Observational Research (Structured Observation and Ethnography)

Amanda Williams; Emma Duke

9 Observational Research (Structured Observation and Ethnography)

Learning Objectives for Chapter

Identify the essential components of structured observation and its contribution to communication studies.
Recognize the benefits and potential drawbacks of structured observation.
Identify the key components of field work and its contribution to communication studies.
Define how ethnography and participant observation may be seen as different from field work.
Recognize the benefits and potential drawbacks of fieldwork.
Differentiate between covert and overt roles, open and closed settings, and the central roles that researchers can occupy in ethnographic work.
Differentiate the goals and scope of field work with those of investigative journalism.

Introduction

In the world of communication studies, the way we choose to study things affects how well we understand them. There are two important ways that researchers look at human communication: structured observation and ethnography. These methods help us see the small details and big picture of how people communicate by watching them. This chapter looks closely at structured observation and ethnography in communication studies. It explains what they are, when they are useful, what they are good at, and where they might have limitations. This information can help both researchers and people interested in media get a better idea of how human communication works.

This chapter also explores how fieldwork is different from investigative journalism. It compares how both these practices work and what they are trying to achieve. By understanding all of this, we can learn more about communication and keep improving how we study and talk about it.

Structured Observation: What Is It and When to Use It?

Structured observation is an observational method that involves carefully looking at specific behaviours within a more controlled and structured setting compared to naturalistic participant observation.

Naturalistic observation is a method where researchers observe and study subjects in their natural or real-life environment, without any manipulation or intervention. This approach allows researchers to gain insights into the behaviours, interactions, and phenomena as they naturally occur without altering the context. Naturalistic observation also aims to capture genuine and unfiltered data, providing a more authentic understanding of the subject under study.

In contrast, structured observation, researchers focus on gathering quantitative data rather than qualitative data. The goal is to quantify and analyse a limited set of behaviours of interest, rather than capturing a comprehensive view of all behaviours.

For example, let’s say a researcher is interested in studying classroom behaviour patterns in elementary school students. They develop a structured observation protocol that outlines specific behaviours to be observed, such as raising hands, participating in group discussions, and following instructions. The researcher systematically observes these behaviours during different class sessions, records the frequency of each behaviour, and categorise them according to the predefined criteria. This structured observation helps the researcher quantify and analyse classroom behaviours to gain insights into student engagement and interaction dynamics.

Another example of what this could look like could be in a shopping mall if a researcher is curious about consumer behaviour in a clothing store. They create a structured observation checklist that includes behaviours like trying on clothes, browsing racks, and interacting with sales staff. The researcher discreetly observes shoppers, noting the occurrence and sequence of behaviours. By using structured observation, the researcher can gather data on consumer preferences, decision-making processes, and the effectiveness of sales strategies in a controlled and organised manner.

In sum, the process of structured observation involves defining specific behaviours to be observed and recorded. Researchers may create a list of target behaviours based on previous research or pilot testing. Observers then categorise participants individually, noting their behaviours and their frequency or duration. Maintaining inter-rater reliability, where different observers code behaviours consistently, is essential and can be demonstrated through independent coding by multiple observers (Price et al., 2017).

The Role of Structured Observation in Communication Studies

Structured observation stands as a prominent method within communication studies, offering a systematic and controlled approach to investigating human communication. Here are a few examples that showcase how structured observation can be used in communication research broadly speaking:

