Question 1

What are the norms of the scientific community?

What are their effects?
The list of scientific norms begins with universalism, which Merton explains in terms of the
canon that truth claims, whatever their sources, are to be subjected to pre-established
impersonal criteria. Acceptance of claims is not to be based on personal or social attributes of
the claim maker, such as race, as the Nazis were encouraged to do by Stark.
In 1942, sociologist Dr. Robert Merton articulated an ethos of science in “A Note on Science and
Technology in a Democratic Order.” He argued that, although no formal scientific code exists,
the values and norms of modern science can nevertheless be inferred from scientists’ common
practices and widely held attitudes. Merton discussed four idealized norms Universalism,
Communality, Disinterestedness, and Organized Skepticism. Here we define and explore each of
these norms
Universalism
The idea that scientific claims must be held to objective and “pre-established impersonal
criteria.” This value can be inferred by the scientific method or the requirement of peer review
before publication in the vast majority of academic journals.
Communality
Merton actually calls this norm “Communism,” but scientists tend to refer instead to
“communality” or “communalism” due to Communism’s political-economic connotations. The
ideas, however, are similar that the findings of science are common property to the scientific
community and that scientific progress relies on open communication and sharing
Disinterestedness
Science should limit the influence of bias as much as possible and should be done for the sake
of science, rather than self-interest or power. Merton says that Disinterestedness can often be
the most difficult norm to achieve, especially when one’s job or academic status relies on
publications or citations. Many scientists believe that lack of disinterestedness is a systemic
issue one that funders, publishers, and scientists alike should work
Organized Skepticism
The necessity of proof or verification subject’s science to more scrutiny than any other field.
This norm points once again to peer review and the value of reproducibility. It requires the
temporary suspension of judgment and the detached scrutiny of beliefs in terms of empirical
and logical criteria
Honesty
General cultural norm, but it is especially strong in scientific research.
Effects of Scientific Norms
The literature on the norms expanded in the 1950s, with various clarifications and additions,
many of which related to the central fact of the passionate, personal commitment of scientists,
one of the features of Weber’s discussion of science that Merton had omitted. It loomed larger
as a result of such influential works as Michael Polanyi. Bernard Barber had suggested that
“emotional neutrality” was a separate norm and an important brake on the passions. But
Merton and Barber moved away from this image of science. Merton noted that priority
disputes were an example of the affective involvement of scientists with their own ideas, and
Barber observed that the problem of resistance of scientists to discovery was intrinsic to
science. This new view fit better with a functionalist account of science in which both the norms
and the passions they contained were functional for science. But it also fit with Merton’s
developing sense that norms typically involved conflicting feelings or ambivalence.
The idea that the norms had counter norms was developed by Ian Mitroff, whose study of elite
moon scientists showed that tenacity in support of one’s own idea was an accepted part of
science and a condition for its progress. On the basis of this research, Mitroff proposed counter
norms for each norm. The counter norm to organized skepticism, for example, was” organized
dogmatism,” which he formulated in this way The scientist must believe in his own findings
with utter conviction while doubting those of others with all his worth” Michael Mulkay
expanded on this discussion, and turned it in a radically different direction. He argued that
there were no strongly institutionalized norms of the Mertonian sort in science, and treated the
Mertonian norms as”ideology,” asking what purposes this ideology served, suggesting that we
understand science not just as a community with special professional concerns and with
normative components appropriate to these concerns, but also as an interest group with a
domineering elite and a justificatory ideology.
This line of argument drove the discussion toward the question of whether the norms were
applicable to the new situation of science, which was understood to be more commercialized
and “private” The norms came to appear to some critics as the idealization of a previous form
of science that systematically distorted the present understanding of science. New models of
trans disciplinary research with specific practical goals also seemed to fit poorly with the norms,
which now could be seen to relate primarily to competition for prestige in a disciplinary setting.

