Preliminary field-work - SAGE Journals - Sage Publications

A RT I C L E

Preliminary field-work: methodological reflections from northern Canadian research

Q R

489

Qualitative Research Copyright © 2009 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC) vol. 9(4) 489–513

K E N J. C A I N E University of Alberta, Canada C O L L E E N M . DAV I S O N University of Ottawa, Canada E M M A J . S T E WA R T University of Calgary, Canada

A B S T R A C T In the Canadian North researchers of all disciplines are increasingly finding that local communities are neither uninterested nor ignorant of the potential for research to benefit their communities. We propose preliminary field-work as the early stages of research in the field that allow for exploration, reflexivity, creativity, mutual exchange and interaction through the establishment of research relationships with local people often prior to the development of research protocols and ethics applications. Based on a review of field research literature combined with our own personal research narratives from northern Canadian community research, we initiate a much needed discussion on the topic of preliminary field-work in order to understand more clearly its functions and contributions. We reflect on and examine our own experiences providing methodological guidance to other researchers who are contemplating community-based field research. Preliminary fieldwork acknowledges the increasingly intertwined standards of research quality, integrity and broader research ethics. KEYWORDS:

community-based research, ethics, ethnography, field research, field-work, methodology, northern Canada, preliminary field-work

Introduction One of my professors, when asked what to do in the field, responded that I should go find myself. If this was to be the goal, pity the poor community of my choice. (Appell, 1989: 48)

The Canadian North1 has for centuries been regaled in literature, history, and especially among social scientists as a place of great allure with unique environments and cultures. In the past decade, however, this circumpolar

DOI: 10.1177/1468794109337880

490

Qualitative Research 9(4)

region of the world has become the intense focus of concern due to the socioenvironmental effects of climate change and rapid industrial resource development on lands that are predominantly the homelands of Aboriginal peoples. With settled land claims and new governance institutions, Aboriginal groups in northern regions of Canada have become leaders and exemplars in land claim negotiations, self-determination, and self-government. In the wake of rapid industrial expansion and changing environmental conditions in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, a call has been made for the establishment of economic opportunities and natural resource management within the context of Aboriginal cultural traditions (Caine et al., 2007). A key concern for northern researchers and communities alike is to understand how individuals, families, culture, environment, and livelihoods might be affected by the current industrial development and climate change milieu. Social and bio-physical studies of the Canadian North have typically been undertaken using conventional research methods where researcher and researched were functionally disparate. However, much has changed in the past two decades in that political, economic and environmental changes have led to contemporary issues that require novel and innovative approaches to social studies and research. Researchers who work in the North, regardless of their discipline, often discover that communities are neither uninterested nor ignorant of the potential for research to benefit their communities and address deteriorating environmental conditions. This realization by researchers is in stark contrast to the practical guidance given in many methodology texts where field ‘preliminaries’ are suggested as a means of getting started in field research. Field research advice, such as ‘hang[ing] out for a couple weeks’ in the community, is a process that can provide contacts, research ideas and initiate relationships with people (Agar, 1996: 79). In this sense, however, the act positions and favours the researcher. Indeed, the opening quote to this article would be quite amusing if it weren’t so true in the eyes of many young researchers, let alone community members who struggle to find local benefits from outside scientific research. However tenuous the relationship might end up, the rationale for working within, and hopefully with, communities is strong. Agar’s treatment of the preliminary stages of research is a thinly conceptualized version of what we argue to be one of the most crucial, promising and as yet understudied methodological discussions of contemporary field based research: preliminary field-work. L O CAT I N G T H E C O N C E P T UA L F I E L D

It seems that almost every researcher who ventures into the field has considered the idea of preliminary work, from reading about the location and culture to physically visiting the site. As a result, there is a proliferation of references to preliminary research, and correspondingly, a large number of terms being used to indirectly reference this process.2 Our intent with this article is to explore the concept of a preliminary component of field-work where introductory

Caine et al.: Preliminary field-work

investigation occurs in the time period prior to more formalized research and data collection.3 Hence we term this period and practice of research: ‘preliminary field-work’ to differentiate it from the many early stages that researchers from diverse disciplines utilize to simply get themselves into the field. We define preliminary field-work as the formative early stages of research in the field that allow for exploration, reflexivity, creativity, mutual exchange and interaction through the establishment of research relationships with local people often prior to the development of research protocols and ethics applications. The term is both specific and general enough to be inclusive of all disciplinary practices but it is focused on contemporary issues and innovation in collaborative practice. The objectives of our reflections on preliminary field-work as a novel yet taken for granted and little-conceptualized aspect of field research is to (1) draw together strands of existing literature on preliminary field-work from a wide variety of domains in order to understand more clearly the functions and contributions of preliminary field-work, (2) reflect on and examine our experiences of northern preliminary field-work in the context of this existing literature, and (3) provide methodological guidance to other researchers who are contemplating community-based field research. T H E R AT I O NA L E F O R P R E L I M I NA RY F I E L D - WO R K

An examination of why and how preliminary field-work is important is perhaps best illustrated by two contrasting examples. First, the Center for Research on the Acts of Man conducted a 1979 health research survey of the use of alcohol among the Inupiat people of Barrow, Alaska. Researchers shared their preliminary results with the media which led to sensational headlines in leading eastern US newspapers that characterized Barrow as a city of alcoholics and stigmatized the Inupiaq people of Barrow after being labeled ‘a problem’. The study demonstrated that a lack of collaboration, limited cultural understanding on the part of researchers, and poor insight into community beliefs regarding the nature of the problem resulted in damaging effects on the local community as well as researcher–community relationships for many years thereafter (Foulks, 1987, 1989). Such research contributed to the belief that ‘researchers derive all the benefits and bear no responsibility for the ways in which their research is used’ (Deloria, 1991: 457). Second, and in contrast to the first example, Jean Guy Goulet’s examination of Dene Tha peoples’ conceptions of power and knowledge in Chateh, Northern Canada, is grounded in extensive preliminary visits and community field-work prior to his research. Before he conducted his ethnographic research Goulet traveled to the Dene community of Chateh in Northern Alberta, Canada and established a relational contract in which residents agreed to teach him their language and their way of life as a part of the research process (Goulet, 1998). Political and ethical issues were addressed early during preliminary processes. Taken together, these examples illustrate the need for culturally anchored research paradigms and communicative competencies in field research.

491

492


In the Canadian North people no longer (if ever they did) passively accept a dominant society controlling aspects of their lives. This stand extends beyond governance and property rights as community needs often conflict with prevailing norms for academic research leading to a changing social context of science (Bielawski, 1984). In addition, this position corresponds to the call by Stimson (1988) to return ‘place’ back into methods involved in field-work bringing into focus the ‘near exclusion of dimensions, conditions, and contingencies of those places where research is conducted’ (Stein, 2006: 60). If, as Stein would have us believe, the three most important considerations in field research are ‘location, location, and location’ (2006: 62), then preliminary field-work is grossly undervalued in the scholastic market. One of the ways to address these scholars’ methodological concerns is to consider the possibility that preliminary field-work can benefit researchers by opening opportunities for new research and relationships, satisfy community’s desires for meaningful participation (incorporating issues of trust, ethics, and collaboration), and expand the scholarly frontiers of field-based research. While the focus of this article is based on our experiences and formal reflections of preliminary field-work in the Canadian north, there is a vast body of literature from around the world that addresses similar issues albeit cursorily. We delve into this catalog to compliment the relative dearth of circumpolar preliminary field-work literature with the intent to better understand the merits of early field research processes.

