Content uploaded by Melike Peterson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Melike Peterson on Oct 03, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Written for Feministische GeoRundMail Nr. 83 | September 2020 available at: https://ak-
feministische-geographien.org/die-neue-feministische-georundmail-ausgabe-nr-83-ist-da/
The ‘accidental’ and the ‘failed': Turning silent/ced moments in the field into data
By Melike Peterson, Institute of Geography, University of Bremen, Germany, Email:
peterson@uni-bremen.de
and Nora Küttel
Institute of Geography, University of Münster, Germany, Email: kuettel@uni-muenster.de
It began with a conversation at the 2019 DKG in Kiel about how residues of unplanned encounters
and ‘failed’ situations have significantly shaped our fieldwork and research practice, and how little
this continues to be addressed in the scholarly literature. Our observations then evolved into an
input at the 2020 AK Qualitative Methoden für Geographie und raumsensible Sozial- und
Kulturforschung in Goslar. When we realised we had more to say on this topic, we embarked upon
this research note.
While some theories of research practice and design continue to construct fieldwork as a
previously meticulously laid-out plan, where ‘going into the field’ is the active exercise or applied
element of the research process, others have shown that ‘the unplanned, accidental and even
obstructive events that are often erased from traditional representations of methods’ (Meier et al.
2018: 2) are central aspects of research. Lived realities show that fieldwork is in constant flux, a
reflexive and ongoing journey in which we continuously work at our praxis. The field emerges as a
‘site of inquiry that is necessarily artificial in its separations from geographical space and the flow of
time’ (Katz 1994: 67), shaped by ‘social, political, and spatial boundaries [that] shift with changing
circumstances’ (Nast 1994: 60). We suggest that taking seriously the processual and messy nature
of fieldwork entails underscoring how the odd, the unplanned and ‘accidental’, the ‘failed’ or the
unsuccessful, and (residues of) emotions, frustrations and disappointments shape stories and
experiences of being in the field. However, such elements often get (un)willingly lost, silenced and/
or written out of research and its published outcomes. Emphasising ‘stories of the routes we did
not plan, the messy things we did and the results of it all’ (Meier et al 2018: 3) - our detours - is
therefore critical to unpack ‘iterations of thinking-acting-wording in academic work’ (ibid: 5), and to
strengthen practices that contest dominant, normative notions of research where beliefs in the
infallible, omniscient ‘researcher subject’ are upheld.
In this research note, we present short stories from our own experiences in the field to reflect on
the significance of these ‘silent data’, touching on what we understand as data, and how we might
identify and become aware of what else constitutes data. Doing so, we want our intentions to be
clear: our intentions are not to give advice on how to solve problems, suggesting some sort of
practical methodological solutions, but to “provoke imagination into what can be learned from
research which intentionally lingers on the spaces we traditionally pass over, skip, want to ‘fix,’ and
make ‘pretty’ again” (Spencer Schultz 2017: 506). Drawing on feminist work on reflexivity,
positionality and the situatedness of knowledge, we argue that careful analysis of these often
silent/ced (inter)actions is crucial to consider what constitutes data, and how scholars understand,
analyse and report on research. Importantly, this can open up space for new practices and
‘producing different knowledge and producing knowledge differently’ (St. Pierre & Pillow 2000: 1).
We invite readers to seek and dwell in the uncertain spaces, gaps and cracks of research,
abolishing the notion that it is possible to ‘“get it right” once and for all’ (ibid.: 4). This note
concludes that fieldwork can represent a daunting and demanding experience, bringing with it a
myriad of observations, emotions and expectations, where more can be gained from re-thinking the
‘failed’ and the ‘accidental’ as moments of opportunity.
Of detours in research
In the following, we reflect on feelings of ‘failure’ and (self)doubt in fieldwork, to move away from
ideas of research which do not go to plan as ‘failed’ and abortive. Instead, we encourage
researchers to shift perspectives on how we ‘work the field’, considering so-called ‘failed’ moments
as detours worth taking (cf. Meier et al 2018). When embarking on fieldwork in Detroit, Nora had a
good idea of what her research still needed to be ‘successful’. Nora’s research focuses on the
mutual dependencies of visual art and urban space in Detroit, using an ethnographic field- based
approach which entailed her regularly revisiting Detroit over the last years. Yet, Nora quickly learnt
that most plans do not account for the unplanned and unknown, nor do dominant research
practices offer much space for feelings of doubt and ‘getting lost’ (Glăveanu 2018: 232). This is
despite fieldwork often consisting of ‘messy’, challenging and frustrating experiences (Hyndman
2001: 265). To Nora, fieldwork often felt like a ‘parachute jump model’ (Barley in Stodulka 2019:
31), where “you leap out of the aircraft and you suddenly come down and then life is going on
around you, and you have no idea of what is going on”. Being in Detroit, a sense of ‘failure’ and
loss of control occasionally paralysed Nora, making her feel that she ‘failed’ to capture the most
accurate or ‘best’ account, though no such account exists (Fujii 2015).