Question 2
What are the three conditions for casualty? Which
one is never completely demonstrated and why?
Answer:
The concept of causality has been debated over the centuries but remains one of the most
valuable types of knowledge because it tells what can or should be done to obtain a desired
consequence or to avoid an undesirable outcome. Causality concerns relationships where a
change in one variable necessarily results in a change in another variable. There are three
conditions for causality: covariation, temporal precedence, and control for “third variables.”
The latter comprise alternative explanations for the observed causal relationship. Spurious
relationships occur when covariation between variables suggests a causal effect but where this
covariation is, in fact, the result of an underlying shared cause.
Here is the statistical definitions:

 Covariation
 Temporal Precedence
 Elimination of Extraneous Variables
Covariation
Covariation requires the causal variable to vary systematically with the variable it is assumed to
cause. More specifically, changes in the independent variable must be accompanied by changes
in the dependent variable.
For example, you could establish covariation in a randomized experiment by seeing whether
depression was related to the amount of sleep a person received. If the same amount of
depression was observed in both groups, regardless of the amount of sleep, you could not
establish covariation. If, on the other hand, you observed more depression in the group
experiencing less or more sleep you would have covariation.
Temporal Precedence
Temporal precedence maintains that the variable assumed to have the causal effect must
precede the effect it is supposed to cause… the cause must come before the effect.
In regards to the example above, depression the effect must be a result of the
decreased/increased amount of sleep the cause. In a randomized experiment, the researcher
automatically establishes temporal precedence by manipulating the independent variable.
Elimination of Extraneous Variables
In order establish causality the researcher must eliminate all extraneous variables. This
demonstrates that the experimental results are not due to factors other than experimental
manipulations.
An extraneous variable is an undesired variable that has an unintended influence on the results
of the study. Extraneous variables confound the results when they are allowed to change
systematically along with the two variables being studied e.g. distractions during an exam can
effect the results. Confounding variables distort the results and make it impossible to draw
meaningful conclusions about the research study as they allow for alternative explanations for
the results. Ruling out extraneous variables allows for an unambiguous explanation of the
results.
Using the example of sleep and repression , the researcher must demonstrate that the only
thing that varies is the amount of sleep the participants receive… everything else must be held
constant. If, for instance, the preliminary information was collected from participants at
8:00am, the follow-up data collection should be held at the same time. If, on the other hand,
the first session was held at 8:00am and the other session at 2:00pm, extraneous variables
could be impacting the results of the study.
Participants arriving at the 8:00am session may have had a reduced amount of sleep, not due to
their depression, but due to having to get up early to get to the experiment on time. By having
both sessions at the same time and allowing no other factors to vary allows the researcher to
conclude that any differences in depression levels can be attributed to the amount of sleep the
participant received.

Question 3
How are science and common sense different in
Each approach?
Answer:
Differences between science and commonsense
The goals of science and commonsense are different. Commonsense is mainly concerned with
immediate action in context science is mainly concerned with achieving some understanding
which to some extent is independent of persons and context, and in this interest may eschew
the need for guiding immediate action.
Science has developed an extensive tool-kit of theoretical models, investigated in great detail,
so that its imaginative resources are very finely structured and elaborated. It has generated a
variety of new and some not widely shared ways of being rational. 'Logic' has a special role in
science here, in the transactional domain where consequences of imaginings are followed
through. Commonsense relies more on the broad brush of basic dimensions of how things can
possibly be. Its rationality boils down to what makes sense. Science relies more on extensive
collaborative and competitive work towards unarguable agreement.
Commonsense is certainly collaborative even collusive, but when differences arise, agreements
to differ are common. In the commonsense world, persons think as they do in the scientific
world, knowledge is what it currently is. In the interests of knowledge, science tries to go
behind things as they seem. To detect, control and understand the behavior of entities, it
creates artificial events experiments so as to isolate the effects of various entities. For this
reason, experiments are, from the everyday point of view, thoroughly impractical. They work
only in contrived circumstances. Commonsense is more concerned with coping with things as
they are, in all their awkward combinations.
Out of all this, science has created a large ontological zoo of entities, many as real as any stone,
but never before thought of, and quite beyond the ken of everyday commonsense. Science,
unlike commonsense, is in a way never satisfied. New entities, once made real and serving in an
imaginative world to create histories which explain certain phenomena. become themselves
phenomena to be explained by going one layer deeper.
Science, as a way of thinking, possesses many vital qualities for true understanding that
common sense does not. Based on observations we make, science operates under theories,
constantly revised and checked by experiment. Based on the required validity that we need to
make judgments, science tests its own propositions, throwing out the theories which do not fit
our world. Science also has controls, or ways of eliminating other explanations that may fit our
preconceptions and intuitions but do not adequately explain phenomena. Causation, itself
crucial to decision-making and judgment, can only reliably be determined through analytical
methods that common sense pretends to involve but does not. Lastly, science rules out the
metaphysical so far. Common sense allows us to believe that ghosts, goblins, and angels run
amok throughout our world, themselves causal agents of events in our lives. To suggest that
angels cured your disease, and not modern medicine, for example, is exactly why common
sense is such a poor master.
Theory
Theories construct the enterprise of science. A theory is an abstraction that applies to variety of
circumstances, explaining relationships and phenomena, based upon objective evidence. For
example, evolution is a theory that applies to a wide range of phenomena the diversity of life,
development etc, and explains the observations of said phenomena, all of which is based upon
evidence. Gravity too is a theory, explaining the phenomena that we observe in interactions of
bodies with mass.
Scientists also realize that these are man-made terms that may or may not exhibit a close
relationship to reality but with objectivity we try our best.
The distinction between this structure of thought and common sense should be, well, common
sense. Common sense has no structure to it, is explicitly subjective, and is subject to all manner
of cognitive biases. There is no need for testing, replication, or verification when you are
reasoning for yourself. No checks for you to pass or fail, no peers reviewing. It is no wonder why
science is so much better at explaining things.