The ‘preliminary’ in field-work The choice of a field site is among the most important decisions made in the initial stages of field-work. It takes months to even start becoming familiar with a community, to build rapport, and to develop a sense of mutual trust … choose an inappropriate setting and those months are largely wasted. (Raybeck, 1992: 6)

A variety of terms for, and passing references to, preliminary processes in research have been used to tangentially describe aspects of preliminary fieldwork.4 Often this diverse literature relates to gaining entry into the field and the importance of building trust and rapport.5 Most commonly, however, experiences are embedded within explanations of research methods, typically anthropological field-work or archaeological reconnaissance, with little indepth examination of the reasoning and personal motivations for the antecedent components of their field-work (see for example, Bliss, 1988; Lee, 1991; MacKian, 2002; Seixas, 2002; Stevenson, 1981). Three basic stages of field-work are frequently discussed in the ethnographic literature: the entry or initiation stage, the routinization or concentration of data-gathering period, and the closing or post-field stage (Patton, 2002; Wax, 1985). Entry into the field involves two separate parts; negotiation with gatekeepers concerning the nature of field-work to be done, and actual physical entry into the field setting to begin collecting data (Patton, 2002). However,


Rosalie Wax (1985) observes that of the few professionals who do relate their first stage, pre-involvement experiences, they are typically written in a whimsical style so as to cover up their oft-painful experiences. This may explain the scarcity of preliminary field-work discussion in the literature as the difficult early stages of field research require a certain academic courage to publish. A review of the recent four-volume publication, Fieldwork (Pole, 2005), reveals what we see as an important omission: it does not devote any space to a discussion of the preliminary considerations of field research. Given Wax’s observation, locating preliminary field-work (as we define it) in the broad literature requires a winnowing out of the methodological chaff to reveal what insights researchers have reaped. First, falling out of this process it is clear that in conducting preliminary field-work valuable connections can be made with substantive benefits yielded. Second, these same benefits are often associated with methodological, personal, and ethical entanglements or challenges facing a researcher leading to a variety of costs. Third, an understanding of the cultures within which one is working is crucial to any preliminary research in the field. Fourth, one aspect of this that is repeatedly discussed is the role of gate keepers who control, mediate and support access to people and services within a community. Finally, and perhaps most importantly is the insight that this type of field-work is never fixed but rather a partial and ongoing process requiring a special kind of reflexivity and attentiveness. Schematically, these above issues and the insight from the literature illustrate the importance of preliminary field-work (see Figure 1). Using this conceptualization, we explore how the literature examines these topics. MAKING CONNECTIONS

That preliminary field-work and its benefits are not expounded upon in the literature does not mean that they are unsubstantial and insignificant. Preliminary field-work can be seen as an activity that increases connections between and understanding of complex contexts, assists as a repositioning tool in asking questions during research, and helps gain deeper access to the lived experiences of others (Carrier, 2006; Goulet, 1998; Grills, 1998). This confirms what cultural and human geographers in the field emphasize: the places from which research is conducted informs the entire endeavour. Thus, the significance of place and increased time spent within a community are key components of preliminary field-work. Theoretical approaches and preparation to research are necessary but often insufficient once in the field as the connection between theory and what people do is often opaque. Preliminary field experience can connect theory to context and practice, and in some cases give theory new meaning (Douglas, 1994). As such, multifaceted understanding of a community from immersion prior to the actual research may provide new insights requiring the researcher to modify original objectives and procedures (Carrier, 2006; Douglas, 1994), or contribute to better development of the research problematic (De Vries,

493

494


MAKING CONNECTIONS: ENTANGLEMENTS: Development and modification of research scope, location, research design and methods Deeper access to lived experiences Helps connect context, practice, and theory Uncovers knowledge of constraints and improves understanding of context Increased serendipity in research findings Improved community communication and negotiation

Time commitments and cost of travel to “remote” areas Culturally appropriate but untried methods Community commitment, trust, and credibility require more time and effort Overcoming a history of non-communication, miscommunication, and misunderstanding Reconciling the intertwined standards of research quality, integrity and ethics Seeing research as social process

IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING

GATEKEEPERS:

CULTURE Successful preliminary field-work is contingent upon relationship with gatekeepers Gatekeepers subject to social, cultural and political contexts Begin with relevant local organizations Preliminary visit and initial interpersonal contact helps to establish best community liaison

Locating Preliminary Field-work

Culture integral to understanding a people Getting out “on the land” as part of preliminary process Allows for novel ways for researching and interpreting multiple and changing contexts Gain insight into a people’s culture, history, spirit and struggles

PARTIAL AND ONGOING PROCESS: Ongoing construction of dialogue, knowledge, and co-learning Engagement as power: may lead to a dialogical and reciprocal relationship Manual of rules does not exist: process evolves over time and negotiated and renegotiated with new casts of people Process is mediated and shaped by contingencies beyond the researcher’s control

FIGURE 1. Conceptualization of the location of preliminary field-work in qualitative field research

1992; Laidler, 2004; Smit et al., 2004). Research question development includes understanding the critical needs of the community and uncovering potential community and/or institutional constraints (and conflict and tension) that may limit collaboration (Gearheard and Shirley, 2007; Riger et al., 2004). Collaboration often leads to unanticipated though favourable consequences. In northern Canadian locales especially, research outcomes will benefit from taking a less-rigid and low-key approach to researcher–resident relations (Ward, 1996a; Woodley, 1992). Furthermore, commitment to, and communication within, the community and project is strengthened by the


length of time preliminarily spent with a community (Reimer, 1994). Such a commitment allows for the collection and preliminary analysis of available documents about the potential setting and issues under investigation and informal consultations with people who have experience or knowledge of the area (Hammersly and Atkinson, 1983). E N TA N G L E M E N T S

The benefits of preliminary field-work are accompanied by direct and indirect costs to the field researcher. Preliminary field-work is often presented as a challenge due to the longer-term commitment which may be perceived as overly time consuming with insufficient rewards for researchers (Arcury and Quandt, 1999). Invariably, all those who research in the field must contend with the ‘twin dilemmas of access and time’ which shape and limit research activities (Smith, 2001: 226); heightened even more so in remote northern and aboriginal communities (Bielawski, 1984; Davison et al., 2006). Northern Canadian research organizations, attempting to address some of these issues, advise that field season length, timing, and duration, such as one to two months in the summer, are insufficient to adequately understand the phenomenon under study in a northern socio-cultural context (ITK and NRI, 2006: 4). These experiences are no doubt partly based on local people tiring of seeing field researchers arrive in the spring and then suddenly disappear by the autumn.6 As such, researchers must be committed to working closely with northern communities over longer periods of time to develop the necessary understanding of the host culture as well as to cultivate an atmosphere of cooperation (Fletcher, 2004; Gearheard and Shirley, 2007; Woodley, 1992). Whereas visiting a community prior to the research process may increase the effectiveness of the negotiation involved in making contact, limited opportunities due to large geographic distance, limited physical accessibility, and cost of travel often makes it difficult to travel to communities prior to engaging in crucial early phases of research (Lapadat and Janzen, 1994; Ward, 1996a). As a relationship with those studied, however, field research is a social process in which the researcher plays a major role (Burgess, 2005) and one which can be strengthened through preliminary field-work. Undertaking such a role requires that researchers carry out, while making explicit, open and honest negotiations around data gathering, analysis and presentation which are closely tied to epistemological issues of how and where knowledge is created (Olesen, 2000). O F L A RG E R P RO C E S S E S A N D PA RT I A L I T Y

