Chapter 7

1. 1
Chapter
7
Fieldwork
Strategies
and
Observation
Methods
People
only
see
what
they
are
prepared
to
see.
Ralph
Waldo
Emerson
(in
Patton,
2002,
p.
260)
Introduction
Going
out
into
the
field
for
the
first
time
can
be
one
of
the
most
exciting
stages
of
your
fieldwork
project.
This
is
when
you
begin
to
really
‘see’
and
‘feel’
Japan;
it
might
also
be
a
time
when
you
feel
that
you
are
quickly
learning
a
lot
about
your
field.
However,
it
can
also
be
initially
rather
nerve
wracking,
as
you
negotiate
access
to
the
field
with
the
people
who
might

2. 2
become
your
participants,
and
begin
to
try
to
understand
what
is
happening
there.
Remember,
however,
that
you
have
already
done
a
lot
to
prepare
yourself:
you
have
read
about
your
topic
in
books
and
in
articles;
you
have
thought
about
how
to
define
your
field
in
terms
of
a
social
space,
a
physical
space,
a
practical
space,
and
your
researcher
space;
and
you
might
have
had
some
informal
chats
with
different
people
or
even
begun
to
participate
in
the
activities
in
the
field.
So,
you
are
probably
more
prepared
than
you
think.
Fieldwork
can
be
broadly
divided
into
three
stages:
stage
one:
gaining
entry,
defining
your
identity
in
the
field,
and
developing
relationships
with
participants
stage
two:
the
main
data
gathering
stage
stage
three:
leaving
the
field
These
three
stages
do
overlap
to
some
degree,
but
each
one
requires
different
fieldwork
strategies.
Gaining
Entry
“Gaining
entry
is
a
complicated
process,
and
the
particular
route
one
takes
to
gain
entry
affects
the
rest
of
the
research”
(Bailey
1996:
50).
For
example,
if
you
approach
the
people
in
your
field
directly,
then
you
will
be
able
to
deal
with
them
directly
for
the
whole
of
your
research
project.
On
the
other
hand,
if
you
ask
someone
for
an
introduction,
you
are
using
the
‘known
sponsor’
approach
-­‐
using
the
legitimacy
and
credibility
of
another
person
to
establish
your
own
legitimacy
and
credibility
(Patton
2002).
In
that
case,
you
must
be
very
mindful
of
the
impact
your
behavior
could
have
on
your
relationship
with
your
sponsor,
and
also
on
your
sponsor’s
relationships
with
your
participants,
so
you
may
feel
more
constrained.
So,
the
“interactions
established
during
entry
profoundly
affect
what
follow
(Dean,
Eichhorn,
and
Dean
1969)”
(in
Bailey
1996:
51).
“Not
all
settings
are
open
to
everyone;
some
require
permission
for
entry.
The
individuals
who
play
a
key
role
in
granting
or
denying
access
are
referred
to
in
field
research
literature
as
gatekeepers.
Formal
organizations
(such
as
schools,
hospitals,
prisons,
and
businesses)
invariably
have
formal
gatekeepers
whose
permission
you
must
obtain.
Many
public
areas
(such
as
public
waiting
rooms
and
local
parks)
do
not
have
gatekeepers.
In
between
these
two
extremes
are
informal
gatekeepers.
These
are
people
who
do
not
have
institutional
power
but
nonetheless
have
informal
power
over
your
fate
in
a
setting
(Neuman
1991:
345)”
(Bailey
1996:
50).
“In
addition
to
controlling
access,
gatekeepers
control
the
flow
of
interactions
within
a
setting
(Burgess
1991).
Gatekeepers
dictate
when
the
researcher
gets
to
come
and
go,
who
is
talked
to
for
how
long,
and
what
can
be
observed
will
stop
they
also
decide
what
data
and
information
are
available
to
the
researcher
(Burgess
1991).
Consequently,
the
gatekeeper
has
a
great
deal
of
power
in
dictating
the
parameters
of
the
study”
(Bailey
1996:
50).
