difference between research and field study

A guide to field studies

Last updated

18 April 2023

Reviewed by

Cathy Heath

Field studies allow researchers to observe and collect data in real-world settings. Unlike laboratory-based or traditional research methods, field studies enable researchers to investigate complex phenomena within their environment, providing a deeper understanding of the research context.

Researchers can use field studies to investigate a wide range of subjects, from the behavior of animals to the practices of businesses or the experiences of individuals in a particular setting.

Make research less tedious

Dovetail streamlines research to help you uncover and share actionable insights

• What is a field study?

A field study is a research method that involves conducting observations and collecting data in a natural setting. This method includes observing, interviewing, and interacting with participants in their environment, such as a workplace, community, or natural habitat.

Field studies can take many forms, from ethnographic studies involving extended periods of observation and using an anthropological lens to shorter-term studies focusing on specific behaviors or events. Regardless of its form, a successful field study requires careful planning, preparation, and execution to ensure the data collected is valid and reliable.

• How to plan a field study

Planning a field study is a critical first step in ensuring successful research. Here are some steps to follow when preparing your field study:

1. Define your research question

When developing a good research question , you should make it clear, concise, and specific. It should also be open-ended, allowing for various possible answers rather than a simple yes or no response. Your research question should also be relevant to the broader field of study and contribute new knowledge to the existing literature.

Once you have a defined research question, identify the key variables you need to study and the data you need to collect. It might involve developing a hypothesis or research framework outlining the relationships between different variables and how you’ll measure them in your study.

2. Identify your research site

A research site is a location where you’ll conduct your study and collect data. Here are the types of research sites to consider when planning a field study:

Natural habitats: For environmental or ecological research, you may need to conduct your study in a natural habitat, such as a forest, wetland, or coral reef.

Communities : If your research relates to social or cultural factors, you may need to study a particular community, such as a neighborhood, village, or city.

Organizations : For questions relating to organizational behavior or management, your location will be in a business environment, like a nonprofit or government agency.

Events : If your research question relates to a particular event, you may need to conduct your study at that event, such as, at a protest, festival, or natural disaster.

Ensure your research site represents the population you're studying. For example, if you're exploring cultural beliefs, ensure the community represents the larger population and you have access to a diverse group of participants.

3. Determine your data collection methods

Choosing a suitable method will depend on the research question, the type of data needed, and the characteristics of the participants. Here are some commonly used data collection methods in field studies:

Interviews : You can collect data on people's experiences, perspectives, and attitudes. In some instances, you can use phone or online interviews.

Observations : This method involves watching and recording behaviors and interactions in a specific setting. 

Surveys : By using a survey , you can easily standardize and tailor the questions to provide answers for your research. Respondents can complete the survey in person, by mail, or online.

Document analysis : Organizational reports, letters, diaries, public records, policies, or social media posts can be analyzed to gain context. 

When selecting data collection methods, consider factors such as the availability of participants, the ethical considerations involved, and the resources needed to carry out each method. For example, conducting interviews may require more time and resources than administering a survey.

4. Obtain necessary permissions

Depending on the research location and the nature of the study, you may require permission from local authorities, organizations, or individuals before conducting your research. 

This process is vital when working with human or animal subjects and conducting research in sensitive or protected environments.

Here are some steps you can take to obtain the necessary permissions:

Identify the relevant authorities , including local governments, regulatory bodies, research institutions, or private organizations, to obtain permission for your research.

Reach out to the relevant authorities to explain the nature of your study. Be ready to hand out detailed information about your research. 

If you're conducting research with human participants, you must have their consent . You'll also need to ensure the participants have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

Obtain necessary permits from regulatory bodies or local authorities. For example, if you're conducting research in a protected area, you may need a research permit from the relevant government agency.

The process of obtaining permissions can be time-consuming, and failure to obtain the necessary permits can lead to legal and ethical issues.

• Examples of field research

Researchers can apply field research to a wide range of disciplines and phenomena. Here are some examples of field research in different fields:

Anthropology : Anthropologists use field research methods to study different communities' social and cultural practices. For instance, an anthropologist might conduct participant observation in a remote community to understand their customs, beliefs, and practices.

Ecology : Ecologists use field research methods to learn the behavior of organisms and their interactions with the environment. For example, an ecologist might conduct field research on the behavior of birds in their natural habitat to understand their feeding habits, nesting patterns, and migration.

Sociology : Sociologists may use field research methods to study social behavior and interactions. For instance, a sociologist might conduct participant observation in a workplace to understand organizational culture and communication dynamics.

Geography : Geographers use field research methods to study different regions’ physical and human contexts. For example, a geographer might conduct field research on the impact of climate change on a particular ecosystem, such as a forest or wetland.

Psychology : Psychologists use field research methods to study human behavior in natural settings. For instance, a psychologist might conduct field research on the effects of stress on students in a school setting.

Education : Researchers studying education may use field research methods to study teaching and learning in real-world settings. For example, you could use field research to test the effectiveness of a new teaching method in a classroom setting.

By using field research methods, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of the natural world, human behavior, and social interaction theory and how they affect each other.

• Advantages of field research

Field research has several advantages over other research methods, including:

Authenticity : Field research conducted in natural settings allows researchers to observe and study real-life phenomena as it happens. This authenticity enhances the validity and accuracy of the data collected.

Flexibility : Field research methods are flexible and adaptable to different research contexts. Researchers can adjust their strategies to meet the specific needs of their research questions and participants and uncover new insights as the research unfolds.

Rich data : Field research provides rich and detailed data, often including contextual information that’s difficult to capture through other research methods. This depth of knowledge allows for a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the research topic.

Novel insights : Field research can lead to discoveries that may not be possible with other research methods. Observing and studying phenomena in natural settings can provide unique perspectives and new understandings of complex issues.

Field research methods can enhance the quality and validity of research findings and lead to new insights and discoveries that may not be possible with other research methods.

• Disadvantages of field research

While field research has several advantages, there are also some disadvantages that researchers need to consider, including:

Time-consuming : Researchers need to spend time in the field, possibly weeks or months, which can be challenging, especially if the research site is remote or requires travel.

Cost : Conducting field research can be costly, especially if the research site is remote or requires specialized equipment or materials.

Reliance on participants : It may be challenging to recruit participants, and various factors, such as personal circumstances, attitudes, and beliefs, may influence their participation.

Ethical considerations : Field research may raise ethical concerns, mainly if the research involves vulnerable populations or sensitive topics. 

Causality: Researchers may have little control over the environmental or contextual variables they are studying. This can make it difficult to establish causality and then generalize their results with previous research. 

Researchers must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of field research and select the most appropriate research method based on their research question, participants, and context.

What is another name for field study?

Field study is also known as field research or fieldwork. These terms are often used interchangeably and refer to research methods that involve observing and collecting data in natural settings.

What is the difference between a field study and a case study?

Why is field study important.

Field study is critical because it allows researchers to study real-world phenomena in natural settings. This study can also lead to novel insights that may not be possible with other research methods.

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 11 January 2024

Last updated: 15 January 2024

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

Covering a story? Visit our page for journalists or call (773) 702-8360.

Top Stories

• W. Ralph Johnson, pre-eminent UChicago critic of Latin poetry, 1933‒2024
• Scientists find evidence that meltwater is fracturing ice shelves in Antarctica
• UChicago to offer new postbaccalaureate premedical certificate program

Field experiments, explained

Editor’s note: This is part of a series called “The Day Tomorrow Began,” which explores the history of breakthroughs at UChicago.  Learn more here.

A field experiment is a research method that uses some controlled elements of traditional lab experiments, but takes place in natural, real-world settings. This type of experiment can help scientists explore questions like: Why do people vote the way they do? Why do schools fail? Why are certain people hired less often or paid less money?

University of Chicago economists were early pioneers in the modern use of field experiments and conducted innovative research that impacts our everyday lives—from policymaking to marketing to farming and agriculture.  

Jump to a section:

What is a field experiment, why do a field experiment, what are examples of field experiments, when did field experiments become popular in modern economics, what are criticisms of field experiments.

Field experiments bridge the highly controlled lab environment and the messy real world. Social scientists have taken inspiration from traditional medical or physical science lab experiments. In a typical drug trial, for instance, participants are randomly assigned into two groups. The control group gets the placebo—a pill that has no effect. The treatment group will receive the new pill. The scientist can then compare the outcomes for each group.

A field experiment works similarly, just in the setting of real life.

It can be difficult to understand why a person chooses to buy one product over another or how effective a policy is when dozens of variables affect the choices we make each day. “That type of thinking, for centuries, caused economists to believe you can't do field experimentation in economics because the market is really messy,” said Prof. John List, a UChicago economist who has used field experiments to study everything from how people use  Uber and  Lyft to  how to close the achievement gap in Chicago-area schools . “There are a lot of things that are simultaneously moving.”

The key to cleaning up the mess is randomization —or assigning participants randomly to either the control group or the treatment group. “The beauty of randomization is that each group has the same amount of bad stuff, or noise or dirt,” List said. “That gets differenced out if you have large enough samples.”

Though lab experiments are still common in the social sciences, field experiments are now often used by psychologists, sociologists and political scientists. They’ve also become an essential tool in the economist’s toolbox.  

Some issues are too big and too complex to study in a lab or on paper—that’s where field experiments come in.

In a laboratory setting, a researcher wants to control as many variables as possible. These experiments are excellent for testing new medications or measuring brain functions, but they aren’t always great for answering complex questions about attitudes or behavior.

Labs are highly artificial with relatively small sample sizes—it’s difficult to know if results will still apply in the real world. Also, people are aware they are being observed in a lab, which can alter their behavior. This phenomenon, sometimes called the Hawthorne effect, can affect results.

Traditional economics often uses theories or existing data to analyze problems. But, when a researcher wants to study if a policy will be effective or not, field experiments are a useful way to look at how results may play out in real life.

In 2019, UChicago economist Michael Kremer (then at Harvard) was awarded the Nobel Prize alongside Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo of MIT for their groundbreaking work using field experiments to help reduce poverty . In the 1990s and 2000s, Kremer conducted several randomized controlled trials in Kenyan schools testing potential interventions to improve student performance. 

In the 1990s, Kremer worked alongside an NGO to figure out if buying students new textbooks made a difference in academic performance. Half the schools got new textbooks; the other half didn’t. The results were unexpected—textbooks had no impact.

“Things we think are common sense, sometimes they turn out to be right, sometimes they turn out to be wrong,” said Kremer on an episode of  the Big Brains podcast. “And things that we thought would have minimal impact or no impact turn out to have a big impact.”

In the early 2000s, Kremer returned to Kenya to study a school-based deworming program. He and a colleague found that providing deworming pills to all students reduced absenteeism by more than 25%. After the study, the program was scaled nationwide by the Kenyan government. From there it was picked up by multiple Indian states—and then by the Indian national government.

“Experiments are a way to get at causal impact, but they’re also much more than that,” Kremer said in  his Nobel Prize lecture . “They give the researcher a richer sense of context, promote broader collaboration and address specific practical problems.”    

Among many other things, field experiments can be used to:

Study bias and discrimination

A 2004 study published by UChicago economists Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan (then at MIT) examined racial discrimination in the labor market. They sent over 5,000 resumes to real job ads in Chicago and Boston. The resumes were exactly the same in all ways but one—the name at the top. Half the resumes bore white-sounding names like Emily Walsh or Greg Baker. The other half sported African American names like Lakisha Washington or Jamal Jones. The study found that applications with white-sounding names were 50% more likely to receive a callback.

Examine voting behavior

Political scientist Harold Gosnell , PhD 1922, pioneered the use of field experiments to examine voting behavior while at UChicago in the 1920s and ‘30s. In his study “Getting out the vote,” Gosnell sorted 6,000 Chicagoans across 12 districts into groups. One group received voter registration info for the 1924 presidential election and the control group did not. Voter registration jumped substantially among those who received the informational notices. Not only did the study prove that get-out-the-vote mailings could have a substantial effect on voter turnout, but also that field experiments were an effective tool in political science.

Test ways to reduce crime and shape public policy

Researchers at UChicago’s  Crime Lab use field experiments to gather data on crime as well as policies and programs meant to reduce it. For example, Crime Lab director and economist Jens Ludwig co-authored a  2015 study on the effectiveness of the school mentoring program  Becoming a Man . Developed by the non-profit Youth Guidance, Becoming a Man focuses on guiding male students between 7th and 12th grade to help boost school engagement and reduce arrests. In two field experiments, the Crime Lab found that while students participated in the program, total arrests were reduced by 28–35%, violent-crime arrests went down by 45–50% and graduation rates increased by 12–19%.

The earliest field experiments took place—literally—in fields. Starting in the 1800s, European farmers began experimenting with fertilizers to see how they affected crop yields. In the 1920s, two statisticians, Jerzy Neyman and Ronald Fisher, were tasked with assisting with these agricultural experiments. They are credited with identifying randomization as a key element of the method—making sure each plot had the same chance of being treated as the next.

The earliest large-scale field experiments in the U.S. took place in the late 1960s to help evaluate various government programs. Typically, these experiments were used to test minor changes to things like electricity pricing or unemployment programs.

Though field experiments were used in some capacity throughout the 20th century, this method didn’t truly gain popularity in economics until the 2000s. Kremer and List were early pioneers and first began experimenting with the method in the 1990s.

In 2004, List co-authored  a seminal paper defining field experiments and arguing for the importance of the method. In 2008,  he and UChicago economist Steven Levitt published another study tracing the history of field experiments and their impact on economics.

In the past few decades, the use of field experiments has exploded. Today, economists often work alongside NGOs or nonprofit organizations to study the efficacy of programs or policies. They also partner with companies to test products and understand how people use services.  

There are several  ethical discussions happening among scholars as field experiments grow in popularity. Chief among them is the issue of informed consent. All studies that involve human test subjects must be approved by an institutional review board (IRB) to ensure that people are protected.

However, participants in field experiments often don’t know they are in an experiment. While an experiment may be given the stamp of approval in the research community, some argue that taking away peoples’ ability to opt out is inherently unethical. Others advocate for stricter review processes as field experiments continue to evolve.

According to List, another major issue in field experiments is the issue of scale . Many experiments only test small groups—say, dozens to hundreds of people. This may mean the results are not applicable to broader situations. For example, if a scientist runs an experiment at one school and finds their method works there, does that mean it will also work for an entire city? Or an entire country?

List believes that in addition to testing option A and option B, researchers need a third option that accounts for the limitations that come with a larger scale. “Option C is what I call critical scale features. I want you to bring in all of the warts, all of the constraints, whether they're regulatory constraints, or constraints by law,” List said. “Option C is like your reality test, or what I call policy-based evidence.”

This problem isn’t unique to field experiments, but List believes tackling the issue of scale is the next major frontier for a new generation of economists.

Hero photo copyright Shutterstock.com

More Explainers

Improv, Explained

Cosmic rays, explained

Get more with UChicago News delivered to your inbox.