Scholars have described various forms of ‘failure’ in research: ‘failing’ at reflexivity (Rose 1997),
procrastinating and ‘failing’ at finding the right words (Matthiesen 2018) or doubting whether
collected data is ‘good enough’ (Stodulka 2019). Central here is that ‘failure’ continues to be
constructed as an emotion with profoundly negative connotations, which (re)enforces binaries of
failure and success, of doing ‘good’ and ‘bad’ research, and thus getting silenced in much
published work (Glăveanu 2018). Insecurities and doubts that shaped Nora’s experiences in
Detroit included the sense of missing out on research possibilities and the fragmentation of ‘her
field’ due to its geographical distance, of having to justify her choice of research location when
faced with time and financing constraints, and of ‘failing’ to communicate successfully with key
participants/organisations. For Nora, one situation, specifically, captures the ambiguity of fieldwork:
“Early evening. I cycle towards Eastern Market for the exhibition opening of S [an artist I
interviewed two years prior]. I wander around the gallery and feel incredibly uncomfortable. I down
my glass of wine, take a few pictures and hurry out. I wish I had talked to S but sometimes, I just
can't find the courage to approach someone. What if S didn't remember me? That would be
embarrassing! I also feel overwhelmed by the people in the room. Most of them seem to know
each other or at least another person in this white open cube; except me - I'm the outsider and
certainly feel like one.” (Extract field notes, April 2019)
While Nora is certain today that most people did not perceive her as ‘out-of-place’, this situation
was critical for her to reflect on the embodied and emotional aspects of doing research, where
Nora felt her boundaries being uncomfortably pushed, and experienced her positions of
researcher, observant and participant increasingly blurring and shifting. As such, this vignette
speaks to the struggle of being ‘in-between’ when in the field: between ‘the familiar and the
unfamiliar, between insider and outsider, and eventually, between home and away’ (Nast 1994:
57-58). It also serves as a reminder to thoroughly practice the difficult tasks of introspection and
reflexivity, and to engage with our own positionality and situatedness of knowledge, to explore
when, where and how meanings are created (Rose 1997; Haraway 1988). Approaching her sense
of ‘failure’ in the vignette as an act of detouring, Nora realised the situatedness of the knowledges
and social identities produced in the context of Detroit, specifically being white in a predominantly
black city. Thinking back to our ‘failures’ in the field, we wonder what could be gained from
changing our understanding of these moments, approaching them as equally (or more) important
to our research as those we regard as ‘successful’. We concur with Hyndman (2001: 265) who
argues that there is “value in working through the messiness, engaging in fieldwork in a careful
manner, rather than writing it off as too fraught with difficulties and dangers”. In terms of research
practice, unsuccessful and seemingly ‘failed’ situations can, for example, offer important insights
into doing research in a particular context, the social relations and dynamics under investigation,
and the destabilising of imagined insider/outsider perspectives (Hammersley & Atkinson 1983).
(Re)conceptualising moments of perceived ‘failure’ as detours, then, might enable us to
understand the ‘bigger picture of where we are and where we are heading’ (Glăveanu 2018: 233),
and to reflect on research as a ‘long-term, embodied, imaginative exercise of placing different
perspectives into dialogue and learning from them’ (ibid: 233).
The detour metaphor (cf. Meier et al 2018) is useful in the sense that it urges us to re-think the
stories and experiences we tell about research. Moments and feelings of ‘failure’ and (self)doubt
can be critical sources of insight into context, culture and social relations (Fujii 2015), representing
data in their own right. Another set of experiences too often irregularly collected and forgotten are
unplanned and ‘accidental’ moments in the field, the next section considering what they might
teach us about research and knowledge production.
Fieldwork and balancing the (un)planned
Approaching fieldwork as a balancing act between the planned and the unplanned (Cerwonka &
Malkki 2008) is critical to shed light on how we approach, negotiate and (un)learn ways of
practicing research. Unplanned or ‘accidental’ situations and encounters are characteristic of being
in the field; indeed, “ethnography is all about finding ourselves suddenly and irreversible in
unknown situations - ‘accidents’ - that cannot, and should not, be ignored” (Poulos 2009: xiv).