Moreover,
it
“is
a
mistake
to
believe
that
there
is
only
one
gatekeeper
for
any
research
site
(Burgess
1991).
Many
settings
have
both
formal
and
informal
gatekeepers”
(Bailey
1996:
50),
and
“gaining
entry
is
usually
negotiated
and
renegotiated
throughout
the
research
process
(Burgess
1991).
Johnson
aptly
describes
the
process
of
gaining
entry
as
a
continuing,
“
progressive
series
of
negotiations
rather
than
a
one-­‐shot
agreement”
(
1975:
176)”
(Bailey
1996:
51).
“Gatekeepers
need
a
reasonable
explanation
of
the
goals
of
your
study
to
help
them
decide
whether
to
grant
you
entry.
If
your
goals
for
doing
the
research
are
not
clear,
this
greatly

3. 3
increases
the
chances
of
being
denied
access.
…
It
helps
to
practice
in
advance
what
you
intend
to
say
to
the
gatekeepers
(Dean,
Eichhorn,
and
Dean
1969);
however,
you
also
need
to
be
flexible
because
you
will
probably
need
to
negotiate
your
goals
with
the
gatekeepers.
Also,
informal
gatekeepers
need
to
understand
the
goals
of
the
research;
remember
that
each
person
in
the
setting
is
to
a
greater
or
lesser
degree
a
gatekeeper”
(Burgess
1991:
48)”
(Bailey
1996:
51).
Discussion:
1.
Who
are
the
gatekeepers
in
your
field?
2.
What
could
your
gatekeepers
give
(or
deny)
you
access
to?
3.
What
will
you
tell
different
gatekeepers
about
your
fieldwork?
Defining
Your
Identity
in
the
Field
When
you
first
enter
the
field,
the
most
immediate
task
before
you
is
to
create
an
identity
for
yourself.
You
want
to
create
an
identity
that
is
effective
in
helping
you
convince
potential
gatekeepers
and
participants
that
your
project
is
worthy,
and
that
you
are
someone
that
they
could
trust
and
welcome
into
their
midst.
“It
is
a
time
when
the
observer
is
getting
used
to
the
new
setting,
and
the
people
in
that
setting
are
getting
used
to
the
observer
…
While
the
observer
must
learn
how
to
behave
in
the
new
setting,
the
people
in
that
setting
are
deciding
how
to
behave
toward
the
observer.
…
during
the
entry
stage
more
than
at
any
other
time,
the
observer
is
also
the
observed”
(Patton
2002:
312,
314).
This
is
clear
from
Gerry
Tierney’s
experiences
conducting
fieldwork
on
American
indigenous
people
living
in
Alaskan
urban
environments:
“At
first,
my
primary
activity
was
just
hanging
out.
I
was
usually
quite
comfortable
doing
so
and
I
watched
every
little
thing,
always
listening
to
the
sounds
of
the
street,
a
world
that
was
slowly
opening
up
to
me.
Through
these
means,
I
built
some
trust
among
the
people
and
gained
their
cooperation
in
helping
me
learn
about
them
and
their
activities.
The
only
time
I
felt
uncomfortable
was
when
the
tables
were
turned
and
people
on
the
street
took
to
watching
me
and
asking
me
a
variety
of
personal
questions.
During
the
first
few
weeks
it
became
clear
to
me
that
I
was
the
oddity
on
the
street
and
that
I
was
being
observed
and
scrutinized
with
as
much
intensity
as
I
myself
employed
while
watching
them.”
(Tierney
2007:
10)
As
Emerson
&
Pollner
(2001)
argue,
not
only
is
the
‘field’
a
negotiated
construct
but
so
too
is
your
identity
as
a
‘fieldworker’.
That
is,
you
have
to
establish
a
social
identity
in
your
field
that
will
allow
you
to
do
your
research
there.
To
do
this,
you
need
to
invite
or
encourage
your
potential
participants
to
allow
you
to
see
themselves
as
‘the
field’
and
to
see
you
as
‘the
fieldworker’
(Emerson
&
Pollner
2001).