Testing/Verification
Unlike common sense or intuition, science systematically and empirically tests theories and
hypothesis. This is important when viewed in the light that psychological research shows us
that the default mode of human information processing includes the confirmation bias, which is
a form of selective testing, and unworthy of scientific thinking.
If unchecked, most people intuitively notice or select ideas, beliefs, or facts that fit within what
they already assume the world to be like and dismiss the rest. Common sense reasoning has no
problem with the idea that the Sun goes around the Earth because it sure looks like it does,
doesn’t it Humans already feel like they are the center of the universe, why not accept a belief
that confirms that notion? Science is free from such constraints.
Controls
Science controls for possibly extraneous sources of influence. The lay public does not control
for such possibilities, and therefore the chains of causation and explanation become tangled.
When trying to explain a phenomena, science rigorously excludes factors that may affect an
outcome so that it can be sure where the real relationships are. Common sense has no such
control. The person who believes that a full moon increases the rate of crime does not control
this hypothesis. Without control they may never see that statistics speak to the contrary.
Assuming a connection is never as meaningful as proving one.
Correlation and Causation
Science systematically and conscientiously pursues “real” relationships backed by theory and
evidence. Common sense does not. Common sense leads us to believe that giving children
sugar causes them to be more hyper. Science shows us that this is not the case. We see possible
correlations everywhere, but that does not mean much if we can’t prove it. “It seems right” is
not enough.
When we use science to actually establish causation, it is for the betterment of society. For a
long time the tobacco industry would have us believe that smoking did not lead to lung cancer,
it is merely a correlation. Medical science has now shown unequivocally that smoking causes
lung cancer. How could common sense ever lead us to this healthy conclusion? Would common
sense ever intuit that smoke hurts your lungs or that it contains harmful chemicals? It may
seem like common sense now, but remember that hindsight is 20/20. People who began
smoking 60 years ago had no clue that it was harmful. Even children smoked back then. Could
common sense ever grasp the methodological measures required to prove such a harmful
connection? I do not think so. That’s why we use science.
Metaphysics
Science rules out untestable, “metaphysical” explanations where common sense does not. That
which cannot be observed at least tangentially or tested is of no concern to science. This is why
religious-based explanations of scientific concepts, i.e. creationism, is not a science and has no
business in the science classroom.
Ghosts and goblins may be thought to be the causes of many a shenanigan, but their reluctance
to be tested or observed renders them, at least scientifically, non-existent. If they have no
effects that cannot be explained naturally, if they are invisible.

