1-5

Chapter 7

Recording Data

Deciding what to record is an integral part of collecting qualitative data. Moreover, to improve their completeness and accuracy, the initial notes taken during the actual fieldwork need to be reviewed and refined on a nightly basis. At such times, researchers will find that their original notes have gaps and uninterpretable jottings that can still be fixed. This chapter covers all of these note-taking practices, including the desire to capture words verbatim in the first place. The chapter also discusses the use of other types of recording devices, such as audio- and videotapes, in addition to taking notes. Such recordings can be a qualitative study’s main data collection technique and therefore deserve careful handling, including the need to obtain permission to use the devices and further permission to share their recordings. A final record needed in qualitative research is the keeping of a researcher’s own journal.

You did say that you’ve been taking notes while reading or studying this book, didn’t you? If you were actually doing a qualitative research study (and not just reading this book), you might have started taking notes for your study throughout the start-up and design procedures covered in Chapters 3 and 4, much less the actual data collection procedures as portrayed in Chapter 6. You also might have started a separate journal containing your private comments about your research experiences (see Section E).

Some people think that, in order to excel at qualitative research, taking notes and keeping journals are so essential that they need to be an integral part of one’s persona. Those people may not be far wrong. Consider the words of one well-known writer who has completed bestselling books based on qualitative methods (Kidder,

1990):

I usually take more than ten thousand pages of steno notes for a book. . . . I fill another set of notebooks with library research and standard office interviews. Once I have it all, I have to organize it. (Kidder, 2007, p. 52)

A separate but related observation involves the adjective “copious.” Everyone knows what the word means and how to use it, but somehow it is rarely used outside of the phrase “copious notes.”

This chapter discusses different forms of recording, not just writing notes. Nevertheless, note taking (and later reworking your field notes) is likely to be the dominant mode of recording when doing qualitative research. The note-taking mode therefore receives the most attention. The peculiar challenge is that you will

have to take notes (or otherwise record your field data) while being an active partisipan in the field, as well as observing and listening to what is going on. You will not have the luxury of the laboratory or the classroom, where you can quietly take notes at a desk.

The virtual simultaneity of doing fieldwork and taking notes, hour after hour and day after day, means that the notes and other records do not just come after doing fieldwork, as in a strictly linear sequence. Your fieldwork clearly influences your recording procedures. Less appreciated, perhaps, is that the recording procedures, and especially note taking, can lead to helpful hints for the ongoing fieldwork—following

a recursive rather than strictly linear relationship that is highly typical of qualitative research.

This book’s discussion of these topics—data collection and recording—nevertheless must be presented linearly. For instance, Chapter 7 had to follow Chapter 6 even though some note taking could precede, accompany, and follow your data collection activities. Thus, in real life the activities in both chapters might overlap.

With regard to Chapter 7’s focus on note taking and other modes of recording, let’s start with the information you should be recording (Section A) and then discuss various recording practices (Sections B, C, D, and E).

A. What to Record

Preview—What you should learn from this section:

1. Taking notes about actions and vivid images.

2. Capturing words verbatim.

3. Handling and taking notes about written materials collected at the field setting.

Trying to Record “Everything” versus Being Too Selective

Every researcher confronts this dilemma. Recording “everything” is impossible, but some people nevertheless take too many notes, well beyond the needs of their study. The burden of this effort is often transferred to participants, who must be asked either to speak more slowly or to pause while the researcher catches up with the note taking. The word of advice here is to learn how to record what you need without disrupting a participant’s rhythm or pace. As with the way you dress and present yourself in the field, the note taking process should be another silent partner and not call attention to itself. Even the physical movement used in taking notes should be as unobtrusive as possible.

The other extreme presents even greater problems. Record too little and you risk being inaccurate or not having enough information to analyze. You might not even have a study.

Between these extremes lies a golden mean. With experience in doing and completing several studies, every researcher finds her or his own comfort level. The goal is to take sufficient notes to support the later analytic and compositional needs, but not so many notes that much of your material will go unused. Also, having too many notes can sometimes paralyze you at the analytic stage because you won’t know where to start sorting all of it.