Nonverbal Communication in Political Debates: Researchers can use structured observation to analyse the nonverbal behaviours of political candidates during televised debates; categorising and quantifying gestures, facial expressions, and body language to assess the candidates’ perceived credibility and effectiveness in conveying their messages.
Media Portrayals of Gender Roles in Advertising: Examining gender representations in advertisements, structured observation can be utilised to code and analyse the frequency of specific gender-related behaviours, such as stereotypical roles, appearance, and interactions. This allows researchers to uncover patterns in how media reinforces or challenges traditional gender norms.
Children’s Television Viewing Habits: Structured observation might be employed to track and record the types of television programs children watched, as well as their reactions and behaviours during viewing. This approach can help researchers understand how different genres and content influenced children’s engagement and emotional responses.
Interpersonal Conflict Resolution in Relationships: Researchers can observe and code interactions between couples during conflict resolution discussions. By categorising communication behaviours such as active listening, blame attribution, and empathy, insights into the effectiveness of different communication strategies in resolving relationship conflicts can be gleaned.
Audience Reactions to Political Speeches: Structured observation can be used to analyse audience reactions during live political speeches. Observers can record audience behaviours, such as applause, facial expressions, and body language, to assess the level of engagement and emotional responses elicited by the speeches.
Social Media Interaction Patterns: In the context of online communication, researchers can conduct structured observations of social media interactions. They can code and analyse comments, likes, and shares to understand how individuals engage with and respond to different types of online content.
Public Speaking Anxiety in College Students: Structured observation can be applied to assess public speaking anxiety among college students. Researchers can observe and code specific anxiety-related behaviours, such as vocal hesitations, fidgeting, and eye contact avoidance, to measure the level of anxiety displayed during speeches.
Parent-Child Communication Patterns: Structured observation can be utilised to study parent-child communication in a naturalistic home environment. Researchers can code communication behaviours like questions, directives, and affirmations to analyse patterns of interaction and the impact on child development.

These examples illustrate the versatility of structured observation in communication studies, demonstrating its applicability across diverse research topics and contexts. By systematically recording and categorising observable behaviours, structured observation provides researchers with quantitative insights into communication dynamics and contributes to a deeper understanding of various communication phenomena.

Pros and Cons of Structured Observation

Structured observation has its distinct advantages and disadvantages, which can be understood through various communication examples.

Advantages of Structured Observation in Communication Research

Structured observation allows researchers to streamline their efforts, saving valuable time and resources. For instance, imagine a study aiming to understand workplace collaboration. By focusing only on team communication patterns, researchers can efficiently gather data without getting sidetracked by unrelated activities.

Imagine a scenario where researchers want to examine the impact of smartphone usage on social interactions. Structured observation is useful in such cases by enabling quantitative data collection. Researchers can meticulously quantify instances of phone usage and interaction levels, leading to concrete numerical measurements that lend themselves to statistical analysis. This approach ensures the findings are robust and grounded in objective data collection.

Consider a study exploring the effects of video game violence on aggression. Structured observation offers researchers a controlled environment where they can manipulate variables with precision. By exposing participants to specific game scenarios and monitoring their reactions, researchers gain valuable insights into the causal relationship between exposure and behaviour. This control ensures a focused exploration of the phenomenon.

Let’s say researchers are investigating nonverbal cues in romantic relationships. Structured observation’s clear protocols and target behaviours make replication a straightforward process. Other researchers can follow the same steps, examining identical behaviours and contexts, to verify the study’s reliability and authenticity. This reproducibility enhances the credibility of the findings.

However, structured observation is not without its challenges:

Limitations of Structured Observation in Communication Research

Think of a study assessing consumer purchasing decisions. While structured observation excels at isolating behaviours, it may miss the broader context that influences those behaviours. Researchers might gather precise data on product choices but overlook the nuanced emotional triggers or environmental factors that contribute to those choices, potentially painting an incomplete picture.

Additionally, let’s think about researchers studying public speaking anxiety. Structured observation’s-controlled setup may inadvertently induce reactivity – where participants modify their behaviour due to the awareness of being observed. This alteration can distort the authenticity of their responses, casting doubt on the accuracy of the findings and their real-world applicability.

Consider a study as well exploring employee honesty in a controlled work environment. Structured observation necessitates careful ethical deliberation. Researchers must ensure participants’ privacy and informed consent, especially in artificial laboratory settings. Adhering to ethical guidelines becomes paramount to safeguard participant well-being and uphold their rights.

In summary, structured observation boasts efficiency, precise measurement, and controlled conditions. However, it might sacrifice external validity, be susceptible to reactivity, overlook contextual richness, and demand vigilant ethical practices. Therefore, when assessing a study’s merits, it’s crucial to weigh these strengths and weaknesses judiciously.

Field Research: What Is It and When to Use It?