Preliminary field-work is only one part of research and by itself, does not explain or produce good research. Moreover, the road that lays before a researcher is not well mapped and seems to always be in a state of continual construction (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2004). Seen as a construction, preliminary field-work allows for the development of a contextually appropriate knowledge base which may lead to continued dialogue and co-learning among

495

496


researchers, community members and practitioners (Boothroyd et al., 2004; Laidler, 2003; Riger et al., 2004).7 In order for researchers to be effective in influencing the creation of partnerships, it is frequently suggested that researchers must be sufficiently involved in community life in order to develop awareness of local topics of interest and key informants even before considering discussions on collaborative research projects (Gearheard and Shirley, 2007; Ward, 1996a, 1996b). Informed by participatory research methods, this engagement may lead to a dialogical and reciprocal relationship between researchers and research participants as a partial process of empowerment (Henderson, 1995; Torres, 1992). Preliminary field-work is thus more methodologically partial than complete. Seen as a partial process ‘it is not fixed at the outset but evolves over time in that it is negotiated and renegotiated with new casts of people; and may be mediated and shaped by contingencies beyond the researcher’s control’ (Shaffir, 1996: 56–7). As a result of this partiality, no manual of detailed rules for preliminary field-work exists (or arguably could exist) as situations and circumstances in the field are inherently diverse and variable. G AT E K E E P E R S I N P R E L I M I NA RY F I E L D - WO R K

It is rare for preliminary field-work to take place without a gatekeeper; that is, someone personally knowledgeable about the community who assists in facilitating the research process. Gaining access to a group of people is often influenced and shaped by the social and political context within which the research is evaluated locally, as well as by the nature of the relationships established between researcher and researched (Burgess, 1991; Gearheard and Shirley, 2007; Shaffir and Stebbins, 1991). As such, preliminary field-work is contingent upon considerations such as relationships with gatekeepers and roles adopted in the field (Burgess, 1991; Shaffir and Stebbins, 1991; Wax, 1985). Defining and identifying key stakeholders and community contacts on one’s own can be difficult and may lead to controversy. A superficial understanding of a community may lead to inappropriate research relationships being developed or the selection of a community representative that is either ineffective or improper. Formal representatives, for example, may not always be the best points of contact for research and it is only in getting to know the community more thoroughly that this can become evident (Torres, 1992; Torres-Harding et al., 2004). Making contact with someone of high status (or possibly an outside gatekeeper), will likely lead to additional local recommendations as a result of their personal and professional contacts (Raybeck, 1992; Shaffir, 1996; Shaffir and Stebbins, 1991). With local connections made, northern aboriginal research organizations recommend contacting relevant local organizations and arranging a preliminary community visit (ITK and NRI, 2006: 12). This component of preliminary field-work often includes facilitating a meeting with individuals and groups in the community, discussing the project, and soliciting feedback in


person. The interaction helps assess community interest and project feasibility, while also refining the project proposal according to local concerns or suggestions. Having this initial interpersonal contact can greatly enhance the ease with which a research license is acquired if needed. In addition, it may invite a more receptive response from local individuals and organizations when the field research actually begins on a subsequent trip (ITK and NRI, 2006). U N D E R S TA N D I N G C U LT U R E

Rural people often prefer to have outsiders come and personally experience local livelihoods (Sherry, 2002). This mirrors many others’ northern aboriginal experiences of being steered toward a process of ‘showing’ and ‘telling’ through the land following communicative norms (Cruikshank, 1990; Kurelek, 1992; Reimer, 1994; Sherry, 2002; Wishart, 2004). Throwing oneself into the cultural and experiential ‘deep end’ in order to acquire a profound understanding of the essence of complex human interaction is a thick form of preliminary field-work. Preliminary field-work as cultural immersion establishes novel ways for researching and interpreting multiple and changing contexts that confront the field researcher in complex social situations (Torres, 1992). Visits and early efforts therefore not only assist the researcher to find out what exactly is needed before imposing a potentially foreign cultural process of academic research on a community, but also help to gain insight into a people’s culture, history, and moreover, spirit and struggles.

Discussion: reflections-in-action on preliminary field-work This article is borne out of our northern field research experiences and informal collegial discussions. Ken Caine lived in the Sahtugot’ine community of Déli˛ne, Northwest Territories (NWT) for three years where he explored how outside resource managers from federal and territorial governments, environmental non-government organizations, and aboriginal community leaders perceive, negotiate and practically apply one another’s diverse understandings of natural resource management. The ethnographic research was based on his active working group participation in two locally-driven collaborative resource management projects: the Great Bear Lake Watershed Management Plan and the long-term protection of the aboriginal cultural landscape of Sahoyúé?ehdacho National Historic Site. Colleen M. Davison’s community-based study examined environmental influences on school engagement, as a determinant of health, among students at Chief Jimmy Bruneau School in the Tłi˛cho˛ First Nation community of Behchoko¯˛, NWT. Her research focused on the interactions that take place between students and features of the school and community environment in order to build understanding around the way in which contextual factors work as influences on the educational behaviours and pathways of students in the north. Emma Stewart’s field research examined

497

498


resident attitudes to tourism development in Churchill, Manitoba; and Cambridge Bay and Pond Inlet in Nunavut. Using a community perspective, her research explored how to achieve tourism development in the northern reaches of Canada that is both sustainable and acceptable to local communities. Given predictions that Arctic waters could be substantially free of ice by 2050, a research foci was the effect of increased tourism and shipping activity on northern communities. In the remainder of this article we use our doctoral field study experiences and personal narratives to form the basis of a discussion on preliminary fieldwork. We see this as a quasi-empirical approach in that we are taking a cue from the scarcity of literature on preliminary field-work, and examining this research phase through an exploration of our own experiences as reflective practitioners (Schön, 1983). Our preliminary field-work took place in a variety of locations in the Canadian North. The communities we worked in and with during our doctoral research studies are in some cases thousands of kilometers apart and represent different aboriginal cultures (Figure 2). Our reflection-in-action (Kemmis, 2005) is informed by the ‘partial and situated’ personal narratives that each of us provided prior to writing this article (Ellis and Bochner, 2000: 750). In this process our narratives pivoted around issues and questions we felt were important and thus formulated during our initial discussions: How did I get to do research here? What did I do and what has changed in the journey? What were the critical points during the process? How do you reconcile preliminary field-work with ethics? The result was a structured process of providing written narratives with which we could explore our preliminary field-work experiences with respect to field based methodologies and theory. Our intent was to expand the idea of a literature review on the changing forms of preliminary field-work to include a methodological discussion originating in our research experiences. The analysis of our written narratives was undertaken through computer coding using qualitative software to facilitate the archaeology of emerging themes in preliminary fieldwork. In the analysis of our preliminary field-work narrative reflections, we found that our experiences are best illustrated by five themes that we refer to as: ‘enabling factors’, ‘points in time’, ‘potential barriers’, ‘researcher values’, and ‘better ways to do preliminary field-work.’ The intent of the following discussion of our themes is for a methodological conversation on field research which illustrates preliminary field-work through our research experiences.8 E NA B L I N G FAC TO R S I N P R E L I M I NA RY F I E L D - WO R K