Here, we understand ‘accidental’ as something that was not planned or intended and often with
unforeseen consequences - similar to feelings of ‘failure’ discussed earlier but with more positive
connotations. Such ‘accidents’ in the field may include unplanned observations, incidental
conversations, spontaneous events and ‘fortunate circumstances’ that shape and change research
practices, routes of inquiry and points of interest, at various times and at different stages
throughout the research process. In the context of Melike’s research, ‘accidental’ situations and
encounters played a central role in identifying key themes and points of analysis, participants/
associates, objects and places of interest. Investigating everyday spaces of multicultural encounter
in Glasgow, Melike’s research focuses on the potential of these places to nurture more inclusive
and progressive forms of living together. Using a mix of qualitative methods, she found that these
places offer opportunities to identify similarities and differences with others, critical for people
frequently ‘othered’ by dominant media and political discourse to feel at ‘home’ in the city. Doing
this research, Melike found Poulos’ statement helpful because it reminds us to sensibilise our
critical lens for the ways in which the unplanned can alter the unfolding of research, and to
approach these situations not as ‘failures’ to plan meticulously but as ‘revelatory moments’ (Trigger
et al 2012). An unforeseen situation that proved revelatory for Melike’s research was the following:
“I didn’t plan to visit the library today, just popped in to quickly return a book I happened to have
with me that day. There was a line. While waiting, I incidentally overheard a conversation between
two women, one of them discussing her arrival in Glasgow from China, her attempt to settle into
the neighbourhood and her hope of finding friends by participating in the knitting group at this
library (apparently they were waiting for other members to arrive). I was so absorbed in their
conversation that the staff member had to address me twice when it was my turn. I blushed and
quickly returned my book. At that moment, I was so happy that I had decided to return the book,
deciding to visit the knitting group starting next week.” (Extract field notes, November 2016)
This unplanned encounter became a catalyst for Melike’s research: Melike regularly visited the
knitting group for over a year, exchanging stories, building trust and becoming friends with some of
the women, and learning how to knit. Being transparent about her interest in the group, many
women shared personal experiences of migration and (non)belonging in Glasgow, informing
central arguments in Melike’s research. Some also decided to become involved in other parts of
her research, wanting to be interviewed and participating in focus groups. Here, this short vignette
serves to show that when we, as researchers, are in the field we begin to think and hear more
systematically about what would have otherwise remained ‘unremarkable’. It is critical, as England
(1994: 87) argues, ‘to be more open and honest about research and the limitations and partial
nature of that research’. Being an ‘accidental ethnographer’ (cf. Fujii 2015) in this situation made it
possible for Melike to deepen and systemise her understanding of the women’s conversation
beyond any pre-planned, structural methods or initially laid out plans (Basnet et al 2020). The
vignette also powerfully illustrates how ‘fieldwork can suddenly unfold in unexpected ways’ (Basnet
et al 2020: 218) and how our richest data can stem from everyday experiences in the field, many of
them unplanned and accidental. As such, it emphasises how paying systematic attention to
unplanned and ‘accidental’ situations sheds light onto ‘the larger political and social worlds in which
these “accidents” (and the researcher) are embedded’ (Fujii 2015: 525). This speaks to feminist
work that resists and deconstructs linear and causal perceptions of research (e.g. Rose 1997,
Haraway 1988). By intentionally lingering on these spaces (cf. Spencer Schultz 2017), we might
discover assumptions we did not know we had, uncover different ways in which we perceive and
are perceived by others, and detect similarities across dissimilar research contexts. In order to
conduct solid research, then, it is pivotal to reflect on and become ‘explicitly conscious’ (Burawoy in
Fujii 2015: 536) of ‘accidental’ stories and unplanned encounters, and attempting to capture them.
Turning silences into dialogue
Fieldwork is a continuous process of (un)learning, woven through with messiness, with figuring out,
with negotiating how to work with research participants, with making mistakes (Billo & Hiemstra
2012). Simultaneously, it is ‘a profoundly emotional business, a constant stew of emotions, ranging
from doubt and acute homesickness to laughter and a kind of comradeship’ (Thrift 2003: 106). In
this research note, we have shown how apparently ‘failed’ situations and ‘accidental’ encounters
have shaped and changed our research, foregrounding its messiness, uncertainty and
emotionality, and the detours we took. Doing so, we have offered some thoughts on what we
understand as data, and how we might identify and become aware of what else constitutes data:
moments when we are overcome with feelings of ‘failure’ and (self)doubt, so- called ‘accidental’
encounters and ‘fortunate’ situations can become catalysts for research, and are acts of detouring
that reveal the processual nature of fieldwork. As such, they represent important data on their own.
We hope that some of these first reflections may prompt other researchers to discuss in more
depth how to ‘provide a window on when fieldwork does not go to plan’ (Basnet et al 2020: 218)
and what might be gained from embracing the possibilities that emerge in our experiences in the
field - the unplanned and the so-called ‘failed’.