How
does
this
happen?
This
section
first
look
at
how
you
are
seen
as
‘the
fieldworker’,
and
then
considers
how
you
can
encourage
potential
participants
to
sign
up
–
or
at
least
allow
you
to
observe
them.
Developing
your
identity
as
a
fieldworker
is
not
a
process
that
you
have
complete
control
over.
The
people
in
your
field
will
try
to
place
you
within
their
social
landscape,
and
define
you
in
terms
of
their
understandings
and
experiences
(Hammersley
&
Atkinson
2007).
‘Ascribed
characteristics’
such
as
your
gender,
age,
nationality,
ethnic
identification
and
your
status
as
a
student
with
a
particular
major(s)
and
first
language(s)
are
usually
the
most
obvious
features

4. 4
of
your
identity
that
are
considered.
However,
each
field
–
and
each
participant
in
that
field
–
will
place
varying
degrees
of
importance
on
different
ascribed
characteristics.
For
instance,
being
a
‘double’
or
‘half’
(having
one
parent
who
is
Japanese
and
one
parent
who
is
not)
may
be
very
highly
valued
by
participants
who
themselves
are
‘double’
or
‘half’;
being
a
person
of
color
may
be
considered
essential
if
you
are
exploring
the
experiences
of
people
of
color
living
here
in
Japan.
The
status
characteristics
of
all
involved
affects
relationships
and
rapport
in
the
field
in
often
unpredictable
ways.”
Bailey
p61
Discussion:
1.
What
are
your
‘ascribed
characteristics’?
2.
Which
do
you
think
would
be
the
most
important
from
the
perspective
of
the
participants
in
your
field?
Would
all
participants
there
value
them
in
the
same
way?
These
ascribed
characteristics
may
seem
to
limit
the
ways
that
you
can
define
your
identity,
but
they
may
also
give
you
particular
advantages,
such
as
easier
access
to
certain
participants
or
events.
For
example,
if
you
are
an
English-­‐speaking,
middle-­‐class
woman,
then
you
might
find
that
women
returning
to
the
workplace
to
teach
English
in
middle
age
are
very
interested
to
share
their
experiences
with
you.
Similarly,
if
you
are
a
psychology
or
medical
major,
then
you
may
be
given
privileged
access
to
these
two
groups
of
students
in
a
Japanese
university
and
to
their
classes
and
fieldwork.
“What
is
often
strange,
and
perhaps
interesting,
to
researchers
are
the
ways
in
which
they
get
placed
in
these
[particular]
ways,
because
this
can
often
provide
insights
into
the
world
views
of
the
people
under
study
…
Researchers’
skin
colours,
nationalities
and
(apparent)
religious
affiliations
…
can
often
mean
that
they
get
‘(mis)placed’
by
their
respondents
in
unexpected
and
enlightening
ways”
(Crang
&
Cook
2007:
44).
This
is
particularly
important
in
Japan,
as
you
may
be
surprised
to
learn
how
your
participants
see
you
and
categorize
you
in
their
social
landscape.
Knowing
how
your
ascribed
characteristics
are
viewed
in
your
field
can
help
you
behave
more
appropriately
there,
and
also
to
understand
the
interactions
that
you
have
with
your
participants.
“Through
initial
conversations
and
particularly
through
sustained
periods
of
interaction,
researchers
can,
first,
learn
which
aspects
of
their
identity
allow
them
to
be
more
or
less
acceptably
placed
in
the
world
views
of
both
their
key
informants
and
the
community
under
study,
and,
second,
thereby
establish
how
any
common
ground
might
be
found.”
(Crang
&
Cook
2007:
44).
You
do
have
some
control
over
how
your
field
identifies
you.
You
can
choose
to
emphasize
some
aspects
of
your
identity
more
than
others.
For
example,
when
you
join
a
university
club
such
as
the
hip-­‐hop
dance
circle,
you
are
identifying
yourself
within
that
group
as
a
dancer
interested
in
a
specific
genre
of
dance.