Question 4
Take a topic of your interest and develop two
Research questions for it. Each research question,
Specify the units of analysis and universe?
Answer:
U.S China War
Research Question What are the core challenges and risks that you see emanating from U.S.-
China tensions?
Analysis
Technology competition is the core challenge in the U.S.-China relationship, blurring the lines
between economic competitiveness and national security. And it is clear to me that this is a
competition that won’t be settled through a negotiation, it will be contested.
Research Question Are we are headed towards another Cold War?
Analysis
No, and I don’t believe that calling the current situation a “Cold War” is useful or accurate. As I
said, China is a competitor, and a very tough one unlike any we’ve ever faced. It has a different
political system, a different political ideology, and security objectives that clash with our own.

Question 5
What are the seven elements or parts of an
Experiment?
Answer:
1. Make observations. These observations should be objective, not subjective. In other words,
the observations should be capable of verification by other scientists. Subjective observations,
which are based on personal opinions and beliefs, are not in the realm of science. Here’s an
objective statement it is 58 °F in this room. Here’s a subjective statement it is cool in this room.
The first step in the Scientific Method is to make objective observations. These observations are
based on specific events that have already happened and can be verified by others as true or
false.
2. Form a hypothesis. Our observations tell us about the past or the present. As scientists, we
want to be able to predict future events. We must therefore use our ability to reason.
Scientists use their knowledge of past events to develop a general principle or explanation to
help predict future events. The general principle is called a hypothesis. The type of reasoning
involved is called inductive reasoning (deriving a generalization from specific details).
A hypothesis should have the following characteristics:
• It should be a general principle that holds across space and time
• It should be a tentative idea
• It should agree with available observations
• It should be kept as simple as possible.
• It should be testable and potentially falsifiable. In other words, there should be a way to show
the hypothesis is false; a way to disprove the hypothesis.
Some mammals have two hind limbs would be a useless hypothesis. There is no observation
that would not fit this hypothesis
All mammals have two hind limbs is a good hypothesis. We would look throughout the world at
mammals. When we find whales, which have no hind limbs, we would have shown our
hypothesis to be false; we have falsified the hypothesis.
When a hypothesis involves a cause-and-effect relationship, we state our hypothesis to indicate
there is no effect. A hypothesis, which asserts no effect, is called a null hypothesis. For instance,
the drug Celebrate does not help relieve rheumatoid arthritis.
3. Make a prediction. Made a hypothesis that is tentative and may or may not be true.
Our hypothesis should be broad it should apply uniformly through time and through space.
Scientists cannot usually check every possible situation where a hypothesis might apply. Let’s
consider the hypothesis All plant cells have a nucleus. We cannot examine every living plant and
every plant that has ever lived to see if this hypothesis is false. Instead, we generate a
prediction using deductive reasoning generating a specific expectation from a generalization.
From our hypothesis, we can make the following prediction If I examine cells from a blade of
grass, each one will have a nucleus.
Now, let’s consider the drug hypothesis The drug Celebra does not help relieve rheumatoid
arthritis . To test this hypothesis, we would need to choose a specific set of conditions and then
predict what would happen under those conditions if the hypothesis were true. Conditions you
might wish to test are doses administered, length of time the medication is taken, the ages of
the patients and the number of people to be tested.
All of these conditions that are subject to change are called variables. To gauge the effect of
Celebra, we need to perform a controlled experiment. The experimental group is subjected to
the variable we want to test and the control group is not exposed to that variable. In a
controlled experiment, the only variable that should be different between the two groups is the
variable we want to test.
Let’s make a prediction based on observations of the effect of Celebra in the laboratory. The
prediction is: Patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis who take Celebra and patients who
take a placebo a starch tablet instead of the drug) do not differ in the severity of rheumatoid
arthritis.
4. Perform an experiment We rely again on our sensory perception to collect information. We
design an experiment based on our prediction.
Our experiment might be as follows: 1000 patients between the ages of 50 and 70 will be
randomly assigned to one of two groups of 500. The experimental group will take Celebra four
times a day and the control group will take a starch placebo four times a day. The patients will
not know whether their tablets are Celebra or the placebo. Patients will take the drugs for two
months. At the end of two months, medical exams will be administered to determine if
flexibility of the arms and fingers has changed.
5. Analyze the results of the experiment. Our experiment produced the following results: 350
of the 500 people who took Celebra reported diminished arthritis as the end of the period. 65
of the 500 people who took the placebo reported improvement.
The data appear to show that there was a significant effect of Celebra. We would need to do a
statistical analysis to demonstrate the effect. Such an analysis reveals that there is a statistically
significant effect of Celebra.
6. Draw a conclusion. From our analysis of the experiment, we have two possible outcomes:
the results agree with the prediction or they disagree with the prediction. In our case, we can
reject our prediction of no effect of Celebra. Because the prediction is wrong, we must also
reject the hypothesis it was based on.
Our task now is to reframe the hypothesis is a form that is consistent with the available
information. Our hypothesis now could be: The administration of Celebra reduces rheumatoid
arthritis compared to the administration of a placebo.
With present information, we accept our hypothesis as true. Have we proved it to be true?
Absolutely not! There are always other explanations that can explain the results. It is possible
that the more of the 500 patients who took Celebra were going to improve anyway. It’s possible
that more of the patients who took Celebra also ate bananas every day and that bananas
improved the arthritis. You can suggest countless other explanations.
How can we prove that our new hypothesis is true? We never can. The scientific method does
not allow any hypothesis to be proven. Hypotheses can be disproven in which case that
hypothesis is rejected as false. All we can say about a hypothesis, which stands up to, a test to
falsify it is that we failed to disprove it. There is a world of difference between failing to
disprove and proving. Make sure you understand this distinction; it is the foundation of the
scientific method.
We currently accept it as true. To be rigorous, we need to subject the hypothesis to more tests
that could show it is wrong. For instance, we could repeat the experiment but switch the
control and experimental group. If the hypothesis keeps standing up to our efforts to knock it
down, we can feel more confident about accepting it as true. However, we will never be able to
state that the hypothesis is true. Rather, we accept it as true because the hypothesis stood up
to several experiments to show it is false.
7. Report your results.
Scientists publish their findings in scientific journals and books, in talks at national and
international meetings and in seminars at colleges and universities. Disseminating results is an
essential part of the scientific method. It allows other people to verify your results, develop
new tests of your hypothesis or apply the knowledge you have gained to solve other problems.

