gain valuable customer insights.

Related Topics

Innerview Team

Easy insights, easy progress.

@InnerviewCo

Try Innerview

(psst... for free!)

Transform user interviews into actionable takeaways & faster decisions

• General Categories
• Mental Health
• IQ and Intelligence
• Bipolar Disorder

Field Study Psychology: Exploring Real-World Behavior and Cognition

Venturing beyond the confines of the laboratory, field study psychologists immerse themselves in the intricate dance of human behavior and cognition, unraveling the mysteries of the mind in its natural habitat. This bold approach to psychological research has revolutionized our understanding of the human psyche, offering insights that simply can’t be captured within the sterile walls of a traditional lab setting.

Picture, if you will, a researcher perched on a park bench, notebook in hand, quietly observing the ebb and flow of human interactions around them. Or imagine a team of psychologists embedded within a bustling office, studying the nuances of workplace dynamics as they unfold in real-time. These scenarios exemplify the essence of field study psychology, a methodology that brings the study of the mind out into the wild, so to speak.

But what exactly is field study psychology, and why has it become such a crucial tool in the psychologist’s arsenal? At its core, field research in psychology involves studying behavior and mental processes in their natural environments, rather than in controlled laboratory settings. This approach allows researchers to observe and analyze how people think, feel, and act in the real world, providing a more authentic and nuanced understanding of human psychology.

The importance of field studies in psychological research cannot be overstated. While laboratory experiments offer precise control over variables, they often lack the rich context and complexity of real-life situations. Field studies bridge this gap, offering a complementary approach that enhances the ecological validity of psychological findings. By observing behavior in its natural habitat, researchers can capture the subtle influences of social, cultural, and environmental factors that might be lost in a more artificial setting.

Consider, for a moment, the difference between studying social anxiety in a lab versus observing it in a bustling coffee shop. The lab setting might provide clean data, but the coffee shop scenario offers a wealth of contextual information that could prove invaluable to understanding the condition. It’s this real-world relevance that makes field studies so compelling.

Key Characteristics of Field Studies in Psychology

Field studies in psychology are characterized by several key features that set them apart from traditional laboratory research. Let’s dive into these characteristics, shall we?

First and foremost is naturalistic observation. This involves studying behavior as it occurs spontaneously in its natural environment, without any manipulation or interference from the researcher. It’s like being a fly on the wall, quietly observing the world as it unfolds around you. This approach allows psychologists to capture authentic behaviors that might be altered or suppressed in a more artificial setting.

Ecological validity is another crucial aspect of field studies. This refers to the extent to which the findings of a study can be generalized to real-life situations. Naturalistic observation psychology shines in this regard, as the behaviors observed are, by definition, occurring in their natural context. This makes the results more likely to reflect real-world phenomena accurately.

However, this enhanced realism comes at a cost. Field studies typically involve reduced experimenter control compared to laboratory settings. Variables that might be carefully controlled in a lab can run wild in the field, introducing potential confounds and making it more challenging to establish clear cause-and-effect relationships. It’s a trade-off that researchers must carefully weigh when designing their studies.

On the flip side, field studies offer excellent potential for longitudinal research. By observing individuals or groups over extended periods, psychologists can track changes and patterns that might not be apparent in short-term laboratory experiments. This long-term perspective can provide invaluable insights into developmental processes, social dynamics, and the evolution of behaviors over time.

Types of Field Studies in Psychology

Field studies in psychology come in various flavors, each with its own strengths and applications. Let’s explore some of the most common types:

Observational field studies involve researchers watching and recording behavior in natural settings without intervening. This could be anything from observing children’s play patterns in a schoolyard to studying customer behavior in a retail environment. The key is to remain as unobtrusive as possible to avoid influencing the behavior being studied.

Participant observation takes things a step further. Here, the researcher becomes an active participant in the group or situation they’re studying. This might involve joining a social club, living in a different culture, or working alongside the individuals being studied. This immersive approach can provide deep insights into the subjective experiences and social dynamics of the group being studied.

Case studies focus on in-depth analysis of individual cases, whether that’s a person, a group, or an event. These studies often combine multiple data collection methods, including interviews, observations, and document analysis, to build a comprehensive understanding of the subject. While case studies lack the generalizability of larger studies, they can provide rich, detailed insights that inform broader theories and research directions.

Quasi-experimental field studies attempt to bridge the gap between naturalistic observation and controlled experiments. In these studies, researchers manipulate some aspect of the natural environment to test hypotheses, but they lack the full control of a laboratory setting. For example, a researcher might study the effects of a new teaching method by comparing classrooms that adopt the method with those that don’t.

Advantages of Field Studies in Psychology

The benefits of field studies in psychology are numerous and compelling. Let’s delve into some of the key advantages that make this approach so valuable to researchers.

Enhanced external validity is perhaps the most significant advantage of field studies. Because the research takes place in real-world settings, the findings are more likely to generalize to other real-world situations. This makes field studies particularly valuable for applied psychology, where the goal is often to understand and influence behavior in practical contexts.

Field studies excel at capturing real-world behaviors that might be difficult or impossible to replicate in a laboratory setting. For instance, studying the dynamics of crowd behavior during a protest or the decision-making processes of firefighters during an emergency would be challenging, if not impossible, to recreate authentically in a lab.

Another exciting aspect of field studies is their potential for discovering unexpected phenomena. When researchers venture into the messy reality of the real world, they often stumble upon surprising behaviors or patterns that they hadn’t anticipated. These serendipitous discoveries can lead to new research questions and theoretical insights that might never have emerged in a more controlled setting.

Field studies also allow psychologists to study hard-to-replicate situations. Some psychological phenomena are rare, ethically challenging to induce, or tied to specific contexts that can’t be easily recreated. Natural experiments in psychology offer a unique opportunity to study these elusive phenomena as they occur naturally in the world.

Challenges and Limitations of Field Studies

While field studies offer many advantages, they also come with their fair share of challenges and limitations. It’s important for researchers to be aware of these potential pitfalls as they design and conduct their studies.

One of the most significant challenges is the reduced control over variables compared to laboratory settings. In the real world, countless factors can influence behavior, making it difficult to isolate the specific variables of interest. This can make it challenging to establish clear causal relationships and can introduce confounding factors that muddy the waters of interpretation.

Potential observer bias is another concern in field studies. Researchers, being human, may inadvertently influence the behavior they’re observing or interpret their observations through the lens of their own expectations or biases. Techniques like using multiple observers or video recording can help mitigate this issue, but it remains a challenge to be vigilant about.

Ethical considerations also loom large in field research. Human behaviour psychology study often involves observing people without their explicit consent, which raises important questions about privacy and informed consent. Researchers must carefully balance the potential benefits of their research against the rights and well-being of the individuals they’re studying.

Finally, field studies can be incredibly time and resource-intensive. Collecting data in real-world settings often requires more time, effort, and funding than laboratory experiments. Longitudinal studies, in particular, can stretch over years or even decades, demanding a significant commitment from researchers and participants alike.

Notable Examples of Field Studies in Psychology

The annals of psychological research are peppered with fascinating and influential field studies that have shaped our understanding of human behavior. Let’s explore a few of these landmark studies and their lasting impact on the field.

One of the most infamous examples is Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment. While technically a simulation rather than a true field study, this research blurred the lines between laboratory and real-world settings. Zimbardo created a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University, randomly assigning students to roles as prisoners or guards. The study, intended to last two weeks, was terminated after just six days due to the extreme psychological effects on participants. While highly controversial, this study sparked important discussions about the power of social roles and situational factors in shaping behavior.

Leon Festinger’s “When Prophecy Fails” is another classic field study that delves into the fascinating world of cognitive dissonance. Festinger and his colleagues infiltrated a UFO cult that believed the world was about to end, observing how members coped when their apocalyptic predictions failed to materialize. This study provided crucial insights into how people manage conflicting beliefs and the power of social support in maintaining convictions in the face of contradictory evidence.

David Rosenhan’s “On Being Sane in Insane Places” is a prime example of how field studies can challenge established systems and beliefs. Rosenhan and several colleagues gained admission to psychiatric hospitals by feigning auditory hallucinations. Once admitted, they behaved normally, yet found that their actions were consistently interpreted as symptoms of mental illness. This study raised serious questions about the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis and the power of labels in shaping perception.

In more recent years, field studies have continued to provide valuable insights across various domains of psychology. Psychological field research has been particularly fruitful in areas like social psychology, where researchers study phenomena like bystander intervention, social influence, and group dynamics in real-world settings. Developmental psychologists have also embraced field methods, conducting longitudinal studies that track children’s development over many years in their natural environments.

The Future of Field Studies in Psychology

As we look to the future, it’s clear that field studies will continue to play a crucial role in psychological research. The increasing recognition of the importance of context and ecological validity in understanding human behavior ensures that field methods will remain a valuable tool in the psychologist’s toolkit.

