AYUNTAMIENTO DE BURGOS

Definition

The nature of the interaction that a researcher has with his or her research subjects.

Distinctive Features

Good fieldwork relations are very often crucial for the conduct of valid research as the relationship with respondents inevitably affects what the researcher is allowed to observe or be told. A good fieldwork relationship is characterized by trust, openness, and commitment but the depth of the interaction will vary depending on the methods of data collection used. For example if data collection is by focus group, telephone interview or a one-off face-to-face interview the researcher will not be able to invest too much time into developing the rela- tionship. In such situations the researcher should be concerned to present him or herself in a manner that puts the respondent at ease and encourages him or her to talk openly about his or her views. Typically this would mean present- ing oneself as friendly, interested and open to the subject’s opinions. Field rela- tions may be damaged if the researcher presents him or herself as too radical, with a particular axe to grind or point to make.

By contrast other data collection methods involve the researcher engag- ing in more intense field relationships. In ethnography the researcher engages in close contact with members of a social group for extended periods of time. Furthermore, ethnography often requires the researcher to engage with mem- bers of the culture across a range of activities, such as social events, leisure activities or times when the researcher is simply just spending time ‘hanging out’ with members of the group. Inevitably in such situations friendships will develop, particularly between the researcher and key informants. Similarly researchers, particularly those writing from a feminist perspective who have conducted repeated face-to-face interviews with respondents (for example Cornwell, 1984; Oakley, 1981), describe how their fieldwork relationships change over time as friendships and mutual trust develop, thereby enabling them to access private accounts where more personal thoughts are revealed.

A number of sociologists have commented on the influence of gender on field relations. These accounts maintain that social knowledge is realized within a pre-existing framework of understanding. If the researcher’s experi- ences and biography reflect the same circumstances as the respondent then the two are more likely to have shared understandings. In ethnographic research gender also influences the types of activities that the ethnographer might

Fieldwork Relationships

easily have access to co-participate in, with activities in many social groups being gendered (for example playing football, childcare). The majority of accounts of the influence of gender on fieldwork relationships have been written by female researchers studying women (see for example Oakley, 1981), although researchers have described cross-gender fieldwork relationships of women studying men (see for example Cunningham-Burley, 1984), and there have been a few accounts from male researchers of their gendered fieldwork rela- tionships (see for example McKeganey and Bloor, 1991). The issue of symme- try of perspective is not limited to gender. There are the more obvious social classifications such as the researcher’s age, ethnicity and educational and professional background, but also more subtle influences such as the use of vocabulary or regional accents.

Examples

Emerson and Pollner (1988) provide an example of how field relationships may be undermined by circumstances outside of the researcher’s control. The authors describe how their fieldwork relationships with members of a Psychiatric Emergency Team (PET) deteriorated sharply when funding for the teams was being threatened. In these circumstances the respondents, under- standably concerned for the welfare of their clients and their own jobs, became reluctant to tolerate research findings that might in any way be construed to justify service cuts.

Oakley (1981) discusses the limitations of traditional textbook recom- mendations that fieldwork should be a one-way eliciting of information con- ducted with objectivity and detachment. In her fieldwork relationships with women for research on their transition to motherhood she argues that, in order for her repeated interviews to be successful, her fieldwork relationships were characterized by friendship, trust and emotional involvement that took the relationship far beyond a question-answer session: she was frequently offered refreshments, answered questions that the women asked her and was often phoned by the women who kept her informed of their important experiences. Indeed four years after the data collection had taken place Oakley was still in contact with more than a third of the women, several of them having become close friends.

Evaluation

Although the lack of a shared socialization may impair the researcher’s ability to understand the perspective of the respondent, accounts of fieldwork relation- ships may overstate the importance of obvious social categories (gender, ethnicity,

etc.). Perhaps of more importance, for the research subjects at least, is the researcher’s personality and performance in the setting.

Researchers should avoid the pitfall of thinking that respondents have a hidden authentic self that they will reveal to the researcher only in the context of an empathic fieldwork relationship: the belief that truth lies beneath the surface waiting for the skilled researcher to access it is characterized by Silverman (1989) as romanticism.

Research accounts of field relationships typically describe how rapport between the researcher and subjects improves over time, however there are sit- uations in which the relationship can deteriorate. When operating in illicit or quasi-illicit settings, or sensitive settings where gatekeepers are eager to protect the interests of more vulnerable subjects (for example in schools or hospitals), the relationship might be particularly fragile to perceived threats to confiden- tiality or betrayal. Consequently researchers will need to closely monitor and delicately manage their relationships with their informants as well as the wider context in which the study is conducted.

Associated Concepts:

Access, Ethnography, Feminist Methods, Focus

Group, Interviews, Key Informants, Public/Private Accounts, Telephone Inter-

viewing (see Electronic Data Collection), Trust.

Fieldwork Relationships

87 Key Readings

Cornwell, J. (1984) Hard Earned Lives:

Accounts of Health and Illness from East London. London: Tavistock.

Cunningham-Burley, S. (1984) ‘We don’t talk about it: issues of gender and method in the portrayal of grand- fatherhood’, Sociology, 18(3): 325–338. Emerson, R. and Pollner, E. (1988) ‘On

the uses of members’ responses to researchers’ accounts’, Human Organi-

zation, 47: 189–198.

McKeganey, N. and Bloor, M. (1991) ‘Spotting the invisible man: the influ- ence of male gender on fieldwork rela- tions’, British Journal of Sociology, 42(2): 195–210.

Oakley, A. (1981) ‘Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms’, in H. Roberts

(ed.), Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge. pp. 30–61.

*Roberts, H. (ed.) (1981) Doing Feminist

Research. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul.

Scott, S. (1984) ‘The personal and the pow- erful: gender and status in sociological research’, in C. Bell and H. Roberts (eds),

Social Researching: Politics, Problems and Practice. London: Routledge and Kegan

Paul. pp. 165–178.

Silverman, D. (1989) ‘The impossible dreams of reformism and romanticism’, in J.F. Gubrium and D. Silverman (eds),

The Politics of Field Research: Sociology Beyond Enlightenment. London: Sage.