The Reflective Fieldwork

The modern relective fieldwork

Takes place in both foreing and well known cultures
Is about wanting to understand the strange on its own premises (
an break with your own prejudice reflectivness)
Not a single method but several methodes
Dynamic methode and changeable methode
Wishes to show patterns in peoples actions and to show paradox
in what people say and do
To make visible the taken for granted and to articulate the
unspoken knowledge

FFARM
scientific theory about fieldwork
Before
Under
After

- Decitions, design and preaparings

- Notes, pictures and artifacts
- Analyse, workshop, theory and article

3 phases.

Before you go into the field,- fielddesign

While you are in the field,- fieldwork
After you have been in the field,- fieldanalyse

Design = FFARM model + timesplan

Empiri: Fieldnotes and artifacts
Analyse

FFARM
scientific theory about fieldwork
A DYNAMIC MODEL
FFARM MODEL
The Model is like the SMTTEFocus
model a dynamic and non
chronological. This means that you
can start anywhere in the model and
fulfill the cornors in the order you
like. This allso means that if youMethodes
change one corner, some of the
others might allso change. This
underlines that a field design is a
dynamic phenomenon witch all the
time can and will change
throughout the fieldwork process
Reflection

Field

Acesses

Fieldesign
1. Focus in fieldwork, - definition of analytic object
(extended problem formulation)
Goal in the study
Who which group is studied
Interrest in the study
Which social situations and events are impotante
Earlier studies in this field , why is my study important
A profession subject as reason for the studie (How can

qualify you as a cuming up pedagogue?)

it

Fielddesign
2. Field
Konstruction of field,- Definition of field is not
necessarily geographical. Culture is not geographical.
It is the investigator that defines the field, it is not
defined in it self in the analytic object.
Where
Which

are the interest, and where isnt it.

cotexts are interesting for the focus,- Which

are not.
Which informants er interesting, Which are not.

FFARM
scientific theory about fieldwork

Field

populations
companies
professions
buildings
rituals
Situations
Streets
Times
nature

Where are the interest

Which context are
interesting for the focus
Which informants er
interesting

Fielddesign
3. Access to the field.
Find

gatekeepers, seek access.- describe the project,

how many times, and for how long time will you be
there, and eventually implications for the informants.
Afterwards you have to negotiate..
Be prepared for refusal, or big changes. Allready
here is it natural to change the fielddesign.

FFARM
scientific theory about fieldwork
Access
Getekeepers,
Who to ask?
What to ask about?
How to ask?
Be prepared for negotiation.
How can your presence be legitimated?

Fielddesign

4. Reflection
Reflect over your own position and role in the field, -The
personal intervention can not be overcomed, Things will never be objective . It is inportant to reflect over the
intervention, as a condition for the study.
Break your own prejudices. Who are you,- and what does that
mean for what you see, and fore the ones you are looking at...
Kategories as : sex, age, education, history of the past,- allso in
your looking at the analytic object. How much experience do i
have about this area. How alien or familiar am i with the field)
See the powerpositions between you and the informants. What
does this mean for your fieldwork
Be aware of your desitions implications on the focus and argue
for the choices. If not you migt make limited choices because of
your anti- and sympathies. You will thereby confirm prejudices
and will not be able to see the field on its own paragraphs

FFARM
scientific theory about fieldwork
Reflection
Reflect your own position, and role in the field.
Be aware of prejudices, preconceptions and the
position of power. How can you under these
circumstances make desitions, so that you in the
field has a role, that can give you good data that
breaks with your preconseptions.

Fielddesign
5. Methodes in fieldwork.
Strukture.

Which structure do you construct the fieldwork after.

How much has to be prepared before you go into field. Describe
your choices.
Methodolodical thecniques: At least 3 for triangulation. Argue for
your choices ,- Why do you do it this way. Participant observation,
interview, questionaries, soundfiles, moviefiles and so on.
Methodolodical strategies: Fieldroles: How to do the fieldwork? As
observer or/and as participating. To be near and keep the distance at
the same time. To participate without going native.
Etical considerations.

FFARM
scientific theory about fieldwork

Method

Participant observation: To be there

conversation: to come closer together

Interview: to ask people

Questionarres: so seek answer in the
quantity

Lifehistory: to draw lines

Biografies: To caracterise a person

Dokuments: to read texts
Pictures: to interpres visual expressions
Network: tracking relations
Materialety: to think through things

Metodic strukture
when do you do what?
Which methodes do you
chose?
Metodic strategies.
Fieldroles. closeness and
distance
Etical considerations
How to maintain data

While you are in the field:

The fieldwork.

To participate
To be a stranger
To take a new professional role
To make a field report, -write observations down
(as close as possible to objektive observations)
Diary,- own subjektive reflections
Start analysing . New methodes taken in use,
new focus appears, new roles. Wonder over it,
why does the specific changes happen.

FFARM
scientific theory about fieldwork
Look after repitiotions/routines/traditiones.
Look after the silent. To antropologes silence is noice and a fantastic
analytic object. And paradoxes if the said word and the silent
knowlege and action conflicts.
Wonder all the time.
Write down changes in methode and fielddesign as it happens in the
process. And write down why it happens.
Fieldwork is hard work, and some antropologes describes allmost the
process as having finger spitz gefull or a specific talent of
banacing through roles and through the subjective and the objective