See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/363818089

Fieldwork

Chapter · September 2022

CITATIONS READS
0 83

5 authors, including:

Kelebogile Zvobgo Charmaine N. Willis

William & Mary Skidmore College
48 PUBLICATIONS 178 CITATIONS 27 PUBLICATIONS 69 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Myunghee Lee Anne-Kathrin Kreft

Michigan State University Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony
9 PUBLICATIONS 98 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 324 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kelebogile Zvobgo on 24 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SECTION III: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT—SCHOLARSHIP

20 Fieldwork

Kelebogile Zvobgo1, Charmaine N. Willis2, Myunghee Lee3, Anne-Kathrin

Kreft4, and Ezgi Irgil5
1. College of William & Mary 2. University at Albany 3. University of Copenhagen
4. University of Oslo 5. Swedish Institute of International Affairs

KEYWORDS: Physical Safety, The Field, Data Collection, Funding, Theory-Building or -Testing,
Harassment.

Introduction

D
espite fieldwork’s importance in political science research, many PhD programs do not
offer adequate training. This leaves graduate students on their own to locate guides and
work by trial and error. Consequently, first-time field research is daunting for many. In
this chapter, we define the object and purpose of fieldwork and offer practical advice on
a range of topics, including planning fieldwork, sampling, networking, interacting with
research participants, carrying out interviews, physical safety and mental well-being in the field, and
research ethics. This guide is based on our experiences in a variety of settings and on different topics, and
is based on the original article, “Field Research: A Graduate Student’s Guide” (Irgil et al. 2021).
Fieldwork-related concerns arise from an unfortunate shortage in curricular offerings and instruc-
tional materials for qualitative and mixed-method research in political science graduate programs (Em-
mons and Moravcsik 2020). As a result, many early-career researchers are underprepared for the logis-
tics of fieldwork, from developing networks and effective sampling strategies to building respondents’
trust and moving about the field safely and ethically.
To remedy this, the five of us share a set of suggestions based on our own extensive field research.
Our experiences differ in several respects, from the time we spent in the field (ranging from 10 days
to several months), to the amount of time we had to prepare, to the locations we visited, to how we
conducted our research. We have worked in countries where we have professional proficiency in the
language, and in countries where we have relied on interpreters. We have worked in settings with pre-
carious security as well as in locations that feel as comfortable as home.
In this chapter, we first define what fieldwork is and its application through different data collection
methods. Then, we detail the purpose of fieldwork, followed by funding applications in the context of
fieldwork. We then move on to the phase of entering the field and adapting to the field. Moreover, we
address physical safety and mental well-being both during and after fieldwork, and we conclude.

What is Fieldwork?
Despite its prevalence in political science, fieldwork as a concept is not well-defined. Even symposia
discussing the “nuts and bolts” of conducting research in the field within the pages of political science
130 Strategies for Navigating Graduate School and Beyond

journals rarely define it (Hsueh et al. 2014). In this chapter, we define fieldwork as acquiring information
using any set of appropriate data collection techniques for qualitative, quantitative, or experimental
analysis through embedded research whose location and duration depends on the project (Irgil et al.
2021, 6).
First, despite often being placed squarely in the domain of qualitative research, fieldwork can
also serve quantitative projects—for example, by providing crucial context, supporting triangulation,
illustrating causal mechanisms or through quantification of data that are available only in the field
(Jensenius 2014). For instance, Willis’s research on the United States military in East Asia began with
quantitative data collection and analysis of protest events before turning to fieldwork to understand why
protests occurred in some instances but not others.
Second, while much fieldwork requires leaving the country in which one’s institution is based, this
is not a requirement. What matters is the nature of the research project, not the locale. For instance, some
of us have interviewed representatives of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and international
nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), whose headquarters are often located in the Global North
countries in which we reside. The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the relevance of remote
fieldwork.1
Third, the appropriate amount of time in the field should be assessed on a project-by-project basis,
depending on the research question, the data to be collected, available resources, and prior familiarity
with the field site. Our own presence in the field has ranged from a few days (Kreft at the United Nations
in New York) to a few weeks (Zvobgo’s interviews with human rights NGOs in different research
sites), to several months (Willis’s research on discourse around U.S. military presence in overseas host
communities).