Emerging technologies are opening up new possibilities for field research. Wearable devices, smartphones, and other mobile technologies allow researchers to collect real-time data on behavior, physiology, and subjective experiences in natural settings. These tools promise to provide unprecedented insights into the ebb and flow of psychological processes in daily life.

At the same time, there’s a growing recognition of the need to balance field and laboratory approaches in psychological science. Field theory in psychology , pioneered by Kurt Lewin, emphasizes the importance of considering the total situation in which behavior occurs. This holistic approach encourages researchers to combine the ecological validity of field studies with the precise control of laboratory experiments to build a more comprehensive understanding of human psychology.

As we continue to unravel the complexities of the human mind, field studies will undoubtedly play a crucial role in bridging the gap between theory and real-world application. By venturing out of the lab and into the messy, vibrant world of human experience, psychologists can continue to push the boundaries of our understanding and develop insights that truly resonate with the lived experiences of individuals and communities.

In conclusion, field studies in psychology offer a unique and valuable perspective on human behavior and cognition. By embracing the complexity and richness of real-world settings, researchers can uncover insights that might otherwise remain hidden. While challenges exist, the potential rewards of field research are immense, promising to deepen our understanding of the human mind and its intricate dance with the world around us.

As we move forward, it’s crucial to remember that psychology studies can be challenging , but they are also immensely rewarding. The field of psychology continues to evolve, and with it, our methods of inquiry. Field studies, with their emphasis on real-world relevance and ecological validity, will undoubtedly play a central role in shaping the future of psychological science.

For those embarking on their own journey into the world of psychology, consider incorporating psychology field trip ideas into your learning experience. These hands-on encounters with psychological phenomena in real-world settings can provide invaluable insights and inspiration for budding researchers and practitioners alike.

As we continue to explore the vast landscape of human behavior and cognition, field studies will remain an essential tool, helping us to navigate the complex terrain of the mind and its interactions with the world around us. So, let’s embrace the challenges, celebrate the discoveries, and continue to push the boundaries of our understanding through the powerful lens of field study psychology.

References:

1. Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When Prophecy Fails. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

2. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers. Harper & Brothers.

3. Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179(4070), 250-258.

4. Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford prison experiment. Cognition, 2(2), 243-256.

5. Reis, H. T., & Gosling, S. D. (2010). Social psychological methods outside the laboratory. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 82-114). John Wiley & Sons.

6. Shaughnessy, J. J., Zechmeister, E. B., & Zechmeister, J. S. (2015). Research methods in psychology (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

7. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513-531.

8. Cialdini, R. B. (2009). We have to break up. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 5-6.

9. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.

10. Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38(4), 379-387.

Was this article helpful?

Would you like to add any comments (optional), leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

Related Resources

Brain Samples: Unlocking the Secrets of Neuroscience

Discover Psychology Impact Factor: Exploring the Journal’s Influence and Significance

Confidence Intervals in Psychology: Enhancing Statistical Interpretation and Research Validity

Control Condition in Psychology: Definition, Purpose, and Applications

Dependent Variables in Psychology: Definition, Examples, and Importance

Debriefing in Psychology: Definition, Purpose, and Techniques

Correlation in Psychology: Definition, Types, and Applications

Data Collection Methods in Psychology: Essential Techniques for Researchers

Histogram in Psychology: Definition, Applications, and Significance

Dimensional vs Categorical Approach in Psychology: Comparing Methods of Classification

Field Studies | Guide, Techniques & Steps

Introduction

What is field research, why conduct field research, advantages of field research, disadvantages of field research, commonly used field research methods.

Conducting field research is a mainstay in qualitative research , particularly in inquiries where observation or other data collection in a natural environment is preferred to experimental or lab research. Research methods common to field studies include observations, interviews , focus groups , and surveys .

In this article, we'll look at the role of field research in the social sciences, weigh the benefits and considerations for conducting research in real-world situations, and discuss research methods that are commonly used to collect data in a natural setting.

Simply put, field research includes any research study that is conducted in a real-world, natural setting. A field study is conducted outside of the confines of a laboratory or other closed environment that may be used to filter out any variables that could interfere with the research. Rather than control for confounding variables, conducting field research carries the acknowledgment that such influences cannot or should not be ignored if the goal is to fully capture a more comprehensive understanding of the concept or phenomenon under examination.

Take an observational study examining cultural practices during a religious ceremony, for example. A researcher may take notes on any number of things that are present or take place during the ceremony. They can document the actual processes of the ceremony, the physical environment in which the ceremony takes place, the people in attendance, and the words uttered by those participants conducting the ceremony. However, there are countless other factors that might influence the event. In this case, the researcher taking notes documents all the potentially consequential developments, from mistakes made during the event to bad weather affecting the attendance. These are not considered to be confounding influences but developments that more fully contextualize the phenomenon being documented.

Conducting a field study involves any of several different methods , including observations, interviews , and surveys . The data collected from a field study is often unstructured and requires organization after data collection , but has the potential to accommodate a wide range of research inquiries within the social sciences where experimental research methods are otherwise incapable.

Some research inquiries simply aren't suited for a closed, sterile environment like a laboratory. Cultural practices, social interactions, and other aspects of everyday life are impossible to reduce to a small number of variables without losing the granular detail that provides the necessary thick description of socially constructed concepts.

That said, note that field research isn't restricted to social scientists. Geologists who are interested in volcanic activity are likely to go into the field to study active volcanoes, while astronomers may often travel to other countries and observatories to identify stars and other stellar phenomena that may not be visible from their own part of the world. Essentially, any researcher whose object of inquiry can't simply be bottled up and placed in a lab will find a field study more suitable to addressing their research question .

This is not to say that experimental research does not play a role. Experiments are often useful when researchers want to confirm or challenge an existing theory. Confirmatory research questions, as a result, benefit from a controlled environment with as little influence from confounding variables as possible, leaving only the independent and dependent variables representing parts of a theory to interact with each other. This kind of research inquiry is useful when researchers have a formal theory that should be tested and the appropriate means to test it. As a result, experiments are an important part of research in areas such as education, psychology, and communication studies, where the appropriate level of theoretical development warrants testing by experimental or quantitative research methods.

That said, in exploratory research inquiries, a field study is often the more appropriate means for generating new theories and collecting data that may yield unanticipated insights useful for further research. Regardless of the research discipline, employing field research methods is oftentimes a good way to learn something new about a concept or phenomenon with little established theoretical coherence.

Try out ATLAS.ti's data analysis tools for free

Intuitive coding tools and AI-powered capabilities are just a few clicks away. Start with a free trial.

There are two main dimensions that separate field research from other forms of research. In a nutshell, any research question that pursues an exploratory inquiry or benefits from naturalistic data will likely tend toward field research.

Potential for exploratory research

There are limits to experimental research methods or any method that doesn't rely on primary data. Closed experiments are useful when the researcher wants to test a theory but are seldom used to generate a new theory or contextualize an existing one through insights that they haven't yet anticipated.

To address this task, researchers conduct field research when they want to identify novel aspects of a concept or phenomenon. Analytical approaches like thematic analysis , grounded theory , and phenomenology rely on naturalistic data that is collected in the field, capturing a depth of information that experimental research is often not designed to perceive.

Authenticity of data

Research participants tend to respond differently to experimental and naturalistic research methods. A driving test on a closed track, for example, may tell us fundamental things about someone's ability to drive a vehicle, but it may not be able to give us enough data about how they might react under conditions that a real-world situation can more adequately provide. Given this premise, a field study where a researcher observes how a driver responds to traffic, road conditions, and inclement weather can provide a greater degree of contextualization about their overall ability.

Keep in mind that a field study requires thoughtful planning and adequate preparation to ensure that the data collected comprehensively and accurately captures the phenomenon being studied. Those who conduct field research should account for things such as social desirability bias and observer effect when interacting with research participants to fully contextualize the nature of the insights drawn from the field. That said, the collection of naturalistic data can ultimately prove useful for generating scientific knowledge that is most relevant to the context being studied.

On the other side of things, keep in mind that field research has its tradeoffs. Compared to experiments, field studies can be more cumbersome to conduct in terms of the data that is collected and how it is collected.

Unstructured data

Data is relatively straightforward to collect in a lab setting. In addition, the closed environment of lab research ensures a level of consistency across the data that is more challenging to establish than in a field study. Conversely, any research method that collects naturalistic data will require researchers to structure the data through coding or reorganization to facilitate data analysis .

Moreover, the form that qualitative data takes depends on the research method used; data collected from direct observations often take the form of field notes , while interviews and focus groups will produce transcripts . Other research methods can produce raw data such as images, videos, and audio recordings , requiring some form of organization before the data can be rigorously analyzed.