Question 6
Identify five of the ten things to avoid in question
Writing?
Answer:
Don’t write leading questions
Top survey mistake #1: Questions should never be worded in a way that’ll sway the reader to
one side of the argument. Usually you can tell a question is leading if it includes non-neutral
wording.
Bad Question: How short was Napoleon?
The word “short” immediately brings images to the mind of the respondent. If the question is
rewritten to be neutral-sounding, it can eliminate the leading bias.
Good Question: How would you describe Napoleon’s height?
Leading questions can also be the cause of unnecessary additions to the question.
Avoid loaded questions
Loaded questions are questions written in a way that forces the respondent into an answer that
doesn’t accurately reflect his or her opinion or situation. This key survey mistake will throw off
your survey respondents and is one of the leading contributors to respondents abandoning
surveys.
Bad Question: Where do you enjoy drinking beer?
By answering this question, the respondent is announcing that they drink beer. However, many
people dislike beer or will not drink alcohol and therefore can’t answer the question truthfully.
Usually, loaded questions are best avoided by pretesting your survey to make sure every
respondent has a way to answer honestly.
Stay away from double-barreled questions
What is a double-barreled question? It’s one of the most common survey mistakes. And it’s
when you force respondents to answer two questions at once. It’s also a great way to ruin your
survey results.
Survey questions should always be written in a way that only one thing is being measured. If a
single question has two subjects, it’s impossible to tell how the respondent is weighing the
different elements involved.
Bad Question: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the pay and work benefits of your
current job?
In the case of the example above, it makes sense to break the question into two; satisfaction
with pay and satisfaction with work benefits. Otherwise, some of your respondents will be
answering the question while giving more weight to pay, and others will answer giving more
weight to work benefits.
Good Questions: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the pay of your current job? How
satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the work benefits of your current job?
It’s also easy to double-barrel a question by giving more than one group for the respondent to
consider.
Absolutely do not use absolutes in questions
Absolutes in questions force respondents into a corner where they can’t give useful feedback.
These questions usually have the options Yes/No and include wording such as “always,” “all,”
“every,” “ever,” etc.
Bad Question: Do you always eat breakfast? (Yes/No)
Read literally, the example above would force almost any respondent to answer “No.” Even
then, there would be some respondents who would interpret the question as asking whether
they always eat a full breakfast when they have a chance.
The inflexibility of absolutes makes questions too rigid to be used in a survey. Instead, the
question should have a variety of options that people will feel more comfortable choosing from.
Good Question: How many days a week do you usually eat breakfast?
Every day/ 5-6 days/ 3-4 days/ 1-2 days- I usually don’t eat breakfast
Be clear by speaking your respondent’s language
Regardless of who’s taking your survey, use clear, concise, and uncomplicated language while
trying to avoid acronyms, technical terms or jargon that may confuse your respondents. And
make sure to provide definitions or examples if you need to include tricky terms or concepts.
That way, you can be certain that almost anybody can answer your questions easily, and that
they’ll be more inclined to complete your survey.
Bad Question: Do you own a tablet PC?
Good Question: Do you own a tablet PC? (e.g. iPad, Android tablet)
Generally, you should strive to write questions using language that is easily understood. Certain
sample groups, however, may have a knowledge base that can make the use of more difficult
terms and ideas a viable option.