Purpose of Fieldwork
Fieldwork allows researchers to use different techniques to collect and access original/primary data
sources. These include, non-exhaustively: visits to archives to review (or quantify) historical documents,
interviews to obtain in-depth information or better understand human behavior, surveys to understand
opinion formation, or lab-in-the-field experiments to better understand decision-making.
But beyond data collection as such, fieldwork is also useful for theory-building and theory-testing
(Geddes 2003). When studying the rise of a protest movement in South Korea for her dissertation, for
example, Lee found that existing theories did not offer a convincing explanation for the movement.
Based on interviews she conducted with movement participants, she developed an alternative theory
that centralized the authoritarian past as a unifying and mobilizing factor in the protest participants’
collective identity.
In terms of theory-testing, many political scientists turn their attention to conducting field
experiments or lab-in-the-field experiments to reveal causality (Finseraas and Kotsadam 2017), or to
leverage in-depth insights gained through qualitative or archival research in process-tracing (Ricks and
Liu 2018). Of course, for most PhD students, some of these options are financially prohibitive.

Funding
For many fieldwork projects, procuring funding via grants or fellowships is a necessity, regardless of how
long one plans to be in the field. (Readers interested in a more general discussion of research funding
should see chapter 23 in this volume.) A few things are important to keep in mind when applying for
funding for fieldwork. First, the time between applying for and receiving funds, if successful, can be
quite long, from several months to a year. For example, after defending her prospectus in May 2019,
Willis began applying to funding sources for her dissertation, all of which had deadlines between June
and September. She received notifications between November and January; however, funds from her
successful applications were not available until March and April, almost a year later.2 Accordingly, we
recommend applying for funding as early as possible; this not only increases one’s chances of hitting the
ground running in the field, but the application process can also help clarify the goals and parameters
 Fieldwork 131

of one’s research.
Second, while both large and small pots of funding are worth applying for, many researchers end
up funding their fieldwork through several small grants or fellowships. For example, Willis’s fieldwork in
the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea was supported through fellowships within each country. Simi-
larly, Irgil was able to conduct her fieldwork abroad through two different and relatively smaller grants
by applying to them each year. The amount of funding needed, of course, depends on the nature of one’s
project and how long one intends to be in the field; for some projects, even a couple of weeks in the field
is sufficient to get the needed information.

Preparing to Enter “the Field”

What kind of preparations do researchers need? To maximize time in the field, good planning is import-
ant but requires a longer time horizon. By the time one contacts potential research participants, the data
collection instrument (e.g., survey, interview questionnaire, experimental design, etc.), the informed
consent protocols, and whatever ethical approval is required should already be in place. This gives you a
much clearer idea of the universe of individuals you would like to involve as research participants, how
you intend to (ethically) do so, and for what purpose. A general piece of advice is to research your target
population’s preferred communication channels and mediums (e.g., phone, various messenger services)
in the field site if email requests yield few responses.
Regarding ethics and review panels, we encourage readers to talk openly, honestly, and as early
as possible with supervisors and/or funders about situations where a written consent form may not be
suitable and might need to be replaced with “verbal consent.” For instance, doing fieldwork in politically
unstable contexts, highly scrutinized environments, or vulnerable communities might create obstacles
for the interviewees as well as the researcher. The literature discusses the tension between preserving the
interviewees’ anonymity and confidentiality while also requesting signed written consent (Saunders et
al. 2015). Therefore, in those situations, the researcher might need to take the initiative on how to act
while doing the interviews as rigorously as possible.
Ethical considerations also affect the research design itself, with ramifications for fieldwork. For
example, when Kreft began researching women’s civil society mobilization in response to conflict-relat-
ed sexual violence, she initially aimed to interview victims of this violence to examine variation among
those who did and did not mobilize. As a result of deeper engagement with the literature on re-trauma-
tization, conversations with colleagues, and critical self-reflection of her status as a researcher (with no
background in psychology or social work), she decided to change focus and shift toward representatives
of civil society organizations. This constituted a major reconfiguration of her research design and strat-
egy, from one geared toward identifying the factors that drive the mobilization of victims to one that
identified how women mobilized in civil society “make sense” of conflict-related sexual violence.
Finally, when one wishes to conduct research in a country where one has less than professional
fluency in the language, pre-fieldwork planning should include hiring a translator or research assis-
tant, for example, through an online hiring platform like Upwork, or a local university. More generally,
establishing contact with a local university can be beneficial, either in the form of a visiting researcher
arrangement, which grants access to research groups and facilities like libraries, or by informally con-
tacting individual researchers. The latter may have valuable insights into the local context, contacts to
potential research participants, and may be able to recommend translators or research assistants.