Feasibility

All research has its challenges, but going into the field presents particular challenges that affect the feasibility of a field study. Ethnography can be time-consuming, surveys can be expensive to distribute, and interviews require transcription. Whatever data is produced, researchers need to devote time to coding the data so it can be analyzed for insights.

For logistical and ethical reasons, field research also depends on the cooperation of those whom the researcher encounters while in the field. In many cases, this requires the skill of establishing rapport within the environment being observed. Many ethnographic studies are only made possible after the researcher has taken the time to foster relationships with and obtain informed consent from research participants before they collect data.

Researchers rely on various data collection methods to develop a better understanding of a research topic that is best captured while in the field. All of these methods produce some form of data that requires structuring through coding.

Observations

Observing phenomena is a central component of naturalistic inquiry. Rather than try to recreate or simulate something in an experiment in a laboratory, researchers enter the field to conduct direct observation and see what it looks like in its natural environment.

Ethnographic researchers go one step further and rely on participant observation to capture data within a particular community or culture, given the assumption that experiencing a phenomenon can often be profoundly more insightful than watching it from the outside. Especially in social anthropology, this kind of observation can occur over extended periods of time to observe people and gather detailed information about behaviors, actions, and relationships.

Participant observations are often recorded in field notes . Proper organization of field notes yields an ethnographic record that can provide a sense of how the researcher experiences the culture they are studying and interacts with the participants they encounter.

Interviews and focus groups

Qualitative interviews are the main method for gathering data about participants' perspectives and knowledge. Structured or semi-structured interviews are often designed with a certain set of questions beforehand to directly address the given research question , while unstructured, informal interviews can capture previously unanticipated insights from insider participants. The latter is especially important in ethnographic research when used to triangulate participants' utterances with their actions captured during observations .

Focus groups are similar to interviews but are conducted with multiple participants, oftentimes to gather insights about not only what people think but also how they interact with each other on a given topic. Data from both research methods takes the form of raw audio or video that researchers analyze for facial expressions, gestures, and other forms of non-verbal communication, as well as transcripts to document research participants' utterances.

Collecting data from surveys allows researchers to approach research participants in their natural setting and gather responses to a standardized set of questions at scale. Surveys or questionnaires can be conducted in person or remotely to reach people in a given research context.

In-person surveys can be especially useful in field research for the ability to capture research participants' reactions to questions. Moreover, the responses from surveys can inform real-world applications as actionable insights are identified.

Make ATLAS.ti your qualitative data analysis solution

Powerful tools are there to help you make the most of your data. Download a free trial today.

Field Study vs. Survey

What's the difference.

Field study and survey are both research methods used to gather data and information. However, they differ in terms of their approach and execution. Field study involves observing and analyzing real-life situations in their natural setting. Researchers directly interact with the subjects or objects of study, collecting data through observations, interviews, and experiments. On the other hand, surveys involve collecting data through questionnaires or interviews, where respondents provide their opinions, attitudes, or experiences. Surveys are often conducted on a larger scale, reaching a larger sample size, while field studies tend to focus on a smaller, more specific group or location. Both methods have their advantages and limitations, and the choice between them depends on the research objectives and available resources.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Field study and survey are two commonly used research methods in various disciplines. Both methods aim to gather data and insights to answer research questions or explore specific phenomena. While they share the common goal of data collection, field study and survey differ in their approaches, data sources, and levels of control. In this article, we will delve into the attributes of field study and survey, highlighting their strengths and limitations.

Field Study

Field study is a research method that involves direct observation and data collection in a natural setting. It often requires researchers to immerse themselves in the environment being studied, allowing for a deep understanding of the context and the phenomena under investigation. Field study can be conducted in various settings, such as schools, workplaces, communities, or even natural habitats.

One of the key attributes of field study is its high ecological validity. By observing and interacting with participants in their natural environment, researchers can capture real-life behaviors, interactions, and experiences. This authenticity enhances the external validity of the findings, making them more applicable to real-world situations.

Furthermore, field study allows researchers to uncover unexpected or unanticipated phenomena. By immersing themselves in the setting, researchers can identify nuances and complexities that may not have been apparent through other research methods. This attribute makes field study particularly valuable in exploratory research or when studying complex social phenomena.

However, field study also has its limitations. One challenge is the potential lack of control over variables. Since the research is conducted in a natural setting, researchers have limited control over external factors that may influence the phenomena being studied. This lack of control can introduce confounding variables and make it difficult to establish causal relationships.

Another limitation of field study is the potential for researcher bias. Researchers' presence and involvement in the setting may influence participants' behavior or responses, leading to biased data. Additionally, the time and resources required for field study can be substantial, making it a more time-consuming and costly research method compared to surveys.

Surveys, on the other hand, are a research method that involves collecting data through structured questionnaires or interviews. Surveys are typically administered to a sample of participants, aiming to gather information about their attitudes, opinions, behaviors, or characteristics. Surveys can be conducted through various mediums, including online platforms, phone interviews, or paper-based questionnaires.

One of the key attributes of surveys is their ability to collect data from a large number of participants efficiently. Surveys allow researchers to reach a broader audience and gather a wide range of responses, providing a representative sample of the population under study. This attribute makes surveys particularly useful in studies that require generalizability or when studying large populations.

Moreover, surveys offer a high level of control over variables. Researchers can design the survey questions carefully, ensuring that all participants receive the same set of questions and response options. This control allows for standardized data collection, making it easier to compare and analyze responses across participants or groups.

Additionally, surveys are often less time-consuming and more cost-effective compared to field study. With advancements in technology, online surveys can be distributed quickly and completed at the participants' convenience. This attribute makes surveys a popular choice for researchers who need to collect data efficiently or have limited resources.

However, surveys also have limitations. One challenge is the potential for response bias. Participants may provide socially desirable responses or may not accurately recall or report their attitudes or behaviors. Researchers need to consider and address these biases through careful questionnaire design and data analysis techniques.

Another limitation of surveys is their potential lack of ecological validity. Since surveys are typically conducted outside of the natural setting, participants' responses may not fully reflect their real-life behaviors or experiences. This limitation can be mitigated by combining surveys with other research methods or by carefully designing questions that capture participants' actual behaviors or experiences.

In conclusion, field study and survey are two valuable research methods with distinct attributes. Field study offers high ecological validity and the ability to uncover unexpected phenomena, but it may lack control over variables and be prone to researcher bias. On the other hand, surveys provide efficient data collection from a large number of participants, high control over variables, and cost-effectiveness, but they may suffer from response bias and lack ecological validity. Researchers should carefully consider their research questions, resources, and desired outcomes when choosing between field study and survey, or even consider combining both methods to maximize the strengths and overcome the limitations of each.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

• 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.

• X (formerly Twitter)
• 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.

All Subjects

Journalism Research

Study guides for every class, that actually explain what's on your next test, field study, from class:.

A field study is a research method that involves collecting data outside of a laboratory or controlled environment, often in real-world settings where subjects naturally occur. This approach allows researchers to observe behaviors, interactions, and phenomena in their natural context, leading to more authentic insights and findings.

congrats on reading the definition of Field Study . now let's actually learn it.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

• Field studies are often used in social sciences, such as sociology and anthropology, to gather qualitative data that reflects real-life situations.
• They can take various forms, including surveys, interviews, direct observations, and focus groups, depending on the research question.
• The findings from field studies can enhance the validity and reliability of research by capturing complex human behaviors and interactions that may not be evident in controlled settings.
• Field studies may require ethical considerations, such as informed consent from participants and the need to respect their privacy during observation.
• The results of field studies can inform theory development, policy-making, and practice by providing rich descriptive data that reflects real-world conditions.

Review Questions

• A field study differs from traditional laboratory research methods primarily in its setting and approach to data collection. While laboratory research is conducted in controlled environments that can isolate variables, field studies take place in natural environments where subjects engage in their everyday behaviors. This allows researchers to capture authentic interactions and phenomena as they occur in real life, which can lead to more nuanced insights into human behavior and social dynamics.
• Field studies offer several advantages, including the ability to gather rich qualitative data in real-world contexts, which enhances the ecological validity of findings. They allow researchers to observe behaviors and interactions that might be influenced or altered in a controlled setting. However, they also have disadvantages such as potential researcher bias, challenges in controlling extraneous variables, and difficulties in replicating studies due to the uniqueness of the setting. Balancing these factors is crucial for researchers when deciding on their methodologies.
• Ethical considerations significantly impact the design and implementation of field studies. Researchers must ensure that they obtain informed consent from participants before observing or collecting data, which can sometimes be challenging in natural settings. Additionally, safeguarding participant privacy is crucial; researchers must find ways to anonymize data or conduct observations discreetly without infringing on individuals' rights. These ethical responsibilities shape how researchers conduct their studies and influence the trustworthiness and integrity of their findings.