Recommended Stories

An economist illuminates our giving habits—during the pandemic and…

Collaborating with Kenyan government on development innovations is…

Related Topics

Latest news, mavis staples, legendary singer and activist, returns to uchicago to inspire next generation.

Big Brains podcast: How to manifest your future using neuroscience

The College

‘Are we doomed?’ Class debates end of the world—and finds reason for hope

Biological Sciences Division

UChicago scientists tap the power of collaboration to make transformative breakthroughs

Where do breakthrough discoveries and ideas come from?

Explore The Day Tomorrow Began

UChicago scholar wins National Book Critics Circle Award

Office of Civic Engagement

UChicago students help support young migrants at South Side schools

Around uchicago.

Laing Award

UChicago Press awards top honor to Margareta Ingrid Christian for ‘Objects in Air’

Two uchicago scholars elected as 2023 american association for the advancement …, uchicago announces recipients of academic communicators network awards for 2024.

2024 Guggenheim Fellowships

Profs. Sianne Ngai and Robyn Schiff honored for their innovative literary work

Winners of the 2024 UChicago Science as Art competition announced

Six UChicago scholars elected to American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2024

“you have to be open minded, planning to reinvent yourself every five to seven years.”.

UChicago paleontologist Paul Sereno’s fossil lab moves to Washington Park

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

What is Field Research: Definition, Methods, Examples and Advantages

What is Field Research?

Field research is defined as a qualitative method of data collection that aims to observe, interact and understand people while they are in a natural environment. For example, nature conservationists observe behavior of animals in their natural surroundings and the way they react to certain scenarios. In the same way, social scientists conducting field research may conduct interviews or observe people from a distance to understand how they behave in a social environment and how they react to situations around them.

Learn more about: Market Research

Field research encompasses a diverse range of social research methods including direct observation, limited participation, analysis of documents and other information, informal interviews, surveys etc. Although field research is generally characterized as qualitative research, it often involves multiple aspects of quantitative research in it.

Field research typically begins in a specific setting although the end objective of the study is to observe and analyze the specific behavior of a subject in that setting. The cause and effect of a certain behavior, though, is tough to analyze due to presence of multiple variables in a natural environment. Most of the data collection is based not entirely on cause and effect but mostly on correlation. While field research looks for correlation, the small sample size makes it difficult to establish a causal relationship between two or more variables.

LEARN ABOUT: Best Data Collection Tools

Methods of Field Research

Field research is typically conducted in 5 distinctive methods. They are:

• Direct Observation

In this method, the data is collected via an observational method or subjects in a natural environment. In this method, the behavior or outcome of situation is not interfered in any way by the researcher. The advantage of direct observation is that it offers contextual data on people management , situations, interactions and the surroundings. This method of field research is widely used in a public setting or environment but not in a private environment as it raises an ethical dilemma.

• Participant Observation

In this method of field research, the researcher is deeply involved in the research process, not just purely as an observer, but also as a participant. This method too is conducted in a natural environment but the only difference is the researcher gets involved in the discussions and can mould the direction of the discussions. In this method, researchers live in a comfortable environment with the participants of the research design , to make them comfortable and open up to in-depth discussions.

• Ethnography

Ethnography is an expanded observation of social research and social perspective and the cultural values of an  entire social setting. In ethnography, entire communities are observed objectively. For example,  if a researcher would like to understand how an Amazon tribe lives their life and operates, he/she may chose to observe them or live amongst them and silently observe their day-to-day behavior.

LEARN ABOUT: Behavioral Targeting

• Qualitative Interviews

Qualitative interviews are close-ended questions that are asked directly to the research subjects. The qualitative interviews could be either informal and conversational, semi-structured, standardized and open-ended or a mix of all the above three. This provides a wealth of data to the researcher that they can sort through. This also helps collect relational data. This method of field research can use a mix of one-on-one interviews, focus groups and text analysis .

LEARN ABOUT: Qualitative Interview

A case study research is an in-depth analysis of a person, situation or event. This method may look difficult to operate, however, it is one of the simplest ways of conducting research as it involves a deep dive and thorough understanding the data collection methods and inferring the data.

Steps in Conducting Field Research

Due to the nature of field research, the magnitude of timelines and costs involved, field research can be very tough to plan, implement and measure. Some basic steps in the management of field research are:

• Build the Right Team: To be able to conduct field research, having the right team is important. The role of the researcher and any ancillary team members is very important and defining the tasks they have to carry out with defined relevant milestones is important. It is important that the upper management too is vested in the field research for its success.
• Recruiting People for the Study: The success of the field research depends on the people that the study is being conducted on. Using sampling methods , it is important to derive the people that will be a part of the study.
• Data Collection Methodology: As spoken in length about above, data collection methods for field research are varied. They could be a mix of surveys, interviews, case studies and observation. All these methods have to be chalked out and the milestones for each method too have to be chalked out at the outset. For example, in the case of a survey, the survey design is important that it is created and tested even before the research begins.
• Site Visit: A site visit is important to the success of the field research and it is always conducted outside of traditional locations and in the actual natural environment of the respondent/s. Hence, planning a site visit alongwith the methods of data collection is important.
• Data Analysis: Analysis of the data that is collected is important to validate the premise of the field research and  decide the outcome of the field research.
• Communicating Results: Once the data is analyzed, it is important to communicate the results to the stakeholders of the research so that it could be actioned upon.

LEARN ABOUT: Research Process Steps

Field Research Notes

Keeping an ethnographic record is very important in conducting field research. Field notes make up one of the most important aspects of the ethnographic record. The process of field notes begins as the researcher is involved in the observational research process that is to be written down later.

Types of Field Research Notes

The four different kinds of field notes are:

• Job Notes: This method of taking notes is while the researcher is in the study. This could be in close proximity and in open sight with the subject in study. The notes here are short, concise and in condensed form that can be built on by the researcher later. Most researchers do not prefer this method though due to the fear of feeling that the respondent may not take them seriously.
• Field Notes Proper: These notes are to be expanded on immediately after the completion of events. The notes have to be detailed and the words have to be as close to possible as the subject being studied.
• Methodological Notes: These notes contain methods on the research methods used by the researcher, any new proposed research methods and the way to monitor their progress. Methodological notes can be kept with field notes or filed separately but they find their way to the end report of a study.
• Journals and Diaries: This method of field notes is an insight into the life of the researcher. This tracks all aspects of the researchers life and helps eliminate the Halo effect or any research bias that may have cropped up during the field research.

LEARN ABOUT: Causal Research

Reasons to Conduct Field Research

Field research has been commonly used in the 20th century in the social sciences. But in general, it takes a lot of time to conduct and complete, is expensive and in a lot of cases invasive. So why then is this commonly used and is preferred by researchers to validate data? We look at 4 major reasons:

• Overcoming lack of data: Field research resolves the major issue of gaps in data. Very often, there is limited to no data about a topic in study, especially in a specific environment analysis . The research problem might be known or suspected but there is no way to validate this without primary research and data. Conducting field research helps not only plug-in gaps in data but collect supporting material and hence is a preferred research method of researchers.
• Understanding context of the study: In many cases, the data collected is adequate but field research is still conducted. This helps gain insight into the existing data. For example, if the data states that horses from a stable farm generally win races because the horses are pedigreed and the stable owner hires the best jockeys. But conducting field research can throw light into other factors that influence the success like quality of fodder and care provided and conducive weather conditions.
• Increasing the quality of data: Since this research method uses more than one tool to collect data, the data is of higher quality. Inferences can be made from the data collected and can be statistically analyzed via the triangulation of data.
• Collecting ancillary data: Field research puts the researchers in a position of localized thinking which opens them new lines of thinking. This can help collect data that the study didn’t account to collect.

LEARN ABOUT: Behavioral Research

Examples of Field Research

Some examples of field research are:

• Decipher social metrics in a slum Purely by using observational methods and in-depth interviews, researchers can be part of a community to understand the social metrics and social hierarchy of a slum. This study can also understand the financial independence and day-to-day operational nuances of a slum. The analysis of this data can provide an insight into how different a slum is from structured societies.
• U nderstand the impact of sports on a child’s development This method of field research takes multiple years to conduct and the sample size can be very large. The data analysis of this research provides insights into how the kids of different geographical locations and backgrounds respond to sports and the impact of sports on their all round development.
• Study animal migration patterns Field research is used extensively to study flora and fauna. A major use case is scientists monitoring and studying animal migration patterns with the change of seasons. Field research helps collect data across years and that helps draw conclusions about how to safely expedite the safe passage of animals.

LEARN ABOUT:  Social Communication Questionnaire

Advantages of Field Research

The advantages of field research are:

• It is conducted in a real-world and natural environment where there is no tampering of variables and the environment is not doctored.
• Due to the study being conducted in a comfortable environment, data can be collected even about ancillary topics.
• The researcher gains a deep understanding into the research subjects due to the proximity to them and hence the research is extensive, thorough and accurate.

Disadvantages of Field Research

The disadvantages of field research are:

• The studies are expensive and time-consuming and can take years to complete.
• It is very difficult for the researcher to distance themselves from a bias in the research study.
• The notes have to be exactly what the researcher says but the nomenclature is very tough to follow.
• It is an interpretive method and this is subjective and entirely dependent on the ability of the researcher.
• In this method, it is impossible to control external variables and this constantly alters the nature of the research.

LEARN ABOUT: 12 Best Tools for Researchers

MORE LIKE THIS

The Best Email Survey Tool to Boost Your Feedback Game

May 7, 2024

Top 10 Employee Engagement Survey Tools

Top 20 Employee Engagement Software Solutions

May 3, 2024

15 Best Customer Experience Software of 2024

May 2, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Overview of the Scientific Method

11 Designing a Research Study

Learning objectives.

• Define the concept of a variable, distinguish quantitative from categorical variables, and give examples of variables that might be of interest to psychologists.
• Explain the difference between a population and a sample.
• Distinguish between experimental and non-experimental research.
• Distinguish between lab studies, field studies, and field experiments.

Identifying and Defining the Variables and Population

Variables and operational definitions.

Part of generating a hypothesis involves identifying the variables that you want to study and operationally defining those variables so that they can be measured. Research questions in psychology are about variables. A  variable  is a quantity or quality that varies across people or situations. For example, the height of the students enrolled in a university course is a variable because it varies from student to student. The chosen major of the students is also a variable as long as not everyone in the class has declared the same major. Almost everything in our world varies and as such thinking of examples of constants (things that don’t vary) is far more difficult. A rare example of a constant is the speed of light. Variables can be either quantitative or categorical. A  quantitative variable  is a quantity, such as height, that is typically measured by assigning a number to each individual. Other examples of quantitative variables include people’s level of talkativeness, how depressed they are, and the number of siblings they have. A categorical variable  is a quality, such as chosen major, and is typically measured by assigning a category label to each individual (e.g., Psychology, English, Nursing, etc.). Other examples include people’s nationality, their occupation, and whether they are receiving psychotherapy.

After the researcher generates their hypothesis and selects the variables they want to manipulate and measure, the researcher needs to find ways to actually measure the variables of interest. This requires an  operational definition —a definition of the variable in terms of precisely how it is to be measured. Most variables that researchers are interested in studying cannot be directly observed or measured and this poses a problem because empiricism (observation) is at the heart of the scientific method. Operationally defining a variable involves taking an abstract construct like depression that cannot be directly observed and transforming it into something that can be directly observed and measured. Most variables can be operationally defined in many different ways. For example, depression can be operationally defined as people’s scores on a paper-and-pencil depression scale such as the Beck Depression Inventory, the number of depressive symptoms they are experiencing, or whether they have been diagnosed with major depressive disorder. Researchers are wise to choose an operational definition that has been used extensively in the research literature.

Sampling and Measurement

In addition to identifying which variables to manipulate and measure, and operationally defining those variables, researchers need to identify the population of interest. Researchers in psychology are usually interested in drawing conclusions about some very large group of people. This is called the  population . It could be all American teenagers, children with autism, professional athletes, or even just human beings—depending on the interests and goals of the researcher. But they usually study only a small subset or  sample  of the population. For example, a researcher might measure the talkativeness of a few hundred university students with the intention of drawing conclusions about the talkativeness of men and women in general. It is important, therefore, for researchers to use a representative sample—one that is similar to the population in important respects.

One method of obtaining a sample is simple random sampling , in which every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected for the sample. For example, a pollster could start with a list of all the registered voters in a city (the population), randomly select 100 of them from the list (the sample), and ask those 100 whom they intend to vote for. Unfortunately, random sampling is difficult or impossible in most psychological research because the populations are less clearly defined than the registered voters in a city. How could a researcher give all American teenagers or all children with autism an equal chance of being selected for a sample? The most common alternative to random sampling is convenience sampling , in which the sample consists of individuals who happen to be nearby and willing to participate (such as introductory psychology students). Of course, the obvious problem with convenience sampling is that the sample might not be representative of the population and therefore it may be less appropriate to generalize the results from the sample to that population.

Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Research

The next step a researcher must take is to decide which type of approach they will use to collect the data. As you will learn in your research methods course there are many different approaches to research that can be divided in many different ways. One of the most fundamental distinctions is between experimental and non-experimental research.

Experimental Research

Researchers who want to test hypotheses about causal relationships between variables (i.e., their goal is to explain) need to use an experimental method. This is because the experimental method is the only method that allows us to determine causal relationships. Using the experimental approach, researchers first manipulate one or more variables while attempting to control extraneous variables, and then they measure how the manipulated variables affect participants’ responses.

The terms independent variable and dependent variable are used in the context of experimental research. The independent variable is the variable the experimenter manipulates (it is the presumed cause) and the dependent variable is the variable the experimenter measures (it is the presumed effect).

Extraneous variables  are any variable other than the dependent variable. Confounds are a specific type of extraneous variable that systematically varies along with the variables under investigation and therefore provides an alternative explanation for the results. When researchers design an experiment they need to ensure that they control for confounds; they need to ensure that extraneous variables don’t become confounding variables because in order to make a causal conclusion they need to make sure alternative explanations for the results have been ruled out.

As an example, if we manipulate the lighting in the room and examine the effects of that manipulation on workers’ productivity, then the lighting conditions (bright lights vs. dim lights) would be considered the independent variable and the workers’ productivity would be considered the dependent variable. If the bright lights are noisy then that noise would be a confound since the noise would be present whenever the lights are bright and the noise would be absent when the lights are dim. If noise is varying systematically with light then we wouldn’t know if a difference in worker productivity across the two lighting conditions is due to noise or light. So confounds are bad, they disrupt our ability to make causal conclusions about the nature of the relationship between variables. However, if there is noise in the room both when the lights are on and when the lights are off then noise is merely an extraneous variable (it is a variable other than the independent or dependent variable) and we don’t worry much about extraneous variables. This is because unless a variable varies systematically with the manipulated independent variable it cannot be a competing explanation for the results.

