Designing and Conducting Fieldwork (Modules 1, 5, 9, 13)
Monday, June 16; Tuesday, June 17; Wednesday, June 18; Friday, June 20
Diana Kapiszewski (Georgetown University), Lauren M. MacLean (Northeastern University), and Rob Mickey (University of Michigan), and Jessie Trudeau (Syracuse University)
This module sequence discusses strategies for designing, planning, and conducting fieldwork in the social sciences. We begin by considering the multiple aspects of preparing for field research, and then discuss some practical elements – with intellectual implications – of operating in the field. On the second day we talk through key questions relating to research ethics – the importance of which is discussed throughout the module sequence – and consider two “more-interactive” forms of data collection, surveys and interviews. The third module continues the discussion of interview techniques, and also covers focus groups, as well as the types of observation in which all social scientists who conduct field research engage. Finally, the fourth module considers the conduct of archival research, and the various ways in which scholars iterate on their research design and field research design as they conduct fieldwork. Each session of each module is conducted with the understanding that participants have carefully read the assigned materials. The instructors present key points drawing on the assigned readings, other published work on field research, and the experiences they and others have had with managing fieldwork’s diverse challenges. Interaction and discussion in small and large groups is encouraged.
Book to Purchase: Kapiszewski, D., MacLean, L. M., & Read, B. L. (2015). Field research in political science: practices and principles.
Participants may enter the module sequence after it has begun.
Preparing for Fieldwork and Operating in the Field (M1, June 16)
This module introduces the fieldwork module sequence, considering the structure of the modules and presenting some of the overarching themes we will consider over the next three days. The module then begins to discuss the design, planning, and execution of field research. We offer strategies for addressing the intellectual, social, emotional, health, and logistical challenges that carrying out field research can involve. Each session is conducted with the understanding that participants have carefully read the assigned materials. The instructors present key points drawing on the assigned readings, other published work on field research, and the experiences they and others have had with managing fieldwork’s diverse challenges. Interaction and discussion in small and large groups is encouraged.
8:45am - 10:15am – Borders and Varieties of Fieldwork
Diana Kapiszewski and Lauren M. MacLean
This session introduces the fieldwork modules, outlining their structure and identifying some underlying themes that we will consider throughout the three days of the module sequence, including questions of positionality and power, and the similarities and differences between digital and traditional fieldwork. We discuss our conception of field research as entailing repeated shifts among research design, data collection, and data analysis, consider some of the implications of these shifts, and evaluate the benefits of iterating on one’s research design. We consider fieldwork’s heterogeneity (how it varies across contexts, researchers, projects, and points of time in the same project), begin to reflect on the diverse challenges that fieldwork entails, and discuss the importance of conducting fieldwork with research ethics continuously in mind.
Required readings:
-
Kapiszewski, D., MacLean, L. M., & Read, B. L. (2015). Field Research in Political Science: Practices and Principles. Field research in political science: practices and principles. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1. (book to purchase)
-
Wood, E. J. (2006). The ethical challenges of field research in conflict zones. Qualitative Sociology, 29(3), 373-386. DOI: 10.1007/s11133-006-9027-8
-
Hauck, R. J. et al. (2008). Symposium on Protecting Human Research Participants, IRBs, and Political Science Redux. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41(3), 475-511. See in particular contributions by Mitchell Seligson, Dvora Yanow, and Peri Schwartz-Shea. doi:10.1017/S1049096508080839
Suggested readings:
-
Collier, D. (1999) Data, Field Work and Extracting New Ideas at Close Range. APSA-CP Newsletter, 10(1), 1-2, 4-6
-
Wood, E. (2007). Field Methods. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics
-
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 5.
-
Collier, D., Freedman D.A., Fearon, J.D., Laitin, D.D., Gerring, J., & Goertz, G. (2008). Symposium: Case Selection, Case Studies, and Causal Inference. Qualitative & Multi-Method Research, 6(2), 2-16.