Related terms

Participant Observation : A qualitative research method where the researcher immerses themselves in a community or group to observe and engage with participants while collecting data.

Ethnography : A qualitative research approach that involves the extended observation of social practices and interactions within specific cultural contexts.

An in-depth analysis of a particular instance or example within a real-life context, often using multiple sources of data.

" Field Study " also found in:

Subjects ( 10 ).

• Communication Research Methods
• Customer Insights
• Design Strategy and Software
• History of Science
• Honors Biology
• Intro to Ecology
• Intro to Geology
• Language and Popular Culture
• Physical Science
• Psychology of Language

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

Ap® and sat® are trademarks registered by the college board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website..

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

12.4 Getting In and Choosing a Site

When embarking on a field research project, there are two major aspects to consider. The first is where to observe and the second is what role you will take in your field site. Your decision about each of these will be shaped by a number of factors, over some of which you will have control and others you will not. Your decision about where to observe and what role to play will also have consequences for the data you are able to gather and how you analyze and share those data with others. We will examine each of these contingencies in the following subsections.

Your research question might determine where you observe, by, but because field research often works inductively, you may not have a totally focused question before you begin your observations. In some cases, field researchers choose their final research question once they embark on data collection. Other times, they begin with a research question but remain open to the possibility that their focus may shift as they gather data. In either case, when you choose a site, there are a number of factors to consider. These questions include:

• What do you hope to accomplish with your field research?
• What is your topical/substantive interest?
• Where are you likely to observe behaviour that has something to do with that topic?
• How likely is it that you will actually have access to the locations that are of interest to you?
• How much time do you have to conduct your participant observations?
• Will your participant observations be limited to a single location, or will you observe in multiple locations?

Perhaps the best place to start, as you work to identify a site or sites for your field research, is to think about your limitations . One limitation that could shape where you conduct participant observation is time. Field researchers typically immerse themselves in their research sites for many months, sometimes even years. As demonstrated in Table 12.1 “Field Research Examples”, other field researchers have spent as much or even more time in the field. Do you have several years available to conduct research, or are you seeking a smaller-scale field research experience? How much time do you have to participate and observe per day? Per week? Identifying how available you’ll be in terms of time will help you determine where and what sort of research sites to choose. Also think about where you live and whether travel is an option for you. Some field researchers move to live with or near their population of interest. Is this something you might consider? How you answer these questions will shape how you identify your research site. Where might your field research questions take you?

In choosing a site, also consider how your social location might limit what or where you can study. The ascribed aspects of our locations are those that are involuntary, such as our age or race or mobility. For example, how might your ascribed status as an adult shape your ability to conduct complete participation in a study of children’s birthday parties? The achieved aspects of our locations, on the other hand, are those about which we have some choice. In field research, we may also have some choice about whether, or the extent to which, we reveal the achieved aspects of our identities.

Finally, in choosing a research site, consider whether your research will be a collaborative project or whether you are on your own. Collaborating with others has many benefits; you can cover more ground, and therefore collect more data, than you can on your own. Having collaborators in any research project, but especially field research, means having others with whom to share your trials and tribulations in the field. However, collaborative research comes with its own set of challenges, such as possible personality conflicts among researchers, competing commitments in terms of time and contributions to the project, and differences in methodological or theoretical perspectives (Shaffir, Marshall, & Haas, 1979). When considering something that is of interest to you, consider also whether you have possible collaborators. How might having collaborators shape the decisions you make about where to conduct participant observation?

This section began by asking you to think about limitations that might shape your field site decisions. But it makes sense to also think about the opportunities —social, geographic, and otherwise—that your location affords. Perhaps you are already a member of an organization where you would like to conduct research. Maybe you know someone who knows someone else who might be able to help you access a site. Perhaps you have a friend you could stay with, enabling you to conduct participant observations away from home. Choosing a site for participation is shaped by all these factors—your research question and area of interest, a few limitations, some opportunities, and sometimes a bit of being in the right place at the right time.

Choosing a Role

As with choosing a research site, some limitations and opportunities beyond your control might shape the role you take once you begin your participant observation. You will also need to make some deliberate decisions about how you enter the field and who you will be once you are in.

In terms of entering the field, one of the earliest decisions you will need to make is whether to be overt or covert. As an overt researcher, you enter the field with your research participants having some awareness about the fact that they are the subjects of social scientific research. Covert researchers, on the other hand, enter the field as though they are full participants, opting not to reveal that they are also researchers or that the group they’ve joined is being studied. As you might imagine, there are pros and cons to both approaches. A critical point to keep in mind is that whatever decision you make about how you enter the field will affect many of your subsequent experiences in the field.

As an overt researcher, you may experience some trouble establishing rapport at first. Having an insider at the site who can vouch for you will certainly help, but the knowledge that subjects are being watched will inevitably (and understandably) make some people uncomfortable and possibly cause them to behave differently than they would, were they not aware of being research subjects. Because field research is typically a sustained activity that occurs over several months or years, it is likely that participants will become more comfortable with your presence over time. Overt researchers also avoid a variety of moral and ethical dilemmas that they might otherwise face.

As a covert researcher, “getting in” your site might be quite easy; however, once you are in, you may face other issues. Some questions to consider are:

• How long would you plan to conceal your identity?
• How might participants respond once they discover you’ve been studying them?
• How will you respond if asked to engage in activities you find unsettling or unsafe?

Researcher, Jun Li (2008) struggled with the ethical challenges of “getting in” to interview female gamblers as a covert researcher. Her research was part of a post-doctoral fellowship from the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre to study female gambling culture. In response to these ethical aspects, she changed her research role to overt; however, in her overt role female gamblers were reluctant to “speak their minds” to her (p. 100). As such, she once again adjusted her level of involvement in the study to one who participated in female gambling culture as an insider and observed as an outsider. You can read her interesting story .

Beyond your own personal level of comfort with deceiving participants and willingness to take risks, it is possible that the decision about whether or not to enter the field covertly will be made for you. If you are conducting research while associated with any federally funded agency (and even many private entities), your institutional review board (IRB) probably will have something to say about any planned deception of research subjects. Some IRBs approve deception, but others look warily upon a field researcher engaging in covert participation. The extent to which your research site is a public location, where people may not have an expectation of privacy, might also play a role in helping you decide whether covert research is a reasonable approach.

Having an insider at your site who can vouch for you is helpful. Such insiders, with whom a researcher may have some prior connection or a closer relationship than with other site participants, are called key informants. A key informant can provide a framework for your observations, help translate what you observe, and give you important insight into a group’s culture. If possible, having more than one key informant at a site is ideal, as one informant’s perspective may vary from another’s.

Once you have made a decision about how to enter your field site, you will need to think about the role you will adopt while there. Aside from being overt or covert, how close will you be to participants? In the words of Fred Davis (1973), [12] who coined these terms in reference to researchers’ roles, “will you be a Martian, a Convert, or a bit of both”? Davis describes the Martian role as one in which a field researcher stands back a bit, not fully immersed in the lives of his subjects, in order to better problematize, categorize, and see with the eyes of a newcomer what’s being observed. From the Martian perspective, a researcher should remain disentangled from too much engagement with participants. The Convert, on the other hand, intentionally dives right into life as a participant. From this perspective, it is through total immersion that understanding is gained. Which approach do you feel best suits you?

In the preceding section we examined how ascribed and achieved statuses might shape how or which sites are chosen for field research. They also shape the role the researcher adopts in the field site. The fact that the authors of this textbook are professors, for example, is an achieved status. We can choose the extent to which we share this aspect of our identities with field study participants. In some situations, sharing that we are professors may enhance our ability to establish rapport; in other field sites it might stifle conversation and rapport-building. As you have seen from the examples provided throughout this chapter, different field researchers have taken different approaches when it comes to using their social locations to help establish rapport and dealing with ascribed statuses that differ from those of their “subjects

Whatever role a researcher chooses, many of the points made in Chapter 11 “Quantitative Interview Techniques” regarding power and relationships with participants apply to field research as well. In fact, the researcher/researched relationship is even more complex in field studies, where interactions with participants last far longer than the hour or two it might take to interview someone. Moreover, the potential for exploitation on the part of the researcher is even greater in field studies, since relationships are usually closer and lines between research and personal or off-the-record interaction may be blurred. These precautions should be seriously considered before deciding to embark upon a field research project

Field Notes

The aim with field notes is to record your observations as straightforwardly and, while in the field, as quickly as possible, in a way that makes sense to you . Field notes are the first—and a necessary—step toward developing quality analysis. They are also the record that affirms what you observed. In other words, field notes are not to be taken lightly or overlooked as unimportant; however, they are not usually intended for anything other than the researcher’s own purposes as they relate to recollections of people, places and things related to the research project.