By
dressing
and
learning
how
to
speak
in
ways
that
are
similar
to
the
other
members
in
that
club,
you
can
build
rapport
with
them
and
at
the
same
time
develop
a
deeper
understanding
of
the
experience
of
being
a
member
of
that
club.
Similarly,
if
you
are
interested
in
fashion
habits
of
young
people,
dressing
appropriately
when
you
go
to
the
shops,
and
possibly
even
going
with
other
fashionably
dressed
young
people
(however
that
is
defined
in
that
field),
will
help
your
potential
participants
to
define
you
as
an
appropriate
researcher
of
their
worlds.
Discussion:
1.
Which
aspects
of
your
identity
would
you
like
to
emphasize
in
your
field?
2.
How
would
you
do
that?

5. 5
Thinking
carefully
about
your
personal
appearance
is
an
essential
part
of
‘impression
management’
(Hammersley
&
Atkinson
2007).
Sometimes
it
is
necessary
to
dress
in
a
way
similar
to
the
people
you
are
studying;
sometimes,
however,
you
may
need
to
dress
as
a
‘researcher’
when
you
are
playing
an
explicit
researcher
role.
Especially
in
the
initial
stages
of
your
fieldwork,
be
aware
of
your
self-­‐presentation,
as
that
is
one
way
to
influence
how
your
field
identifies
you.
Discussion:
1.
Do
you
think
that
you
will
need
to
change
your
personal
appearance
in
particular
ways
in
your
field?
Why?
2.
If
you
do
need
to,
how
would
you
do
so?
“While
these
‘lines
of
identification’
may
be
useful,
possibly
multiple
and
can
develop
some
depth
over
time,
they
may
also
be
fleeting,
limited
and
(unexpectedly)
subject
to
change
(Narayan
1993)”
(Crang
&
Cook
2007:
43).
That
is,
be
mindful
of
the
fact
that
you
will
always
be
negotiating
and
renegotiating
your
identity
in
the
field
with
each
interaction
that
you
have
with
your
participants.
Being
aware
of
how
your
participants
see
and
identify
you
will
help
you
become
closer
to
them,
and
also
give
you
a
deeper
and
stronger
understanding
of
their
worldviews.
Discussion:
1.
How
do
you
think
that
your
field
identity
might
change
as
time
goes
by?
Developing
Relationships
in
the
Field
Your
relationships
with
your
participants
are
crucially
important.
They
“delimit
and
define
the
field
research
process.
…
[R]elationships
are
the
foundation
of
what
field
researchers
come
to
know
in
the
setting”
(Bailey
1996:
49).
So,
it
is
very
important
to
think
about
your
relationships
with
your
participants
before
you
enter
the
field,
and
to
constantly
reflect
about
them
and
work
hard
to
develop
and
maintain
them
throughout
your
project.
Once
you
have
entered
the
field,
the
first
step
is
to
gain
rapport
with
potential
participants.
If
you
have
negotiated
access
to
the
field
through
a
gatekeeper,
then
participants
might
have
already
heard
about
your
project
from
them.
Even
if
they
have,
you
will
need
to
explain
your
project
to
all
of
the
participants
in
ways
that
make
sense
to
them.
Remember
that
every
participant
is
a
gatekeeper
in
their
own
way,
and
that
you
need
to
obtain
their
consent
for
their
continued
participation
every
time
you
meet
them.
In
your
own
culture,
you
know
how
to
develop
rapport
with
a
wide
range
of
different
people,
and
you
can
bring
these
skills
to
your
fieldwork
project.
“Honesty,
openness,
friendliness,
and
a
willingness
to
get
along
are
usually
good
places
to
start.
In
time,
most
people
respond
to
genuine
concern
and
interest
in
them
(Neuman
1991:
349)”
(Bailey
1996:
61).
This
approach
usually
works
in
most
fields
in
Japan
that
you
are
likely
to
encounter
in
your
fieldwork
project.
