Abstract
There is no shortage of political science literature on field research regarding issues of research design, methodology, and data evaluation. Yet, the practical and organisational intricacies that precede successful fieldwork are frequently overlooked. This lack of methodical advice may be due to the impression that field research is highly contextual, and so case-specific that general guidelines, which apply to all field research endeavours alike, are inconceivable. While we acknowledge the organisational complexity of field research, we disagree with the notion that the preparatory dimension of fieldwork is by necessity unique for every undertaking. Rather, recommendations for common challenges that occur during the preparation and organisation phase of a field trip can be identified and formulated. Consequently, we present and discuss ten organisational ‘do’s’ preceding successful field research. Current graduate students and future field researchers will regard these ten pointers as useful hints in the organisation of their own endeavour. While the list is by no means exhaustive, the ten recommendations will lower the organisational entry costs of aspiring field researchers, and enable them to hit the ground running upon arrival in the field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We deliberately choose to formulate our advice positively as ‘do’s’. Where necessary, ‘don’ts’ are included, but often the ‘do’s’ imply the negative form – as the notion ‘get organised’ in the title implies to not approach fieldwork unprepared.
In fact, there are very good reasons to conduct field research locally and domestically, ranging from sheer interest to cost issues and other logistical reasons.
Yet, we do not address the process related to Internal Review Boards, which has been sufficiently dealt with elsewhere (see e.g. Brooks, 2013).
We use a broad definition of fieldwork that encompasses all endeavours that bring graduate students outside their offices into the ‘natural environment’ of their subject for a prolonged period of time to gather data, including (but not limited to) in-depth qualitative interviews, large-N surveys, focus groups, experiments, or archival work.
See the ‘Global Go To Think Tank Index’ at http://gotothinktank.com.
Incidentally, Rubinstein presents an impressive list of worldwide coffee shops ‘where you can work and think’ on his website (http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/university_of_cafes.html).
For availability check https://www.eduroam.org/index.php?p=where.
Some examples might be helpful: Use current events to enquire about the status ex ante (How has Fukushima forced you to reconsider your energy policy? In which aspects?), abstract from current debates by using counterfactuals (What would be the most important item on your political agenda if unemployment were not so high?), re-frame current policies into general questions (To what extent does the last pension reform reflect a shift in political power from the young towards the old?). Even if this strategy has the obvious limitation of not completely evening out biases, a hypothetical thought experiment of how these could influence the responses is, at least, a good way to prepare for this not so uncommon case.
Examples can be found at http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/, or http://www.crl.edu/collaborative-digitization/world-newspaper-archive.
References
Aberbach, J.D. and Rockman, B.A. (2002) ‘Conducting and coding elite interviews’, PS: Political Science & Politics 35 (4): 673–676.
Arksey, H. and Knight, P. (1999) Interviewing for Social Scientists: An Introductory Resource with Examples, London: SAGE.
Berry, J.M. (2002) ‘Validity and reliability issues in elite interviewing’, PS: Political Science & Politics 35 (4): 673–676.
Brooks, S.M. (2013) ‘The Ethical Treatment of Human Subjects and the Institutional Review Board Process’, in L. Mosley (ed.) Interview Research in Political Science, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 45–66.
Corbin, J. and Morse, J.M. (2003) ‘The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics’, Qualitative Inquiry 9 (4): 335–354.
Dorussen, H., Lenz, H. and Blavoukos, S. (2005) ‘Assessing the reliability and validity of expert interviews’, European Union Politics 6 (3): 315–337.
Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinski, J.H. and Lupia, A. (eds.) (2011) Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fujii, Lee Ann (2013) ‘Working with Interpreters’, in L. Mosley (ed.) ‘Interview Research in Political Science, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 144–158.
Goldstein, K. (2002) ‘Getting in the door: Sampling and completing elite interviews’, PS: Political Science & Politics 35 (4): 669–772.
Harvey, W.S. (2011) ‘Strategies for conducting elite interviews’, Qualitative Research 11 (4): 431–441.
Hertel, S., Singer, M.M. and Van Cott, D.L. (2009) ‘Field research in developing countries: Hitting the ground running’, PS: Political Science & Politics 42 (2): 305–309.
Hsueh, R., Refsum, F. and Newsome, A. (2014) ‘Fieldwork in political science: Encountering challenges and crafting solutions’, PS: Political Science & Politics 47 (2): 391–393.
Leech, B.L. (2002) ‘Asking questions: Techniques for semistructured interviews’, PS: Political Science & Politics 35 (4): 665–668.
Leuffen, D. (2006) ‘Bienvenue or access denied? Recruiting French political elites for in-depth interviews’, French Politics 4 (3): 342–347.
Lieberman, E.S. (2004) ‘Preparing for field research’, Qualitative Methods. Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualitative Methods, Spring 2004 2 (1): 3–7.
Lilleker, D.G. (2003) ‘Interviewing the political elite: Navigating a potential minefield’, Politics 23 (3): 207–214.
Mitchell, W. and Irvine, A. (2008) ‘I’m okay, you’re okay? Reflections on the well-being and ethical requirements of researchers and research participants in conducting qualitative fieldwork interviews’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 7 (4): 31–44.
Morton, R.B and Williams, K.C. (2010) Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab, Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mosley, L. (2013) Interview Research in Political Science, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Ortbals, C.D. and Rincker, M.E. (2009) ‘Fieldwork, identities, and intersectionality: Negotiating gender, race, class, religion, nationality, and age in the resaerch field abroad: Editor’s introduction’, PS: Political Science and Politics 42 (2): 287–290.
Reno, W. (2013) ‘The Problem of Extraterritorial Legality’, in L. Mosley (ed.) Interview Research in Political Science, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 159–178.
Richards, D. (1996) ‘Doing politics: Elite interviewing: Approaches and pitfalls’, Politics 16 (3): 199–204.
Sirnate, V. (2014) ‘Positionality, personal insecurity, and female empathy in security studies research’, PS: Political Science & Politics 47 (2): 398–401.
Stax, H.-P. (2004) ‘Paths to precision: Probing turn format and turn-taking problems in standardized interviews’, Discourse Studies 6 (1): 77–94.
Stewart, D.W, Shamdasani, P.N. and Rook, D.W. (2007) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Acknowledgements
We combine field research experience in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, as well as Australia, Ireland, Great Britain, and Germany. For invaluable comments, we are grateful to two anonymous reviewers, as well as to Dirk Leuffen, Federica Genovese, and the participants of a discussion on fieldwork and expert interviews, held at the University of Konstanz on 3 May 2013. Florian G. Kern thanks the German Foundation for Peace Research (DSF) for providing funding, and the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) at Stanford University for offering an inspiring environment for this work. Janis Vossiek thanks the German Research Foundation (DFG) for funding and King’s College Cambridge for providing an academic home during fieldwork in Great Britain.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
kern, f., vossiek, j. get organised: the ‘do’s’ preceding successful field research. Eur Polit Sci 14, 137–148 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2014.45
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2014.45