Qualitative Research

Pragmatic fieldwork draws inspiration from many facets of qualitative methods. At its most basic, pragmatic fieldwork relies on qualitative research’s social modes of data collection (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). It requires the fieldworker to become a human instrument (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, Krefting, 1991) or what Roman Krznaric (2012) would call an empathic adventurer. Pragmatic fieldwork lives in the rich tradition of qualitative research that urges researchers to go, usually with their bodies, into the places they want to learn about. This method highlights the embodied nature of knowing (Conquergood, 1991).

Pragmatic fieldwork also takes an iterative approach to inquiry (Charmaz, 2006). Iterative research usually means the dynamic movement between data collection, review of other works, and analysis. In the context of pragmatic fieldwork, iterative movement also includes social action, encouraging the fieldworker to labor toward the wellbeing of people in the field while gathering data, gathering prior scholarship, and organizing ideas. Brantlinger (1999) argues that “blending research and activism are not only valid but mutually enhancing” (p. 415). Engaging in social action while also doing research allows for ongoing adjustment in both activities. There is empirical and heuristic value in action. Just as performance calls into our bodies new ways of knowing (Spry, 2011), acting in the world challenges us to embody our ideas. Shared life/solidarity in our scene helps deepen our empathy and capacity to see the other as human. Analyzing data while involving one’s body fosters theorizing and also challenges it. Acting while researching creates tight feedback loops that inform both acting and scholarship. Finally, through networking, action increases access to varied organizational positions.  

Before moving on, I should be clear about what threads of the qualitative tradition pragmatic fieldwork does not draw from. First, it denies a distinction between naturalistic and experimental research (Patton, 2001). When studying humans, there is no “laboratory” apart from the world. Social research is always done with people, and their humanity can never be isolated. Also, “naturalistic” often implies noninterference. Noninterference is not a virtue in pragmatic fieldwork, where an essential commitment is to act meaningfully in the field. Pragmatic fieldwork also rejects the notion that critical distance must be kept in order to make meaningful interpretations of a social world (Silverman, 2009) and denies that “going native” means losing the ability to be thoughtful (Neergaard & Ulhøi, 2007). Rather, pragmatic fieldwork assumes that “natives” think about their lives in meaningful and productive ways, and that one should not avoid sharing one’s life with them in culturally and ethically appropriate ways. Finally, pragmatic fieldwork explicitly does not use theoretic saturation (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) as a measure of completeness. Pragmatic fieldworkers are not sponges, plunged into water and ready to be taken out when they can absorb no more. Sponges are about taking water from one place and slathering it in another. I do not abscond with the situated knowing of my research subjects to do my scholarly labor elsewhere. I am part of the community in which I work. So I act when I am reasonably sure my or our actions are worth trying. I speak and write when I feel I can honestly represent other members of my community. But speaking and acting do not happen after theoretical saturation when there is nothing left to learn, but rather are always a work in progress.  

In summary, pragmatic fieldwork uses aspects of qualitative research, including social data collection, the human instrument, embodied knowledge/participation, and iterative inquiry. The method eschews the naturalistic-experimental distinction, critical distance, and theoretical saturation.