In order to make the most out of preliminary field-work, a number of factors may enable better research and ease the shock of entering the field prior to actual research. Perhaps the social factor that is most enabling is not that of the field researcher but that of the community. Encountering situations where community readiness is limited could lead to situations where people may not be prepared to take emotional and psychological risks in developing new


FIGURE 2. Circumpolar map of author’s northern research field sites (Used with permission: Robin Poitras, University of Calgary)

approaches to research relationships. In contrast, a community environment of high readiness could provide the impetus for research as one author found when community members approached her at an urban-situated research conference on the Arctic: ‘Cambridge Bay found me, rather than the other way round!’ [Stewart]. A key factor in finding a community with which to conduct research is the availability and quality of key contacts and gatekeepers. Sometimes these can be one and the same. As noted in the above quote, Emma Stewart was invited to the community but these community contacts also facilitated a key meeting with local elders (traditional community leaders) in which political and social endorsement could be attained. Much of preliminary field-work relies on a process of continually talking to people about one’s research objectives in both formal and informal settings. Key contacts often seem to arise out of what might be considered serendipity but are more likely an outcome of the development of relationships with people in the preliminary stages of contact. The result is that for a researcher, ‘contacts in the community are worth their weight in gold’ [Stewart]. Preliminary field-work often takes place in a period of uncertainty and may be aided by visits to the field that are not directly related to the research objectives or questions. For example, Caine accepted a research assistantship early

499

500


in his doctoral studies on an interdisciplinary research project in his region of interest. He notes … at the time I planned to use this as a jumping-off point with which to meet people, find a community with similar and related research interests, develop a research question, expand relationships, and ultimately do my research. In retrospect, it really was an idyllic plan with next to nothing as a back-up in case of failure. [Caine]

From a more academic perspective, attending doctoral field schools or courses in the midst of academic studies can indirectly lead to research projects. In one case, A group of about 20 of us traveled by bus from Prince George in northern British Columbia, through Yukon and to Inuvik in the Northwest Territories. We engaged with local people, we discussed our research, we learned about northern issues first hand … I learned more about the impact of natural resource development, oil and gas exploration and extraction and mineral mining) in the north. I was hearing stories of young people getting high paying jobs in industry, without a high school diploma. [Davison]

Preliminary field-work therefore does not necessarily have to take place in regions that have been selected for research. Stewart for instance, utilized contacts from previous research in Antarctica, in which she laid the foundation for her preliminary field-work and research in Arctic communities. In this context she had to pay particular attention to the insider/outsider dynamic. Stewart reflects that: As a non-Canadian and first time visitor to Canada, I was acutely aware of my ‘otherness’ as a researcher’ … I certainly feel less of an ‘outsider’ now that I have completed this preliminary stage of my field-work, and feel that my status as a non-Canadian (and a mother) actually might be of benefit to my research, not a hindrance as I had first feared. [Stewart]

Georg Simmel, in his now famous treatment of the outsider, observed that strangers have a distinctly objective attitude that is not simply passive and detached; rather it is a ‘particular structure composed of distance and nearness, indifference and involvement’ (Simmel, 1950: 404–5). In field-work, reflexivity is a central feature. Preliminary field-work forces one to more closely examine their role, social location, and relationships in a community prior to undertaking formal research (Caine et al., 2007). In the process of preliminary fieldwork questions are continually asked of oneself including ‘how do I make contact and gain permission to work in northern communities’, ‘where do I start’, ‘how do I get in’, and ‘can I get in being such an outsider?’ [Stewart]. P O I N T S I N T I M E I N P R E L I M I NA RY F I E L D - WO R K

Preliminary field-work is highlighted by a number of unique circumstances which are rarely experienced by those using more standard research methods for field studies. What we refer to as ‘dead ends’ are those situations whereby a


preliminary field-work plan and path fails to lead to a research project. However, it forces the researcher to take a different route, re-evaluate, and possibly become a more reflexive practitioner along the way. This is perhaps best exemplified by Davison’s dead ends during the preliminary field-work stage where ‘it was evident that a clear location or collaborative partnership for the research was not emerging’. Upon returning from an unproductive field experience, however, she observed that ‘the time in northern Alberta helped me to think about my own motivations and goals for the project … it was at this time that I was deciding what I could sacrifice and what I was going to stand firm on’ [Davison]. Dead ends in preliminary field-work may serve a purpose. Despite the seemingly-dead ended paths, new doorways may open up into unplanned research fields. Caine found that the six months spent in the North working as a research assistant did not lead directly to his research. The mounting frustration over failing to find a community and question to study resulted in a return trip to the university without a research project in hand. He notes that ‘by the end of August with only one week left in my preliminary field season, I was without a community, without a research question/project, and without any idea of how to explain this to my supervisors. Moreover, my one year funding was almost finished. My ideal plan was nearly in tatters’ [Caine]. His predicament – explained to a colleague in Inuvik – that he had been to and met with all communities in the region, led to the suggestion ‘that I should take a chance and on my way back to Edmonton, take a (major) detour to Déli˛ne to meet with people there.’ This leap of faith indirectly led to the continuation of his preliminary field-work albeit in a region that was not originally considered. Detours based on leaps of faith are the cornerstone of rescuing preliminary field-work from dead ends. As a phase of active development in preliminary field-work, dead ends can become new threads in the research: ‘a time to take chances, to put myself in unfamiliar settings, to take opportunities that might arise…’ [Davison]. Simple and unassuming comments by people in the midst of explaining frustrations over dead ends can often lead to surprising results as one author discovered: I spoke with her [a supervisory committee member] about my troubles in finding an appropriate research site and discussed my criteria with her. On a subsequent trip to the Northwest Territories she mentioned my interests to some key people in education in the Tłi˛cho (Dogrib) region near Yellowknife. They were voicing concerns about youth and schooling and health as they relate to the opening of a diamond mine in their area. They were very eager to talk with me and see if we could collaborate on a research project. [Davison]

Often, field-work confessionals reflect on points in time during the field process which contributed toward success or failure in the project. Success in preliminary field-work is often dependent on the direction taken at a given turning point. Turning point analysis refers to the specific moments in the field associated with positive and negative relational changes. Pitts and Miller-Day (2007)

501

502


emphasize analysis of the turning points in rapport development between participants and researchers. Expanding on interpersonal relationships, we see turning points as more broadly situational, focusing on the points in time that occur in the preliminary process of field studies. Turning points in preliminary field-work are often space and place driven. Preliminary field-work in one geographic setting may be the initial objective, yet conversations with people may influence those geographic decisions. In our diverse narratives, locational changes occurred early in preliminary field-work. For example, Davison’s family members pointed out to her the similarities between Southern and Northern community development issues. These conversations compelled her to reflect on her professional experiences (and thus research potential) in Latin America as it relates to the Canadian North. This discussion allowed for a cognitive shift in her planning and preliminary research: So I decided to make the switch, one day I was thinking about sand and sun and the next – snow storms and 24-hour darkness! But I was invigorated, I felt like the research was finally feasible and I could put my whole heart into writing a proposal, finding funding and establishing a collaborative relationship with members of a northern community. [Davison]