While structured observation aims to be controlled, field research is a dynamic and immersive investigative method used by researchers to gather firsthand data and insights directly from real-world settings. This approach involves venturing into the natural environment where the phenomena of interest occur, allowing researchers to observe, interact, and collect data within the context under study. Field research is particularly advantageous when exploring complex, context-dependent phenomena that cannot be fully understood through controlled laboratory experiments or secondary data analysis alone.

For instance, consider a study focused on the behaviour of shoppers in a busy urban market. Researchers embarking on a field research expedition would immerse themselves in the market environment, observing shoppers’ decision-making processes, interactions with vendors, and response to various stimuli. By being physically present in the setting, researchers can capture subtle nuances, such as the influence of cultural factors, social interactions, and situational dynamics on shoppers’ behaviours. This level of in-depth understanding and contextual richness would be challenging to attain through other research methods.

Field research is especially valuable in disciplines like anthropology, sociology, and communications, where the intricate interplay of human behaviours, cultural practices, or natural systems requires a holistic and authentic exploration. By stepping out of traditional research settings (i.e. a laboratory) and into the field, researchers can gain valuable insights that contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena under investigation.

It is worth noting that fieldwork, participant observation, and ethnography are closely related terms but there are some differences.

Fieldwork is a broad research approach that involves conducting research “in the field,” which typically refers to the real-world context where the phenomenon of interest occurs. Fieldwork encompasses a wide range of research methods and activities, including participant observation, interviews, surveys, data collection, and engagement with the community being studied. Fieldwork can involve both qualitative and quantitative data collection and may be used in various research designs.

Participant observation is generally thought of as a specific method within fieldwork that involves the researcher actively engaging with and observing the community, group, or culture being studied. The researcher becomes a participant in the community to gain firsthand experience and insight into their practices, behaviours, and interactions. Participant observation often requires immersing oneself in the daily lives and routines of the participants, allowing the researcher to capture the cultural nuances and social dynamics from an insider’s perspective.

Ethnography is a comprehensive research approach that involves prolonged and immersive engagement with a specific cultural group or community. Ethnography aims to provide a detailed and holistic understanding of the culture, beliefs, values, practices, and social interactions of the community being studied. It typically involves participant observation as a central method, but it also encompasses other data collection techniques such as interviews, document analysis, and audiovisual recordings. Ethnography produces in-depth narratives or descriptions of the studied culture and may result in rich monographs or reports.

Going Deeper with Ethnography

The concepts of covert versus overt roles and open versus closed settings in the context of research, particularly ethnographic research, is central to research design.

In a covert role, the researcher conceals their true identity or purpose from the participants they are studying. This means that the participants are unaware that they are being observed or studied by a researcher. The researcher remains undercover, observing and collecting data without the participants’ knowledge.

For example, an ethnographer is interested in studying workplace dynamics and communication patterns within a corporate office. To avoid altering the behaviour of employees, the researcher poses as an intern or temporary employee and interacts with colleagues without revealing their research intentions. By adopting a covert role, the researcher can observe authentic interactions and behaviours that the awareness of being studied might otherwise influence. This raises major ethical issues associated with respect for persons, a principle discussed in Chapter 5.

A covert role in research methods can be seen as potentially involving an element of deception. A covert role refers to a researcher’s hidden or undisclosed identity and purpose when interacting with participants. This means that participants may not be aware that they are being observed or studied by a researcher. While this approach can sometimes provide more genuine and unbiased insights into natural behaviour, it raises ethical considerations regarding informed consent and transparency. Participants might feel deceived or have their privacy compromised if they later discover the researcher’s true role. Researchers using a covert role should carefully weigh the benefits of obtaining authentic data against the potential ethical concerns and be prepared to address them appropriately.

In an overt role, the researcher is transparent about their identity and purpose. Participants are aware that they are being studied, and the researcher openly engages with them for research purposes. This approach emphasises ethical transparency and informed consent.

For instance, an ethnographer is researching religious practices in a community. They introduce themselves to community members, explain their research goals, and request permission to observe and participate in rituals. By adopting an overt role, the researcher establishes trust and cooperation with participants, allowing for a more ethical and collaborative research process.