Non-Experimental Research

Researchers who are simply interested in describing characteristics of people, describing relationships between variables, and using those relationships to make predictions can use non-experimental research. Using the non-experimental approach, the researcher simply measures variables as they naturally occur, but they do not manipulate them. For instance, if I just measured the number of traffic fatalities in America last year that involved the use of a cell phone but I did not actually manipulate cell phone use then this would be categorized as non-experimental research. Alternatively, if I stood at a busy intersection and recorded drivers’ genders and whether or not they were using a cell phone when they passed through the intersection to see whether men or women are more likely to use a cell phone when driving, then this would be non-experimental research. It is important to point out that non-experimental does not mean nonscientific. Non-experimental research is scientific in nature. It can be used to fulfill two of the three goals of science (to describe and to predict). However, unlike with experimental research, we cannot make causal conclusions using this method; we cannot say that one variable causes another variable using this method.

Laboratory vs. Field Research

The next major distinction between research methods is between laboratory and field studies. A laboratory study is a study that is conducted in the laboratory environment. In contrast, a field study is a study that is conducted in the real-world, in a natural environment.

Laboratory experiments typically have high  internal validity . Internal validity refers to the degree to which we can confidently infer a causal relationship between variables. When we conduct an experimental study in a laboratory environment we have very high internal validity because we manipulate one variable while controlling all other outside extraneous variables. When we manipulate an independent variable and observe an effect on a dependent variable and we control for everything else so that the only difference between our experimental groups or conditions is the one manipulated variable then we can be quite confident that it is the independent variable that is causing the change in the dependent variable. In contrast, because field studies are conducted in the real-world, the experimenter typically has less control over the environment and potential extraneous variables, and this decreases internal validity, making it less appropriate to arrive at causal conclusions.

But there is typically a trade-off between internal and external validity. External validity simply refers to the degree to which we can generalize the findings to other circumstances or settings, like the real-world environment. When internal validity is high, external validity tends to be low; and when internal validity is low, external validity tends to be high. So laboratory studies are typically low in external validity, while field studies are typically high in external validity. Since field studies are conducted in the real-world environment it is far more appropriate to generalize the findings to that real-world environment than when the research is conducted in the more artificial sterile laboratory.

Finally, there are field studies which are non-experimental in nature because nothing is manipulated. But there are also field experiment s where an independent variable is manipulated in a natural setting and extraneous variables are controlled. Depending on their overall quality and the level of control of extraneous variables, such field experiments can have high external and high internal validity.

A quantity or quality that varies across people or situations.

A quantity, such as height, that is typically measured by assigning a number to each individual.

A variable that represents a characteristic of an individual, such as chosen major, and is typically measured by assigning each individual's response to one of several categories (e.g., Psychology, English, Nursing, Engineering, etc.).

A definition of the variable in terms of precisely how it is to be measured.

A large group of people about whom researchers in psychology are usually interested in drawing conclusions, and from whom the sample is drawn.

A smaller portion of the population the researcher would like to study.

A common method of non-probability sampling in which the sample consists of individuals who happen to be easily available and willing to participate (such as introductory psychology students).

The variable the experimenter manipulates.

The variable the experimenter measures (it is the presumed effect).

Any variable other than the dependent and independent variable.

A specific type of extraneous variable that systematically varies along with the variables under investigation and therefore provides an alternative explanation for the results.

A study that is conducted in the laboratory environment.

A study that is conducted in a "real world" environment outside the laboratory.

Refers to the degree to which we can confidently infer a causal relationship between variables.

Refers to the degree to which we can generalize the findings to other circumstances or settings, like the real-world environment.

A type of field study where an independent variable is manipulated in a natural setting and extraneous variables are controlled as much as possible.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2019 by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Field Research: A Qualitative Research Technique

66 Field Research: What is it?

Field research is a qualitative method of data collection aimed at understanding, observing, and interacting with people in their natural settings. In the context of research, observation is more than just looking.  It involves looking in a planned and strategic way with a purpose (Palys & Atchison, 2014, p. 189).  As such, when social scientists talk about being in “the field,” they are talking about being out in the real world and involved in the everyday lives of the people they are studying. Sometimes researchers use the terms ethnography or participant observation [1] to refer to this method of data collection; the former is most commonly used in anthropology, while the latter is used commonly in sociology. For our purposes, we will use two main terms: field research and participant observation . You might think of field research as an umbrella term that includes the myriad activities that field researchers engage in when they collect data: they participate, they observe, they usually interview some of the people they observe, and they typically analyze documents or artifacts created by the people they observe.

Researchers conducting participant observation vary in the extent to which they participate or observe. Palys and Atchison (2014, p. 198) refer to this as the “participant-observer continuum,” ranging from complete participant to complete observer.  This continuum is demonstrated in Figure 12.1. However, these researchers, as to do other researchers, question whether a researcher can be at the “complete observer” end of the continuum.  Rather, they contend it is increasingly acknowledged that even as an observer, the researcher is participating in what is being studied and therefore cannot really be a complete observer.

Indeed, it is important to acknowledge that there are pros and cons associated with both aspects of the participant-observer’s role.  For example, depending upon how fully researchers observer their subjects (as opposed to participating), they may miss important aspects of group interaction and may not have the opportunity to fully grasp what life is like for the people they observe. At the same time, sitting back and observing may grant researchers opportunities to see interactions that they would miss were they more involved.

Participation has the benefit of allowing researchers a real taste of life in the group that they study. Some argue that participation is the only way to understand what it is that is being investigated. On the other hand, fully immersed participants may find themselves in situations that they would rather not face but cannot excuse themselves from because they have adopted the role of a fully immersed participant. Further, participants who do not reveal themselves as researchers must face the ethical quandary of possibly deceiving their “subjects.” In reality, much of the field research undertaken lies somewhere near the middle of the observer-participant continuum. Field researchers typically participate to at least some extent in their field sites, but there are also times when they may strictly observe.

Text Attributions

• This chapter was adapted from Chapter 10.1 in Principles of Sociological Inquiry , which was adapted by the Saylor Academy without attribution to the original authors or publisher, as requested by the licensor. © Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License .

Media Attributions

• figure12.1 © Palys & Atchison
• Ethnography is not to be confused with ethnomethodology.  Ethnomethodology will be defined and described in Chapter XIII . ↵

An Introduction to Research Methods in Sociology Copyright © 2019 by Valerie A. Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Child Care and Early Education Research Connections

Field research.

Field research is a qualitative method of research concerned with understanding and interpreting the social interactions of groups of people, communities, and society by observing and interacting with people in their natural settings. The methods of field research include: direct observation, participant observation, and qualitative interviews. Each of these methods is described here. Terms related to these and other topics in field research are defined in the  Research Glossary .

Direct Observation

Participant observation, qualitative interviews.

Direct observation  is a method of research where the researcher watches and records the activities of individuals or groups engaged in their daily activities. The observations may be unstructured or structured. Unstructured observations involve the researcher observing people and events and recording his/her observations as field notes. Observations are recorded holistically and without the aid of a predetermined guide or protocol. Structured observation, on the other hand, is a technique where a researcher observes people and events using a guide or set protocol that has been developed ahead of time.

Other features of direct observation include:

• The observer does not actively engage the subjects of the study in conversations or interviews, but instead strives to be unobtrusive and detached from the setting.
• Data collected through direct observation may include field notes, checklists and rating scales, documents, and photographs or video images.
• Direct observation is not necessarily an alternative to other types of field methods, such as participant observation or qualitative interviews. Rather, it may be an initial approach to understanding a setting, a group of individuals, or forms of behavior prior to interacting with members or developing interview protocols.
• Direct observation as a research method is most appropriate in open, public settings where anyone has a right to be or congregate. Conducting direct observation in private or closed settings -- without the knowledge or consent of members -- is more likely to raise ethical concerns.

Participant observation  is a field research method whereby the researcher develops an understanding of a group or setting by taking part in the everyday routines and rituals alongside its members. It was originally developed in the early 20th century by anthropologists researching native societies in developing countries. It is now the principal research method used by ethnographers -- specialists within the fields of anthropology and sociology who focus on recording the details of social life occurring in a setting, community, group, or society. The ethnographer, who often lives among the members for months or years, attempts to build trusting relationships so that he or she becomes part of the social setting. As the ethnographer gains the confidence and trust of the members, many will speak and behave in a natural manner in the presence of the ethnographer.

Data from participant observation studies can take several forms:

• Field notes are the primary type of data. The researcher takes notes of his/her observations and experiences and later develops them into detailed, formal field notes.
• Frequently, researchers keep a diary, which is often a more intimate, informal record of the happenings within the setting.
• The practice of participant observation, with its emphasis on developing relationships with members, often leads to both informal, conversational interviews and more formal, in-depth interviews. The data from these interviews can become part of field notes or may consist of separate interview transcripts.

There are a number of advantages and disadvantages to direct and participant observation studies. Here is a list of some of both. While the advantages and disadvantages apply to both types of studies, their impact and importance may not be the same across the two. For example, researchers engaged in both types of observation will develop a rich, deep understanding of the members of the group and the setting in which social interactions occur, but researchers engaged in participant observation research may gain an even deep understanding. And, participant observers have a greater chance of witnessing a wider range of behaviors and events than those engaged in direct observation.

Advantages of observation studies (observational research):

• Provide contextual data on settings, interactions, or individuals.
• A useful tool for generating hypotheses for further study.
• Source of data on events and phenomena that do not involve verbal interactions (e.g., mother-child nonverbal interactions and contact, physical settings where interactions occur).
• The researcher develops a rich, deep understanding of a setting and of the members within the setting.

Disadvantages of observation studies:

• Behaviors observed during direct observation may be unusual or atypical.
• Significant interactions and events may take place when observer is not present.
• Certain topics do not necessarily lend themselves to observation (e.g., attitudes, emotions, affection).
• Reliability of observations can be problematic, especially when multiple observers are involved.
• The researcher must devote a large amount of time (and resources).
• The researcher's objectivity may decline as he or she spends more time among the members of the group.
• The researcher may be faced with a dilemma of choosing between revealing and not revealing his or her identity as a researcher to the members of the group. If he or she introduces him/herself as a researcher, the members may behave differently than if they assume that he or she is just another participant. On the other hand, if the researcher does not, they may feel betrayed upon learning about the research.

Qualitative interviews  are a type of field research method that elicits information and data by directly asking questions of individuals. There are three primary types of qualitative interviews: informal (conversational), semi-structured, and standardized, open-ended. Each is described briefly below along with advantages and disadvantages.

Informal (Conversational) Interviews

• Frequently occur during participant observation or following direct observation.
• The researcher begins by conversing with a member of the group of interest. As the conversation unfolds, the researcher formulates specific questions, often spontaneously, and begins asking them informally.
• Appropriate when the researcher wants maximum flexibility to pursue topics and ideas as they emerge during the exchange

Advantages of informal interviewing:

• Allows the researcher to be responsive to individual differences and to capture emerging information.
• Information that is obtained is not constrained by a predetermined set of questions and/or response categories.
• Permits researcher to delve deeper into a topic and what key terms and constructs mean to study participants.

Disadvantages of informal interviewing:

• May generate less systematic data, which is difficult to classify and analyze.
• The researcher might not be able to capture everything that the interviewee is saying and therefore there is potential for important nuance or information to be lost. For example, the researcher might not have a tape recorder at that moment due to the spontaneous nature of these interviews.
• Quality of the information obtained depends on skills of the interviewer.

Semi-Structured Interviews

• Prior to the interview, a list of predetermined questions or probes, also known as an interview guide, is developed so that each interviewee will respond to a similar series of questions and topics.
• Questions are generally open-ended to elicit as much detail and meaning from the interviewee as possible.
• The researcher is free to pursue and probe other topics as they emerge during the interview.

Advantages of semi-structured interviewing:

• Systematically captures data across interviewees.
• The researcher is able to rephrase or explain questions to the interviewee to ensure that everyone understands the questions the same way and probe (follow-up) a response so that an individual's responses are fully explored.
• Interviewee is allowed the freedom to express his or her views in their own words.

Disadvantages of semi-structured interviewing:

• Does not offer as much flexibility to respond to new topics that unfold during the interview as the informal interview.
• Responses to questions that have been asked in slightly different ways can be more difficult to compare and analyze.
• Interviewer may unconsciously send signals about the types of answers that are expected.

Standardized, Open-Ended Interviews

• Similar to a survey since questions are carefully scripted and written prior to the interview, which serves to minimize variability in question wording and the way questions are asked.
• The researcher asks a uniform series of questions in the same order to each interviewee.
• The questions are open-ended to capture more details and individual differences across interviewees.
• Particularly appropriate for qualitative studies involving multiple interviewers.

Advantages of standardized interviewing:

• All questions are asked the same to each study participant. Data are comparable across interviewees.
• Reduces interviewer effects when several interviewers are used.
• Standardization helps to facilitate the processing and analysis of the data.

Disadvantages of standardized interviewing:

• Does not offer as much flexibility to respond to and probe new topics that unfold during the interview.
• Standardized wording of questions may limit the responses of those being interviewed.

Both standardized and semi-structured interviews involve formally recruiting participants and are typically tape-recorded. The researcher should begin with obtaining informed consent from the interviewee prior to starting the interview. Additionally, the researcher may write a separate field note to describe the interviewee's reactions to the interview, or events that occurred before or after the interview.

See the following for additional information about field research and qualitative research methods.

• Ethnography, Observational Research and Narrative Inquiry  (PDF)
• An Introduction to Qualitative Research  (PDF)

The content on this page was prepared by Jerry West. It was last updated March 2019.

Chapter 10 Field Research: A Qualitative Technique

Why field research.

If we wanted to know who conducts more of the housework in households, how could we find the answer? One way might be to interview people and simply ask them. That is exactly what Arlie Hochschild did in her study of the second shift , her term for the work that goes on in the home after the day’s work for pay is completed. Hochschild (1989) Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home (1st ed.). New York, NY: Viking. interviewed 50 heterosexual, married couples with children to learn about how they did, or did not, share the work of the second shift. Many of these couples reported to her that they shared the load of the second shift equally, sometimes dividing the house into areas that were “her responsibility” and those that were “his.” But Hochschild wasn’t satisfied with just people’s personal accounts of second-shift work. She chose to observe 12 of these couples in their homes as well, to see for herself just how the second shift was shared.

What Hochschild discovered was that even those couples who claimed to share the second shift did not have as equitable a division of duties as they’d professed. For example, one couple who told Hochschild during their interview that they shared the household work equally had explained that the wife was responsible for the upstairs portion of the house and the husband took responsibility for the downstairs portion. Upon conducting observations in this couple’s home, however, Hochschild discovered that the upstairs portion of the house contained all the bedrooms and bathrooms, the kitchen, the dining room, and the living room, while the downstairs included a storage space and the garage. This division of labor meant that the woman actually carried the weight of responsibility for the second shift. Without a field research component to her study, Hochschild might never have uncovered these and other truths about couples’ behaviors and sharing (or not sharing) of household duties.

10.1 Field Research: What Is It and When to Use It?

Learning objectives.

• Define field research.
• Define participant observation and describe the continuum of participant observation.
• Discuss at least two examples of field research.