Question 7
Of what limitations of using existing statistics should
Researcher be aware?
Answer:
Methods of data collection is that really the data collection has already been done for you.
Using data that other researchers have gathered saves you all the time and money that you
would have spent had you decided to collect the data yourself.
The main disadvantage, however, is validity. Because the data has already been collected, you
are stuck using the variables and measures that the original researcher used. That may not
necessarily be a bad thing, but it brings up the question of whether the measures that they
used for their analyses, and the data collected from those measures, are actually appropriate
for your analyses. You may end up wishing that they asked questions a little differently, or
included or excluded an item, and have to settle with what they have. In the same vein,
because you were not the one to collect the data, you are not able to control or change the
sample that they collected. Another problem, especially with existing statistics, could be issues
of reliability, where you may find that one researcher concluded differently than another. This
could be caused by the business or political agendas of the organizations that gathered the
data, the biases of which would transfer into your analyses.

 Official statistics may reflect the biases of those in power limiting what you can find out.
 Official statistics the way things are measured may change over time, making historical
comparisons difficult as with crime statistics, the definition of crime keeps changing.
 Documents may lack authenticity parts of the document might be missing because of
age, and we might not even be to verify who actually wrote the document, meaning we
cannot check whether its biased or not.
 Representativeness documents may not be representative of the wider population
especially a problem with older documents. Many documents do not survive because
they are not stored, and others deteriorate with age and become unusable. Other
documents are deliberately withheld from researchers and the public gaze, and
therefore do not become available.
 The information and data may not be accurate. The source of the data must always be
checked
 The data maybe old and out of date
 The sample used to generate the secondary data may be small
 The company publishing the data may not be reputable