P O T E N T I A L BA R R I E R S I N P R E L I M I NA RY F I E L D - WO R K

As illustrated in the literature review, there is no shortage of written accounts of the challenges of field-work in general. In our experiences, trust and uncertainty are inextricably linked with the preliminary field-work process. The development of trust is integral to development of strong research relationships. Trust presupposes a ‘situation of risk’ in that risks emerge as a component of decision and action (Luhmann, 2000: 97). Trust, therefore, needs to be actively fostered by opening ourselves to others, while in a process of negotiating and bargaining (Giddens, 1991). Trust in the preliminary field-work stage has a highly reciprocal relationship; that is trust leads to better preliminary field-work while at the same time, preliminary field-work ‘allows contacts and trust to evolve’ [Stewart]. Of course this also works in the negative sense. As Stewart found, a ‘foundational component of participatory research is the development of “trust.” This was clearly articulated in many of the [preliminary] interviews with some doubting that trust could be attained’ [Stewart]. Preliminary field-work’s proximity to local communities in general, however, allows for greater potential for trust to be built. Preliminary field-work can improve community identification of research topics and the development of genuine interest by community members, which increases the collaborative nature of the research. Finding funding for evolving research in a preliminary field-work context is an ever-present and often frustrating process, especially in rural and northern communities. The ‘reality of doing community-based research, especially in remote or international settings, is that it has to be well funded’ [Davison]. The costs of preliminary field-work are not commonly funded by agencies, as the


preliminary phase of research is often less formal and does not often show up in research proposals in the same way as latter stages of conventional research. In Canada, doctoral level funding for preliminary field studies is primarily limited to Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) programs and the small number of private or public foundations, such as the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation.9 In these examples, funding is not directive of research activities but rather aims to develop research skills and assist in the training of highly-qualified academic personnel in the real world. All three authors received Trudeau Foundation scholarships at different time points in their preliminary field-work to ‘support their pursuit of research’ (Trudeau Foundation, 2007). This level of funding allowed Davison to [s]tay on-site for a long period of time; it paid for my salary while doing the work and funded trips to see my family (who did not come with me) and my supervisor in Calgary. The fund also allowed me to return to the community once some of the preliminary results were put together and to go again when the dissertation was finished. I was also able to hire a local research assistant and attend conference and professional meetings where I could discuss the work and develop my thinking further about it. [Davison]

Stewart reflects that with adequate funding she was ‘able to broaden the scale and scope of my proposed research to include another two case study sites’ [Stewart]. While single-year funding may allow for limited preliminary fieldwork, the flexibility of multi-year funding can increase the breadth and depth of preliminary work. Ethical issues in preliminary field-work are perhaps one of the more contentious challenges faced by researchers if not addressed early in the planning. Preliminary field-work, especially ethnographic research, is inherently premised on, and informed by, ethical conduct and research integrity. Yet depending on the university human research ethics board10 and the level of guidance they can provide, a substantive issue may be whether or not preliminary field notes can be used as data in the subsequent research. This is a concern for ethnographers doing preliminary field-work as ‘even these early encounters became data’ [Davison]. As a result, preliminary field-work is often guided by a process of ‘feeling-your-way’ and making crucial decisions with little guidance. This is well-illustrated by Stewart’s experience, where: situations that presented themselves (such as the arrival of a cruise ship in Cambridge Bay) … would have been useful to record but I was unable to do so because I hadn’t noted this in my ethics application. This lack of flexibility is one of the drawbacks of a process which necessarily wishes to be absolutely clear about the research process. [Stewart]

Researcher values in preliminary field-work A common theme running throughout our experiences is the normative foundation of preliminary field-work. Influenced by personal beliefs and attitudes,

503

504


methodological considerations, and commitment to the application of research findings, preliminary field-work is not an overly-rational endeavour. Rather, it typically leads to a number of decisions such as ‘what I could sacrifice and what I was going to stand firm on’ requiring a balance of flexibility and commitment to core research values. Typically the use of such valuebased methods by a dedicated researcher results in being ‘very committed to doing research that was respectful and in collaboration with local community members’ [Davison]. Preliminary field-work may provide indirect guidance to a researcher who has strong participatory values and research interests and wishes to incorporate this in their project. In our cases, a strong belief in collaboration (and of participatory research methods) was carried through early stages of doctoral work only to be re-evaluated within the context and constraints of our preliminary field-work circumstances. Given issues of stakeholder group fragmentation, time constraints and narrow procedural confines, as well as the methodological and context unsuitability that we discovered in our preliminary studies, more collaboratively-influenced methods were utilized over action research. Being explicit in terms of personal and academic motivations, interests, and longer term opportunities in the community during preliminary visits will increase the chances of generating interest from people. Even if only garnering a ‘cautious level of support’ as Stewart found, candid discussion allows for a space in which researcher–community relationships can be initiated. Reflexivity is essential in defining the methodological parameters of one’s research; a process that might not occur in the absence of preliminary fieldwork. For example, Colleen Davison decided [t]hat in order for a research site to be appropriate, it had to meet three criteria. First, there had to be a need for the research identified by members of the community. Second, the setting had to be feasible in that I would be able to gain sufficient access to the community geographically and socially. And finally, there had to be some level of participation, I wanted at least some local community members to have a genuine interest in being involved in the research. Although I was not undertaking a full PAR study, I was committed to maintaining the collaborative nature of the research. [Davison]

One of the most underrated yet central aspects of preliminary field-work is intuition in the field. Intuition is a-methodological, but is not anti-methodological. In other words, one cannot plan for intuition but what one can do is maintain the ‘right attitude’ and be open to, and aware of, opportunities that require leaps of faith early on in the field. Stewart’s ‘serendipitous encounters’ are a result of placing herself in situations that created the space from which relational discoveries could occur. In attending an Inuit studies conference in a large city, Stewart met with rural people from the eastern Arctic who invited her into their community and, more importantly, into their homes. As a result of this South-North convergence and turning point, northern research ‘contacts were established from these initial contacts, and snowballed from there…’


[Stewart]. Much personal involvement is required to make the encounter present itself in the first place. Davison explored contexts for her northern research interests by attending a circumpolar Arctic Social Sciences PhD field course and engaging with northern people, discussing research, and learning about northern issues first-hand. Our experiences are meant to illustrate what we might more aptly call ‘planned serendipity’ as part of preliminary field-work. I M P ROV I N G P R E L I M I NA RY F I E L D - WO R K

As much of the previous discussion and reflections-in-action indicate, there is no ‘one’ best way to do preliminary field-work. However, there may be better ways for an individual to think about, reflect, and operationalize those aspects of what is, in essence, an active and interpersonal enterprise. Making an effort to increase one’s time spent in the region of interest is the best way to allow for opportunity to present itself. Living in the area where research is expected to take place situates people, interests and context in an equation with high probability of research success. This, however, may be as difficult to plan as is preliminary field-work itself. One way to increase presence through preliminary field-work is through key contacts yet these too can be difficult to access. How can a researcher find a key contact if one cannot get to the region let alone understand the context in which contact people work? Davison, Stewart and Caine all were active in creating opportunities for contacts through indirect actions: remaining active in a number of related research environments was the key. Based on our experiences, taking advantage of field visits, conferences related to the proposed study themes, enrolling in graduate level field school courses or taking on summer research assistantships to the region of interest, and most importantly, talking to people who, at the outset may not seem to be able to help but have some connection to, or interest in, the subject, allows for those planned serendipitous moments of connection to occur. It is at these moments that preliminary field-work relies more on instinct and perception than a mental cost-benefit analysis of an opportunity. The centrality of community membership to preliminary fieldwork is such that the quality of human relationships will more likely determine the success of a research project being undertaken than a proposal faxed or emailed to a community organization’s office. Intuition on both sides of the relationship is paramount to future success. Although intuition is premised on immediacy, time for relationships to develop and strengthen is crucial in preliminary field-work. Therefore, extending the time spent in communities will greatly promote intersubjectivity and research planning and design. Openings occur often when people least expect them. For example, as Stewart found, being a mother, expecting another child, and contemplating her ‘otherness’ as a non-Canadian researcher can actually be quite beneficial. Standing out from the crowd may provide an opening that others are unlikely to be presented. These openings often lead to turning points in preliminary field-work; it is crucial to be aware of and take full advantage of them when they do arise.