Experience helps people to anticipate the most useful level of volume ahead of time. The golden mean then becomes synonymous with any given researcher’s “style.” Some researchers may be known to covet rich descriptive passages that emulate for the reader the experience of “being there,” while other researchers may be

known to provide compelling evidence for highly focused research questions. Yet other researchers may be known for repeatedly discovering something new and fascinating that was not part of the original study plan.

Highlighting Actions and Capturing Words Verbatim

Most people are likely to find their first day in the field to be overwhelming, even if they have done fieldwork before. What to record will be a challenge for experienced and novice researchers alike, but, for novices especially, some guidance can come from two strategies: highlighting the actions in the field and capturing words verbatim.

The “first day” may be a full-fledged observational opportunity or may simply be represented by the first field interview. In either situation, you may be confronted by too much unfamiliar territory. You will have little idea of the meaning of many observations, including identifying who is who. In the interview situation,

you will have little familiarity with the context for your interviewee’s remarks as well as the identity of the others who might be referenced in those remarks.

The note taking under these circumstances can be more tentative and even fragmentary. Your goal is to gain your own understanding of the new environment and participants rather than to take copious notes. “Listening” may be more important than “doing” and should be done with an open mind. In this process,

an early challenge is to avoid premature stereotyping on your part, in either the observational or the interview situation.

In the observational situation, focusing on actions that take place in the field, as opposed to describing a person or a scene, is one way of noting what is going on while minimizing the stereotyping. The aim is to record a “vivid image” rather than a “visual stereotype” (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995, pp. 70–71). The vivid images can involve the activities of a single person, of groups of persons, or of a participant observer experience (see “Different Examples of ‘Vivid Images,’ ” Vignette 7.1).

VIGNETTE 7.1. Different Examples of “Vivid Images”

Three highly different studies show how qualitative researchers can vividly portray their fieldwork.

First, Anderson (1999) uses his concluding chapter to present the street life of “Robert.” The bulk of the chapter describes Robert’s adjustments after being released from prison. Highlighted are numerous street events and scenes, reflecting Robert’s new relationships, attitude, and work, and providing readers with concrete images of Robert’s new life.

Second, Pedraza (2007) devotes separate chapters to the four waves of Cuban immigrants who were the main subject of her fieldwork. She labels the waves distinctively, further attracting the reader’s interest: the 1959–1962 exodus of Cuba’s “elite,” following Castro’s initial rise; the 1965–1974 relocations involving the country’s

“petite bourgeoisie;” the “chaotic flotilla exodus” of young males from the harbor of Mariel in 1980, who became known as los Marielitos; and the 1985–1993 exodus of the balseros, based on the term balsas (rafts, tires, and makeshift vessels) and how the people risked starvation, dehydration, drowning, and sharks.

Third, Van Maanen (1988) describes his participant-observer fieldwork with an urban police department, including a seven-page tale of his riding with an officer during a wild chase through the city’s streets, entitled “one with a gun, one with a dog, and one with the shivers.”

See also Vignettes 9.3, 11.3, 11.5, and 11.8.

In the interview situation, focusing on words verbatim serves a similar purpose. If the notes from your first interview (or two) contain nothing else, they should have the specific terms, labels, words, and phrases used by the interviewee, not your paraphrasing and hence stereotyping of them.

The desirability of capturing the exact words and phrases—as well as gestures and expressions (e.g., Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995, pp. 30–32)—goes well beyond the first few interviews. The more you are studying the culture of a place or group of people, the more important it is to capture their language. As noted by Spradley (1995, pp. 7–8),

Culture, the knowledge that people have learned as members of a group, cannot be observed directly. . . . If we want to find out what people know, we must get inside their heads.

Spradley then observes that fieldworkers, from the very beginning, must cope with the problem of using a particular language in their notes. Throughout your field interviews, a continuing focus on capturing words verbatim eventually helps to give you insight into the meaning of the interviewees’ thoughts, rather than your inferred meaning (see “The Verbatim Principle,” Vignette 7.2).

In both the observing and interviewing situations, and especially during the early fieldwork, your notes should avoid using not only your own paraphrasing but, more subtly, your own “categories” for describing reality. Examples would be your depiction of a classroom scene by using the term didactic instruction rather than recording the lack of interchange between teacher and students; or noting that a person was dressed “sloppily” rather than describing the actual dress.