-
Loaeza, S., Stevenson, R., & Moehler, D. C. (2005). Symposium: should everyone do fieldwork?. APSA-CP, 16(2), 8-18.
-
Hummel, Calla, and Dana El Kurd. (2021). “Mental health and fieldwork.” PS: Political Science & Politics 54.1: 121-125. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520001055
-
Digital Fieldwork website (www.digitalfieldwork.org)
1:30pm - 3:00pm – Preparing for Fieldwork
Diana Kapiszewski and Lauren M. MacLean
This session addresses pre-dissertation and other exploratory research, logistical preparation for fieldwork, securing funding, networking to obtain contacts and interviews, and negotiating institutional affiliation. We also introduce strategies for setting and tracking the achievement of data-collection goals – developing a data-collection plan – and consider the similarities and differences between preparing for digital and traditional fieldwork.
Required readings:
-
Kapiszewski, D., MacLean, L.M., Read, B.L. (2015). Preparing for Fieldwork. Field Research in Political Science: Practices and Principles. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 3 (book to purchase)
-
Przeworski, A., & Salomon, F. (1995). The art of writing proposals: Some candid suggestions for applicants to Social Science Research Council competitions. Social Science Research Foundation.
-
Symposium: Back to the Field: Uncertainty and Risk in Field Research. (2022) Qualitative and Multi-Method Research. Vol 20.2. Contributors: Jannis J. Grimm, Ellen Lust, Kevin Koehler, Sarah E. Parkinson, Isabell Schierenbeck, and Dina Zayed. https://www.qmmrpublication.com/_files/ugd/7e043e_dcf1320d629441a9a5cb93be211b185f.pdf
Suggested readings:
-
Barrett, C. B., & Cason, J. (2020). Identifying a Site and Funding Source. Overseas research II: A practical guide. Routledge. (ebook pdf is available at SU library)
-
Barrett, C. B., & Cason, J. (2020). Predeparture Preparations. Overseas research II: A practical guide. Routledge. (ebook pdf is available at SU library)
-
Altman, M. (2009). Funding, funding. PS: Political Science & Politics, 42(03), 521-526. doi:10.1017/S1049096509090830
-
Awal, Mohammed, et al. Forthcoming. “Perfect Planning May be Impossible… but You Can Work to Change Knowledge Production.” In The Handbook of Field Research, edited by Naomi Holmes and Dan Hammett, Routledge.
3:30pm - 5:00pm – Operating in the Field: Overview of Data-Collection Techniques
Diana Kapiszewski and Lauren M. MacLean
This session offers practical advice on collecting data and managing interpersonal relations in the field. We introduce a range of more-interactive and less-interactive data-collection techniques, with emphasis on the latter. We consider the overall strengths and weaknesses of these different approaches to data collection, think about how they can be combined, and begin to discuss the ethical challenges that each can entail. We discuss the formation and maintenance of professional relationships in the field, such as hiring and working with research assistants and collaborating with other researchers. We also consider the similarities and differences between conducting digital and traditional fieldwork.
Required readings:
-
Kapiszewski, D., MacLean, L. M., & Read, B. L. (2015). Managing in the Field: Logistical, Social, Operational, and Ethical Challenges. Field research in political science: practices and principles. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 4. (book to purchase)
-
Karlan, D., & Appel, J. (2016). Failing in the field: what we can learn when field research goes wrong. Princeton University Press. 17-70. (ebook pdf is available at SU library)
Suggested readings:
-
Fuji, L.A. (2013). Working with Interpreters. Interview research in political science. Cornell University Press. (ebook pdf is available at SU library)
-
Cammett, M. (2013) Positionality and Sensitive Topics: Matched Proxy Interviewing as a Research Strategy. Interview Research in Political Science. Cornell University Press. (ebook pdf is available at SU library)
-
Carapico S., Clark, J.A., Jamal, A., Romano, D., Schwedler, J. & Tessler, M. (2006). “Symposium: The methodologies of field research in the Middle East,” PS: Political Science and Politics 39(3). doi:10.1017/S1049096506060707
-
Krause, P., Szekely, O., Bloom, M., Christia, F., Daly, S. Z., Lawson, C., … & Zakayo, A. (2021). COVID-19 and fieldwork: Challenges and solutions. PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(2), 264-269. doi:10.1017/S1049096520001754
-
Managing Qualitative Social Science Data self-guided on-line course (https://managing-qualitative-data.org/)
Research Ethics, Surveys, and Interviews (M5, June 17)
This module begins with a discussion of research ethics. The rest of the sessions of this module and the first two of the following modules in this sequence consider a range of “more-interactive” data-collection techniques, i.e., techniques in which information is obtained or generated through interacting with people. We discuss surveys and focus groups, and conclude with two sessions on interviewing. We consider both the digital and traditional forms of all of these techniques, and the ethical underpinnings of each.
8:45am - 10:15am – Research Ethics
Diana Kapiszewski, Lauren M. MacLean, and Jessie Trudeau
Research ethics form the bedrock of all social science inquiry. We consider when and how ideas about research ethics in the social sciences developed and became formalized, and discuss the rules and organizations that guide and regulate research ethics in the social sciences. We also think through the various dimensions of ethics in practice, and reasons why social scientists may design, conduct, and disseminate research more or less ethically. We argue that research that is conducted ethically is better research, and consider three pathways through which the ethical conduct of inquiry strengthens research and foments the cumulation of knowledge: contextualization, reflexivity and transparency.
Required readings:
-
Baarts, C. (2009). “Stuck in the middle: Research ethics caught between science and politics.” Qualitative Research, 9, 423–439.
-
Bailey, Kenneth D. 1988. “Ethical Dilemmas in Social Problems Research: A Theoretical Framework.” The American Sociologist 19 (2): 121-137. https://https://doi.article/10.1007/BF02691806.
-
Wackenhut, A. F. (2018). “Ethical Considerations and Dilemmas Before, During and After Fieldwork in Less-Democratic Contexts: Some Reflections from Post-Uprising Egypt.” The American Sociologist, 49(2), 242-257.
-
Howlett, M. (2022). Looking at the ‘field’ through a Zoom lens: Methodological reflections on conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research, 22(3), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120985691
Suggested readings:
-
Porisky, Alesha and Lauren M. MacLean. Forthcoming. “The Ethics of Compensation in Political Science Research.” Comparative Political Studies.
-
Cronin-Furman, Kate, and Milli Lake. 2018. “Ethics Abroad: Fieldwork in Fragile and Violent Contexts.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (3): 607–14.
-
Parkinson, S. E. (2022). (Dis)courtesy Bias: “Methodological Cognates,” Data Validity, and Ethics in Violence-Adjacent Research. Comparative Political Studies, 55(3), 420–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211024309
-
Müller-Funk, L. (2021). “Research with Refugees in Fragile Political Contexts: How Ethical Reflections Impact Methodological Choices,” Journal of Refugee Studies 34, no 2, 2308–2332, https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feaa013.
-
Davis, J. M., & Wilfahrt, M. (2023). “Enumerator Experiences in Violent Research Environments.” Comparative Political Studies, 57(4), 675-709. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231178735
1:30pm - 3:00pm – The Benefits and Challenges of Surveys
Lauren M. MacLean and Jessie Trudeau
This session introduces surveys as a data collection technique. It considers the benefits and challenges of conducting surveys, and what survey data can teach us about the world. We introduce important research choices related to fieldwork and survey implementation, including survey mode, sampling, and questionnaire design. We emphasize the importance of connecting the data collection plan for your project to the questions included in your questionnaire and anticipating the potential model and analysis. We discuss the costs and benefits of different types of survey question types.
Required readings:
-
Kapiszewski, D., MacLean, L.M., Read, B.L. (2015). Surveys in the Context of Field Research. Field Research in Political Science: Practices and Principles. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 8. (book to purchase)
-
Jensenius, F. (2014). “The Fieldwork of Quantitative Data Collection.” PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(2), 402-404. doi:10.1017/S1049096514000298
Suggested readings:
-
Brady, H. E. (2000). “Contributions of survey research to political science.” PS: Political Science & Politics, 33(01), 47-58. DOI: 10.2307/420775
-
Schaeffer, N. C., & Presser, S. (2003). The science of asking questions. Annual review of sociology, 29(1), 65-88. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.110702.110112
-
Zaller, John and Stanley Feldman. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 36: 579-616.
-
Johnson, Timothy, Patrick Kulesa, Young Ik Cho, and Sharon Shavitt. 2005. “The Relation between Culture and Response Styles: Evidence from 19 Countries.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36(2): 264-77.
-
Stantcheva, S. 2022. “How to Run Surveys.” https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stantcheva/files/How_to_run_surveys_Stantcheva.pdf
3:30pm - 5:00pm – Surveys and Qualitative Interviews
Lauren M. MacLean, Jessie Trudeau, and Diana Kapiszewski
This session continues the previous discussion about survey interviews, focusing on the use of cognitive interviews for survey development and asking sensitive questions. We then begin to consider the many challenges and opportunities that conducting interviews in the field entails. We discuss different types of interviews, interview preparation before leaving for the field and once arrived, respondent selection, and the design of interview protocols. Throughout, we offer a range of practical advice.
Required readings:
-
Kapiszewski, D., MacLean, L.M., Read, B.L. (2015). Interviews, Oral Histories, and Focus Groups. Field Research in Political Science: Practices and Principles. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 6. (book to purchase)
-
von Soest, C. (2023) “Why Do We Speak to Experts? Reviving the Strength of the Expert Interview Method.” Perspectives on Politics 21, no. 1 : 277–87. doi:10.1017/S1537592722001116.
-
Tavory, I. (2020) Interviews and Inference: Making Sense of Interview Data in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Sociology 43, 449–465
-
Bleich, E. & Pekkanen, R. (2013) “How to Report Interview Data.” Interview Research in Political Science. Cornell University Press. (ebook pdf is available at SU library)
Suggested readings:
-
Beatty, Paul C., and Gordon B. Willis. 2000. “Research Synthesis: The Practice of Cognitive Interviewing.” Public Opinion Quarterly 71(2): 287-311.
-
Soss, J. (2006). Talking our way to meaningful explanations. Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. Taylor and Francis. P. 127-149. (ebook pdf is available at SU library)
Interviews, Focus Groups, and Ethnographic Observation (M9, June 18)
This module continues to consider “more-interactive” data-collection techniques, i.e., techniques in which information is obtained or generated through interacting with people. We continue the discussion of interviews, and then consider focus groups. The module concludes by emphasizing the importance of reflexive observation in the field. We consider the ethical underpinnings of all of these techniques, and consider both digital and traditional forms.
8:45am - 10:15am – Interviews
Diana Kapiszewski
This session continues the discussion of interviewing begun in the previous module. We consider a range of choices and challenges involved in conducting interviews and following-up thereafter, options for capturing interview data, and the evidentiary strengths and weaknesses of interview data. Participants will have the opportunity to create various tools for use in their own research, including a research pitch and an informed consent script, and sample interview questions.
Required readings:
-
Small, M. L., & Cook, J. M. (2023). Using Interviews to Understand Why: Challenges and Strategies in the Study of Motivated Action. Sociological Methods & Research, 52(4), 1591-1631.
-
Rubin, H. & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative Interviewing. The Art of Hearing Data, 2nd ed. Sage. Chapters 6-9. (ebook pdf is available at SU library)
-
Tansey, O. (2007). Process tracing and elite interviewing: a case for non-probability sampling. PS: Political Science & Politics, 40(04), 765-772. DOI: 10.1017/S1049096507071211
Suggested readings:
-
Glas, A. (2021). Positionality, Power, and Positions of Power: Reflexivity in Elite Interviewing. PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(3), 438-442. doi:10.1017/S1049096520002048
-
Fujii, L. A. (2010). “Shades of truth and lies: Interpreting testimonies of war and violence.” Journal of Peace Research, 47(2), 231-241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343309353097
1:30pm - 3:00pm – Focus Group Discussions
Lauren MacLean
This session highlights the value of focus group discussions for particular types of research questions and projects. We compare a survey instrument, qualitative interview guide and focus group question guide to uncover the key strengths and weaknesses of these different types of interviews. We discuss how to approach the logistical preparations for focus groups and the unique ethical challenges involved with informed consent and confidentiality. We emphasize the critical role of the facilitator in managing the discussion, including how to handle challenging participants of a variety of types.
Required readings:
-
Cyr, Jennifer. (2019). “Introduction.” And “When to Use Focus Groups”. In Focus Groups for the Social Science Researcher. New York: Cambridge University Press. P. 1-17 and p. 18-39.
-
Grimm, J. J. (2022). The mixed blessing of digital fieldwork: Digital security and ethical dilemmas of remote research during and after the pandemic. Qualitative and Multi- Method Research, 20(2), 21–25.
-
Short, S.E., Perecman, E., & Curran S.R. (2006) “Focus Groups.” A Handbook for Social Science Field Research: Essays & Bibliographic Sources on Research Design and Methods. Sage.
-
MacLean, Lauren. 2014. “Training Handbook for Focus Group Facilitators.” Prepared for APSA Alumni Workshop at Makerere University Business School.
Suggested readings:
- Cyr, Jennifer. 2024. “Focus Groups.” In Jennifer Cyr and Sara Wallace Goodman, eds., Doing Good Qualitative Research. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 222-232.
3:30pm - 5:00pm – Observation and Ethnography (For All!)
Lauren MacLean
This session makes a pitch for the value of ethnographic observation during any fieldwork project, whether or not you consider yourself to be “an ethnographer”. Fieldwork involves many everyday interactions and experiences that generate important insights on your research topic or question, even if they are not part of your official data collection plan. We discuss how to leverage these insights by more systematically incorporating ethnographic practices for observation, note-taking, and analysis.
Required readings:
-
KMR. 2015. “Site-Intensive Methods: Ethnography and Participant Observation.” In Field Research in Political Science: Practices and Principles. New York: Cambridge University Press, 234-265.
-
Kubik, Jan. 2009. “Ethnography of Politics: Foundations, Applications, Prospects.” In Edward Schatz, ed., Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 25-52.
-
Bayard de Volo, Lorraine. 2009. “Participant Observation, Politics, and Power Relations: Nicaraguan Mothers and U.S. casino Waitresses.” In Edward Schatz, ed., Political Ethnography, p. 217-326.
Suggested readings:
-
Wedeen, Lisa. 2010. “Reflections on Ethnographic Work in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 13: 255-272.
-
James C. Scott. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 1-47.
-
Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. Appendix – Notes on method: Participant Observation.
-
Katherine J. Cramer. 2016. The Politics of Resentment. Rural Consciousness In Wisconsin And The Rise Of Scott Walker. Chicago.
-
Hocschild, Arlie. 2016. Strangers in their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. New York: The New Press. National Book Award Finalist.
-
Pachirat, Timothy. 2017. Among Wolves: Ethnography and the Immersive Study of Power. Taylor & Francis, Routledge Series on Interpretive Methods.
Archival Research and Dynamic Research Design (M13, June 20)
This module begins with a discussion of a preeminent less-interactive form of fieldwork – archival research – considering its conduct in both digital and traditional forms. The module concludes with a consideration of the multiple strategies scholars can adopt in order to engage in analysis and assess their progress in the field. We consider the “iterative” nature of research design and field research design, why design is iterative, and what measures can be taken so that iteration does not undermine inference.
8:45am - 10:15am – Archival Research I
Rob Mickey
This session introduces participants to the process of planning and conducting fieldwork aimed at collecting and analyzing archival evidence, remote- access archival research, and digitized sources. Where, when and how does one start? What does one actually do at an archive? What are concrete strategies for time management, navigating materials, note-taking, and organizing and storing evidence?
Required readings:
-
Kim, Diana S. 2024. “Locating and Working with Historical Data.” Pages 255-61 in Jennifer Cyr and Sara Wallace Goodman, eds., Doing Good Qualitative Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Auerbach, A. (2018). “Informal Archives: Historical Narratives and the Preservation of Paper in India’s Urban Slums.” Studies in Comparative International Development, 53:343-364.
-
Balcells, L. and C. Sullivan. (2018). “New Findings from Conflict Archives: An Introduction and Methodological Framework.” Journal of Peace Research, 55(2), 137-146.
Suggested readings:
-
Kim, D. (2020). Empires of Vice: The Rise of Opium Prohibition across Southeast Asia. Princeton University Press, Chapter 1 (pp. 3-27).
-
Putnam, L. (2016). “The Transnational and the Text-Searchable: Digitized Sources and the Shadows They Cast.” American Historical Review, 121(2): 377-402.
1:30pm - 3:00pm – Archival Research II
Rob Mickey
This session focuses on how to use archival materials. Participants will consider and grapple with the many biases that arise in working in the archives, as well as how to interpret archival documents. The session also deals with how to make archival research more transparent to readers, ethical challenges encountered in the archives, and how to transform archival evidence into quantitative data.
Required readings:
-
Lustick, I. (1996). “History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias.” American Political Science Review 90(3): 605- 618.
-
Lee, A. 2022. “The Library of Babel: How (and How Not) to Use Archival Sources in Political Science.” Journal of Historical Political Economy 2(3): 499-526.
-
Cirone, A. and A. Spirling. 2021. “Turning History into Data: Data Collection, Measurement, and Inference in Historical Political Economy.” Journal of Historical Political Economy 1: 127-154.
-
Kim, D. (2022). “Taming Abundance: Doing Digital Archival Research (as Political Scientists).” PS: Political Science and Politics 55(3): 530-538.
Suggested readings:
-
Trouillot, M. 1995. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston: Beacon Press. Ch. 1 (“The Power in the Story”), 1-30.
-
Gaikwad, N., V. Herrera, and R. Mickey. 2018. “Text-Based Sources,” Report for Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (20 pages).
3:30pm - 5:00pm – Analyzing, Re-Tooling, and Assessing Progress
Diana Kapiszewski and Lauren M. MacLean
This session considers various strategies for analyzing data analysis, writing up results, and presenting initial findings to different audiences while conducting fieldwork. It also considers the challenges that arise when scholars conducting fieldwork feel they need to change their project, and how to decide if and what to change. Finally, the session explores how to assess progress toward completing field research.
Required readings:
-
Kapiszewski, Diana, Lauren M. MacLean, and Benjamin L. Read. (2015). Analyzing, Writing, and Retooling in the Field. Field Research in Political Science: Practices and Principles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 10. (book to purchase)
-
Kapiszewski, Diana, Lauren M. MacLean, and Benjamin L. Read. (2022). “Dynamic Research Design: Iteration in Field Based Inquiry.” Comparative Politics 54(4): 645-70. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041522X16352603126875
-
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Fieldnotes in Ethnographic Research University of Chicago Press. Chapters 3 and 6.
Suggested readings:
-
Shapiro, G. & Markoff, J. (1997). A Matter of Definition. Text Analysis for the Social Sciences: Methods for Drawing Statistical Inferences from Texts and Transcripts. Lawrence Erlbaum.
-
McDermott, R. et al. (2010). Symposium: Data Collection and Collaboration. PS: Political Science and Politics, 43(1), 15-58. doi:10.1017/S1049096510990586
-
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Fieldnotes in Ethnographic Research University of Chicago Press. Chapters 1 and 2.