Open versus closed settings can also be significant for research design.

In an open setting, the researcher conducts their study in a context where no special permissions or formal access approvals are required to be present in or observe the location. This is often because the space is public, and activities or behaviours being studied are occurring openly, accessible to anyone without restrictions.

For example, a communication researcher might be studying how people use digital signage in a public transit hub, such as a train station. In this open setting, they can observe commuter interactions with the screens, including the types of messages commuters stop to read and how long they engage with specific content. Since the transit hub is a public space where people move freely and access information without restrictions, the researcher can gather insights without needing special permission to observe behaviour in this environment. This allows the researcher to see authentic interactions as they naturally unfold, providing valuable data on how communication tools like digital signage work in real-time, publicly accessible contexts.

In a closed setting, the research occurs in an environment that is more controlled or limited in access. Participants may be selected or recruited specifically for the study, and interactions take place in a confined or controlled space. For instance, an ethnographer is investigating communication dynamics within a therapy group for individuals with social anxiety. The researcher gains permission to observe the group’s sessions, and participants are aware of the research. However, the setting is closed in the sense that it involves a specific group with defined objectives, and interactions are limited to the therapy sessions.

In both covert/overt roles and open/closed settings, researchers make deliberate choices based on their research goals, ethical considerations, and the level of influence they want to exert on the research context. Each approach has its own implications for the type of data collected, the authenticity of participant behaviour, and the ethical responsibilities of the researcher.

Finally, ethnographers often adapt their roles throughout the research process based on their evolving understanding of the community and the insights they aim to uncover. Four central roles have been identified.

Complete Participant

In the role of a complete participant, the ethnographer fully integrates into the community being studied. They become an active and accepted member of the community, participating in daily activities, ceremonies, events, and interactions. The ethnographer’s involvement is so immersive that they adopt the community’s lifestyle and experiences firsthand. This role allows the ethnographer to gain an in-depth understanding of the community’s culture, norms, and perspectives.

As an example, a researcher interested in studying a small fishing village decides to become a complete participant. They live among the villagers, engage in fishing activities, share meals, and participate in cultural rituals. By fully integrating into the community, the researcher gains insights into the villagers’ way of life, the challenges they face, and the social dynamics that govern their interactions. They do not disclose their identity for fear of influencing others’ treatment of them.

In this role, there is sometimes the danger of “deep engagement” (“going native” is a colloquial expression for this, though problematic due to its colonial roots). This process refers to a researcher or an outsider becoming so enmeshed in the culture, lifestyle, or practices of the community they are studying that they begin to adopt the behaviours, beliefs, and perspectives of that community. This term is often used in anthropological and ethnographic contexts, where researchers spend extended periods of time living among the people they are studying.

When someone becomes so involved they may start to adopt the clothing, language, customs, and habits of the community to the point where they appear to be a member of that community. While this level of immersion can provide researchers with valuable insights and a deeper understanding of the culture, it also raises ethical and methodological considerations. Researchers who become too assimilated may unconsciously adopt the biases and perspectives of the community, potentially distorting the research findings. Immersion to the point of adopting behaviours or beliefs can raise ethical concerns about the authenticity of the researcher’s identity and their interactions with participants.

Participant-as-Observer

In the role of participant-as-observer, ethnographers engage in community activities to some extent while maintaining a degree of objective observation. They strike a balance between participating in selected activities and documenting their observations. The emphasis is on gathering data through active involvement while still maintaining an observer’s perspective.

As an illustration, a researcher is studying a religious festival in a community. While participating in the festival’s rituals and ceremonies, the researcher also takes notes, records conversations, and observes interactions. By being both a participant and an observer, they can capture the emotions, beliefs, and social dynamics surrounding the event while maintaining a critical eye. Participants are aware they are being studied.

Observer-as-Participant

In the role of observer-as-participant, ethnographers primarily focus on observing and documenting community activities, but they may occasionally engage in specific events or interactions. The primary emphasis is on data collection through observation, but limited participation allows for a more nuanced understanding of the context.