There’s a New Yorker cartoon that pretty accurately portrays life for a field researcher (Cotham, 2003). Cotham, F. (2003, September 1). Two barbarians and a professor of barbarian studies. The New Yorker . Retrieved from http://www.cartoonbank.com/2003/two-barbarians-and-a-professor-of-barbarian-studies/invt/126562 It depicts “Two Barbarians and a Professor of Barbarian Studies.” As field researchers, just as in the cartoon, we immerse ourselves in the settings that we study. While the extent to which we immerse ourselves varies (note in the cartoon the professor is riding a horse but has chosen to retain his professorial jacket and pipe), what all field researchers have in common is their participation in “the field.”

Field research A qualitative method of data collection that involves observing, interacting with, and interviewing people in their natural settings. is a qualitative method of data collection aimed at understanding, observing, and interacting with people in their natural settings. Thus when social scientists talk about being in “the field,” they’re talking about being out in the real world and involved in the everyday lives of the people they are studying. Sometimes researchers use the terms ethnography or participant observation to refer to this method of data collection; the former is most commonly used in anthropology, while the latter is used commonly in sociology. In this text, we’ll use two main terms: field research and participant observation . You might think of field research as an umbrella term that includes the myriad activities that field researchers engage in when they collect data: they participate, they observe, they usually interview some of the people they observe, and they typically analyze documents or artifacts created by the people they observe.

Figure 10.2

Field research typically involves a combination of participant observation, interviewing, and document or artifact analysis. This chapter focuses primarily on participant observation.

Because we cover interviews and document/artifact analysis in Chapter 9 "Interviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches" and Chapter 11 "Unobtrusive Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches" , here we’ll focus only on the participation and observation aspects of field research. These aspects of field research are usually referenced together and are known as participant observation The parts of field research that involve spending time with and watching one’s research participants; interviewing and document/artifact analysis are the other two components of field research. . Like field research, participant observation also has multiple meanings. Researchers conducting participant observation vary in the extent to which they participate or observe (Junker, 1960). Junker, B. H. (1960). Field work: An introduction to the social sciences . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. You might say that there’s a continuum of participant observation, where complete observation lies at end of the continuum and complete participation lies at the other end.

In other chapters, we discuss two works that could fall on either end of the participant observation continuum. Barrie Thorne’s (1993) Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. observations of children in classrooms, school cafeterias, hallways, and playgrounds rest near the complete observation end of the continuum. Rather than actually pretending to be an elementary school student and interacting with her research participants as they would each other, Thorne observed (which, as discussed in Chapter 4 "Beginning a Research Project" , was probably a wise move since it would have been difficult to convince the students that she was one of them). Laud Humphreys’s (1970) Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places . London, UK: Duckworth. research on the tearoom trade, described in Chapter 3 "Research Ethics" , could be said to rest on the other end of the continuum. Rather than only observe, Humphreys played the key tearoom role of watch queen, a role that nonresearcher participants in the trade also played. Humphreys also did not tell many of the people he observed that he was a researcher; thus from the perspectives of many of his “subjects,” he was only a participant. The participant observation continuum is represented in Figure 10.3 .

There are pros and cons associated with both aspects of the participant observer’s role. Complete observers may miss important aspects of group interaction and don’t have the opportunity to fully grasp what life is like for the people they observe. At the same time, sitting back and observing may grant them opportunities to see interactions that they would miss were they more involved. Complete participation has the benefit of allowing researchers a real taste of life in the group that they study. Some argue that participation is the only way to understand what it is that we investigate. On the other hand, complete participants may find themselves in situations that they’d rather not face but cannot excuse themselves from because they’ve adopted the role of complete participant. Also, complete participants who do not reveal themselves as researchers must face the ethical quandary of possibly deceiving their “subjects.” In reality, most field research projects lie somewhere near the middle of the observer-participant continuum. Field researchers typically participate to at least some extent in their field sites, but there are also times when they may just observe. Where would you feel most comfortable as a field researcher—as an observer, a participant, or a bit of both?

As you might have imagined based on the examples of Thorne’s and Humphreys’s work, field research is well equipped to answer “how” kinds of questions. Whereas survey researchers often aim to answer “why” questions, field researchers ask how the processes they study occur, how the people they spend time with in the field interact, and how events unfold. Table 10.1 "Field Research Examples" presents just a few examples of the kinds of questions field researchers have asked in past projects along with a brief summary of where and what role those researchers took in the field. The examples presented in Table 10.1 "Field Research Examples" by no means represent an exhaustive list of the variations of questions field researchers have asked or of the range of field research projects that have been conducted over the years, but they do provide a snapshot of the kinds of work sociological field researchers engage in.

Table 10.1 Field Research Examples

Field research is a method that was originally crafted by anthropologists for the purpose of cultural understanding and interpretation (Wolcott, 2008). Wolcott, H. F. (2008). Ethnography: A way of seeing (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Dissatisfied with studying groups of people based solely on secondhand accounts and inspection of artifacts, several anthropologists decided to try living in or near the communities they studied to learn from and about them. Two anthropologists in particular, Franz Boas (1888) Boas, F. (1888). The central Eskimo . Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology. and Bronislaw Malinowski (1922), Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea . London, UK: G. Routledge & Sons; New York, NY: E. P. Dutton. are credited with developing this method around the turn of the 20th century. Boas lived with native populations in Canada and in the American Northwest. Malinowski lived in Papua New Guinea with people who were native to the area. Sociologists picked up on the idea and on the benefits of field research (which we’ll examine in Section 10.2 "Pros and Cons of Field Research" ). Soon a number of sociologists had embraced this new method and adapted field research for their own studies of groups. Many of the early field researchers in sociology were former social workers who got interested in sociological research because of experiences in their roles as social reformers. The University of Chicago in particular played a key role in the development of American field research through, among other projects, its involvement in Hull House, Jane Addams Hull House Association. Retrieved from http://www.hullhouse.org a social settlement founded for European immigrants in Chicago (Deegan, 1986). Deegan, M. J. (1986). Jane Addams and the men of the Chicago School, 1892–1918 . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Key Takeaways

• Field research typically involves a combination of participant observation, interviewing, and document or artifact analysis.
• Different participant observation projects rest in different places on the continuum of complete observer to complete participant; most lie near the middle of the continuum.
• Field research has its origins in anthropology.
• As a preview to some of the pros, cons, joys, and frustrations of doing field research, watch the following clip, which shows “news” personality Stephen Colbert interviewing sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh Venkatesh’s work was introduced in Chapter 2 "Linking Methods With Theory" , the chapter on linking methods with theory. about his field research in some of Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/156631/march-13-2008/sudhir-venkatesh . The clip highlights some of the advantages field research has over survey interviewing; it also highlights some of the disadvantages of field research. Based on what you see in the clip, what are some of the main advantages of field research as compared to survey interviewing? What are some of the main disadvantages?
• If you would like to learn more about William Foote Whyte’s groundbreaking field research, a 40-minute interview with Whyte and several of his research participants, conducted nearly 40 years after the publication of Street Corner Society , can be found at the following link: http://www.northendwaterfront.com/home/2010/6/18/street-corner-society-video-of-william-foote-whyte-north-end.html . What role did Whyte play in the field: complete observer, complete participant, or something in between? Use evidence from the interview to support your answer. What pros and cons of field research come up in the interview?
• Where do you think is the best place to reside on the observer-participant continuum? Why? What are the pros and cons of each of the various places on the continuum?

10.2 Pros and Cons of Field Research

• Identify and explain the strengths of field research.
• Identify and explain the weaknesses of field research.

Field research has many benefits, as well as a set of drawbacks. We’ll explore both here.

Strengths of Field Research

Field research allows researchers to gain firsthand experience and knowledge about the people, events, and processes that they study. No other method offers quite the same kind of closeup lens on everyday life. This close-up on everyday life means that field researchers can obtain very detailed data about people and processes, perhaps more detailed than they can obtain using any other method.

Field research is an excellent method for understanding the role of social context in shaping people’s lives and experiences. It enables a greater understanding of the intricacies and complexities of daily life. Field research may also uncover elements of people’s experiences or of group interactions of which we were not previously aware. This in particular is a unique strength of field research. With other methods, such as interviews and surveys, we certainly can’t expect a respondent to answer a question to which they do not know the answer or to provide us with information of which they are not aware. And because field research typically occurs over an extended period of time, social facts that may not even be immediately revealed to a researcher but that become discovered over time can be uncovered during the course of a field research project.

In sum, the major benefits of field research are the following:

• It yields very detailed data.
• It emphasizes the role and relevance of social context.
• It can uncover social facts that may not be immediately obvious or of which research participants may be unaware.

Weaknesses of Field Research

Earlier I described the fact that field researchers are able to collect very detailed data as a benefit of this method. This benefit, however, does come at a cost. Because a field researcher’s focus is so detailed, it is by necessity also somewhat narrow. Field researchers simply are not able to gather data from as many individuals as, say, a survey researcher can reach. Indeed, field researchers generally sacrifice breadth in exchange for depth. Related to this point is the fact that field research is extremely time intensive.

Field research can also be emotionally taxing. In Chapter 9 "Interviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches" , I assert that interview research requires, to a certain extent, the development of a relationship between a researcher and her participants. But if interviews and field research both require relationship development, you might say that interviews are more like casual dating while field research is more like a full-blown, committed marriage.

The relationships you develop as a field researcher are sustained over a much longer period than the hour or two it might take you to conduct an interview. Not only do the relationships last longer, but they are also more intimate. A number of field researchers have documented the complexities of relationships with research participants (Arditti, Joest, Lambert-Shute, & Walker, 2010; Keinman & Copp, 1993; MacLeod, 1995). MacLeod, J. (1995). On the making of ain’t no makin’ it. In J. MacLeod (Ed.), Ain’t no makin’ it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income neighborhood (pp. 270–302). Boulder, CO: Westview Press; Arditti, J. A., Joest, K. A., Lambert-Shute, J., & Walker, L. (2010). The role of emotions in fieldwork: A self-study of family research in a corrections setting. The Qualitative Report, 15, 1387–1414; Keinman, S., & Copp, M. A. (1993). Emotions and fieldwork . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. On the plus side, these relationships can be very rewarding (and yield the rich, detailed data noted as a strength in the preceding discussion). But, as in any relationship, field researchers experience not just the highs but also the lows of daily life and interactions. And participating in day-to-day life with one’s research subjects can result in some tricky ethical quandaries (see Chapter 3 "Research Ethics" for a discussion of some of these quandaries). It can also be a challenge if your aim is to observe as “objectively” as possible.

Finally, documentation can be challenging for field researchers. Where survey researchers have the questionnaires participants complete and interviewers have recordings, field researchers generally have only themselves to rely on for documenting what they observe. This challenge becomes immediately apparent upon entering the field. It may not be possible to take field notes as you observe, nor will you necessarily know which details to document or which will become the most important details to have noted. And when you take notes after some observation, you may not recall everything exactly as you saw it when you were there.

In sum, the weaknesses of field research include the following:

• It may lack breadth; gathering very detailed information means being unable to gather data from a very large number of people or groups.
• It may be emotionally taxing.
• Documenting observations may be more challenging than with other methods.
• Strengths of field research include the fact that it yields very detailed data, it is designed to pay heed to social context, and it can uncover social facts that are not immediately obvious.
• Weaknesses of field research include that researchers may have to sacrifice breadth for depth, the possibility that the research will be emotionally taxing, and the fact that documenting observations can be challenging.
• In your opinion, what is the most important strength of field research? What do you view as its greatest weakness? Explain your position.
• Find an article reporting results from field research. You can do this by using the Sociological Abstracts database, which was introduced in Chapter 4 "Beginning a Research Project" . How do the authors describe the strengths and weaknesses of their study? Are any of the strengths or weaknesses described in this section mentioned in the article? Are there additional strengths or weaknesses not mentioned in this section?

10.3 Getting In

• Identify the two major considerations with respect to “getting in” field research sites.
• Describe the factors one should consider when choosing a field research site.
• Explain how one’s social location is relevant for choosing a field research site.
• Describe the factors one should consider when deciding what role to play in a field research site.
• Explain the difference between overt and covert roles in field research.

When embarking on a field research project, there are two major things to consider: where to observe and what role you’ll take in your field site. Your decision about each of these will be shaped by a number of factors, some of which you’ll have control over and others which you won’t. Your decision about where to observe and what role to play will also have consequences for the data you are able to gather and how you analyze and share those data with others. We’ll examine each of these contingencies in the following subsections.

Choosing a Site

Where you observe might be determined by your research question, but because field research often works inductively, you may not have a totally focused question before you begin your observations. In some cases, field researchers home in on a research question once they embark on data collection. Other times, they begin with a research question but remain open to the possibility that their focus may shift as they gather data. In either case, when you choose a site, there are a number of factors to consider. What do you hope to accomplish with your field research? What is your topical/substantive interest? Where are you likely to observe behavior that has something to do with that topic? How likely is it that you’ll actually have access to the locations that are of interest to you? How much time do you have to conduct your participant observations? Will your participant observations be limited to a single location, or will you observe in multiple locations?

Perhaps the best place to start as you work to identify a site or sites for your field research is to think about your limitations . One limitation that could shape where you conduct participant observation is time. Field researchers typically immerse themselves in their research sites for many months, sometimes even years. In my field research on activism in the breast cancer and antirape movements, I conducted over 300 hours of participant observation over a period of 3 years and conducted interviews with more than 60 activists (Blackstone, 2003). Blackstone, A. (2003). Racing for the cure and taking back the night: Constructing gender, politics, and public participation in women’s activist/volunteer work (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. And as shown in Table 10.1 "Field Research Examples" , other field researchers have spent as much or even more time in the field. Do you have several years available to conduct research, or are you seeking a smaller-scale field research experience? How much time do you have to participate and observe per day? Per week? Identifying how available you’ll be in terms of time will help you determine where and what sort of research sites to choose.

Also think about where you live and whether travel is an option for you. Some field researchers actually move to live with or near their population of interest. Is this something you might consider? Is it even an option? How you answer these questions will shape how you identify your research site. Professor Erik Larson’s (2010) Larson, E. (2010). Time and the constitution of markets: Internal dynamics and external relations of stock exchanges in Fiji, Ghana, and Iceland. Economy and Society, 39, 460–487. research on variations in economic institutions in a global environment, for example, has taken him across the globe, from Fiji to Ghana to Iceland. Sociologist Sara Dorow’s (2006) Dorow, S. (2006). Transnational adoption: A cultural economy of race, gender, and kinship . New York, NY: New York University Press. research on transnational adoption took her from the United States to China. And the work of Wendy Chapkis (1997), Chapkis, W. (1997). Live sex acts: Women performing erotic labor . New York, NY: Routledge. described in Table 10.1 "Field Research Examples" , required her to conduct research not only in her original home state of California but also in the Netherlands. These are just a few of many examples of sociological researchers who have traveled the globe for the purpose of collecting data. Where might your field research questions take you?