Such
a
positive
approach
is
also
key
to
maintaining
good
relationships.
“[K]eep
in
mind
that
the
people
you
are
living/working
among
are
providing
you
with
both
time
and
information.
They
are
sharing
part
of
their
life
with
you,
and
without
them
you
would
have
no
project.
Strive,
therefore,
to
treat
them
with
all
due
respect.
An
important
part
of
showing
respect
is
being
honest
about
why
you
are
there
and
what
you
are
attempting
to
accomplish”
(Tierney
(2007:
17).
Your
actions
speak
louder
than
your
words
(Patton
2002).

6. 6
Although
you
may
hope
that
every
participant
in
the
field
will
sign
up
for
your
project,
inevitably
some
will
not,
for
any
number
of
reasons.
“If
some
people
choose
not
to
cooperate,
do
not
take
it
as
a
personal
affront;
simply
work
with
those
who
are
more
willing
to
interact
with
you”
(Tierney
(2007:
17).
Equally,
you
may
end
up
working
very
closely
with
some
participants
more
than
others.
These
key
participants
(also
called
key
actors
or
key
informants)
are
people
who
know
a
lot
about
the
field
and
who
are
able
to
articulate
this
knowledge.
Their
insights
might
really
help
you
understand
what
is
happening
and
why
(Patton
2002).
There
is
no
formal
announcement
that
the
“position”
of
key
actor
is
open,
or
that
it
has
been
filled;
rather,
key
actors
are
simply
the
participants
who
you
end
up
spending
a
lot
of
time
with
(Patton
2002).
Once
you
get
to
know
them,
you
may
find
it
useful
to
explain
to
them
the
full
purpose
and
focus
of
your
project
and
the
kinds
of
information
that
you
most
need
and
value
(Patton
2002).
Discussion:
1.
At
this
point,
who
do
you
think
might
become
your
key
participants?
2.
What
would
you
like
them
to
help
you
with
the
most?
Observing
We
are
always
observing
what
is
going
on
around
us
in
our
world,
watching
what
other
people
say
and
do,
what
they
look
like
and
what
they
wear.
However,
observing
in
fieldwork
is
different.
You
must
be
more
careful,
noting
details
that
you
would
usually
ignore
or
only
think
fleetingly
about
otherwise,
such
as
the
clothes
that
different
people
wear
and
how
they
speak
to
each
other.
It
is
also
more
systematic,
as
in
fieldwork
you
must
take
notes
about
what
you
see.
It
is
also
more
focused,
as
what
you
attend
to
is
determined
by
your
research
interests
and
how
you
define
your
field.
Finally,
although
it
is
focused
it
is
also
more
holistic,
as
you
seek
to
build
a
comprehensive
picture
of
your
field.
You
also
need
to
note
down
what
you
observe
in
fieldnotes,
as
this
is
the
data
that
later
you
can
use
to
help
you
write
up
your
report.
Observing
the
Setting:
Where
do
you
start
when
you
first
begin
to
observe
in
the
field?
The
easiest
things
to
focus
on
are
the
people
and
what
they
are
saying
and
doing,
many
planned
and
unplanned
activities
that
naturally
occur
in
the
field.
However,
it
is
also
important
to
look
at
what
might
seem
like
the
background
of
the
setting
–
the
physical
space
–
as
this
can
shape
much
of
the
interaction
and
people’s
experiences
there.
For
example,
the
dance
group
practices
outside
the
gym
under
a
covered
space
on
a
tiled
floor,
with
people
walking
past
and
through
them
to
get
to
the
courts
and
pool.
It
is
cold
in
winter
and
hot
in
summer
there.
Imagine
what
that
is
like,
then
compare
that
to
practicing
indoors
in
a
properly
air-­‐conditioned,
well-­‐lit
gym,
with
bright
mirrors
along
the
front
walls
and
a
wooden
floor.
Dance
club
would
be
a
very
different
experience
there,
and
the
interactions
that
the
dance
club
members
would
have
there
would
also
be
somewhat
different
–
and
not
necessarily
better
or
more
satisfying!