505

506


Preliminary field-work is reliant on key contacts. Key contacts not only include local gatekeepers or people outside of the community. They also consist of tangentially situated people who can be called upon as allies, further down the road, when assistance is needed or advice on next steps is required. Methodological considerations in preliminary field-work constantly evolve, as do most research projects that are field based, especially in northern communities. Being open to change, and allowing for negotiation and evolution in the preliminary process and planning will not ensure success, but rather can reduce the probability of failure.

Conclusion Looking back on my research journey so far, I cannot stress enough the importance of preliminary field-work in community based research: it eases the researcher into the field; gives them a sense of the challenges of research in a particular community; allows contacts and trust to evolve; gives the community a chance to get to know the researcher; and gives both the researcher and those being ‘researched’ the opportunity to change the nature of the project or to withdraw entirely… I am now better prepared to face the challenges of the main phase of my data collection. [Stewart]

Our attempt to map out and delve more deeply into preliminary field-work is in essence a response to Rosalie Wax’s commentary on the few field researchers who tell us little if anything about their first-stage pre-involvement experiences. We charted this methodological course through an exploration of our diverse and multi-disciplinary experiences surrounding issues of our personal paths to the research field, how we undertook preliminary aspects of that field research, changes over the course of the journey, critical turning points, and the intersection of ethics and preliminary field-work. Our examination of the field-work literature revealed that both substantive benefits and challenges are discovered in conducting preliminary field-work, and that understanding of the cultures within which one is working is integral to good research as is the access of key gate keepers who control, mediate and support access to people and services within a community. Finally, an important insight from others’ experiences is that this type of field-work is never fixed but rather a partial and ongoing process requiring a special kind of reflexivity and attentiveness to relational research factors. Our own experiences were framed from a more defined approach to this stage of field research. Our discussion reinforces our tentative definition of preliminary field-work as encompassing the formative early stages of research in the field that allow for exploration, reflexivity, creativity, mutual exchange and interaction through the establishment of research relationships with local people often prior to the development of research protocols and ethics applications. Expanding on our personal research narratives, we found five characteristic themes within our preliminary field-work: enabling methodological


features which allowed us to continue, significant points in time which influenced the direction of our partial and dynamic processes, the potential barriers and dead ends which may also lead to valuable and productive detours, and the role of our personal values in influencing our research field and topics. These themes contributed to what we think are a first approximation toward better ways to do preliminary field-work. In our experiences, the effects of preliminary field-work upon our research was to increase the participation of local people, improve our understanding of local contexts, help produce rich qualitative data that better describes and explains our research questions, and possibly contribute to a better understanding of the northern issues at play. The essence of preliminary field-work practically incorporates Raymond Williams’ concept of ‘structure of feeling’; that is, the attempt to ‘capture the actively lived and felt meaningful social experience as it interacts with and defies our conceptions of formal, official and fixed social forms’ (Gordon, 1997: 198). As a place-specific phenomenon preliminary field-work requires an effort that is rewarded not by data and results alone but by a sense or relational perception that is at once tenuous and potentially practical, thus requiring continual attention by field researcher and researched alike. Technically speaking, preliminary field-work is but one stage in the relational process of social scientific research. Along the way however, communicative platforms are ‘constructed’ in order to access higher levels of understanding and learning. Structure of feeling, like preliminary field-work, is not something that can be built into a contractual relationship or solved simply with greater funding. It is built into the relational complexity that is at the core of all participatory approaches. In being conscious of this complexity, awareness is raised to the importance of relational ethics and focuses one’s attention on the everyday practical situations where ethical actions occur. There are no common rules or roadmaps for respectful behaviour in research, and this holds true for preliminary field-work as well. The concept of respect as part of a relational ethic includes the idea of reciprocity, listening, and a continuous re-visiting and re-evaluation of our relationships as researchers with others. Preliminary field-work is a form of implementing respect for the community as one tenet of research integrity and ethics (Kaufman and Ramarao, 2005). It acknowledges increasingly intertwined standards of research quality, integrity and ethics. In preliminary field-work, these relationships are purposefully reciprocal; they support and acknowledge not only the community’s contributions, but also the contributions of the researcher. AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S

The authors appreciate the helpful comments of the two anonymous reviewers of Qualitative Research in revising an earlier draft of this article. All three authors acknowledge the support of the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation.

507

508


In addition, Ken J. Caine acknowledges the support of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Colleen M. Davison holds a postdoctoral fellowship through the CIHR Global Health Research Initiative. The authors thank Robin Poitras, University of Calgary, for permission for the use of his circumpolar map. NOTES

1. Geographically speaking, the Canadian North is commonly referred to as those places that are above 60° latitude, hence the popular phrase: North of 60. The Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut are the territories generally considered in this article. Internationally, the geographic term ‘Circumpolar’ is akin to ‘North’. 2. It should be noted that while there is a similarity between the multitude of terms, we also see differences in how the terms are used in research; specifically disciplinary and more importantly methodologically and epistemologically. 3. Rather than limit our discussion to ‘fieldwork’ as ethnographic methodology, we instead literally and figuratively open up and broaden the tradition of fieldwork to one of ‘field-work’ such that the ethnographic intent and its valuable tools are retained while allowing for a broader disciplinary and methodological discussion. 4. Some examples of these names include: the planning period (Balcazar et al., 2004; Woodley, 1992); the partnership building process (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2004); the period of exploration (Keys et al., 2004); reflection and planning (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Hobbs and Wright, 2006; Warren and Karner, 2005); preliminary visits and gaining informal permissions (Bryman, 2004; Grant et al., 1999; Grills, 1998; ITK and NRI, 2006; Morse and Field, 1995; Shaffir and Stebbins, 1991; Ward, 1996a, 1996b) and even the warm-up period (Janesick, 2000). 5. See for example, (Agar, 1980, 1996; Anderson, 2006; Bernard, 1995; Boas, 1948; Janesick, 2000; Kaufman, 1994; Schensul et al., 2002; Shaffir and Stebbins, 1991; Stein, 2006; Wolcott, 1995). 6. Gearheard and Shirley, examining researcher-community relations, humorously describe how in some parts of the Canadian Arctic, local Inuit refer to researchers as siksiks— ‘ground squirrels’ in Inuktitut: ‘for many northern communities, researchers and siksiks seem to share similar characteristics: they appear suddenly, usually in the summer months, scurry around on the tundra doing whoknows-what, and then disappear just as quickly without anyone’s knowing exactly what they were up to. Sometimes siksik is used in a friendly, joking manner. Other times the nickname expresses negative feelings toward researchers: a mistrust that stems from a history of non-communication, miscommunication, and misunderstanding’ (2007: 63). 7. For example, Gita Laidler’s (2003) research trail was carefully planned out early in her doctoral research proposal in that she arranged preliminary research visits to eastern Arctic Inuit communities in order to propose project ideas, to answer their questions, and to get feedback on research direction and timing. She notes it was critical to visit these communities, for without their interest and cooperation none of the proposed research would be possible. Using innovative preliminary field-work methods, she organized a call-in radio show which allowed her to reach (through translators) a broad community audience as well as information pamphlets prior to arriving.

