Search results

Purpose – This chapter builds on our personal experiences of researching primary schools. The chapter begins by discussing some important subjective accounts of conducting qualitative research, and the unavoidable (often unexpected) dilemmas that confront researchers whilst ‘in the field’. This provides the backdrop against which our own experiences of conducting research will be considered.

Methodology/approach – Whilst it is vital and necessary for researchers to abide by the relevant code(s) of ethical conduct, the authors argue that the contingent nature of qualitative research necessitates a degree of personal ethical discretion. The ethical frameworks of bodies such as the British Educational Research Association and the British Sociological Association are prima facie generalised, and cannot cover all ethical potentialities. Ethically sensitive researchers not only will be vigilant in adhering to the guiding framework, but will also be acutely aware of the situated nature of many ethical issues.

Findings – Researchers can never be fully prepared for the ethical issues they will confront in the field. However, the authors believe that if researchers share the eccentricities of their empirical experiences with others in their field, then researchers can be better prepared for the ethical challenges awaiting them. As such, this chapter draws upon our own fieldwork experiences in a rural village school in Norfolk and in a series of suburban/rural primary schools in North East England. The chapter does not offer a series of recommendations, but rather an exploration of the practical lessons that the authors have taken from the field.

The book offers a portfolio of commentaries on the current state of play of ethnography from a variety of disciplinary and international perspectives. Its auspices lay with the ambiguity in the title of Hammersley's seminal What's Wrong With Ethnography? text, which can be read both as a powerful critique and as an equally powerful defence. In approaching this collection, Hammersley's text was used as a reference point from which to see the directions ethnography had pursued in subsequent years. Drawing upon the another key text emerging at that time within the United Kingdom (Atkinson's The Ethnographic Imagination in 1990), a positive reading of the situation was adopted. That is, following Atkinson's lead, it acknowledged the implications of a reflexive understanding of the constructed nature of ethnography in order to comment on the business of ethnography. Here the emphasis is upon what work ethnographers are really involved in less the science of the white lab coat and more the messy, complex and inherently partial.

This chapter describes how the technologies of big data might apply to rural contexts. It considers the relative advantages and disadvantages of such ‘new’ innovations.

It uses two case studies, one of online community specialist groups linked to rural activities and a second from a policy shift relating to firearm legislation in the English context.

The chapter suggests that digital data in the forms discussed here can be both benign and underutilised in its potential. In relation to the management of datasets holding information on firearm owners, these need careful reflection regarding their establishment, access and general use.

The chapter provides insight into the rural context and makes a case that such locales are not immune from the influence of the dataverse. The appearance of ‘big data’ here is not without political implications. The case of UK firearm legislation reform demonstrates the implications of policy falling short of its potential and how a social science analysis can unpack the operation of power as well as position the debate more broadly.