For instance, an ethnographer is studying a classroom in an educational setting. Their primary role is to observe teaching methods and student interactions. They do not participate but would respond to specific questions and exchanges if needed. This limited participation enables the ethnographer to gather more detailed information about classroom dynamics. Participants are aware they are being studied.

Complete Observer

As a complete observer, the ethnographer maintains a stance of detached observation and refrains from actively participating in community activities. Their main focus is on documenting behaviours, interactions, and cultural practices without becoming directly involved.

For example, a researcher is conducting an ethnographic study of street vendors in a bustling market. They position themselves at a distance, discreetly observing vendor-customer interactions, pricing strategies, and communication patterns. By remaining an outsider, the researcher can capture authentic behaviours without influencing or altering the dynamics they are studying. The vendors would not be aware they are being watched.

It’s important to note that the choice of role depends on the research goals, the level of immersion required, ethical considerations, and the specific context being studied.

Key Informant

In ethnography, a key informant is an individual who possesses specialised knowledge about the culture, community, or social group under study. Key informants are often chosen based on their role, expertise, and familiarity with the context being researched. They provide valuable insights, information, and perspectives that can help the ethnographer better understand and interpret the cultural nuances, practices, beliefs, and social dynamics of the community.

Key informants can include community leaders, elders, experts in certain cultural practices, respected members of the community, or individuals who hold significant knowledge about specific aspects of the culture. They serve as valuable sources of information and can guide the researcher in navigating the cultural landscape, interpreting behaviours, and gaining access to important events or interactions.

For instance, in a study about online social media communities and their impact on mental health, a key informant could be an individual who is not only an active participant in various online groups but also a recognized advocate for mental health awareness. This key informant might have a deep understanding of the community dynamics, the challenges faced by members, and the ways in which communication within these groups affects individuals’ well-being. Their insights and personal experiences could provide valuable perspectives that help the researchers gain a more comprehensive understanding of the topic and its implications.

Engaging with key informants is a common practice in ethnography to ensure that the research is well-informed, culturally sensitive, and accurately reflects the complexities of the studied culture or community. Ethnographers often establish rapport and build relationships with key informants to gather meaningful and authentic data during their fieldwork.

The Role of Field Research in Communication Studies

Field research has emerged as a powerful and versatile method within the realm of communication studies, allowing researchers to explore communication phenomena in their natural contexts and capture the dynamic interplay of human interactions. Some examples of how this might work are outlined below:

Ethnographic Study of Online Communities: Researchers can conduct fieldwork within online forums and social media groups to explore how virtual communities communicate, interact, and form social bonds in digital spaces. This approach can help uncover the unique communication dynamics and shared norms that emerge within these online communities.
Observing Political Campaign Rallies: Field researchers might attend political rallies and campaign events to observe and analyse the communication strategies employed by political candidates. By documenting speeches, audience reactions, and interactions between candidates and voters, researchers can gain insights into persuasive communication techniques and their impact on voter perceptions.
Nonverbal Communication in Healthcare Settings: Communication scholars can conduct field research in hospital waiting rooms and patient-care environments to study the role of nonverbal cues in patient-doctor interactions. By observing body language, facial expressions, and gestures, researchers can assess how these cues contribute to patient satisfaction, understanding, and trust.
Media Coverage of Protests: Researchers might engage in fieldwork by attending and analysing protests, rallies, and demonstrations. By observing media interactions, interviewing protesters, and journalists, and examining news coverage, scholars can investigate how the media frames and communicates social movements and activism to the public.
Organisational Communication Observations: Field research can be employed to study communication within workplaces. Researchers might immerse themselves in organisations to document communication patterns, hierarchy, conflict resolution strategies, and the impact of communication on organisational culture. This approach provides an in-depth understanding of communication dynamics within specific work environments.
Cross-Cultural Communication in Tourism: Scholars might conduct field research in tourist destinations to explore how communication between tourists and locals is influenced by cultural differences. By observing interactions and conducting interviews, researchers can uncover communication challenges, misunderstandings, and effective strategies for cross-cultural communication.
Family Communication Patterns: Field research within family settings could be used to study communication patterns, rituals, and dynamics. Researchers engage with families over extended periods, observing conversations, conflict resolution, and decision-making processes to understand how communication shapes family relationships.
Street Performances and Public Engagement: Communication researchers have studied street performances, such as busking or public speeches, as forms of communication in urban spaces. By observing audience reactions and analysing performers’ communication techniques, researchers can gain insights into public engagement and the impact of spontaneous communication with passersby.
Language Use in Multilingual Communities: Field research might be employed to study communication within multilingual communities. Researchers immerse themselves in neighbourhoods or social groups where multiple languages are spoken to examine language choice, code-switching, and the role of language in identity expression.
Social Media Behaviour and Self-Presentation: Field research within social media platforms could involve analysing user interactions, posts, and comments to understand how individuals construct and present their identities online. Researchers can uncover patterns of self-presentation, communication styles, and the role of social media in shaping perceptions of self and others.