Or,
for
instance,
two
cat
cafes
may
be
about
the
same
size
and
have
about
the
same
number
of
cats.
In
one
café
there
are
large,
soft,
dark,
leather
sofas
casually
organized
around
new,
low,
wooden
coffee
tables
covered
with
contemporary
fashion
and
architecture
magazines
in
one
big,
softly-­‐lit,
open
room,
classical
music
playing
softly
in
the
background,
and
large,
amusing,
European-­‐
style
paintings
of
cats
on
the
walls
complementing
the
warm
smells
of
fresh
bread
and
freshly-­‐roasted
coffee.
However,
the
other
café
may
more
closely
resemble
a
regular
Japanese
coffee
shop,
with
relatively
small,
wooden,
square
tables
packed
in
close
to
each
other,
each

7. 7
table
surrounded
by
four
scruffy-­‐looking,
low-­‐backed
dark-­‐brown,
coarse
cloth
chairs
with
tattered,
old
posters
above
each
table,
the
bitter
smell
of
roasted
coffee
hanging
in
the
air.
Immediately,
you
can
sense
that
the
experience
of
being
in
these
two
cat
cafes
will
be
quite
different,
and
so
will
the
feelings
that
the
people
there
will
have.
A
good
description
of
a
physical
setting
should
be
sufficiently
detailed
to
permit
the
reader
to
visualise
that
setting.
Patton
(2002)
suggests
that
unlike
a
novelist
you
should
avoid
interpretive
adjectives
such
as
‘comfortable’,
‘beautiful’,
‘drab’,
and
‘exciting’,
unless
you
are
quoting
what
your
participants
have
said.
Instead,
you
should
try
to
more
concretely
and
vividly
describe
shapes,
colors
and
textures,
how
things
are
organized
in
the
space,
and
the
purpose
for
which
they
are
used,
to
help
your
reader
visualize
the
room
in
their
own
mind.
The
goal
is
to
offer
a
sense
of
the
physical
environment
more
than
a
literal
description
(Patton
2002).
To
write
well,
be
careful,
systematic,
focused
and
yet
holistic.
Moreover,
“when
most
of
us
think
of
observing,
we
tend
to
think
of
observing
with
our
eyes.
Watching
is
certainly
an
important
part
of
collecting
data
in
the
field
setting;
however,
so
are
listening,
smelling,
touching,
and
tasting”
(Bailey
1996:
65).
Starting
by
describing
the
setting
will
help
you
develop
a
feel
for
your
field;
it
can
also
seem
like
a
safe
place
to
start.
You
do
not
have
to
look
at
the
people
there,
or
make
eye
contact
with
them.
Also,
whereas
people
move
and
talk
quickly
and
it
can
be
difficult
to
keep
up
with
them,
the
setting
usually
changes
much
more
slowly,
if
at
all.
If
you
are
a
bit
nervous,
concentrating
on
describing
the
setting
can
help
you
relax,
get
a
sense
of
the
setting,
and
also
help
attune
your
observation
skills.
Discussion:
1.
What
are
some
different
settings
in
your
field?
2.
Describe
one
setting
in
your
field.
Try
to
describe
it
as
vividly
and
concretely
as
possible,
without
using
interpretive
adjectives
such
as
‘comfortable’
or
‘beautiful’.
Observing
People
and
Communities:
“You
will
spend
most
of
your
time
as
a
field
researcher
observing
the
people
in
the
setting”
(Bailey
1996;
67).
Just
as
with
describing
the
setting,
a
good
place
to
start
is
by
simply
trying
to
describe
what
people
look
like,
what
they
wear,
how
they
move
and
talk,
and
what
they
say.
Again,
avoid
interpretative
adjectives
such
as
‘beautiful’
and
‘handsome’,
as
these
are
vague
and
inherently
subjective,
their
definition
depending
upon
your
own
culture’s
notions
of
beauty
and
not
the
people
in
your
field.
