Field Research: A Graduate Student's Guide

Abstract

What is field research? Is it just for qualitative scholars? Must it be done in a foreign country? How much time in the field is “enough”? A lack of disciplinary consensus on what constitutes “field research” or “fieldwork” has left graduate students in political science underinformed and thus underequipped to leverage site-intensive research to address issues of interest and urgency across the subfields. Uneven training in Ph.D. programs has also left early-career researchers underprepared for the logistics of fieldwork, from developing networks and effective sampling strategies to building respondents’ trust, and related issues of funding, physical safety, mental health, research ethics, and crisis response. Based on the experience of five junior scholars, this paper offers answers to questions that graduate students puzzle over, often without the benefit of others’ “lessons learned.” This practical guide engages theory and praxis, in support of an epistemologically and methodologically pluralistic discipline.

Field Research When There Is Limited Access to the Field: Lessons from Japan

“…This practical constraint conflicts with norms about how long researchers—particularly graduate students—should be in the field. As Irgil et al (2021, 1499–500) noted, the political science disciplinary norm, particularly for comparativists, is from several months to a year in the field. Given the ongoing nature of the global pandemic, the likelihood that future pandemics also might disrupt work, and the abundant evidence that some institutions provide better support structures for fieldwork than others, we believe that area experts increasingly should accept—and even embrace—the value of virtual fieldwork.…”

“…Text analysis can provide valuable insight from rich and granular data retrieved from decades of readily available records of newspapers, corporations, prefectural assembly meetings, governmental websites, and even social media. One coauthor, who originally planned on interviews as her primary data source, pivoted to using more text-based sources-sources that she otherwise may not have explored (Irgil et al 2021(Irgil et al , 1513.…”

Why Do We Speak to Experts? Reviving the Strength of the Expert Interview Method

“…Even referrals to further respondents seem possible; however, anecdotal evidence suggests that a prior on-site stay eases the selection of experts significantly (Schirmer 2021). In addition, online meetings are less costly than in-person research (e.g., Irgil et al 2021Irgil et al , 1513. The number of expert interviews can thereby be increased, and online conversations also be used as a follow-up to prior in-person meetings.…”

“…Scholars have identified particular methodological, security-related, and ethical challenges regarding remote meetings, such as the increased probability of sampling bias (some experts can hardly be reached through the Internet), security agencies' online surveillance, and complicated trust-building in the absence of personal interaction. This could make expert interviews more superficial (Irgil et al 2021(Irgil et al , 1513Mwambari, Purdeková, and Bisoka 2021;van Baalen 2018). Selecting interviewees and creating trust should be particular problems for decision makers; less so for external experts who routinely analyze the processes and events in question and are used to digital communication.…”

“…Yet in authoritarian and post-conflict environments access to the field is fundamentally restricted (de Vries and Glawion 2021; Wackenhut 2018). More generally, conducting interviews on controversial topics might create serious risks for both respondents and researchers, even in otherwise peaceful contexts (Irgil et al 2021). Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically inhibited travel as well as access to individuals, whether within one’s country or abroad (Mwambari, Purdeková, and Bisoka 2021; Schirmer 2021).…”