VIGNETTE 7.2. The Verbatim Principle

Most experienced fieldworkers understand the importance of taking verbatim notes that is, capturing the exact terminology, colloquialisms, and labels used by those being interviewed. James Spradley (1979, p. 73) has called this the “verbatim principle.”

In applying the principle, fieldworkers must first recognize that the “field” may have multiple languages, even if everyone speaks in the same tongue. As examples, Spradley cites the fieldworker’s language as “observer’s terms” and the field members’ language as “native terms.” He further points out that different field members’ roles,

such as service providers and service clients, may have their own languages.

Spradley echoes the insights of many qualitative researchers who know that language is a direct reflection of the culture being studied. Fieldworkers therefore need to be highly sensitive to differences in language, and Spradley regards the taking of verbatim notes as among the “first steps along the path to discovering the inner meaning

of another culture” (1979, p. 73).

Your data collection practices already should have alerted you to this issue of avoiding premature categorization and stereotyping. The point here is that, if you are not careful, your notes can inadvertently take a regressive step in this direction. The risks include lapsing into an ethnocentric or other self-centered perspective

whereby (1) unfamiliar expressions are associated with an alien connotation; (2) interpretations carry with them the unstated assumption that a single view is “true”; or (3) descriptions are framed in terms of “what is supposed to be” (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995, pp. 110–111).

Remembering Your Research Questions

This is another strategy for knowing what to record, besides highlighting actions or capturing words verbatim.

Whether you developed a formal research protocol or not, your study started with some questions or main points of interest. You identified those points, as well as selected your field setting, only after careful consideration. Thus, you also can give these same points your initial note-taking (and question-asking) priority by giving more attention to those actions and verbatim words that appear to be related to your research questions.

Taking Notes about Written Studies, Reports, and Documents Found in the Field

Besides observing and interviewing, a third common source of field notes comes from written materials. You already will have taken such notes in reviewing the literature as part of the preparation for designing your qualitative research study. However, unless you are studying a preliterate social group, you are likely to encounter additional written materials as part of your fieldwork.

For these materials, the note taking should not differ from your interview notes, with an emphasis again on capturing the exact words and phrases in the written material. Have a clear way of distinguishing between use of the exact words (quotation marks are fine) and paraphrasing, so that if you reuse these materials you will cite them properly and cannot be accused in any way of plagiarizing the intellectual property.

Even though the written materials can be voluminous, as in doing field research about an organization, the note taking should be as complete as possible. It should be undertaken with the intention of avoiding having to retrieve again the same material at some later date, just to complete the notes as opposed to corroborating

some new finding. Thus, make sure that you attend not only to the contents of the document but also to the details you will need to cite it—for example, the specific dates and the formal names and associated organizational titles needed to cite the document formally.

Treat the opportunity to review the written material as if it were your only opportunity to access and read the document (which it may very well be). By doing so, you will reduce later frustrations by having to return to the document. You also will minimize inconveniencing any people who may have had to retrieve the materials for you. Alternatively, and while still in the field, you may think about making duplicate copies of the material—but this procedure has at least one important pro and con as described next.

Duplicating Copies of Documents and Written Materials While in the Field

Some fieldwork colleagues commonly find and then use commercial copying services during their time in the field. This way, they can duplicate fully any written materials they have encountered. However, the colleagues may be postponing a headache that will come later.

After completing their fieldwork, the colleagues then confront the duplicated materials, which still assume their raw form. The relevance of some of the materials to the overall qualitative study may now be questioned or, worse yet, forgotten. The importance of particular portions of these materials also may no longer be evident. If both of these conditions prevail, the materials become part of the fieldwork recordings that will now fall outside of any useful analysis.

At the same time, the materials may remain an invaluable part of your study. So, duplicate them if the opportunities arise. But while still in the field attend to these materials sufficiently, usually by taking notes about their contents or by marking up the copies, so that you know what to look for and what to quote when you have returned from the field. Make yourself a note saying how and why the material appeared to be relevant to you at the time (many fieldworkers use “Post-it” notes for this purpose).