In choosing a site, also consider how your social location might limit what or where you can study. The ascribed aspects of our locations are those that are involuntary, such as our age or race or mobility. How might my ascribed status as a middle-aged woman, for example, shape my ability to conduct complete participation in a study of children’s birthday parties? The achieved aspects of our locations, on the other hand, are those that we have some choice about. In field research, we may also have some choice about whether or the extent to which we reveal the achieved aspects of our identities. There are numerous examples of field researchers whose achieved statuses granted them access to field sites into which they might not have otherwise been allowed. Jennifer Pierce (1995), Pierce, J. L. (1995). Gender trials: Emotional lives in contemporary law firms . Berkeley: University of California Press. for example, utilized her achieved status as a paralegal to gain entry into two law offices for her ethnographic study of the gendered division of labor in corporate law firms. In Lauraine Leblanc’s (1999) Leblanc, L. (1999). Pretty in punk: Girls’ gender resistance in a boys’ subculture . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. case, the achieved status of her appearance, including tattoos and a “punk” hairstyle and color, helped her gain the acceptance of research participants in her study of punk girls.

The preceding discussion should not be taken to mean that sociologists cannot, should not, or do not study those from whom we differ. In fact there have been plenty of successful field studies conducted by researchers who may have looked out of place in the sites they chose to investigate. Teresa Gowan, a self-described “small, white English woman” (2010, p. 16), Gowan, T. (2010). Hobos, hustlers, and backsliders: Homeless in San Francisco . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. conducted field research with homeless men in some of San Francisco’s most notoriously rough neighborhoods. The aim here is not to reify the socially constructed categories upon which our society places so much emphasis in organizing itself. Rather, the point is to be aware of which ascribed and achieved aspects of your identity may shape your decisions about field sites.

Finally, in choosing a research site consider whether your research will be a collaborative project or whether you are on your own (Douglas, 1976). Douglas, J. D. (1976). Investigative social research: Individual and team field research . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Collaborating with others has many benefits; you can cover more ground and therefore collect more data than you can on your own. And having collaborators in any research project, but especially field research, means having others with whom to share your trials and tribulations in the field. However, collaborative research comes with its own set of challenges such as possible personality conflicts among researchers, competing commitments in terms of time and contributions to the project, and differences in methodological or theoretical perspectives (Shaffir, Marshall, & Haas, 1979). Shaffir, W., Marshall, V., & Haas, J. (1979). Competing commitments: Unanticipated problems of field research. Qualitative Sociology, 2, 56–71. If you are considering collaborative field research, you are in good company; many fascinating examples precede you. David Snow and Leon Anderson (1993) Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1993). Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people . Berkeley: University of California Press. conducted a collaborative study of homelessness in Austin, Texas. And researchers at the University of Minnesota recently conducted a large-scale, cross-country field study of how forms of difference such as race and religion shape American life and experience ( http://www.soc.umn.edu/research/amp.html ). When considering something that is of interest to you, consider also whether you have possible collaborators. How might having collaborators shape the decisions you make about where to conduct participant observation?

I began this discussion by asking you to think about limitations that might shape your field site decisions. But it makes sense to also think about the opportunities —social, geographic, and otherwise—that your location affords. Perhaps you are already a member of an organization where you’d like to conduct research. Maybe you know someone who knows someone else who might be able to help you access a site. Perhaps you have a friend you could stay with, enabling you to conduct participant observations away from home. Choosing a site for participation is shaped by all these factors—your research question and area of interest, a few limitations, some opportunities, and sometimes a bit of being in the right place at the right time.

Choosing a Role

As with choosing a research site, some limitations and opportunities beyond your control might shape the role you take once you begin your participant observation. You’ll also need to make some deliberate decisions about how you enter the field and “who” you’ll be once you’re in.

In terms of entering the field, one of the earliest decisions you’ll need to make is whether to be overt or covert. As an overt Researcher enters the field by revealing status as a researcher; participants know they are being studied. researcher, you enter the field with research participants having some awareness about the fact that they are the subjects of social scientific research. Covert Researcher enters the field by pretending to be a participant only; participants do not know they are being studied. researchers, on the other hand, enter the field as though they are full participants, opting not to reveal that they are also researchers or that the group they’ve joined is being studied. As you might imagine, there are pros and cons to both approaches. A critical point to keep in mind is that whatever decision you make about how you enter the field will affect many of your subsequent experiences in the field.

As an overt researcher, you may experience some trouble establishing rapport at first. Having an insider at the site who can vouch for you will certainly help, but the knowledge that subjects are being “watched” will inevitably (and understandably) make some people uncomfortable and possibly cause them to behave differently than they would were they not aware of being research subjects. Because field research is typically a sustained activity that occurs over several months or years, it is likely that participants will become more comfortable with your presence over time. Overt researchers also avoid a variety of moral and ethical dilemmas that they might otherwise face. A Far Side cartoon demonstrates this point perfectly. It depicts a “researcher” dressed up like a gorilla, hanging out with a few other gorillas. In the cartoon, one of the real gorillas is holding out a few beetle grubs to the researcher, and the caption reads, “So you’re a real gorilla, are you? Well I guess you wouldn’t mind munchin’ down a few beetle grubs, would you? In fact, we wanna see you chug ’em!” ( http://www.e-noah.net/asa/asashoponlineservice/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=ASAOE710N04 ).

As a covert researcher, “getting in” your site might be easier, but then you might face other issues. For how long would you plan to conceal your identity? How might participants respond once they discover you’ve been studying them? And how will you respond if asked to engage in activities you find unsettling or unsafe? Field researcher Richard Mitchell (1991) Mitchell, R. G., Jr. (1991). Secrecy and disclosure in fieldwork. In W. B. Shaffir and R. A. Stebbins (Eds.), Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualitative research (pp. 97–108). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. was forced to consider these very questions during his covert research among right-wing survivalists when he was asked to participate in the swapping of violently racist and homophobic stories, an experience over which he later expressed profound grief and deep regret. Beyond your own personal level of comfort with deceiving participants and willingness to take risks, it is possible that the decision about whether to enter the field covertly will be made for you. If you are conducting research while associated with any federally funded agency (and even many private entities), your institutional review board (IRB) probably will have something to say about any planned deception of research subjects. Some IRBs approve deception, but others look warily upon a field researcher engaging in covert participation. The extent to which your research site is a public location, where people may not have an expectation of privacy, might also play a role in helping you decide whether covert research is a reasonable approach.

I mentioned that having an insider at your site who can vouch for you is helpful. Such insiders, with whom a researcher may have some prior connection or a closer relationship than with other site participants, are called key informants Field site insider with whom the field researcher has a closer relationship and who can provide insider knowledge about a group being observed. . A key informant can provide a framework for your observations, help “translate” what you observe, and give you important insight into a group’s culture. If possible, having more than one key informant at a site is ideal, as one informant’s perspective may vary from another’s.

Once you’ve made a decision about how to enter your field site, you’ll need to think about the role you’ll adopt while there. Aside from being overt or covert, how close will you be to participants? In the words of Fred Davis (1973), Davis, F. (1973). The Martian and the convert: Ontological polarities in social research. Urban Life, 2, 333–343. who coined these terms in reference to researchers’ roles, will you be a Martian , a Convert , or a bit of both? Davis describes the Martian role as one in which a field researcher stands back a bit, not fully immersed in the lives of his subjects, in order to better problematize, categorize, and see with the eyes of a newcomer what’s being observed. From the Martian perspective, a researcher should remain disentangled from too much engagement with participants. The Convert, on the other hand, intentionally dives right into life as a participant. From this perspective, it is through total immersion that understanding is gained. Which approach do you feel best suits you?

In the preceding section we examined how ascribed and achieved statuses might shape how or which sites you choose for your field research. They also shape the role you adopt in your field site. The fact that I am a professor, for example, is an achieved status, and I can choose the extent to which I share this aspect of my identity with field study participants. In some cases perhaps sharing that I am a professor would enhance my ability to establish rapport; in other field sites it might stifle conversation and rapport-building. As you’ve seen from the examples provided throughout this chapter, different field researchers have taken different approaches when it comes to using their social locations to help establish rapport and dealing with ascribed statuses that differ from those of their “subjects.”

Whatever role you choose, many of the points made in Chapter 9 "Interviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches" about power and relationships with participants apply to field research as well. In fact, the researcher-researched relationship is even more complex in field studies, where interactions with participants last far longer than the hour or two it might take to interview someone. Moreover, the potential for exploitation on the part of the researcher is even greater in field studies as relationships are usually closer and lines between “research” and personal or off-the-record interaction may get blurred. These precautions should be seriously considered before deciding to embark upon a field research project.

• When beginning a field research project, one must take care in planning where to conduct observations and what role to adopt in one’s field site.
• The time you have available to spend in the field will be a major factor in choosing your research site.
• There are pros and cons to both the overt and the covert researcher roles.
• Ascribed and achieved statuses both shape the choices that field researchers make about their sites and about their roles within those sites.
• Try to name at least three different locations where you might like to conduct field research. What barriers would you face were you to attempt to enter those sites as a researcher? In what ways might your entrée into the sites be facilitated by your social location?
• What is your opinion about researchers taking on a covert as compared with an overt role in field research? Which role would you like to take in a field research project? Why?

10.4 Field Notes

• Define descriptive field notes.
• Cite the variety of ways that field researchers might take notes while in the field.
• Describe what should be noted when taking field notes.

Field notes are your opportunity to write poorly and get away with it. I say that in jest, but there is some truth to it. This is one type of writing where you should not be going for literary value, to make your writing interesting, and even to make it readable for anyone other than yourself. Instead, the aim is to record your observations as straightforwardly and, while in the field, as quickly as possible in a way that makes sense to you . Field notes In field research, the official record that affirms what you observed. 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 Notes that describe a field researcher’s observations as straightforwardly as possible. 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.

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.

Your strategy for recording your observations while in the field will be determined mostly by the site you choose and the role you play in that site. Will you be in a setting where having a notebook or smartphone in your hands will look out of place? If no, by all means, take notes! But don’t let your note taking distract you from what’s happening around you. Writing notes while in the field requires a fine balance between jotting down your observations and actually engaging in the setting. If you are strictly an observer, these will be easy to balance. But if you are also a participant, don’t let your note taking keep you from participating. If you do happen to be in a location where taking notes “in the moment” would be too obvious, rude, or distracting, you may still be able to occasionally jot down a few things very quickly. You may also need to develop a way of jotting down observations that doesn’t require complete sentences or perhaps even words. I know several field researchers who developed their own version of shorthand to take notes, using some combination of abbreviations and symbols, without taking too much time away from their participation in the field.

As with other proficiencies one develops, writing field notes is a skill that can be improved with practice. Recall the discussion in Chapter 1 "Introduction" about the dangers of informal observation. Conducting field research and taking field notes are decidedly not informal activities. In field research, observation is deliberate, not haphazard. That said, for a first-time field researcher, taking field notes can feel like a pretty haphazard activity. Understanding when to write, what to write, where to write, and how to write are all skills that field researchers develop with experience. I demonstrate this point to students early in our discussion of field methods by sending them out of the classroom in groups of two or three each and having them take notes about what they observe over a 15-minute period of time. No problem, they say. How hard can it be? Pretty tough, as it turns out. Students typically return from their 15 minutes of observation frustrated, confused, and annoyed with me for putting them through the experience.

So why torture my students in this way? It isn’t just to be a jerk, I promise. When students return to the classroom, I ask them to compare notes with their group members and discuss what strategies they used in making and recording observations. Typically, students have some overlap in the kinds of things noted, but inevitably one person will have paid more attention to conversations overheard, another to actions and unspoken physical expressions such how people walked or dressed, and yet another to nonhuman surroundings such as the landscape, sounds, and scents. Students conducting this exercise also often use different note-taking strategies, some drawing more pictures, others writing in complete sentences, others using abbreviations. I ask them to talk about what they’ve learned from the experience and the following two “lessons” are among the most frequently cited: (a) taking field notes is hard, and (b) it would have been nice to have some more direction before the exercise so they knew what to zero in on.

I’m always glad to hear that students recognize the difficulty of the task, and it’s true that I give them very few instructions prior to the field note exercise. This is intentional. In part I hope to make the point that while field research projects often occur inductively, this doesn’t mean that field researchers enter the field with absolutely no idea about what they plan to observe. Having a research question or topic in mind helps a researcher focus her or his observations. At the same time, it is important that field researchers not allow their original question or topic blind them to occurrences in the field that may not seem particularly important at the time. As I share with my students, you never know whether or how some observation might be important down the line. We’ll take a closer look at this point in Section 10.5 "Analysis of Field Research Data" .

No matter how difficult it can be to write notes while in the field, it is worth the effort. Field researchers rely on the notes they take in the field to develop more complete notes later and, eventually, to develop analysis. Have you heard the popular philosophical question about trees falling? It goes something like this: If a tree falls in the woods but nobody hears it, did it actually make a sound? I don’t have a good answer for you from a philosophical perspective, but I can say that when it comes to field research, if you observe something but neglect to note it, it might as well not have happened. This is because you, like any other human being, cannot possibly be expected to remember everything that you see happen over the hours, days, months, or years that you spend collecting data in the field. For this reason, writing notes in the field (to the extent possible) is important, as is “filling in” those notes as soon as you are in a location where you can focus on more formal note taking. We examine this more formal aspect of note taking next.

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.

When you type up notes upon returning from an observation, you should “fill in the blanks” and write as much as possible about what you’ve just observed. Even if it seems mundane, I think it’s fair to say that one’s field notes can never contain too much detail. Writing as much as possible, in as much detail as possible, should also help you avoid generalizing in your field notes. Be specific about what you observe; rather than saying that “everyone” said or did something, make note of exactly who said or did X (or note that you’re not sure exactly who did so but that it seemed as if most everyone did). Rather than saying that someone you observed was “angry,” describe what gave you that impression. For example, was that person yelling, red in the face, or shaking her fist?

Don’t forget to describe exactly where you were and detail your surroundings (in addition to describing the interactions and conversations you observed and participated in). Early in a field research project you may focus slightly more on describing the “lay of the land” than you do later on. This might mean writing up very detailed descriptions of the locations you observe and the people with whom you interact. You might also draw a map or, if appropriate in your setting, take pictures of your field sites. If your observations will be conducted in the same place and with the same people, these descriptive details you write up early on will become less noticeable to you over time. It will be helpful to have some documentation of your first impressions and of the sort of details that later become so much a part of the everyday scene that you stop noticing them. The following excerpt from my own field notes comes from my first meeting with two of the key informants in my field research in the breast cancer movement.