Instead,
use
vivid,
concrete
descriptions;
later,
when
you
have
a
greater
understanding
of
the
way
that
people
in
your
field
describe
people,
you
could
use
their
terms
to
help
you
draw
your
portraits.
Next,
look
to
see
if
there
are
any
patterns
or
similarities
in
the
way
people
present
themselves,
behave
and
talk.
Ask
yourself
whether
these
similarities
indicate
different
status,
membership
of
a
particular
group,
or
a
particular
identity.
Also,
look
for
ways
in
which
people
are
organized
or
organize
themselves
into
groups
and
subgroups.
For
example,
in
a
traditional
Japanese
office,
such
as
the
CJS
Office,
the
more
senior
staff
sit
furthest
from
the
entrance,
facing
the
door
and
the
staff
sitting
in
front
of
them.
They
are
usually
older,
often
male,
usually
dressed
in
white
shirts
and
dark
trousers,
and
might
speak
curtly
or
bluntly
to
their
staff,
who
sit
facing
each
other
in
often
long
rows
of
desks,
with
papers
flowing
over
from
one
desk
to
another,
and
talk
is
almost
wholly
work
centered.
Female
staff
members
tend
to
sit
closer
to
the
door,
and
there
are
fewer
folders
on
their
desks.
The
staff
are
all
wearing
a
cord
around

8. 8
their
necks,
but
there
are
different
colors
–
blue,
yellow,
and
green,
indicating
different
types
of
responsibilities
or
work
contracts.
This
setting
seems
to
emphasize
hierarchy.
On
the
other
hand,
in
another
office,
each
staff
member
may
have
their
own
desk
separated
from
other
desks,
with
a
sense
that
they
each
have
their
own
small,
private
space,
and
all
of
the
desks
face
the
door.
The
staff
here
may
use
more
casual
forms
of
language
with
each
other,
there
may
be
more
off-­‐task
chatter
and
even
jokes,
and
staff
may
dress
more
individually
in
jeans,
sweaters,
and
different-­‐colored
slippers.
This
setting
seems
to
be
less
hierarchical.
Patton
(2002)
notes
that
just
as
physical
environments
vary,
so
do
social
environments.
The
ways
in
which
human
beings
interact
creates
socio-­‐ecological
constellations
that
affect
how
participants
behave
towards
each
other
in
those
environments.
Each
human
social
environment
has
a
unique
personality,
just
like
people.
Some
social
environments
are
extremely
autocratic,
some
social
environments
strongly
emphasise
order,
clarity,
and
control,
and
some
social
environments
are
more
supportive
than
others
(Patton
2002).
“It
is
the
social
implications
of
the
physical
surroundings
that
are
important
to
the
field
researcher”
(Bailey
1996:
65).
Discussion:
1.
Describe
one
or
two
people
in
your
field.
Try
to
describe
them
as
vividly
and
concretely
as
possible,
without
using
interpretive
adjectives
such
as
‘comfortable’
or
‘beautiful’.
2.
If
possible,
place
them
in
a
‘socio-­‐ecological
constellation’.
Observing
Structured
Activities:
In
almost
all
settings,
there
are
structured
activities
such
as
performances,
practice
sessions,
meetings
of
various
kinds,
classes,
or
meals.
Patton
(2002)
notes
that
it
can
be
relatively
easy
to
start
your
observations
of
people
around
these
activities,
as
they
often
have
a
beginning,
some
middle
point,
and
a
closure
point.
Sequence
is
usually
very
important,
so
play
close
attention
to
how
each
section
is
introduced,
organized,
and
brought
to
a
close,
and
how
transitions
to
the
next
section
indicated.
People
play
different
roles
in
structured
activities,
and
even
in
different
parts
of
an
activity,
so
they
are
also
a
place
to
see
how
relationships
and
differences
in
power
are
enacted.
When
observing
a
planned
activity,
try
to
find
a
place
where
you
can
see
and
hear
as
much
as
possible
of
what
is
going
on.
As
a
first
step,
try
to
identify
who
the
people
are.
