Fieldwork in Field Methods in Linguistics by Newman (2009)

Newman, P. (2009). Fieldwork in field methods in linguistics. Language Documentation and Conservation, 3, 113-125.

Newman offered a quick but insightful (a) review of literature that discuss the human factor in fieldwork and (b) study on the implementation of field methods (FM) courses in universities in the U.S. and Canada.

He particularly highlighted four human factors/issues that he believes as beneficial in carrying out a linguistic project. Health issues in the field, according to him, are mostly exaggerated. Fatality from a disease that may be acquired in the field is actually curable. The difference is the presence of medical personnel, which may be working in the community or with the team (p. 115). He pointed out that researchers in the field should actually be more concerned with the following health hazard: car accidents, loss/broken eyeglasses, and lack of preparation in familiar medications such as allergy remedies or even sunscreen. Having children is the second issue he pointed out for reasons that include time demands, education, and overall psychological need. Next, he discussed gender and sex. He assessed that sex in the field is less discussed than gender, i.e. the role of women professionals (p. 117).  He raised interesting questions that will allow self-examination for a single, married, and homosexual person doing a fieldwork in response to the realities encountered in the field. Finally, he presented professional and personal ethics as an issue subsumed in the overarching human factor. Situations such as presence of long-time expatriates as resource, knowledge management protocols, and other professional responsibilities are taken to account.

For reference purposes, Newman built on the book by Howell (1990) for his discussion on health, Cassel (1987), Warren (1988), and Cassel & Jacobs (1987) for children, gender and sex, and professional and person ethics, respectively.

What interested me in this article is the ‘informal survey’  (p. 121) he conducted. This survey captured a rough picture of the status of FM in linguistics across all major PhD-granting linguistics departments in the U.S. I would definitely invite you to read this part of the article. I can point out two challenges that personally confronted me from the implications of the survey. First, as a student of [applied] linguistics, it is important to get our senses familiar with how our craft operates in the field, thus taking field methods class, at least. Secondly, and finally, theoretical knowledge in analyzing language must be empowered with descriptive methods of data gathering.

References:

Cassell, J. (1987). Children in the field: Anthropological experiences. Philadelphia: Temple University Press

Cassell, J. & Jacobs, S.E. (1987). Handbook on ethical issues in anthropology. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

Howell, N. (1990). Surviving fieldwork: A report of advisory panel on health and safety in fieldwork. American Anthropological Association, 26

Warren, C. A. B. (1988). Gender issues in field research. Qualitative Research Methods Series, 9