Some say that there are two different kinds of field notes: descriptive and analytic. Though the lines between what counts as description and what counts as analysis can become blurred, the distinction is nevertheless useful when thinking about how to write and how to interpret field notes. In this section, we will focus on descriptive field notes. Descriptive field notes are notes that simply describe a field researcher’s observations as straightforwardly as possible. These notes typically do not contain explanations of, or comments about, those observations. Instead, the observations are presented on their own, as clearly as possible. In the following section, we will define and examine the uses and writing of analytic field notes more closely.

Analysis of Field Research Data

Field notes are data. But moving from having pages of data to presenting findings from a field study in a way that will make sense to others requires that those data be analyzed. Analysis of field research data is the focus in this final section of the chapter.

From Description to Analysis

Writing and analyzing field notes involves moving from description to analysis. In Section 12.4 “Field Notes”, we considered field notes that are mostly descriptive in nature. In this section we will consider analytic field notes. Analytic field notes are notes that include the researcher’s impressions about his observations. Analyzing field note data is a process that occurs over time, beginning at the moment a field researcher enters the field and continuing as interactions happen in the field, as the researcher writes up descriptive notes, and as the researcher considers what those interactions and descriptive notes mean.

Often field notes will develop from a more descriptive state to an analytic state when the field researcher exits a given observation period, with messy jotted notes or recordings in hand (or in some cases, literally on hand), and sits at a computer to type up those notes into a more readable format. We have already noted that carefully paying attention while in the field is important; so is what goes on immediately upon exiting the field. Field researchers typically spend several hours typing up field notes after each observation has occurred. This is often where the analysis of field research data begins. Having time outside of the field to reflect upon your thoughts about what you have seen and the meaning of those observations is crucial to developing analysis in field research studies.

Once the analytic field notes have been written or typed up, the field researcher can begin to look for patterns across the notes by coding the data. This will involve the iterative process of open and focused coding that is outlined in Chapter 10, “Qualitative Data Collection & Analysis Methods.” As mentioned in Section 12.4 “Field Notes”, it is important to note as much as you possibly can while in the field and as much as you can recall after leaving the field because you never know what might become important. Things that seem decidedly unimportant at the time may later reveal themselves to have some relevance.

As mentioned in Chapter 10, analysis of qualitative data often works inductively. The analytic process of field researchers and others who conduct inductive analysis is referred to as grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Charmaz, 2006). The goal when employing a grounded theory approach is to generate theory. Its name not only implies that discoveries are made from the ground up but also that theoretical developments are grounded in a researcher’s empirical observations and a group’s tangible experiences. Grounded theory requires that one begin with an open-ended and open-minded desire to understand a social situation or setting and involves a systematic process whereby the researcher lets the data guide her rather than guiding the data by preset hypotheses.

As exciting as it might sound to generate theory from the ground up, the experience can also be quite intimidating and anxiety-producing, since the open nature of the process can sometimes feel a little out of control. Without hypotheses to guide their analysis, researchers engaged in grounded theory work may experience some feelings of frustration or angst. The good news is that the process of developing a coherent theory that is grounded in empirical observations can be quite rewarding, not only to researchers, but also to their peers, who can contribute to the further development of new theories through additional research, and to research participants who may appreciate getting a bird’s-eye view of their every day.

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

What is field study?

What is a Field Study?

In the realm of research and data collection, a field study is a method of gathering information by observing and interacting with people or situations in their natural environment. This approach is often used in various fields, including social sciences, anthropology, sociology, and marketing. A field study is a holistic approach that seeks to understand human behavior, attitudes, and experiences in their real-life context.

Direct Answer to the Question: What is a Field Study?

A field study is a systematic and proactive process of gathering data through non-traditional means, such as observing, interviewing, and participating in the activities of individuals or groups. It involves immersing oneself in the everyday life of the research subject, often over an extended period, to gain a deeper understanding of their habits, routines, and behaviors. Field studies can be conducted in various settings, including homes, workplaces, schools, or public spaces.

Types of Field Studies

Field studies can be broadly categorized into three main types:

• Qualitative Field Studies : These studies focus on gathering in-depth, non-numerical data through methods such as observation, interviews, and focus groups. The goal is to gain a rich understanding of the research subject’s experiences, attitudes, and behaviors.
• Quantitative Field Studies : These studies involve collecting numerical data through methods like surveys, experiments, and statistical analysis. The aim is to quantify and generalize the findings to a larger population.
• Mixed Method Field Studies : These studies combine both qualitative and quantitative approaches to collect and analyze data. They often use a combination of methods, such as surveys and interviews, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research subject.

Advantages of Field Studies

Field studies offer several advantages over traditional laboratory-based research methods:

• Realistic and Contextualized Data : Field studies provide data that is collected in a real-life setting, which can be more accurate and relevant to the research subject.
• Increased Validity : By observing people in their natural environment, field studies can reduce the risk of artificial or biased responses.
• Deeper Understanding : Field studies can provide a more nuanced and detailed understanding of the research subject’s experiences and behaviors.
• Flexibility and Adaptability : Field studies can be adjusted or modified as needed to accommodate changes in the research design or unexpected events.

Challenges and Limitations of Field Studies

While field studies offer many benefits, they also present several challenges and limitations:

• Logistical Challenges : Conducting field studies can be time-consuming and require significant resources, including funding, personnel, and equipment.
• Data Quality Control : Ensuring data quality is crucial in field studies, as there is a higher risk of errors or biases.
• Ethical Considerations : Researchers must carefully consider the ethical implications of participating in field studies, particularly when interacting with vulnerable populations.
• Data Analysis and Interpretation : Processing and analyzing data from field studies can be complex and require specialized expertise.

Best Practices for Conducting Field Studies

To ensure the success of a field study, researchers should follow these best practices:

• Conduct thorough planning and preparation : Develop a clear research design, secure necessary permissions, and prepare equipment and personnel.
• Maintain a high level of objectivity : Minimize researcher bias and ensure that data collection and analysis are systematic and transparent.
• Ensure data security and confidentiality : Protect sensitive data and maintain confidentiality agreements with participants.
• Debrief and report findings accurately : Provide a comprehensive and balanced report of the research findings, taking into account both strengths and limitations.

In conclusion, a field study is a powerful tool for gathering data and gaining insights into human behavior, attitudes, and experiences. While it presents several challenges, the benefits of field studies make them a valuable addition to the research arsenal. By understanding the types of field studies, advantages, and limitations, researchers can design and conduct studies that produce high-quality data and provide meaningful contributions to the field. Remember to follow best practices and prioritize ethical considerations to ensure the success and validity of your field study.

Table: Overview of Field Study Types

Figure: Example of a Field Study Timeline

| Week 1-2 : Planning and preparation

| Week 3-8 : Data collection and observation

| Week 9-12 : Data analysis and interpretation

| Week 13-16 : Reporting and dissemination of findings

• How to rename a folder on iPhone?
• How to learn how to microblade?
• How to put signature in Outlook 2013?
• How to create pie chart in Google docs?
• How to remove music off ipod?
• Canʼt comment on Instagram posts?
• How can I get audio from a YouTube video?
• How to release music on all platforms?

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• 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.

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.

• 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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

MORE LIKE THIS

Maximize Employee Feedback with QuestionPro Workforce’s Slack Integration

Nov 6, 2024

2024 Presidential Election Polls: Harris vs. Trump

Nov 5, 2024

Your First Question Should Be Anything But, “Is The Car Okay?” — Tuesday CX Thoughts

QuestionPro vs. Qualtrics: Who Offers the Best 360-Degree Feedback Platform for Your Needs?

Nov 4, 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

When to Use Context Methods: Field and Diary Studies

December 5, 2021 2021-12-05

• Email article
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Twitter

Some  UX-research methods  involve asking users to pretend they’re in a  realistic but hypothetical  situation. For example, in a usability test, participants may be given the task to book a hotel room for an upcoming vacation to Croatia.

Other UX-research methods like interviews, surveys, and focus groups can involve asking people to describe how they did something in the past. For example, in an interview, we might ask a participant to tell us about the last time that they booked a vacation.

While we hope that users will remember important details or behave as if they really were planning a vacation, there might some important contextual information we’d miss out on by using these user research methods alone. 

Context studies use a very different approach. They involve  observing users’ behaviors in their real-life context . Participants are not asked to do anything special, except perhaps answer a few questions. 

Context methods  are user-research methods that involve studying users in their real-life environments. The goal of context methods is to learn about users’ environments, workflows, tools,  pain points , and habits. Three popular context methods are  diary studies ,  field studies , and  contextual inquiry .