Adapting to the Reality of the Field

Flexibility is key. Despite careful planning, there may be obstacles that necessitate adjustments to one’s
original plans. While it is important to have a list of people to contact in the field prior to entry, some
leads will not be as fruitful as anticipated and you will likely add contacts to your list via snowball
sampling (e.g., meeting new contacts through other contacts). You may meet people you did not make
appointments with, come across opportunities you did not expect, or stumble upon new ideas about
collecting data in the field. These happenings are part of the process; they will enrich your field experi-
132 Strategies for Navigating Graduate School and Beyond

ence and your research. Similarly, researchers should not be discouraged by interviews that do not go
according to plan; this is normal and may even present opportunities to pursue relevant people who can
provide an alternative path to your work.
Zvobgo, for example, had fewer than a dozen interviews scheduled when she traveled to Guatemala
to study civil society activism and transitional justice since internal armed conflict. But she was able to
recruit additional participants in-country. Interviewees with whom she built a rapport connected her
to other NGOs, government offices, and the United Nations country office, sometimes even making the
calls and scheduling interviews for her. Through snowball sampling, she was able to triple the number
of participants. Likewise, snowball sampling was central to Kreft’s recruitment of interview partners.
Several of her interviewees connected her to highly relevant individuals she would never have been able
to identify, and contact based on web searches alone.
We note that conducting interviews is very taxing. Depending on the project, each interview length
might differ. Hence, field researchers should make a reasonable schedule and plan sufficient time for
each interview, including travel and time for reflection/writing of field notes. This helps one to avoid
cutting off an interviewee, missing important information, or being too exhausted to have a robust en-
gagement with a respondent who is generously lending you their time.
We would also like to highlight the importance of distinguishing things that can only be done in
person at a particular site from things that can be accomplished later at home. Prioritize the former
over the latter. Lee’s fieldwork experience serves as a good example. She studied a conservative protest
movement in South Korea. She planned to conduct interviews with the rally participants to examine
their motivations for participating. But as she only had one month in South Korea, she prioritized things
that could only be done in the field: she went to the rally sites, she observed how protests proceeded,
and she met participants and had some casual conversations with them. Then, she used the contacts she
made while attending the rallies to create a social network to solicit interviews from ordinary protesters,
her target population. In a nutshell, it is sometimes most beneficial to use one’s time in the field to build
relationships and networks as it can be more difficult to do so from outside the field.
Interacting with people in the field is one of the most rewarding yet ethically challenging parts of
the work that we do, especially in comparison to the impersonal wrangling and analysis of quantitative
data. Field researchers often make personal connections with their interviewees. Consequently, main-
taining boundaries can be a bit tricky. Here, we recommend being honest with research participants
without overstating the researcher’s abilities. This appears as a challenge in the field, particularly when
you empathize with people and when they share profound parts of their lives with you in addition to
being “human subjects” (Fujii 2012). For instance, Zvobgo was very upfront with her interviewees about
her role as a researcher: she recognized that she is not on the frontlines of the fight for human rights and
transitional justice like they are. All she could/can do is use her platform to amplify their stories, bring-
ing attention to their vital work through her future peer-reviewed publications. Interviewees were very
receptive. In some cases, this prompted them to share even more, because they knew that the researcher
was there to listen and learn. This is something that all scholars should always remember: we enter the
field to be taught.
As researchers, we recognize a possible power differential between us and our research subjects,
and certainly an imbalance in power between the countries where we have been trained and some of the
countries where we do field research, particularly in politically dynamic contexts (Knott 2019). There-
fore, we argue, researchers should be concerned with being open and transparent with everyone with
whom they come into contact in the field and committed to giving back to those who so generously lend
us their time and knowledge.