1/14/99, 11:00am

Met Jane and Polly at the XX office today. I was scheduled to be there at 10:30 but traffic was so bad due to last night’s snow storm that I did not get there until 11:00am. Jane and Polly did not seem bothered by my tardiness (Polly, “We don’t keep a time clock around here.”). I walked into the building and took the elevator up to the second floor. I was a little unsure about where to go from there so I just walked into the first open door and said, “I’m looking for the XX office.” A woman showed me into a large office (long and slightly irregular shape with windows on one wall, a desk and table and many chairs. Also two computers set up on a counter that runs along the wall across from the windows.) Two women were looking at a computer screen that was on the counter. When I walked in I introduced myself and Jane and Polly introduced themselves to me. Both women shook my hand, though Jane was the first to do so and did so with slightly more self-assurance than Polly. Polly told me to hang my coat on one of the “coat racks” and gestured to the many chairs that were around the office. I placed my coat and purse in what I hoped would be the most out of the way location; a corner behind the table. (Blackstone, 2003) Blackstone, A. (2003). Racing for the cure and taking back the night: Constructing gender, politics, and public participation in women’s activist/volunteer work (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

The description in my field notes continues for several more paragraphs, but I won’t torture you with those details. As you can see, this field notes excerpt is definitely not going to win the Pulitzer Prize for its riveting story or prose. Thankfully, that isn’t its purpose. Instead, the goal was to describe a location where I knew I’d be spending a fair amount of time and to describe my first impressions of the two women I knew would be likely candidates for key informants. One thing you’ll notice is that I used quotation marks every time I directly quoted a person. Including as many direct quotes as you can is a good idea, as such quotes provide support for the analytic points you’ll make when you later describe patterns in your data. This is another reason that taking notes in the field (to the extent possible) is a good idea. Direct quotes may be difficult to remember hours or even minutes after hearing them. For this reason you may wish to write verbatim quotes while in the field and then take the time to describe the circumstances under which something was said later on when you write up your full notes after leaving the scene.

Another thing you might find were you to read through the many pages of field notes I took during my participant observation is that I use all capital letters and brackets in some places. This is the strategy I developed for expressing my own personal feelings and impressions in my field notes. While the distinction between what one actually observed and what one thinks about what he or she observed is not always easy to make, most field researchers do attempt to distinguish between these two categories of information.

The bracketed portions of your field notes may never be used, but in some cases they will become the very early stages in your analysis of data. My notes from three years of participant observation include bracketed notes of both types. Sometimes, I used bracketed notes to express emotion or purge difficult thoughts or feelings. This was especially helpful when I felt upset about or annoyed by something that had occurred in the field. Because field research requires developing personal relationships with “subjects,” and because interpersonal relationships all experience various highs and lows, it is important to express your feelings about those relationships in your notes. Writing these more personal reflections may become important for analysis later or they may simply be cathartic at the moment. They might also reveal biases you have about the participants that you should confront and be honest about.

Every field researcher’s approach to writing up field notes will vary according to whatever strategy works best for that individual. Where I used brackets to document personal feelings and reflections on bits of data, other field researchers may use the “comments” function in a word processing program or use a different font type, size, or color to distinguish observations from reflections. Others might create two columns for their full field notes—one containing notes only about what was observed directly and the other containing reactions and impressions. There isn’t a wrong way to write field notes. What’s important is that you adopt a strategy that enables you to write accurately, to write as much detail as possible, and to distinguish observations from reflections.

• When taking descriptive field notes, researchers should try to make note of their observations as straightforwardly as possible.
• Field researchers might use any number of tools or strategies to facilitate taking notes in the field such as writing on one’s own hands, dictating observations into a handheld recorder, or taking notes in the form of text messages on one’s phone.
• In field research, observation is deliberate, not haphazard.
• Note taking does not end when a researcher exits an observation; handwritten notes are typed up immediately upon leaving the field so that researchers can “fill in the blanks” in their brief notes taken while in the field.
• Try out the note-taking exercise that my students complete in class. Find another person or two with whom you can conduct observations and take notes for about 15 minutes (perhaps someplace in your campus library, student union, or dorm). Sit near your peers who are also taking notes but do not talk with them during this portion of the exercise. Be sure to use all of your senses as you take notes: your eyes, your ears, your nose, your mouth, and your sense of touch. When your 15 minutes are up, compare notes with your peers. Where are there similarities? Where are their differences? Why do those similarities and differences exist? What strategy did you each employ to take notes? How might you approach field note taking differently were you asked to do it again?

10.5 Analysis of Field Research Data

• Define analytic field notes and explain how they differ from descriptive field notes.
• Explain why making note of mundane details is a good idea.
• Describe the process by which field researchers analyze their data.
• Define grounded theory.

Field notes are data. But moving from having pages of data to presenting findings from a field study in a way that will make sense to others requires that those data be analyzed. Analysis of field research data is the focus in this final section of the chapter.

From Description to Analysis

Writing and analyzing field notes involves moving from description to analysis. In Section 10.4 "Field Notes" , we considered field notes that are mostly descriptive in nature. Here we’ll consider analytic field notes. Analytic field notes Notes that include the researcher’s impressions about her or his observations. are notes that include the researcher’s impressions about his observations. Analyzing field note data is a process that occurs over time, beginning at the moment a field researcher enters the field and continuing as interactions are happening in the field, as the researcher writes up descriptive notes, and as the researcher considers what those interactions and descriptive notes mean.

Often field notes will develop from a more descriptive state to an analytic state when the field researcher exits a given observation period, messy jotted notes or recordings in hand (or in some cases, literally on hand), and sits at a computer to type up those notes into a more readable format. We’ve already noted that carefully paying attention while in the field is important; so too is what goes on immediately upon exiting the field. Field researchers typically spend several hours typing up field notes after each observation has occurred. This is often where the analysis of field research data begins. Having time outside of the field to reflect upon your thoughts about what you’ve seen and the meaning of those observations is crucial to developing analysis in field research studies.

Once the analytic field notes have been written or typed up, the field researcher can begin to look for patterns across the notes by coding the data. This will involve the iterative process of open and focused coding that is outlined in Chapter 9 "Interviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches" . As mentioned several times in Section 10.4 "Field Notes" , it is important to note as much as you possibly can while in the field and as much as you can recall after leaving the field because you never know what might become important. Things that seem decidedly unimportant at the time may later reveal themselves to have some relevance.

In my field research experience, I was often surprised by the bits of data that turned out to hold some analytic relevance later on. For example, my field notes included a number of direct quotes and descriptions of informal interactions with participants that I didn’t expect would be important but that I nevertheless jotted down. Several of these quotes eventually made their way into my analysis. For example, Polly, who ran the volunteer office for a breast cancer organization, once remarked to me, “We [in the volunteer office] don’t use disposable cups here. It is always best to have coffee in a real mug. It’s much nicer that way” (Blackstone, 2004, p. 187). Blackstone, A. (2004). Sociability, work, and gender. Equal Opportunities International, 23, 29–44.

It didn’t occur to me at the time that this was just one of many tasks that Polly and other women volunteers do that remains largely invisible to the beneficiaries of their work. Because it is “much nicer” for volunteers to drink out of a real mug instead of a disposable cup, Polly actually spends a large amount of time washing mugs every day, and throughout the day, so that a clean, real mug is always available to the many volunteers who show up for brief volunteer shifts at the office each day. Had I not made a note of the coffee cup interaction with Polly, which at the time seemed rather mundane, I may have missed an important analytic point about the invisibility of some components of women’s volunteer labor that I was later able to make in presentations and publications of the work.

Sometimes the analytic process of field researchers and others who conduct inductive analysis is referred to as grounded theory A systematic process in which a researcher generates new theory by inductively analyzing her or his qualitative empirical observations. (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Chicago, IL: Aldine; Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Grounded theory occurs, as you might imagine, from the “ground up.” It requires that one begin with an open-ended and open-minded desire to understand a social situation or setting and involves a systematic process whereby the researcher lets the data guide her rather than guiding the data by preset hypotheses. The goal when employing a grounded theory approach is, perhaps not surprisingly, to generate theory. Its name not only implies that discoveries are made from the ground up but also that theoretical developments are grounded in a researcher’s empirical observations and a group’s tangible experiences.

As exciting as it might sound to generate theory from the ground up, the experience can also be quite intimidating and anxiety-producing as the open nature of the process can sometimes feel a little out of control. Without hypotheses to guide their analysis, researchers engaged in grounded theory work may experience some feelings of frustration or angst. The good news is that the process of developing a coherent theory that is grounded in empirical observations can be quite rewarding—not only to researchers but also to their peers who can contribute to the further development of new theories through additional research and to research participants who may appreciate getting a bird’s-eye view of their everyday experiences.

• In analytic field notes, a researcher makes note of impressions about her or his observations.
• Details that may seem unimportant in the moment may turn out to be important during later analysis; it is therefore crucial that field researchers make note of these observations when conducting field research.
• In analyzing their data, many field researchers conduct grounded theory.
• Grounded theory involves generating theory from the ground up.
• Interested in learning more about grounded theory? Read all about it at the Grounded Theory Institute’s website: http://www.groundedtheory.com/ . What do you think about grounded theory? Is this way of conducting research something that is of interest to you? Why or why not?

Skip navigation

World Leaders in Research-Based User Experience

Field studies vs. ethnographic studies vs. contextual inquiry.

Summary:  What is the difference between a field study, an ethnographic study, and a contextual inquiry in a user experience design project? Not much. The main difference is that between field methods and lab-based user research.

4 minute video by 2021-01-01 4

• Jakob Nielsen
• Research Methods Research Methods

Share this article:

• Share this video:

You must have javascript and cookies enabled in order to display videos.

Related Article

Contextual Inquiry: Inspire Design by Observing and Interviewing Users in Their Context

Through observation and collaborative interpretation, contextual inquiry uncovers hidden insights about customer’s work that may not be available through other research methods.

Video Author

Jakob Nielsen , Ph.D., is a retired principal and co-founder (with Dr. Donald A. Norman) of the Nielsen Norman Group. Jakob established the "discount usability engineering" movement for fast and cheap improvements of user interfaces and invented the heuristic evaluation method.

• Share: 

Subscribe to the weekly newsletter to get notified about future articles.

UX Researchers, We Like to Watch (UX Slogan #16)

4 minute video

Field Studies vs. Diary Studies

What Are Contextual Inquiries?

3 minute video

Doing Field Studies Remotely

• Field Studies Should Inform Intranet Redesign
• 27 Tips and Tricks for Conducting Successful User Research in the Field
• Field Studies
• Field Studies Done Right: Fast and Observational
• Task Analysis: Support Users in Achieving Their Goals

Research Reports

• Marketing Email UX - User Research Methodology
• User Experience Careers

UX Conference Training Course

• Discovery: Building the Right Thing
• Measuring UX and ROI
• Analytics and User Experience
• ResearchOps: Scaling User Research
• How to Interpret UX Numbers: Statistics for UX

Advertisement

Higher education: discipline or field of study?

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 18 August 2020
• Volume 26 , pages 415–428, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Malcolm Tight   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3379-8613 1  

27k Accesses

22 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Higher education, or more strictly higher education studies, is sometimes referred to as a discipline, though it is more often referred to as a field, sector or area for study. But what is a discipline and does higher education studies, at its current state of development, qualify as one? This article re-considers these matters and comes to some conflicting conclusions. The issue of whether higher education studies is, or is not, a discipline should probably, therefore, be regarded as still open for debate.

Similar content being viewed by others

STEM Education for the Twenty-First Century

Ideas foundational to calculus learning and their links to students’ difficulties

Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement in Primary and Secondary Education: a Meta-analytic Review

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Higher education studies has grown rapidly across the globe during the last few decades. Thus, one recent study identified 86 specialist English language academic journals focusing exclusively on higher education that between them published over 16,000,000 words in 2016 alone (Tight 2018 ). As a focus for research, then, higher education studies could be argued to be maturing; but is it, as some have argued, a discipline? The purpose of this article is to review the arguments for and against such a view and seek to reach a measured conclusion.

This is not, of course, a new debate; one substantive American examination of the question – which concluded that higher education studies was a field of study rather than a discipline - dates back nearly 50 years (Dressel and Mayhew 1974 ). Others have addressed the question more recently (e.g. Fulton 1992 , Harland 2012 , Macfarlane and Grant 2012 ). Another review, and one that extends internationally beyond the American context, seems timely.

Note that I am deliberately using the term ‘higher education studies’ here rather than just ‘higher education’. Higher education is the sector of activity that is being researched, but the additional word in ‘higher education studies’ is necessary to avoid confusion. If it is a discipline, we should call it ‘higher education studies’ or something like that. If it remains simply a focus for research, ‘higher education’ will do fine.

The article will proceed by first considering if and why it matters whether higher education studies is a discipline or not. The literature on the nature of disciplines (and fields) is then reviewed. Other research foci which, like higher education, have claimed disciplinary status – with more or less success – will also be identified. The relation between higher education studies and educational studies will be examined, and the case for and against the former achieving disciplinary status will be carefully reviewed. Finally, some conclusions will be reached.

Why does this matter?

We may, of course, immediately question if and why it matters whether higher education studies is a discipline or not. Or, in other words, is ‘discipline’ more than simply a label? Are there any positive practical consequences that would come if higher education studies was recognised and accepted as a discipline? And, if it does matter, to whom does it matter: those researching higher education, the academy as a whole or the wider society beyond?

It is the case, as we shall see, that some higher education researchers seek to claim disciplinary status – for the whole of higher education studies or just the particular part of it that they work in – so it clearly matters to them, at least to some extent. Higher education researchers are, as we shall also see, by no means unique in making such claims, which have been regularly made by practitioners in particular fields throughout the history of the academy. Clearly, then, there is some perceived benefit in being a discipline, even if – as with many terms in academia – the word ‘discipline’ is used both loosely and in varied ways.

Widespread recognition of higher education studies as a discipline would undoubtedly give it more status, at least in academic circles. The academy is, of course, highly status conscious – indeed, it might be argued that it is an environment in which status matters as least as much as funding (compare, for example, the attitude toward any relatively new discipline including in its name the suffix ‘studies’ and that towards, say, philosophy or physics) - so such recognition would be hard won and conditional, and thus worth having. It would not, however, have any great impact on the existing disciplinary pecking order, where the pure sciences and medicine clearly rule the roost, so the status of higher education studies would remain relatively low.

Recognition of higher education studies as a discipline beyond the academy, in the wider society and economy, would likely be even less significant. While greater acknowledgement of the work of higher education researchers in understanding and enhancing the diverse operations of higher education would be welcomed, whether they are seen as belonging to a discipline or researching a field is of little relevance outside academe. What matters is fruitful engagement with government, industry and other interested parties or stakeholders.

If, however, recognition of higher education studies as a discipline is denied, the practical business of higher education studies would arguably still continue. But it would remain relatively easier for others in the academy and beyond to ignore the findings of higher education research, as they commonly do so now, and to instead advance their own – anecdotal, poorly evidenced or wholly unevidenced – opinions. Higher education is, after all, a field that is, unusually, researched by those within it, and on which everyone else working within, or with experience of, it has their own opinions (or, as Harland ( 2012 ) put it, it is ‘open access’).

The status of higher education studies - as a discipline or a field of study – does, therefore, matter, and not only to higher education researchers, but also to the academy as a whole, though perhaps not as much as some might wish. So the question is worthy of more exploration.

The nature of disciplines (and fields)

It is a common characteristic of those writing about the meaning and nature of disciplines to start etymologically (e.g. Shumway and Messer-Davidow 1991 , Turner 2006 ). Following this approach, the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary offers one definition of discipline as ‘a branch of learning or scholarly instruction’ ( 1993 , p. 685) alongside a series of other related meanings concerning correction, religion, training, medicine and the military. That, however, seems overly simple or general, and might be applied to just about any academic activity, or to learning as a whole.

Another short, but more modern, definition is provided by Lawn and Keiner, who state ‘Academic disciplines can be seen as multi-dimensional socio-communicative networks of knowledge production’ ( 2006 , p. 158). This makes their broad purpose, knowledge production rather than just instruction, clearer, as well as their general mode of operation (i.e. communication). It also makes them sound complex, but without revealing any of that complexity.

A fuller definition is offered by Squires ( 1992 , p. 202, original emphases):

disciplines can be defined in terms of three dimensions: (i) what they are about ( object ); (ii) their stance toward that object, in terms of a concern with knowing, doing or being; and (iii) the extent to which they are operating in a normal, reflexive or philosophical mode . The first of these dimensions manifests in the content, topics or problems which are addressed; the second in the methodologies, techniques and procedures which are used; and the third in the extent to which the discipline treats its own nature as the subject of reflexive analysis.

This usefully offers rather more indicative detail on how disciplines work in practice.

Delving more deeply, Krishnan ( 2009 ) considers a range of philosophical, anthropological, sociological, historical and management perspectives on disciplines. While recognising that not all disciplines need demonstrate all of these features, he argues that:

A general list of characteristics would include: 1) disciplines have a particular object of research (e.g. law, society, politics), though the object of research may be shared with another discipline; 2) disciplines have a body of accumulated specialist knowledge referring to their object of research, which is specific to them and not generally shared with another discipline; 3) disciplines have theories and concepts that can organise the accumulated specialist knowledge effectively; 4) disciplines use specific terminologies or a specific technical language adjusted to their research object; 5) disciplines have developed specific research methods according to their specific research requirements; and maybe most crucially 6), disciplines must have some institutional manifestation in the form of subjects taught at universities or colleges, respective academic departments and professional associations connected to it. (p. 9)

While more comprehensive, this is not dissimilar to Squires’ presentation, with both leading with object, and Squires’ notion of stance broken down by Krishnan into theory, terminology and method. Squires does not, however, specifically mention accumulated knowledge or institutional manifestation (at least not in his definition), while Krishnan does not include Squires’ idea of disciplinary reflexivity.

The last of the characteristics identified by Krishnan, which he suggests may be the most crucial, is probably the most obvious when we think about disciplines: the whole paraphernalia of departments, chairs, learned societies, specialised academic journals, conferences, interest groups and so forth. The other characteristics which Krishnan identifies – object, accumulated knowledge, theories, terminologies and methods - are, however, of critical importance, if perhaps harder to pin down.

In their earlier study of the topic, Dressel and Mayhew ( 1974 ) came up with a list of criteria which was similar to, but slightly more extensive than, Krishnan’s:

One commonly accepted criteria of a discipline is a general body of knowledge… A corollary of this first criterion is that a discipline should possess both a specialized vocabulary and a generally accepted basic literature… some generally accepted body of theory and some generally understood techniques for theory testing and revision… a generally accepted body of consistently applied techniques of analysis or a generally agreed-upon methodology… recognized techniques for replication and revalidation of research and scholarship… trappings which symbolize their status as disciplines – scholarly associations… journals… Most disciplines have a recognized sequence of experiences for the preparation of scholars and research workers… But of all criteria of a discipline, possibly the key is a sense of sequence which enables scholars to predict where they should look next. (pp. 3-6)

This list is particularly interesting, both because it was put forward to assess the status of higher education studies as a discipline, but also because it includes criteria not directly addressed in the other frameworks: replication and revalidation, preparatory experiences and the notion of where to look next.

The literature on disciplines emphasizes, amongst other matters, that they are not static entities – indeed, their historical development is widely discussed (e.g. de Ridder-Symoens 1992 , Shumway and Messer-Davidow 1991 ) – and nor are they constant across the globe. Physics, psychology and political science, for example, may be pursued in distinctively different ways in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the USA.

We may recognise types of discipline, with the fourfold distinction between soft/hard and pure/applied that originated with Biglan ( 1973a , 1973b ; see also Becher 1989 , Becher and Trowler 2001 ) still being widely applied. Hard disciplines (e.g. physics, pharmacy) are those with an agreed paradigm and where knowledge is cumulative; soft disciplines (e.g. history, sociology), by contrast, are more contested and less cumulative. Pure/applied concerns the degree to which research is directed towards understanding something that interests the researcher or towards solving practical problems. Chemistry and mathematics, for example, would be (primarily) classified as pure disciplines, engineering and law as applied.

And then there is the distinction which we recognised in the introduction between a discipline and a focus - or field - of (or for) study. Or is it fields? Thus, Macfarlane and Grant ( 2012 , p. 621) argue that ‘the study of higher education may be understood as a multiple series of intersecting cognate fields rather than one that is discrete’, while Clegg ( 2012 , p. 667) goes further in identifying the three intersecting or overlapping fields of ‘research into higher education, academic development and disciplinary teaching research’ as constituting the foci for higher education studies.

Krishnan’s first characteristic of a discipline, its object of research, is fairly synonymous with what we mean here by field, suggesting that fields are components of disciplines. Thus, higher education is clearly a field – or a series of fields - for research, but higher education studies might claim to be a discipline.

We may also, of course, range both above and below disciplines. Taking the latter direction first, disciplines are typically viewed as being composed of numerous sub-disciplines, such that, while most researchers would readily identify with a particular discipline (e.g. history, physics), their real allegiance would be to the sub-discipline (e.g. medieval France, quantum physics) they research and/or teach. Sub-disciplines may become fully fledged disciplines as they develop (e.g. as with the emergence of statistics from mathematics). Thus, in the particular case we are discussing here, the issue may be whether higher education studies is still a sub-discipline of educational studies, or has developed sufficiently far to become a discipline in its own right.

Looking above, or beyond, disciplines, there are all the recurrent arguments which suggest that real, complex issues or problems (e.g. climate change, poverty) can only be addressed through interdisciplinary research, probably outside of higher education institutions at least as much as within them (Gibbons et al. 1994 ). In addition to interdisciplinarity there are a whole range of related terms, of which multidisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are probably the most common (Davies and Devlin 2010 ). Given the evident interest in studying aspects of higher education across the entire range of disciplines, we might, therefore, seek to recognise higher education as an interdisciplinary field, or fields, for research.

In short, though we may think of academic disciplines as well established and monolithic, they are really rather amorphous, fractured and transitory entities waiting for events, discoveries or new interpretations to transform them; perhaps only slowly but sometimes almost overnight. The map of knowledge, if we think of it like that, is being continually re-drawn (Abbott 2001 , Collins 1998 ).

In this context - and thinking in particular about whether higher education studies might qualify as a discipline or not - it is striking how this question echoes across the whole of academe. Thus, some brief bibliographic searches were able to identify a huge range of fields of study that were, at different times, seeking or arguing for disciplinary status: e.g. American studies (Pearce 1957 ), clinical nutrition (Cardenas 2016 ), cultural studies (During 2006 ), dental hygiene (Cobban et al., 2007 ), English (Randel 1958 ), human resource development (Chalofsky 2007 ), innovation studies (Fagerberg and Verspagen 2006 ), international business (Michailova and Tienari 2014 ), nurse education (Findlow 2012 ), planning (Davoudi and Pendlebury 2010 ), religion (Nemetz 1959 ), statistics (Minton 1983 ) and women’s studies/gender studies (Rollman, 2013 , Safarik 2003 ). There are doubtless many more such accounts.

As the dates for the articles identified suggest, these debates have been going on for a long time. In a general sense, there have been such debates ever since universities were founded, but they have undoubtedly increased in recent times as knowledge has both ballooned and fractured.

Is higher education studies a discipline?

Is educational studies a discipline.

As a preliminary to considering whether higher education studies is a discipline, it is worth spending a little time posing the same question for educational studies, which might, as we have argued, be seen as its parent discipline. Here are two somewhat contrasting perspectives from different parts of the globe. First, from Sweden, Sundberg ( 2004 ) confidently demarcates the period in which what he terms ‘educational science’ (note the use of the word ‘science’ to provide the emergent discipline with added strength) achieved disciplinary status:

Educational science became firmly institutionalised and established as a discipline in Sweden during the golden age of educational reform and the radical breakthrough of comprehensive schooling in the 1950s and 1960s. It is in this period that Pedagogik was separated from psychology and sociology separated from philosophy. (p.394)

Second, and alternatively, from the very different context of India, Sarangapani ( 2011 ) indicates that, while some may view education as a discipline, others strongly challenge this position:

Many of us who conduct research on and teach education in institutes of higher education have been socialised to think of education as a discipline. Yet not only do we find this status disputed, but we also frequently encounter challenges to our claims as experts and to the form and structure of our discourse, both by members of the public and, more disconcertingly, by fellow academics from other disciplines. (p. 67)

Indeed, one might go further in recognising that the status of educational studies as a discipline is also challenged from within education.

Her analysis leads Sarangapani, following Biglan, Becher and others, to apply the term ‘soft discipline’ to education. She notes that education ‘is non-paradigmatic and it is wholly ‘applied’ in the sense of being concerned with a practice’, and ‘it does not have distinct/distinguishing theories that are unique to it’ (pp. 72–73). It is, therefore, in her view, missing at least two of the characteristics of a discipline identified by Krishnan ( 2009 ).

Furlong ( 2013 ), also holding to the idea of educational studies as a discipline, provides a useful summary of the position, particularly in the UK:

As would be true of any discipline, trying to understand the discipline of education means taking into account its epistemological as well as its sociological dimensions… education presents a contradictory picture here. Sociologically, it is and always has been strong in key respects. It is large, complex and strategically important and despite recent policy challenges, particularly in England, it remains relatively well embedded in the university system. At the same time, it is epistemologically weak, largely because of important and unresolved questions about the nature of educational knowledge. It is these difficulties that, despite its size, have served constantly to undermine its position within the academy. (p. 13)

These difficulties have not, however, prevented several sub-disciplines, or specialisms, of educational studies from seeking to claim disciplinary status in their own right; including art education (Logan 1963 ), comparative education (Heath 1958 ), general education (Uljens 2001 ) and even teaching (Loughran 2009 ).

What then of higher education studies? I will use the six characteristics (or criteria) identified by Krishnan as a framework for assessing the claims of higher education studies to be a discipline. These offer a useful heuristic for attempting such a judgment.

A Particular Object of Research.

This is perhaps the simplest of the six characteristics to satisfy. It is arguably also the weakest, as it is difficult to imagine any field, discipline or sub-discipline of research that did not have a particular object. What we are talking about here is that higher education studies should have a focus.

Obviously, higher education studies focuses on higher education; that is the object of the research or study. Conversely, any research or study that focuses on higher education may be deemed to be higher education studies, however its investigators may classify it, even if it takes place within, for example, a department of politics, accounting or chemistry (see the later discussion of institutional manifestation).

Higher education is clearly a worthy object for research and study. To take the UK as an example, at the present time the equivalent of about 4% of the population are registered as students in higher education and about 1% work in higher education in some capacity (full-time or part-time: www.hesa.ac.uk ). Overall, then, this is a substantial enterprise, and, at the level of individual universities and colleges, most are major employers and traffic foci in the towns and cities in which they are located. Looked at globally, the size of the enterprise is quite staggering:

Postsecondary education is now a major enterprise worldwide. Massification has dramatically increased global enrollments; there are more than 170 million students enrolled in 2013, with expansion continuing worldwide. This growth has transformed higher education institutions and systems, and there are now more than 18,000 universities worldwide. (Altbach 2014 , p. 11)

A Body of Accumulated Specialist Knowledge.

It is also clear that, over the years, a significant body of specialist knowledge relating to higher education has been accumulated through higher education research. We have already quoted the estimate of over 16,000,000 words having been published in 86 specialist English language academic journals focusing exclusively on higher education in 2016 alone (Tight 2018 ). That figure increases year by year and does not include other sorts of journals (e.g. education journals, other disciplinary journals) or other types of publications (e.g. books, reports, conference publications), so the true output is much larger than this estimate.

Of course, it may be said that some of this output is repetitive, that a lot of it is small-scale and that it is of variable quality. But these are characteristics of research in general: only a small proportion is truly ground-breaking, large-scale research is very time-consuming and difficult to fund, and most research is not ‘world class’.

What is perhaps more concerning about higher education studies is the issue of accumulation, though, again, this could be said of many of the social sciences. Replication and revalidation studies – two of the criteria identified by Dressel and Mayhew ( 1974 ) - are vanishingly uncommon in higher education studies, and in educational studies as a whole. Thus, Makel and Plucker ( 2014 ) analysed all of the articles published in the then top 100 education journals – which included many higher education journals – but found that only 0.13% of them were replication studies.

Higher education studies also remains a fragmented area of research. Those focusing on particular topics, or applying particular methodologies or theories, or working in particular systems, typically have little to do with others researching higher education, even when they are researching closely related topics (Daenekindt and Huisman 2020 , Macfarlane 2012 , Shahjahan and Kezar 2013 ).

However, while the linkages within higher education studies could certainly be improved, that there is a body of accumulated specialist knowledge – or, rather, a series of developing and disparate bodies - cannot be doubted.

Theories and Concepts.

It is when we get to this characteristic that things become more problematic. Thus, an analysis of the output of 17 specialist higher education journals, published in English outside of North America in 2000, concluded:

an examination of the 406 articles found that 104 (25.6%) made explicit use of theory, that in a further 66 (16.3%) there was some evidence of the use of theory, and that the remaining majority, 236 (58.1%), were wholly a-theoretical. In short - and insofar as the sample examined reflects higher education research practice in general - theoretical engagement would appear to be a minority interest or need amongst higher education researchers. (Tight 2004 , p. 400)

Higher education studies - as a field or discipline – will, of course, likely be lacking in organising theories and concepts if most (published) researchers do not even engage with theory.

However, more recent analysis (Tight 2012 , 2014 ) of 15 leading international journals – this time including five North American journals - came to more positive conclusions. This analysis was of 567 articles published in 2010:

470 (83%) of the articles were found to be theoretically explicit, though the extent of engagement was often limited and the level of theory referred to was frequently low. (Tight 2014 , p. 100)

Three main factors seem to largely explain the difference in these findings. First, the inclusion of leading journals from North America – where higher education research has been established for longer - in the sample, which typically expect authors to explicitly address theoretical (and methodological) issues. Second, the restriction of the non-North American sample to a smaller group of ‘leading’ journals; and, third, the passage of time, with one decade being long enough to significantly raise the quality of articles published in the most competitive, non-North American journals.

The point about the level of theory in use, however, still largely holds. At least two trends can be observed here. First, where better developed and higher-level theories are in use, they tend to be imported from other disciplines or fields and applied to higher education. Examples of such theories include academic literacies (from applied linguistics), activity theory (from psychology), human capital (from economics), institutional diversity (from biological sciences) and managerialism (from management).