A note on terminology: we use the phrase  context methods  because all these methods study the users in their context. Some other terms that may be used for these methods (in particular, for field studies and contextual inquiry) are  ethnographic methods  or  field methods . 

In This Article:

Why we need context methods, when to use which context method, further learning.

Context methods ensure that our research has high  ecological validity   (which is similar to  external validity ) — in other words, that we have an accurate understanding of how users behave naturally in their real lives.

Field and diary studies are particularly useful during the  discovery  phase  of a design project, when we’re trying to build up our understanding of our users and find opportunities to improve their experiences. They’re also commonly used to  develop customer-journey maps .

These methods can uncover:

• Discrepancies between what we  believe  users do and what they actually do
• Differences between what users  say  they do and what they actually do
• Additional tools that users employ while completing tasks or people that they work with
• Common interruptions that occur while users work
• Workarounds that people use when a product or service doesn’t perfectly fit what they need
• Habits or routines

For each of the following sections, let’s imagine we’re working for a vacation-booking site that allows users to book flights, hotels, rental cars, and tours. 

Discrepancies Between Expected and Actual User Behaviors

We often make assumptions about how our users will use our products and services. Those assumptions don’t always match reality. Real life can be much messier. Accounting for all real-life situations is impossible, even for experienced and talented designers.

By learning about these discrepancies over time, we develop a deeper understanding of our users, and we can tailor our experiences to fit people’s real behaviors.

Differences Between What Users Say and What they Do

When we ask users about their typical or past behaviors (using  interviews  or surveys, for example), they often give us inaccurate information. That can happen for a variety of reasons, but typically is due to innate  human biases  and  memory limitations .

In addition to observation-based methods like usability testing,  context methods  can help us catch these inconsistencies. 

Additional Tools and People

When we conduct usability testing, we tend to get hyperfocused on our specific product. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with this approach — it’s necessary when you’re working to discover problems within a specific UI. But without context methods, we might miss out on understanding how people use our product alongside other   tools and products.

For example, we might discover that many of our users need to write things down using pen and paper while using a complex app. That might indicate that we’re asking people to store too much information in their  short-term memories .

Additionally, in usability testing, we typically test with one person at a time. This may not be reflective of how people complete a task in reality. For example, users might need to discuss things with their partners or get approval from coworkers. People with low tech skills might need help from a tech-savvy family member.

Common Interruptions

While participating in a usability test, participants are likely to stay focused on the task at hand. But in the real world, people aren’t always able to focus entirely on one task until it’s done. They might have to multitask, handle disruptions during the task, or pause their activity to complete a different task first.

Workarounds

Human beings are resourceful. If a design doesn’t perfectly match what they need, they’ll find ways around it.

Consider the phenomenon of “desire paths” in landscape design — people often trample beautiful grass if they can shorten the route to their destination. ( Flickr has a group  dedicated to collecting photos of these desire paths.) 

User-created workarounds often signal a design failure. We can treat them as opportunities for improvement.

Habits or Routines

Methods like usability testing capture behavioral information about users in relatively short period of time — typically an hour or two. Thus, they aren’t useful for learning about behaviors that take place over a longer period of time (days, weeks, or months). 

Context methods (particularly diary studies) can uncover behaviors that users engage in frequently. These often take the form of habits or routines that users don’t think much about and may forget to mention when asked about past behaviors during an interview.

It’s impossible to plan for every way in which our users could want to use our product. Context methods can uncover unplanned situations and unexpected user needs.

The right context method for the job will depend on your research question. First, it’s important to understand what each method entails.

In a  diary study , participants document their experiences (thoughts, feelings, and behaviors) over a set period (a few days, a few weeks, or longer). The researcher usually provides some prompts in advance or during the study period for participants to answer. Diary-study participants might share photos, videos, or written submissions; and the researcher may follow up with questions about entries during the study period. (It’s also common to have a wrapup interview after the diary-study period is over.)

In a  field study,  participants go about their daily lives in their own environment (e.g., home or office) while researchers observe and document their behavior, as well as the environment. Researchers focus on not interrupting the participant and try to be as much of a “fly on the wall” as possible. A field study can last anywhere from an hour to a day or even longer (although a duration of 1–2 hours is typical).

A  contextual inquiry  is a special type of field study that combines observations and interviews. While traditional field studies emphasize observation without any interruption or interaction with the participant, in contextual inquiries the researchers rely on the interview to augment and validate their understanding of the participant’s behaviors. For example, the researchers might start with a short interview to learn about the participants’ typical day and common tasks, then, as they observe the participant, they may ask clarification questions about what they’ve observed.

The table below highlights some differences between diary studies and ethnographic methods like field studies and contextual inquiry.

Returning to the vacation-planning example, let’s imagine that we’re interested in finding out what the end-to-end experience of booking a vacation is like. We might choose a diary study since the task could involve many days or even weeks of planning activities. 

A field study or contextual inquiry may not capture all significant activities and events in the vacation-planning process. During the diary study, recruited participants who are thinking about planning a vacation would keep a log of any vacation-related activities. 

If, on the other hand, we were interested in how users purchase vacations using the web, a field study or contextual inquiry would be best. We could ask participants to save their booking tasks until we can observe them, and then, when we are with them in their own environment, we could see their setup (devices, browsers) and strategies ( if they work with others, refer to bookmarks, make notes, etc.) for finding the right vacation package.

Diary studies, field studies, and contextual inquiry are three methods which provide contextual information –– information about our users’ real-life settings and experiences. Use an observational method (like a field study or contextual inquiry) when you want to learn how users perform a task in their own environment. Use a diary study when you want to learn what the user experience looks like over time.

For more information on these methods, see our  Context Methods study guide . 

For in-depth information on context methods and other qualitative methods such as usability testing and interviews, consider our full-day course  Context Methods: Ethnographic User Research or the week-long series on  Qualitative Research .

Related Courses

User research methods: from strategy to requirements to design.

Pick the best UX research method for each stage in the design process

Learn More:

Informed Consent for UX Research

Therese Fessenden · 5 min

Problem Space and Solution Space Research

Maria Rosala · 2 min

Diary Studies

Alita Joyce · 2 min

Related Articles:

Diary Studies: Understanding Long-Term User Behavior and Experiences

Kim Flaherty · 8 min

Field Studies Should Inform Intranet Redesign

Therese Fessenden · 9 min

Field Studies Done Right: Fast and Observational

Jakob Nielsen · 3 min

Complex Application Design: A 5-Layer Framework

Kate Kaplan · 12 min

Avoid Leading Questions to Get Better Insights from Participants

Amy Schade · 4 min

No internet connection.

All search filters on the page have been cleared., your search has been saved..

• Sign in to my profile My Profile

Reader's guide

Entries a-z, subject index.

• Field Study
• By: Indeira Persaud
• In: Encyclopedia of Research Design
• Chapter DOI: https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781412961288.n152
• Subject: Anthropology , Business and Management , Criminology and Criminal Justice , Communication and Media Studies , Counseling and Psychotherapy , Economics , Education , Geography , Health , History , Marketing , Nursing , Political Science and International Relations , Psychology , Social Policy and Public Policy , Social Work , Sociology , Technology , Medicine
• Show page numbers Hide page numbers

A field study refers to research that is undertaken in the real world, where the confines of a laboratory setting are abandoned in favor of a natural setting. This form of research generally prohibits the direct manipulation of the environment by the researcher. However, sometimes, independent and dependent variables already exist within the social structure under study, and inferences can then be drawn about behaviors, social attitudes, values, and beliefs. It must be noted that a field study is separate from the concept of a field experiment. Overall, field studies belong to the category of nonexperimental designs where the researcher uses what already exists in the environment. Alternatively, field experiments refer to the category of experimental designs where the researcher follows the scientific process of formulating and testing hypotheses by invariably manipulating some aspect of the environment. It is important that prospective researchers understand the types, aims, and issues; the factors that need to be considered; and the advantages and concerns raised when conducting the field study type of research.

Field studies belong to the category of nonexperimental design. These studies include the case study —an in-depth observation of one organization, individual, or animal; naturalistic observation —observation of an environment without any attempt to interfere with variables; participant observer study —observation through the researcher's submergence into the group under study; and phenomenology —observation derived from the researcher's personal experiences. The two specific aims of field studies are exploratory research and hypothesis testing. Exploratory research seeks to examine what exists in order to have a better idea about the dynamics that operate within the natural setting. Here, the acquisition of knowledge is the main objective. With hypothesis testing, the field study seeks to determine whether the null hypothesis or the alternative hypothesis best predicts the relationship of variables in the specific context; assumptions can then be used to inform future research.

