From ignorance to familiarity: Contextual knowledge and the field researcher

When reading a submitted article, I am often struck by the apparent omniscience of the authors with regard to the context where they undertake their research. However, the origins of this omniscience are seldom explained: researchers insouciantly describe what they did and how they did it, yet ignore their own preparation for the research and the process that they followed to acquire relevant knowledge. For instance, an author who has undertaken a case study, action research or ethnography seldom troubles to explain in any detail either how s/he gained access to the research site, or how s/he acquired sufficient knowledge of the context to be able to interact meaningfully with its inhabitants. I suggest that these are important considerations, for the researcher and for readers: not only does the context matter, but so too does the acquisition of context-specific knowledge by the researchers (Davison & Martinsons, 2016). There may be a number of reasons for this lack of explanation, among which are the reluctance to ‘waste’ space on these details and the failure to appreciate that readers might find it useful. If the review team does not request this information, it may never be provided. When a researcher has extensive emic knowledge of and familiarity with the context and the practices of its inhabitants, then these may be regarded as self-evident and not worthy of a detailed treatment. However, as a reader who can only see the world through the eyes of the researcher, I would greatly appreciate learning exactly what the researcher did, not only when in the field but also before entering the field. Tong, Sainsbury, and Craig (2007) suggest 32 criteria for reporting qualitative research, several of which are germane to this discussion. For instance, ‘What experience or training did the researcher have?’ and ‘What characteristics were reported about the interviewer?’. Reporting all 32 criteria may seem excessive: instead, a few lines may suffice so long as they do help the reader to understand the preparation of the researcher. For instance, Thompson (2002) reported how his first task in the field was to obtain ‘a high-level understanding of the reporting process across several clinics’. Meanwhile, Shah, Eardley, and Wood-Harper (2007) reported that ‘the first author spent a considerable amount of time building up knowledge of the organisation’. But even such modest accounts are few and far between. In this editorial, I suggest that there is a need for a new reporting standard regarding the way in which researchers present how they develop their knowledge of the field. Chughtai and Myers (2017) examine the specific case of the ethnographer who is preparing to enter the field in which she or he will spend a considerable period of time. They write at length about the activities that field researchers may undertake before they attempt entry to a field site. A key activity is developing ‘some understanding of the world where she is to be thrown’. The notion of being thrown refers to Heidegger's (2011) concept of ‘thrownness’, that is, ‘the [spatial] state one finds oneself in’ (Chughtai & Myers, 2017). They explain that this preentry development of context-specific knowledge will ensure that, on arrival, the researcher can have sensible conversations with the indigenous inhabitants of the field. While the ability to engage in those conversations may reflect the background knowledge that the researcher has acquired over many years, it also reflects the more recently acquired knowledge that is predicted to be useful. However, all those preparations that the field researcher makes in advance, all the knowledge developed, may come to naught. Descola (1996) lamented his own situation when engaged in anthropological research in Ecuador. In preparation for entry to the field, he had spent many years acquiring knowledge relating to method and theory. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12308