Physical Safety
Researchers may carry out fieldwork in a country that is less safe than what they are used to, a setting
affected by conflict violence or high crime rates, for instance. Insecurity is also often gendered, differ-
entially affecting women, and raising the specter of unwanted sexual advances, street harassment, or
even sexual assault (Gifford and Hall-Clifford 2008; Mügge 2013). In a recent survey of political science
 Fieldwork 133

graduate students in the United States, about half of those who had done fieldwork internationally re-
ported having encountered safety issues in the field, (54 percent female, 47 percent male), and only 21
percent agreed that their PhD programs had prepared them to carry out their fieldwork safely (Schwartz
and Cronin-Furman 2020, 8–9). Preventative measures scholars may adopt in an unsafe context may
involve, at their most fundamental, adjustments to everyday routines and habits, and restricting one’s
movements temporally and spatially.
Others have collected a range of safety precautions that field researchers in fragile settings may take
before and during fieldwork (Hilhorst et al. 2016). Focusing on the specific situations of graduate stu-
dents, we recommend establishing communications protocols with supervisors or others at one’s home
institution, granting a colleague or two emergency reading access to one’s digital calendar, and putting
in place an emergency plan, that is, choosing emergency contacts back home and “in the field,” knowing
whom to contact if something happens, and knowing how to get to the nearest hospital or clinic. Reg-
istering with your country’s embassy in the field site and any crisis monitoring and prevention systems
it has is also advisable. Finally, it is prudent to heed the safety recommendations and travel advisories
provided by state authorities and embassies to determine when and where it is safe to travel. Above all,
one should always be aware of one’s surroundings, use common sense, and listen to locals. If something
feels unsafe, chances are it is.

Mental Well-being
Different sources of stress during fieldwork, such as concern about insecurity, linguistic barriers, or
social isolation and loneliness, can be both mentally and physically exhausting. In addition, it is natural
for field research on sensitive issues to affect the researcher’s mental well-being, especially in the absence
of their normal support network (Hummel and El Kurd 2020; Williamson et al. 2020). Emotional re-
actions may appear disproportionate or unwarranted at a specific moment, but they may simply have
been building up over a long time. Our primary piece of advice is therefore to be patient and generous
with yourself: accept your emotional reactions as legitimate. Second, remember to take breaks, embrace
distractions and rest. Third, we cannot stress enough the importance of investing in social relations, pri-
or to, during and after your fieldwork trip. Seeking the company of locals and of other field researchers
alleviates anxiety and makes fieldwork more enjoyable. For more comprehensive discussions and advice
see Williamson et al. (2020) or Hummel and El Kurd (2020).

Conclusion
Many of the substantive, methodological and practical challenges that arise during fieldwork can be an-
ticipated. Nonetheless, there is no such thing as being perfectly prepared for the field. Some things will
simply be beyond one’s control, and newcomers to field research should be prepared for things to not
go as planned. New questions will arise, interview participants may cancel appointments, and findings
may not match with expectations. So, one should be ready to adjust research and data collection plans,
interview guides, questionnaires etc.
Our discussion on fieldwork preparation is by no means exhaustive. Formal fieldwork preparation
should extend beyond what we have covered in this article, such as issues of data security, funding, and
preparing for non-qualitative fieldwork methods. We also note that field research is one area that has
yet to be comprehensively addressed in conversations on diversity and equity in the political science
discipline and the broader academic profession.

