FIELD RESEARCH AND FOCUS GROUP RESEARCHfollows. Expect mixed and inconsistent messages
when you interview a range of informants.Interview Context.We recognize that a con-
versation in a private office may not occur in a
crowded lunchroom.^53 Often, interviews take place
in the informant’s home environment so that he or
she is comfortable. This is not always best. If an
informant is preoccupied or there is no privacy, you
move to another setting (e.g., quiet restaurant or
university office).
Meaning in an interview is shaped by its Gestalt;
that is, the whole interaction of a researcher and an
informant in a specific context. Also, nonverbal
forms of communication (e.g., shrugs, gestures,
etc.) that add meaning should be noted.
DATA QUALITY
The Meaning of Quality
What does the term high-quality data mean in field
research, and what does a qualitative researcher do
to get such data?^54 For the researcher following a pos-
itivist, quantitative approach, high-quality data are
reliable and valid; they give precise, consistent mea-
sures of the same “objective” truth for all researchers.
By contrast, a field researcher following an interpre-
tive approach believes that instead of assuming one
single, objective truth, members subjectively inter-
pret experiences within a social context. What a
member takes to be true flows from social interaction
and interpretation. Thus, high-quality field data cap-
ture such processes and provide an understanding of
the member’s viewpoint. You want “rich” data. This
means the data are diverse and you gathered data sys-
tematically over a prolonged period. We do not elim-
inate subjective views to get quality data; rather,
quality data include subjective responses and expe-
riences. Quality field data are detailed descriptions
from your immersion into the authentic experiences
in the social world of members.^55
Reliability in Field Research
The reliability of field data addresses whether your
observations about a member or field event areinternally and externally consistent. Internal con-
sistencyrefers to data that are plausible given all
that is known about a person or event and elimi-
nating common forms of human deception. In other
words, the data fit together into a coherent picture.
For example, a member’s actions are consistent
over time and in different social contexts.
External consistencyrefers to data that have
been verified or cross-checked with other, diver-
gent sources of data. In other words, the data all fit
into the overall context. For example, others can
verify what you observed about a person. It asks:
Does other evidence confirm your observations?
Reliability in field research also includes what
is not said or done but is expected or anticipated.
Such omissions or null data can be significant but
are difficult to detect. For example, when observ-
ing a cashier end her shift, you notice that she did
not count the money in the drawer. You may notice
the omission only if other cashiers always count
money at the end of the shift.
Reliability in field research depends on your
insight, awareness, suspicions, and questions. You
look at members and events from different angles
(legal, economic, political, personal) and mentally
ask questions: Where does the money come from
for that? What do those people do all day?
You depend on what members tell you. This
makes the credibility of members and their state-
ments part of reliability. To check member credibil-
ity, you must ask: Does the person have a reason
to lie? Is she or he in a position to know that? What
are the person’s values, and how might that shape
what she or he says? Is the person just sayingInternal consistency Reliability in field research
determined by having a researcher examine the plau-
sibility of data to see whether they form a coherent
whole, fit all else that is known about a person or
event, and avoid common forms of deception.
External consistency Reliability of data in field
research demonstrated by having the researcher
cross-check and verify qualitative data using multiple
sources of information.