Question 8
What are the different types of levels of field notes
And what purpose does each serve?
Answer:
Field notes are a collection of documents from a researcher’s observed experience in a specific
setting or environment. Documents such as written notes, reports, and materials from the
environment, including pictures, videos, and pamphlets, can all be used to help the researcher
become immersed in the environment under observation.
Field notes are the first and a necessary step toward developing quality analysis. They are also
the record that affirms what you observed. In other words, field notes are not to be taken
lightly or overlooked as unimportant.
Some say that there are two different kinds of field notes: descriptive and analytic. Though the
lines between what counts as “description” and what counts as “analysis” can get pretty fuzzy,
the distinction is nevertheless useful when thinking about how to write and how to interpret
field notes. In this section, we’ll focus on descriptive field notes. Descriptive field notes are
notes that simply describe a field researcher’s observations as straightforwardly as possible.
These notes typically do not contain explanations of or comments about those observations.
Instead, the observations are presented on their own, as clearly as possible. In the following
section, we’ll examine the uses and writing of analytic field notes more closely.
Descriptive field notes
constitute the longest part of most inquiry journals. These are detailed and accurate
descriptions of what the inquirer sees, hears, and experiences. Detailed, concrete and vividly
specific words should be used instead of abstract, superficial, summary, or evaluative language.
Quotations are included when possible. It may be helpful to think of your making of this record
as the creation of a library about your experiences as a teacher, administrator, a parent, or
whatever roles you play. You want the richest library holdings possible to fill your record so you
have access to these details when you want to interpret your experience, share it with others,
or otherwise learn from your ongoing inquiry. Include as many of the following types of
descriptive field notes as possible or necessary. You would rarely include all these kinds of
notes in any one day’s entries.
Descriptions of the people involved with you in your inquiry and the nature of your relationship
with them. You might want to include what you have learned of their history, details about
their appearance, mannerisms, style of talking and acting and so on. Your working relationship
with them should definitely be documented, at least from your perspective but also from theirs
if they are willing to share that information with you.
Descriptions of communication which include direct verbatim quotations of verbal statements
you hear people make, literal transcriptions of interviews and informal conversations you have
with people, as well as paraphrases in your own words if you were unable to obtain the exact
quotations. The more you can get in their own words, the better. Do not translate the words
and actions of others into your own personal “professional” language when recording them
into your field notes or you will lose much of the information you need to interpret their
experiences.
Descriptions of the physical and historical setting include drawings, maps, photographs,
videotapes, and verbal descriptions of the settings in which you are participating and learning.
Such descriptions provide important contextual information that may not have to be repeated
every time you observe in the same setting. Of course, settings do change from time to time
and particular physical or historical changes most likely influence the events and experiences
participants have. The inquirer should be sensitive to these changes and include descriptions of
them in the record.
Events and actions in the setting including listings of who was involved, what the event was,
how participants were involved, the nature of their actions, historical details that provide
context for the event, etc. Marne’s notes were essentially of this type, though the short
excerpts she included in this report lack a lot of the detail readers might want.
Inquirer’s behavior, actions, and experience in relation to the experiences of others. As an
active participant in the social settings you explore, your own behavior, words, relationships
with others, assumptions, and physical presence in relation to all else you are describing should
be made apparent in your notes to help you and others understand how you have helped
create the information you collected and conclusions you reached. In a very real sense, you are
the inquiry instrument through which all other information will be filtered through your
recordings and into your sharing about your experience.
Reflective field notes
Reflective field notes Build on the descriptive field notes to reflect your personal account of
what you are learning. These notes go beyond the descriptions presented above, to include
your speculations, feelings, problems, ideas, hunches, impressions, prejudices, analyses, plans
for future inquiry, clarifications, syntheses, connections, and other ideas about what you are
learning in the inquiry.

Recording your reflections may be therapeutic for you and should also help you clarify what you
are thinking and experiencing during the inquiry experience.
Analyses and syntheses That include your speculations about what you are learning, the
themes that are emerging, patterns that you may be seeing in participants’ experiences,
connections between experiences, your new ideas, your interpretations of the meanings of
events and people’s comments, etc. These may be short notes written during participation in an
event, or afterward while reading through a particular descriptive field notes or they may be
longer “analytic memos” which incorporate information from many descriptive and reflective
field notes.
They may be reports or articles developed to communicate to others what you are learning
Analyses and syntheses constitute the ongoing process of clarifying meaning and interpreting
the information being gathered in light of the relationships being developed between the
inquirer and other participants, in light of questions being asked, and in light of stories the
inquirer wants to share with others about the inquiry.
Writing out of the Field
Immediately upon leaving any observation in the field, you should take the time to complete
the brief notes you took while in the field. Even if you feel that the notes you’ve taken in the
field are complete, you’ll be surprised by how much more you’ll recall once you sit down
without distractions and read through what you’ve jotted down. You’ll also have the
opportunity to add your own reflections, or observations about your observations, when you
write up more complete notes.
Writing in the Field
Field researchers use a variety of strategies to take notes while in the field. Some research is
conducted in settings where sitting with a notebook, iPad, or computer is no problem e.g if
conducting observations in a classroom or at a meeting, but this is probably the exception
rather than the norm. More often, field researchers must find creative ways to note their
observations while engaged in the field. I’ve heard about field researchers jotting notes on their
hands and arms, keeping very small notebooks in their pockets and occasionally jotting notes
there, carrying small recorders to make quick observations, and even writing notes on toilet
paper during visits to the restroom. With the advent of smartphones, taking notes in the field
has become less arduous than it once was, as it is common to see someone texting or surfing
the web from their phone in almost any setting.