Real-Life Research and Applications

Field studies have often provided information and reference points that otherwise may not have been available to researchers. For example, the famous obedience laboratory experiment by Stanley Milgram was criticized on the grounds that persons in real-life situations would not unquestioningly carry out unusual requests by persons perceived to [Page 489] be authority figures as they did in the laboratory experiment. Leonard Bickman then decided to test the obedience hypothesis using a real-life application. He found that his participants were indeed more willing to obey the stooge who was dressed as a guard than the one who dressed as a sportsman or a milkman. Another example of field research usage is Robert Cialidini's investigation of how some professionals, such as con men, sales representatives, politicians, and the like, are able to gain compliance from others. In reality, he worked in such professions and observed the methods that these persons used to gain compliance from others. From his actual experiences, he was able to offer six principles that cover the compliance techniques used by others. Some field studies take place in the workplace to test attitudes and efficiency. Therefore, field studies can be conducted to examine a multitude of issues that include playground attitudes of children, gang behaviors, how people respond to disasters, efficiency of organization protocol, and even behavior of animals in their natural environment. Information derived from field studies result in correlational interpretations.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Field studies are employed in order to increase ecological and external validity. Because variables are not directly manipulated, the conclusions drawn are deemed to be true to life and generalizable. Also, such studies are conducted when there is absolutely no way of even creating mundane realism in the laboratory. For example, if there is a need to investigate looting behavior and the impact of persons on each other to propel this behavior, then a laboratory study cannot suffice for the investigation because of the complexity of the variables that may be involved. Field research is therefore necessary.

Although field studies are nonexperimental, this does not imply that such studies are not empirical. Scientific rigor is promoted by various means, including the methods of data collection used in the study. Data can be reliably obtained through direct observation, coding, note-taking, the use of interview questions—preferably structured—and audiovisual equipment to garner information. Even variables such as the independent variable, dependent variable, and other specific variables of interest that already operate in the natural setting may be identified and, to a lesser extent, controlled by the researcher because those variables would become the focus of the study. Overall, field studies tend to capture the essence of human behavior, particularly when the persons under observation are unaware that they are being observed, so that authentic behaviors are reflected without the influence of demand characteristics (reactivity) or social desirability answers. Furthermore, when observation is unobtrusive, the study's integrity is increased.

However, because field studies, by their very nature, do not control extraneous variables, it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain which factor or factors are more influential in any particular context. Bias can also be an issue if the researcher is testing a hypothesis. There is also the problem of replication. Any original field study sample will not be accurately reflective of any other replication of that sample. Furthermore, there is the issue of ethics. Many times, to avoid reactivity, researchers do not ask permission from their sample to observe them, and this may cause invasion-of-privacy issues even though such participants are in the public eye. For example, if research is being carried out about the types of kissing that take place in a park, even though the persons engaged in kissing are doing so in public, had they known that their actions were being videotaped, they may have strongly objected. Other problems associated with field studies include the fact that they can be quite time-consuming and expensive, especially if a number of researchers are required as well as audiovisual technology.

• Ecological Validity
• Nonexperimental Design
• Reactive Arrangements

Further Readings

• Falsifiability
• File Drawer Problem
• Central Tendency, Measures of
• Cohen's d Statistic
• Cohen's f Statistic
• Correspondence Analysis
• Descriptive Statistics
• Effect Size, Measures of
• Eta-Squared
• Factor Loadings
• Krippendorff's Alpha
• Partial Eta-Squared
• Standard Deviation
• Trimmed Mean
• Variability, Measure of
• z Distribution
• Bernoulli Distribution
• Copula Functions
• Cumulative Frequency Distribution
• Distribution
• Frequency Distribution
• Law of Large Numbers
• Normal Distribution
• Normalizing Data
• Poisson Distribution
• Quetelet's Index
• Sampling Distributions
• Weibull Distribution
• Box-and-Whisker Plot
• Column Graph
• Frequency Table
• Graphical Display of Data
• Growth Curve
• L'Abbé Plot
• Radial Plot
• Residual Plot
• Scatterplot
• U-Shaped Curve
• Alternative Hypotheses
• Critical Value
• Decision Rule
• Nondirectional Hypotheses
• Nonsignificance
• Null Hypothesis
• One-Tailed Test
• Power Analysis
• Significance Level, Concept of
• Significance Level, Interpretation and Construction
• Significance, Statistical
• Two-Tailed Test
• Type I Error
• Type II Error
• Type III Error
• “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests”
• “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait–Multimethod Matrix”
• “Meta-Analysis of Psychotherapy Outcome Studies”
• “On the Theory of Scales of Measurement”
• “Probable Error of a Mean, The”
• “Psychometric Experiments”
• “Sequential Tests of Statistical Hypotheses”
• “Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, A”
• “Validity”
• Aptitudes and Instructional Methods
• Doctrine of Chances, The
• Logic of Scientific Discovery, The
• Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences
• Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests
• Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
• Teoria Statistica Delle Classi e Calcolo Delle Probabilità
• Q -Statistic
• Association, Measures of
• Coefficient of Concordance
• Coefficient of Variation
• Coefficients of Correlation, Alienation, and Determination
• Confidence Intervals
• Margin of Error
• Nonparametric Statistics
• Parametric Statistics
• Partial Correlation
• Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient
• Polychoric Correlation Coefficient
• Randomization Tests
• Regression Coefficient
• Semipartial Correlation Coefficient
• Spearman Rank Order Correlation
• Standard Error of Estimate
• Standard Error of the Mean
• Student's t Test
• Unbiased Estimator
• b Parameter
• Computerized Adaptive Testing
• Differential Item Functioning
• Guessing Parameter
• General Linear Model
• Matrix Algebra
• Polynomials
• Sensitivity Analysis
• Yates's Notation
• Ceiling Effect
• Change Scores
• False Positive
• Gain Scores, Analysis of
• Instrumentation
• Item Analysis
• Item-Test Correlation
• Observations
• Percentile Rank
• Psychometrics
• Random Error
• Response Bias
• Sensitivity
• Social Desirability
• Specificity
• Standardized Score
• True Positive
• American Educational Research Association
• American Statistical Association
• National Council on Measurement in Education
• American Psychological Association Style
• Discussion Section
• Dissertation
• Literature Review
• Methods Section
• Purpose Statement
• Results Section
• Content Analysis
• Discourse Analysis
• Ethnography
• Focus Group
• Interviewing
• Narrative Research
• Naturalistic Inquiry
• Naturalistic Observation
• Qualitative Research
• Think-Aloud Methods
• Coefficient Alpha
• Correction for Attenuation
• Internal Consistency Reliability
• Interrater Reliability
• Parallel Forms Reliability
• Reliability
• Spearman–Brown Prophecy Formula
• Split-Half Reliability
• Standard Error of Measurement
• Test–Retest Reliability
• Aptitude-Treatment Interaction
• Cause and Effect
• Concomitant Variable
• Confounding
• Control Group
• Interaction
• Internet-Based Research Method
• Intervention
• Natural Experiments
• Network Analysis
• Replication
• Research Design Principles
• Treatment(s)
• Triangulation
• Unit of Analysis
• Yoked Control Procedure
• A Priori Monte Carlo Simulation
• Action Research
• Adaptive Designs in Clinical Trials
• Applied Research
• Behavior Analysis Design
• Block Design
• Case-Only Design
• Causal-Comparative Design
• Cohort Design
• Completely Randomized Design
• Cross-Sectional Design
• Crossover Design
• Double-Blind Procedure
• Ex Post Facto Study
• Experimental Design
• Factorial Design
• Group-Sequential Designs in Clinical Trials
• Laboratory Experiments
• Latin Square Design
• Longitudinal Design
• Meta-Analysis
• Mixed Methods Design
• Mixed Model Design
• Monte Carlo Simulation
• Nested Factor Design
• Observational Research
• Panel Design
• Partially Randomized Preference Trial Design
• Pilot Study
• Pragmatic Study
• Pre-Experimental Designs
• Pretest–Posttest Design
• Prospective Study
• Quantitative Research
• Quasi-Experimental Design
• Randomized Block Design
• Repeated Measures Design
• Response Surface Design
• Retrospective Study
• Sequential Design
• Single-Blind Study
• Single-Subject Design
• Split-Plot Factorial Design
• Thought Experiments
• Time Studies
• Time-Lag Study
• Time-Series Study
• Triple-Blind Study
• True Experimental Design
• Wennberg Design
• Within-Subjects Design
• Zelen's Randomized Consent Design
• Animal Research
• Declaration of Helsinki
• Ethics in the Research Process
• Informed Consent
• Nuremberg Code
• Participants
• Recruitment
• Clinical Significance
• Clinical Trial
• Cross-Validation
• Data Cleaning
• Delphi Technique
• Evidence-Based Decision Making
• Exploratory Data Analysis
• Inference: Deductive and Inductive
• Last Observation Carried Forward
• Planning Research
• Primary Data Source
• Q Methodology
• Research Hypothesis
• Research Question
• Scientific Method
• Secondary Data Source
• Standardization
• Statistical Control
• Critical Thinking
• Experimenter Expectancy Effect
• External Validity
• Hawthorne Effect
• Heisenberg Effect
• Internal Validity
• John Henry Effect
• Multiple Treatment Interference
• Multivalued Treatment Effects
• Nonclassical Experimenter Effects
• Order Effects
• Placebo Effect
• Pretest Sensitization
• Random Assignment
• Regression to the Mean
• Sequence Effects
• Threats to Validity
• Validity of Research Conclusions
• Volunteer Bias
• White Noise
• Cluster Sampling
• Convenience Sampling
• Demographics
• Exclusion Criteria
• Experience Sampling Method
• Nonprobability Sampling
• Probability Sampling
• Proportional Sampling
• Quota Sampling
• Random Sampling
• Random Selection
• Sample Size
• Sample Size Planning
• Sampling and Retention of Underrepresented Groups
• Sampling Error
• Stratified Sampling
• Systematic Sampling
• Categorical Variable
• Guttman Scaling
• Interval Scale
• Levels of Measurement
• Likert Scaling
• Nominal Scale
• Ordinal Scale
• Ratio Scale
• Thurstone Scaling
• Software, Free
• Homogeneity of Variance
• Homoscedasticity
• Multivariate Normal Distribution
• Normality Assumption
• Autocorrelation
• Biased Estimator
• Cohen's Kappa
• Collinearity
• Correlation
• Criterion Problem
• Critical Difference
• Data Mining
• Data Snooping
• Degrees of Freedom
• Directional Hypothesis
• Disturbance Terms
• Error Rates
• Expected Value
• Fixed-Effects Model
• Inclusion Criteria
• Influence Statistics
• Influential Data Points
• Intraclass Correlation
• Latent Variable
• Likelihood Ratio Statistic
• Loglinear Models
• Main Effects
• Markov Chains
• Method Variance
• Mixed- and Random-Effects Models
• Multilevel Modeling
• Omega Squared
• Orthogonal Comparisons
• Overfitting
• Pooled Variance
• Quality Effects Model
• Random-Effects Models
• Regression Artifacts
• Regression Discontinuity
• Restriction of Range
• Root Mean Square Error
• Rosenthal Effect
• Serial Correlation
• Simple Main Effects
• Simpson's Paradox
• Sums of Squares
• Accuracy in Parameter Estimation
• Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)
• Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
• Barycentric Discriminant Analysis
• Bivariate Regression
• Bonferroni Procedure
• Bootstrapping
• Canonical Correlation Analysis
• Categorical Data Analysis
• Confirmatory Factor Analysis
• Contrast Analysis
• Descriptive Discriminant Analysis
• Discriminant Analysis
• Dummy Coding
• Effect Coding
• Exploratory Factor Analysis
• Greenhouse–Geisser Correction
• Hierarchical Linear Modeling
• Holm's Sequential Bonferroni Procedure
• Latent Growth Modeling
• Least Squares, Methods of
• Logistic Regression
• Mean Comparisons
• Missing Data, Imputation of
• Multiple Regression
• Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)
• Pairwise Comparisons
• Path Analysis
• Post Hoc Analysis
• Post Hoc Comparisons
• Principal Components Analysis
• Propensity Score Analysis
• Sequential Analysis
• Stepwise Regression
• Structural Equation Modeling
• Survival Analysis
• Trend Analysis
• Yates's Correction
• t Test, Independent Samples
• t Test, One Sample
• t Test, Paired Samples
• Bartlett's Test
• Behrens–Fisher t′ Statistic
• Chi-Square Test
• Duncan's Multiple Range Test
• Dunnett's Test
• Fisher's Least Significant Difference Test
• Friedman Test
• Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) Test
• Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
• Kruskal–Wallis Test
• Mann–Whitney U Test
• Mauchly Test
• McNemar's Test
• Multiple Comparison Tests
• Newman–Keuls Test and Tukey Test
• Omnibus Tests
• Scheffé Test
• Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD)
• Welch's t Test
• Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test
• Bayes's Theorem
• Central Limit Theorem
• Classical Test Theory
• Correspondence Principle
• Critical Theory
• Game Theory
• Gauss–Markov Theorem
• Generalizability Theory
• Grounded Theory
• Item Response Theory
• Occam's Razor
• Probability, Laws of
• Theory of Attitude Measurement
• Weber–Fechner Law
• Control Variables
• Criterion Variable
• Dependent Variable
• Dichotomous Variable
• Endogenous Variables
• Exogenous Variables
• Independent Variable
• Nuisance Variable
• Predictor Variable
• Random Variable
• Concurrent Validity
• Construct Validity
• Content Validity
• Criterion Validity
• Face Validity
• Multitrait–Multimethod Matrix
• Predictive Validity
• Systematic Error
• Validity of Measurement