Seriously and imaginatively facing the question of what can be learnt from these moments is
particularly relevant given that ‘published accounts [continue to] represent an unruly “tidy” version
of the research process’ (Hammersley & Atkinson 1983: 229). It is significant to discuss the
unplanned and ‘accidental’, the so-called ‘failed’ and the odd, in order to chip away at their
portrayal as unscientific and unprofessional, ensuring that these ‘little details’ make it to the written
page and are more frequently used and considered valid data (Bengtsson 2013). We side with Law
(2004: 2) who argues that it is crucial to ‘remake social science in ways better equipped to deal
with mess, confusion and relative disorder’. Making (more) room for the ‘messiness’ of research
experiences in the form of discussing the ‘accidental’ and the ‘failed’ can encourage new and
productive ways of creating knowledge, moving away from binaries of ‘chaotic’ fieldwork/‘orderly’
publications. Feminist scholars, in particular, continue to do significant work here, interrogating
entanglements of emotion, vulnerability and the researcher as subject, and reflexive research
practices such as authoethnography, connecting ‘the personal to the cultural’ (Ellis & Bochner
2000: 739) and turning ‘“non-data” into usable data’ (Fujii 2015: 537). Having just enough room to
briefly touch upon these issues here, we invite readers to continue transforming silences into
dialogue by considering the constraints of academic outputs, reflecting on how we might create
more/enough room for the unplanned, the odd and the unsuccessful in published accounts, and
what other outlets beyond writing may enable us to capture and process the gaps and cracks in
our research.
References
Basnet, S., L. Johnston and R. Longhurst (2018) Embodying ‘accidental ethnography’: staying
overnight with former Bhutanese refugees in Aotearoa New Zealand, Social & Cultural Geography,
21(2): 207-221.
Bengtsson, T. T. (2013) What are data? Ethnographic experiences with young offenders,
Qualitative Research, 14(6): 729-744.
Cerwonka, A. and L. H. Malkki (2008) Improvising Theory: Process and Temporality in
Ethnographic Fieldwork, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ellis, C., and A. P. Bochner (2000) Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity: Researcher
as Subject, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand
Oaks, Calif: SAGE. pp. 733-768.
England, K. V. L. (1994) Getting Personal: Reflexivity, Positionality, and Feminist Research, The
Professional Geographer, 46(1): 80–89.
Fujii, L. A. (2015) Five stories of accidental ethnography: Turning unplanned moments in the field
into data, Qualitative Research, 15(4), 525–539.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2018) Epilogue or Why Creative Detours (Often) Have Happy Endings, in
Wegener, C., N. Meier and E. Maslo (Eds) Cultivating Creativity in Methodology and Research. In
Praise of Detours, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 231-237.
Haraway, D. (1988) Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of
Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.
Hammersley, M. and P. Atkinson (1983) Ethnography: Principles in Practice, London: Routledge.
Hyndman, J. (2001) The field as here and now, not there and then, The Geographical Review,
91(1-2): 262-272.
Katz, C. (1994) Playing the Field: Questions of Fieldwork in Geography, The Professional
Geographer, 46(1): 67-72.
Law, J. (2004) After method: Mess in social science research, New York: Routledge.
Matthiesen, N. (2018) Confessions of a Procrastinator, in Wegener, C., N. Meier and E. Maslo
(Eds) Cultivating Creativity in Methodology and Research. In Praise of Detours, Cham: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. 219-229.
Billo, E. and N. Hiemstra (2013) Mediating messiness: expanding ideas of flexibility, reflexivity, and
embodiment in fieldwork, Gender, Place & Culture, 20(3): 313-328.
Meier, N., C. Wegener and E. Maslo (2018) Cultivating Creativity in Methodology and Research. In
Praise of Detours, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nast, H. J. (1994) Women in the Field: Critical Feminist Methodologies and Theoretical
Perspectives, The Professional Geographer, 46(1): 54-66.
Poulos, C. N. (2009) Accidental ethnography: An inquiry into family secrecy, New York: Left Coast
Press.
Rose, G. (1997) Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in
Human Geography, 21(3), pp. 305-320.
St. Pierre, E. A. and W. S. Pillow (2000) Inquiry among the ruins, in E. A. St. Pierre and W. S.
Pillow (Eds) Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and methods in education, New York:
Routledge, pp. 1-23.
Spencer Schultz, C. (2017) ‘Working the ruins’ of collaborative feminist research, International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(6): 505-518.
Stodulka, T. (2019) »Fieldwork is a very extreme form of travel; it is the parachute jump model«
Parachuting with Nigel Barley. An interview by Thomas Stodulka, in Liebal, K., O. Lubrich and T.
Stodulka (Eds) Emotionen im Feld: Gespräche über die professionelle Distanz zum Gegenstand,
Bielefeld: transcript, pp. 29-48.
Thrift, N. (2003) Practising Ethics, in M. Pryke, G. Rose and S. Whatmore (Eds) Using Social
Theory, London: SAGE, pp. 105-121.
Trigger, D., M. Forsey and C. Meurk (2012) Revelatory moments in fieldwork, Qualitative
Research, 12(5): 513-527.