Endnotes
1 See Howlett (2021) for a more in-depth discussion.
2 In our experience, this is not only the general cycle for graduate students in North America, but
also in Europe and likely elsewhere.
134 Strategies for Navigating Graduate School and Beyond

Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the Forskraftstiftelsen Theodor Adelswärds Minne, Knut
and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW 2013.0178), National Science Foundation Graduate Research
Fellowship Program (DGE-1418060), Southeast Asia Research Group (Pre-Dissertation Fellowship),
University at Albany (Initiatives for Women and the Benevolent Association), the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science, the Korea Foundation, University of Missouri (John D. Bies International Travel
Award Program and Kinder Institute on Constitutional Democracy), University of Southern California
(Provost Fellowship in the Social Sciences), Vetenskapsrådet (Diarienummer 2019-06298), Wilhelm och
Martina Lundgrens Vetenskapsfond (2016-1102; 2018-2272), and William & Mary (Global Research
Institute Pre-doctoral Fellowship).

References
Emmons, Cassandra V., and Andrew M. Moravcsik. 2020. “Graduate Qualitative Methods Training in
Political Science: A Disciplinary Crisis.” P.S.: Political Science & Politics 53 (2): 258–64.
Finseraas, Henning, and Andreas Kotsadam. 2017. “Does Personal Contact with Ethnic Minorities Af-
fect Anti-immigrant Sentiments? Evidence from a Field Experiment.” European Journal of Political
Research 56: 703–22.
Fujii, Lee Ann. 2012. “Research Ethics 101: Dilemmas and Responsibilities.” P.S.: Political Science &
Politics 45 (4): 717–23.
Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Compara-
tive Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gifford, Lindsay James and Rachel Hall-Clifford. 2008. “From Catcalls to Kidnapping: Towards an Open
Dialogue on the Fieldwork Experiences of Graduate Women.” Anthropology News 49 (6): 26–7.
Hilhorst, Thea, Lucy Hodgson, Bram Jansen, and Rodrigo Mena Flühmann. 2016. Security Guidelines for
Field Research in Complex, Remote and Hazardous Places. July 1. http://hdl.handle.net/1765/93256.
Howlett, Marnie. 2021. “Looking at the ‘Field’ through a Zoom Lens: Methodological Reflections on
Conducting Online Research during a Global Pandemic.” Qualitative Research.
Hsueh, Roselyn, Francesca R. Jensenius, and Akasemi Newsome. 2014. “Fieldwork in Political Science:
Encountering Challenges and Crafting Solutions: Introduction.” PS: Political Science & Politics 47
(2): 391–3.
Hummel, Calla, and Dana El Kurd. 2020. “Mental Health and Fieldwork.” P.S.: Political Science & Politics
54(1): 121–5.
Irgil, Ezgi, Anne-Kathrin Kreft, Myunghee Lee, Charmaine N. Willis, and Kelebogile Zvobgo. 2021.
“Field Research: A Graduate Student’s Guide.” International Studies Review. 23(4): 1495–1517.
Jensenius, Francesca R. 2014. “The Fieldwork of Quantitative Data Collection.” P.S.: Political Science &
Politics 47 (2): 402–4.
Knott, Eleanor. 2019. “Beyond the Field: Ethics After Fieldwork in Politically Dynamic Contexts.” Per-
spectives on Politics 17 (1): 140–53.
Mügge, Liza M. 2013. “Sexually Harassed by Gatekeepers: Reflections on Fieldwork in Surinam and
Turkey.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16 (6): 541–6.
Ricks, Jacob I., and Amy H. Liu. 2018. “Process-Tracing Research Designs: A Practical Guide.” P.S.: Po-
litical Science & Politics 51 (4): 842–6.
Saunders, Benjamin, Jenny Kitzinger, and Celia Kitzinger. 2015. “Anonymizing Interview Data: Chal-
lenges and Compromise in Practice.” Qualitative Research 15 (5): 616–32.
Schwartz, Stephanie, and Kate Cronin-Furman. 2020. “Ill-Prepared: International Fieldwork Methods
Training in Political Science.” Working Paper.
Williamson, Emma, Alison Gregory, Hilary Abrahams, Nadia Aghtaie, Sarah-Jane Walker, Marianne
Hester. 2020. “Secondary Trauma: Emotional Safety in Sensitive Research.” Journal of Academic
Ethics 18(1): 55–70.

View publication stats