Then,
note
the
different
sections
of
the
activity
and
what
seems
to
be
happening
in
each
one.
At
the
same
time,
note
what
different
people
are
doing
during
each
section,
and
what
that
indicates
about
their
role,
their
identity,
and
their
relationships
with
other
people
there.
Of
course,
you
do
not
need
to
rely
just
on
what
you
are
seeing
and
hearing;
in
some
cases,
you
will
also
be
able
to
chat
to
other
people
around
you,
and
ask
what
is
going
on.
Often,
people
are
quite
happy
to
narrate
what
is
happening,
but
usually
just
for
short
periods
of
time,
so
you
might
need
to
be
moving
around
and
chatting
to
different
people,
which
also
has
the
advantage
of
you
being
able
to
check
what
other
people
have
told
you.
If
you
are
not
able
to
move
around,
you
could
take
notes
during
the
planned
activity
and
then
check
your
hunches
afterwards
with
someone
who
was
there.
Discussion:
1.
What
are
some
structured
activities
in
your
field
that
might
be
useful
for
your
topic?
2.
If
you
have
seen
one,
please
describe
in,
explaining
its
different
sections
and
the
roles
that
different
people
played
in
each
one.
3.
Next
time,
what
structured
activities
would
you
like
to
observe,
and
how?

9. 9
You
can
think
of
each
observed
event
or
activity
as
a
mini
case
study
of
the
discrete
incident,
activity,
interaction,
or
event.
During
analysis,
you
look
across
these
discrete
cases
for
patterns
and
themes,
but
during
the
initial
stages
of
the
researcher
will
be
kept
busy
just
trying
to
capture
these
case
studies
without
worrying
yet
about
looking
for
patterns
across
them
(Patton
2002).
Observing
informal
interactions
and
unplanned
activities:
Observing
planned
activities
can
seem
relatively
straightforward,
and
they
can
provide
you
with
a
lot
of
useful
data.
However,
it
is
wise
to
keep
observing
after
planned,
formal
activities
have
finished,
or
you
could
miss
a
great
deal
of
useful
data
(Patton
2002).
It
is
during
these
informal
interactions
that
you
will
develop
a
good
sense
of
how
people
really
feel
and
the
real
relationships
between
people.
For
example,
at
a
formal
meeting
of
the
local
business
association,
two
people
may
be
sitting
next
to
each
other
and
even
chat
together,
but
after
the
meeting
finishes
they
may
talk
or
joke
together,
or
ignore
one
another,
or
even
have
words.
Similarly,
the
person
leading
the
meeting
may
seem
to
have
everyone’s
attention
during
the
meeting
that
ends
up
leaving
the
room
alone
as
everyone
goes
to
talk
to
the
deputy,
who
may
be
the
person
with
real
power
and
influence.
So,
stay
switched
on
and
observe
what
is
going
on
before,
between,
and
after
more
planned
activities.
Patton
(2002)
notes
that
it
can
be
difficult
to
organize
observations
during
these
less
planned
periods
because
people
are
milling
around,
coming
and
going,
moving
in
and
out
of
small
groups,
and
chatting
with
different
people.
At
such
times,
Patton
notes
that
it
is
important
to
stay
open
to
the
data
and
do
opportunity
sampling.
You
cannot
anticipate
what
will
happen,
so
watch,
listen,
and
look
for
opportunities
to
deepen
your
observations,
record
what
people
are
doing,
the
nature
of
informal
interactions,
and
in
particular
what
people
are
saying
to
each
other.
How
something
is
said
should
be
recorded
along
with
what
is
said
–
that
is,
people's
attitudes
that
they
are
expressing.
Everything
that
goes
on
in
and
around
the
setting
is
data
(Patton
2002).
Discussion:
1.
What
are
some
unstructured
activities
and
informal
activities
in
your
field
that
might
be
useful
for
your
topic?
2.
During
such
times,
what
would
you
like
to
observe?
3.
How
could
you
observe
unstructured
activities
and
informal
activities?