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day free trial, more like this, sage recommends.

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

• Sign in/register

Navigating away from this page will delete your results

Please save your results to "My Self-Assessments" in your profile before navigating away from this page.

Sign in to my profile

Please sign into your institution before accessing your profile

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources have to offer.

You must have a valid academic email address to sign up.

Get off-campus access

• View or download all content my institution has access to.

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources has to offer.

• view my profile
• view my lists

• Health, Fitness & Dieting
• Psychology & Counseling

Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime Try Prime and start saving today with fast, free delivery

Amazon Prime includes:

Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.

• Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
• Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
• Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
• A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
• Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
• Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access

Important:  Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.

Return this item for free

We offer easy, convenient returns with at least one free return option: no shipping charges. All returns must comply with our returns policy.

• Go to your orders and start the return
• Select your preferred free shipping option
• Drop off and leave!

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

The Field Study in Social Psychology: How to Conduct Research Outside of a Laboratory Setting? (Research Methods in Social Psychology) 1st Edition

Purchase options and add-ons.

This unique book offers a comprehensive introduction to field studies as a research method in social psychology, demonstrating that field studies are an important element of contemporary social psychology, and encourages its usage in a methodologically correct and ethical manner.

The authors demonstrate that field studies are an important and a much-needed element of contemporary social psychology and that abandoning this method would be at a great loss for the field. Examining successful examples of field studies, including those by Sherif and Sherif, studies of obedience by Hofling, or the studies of stereotypes of the Chinese by LaPiere, they explore the advantages and limitations of the field study method, whilst offering practical guidance on how it can be used in experiments now and in the future. Covering the history and decline of the field study method, particularly in the wake of the replication crisis, the text argues for the revival the field study method by demonstrating the importance of studying the behaviour of subjects in real life, rather than laboratory conditions. In fact, the results point to certain variables and research phenomena that can only be captured using field studies. In the final section, the authors also explain the methods to follow when conducting field studies, to make sure they are methodologically correct and meet the criteria of contemporary expectations regarding statistical calculations, while also ensuring that they are conducted ethically.

This is an essential reading for graduate and undergraduate students and academics in social psychology taking courses on methodology, and researchers looking to use field study methods in their research.

• ISBN-10 0367555565
• ISBN-13 978-0367555566
• Edition 1st
• Publisher Routledge
• Publication date September 9, 2021
• Part of series Research Methods in Social Psychology
• Language English
• Dimensions 7 x 0.75 x 9.5 inches
• Print length 206 pages
• See all details

Editorial Reviews

"In a particularly engaging fashion, the authors explore the methodology, ethics, and importance of field research within social psychology. They point to the rich benefits of field research, two of which are especially significant. First, field research allows researchers to assess whether the effects they are investigating are powerful enough to appear in naturally-occurring environments. Second, it allows the public to recognize the relevance of social psychological findings to their lives."

Robert Cialdini , Arizona State University, USA

About the Author

Tomasz Grzyb is Professor at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw Faculty in Poland, and President of Polish Social Psychological Society. His main area of interest is social influence and manipulation techniques. He is also a supporter of courses concerning the basics of social influence studies organized for military officers engaged in PSYOPS. He has published several articles about marketing, social psychology, advertising, and education.

Dariusz Dolinski is Professor at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw Faculty in Poland, and editor of the Polish Psychological Bulletin . He was formerly the president of the Polish Association of Social Psychology and president of the Committee for Psychology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. He is the author of Techniques of Social Influence (Routledge, 2016) and (with T. Grzyb) The Social Psychology of Obedience Towards Authority (Routledge, 2020).

Product details

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Routledge; 1st edition (September 9, 2021)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 206 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0367555565
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0367555566
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 12.8 ounces
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 7 x 0.75 x 9.5 inches
• #1,913 in Medical Psychology Research
• #2,043 in Popular Psychology Research
• #4,148 in Medical Applied Psychology

About the author

Tomasz grzyb.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read book recommendations and more.

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

No customer reviews

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Registry & Gift List
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices