10.3: Getting In

Learning Objectives

• Identify the two major considerations with respect to "getting in" field research sites.

• Describe the factors one should consider when choosing a field research site.

• Explain how one’s social location is relevant for choosing a field research site.

• Describe the factors one should consider when deciding what role to play in a field research site.

• Explain the difference between overt and covert roles in field research.

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

Choosing a Site

Where a researcher observes might be determined by their research question, but because field research often works inductively, they may not have a totally focused question before beginning observations. In some cases, field researchers hone in on a 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 choosing a site, there are a number of factors to consider. What is the researcher hoping to accomplish with the field research? What is the topical or substantive interest? Where are they likely to observe behavior that has something to do with that topic? How likely is it that they will actually have access to the locations that are of interest to them? How much time is available to conduct participant observations? Will the participant observations be limited to a single location, or will they take place in multiple locations?

Perhaps the best place to start when working to identify a site or sites for field research is to think about limitations. One limitation that could shape where participant observation is conducted is time. Field researchers typically immerse themselves in their research sites for many months, sometimes even years. For example, in his study Ballad of the Bullet: Gangs, Drill Music, and the Power of Online Infamy, Forrest Stuart (2020) spent over two years conducting participant observation in Chicago, embedding himself in the daily routines of drill musicians. Identifying availability in terms of time will help determine where and what sort of research sites to choose.

Also, researchers must consider where they live and whether travel is an option. Some field researchers actually move to live with or near their population of interest. How a researcher answers these questions will shape how they identify their research site. Sociologist Kimberly Kay Hoang's research in Dealing in Desire: Asian Ascendancy, Western Decline, and the Hidden Currencies of Global Sex Work (2015) took her from the United States to Vietnam, where she spent extensive time observing bars and clubs. Similarly, Jordanna Matlon's ethnographic work in A Man Among Other Men: The Crisis of Black Masculinity in Racial Capitalism (2018) required her to conduct research in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire. These are just a few of many examples of sociological researchers who have traveled the globe for the purpose of collecting data.

In choosing a site, a researcher must also consider how their social location might limit what or where they can study. The ascribed aspects of our locations are those that are involuntary, such as age, race, or mobility. For example, how might an ascribed status as a middle-aged professional shape a researcher's ability to conduct complete participation in a study of youth subcultures? The achieved aspects of our locations are those that we have some choice about. In field research, scholars may also have some choice about whether or the extent to which they reveal the achieved aspects of their identities. There are numerous examples of field researchers whose achieved statuses granted them access to field sites into which they might not have otherwise been allowed. Sociologist Victoria Reyes, in Global Borderlands: Fantasy, Violence, and Empire in Subic Bay, Philippines (2019), utilized her complex blend of ascribed and achieved statuses as a Filipina American academic to gain entry into the heavily guarded global borderlands of Subic Bay, navigating interactions with both foreign dignitaries and local workers.

The preceding discussion should not be taken to mean that sociologists cannot or should not study those from whom they differ. In fact, there have been plenty of successful field studies conducted by researchers who may have looked out of place in the sites they chose to investigate. The aim here is not to reify the socially constructed categories upon which society places so much emphasis. Rather, the point is to be aware of which ascribed and achieved aspects of a researcher's identity may shape decisions about field sites.

Finally, in choosing a research site, a researcher must consider whether the research will be a collaborative project or a solo endeavor. Collaborating with others has many benefits; a team can cover more ground and therefore collect more data than one person can alone. Having collaborators in any research project means having others with whom to share the trials and tribulations in the field. However, collaborative research comes with its own set of challenges, such as possible personality conflicts, competing commitments in terms of time, and differences in methodological perspectives. Modern sociological projects are increasingly collaborative. For example, Matthew Desmond's ongoing The Eviction Lab project combines the efforts of numerous qualitative field researchers, quantitative data scientists, and students to map housing insecurity across the country.

Choosing a site for participation is shaped by all these factors: the 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 a researcher's control might shape the role they take once participant observation begins. The researcher will also need to make some deliberate decisions about how to enter the field and what persona to adopt once inside.

In terms of entering the field, one of the earliest decisions is whether to be overt or covert. As an overt researcher, one enters the field with 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 have joined is being studied. As one might imagine, there are pros and cons to both approaches. A critical point to keep in mind is that whatever decision is made about how to enter the field will affect many subsequent experiences in the field.

As an overt researcher, establishing rapport at first might be troublesome. Having an insider at the site who can vouch for the researcher will certainly help, but the knowledge that subjects are being observed will inevitably make some people uncomfortable and possibly cause them to behave differently than they would if they were not research subjects. Because field research is typically a sustained activity that occurs over several months or years, participants usually become more comfortable with the researcher's presence over time. Overt researchers also avoid a variety of moral and ethical dilemmas that covert researchers face.

As a covert researcher, getting into a site might be easier, but other profound issues may arise. For how long would the researcher plan to conceal their identity? How might participants respond once they discover they have been studied? How will the researcher respond if asked to engage in activities that are unsettling, illegal, or unsafe? Contemporary field researchers often face intense ethical scrutiny regarding these questions. Beyond personal comfort levels with deceiving participants, the decision about whether to enter the field covertly will often be heavily regulated. Any research associated with a federally funded agency or university must pass through an Institutional Review Board (IRB), which will closely examine any planned deception of research subjects. The extent to which a research site is a public location, where people may not have an expectation of privacy, might also play a role in helping a researcher and their IRB decide whether covert research is a reasonable approach.

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

Once a decision is made about how to enter a field site, the researcher will need to think about the role they will adopt while there. Aside from being overt or covert, how close will the researcher be to participants? Fred Davis (1973) coined the terms "Martian" and "Convert" to describe these ontological polarities. Davis describes the Martian role as one in which a field researcher stands back a bit, not fully immersed in the lives of the subjects, in order to better problematize, categorize, and see with the eyes of a newcomer what is 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. While these are classic terms, modern researchers generally recognize that most fieldwork requires constantly navigating the space between these two extremes.

Whatever role is chosen, the power dynamics and relationship ethics discussed in previous chapters apply heavily to field research. In fact, the researcher-researched relationship is even more complex in field studies, where interactions with participants last far longer than a standard interview. The potential for exploitation is greater in field studies because relationships are usually closer and the lines between research and personal interactions frequently blur. These precautions must be seriously considered before deciding to embark upon a field research project.

Key Takeaways

• Planning: When beginning a field research project, one must take care in planning where to conduct observations and what role to adopt in one’s field site.

• Limitations: The time and resources a researcher has available to spend in the field will be major factors in choosing a research site.

• Roles: There are pros and cons to both the overt and the covert researcher roles.

• Identity: Ascribed and achieved statuses both shape the choices that field researchers make about their sites and about their roles within those sites.

Exercises

1. Site Selection: Try to name at least three different locations where you might like to conduct field research. What barriers would you face were you to attempt to enter those sites as a researcher? In what ways might your entry into the sites be facilitated by your social location?
2. Role Reflection: What is your opinion about researchers taking on a covert as compared with an overt role in field research? Which role would you like to take in a field research project? Why?