These examples demonstrate the diverse ways in which field research can be applied to investigate communication phenomena across various contexts, highlighting its versatility and contribution to advancing communication studies.

Pros and Cons of Field Research

Field research has many benefits, as well as a set of drawbacks. We’ll explore both here.

Benefits of Field Research to Communication Studies

Field research immerses communication scholars in the natural habitats of human interaction bringing with it some enriching benefits, the key to which are summarised below.

By being physically present, researchers can capture the subtleties of language choice, nonverbal cues, and negotiation strategies that are deeply embedded in the cultural fabric. This immersive experience unveils the richness of cross-cultural interactions that might be lost in more controlled settings.

Field research facilitates prolonged engagement, allowing researchers to conduct in-depth interviews and participant observation. This approach enables scholars to unravel the intricate web of emotions, concerns, and communication challenges faced by individuals navigating the healthcare system. The resulting narratives provide a profound understanding of personal experiences that shape communication.

By observing not only the speakers but also the reactions of the live audience, researchers gain insights into the persuasive impact of rhetoric, visual cues, and audience engagement. This firsthand experience offers an unfiltered view of how media messages unfold in real time.

Field research takes communication scholars to the streets, where public discourse converges. Consider a researcher documenting conversations in a local park. By observing the interactions, humour, and spontaneous debates among park-goers, researchers can discern the fluidity of public discourse and its role in shaping communal identities and shared values.

Field research becomes a vital tool in understanding crisis communication strategies. Imagine researchers embedded within an organisation facing a crisis. By witnessing the immediate responses, press conferences, and internal communications, scholars can scrutinise the effectiveness of crisis communication plans and the alignment between organisational rhetoric and action.

In the digital age, field research extends into virtual realms. Scholars dive into online communities, participating and observing interactions within digital spaces. Picture a researcher exploring a gaming forum. This approach unveils the nuances of online communication, including anonymity, emoticon use, and the evolution of digital subcultures.

Limitations of Field Research to Communication Studies

Field researchers are active participants in the research process, and their presence can introduce subjectivity and potential bias. Personal perspectives, beliefs, and interpretations might influence data collection, observation, and analysis. This subjectivity can compromise the objectivity and reliability of findings, particularly when researchers are emotionally invested or have preconceived notions about the subject of study.

Field research demands a significant investment of time, effort, and resources. Researchers need to allocate substantial periods for data collection, participant engagement, and data analysis. Long-term fieldwork can strain research budgets and schedules, potentially limiting the scope and scale of the study.

Field researchers may face ethical challenges related to privacy and informed consent. Immersing oneself in participants’ lives or sensitive contexts may intrude upon personal boundaries. Maintaining ethical standards and ensuring participants’ well-being become critical considerations, particularly in studies involving vulnerable populations or intimate settings.

Findings from field research are often context-specific and may not easily generalise to broader populations or settings. While rich in-depth insights can be gained, the uniqueness of the context can restrict the applicability of findings to other situations.

The mere presence of a researcher can trigger changes in participants’ behaviour, a phenomenon known as the “Hawthorne effect.” Individuals might modify their communication patterns, attitudes, or actions when aware of being observed. This reactivity can distort the authenticity of data and undermine the study’s validity, especially when studying natural, unmediated behaviour.