Caine et al.: Preliminary field-work 8. For clarity and differentiation from formal citations, individual narratives will be referenced using the author’s last name. 9. In contrast, some north-focused research organizations such as the Canadian Circumpolar Institute and Alberta ACADRE network provide and administer single year research funding that allows for preliminary field research. 10. An equivalent term used in many other countries, for example the USA, is Institutional Research Board for Human Subjects in Research.

REFERENCES

Agar, M. (1980) The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. New York: Academic Press. Agar, M. (1996) The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Anderson, E. (2006) ‘Jelly’s Place: An Ethnographic Memoir’, in D. Hobbs and R. Wright (eds) The Sage Handbook of Fieldwork. London: Sage. Appell, G. (1989) ‘British vs. American-Trained Ethnographers’, Anthropology Newsletter 30(9): 48. Arcury, T. and Quandt, S. (1999) ‘Participant Recruitment for Qualitative Research: A Site Based Approach to Community Research in Complex Societies’, Human Organization 58(2): 128–33. Balcazar, F.E., Taylor, R.R., Kielhofner, G.W., Tamley, K., Benziger, T., Carlin, N. and Johnson, S. (2004) ‘Participatory Action Research: General Principles and a Study with a Chronic Health Condition’, in L.A. Jason, C.B. Keys, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, R.R. Taylor and M.I. Davis (eds) Participatory Community Research: Theories and Methods in Action. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bernard, H.R. (1995) Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Bielawski, E. (1984) ‘Anthropological Observations on Science in the North: The Role of the Scientist in Human Development in the Northwest Territories’, Arctic 37(1): 1–6. Bliss, F. (1988) ‘The Cultural Dimension in West German Development Policy and the Contribution of Ethnology’, Current Anthropology 29(1): 101–22. Boas, F. (1948) Race, Language and Culture. New York: MacMillan. Boothroyd, R.I., Fawcett, S.B. and Foster-Fishman, P.G. (2004) ‘Community Development: Enhancing the Knowledge Base Through Participatory Action Research’, in L.A. Jason, C.B. Keys, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, R.R. Taylor and M.I. Davis (eds) Participatory Community Research: Theories and Methods in Action. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burgess, R.G. (1991) ‘Sponsors, Gatekeepers, Members and Friends: Access in Educational Settings’, in W.B. Shaffir and R.B. Stebbins (eds) Experiencing Fieldwork: An Inside View of Qualitative Research. Newbery Park, CA: Sage. Burgess, R.G. (2005) ‘Approaches to Field Research’, in C. Pole (ed.) Fieldwork: Volume I. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Caine, K.J., Salomons, M.J. and Simmons, D. (2007) ‘Partnerships for Social Change in the Canadian North: Revisiting the Insider-Outsider Dialectic’, Development and Change 38(3): 447–71. Carrier, J. (2006) ‘Fieldwork on Urban Male Homosexuality in Mexico’, in D. Hobbs and R. Wright (eds) The Sage Handbook of Fieldwork. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cruikshank, J. (1990) Life Lived Like a Story. Vancouver: UBC Press.

509

510

Qualitative Research 9(4) Davison, C.M., Brown, M. and Moffitt, P. (2006) ‘Student Researchers Negotiating Consent in Northern Aboriginal communities’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(2): 1–10. Deloria, Vine Jr. (1991) ‘Commentary: Research, Redskins, and Reality’, American Indian Quarterly 15(4): 457–68. De Vries, P. (1992) ‘A Research Journey: On Actors, Concepts, and the Text’, in N. Long and A. Long (eds) Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development. London: Routledge. Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Douglas, A. (1994) ‘Recontextualizing Schooling within an Inuit Community’, Canadian Journal of Education 19(2): 154–64. Ellis, C. and Bochner, A.P. (2000) ‘Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity – Researcher as Subject’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fletcher, C. (2004) ‘Continuity and Change in Inuit Society’, in R.B. Morrison and C. Roderick Wilson (eds) Native Peoples: The Canadian Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foulks, E.F. (1987) ‘Social Stratification and Alcohol Use in North Alaska’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 15: 349–56. Foulks, E.F. (1989) ‘Misalliances in the Barrow Alcohol Study’, American Indian and Alaskan Native Health Research 2: 7–17. Gearheard, S. and Shirley, J. (2007) ‘Challenges in Community-Research Relationships: Learning From Natural Science in Nunavut’, Arctic 60(1): 62–74. Giddens, A. (1991) The Transformation of Intimacy. Oxford: Polity. Gordon, A. F. (1997) Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Goulet, J.G. (1998) Ways of Knowing: Experience, Knowledge, and Power Among the Dene Tha. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Grant, L., Preissle, J., Beoku-Betts, J., Finlay, W. and Fine, G.A. (1999) ‘Fieldwork in Familiar Places: The UGA Workshop in Fieldwork Methods’, Anthropology & Education Quarterly 30(2): 238–48. Grills, S. (1998) ‘An Invitation to the Field: Fieldwork and the Pragmatists’ Lesson’, in S. Grills (ed.) Doing Ethnographic Research: Fieldwork Settings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hammersly, M. and Atkinson, P. (1983) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. New York: Tavistock. Henderson, D.J. (1995) ‘Consciousness Raising in Participatory Research: Method and Methodology of Emancipatory Nursing Inquiry’, Advances in Nursing Science 17: 58–69. Hobbs, D. and Wright, R. (2006) ‘Preface’, in D. Hobbs and R. Wright (eds) The Sage Handbook of Fieldwork. London: Sage. ITK, and NRI (2006) Negotiating Research Relationships with Inuit Communities: A Guide for Researchers. Ottawa and Iqaluit: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Nunavut Research Institute. Janesick, V.J. (2000) ‘The Choreography of Qualitative Research Design: Miuets, Improvisations and Crystallization’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kaufman, C.E. and Ramarao, S. (2005) ‘Community Confidentiality, Consent, and the Individual Research Process: Implications for Demographic Research’, Population Research and Policy Review 24(2): 149–73.