A final topic: In the special case when the written materials include research studies, their usefulness may be accentuated if you focus on their evidence and conclusions. You should consider xeroxing a key table, graphic, or other presentation of data so that there is no chance that you have made a “copy” error on some critical piece of evidence. By focusing on the evidence and conclusions, you also may again minimize the need for returning to the material and having to spend more time with it. Finally, unlike the observing and interviewing in the field, the note taking for written materials may take place in a quieter environment where the notes can be taken on a computer.

B. Note – Taking Practices When Doing Fieldwork

Preview — What you should learn from this section:

1. Formatting your notes.

2. Using your own notations and transcribing language.

Being Prepared

Like the classic photographer who always carries a camera just in case a photo opportunity arises, when you are doing your research you always should be prepared to write something down. You therefore should always be carrying some kind of writing instrument. Similarly, having a small pad (which could fit into a purse or a side pocket) or even a clean scrap of paper to write on also will prepare you for taking notes at a moment’s notice (Scanlan, 2000, p. 28). Over time, once you become comfortable with a particular type of writing instrument (e.g., pen or pencil) and pad (e.g., classroom size or small enough to fit into a pocket or purse), think about stockpiling these items for future studies.

Given the small size of today’s technology, the preparatory steps also can include carrying a pocket-sized audio recorder and a cell phone with photographic capabilities. You will then be prepared to record events in multiple modalities (however, see Section D for suggestions and caveats about using mechanical recording

devices).

Setting Up Your Notes

In spite of their seeming informality, your “ jottings” (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995, pp. 19–35) or initial field notes still should follow a certain format. This format can resemble your classroom (lecture) notes, so everyone already has some formatting style that also will work in taking field notes. For setting up your notes when doing fieldwork, three general reminders may be helpful.

First, you need to decide whether you are most comfortable taking notes on standard sized notebook paper, in a bound notebook, on stenographic or journalistic sized pads, or on index cards. If the fieldwork will involve a lot of movement, for example, into and out of cars, or otherwise involves environments with little

or no writing surfaces, you will prefer a paper or pad with some cardboard backing. The same fieldwork conditions will probably preclude your using a laptop or small computer to take notes, as you may not find a stable surface on which to set the computer (the convenience of your lap disappears when most of your fieldwork involves walking or standing). You also will have difficulty viewing a computer screen when working outdoors.

Second, the general formatting style also includes making a habit out of writing the date (if not time) of the note, briefly identifying the person or scene covered by the note, and numbering all of your pages. Writing on one side of a page (except when writing in a notebook) also is advisable because of the later difficulty

of finding specific passages when you are desperately rifling through your notes looking for some phrase or fragment that happens to be written on the back of a page.

A third formatting feature is deliberately to leave empty spaces on each page (see Exhibit 7.1). The notes in Exhibit 7.1 come from a group conversation with several participants, with the underlined initials or names at the left indicating the speakers, followed by their comments. These comments were purposely written to occupy only the left side of the note paper, with the right side being a place to put the fieldworker’s comments (or to add another related comment—see the initials “JH” in the right column). The space in between these two columns permits the use of arrows, brackets, and parentheses where the fieldworker wants to hypothesize some relationship either that will lead to an immediate follow-up question or that will be examined later.

In your own notes, you may leave wide margins, write down one column, leave a second column open on every page, or use any other pattern that pleases you. Just don’t fill up every page. You will find the empty space useful if you later happen to remember an item that belongs on the original notes and can then add it

(with a different-colored writing instrument), or even later when you are reviewing your notes and want to insert your own comment or mark next to specific passages (again with a different color or notation style).

Developing Your Own Transcribing Language

Remember that, when taking field notes, you will be listening, watching, and assimilating real life events at the same time. On top of all this, the verbatim principle and the richness of what is occurring in the field or during an unstructured interview will pose even greater demands on your ability to do parallel tasks. Finally, you have to take sufficient notes that you will only minimally have to trust your memory (which is likely to be overloaded, not to speak of the distortions that could occur).

All of these conditions behoove you to think about your note taking as requiring and involving its own separate transcribing language. The language needs most of all to have shortcuts that nevertheless preserve accuracy and precision. However, the language may differ sharply from your regular writing.