External factors such as unexpected events, changing social dynamics, or environmental conditions can impact data collection and introduce confounding variables. Researchers need to adapt to evolving circumstances, which can sometimes disrupt the research process.

The wealth of data generated through field research can lead to data overload and analysis complexity. Researchers might struggle with managing and interpreting vast amounts of qualitative data, making it challenging to identify meaningful patterns, themes, and trends. Ensuring rigour in data analysis becomes crucial to draw accurate and valid conclusions.

In sum, field research should be praised for its ability to capture contextual intricacies, delve into personal narratives, dissect media events, unearth public discourse, navigate crises, and explore digital spaces uniquely. Yet, field research isn’t devoid of challenges. Researchers must navigate subjectivity, ethical considerations, limited generalizability, reactivity, data analysis complexities, unpredictable factors, and their own positioning in the studied environment. A comprehensive understanding of these disadvantages is essential for researchers to make informed decisions and address potential limitations when employing field research methodologies.

How do Fieldwork and Journalism Compare?

Fieldwork and investigative journalism share similarities in their investigative nature and hands-on approach, but they also have distinct characteristics and objectives. Let’s compare these two practices.

In terms of similarities both fieldwork and investigative journalism involve deep and thorough exploration of a subject. Researchers and journalists immerse themselves in the context to gather detailed information and insights.

Additionally, both practices require direct engagement with the subject of study. Field researchers and investigative journalists actively interact with individuals, communities, or environments to collect firsthand data.

Moreover, both fieldwork and investigative journalism aim to uncover hidden truths, expose injustices, or reveal aspects of a situation that may not be readily apparent.

Both practices also involve ethical considerations regarding informed consent, privacy, and responsible reporting. Researchers and journalists must navigate sensitive issues while maintaining the well-being and rights of those involved.

Finally, both fieldwork and investigative journalism can have a real-world impact by bringing attention to important issues, driving change, or influencing public perception.

Despite these commonalities, there are some differences which are summarised below.

Purpose and Audience

The primary purpose of fieldwork is to gather insights and data for academic or research purposes. The audience is often fellow researchers, scholars, or those interested in a specific field of study.

Investigative journalism aims to inform the public and hold individuals, organisations, or institutions accountable. The audience is the general public, and the reporting is typically intended to generate awareness and provoke action.

Medium of Presentation

The findings from fieldwork are typically presented in academic papers, research articles, or conferences. The focus is on contributing to the body of knowledge within a specific discipline.

Investigative journalism findings are presented through news articles, documentaries, or multimedia platforms. The emphasis is on making information accessible and engaging to a broader audience.

Narrative Style

The reporting style in fieldwork is often more formal and structured, focusing on research methodologies, data analysis, and theoretical frameworks.

Investigative journalism employs storytelling techniques, emphasising narratives, personal stories, and emotional connections to engage readers or viewers.

Funding and Resources

Field research is often funded through academic institutions, research grants, or personal funding. Researchers may have more control over the scope and direction of their projects.

Investigative journalism projects are typically funded by media organisations or foundations supporting journalistic endeavours. Journalists may need to balance the demands of editorial teams and financial constraints.

Scope and Focus

Fieldwork can cover a wide range of topics within various academic disciplines, and the research questions may be broader and exploratory in nature.

Investigative journalism tends to focus on specific issues or cases to expose wrongdoing, corruption, or social injustices.

In sum, while fieldwork and investigative journalism share commonalities in their investigative approach, they differ in terms of purpose, audience, presentation style, funding, and scope. Both practices contribute to our understanding of the world and play important roles in driving awareness, change, and accountability.

Reflection Question

How do the objectives, presentation styles, and intended audiences of fieldwork in communication studies differ from those of investigative journalism? In what ways do these practices diverge in their approach and impact on society, and how do they each contribute to our understanding of the world?” Document your thoughts in a 200–300-word post.

