Critical reflection on the fieldwork process practice questions.

For her observation a student sat at the same table in a school canteen on four lunch breaks with her notebook open. On the first day several pupils asked what she was writing and then rearranged themselves so that they were seated in her view; by the fourth day they walked past without comment. Which statement about the first day's material is methodologically correct?

• The first day's notes should be discarded, because behaviour recorded in front of a stranger is artificial.
• The pupils were concealing their ordinary friendships from an outsider they had reason to distrust.
• The presence of the observer was part of what produced the seating recorded on that day.
• The notes are unusable until a second observer has recorded the same scene for comparison.

Answer: The presence of the observer was part of what produced the seating recorded on that day.

The reaction to being watched is itself material about the setting, not contamination to be thrown away, and it is one reason fieldwork is extended rather than single-visit. Discarding the day would remove the evidence that the researcher's presence made a difference at all.

Two students hand in critical reflections on the same piece of school-based fieldwork. One sets out what she found out about the way the queue at the serving counter is organised; the other sets out how her decision to observe only at midday shaped what she was able to see. The second is the stronger critical reflection because it

• summarises the findings in fewer words and leaves more room for a conclusion
• avoids making any claim about the setting that a reader could later contradict
• examines how the method produced the data instead of restating the data
• shows that more material was collected than the first student managed to gather

Answer: examines how the method produced the data instead of restating the data

The critical reflection is an account of the process: what the method made visible, what it kept out of view and what the researcher's decisions did to the record. Findings appear in it only as something to be accounted for.

A student's access to a community allotment came through the site secretary, who introduced him to plot-holders she knew well and walked him past two plots without stopping. His critical reflection should record that

• the secretary acted improperly in steering him away from certain members of the association
• the sample became representative once he had spoken to more than ten plot-holders
• an introduction from an office-holder guarantees that the accounts collected are typical
• the introductions built his network and, in doing so, set a limit on whom he heard from

Answer: the introductions built his network and, in doing so, set a limit on whom he heard from

An introduction carries the position of whoever gives it, so the people met first, and the people never met, follow from that one relationship. Naming the effect is analysis; treating it as misconduct or as a solved problem is not.

Reviewing her fieldnotes, a student finds the entry: 'The older man was annoyed that the younger ones arrived late.' In preparing the material for analysis she should

• delete the entry, since a feeling attributed to someone cannot belong in a record
• separate what was seen and heard from the reading she placed on it
• add the same interpretation to neighbouring entries so that the notes read consistently
• replace 'annoyed' with a stronger word that conveys the atmosphere of the scene

Answer: separate what was seen and heard from the reading she placed on it

Annoyance is an inference; what was observable was a gesture, a tone or a remark. Keeping the two apart lets the inference be tested against the record instead of being carried into the analysis as though it had been witnessed.

A student's critical reflection consists of a list of things she would have done with more time: more visits, more interviews, a second site. As a reflection this is weak principally because

• a reflection should not mention the constraints under which the fieldwork was carried out
• it says nothing about what her actual choices did to the findings she in fact reported
• students are not expected to consider alternatives to the design they used
• the constraints she lists would apply equally to any project of this kind and are therefore true

Answer: it says nothing about what her actual choices did to the findings she in fact reported

A wish list describes a better project rather than examining this one. The examinable move is to connect a decision to a consequence: because every visit was on a Saturday, nothing can be said about weekday use, and the claim about who dominates the space is limited accordingly.

A student notes in her reflection that the recorder appeared to make two of her interviewees uncomfortable. The strongest version of this observation would add

• an apology for having used a recorder during the interviews at all
• a statement that recorders should never be used in fieldwork of this kind
• what changed in what those two said, and which of her claims therefore rests on weaker material
• the technical specification of the device and the length of each of the recordings made, together with the file names under which the recordings were stored

Answer: what changed in what those two said, and which of her claims therefore rests on weaker material

Naming an effect is a start; tracing it to particular data and particular claims is the reflection. If the two shortest interviews are also the ones supporting her main point, that is exactly what the reader needs to know.