Caine et al.: Preliminary field-work Kaufman, K.S. (1994) ‘The Insider-Outsider Dilemma: Field Experience of a White Researcher “Getting in” a Poor Black Community’, Nursing Research 43: 179–83. Kemmis, S. (2005) ‘Knowing Practice: Searching for Saliences’, Pedagogy, Culture and Society 13(3): 391–426. Keys, C.B., McMahon, S., Sanchez, B., London, L. and Abdul-Adil, J. (2004) ‘Culturally Anchored research: Quandaries, Guidelines and Exemplars for Community Psychology’, in L.A. Jason, C.B. Keys, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, R.R. Taylor and M.I. Davis (eds) Participatory Community Psychology: Theories and Methods in Action. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kurelek, C. (1992) ‘When are You Leaving? Search for an Appropriate Research Methodology for Work with Aboriginal Peoples’, Unpublished MA Thesis, Carleton University. Laidler, G. (2003) ‘Initiating Collaborative Sea Ice Research in Nunavut Communities’, Canadian Association of Geographers (CAG) Environment and Resources Study Group Newsletter (December): 2–4. Laidler, G. (2004) ‘Preliminary Results of Collaborative Research to Learn About Sea Ice, Through Inuit Eyes’, ArcticNet 2004 Annual Scientific Meeting, Québec City, Québec. 6 December . Lapadat, J.C. and Janzen, H. (1994) ‘Collaborative Research in Northern Communities: Possibilities and Pitfalls’, BC Studies 104(Winter): 69–83. Lee, J. (1991) ‘Preliminary Reconnaissance to Evaluate Potential Wolverine Study Areas on the Central Arctic Barrens’. Yellowknife: Northwest Territories: Government of Northwest Territories. URL: http://www.nwtwildlife.com/ Publications/PDF/73.pdf Luhmann, N. (2000) ‘Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives’, in D. Gambetta (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Oxford: University of Oxford. MacKian, S. (2002) ‘Complex Cultures: Rereading the Story about Health and Social Capital’, Critical Social Policy 22(2): 203–25. Morse, J. and Field, P. (1995) Qualitative Research Methods for Health Professionals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Olesen, V.L. (2000) ‘Feminisms and Qualitative Research At and Into the Millennium’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pitts, M.J. and Miller-Day, M. (2007) ‘Upward Turning Points and Positive RapportDevelopment Across time in Researcher-Participant Relationships’, Qualitative Research 7: 177–201. Pole, C. (2005) ‘Fieldwork: An Introduction’, in C. Pole (ed.) Fieldwork: Volume 1 – Origins and Definitions of Fieldwork. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raybeck, D. (1992) ‘Getting Below the Surface’, in P. DeVita (ed.) The Naked Anthropologist: Tales From Around the World. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Reimer, G. (1994) ‘Community Participation in Research and Development: A Case Study from Pangnirtung, Northwest Territories’, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, McMaster University. Riger, S., Reyes, O., Watts, R.W., Kelly, J.G., Shinn, M., Cherniss, C., Jason, L. A. and Trickett, E. (2004) ‘Faculty Deconstructs Participatory Research’, in L.A. Jason, C.B. Keys, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, R.R. Taylor and M.I. Davis (eds) Participatory Community

511

512

Qualitative Research 9(4) Research: Theories and Methods in Action. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Schensul, S., Shensul, J. and LeCompte, M. (2002) Essential Ethnographic Methods: Observations, Interviews and Questionnaires. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Seixas, C.S. (2002) ‘Social Ecological Dynamics in Management Systems: Investigating a Coastal Lagoon Fishery in Southern Brazil’. Unpublished Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Manitoba. Shaffir, W.B. (1996) ‘Doing Ethnographic Research in Jewish Orthodox Communities: The Neglected Role of Sociability’, in S. Grills (ed.) Doing Ethnographic Fieldwork: Fieldwork Settings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shaffir, W.B. and Stebbins, R.B. (1991) ‘Getting In’, in W.B. Shaffir and R.B. Stebbins (eds) Experiencing Fieldwork: An Inside View of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sherry, E. (2002) ‘Constructing Partnership: A Delphi Study of Shared Resource Management in the North Yukon’, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Univeristy of Northern British Columbia. Simmel, G. (1950) ‘The Stranger’, in K.H. Wolff (ed.) The Sociology of Georg Simmel. London: Free Press of Glencoe. Smit, B., Ford, J., Laidler, G. and Wandel, J. (2004) ‘Arctic Communities and Environmental Change: A Participatory Research Approach’, 14th Inuit Studies Conference. The Arctic Institute of North America, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Smith, V. (2001) ‘Ethnographies of Work and the Work of Ethnographers’, in P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland and L. Lofland (eds) Handbook of Ethnography. London: Sage. Stein, M. (2006) ‘Your Place or Mine: The Geography of Social Research’, in D. Hobbs and R. Wright (eds). London: Sage. Stevenson, M.G. (1981) ‘Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance in Wood Buffalo National Park’, Parks Canada Research Bulletin 159. Stimson, G.V. (1988) ‘Place and Space in sociological Fieldwork’, The Sociological Review 34(3): 641–56. Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Davis, M.I., Ferrari, J., Nyden, P., Olson, B., Alvarez, J., Molloy, P. and Toro, P. (2004) ‘University-Community Partnerships: A Framework and an Exemplar’, in L.A. Jason, C.B. Keys, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, R.R. Taylor and M.I. Davis (eds) Participatory Community Research: Theories and Methods in Action. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Torres, G. (1992) ‘Plunging in to the Garlic: Methodological Issues and Challenges’, in N. Long and A. Long (eds) Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development. London: Routledge. Torres-Harding, S.R., Herrell, R. and Howard, C. (2004) ‘Epidemiological Research: Science and Community Participation’, in L.A. Jason, C.B. Keys, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, R.R. Taylor and M.I. Davis (eds) Participatory Community Research: Theories and Methods in Action. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ward, S. (1996a) ‘Collaborative Research in Nunavut: The Case of the Maillik Island Park, Cape Dorset’, Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Manitoba. Ward, S. (1996b) ‘Research as Praxis in the Canadian Arctic’, in J. Oakes and R. Riewe (eds) Issues in the North (Volume I). Edmonton: Canadian Circumpolar Institute.

Caine et al.: Preliminary field-work Warren, C., and Karner, T. (2005) Discovering Qualitative Methods: Field Research, Interviews, and Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wax, R. (1985) Doing Fieldwork: Warnings and Advice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (Midway Reprint). Wishart, R.P. (2004) ‘“Living on the Land”: Teetl’it Gwich’in Perspectives on Continuity’, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Alberta. Wolcott, H. (1995) The Art of Fieldwork. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Woodley, A.R. (1992) ‘Cross-Cultural Interpretation Planning in the Canadian Arctic’, Journal of Cultural Geography 11(2): 45–62. KEN J. CAINE is an International Polar Year Post-Doctoral Fellow and a Lecturer in the Departments of Rural Economy and Sociology at the University of Alberta, Canada. He is an alumnus Pierre Elliott Trudeau Scholar. His research interests include qualitative research methodology, social cognition in natural resource management, development of formal and informal common pool resource management institutions, adaptive resource governance in the North, and social-ecological change and local culture. Address: Department of Rural Economy, 515 General Services Building, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. T6G 2H1. [email: [email protected]] COLLEEN M. DAVISON is a CIHR-GHRI Post-Doctoral Fellow and alumnus Pierre Elliott Trudeau Scholar at the Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Canada. Her research interests include schooling and health, northern community health, social justice and public health, knowledge translation, global health and health research systems. Address: Community Health Research Unit, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, 1118B, Ottawa, ON, Canada. K1H 8M5. [email: [email protected]] EMMA J. STEWART is a Research Associate at the Arctic Institute of North America, University of Calgary, Canada and a Lecturer in the Department of Social Sciences, Parks, Recreation and Tourism at Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. She is an alumnus Pierre Elliott Trudeau Scholar. Her research interests include communitybased research methods, public participatory geographic information systems, tourism in the Polar Regions, cruise tourism, and environmental interpretation. Address: Department of Social Sciences, Parks, Recreation and Tourism. PO Box 84, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, Canterbury, New Zealand. [email: [email protected]]

513