Key Chapter Takeaways

By systematically recording and categorising observable behaviours, structured observation provides researchers with quantitative insights into communication dynamics and contributes to a deeper understanding of various communication phenomena.
Structured observation boasts efficiency, precise measurement, and controlled conditions. However, it might sacrifice external validity, be susceptible to reactivity, overlook contextual richness, and demand vigilant ethical practices. Therefore, when assessing a study’s merits, it’s crucial to weigh these strengths and weaknesses judiciously.
Field research is a strong and flexible method in communication studies, letting researchers study communication in real-life settings and understand how people interact.
In both covert/overt roles and open/closed settings, positionality (Complete Participant/ Participant-as-observer/ Observer-as-participant/Complete Observer), researchers purposefully decide their approach based on research aims, ethics, and desired impact on the study environment.
Field research is a strong and flexible method in communication studies, letting researchers study communication in real-life settings and understand how people interact.
Field research’s capacity to uncover contextual nuances, analyse personal stories, decode media phenomena, and navigate diverse environments enhances communication studies. However, challenges such as subjectivity, ethics, limited generalizability, and data complexities require careful consideration. Researchers must acknowledge and address these drawbacks to make informed decisions in their field research endeavours.
Fieldwork and investigative journalism, while sharing investigative methods, diverge in their objectives, target audiences, presentation styles, financial support, and research scope. Yet both practices still significantly contribute to our comprehension of the world, serving crucial roles in fostering awareness, instigating change, and upholding accountability.

Key Terms

Structured Observation: Refers to a method of data collection in which researchers carefully design and plan observations to focus on specific behaviours, events, or interactions. This approach involves predefined categories or criteria to guide the observations, allowing for systematic data collection and analysis.

Naturalistic Observation: A method where researchers observe and study subjects in their natural or real-life environment, without any manipulation or intervention.

Interrater reliability: Refers to the degree of agreement or consistency between two or more independent observers or raters when assessing the same phenomenon or data. It is a measure of the reliability or accuracy of their judgments and ensures that the observations or evaluations made by different raters are similar or aligned.

Field Research: Involves conducting studies and collecting data in real-world settings, outside of controlled environments like laboratories. Researchers directly engage with participants, communities, or environments to gather authentic and contextual information.

Ethnography: A qualitative research method that involves immersive and prolonged engagement with a specific culture or community to gain a comprehensive understanding of their practices, beliefs, social dynamics, and everyday life. Ethnographers often participate in the community’s activities and interactions to capture the cultural context.

Participant Observation: A research technique where the researcher becomes an active participant within the community or group being studied. By engaging in activities and interactions, the researcher gains firsthand insight into the culture and behaviour of the participants.

Covert role: Refers to a researcher’s hidden or undisclosed identity and purpose.

Overt role: Involves transparently revealing the researcher’s identity and objectives to participants.

Open setting: A research environment where the researcher can observe and collect data without requiring special permissions or formal access approvals.

Closed setting: Involves restricted access or a controlled environment for data collection.

Key Informant: An individual who possesses specialised knowledge or insights about a community, culture, or phenomenon under study. Researchers often rely on key informants to provide valuable information and context.

Complete Participant: A researcher who fully immerses themselves in the community or culture being studied, actively engaging in their activities, interactions, and rituals to gain an insider’s perspective.

Deep Immersion (sometimes labelled problematically as “going native”): Refers to a researcher becoming deeply immersed in the culture or community they are studying to the point where they adopt the behaviours, beliefs, and perspectives of that community.

Participant-as-Observers: Researchers who engage in both participation and observation in the community being studied, striking a balance between being an active participant and maintaining an observer’s perspective.

Observer-as-Participant: Focus on observing and documenting community activities while occasionally engaging in specific interactions or events.

Complete Observer: A researcher who maintains a stance of detached observation without actively participating in community activities, focusing solely on documenting behaviours, interactions, and cultural practices.

Hawthorne Effect: Refers to the phenomenon where individuals modify their behaviour or performance when they know they are being observed, often resulting in improved outcomes due to the awareness of being studied.

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Navigating Communication Research: A Practical Guide for Media Practitioners Copyright © 2025 by Amanda Williams and Emma Duke is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.