There are a few exceptions to this trend, such as communities of practice theory, which arguably developed on the borders of management and education. There are also some examples of what appear to be fairly well-developed higher education theories which, on closer inspection, originate elsewhere. This would include both academic drift, which owes a great deal to institutional theory (i.e. institutional isomorphism), and student attrition, which, remarkably, builds on theories of both suicide and employee turnover (from sociology and business studies respectively).

Second, most theories in higher education studies seem to be developed largely from the topic being researched (i.e. in classic grounded theory or inductive fashion); that is, they may be regarded more as concepts than theories. Examples include theorising around the idea of the university, modes of knowledge, problem-based learning, the research/teaching nexus and student engagement. These may be seen as ‘native’ to higher education studies but involve little more than simple classifications (often dichotomous) or the reification of ‘good’ practice into a model.

There are a few examples of higher education theories which have developed further to become largely accepted within their sub-fields (or sub-disciplines) of higher education studies. Thus, learning approaches theory, which seeks to categorise (albeit in a quasi-dichotomous fashion) and explain students’ approaches to learning, and, by extension, how these may be altered, has wide acceptance within the academic/educational development community. Interestingly, this theory was substantially developed through the use of phenomenography, perhaps the only research design to have been developed (at least partly) within higher education research.

A second, and more recent, example of widespread acceptance is threshold concepts theory, which argues that, in any discipline, certain concepts are more difficult for some students to understand yet are essential if progress is to be made. This has been taken up widely by higher education practitioners, though arguably rather too widely as almost any curricular element may be identified as a threshold concept.

Specific Terminologies.

This characteristic is, arguably, not as critical as the others identified by Krishnan. After all, all academics – though some more than others – tend to use specific terminologies (or, more pejoratively, jargon). For example, the terms academic drift, modes of knowledge and threshold concepts, amongst others, have already been used in this article, each of which would have a particular meaning to other higher education researchers, but probably not to researchers or others outside of this field.

It would be difficult to argue, however, that higher education studies has its own developed technical language, like other more established disciplines such as physics or psychology. Rather, higher education researchers have adopted a great deal of terminology – as well as theoretical perspectives – from other disciplines, particularly across the social sciences but more widely as well. More generally, it is probably the case that higher education researchers would have relatively little difficulty explaining their work to researchers in established disciplines, whereas the reverse would likely be rather more problematic.

Specific Research Methods.

As with theories and concepts, the verdict here would also have to be that higher education researchers have been responsible for little in the way of methodological development. Rather, they predominantly tend to make use of common social sciences research methods, such as interviews, surveys and documentary analysis. The level of sophistication in analyses varies widely, and has a geographical element, with North American-based researchers being much more likely to employ multivariate analysis techniques. Other research methods, such as auto/biographical, observational and conceptual methods, are much less commonly used (or published).

This reliance on the standard social science research methods and methodologies is, however, common to many social research fields, including education in general. Even amongst established social science disciplines, such as human geography, political science and sociology, most research relies on these generic methods. But these established disciplines have also developed their own specialist methodologies, such as geographical information systems and ethnography.

The only methodology to have been substantially developed by higher education researchers of which I am aware, and already mentioned in the discussion of theory, is phenomenography. Phenomenography focuses on people’s understandings or perceptions of particular phenomena of interest. Here, though, the honour has to be shared with education, as the originators of phenomenography were interested in teaching and learning in general, not just in higher education.

Phenomenography is probably better termed a research design, rather than a theory or a method, as it embodies both theoretical (i.e. there are a limited number of ways of perceiving a particular phenomenon) and methodological (typically the phenomenographic interview) perspectives. Even within higher education studies it is very much a minority interest, but it has been picked up and applied to some degree outside higher education (and education) as well.

Some Institutional Manifestation.

The final characteristic suggested by Krishnan is, as already noted, probably the most obvious, and probably the way in which most people would immediately think of disciplines: are there university departments, professors, degrees, journals and professional associations with ‘higher education’ in their titles? There are indeed all of these things.

The identification of 86 specialist academic journals focusing on higher education in 2016 has already been referred to (Tight 2018 ). This is undoubtedly an underestimate, as there is no definitive listing to check. While they are fewer in number, and similarly unlisted, there are also dozens of professional associations or societies focusing on higher education.

However, the presence of higher education studies within the university is both partial and particular. The Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, USA, maintains a very useful Worldwide Higher Education Inventory, which provides plentiful evidence on this characteristic (Rumbley et al. 2014 ). In 2014 it identified 277 graduate-level higher education programs (two-thirds of them in the United States) and 217 higher education research centres or institutes (50 in the USA, 44 in China and 18 in the UK) in 56 countries worldwide.

However, the programs identified are all graduate level; that is, they are postgraduate certificates (typically induction programmes taken by newly appointed academics), master’s degrees or doctoral programmes. Higher education is rarely studied at first degree level, unlike most disciplines. And the institutional presence of higher education usually takes the form of research centres or institutes, rather than fully fledged academic departments.

In the United States the most common higher education studies presence is in the form of an institutional research office, charged with benchmarking the university’s performance against its competitors, and more closely linked to the administration than to other university departments. In the UK or Australia this presence is most likely to be an academic development or teaching and learning centre, charged with improving the teaching performance of new and established academic staff. Typically, these will have fewer than 10 staff. The presence of a group of actively researching academic staff, focused on higher education studies, in a university or college – located in an education department or higher education research centre – is unusual.

Altbach comes up with the following summation: ‘a total conservative estimate of professionals who are involved in research on higher education is probably more than 12,000’ globally ( 2014 , p. 15). While this is, indeed, a conservative estimate, and is out of date, the key point to emphasize for present purposes is that most of these people will only have a part-time commitment to researching higher education, and it may also be short-term. The number of full-time, career track higher education researchers is much smaller.

Higher education studies is unusual – as a field or discipline – in that those contributing are spread all over the academy, in all disciplines and often in the university administration as well. This does have some disadvantages, including lack of communication between those focusing on higher education studies and those focusing on discipline-based educational research (le Roux et al. 2019 ).

Higher education studies may, therefore, be described as an interdisciplinary field (or fields) of research, or, in Harland’s ( 2012 ) words ‘an open-access discipline’; in other words, interested parties from all disciplines are welcome to contribute.

Conclusions

I offer two alternative conclusions, though readers may wish to take up positions in between.

Higher education studies has a clear object of research - i.e. higher education – a major activity worldwide that is clearly deserving of and needing focused research. With a pedigree going back at least a century, and with a major expansion of interest in recent decades, higher education studies has accumulated a substantial body of specialist knowledge.

But here we diverge; either:

There are thousands of academics worldwide with an interest in higher education research, who are supported by learned societies and journals, many of them long established. As a social science, higher education studies makes use of the theories and methods used throughout the social sciences and has begun to develop and contribute its own (notably phenomenography). While higher education studies makes only limited use of specialist terminology, this makes it an ‘open-access discipline’ accessible to all interested researchers.

Higher education studies is, therefore, without doubt a discipline:

we would argue that although the discipline of higher education may seem to be less advanced down the discipline development pathway (if there indeed exists such a thing) than many other disciplines, it is nonetheless a well developed, multi-strand, complex collection of research agendas and people fulfilling these, and is in every respect a full-blown discipline. (Bath and Smith 2004 , p. 13)

There are thousands of academics worldwide with an interest in higher education research, who are supported by learned societies and journals, many of them long established, but they are widely dispersed and marginal within universities and colleges, with few major departments or research centres focusing on higher education. As a social science, higher education studies makes use of the theories and methods used throughout the social sciences, but also often ignores them, and has made few original theoretical or methodological contributions of its own. This is reflected in higher education studies making only limited use of specialist terminology.

Higher education studies is not, therefore, a discipline but an interdisciplinary field of research. In the words of Altbach:

While higher education is not an academic discipline — the study of universities is an interdisciplinary endeavor based on the social sciences — it has emerged in a growing number of countries as a recognizable field of study, developing the standard accoutrements of any academic field. These include journals, publishers that focus on higher education, Web sites, national and international conferences, research centers and organizations, and others. While the development of the field is quite uneven globally, it now exists on all continents and in many countries. ( 2014 , p. 12)

Or, to put it in a more developmental way:

Our findings suggest that, although higher education is not a distinct discipline, it has assumed some disciplinary characteristics - most notably the creation of a discourse community predicated on specialized knowledge and recurrent discursive strategies. (Kimball and Friedensen 2019 , p. 1547)

The fairest conclusion, then, is probably that the jury is still out on the status of higher education studies. Much the same conclusion was reached nearly 50 years ago by Dressel and Mayhew ( 1974 ):

Higher education thus appears to be a field of study – ill-defined at the parameters – that is potentially useful in understanding many phenomenon [sic] and in preparing people for careers in higher education. But if the criteria suggested above are valid in defining a discipline, higher education has not yet attained that distinction. (p. 7)

Some 18 years later, Fulton came to a similar conclusion: ‘Whatever its strengths, higher education studies as a discipline has not yet acquired the capacity to reproduce itself. This is surely a sign of immaturity’ ( 1992 , p. 1820).

It is important that the debate continues, however, because it is only by comparing itself to the exacting standards of established disciplines that higher education studies can hope to advance to disciplinary status in due course. Progress in this direction is largely in the hands of higher education researchers themselves, through demonstrating and communicating the worth and applicability of their research.

Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar  

Altbach, P (2014) Knowledge for the Contemporary University: higher education as a field of study and training. pp. 11–21 in Rumbley, L, Altbach, P, Stanfield, D, Shimmy, Y, Gayardon, A de, and Chan, R, Higher Education: a worldwide inventory of research centers, academic programs, and journals and publications . Bonn, Lemmens Media, third edition.

Bath, D., & Smith, C. (2004). Academic developers: An academic tribe claiming their territory in higher education. International Journal for Academic Development, 9 (1), 9–27.

Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines . Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Becher, T, and Trowler, P (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines . Buckingham, Open University Press, second edition.

Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic disciplines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 (3), 195–203.

Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 (3), 204–213.

Cardenas, D. (2016). What is clinical nutrition? Understanding the epistemological foundations of a new discipline. Clinical Nutrition ESPEN, 11 , e63–e66.

Chalofsky, N. (2007). The seminal Foundation of the Discipline of HRD: People, learning and organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18 (3), 431–442.

Clegg, S. (2012). Conceptualising higher education research and/or academic development as ‘fields’: A critical analysis. Higher Education Research and Development, 31 (5), 667–678.

Cobban, S., Edginton, E., & Compton, S. (2007). An argument for dental hygiene to develop as a discipline. International Journal of Dental Hygiene, 5 , 13–21.

Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Daenekindt, S., & Huisman, J. (2020). Mapping the scattered field of research on higher education: A correlated topic model of 17,000 articles, 1991-2018. Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00500-x .

Davies, M., & Devlin, M. (2010). Interdisciplinary higher education. In M. Davies, M. Devlin, & M. Tight (Eds.), Interdisciplinary higher education: Perspectives and practicalities (pp. 3–28). Bingley: Emerald.

Davoudi, S., & Pendlebury, J. (2010). The evolution of planning as an academic discipline. Town Planning Review, 81 (6), 613–645.

Dressel, P., & Mayhew, L. (1974). Higher education as a field of study . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

During, S. (2006). Is cultural studies a discipline? And does it make any political difference? Cultural Politics, 2 (3), 265–281.

Fagerberg, J, and Verspagen, B (2006) innovation studies: An emerging discipline (or what)? A study of the global network of innovation scholars. Paper presented at the SPRU 40 th anniversary conference, University of Sussex.

Findlow, S. (2012). Higher education change and professional-academic identity in newly ‘academic’ disciplines: The case of nurse education. Higher Education, 63 , 117–133.

Fulton, O. (1992). Higher education studies. In B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), The encyclopedia of higher education (pp. 1810–1821). Oxford: Pergamon.

Furlong, J. (2013). Education: an anatomy of the discipline. Rescuing the university project? London: Routledge.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies . London: Sage.

Harland, T. (2012). Higher education as an open-access discipline. Higher Education Research and Development, 31 (5), 703–710.

Heath, K. (1958). Is comparative education a discipline? Comparative Education Review, 2 (2), 31–32.

Kimball, E., & Friedensen, R. (2019). The search for meaning in higher education research: A discourse analysis of ASHE presidential addresses. Review of Higher Education, 42 (4), 1549–1574.

Krishnan, A (2009) What are Academic Disciplines? Some observations on the disciplinarity vs. interdisciplinarity debate . Southampton, University of Southampton, National Centre for Research Methods.

Lawn, M., & Keiner, E. (2006). Editorial. European Journal of Education, 41 (2), 155–167.

Logan, F. (1963). Is there a discipline of art education? Studies in Art Education, 4 (2), 10–14.

Loughran, J. (2009). Is teaching a discipline? Implications for teaching and teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15 (2), 189–203.

Macfarlane, B. (2012). The higher education research archipelago. Higher Education Research and Development, 31 (1), 129–131.

Macfarlane, B., & Grant, B. (2012). The growth of higher education studies: From forerunners to pathtakers. Higher Education Research and Development, 31 (5), 621–624.

Makel, M., & Plucker, J. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43 (6), 304–316.

Michailova, S., & Tienari, J. (2014). What’s happening to international business? University structural changes and identification with a discipline. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 10 (1–2), 51–64.

Minton, P (1983) The Visibility of Statistics as a Discipline. American Statistician , 37, 4, 1, pp. 284–289.

Nemetz, A. (1959). Religion as an academic discipline. Journal of Higher Education, 30 (4), 196–200.

The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) Oxford, Oxford University Press, two volumes.

Pearce, R. (1957). American studies as a discipline. College English, 18 (4), 179–186.

Randel, W. (1958). English as a discipline. College English, 19 (8), 359–361.

Ridder-Symoens, H de (ed.) (1992) A History of the University in Europe. Volume 1: Universities in the Middle Ages . Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Rollman, H. (2013). What’s in a name? Reflections on what we call our discipline, and who gets to decide it. Journal of Gender Studies, 22 (4), 444–451.

le Roux, K., Taylor, D., Kloot, B., & Allie, S. (2019). Research on higher education: A perspective on the relations between higher education studies and discipline-based education research. Teaching in Higher Education , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1634538 .

Rumbley, L, Altbach, P, Stanfield, D, Shimmy, Y, Gayardon, A de, and Chan, R (2014) Higher Education: a worldwide inventory of research centers, academic programs, and journals and publications . Bonn, Lemmens Media, third edition.

Safarik, L. (2003). Feminist transformation in higher education: Discipline, structure and institution. Review of Higher Education, 26 (4), 419–445.

Sarangapani, P. (2011). Soft disciplines and hard battles. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 8 (1), 67–84.

Shahjahan, R., & Kezar, A. (2013). Beyond the ‘National Container’. Educational Research, 42 (1), 20–29.

Shumway, D., & Messer-Davidow, E. (1991). Disciplinarity: An introduction. Poetics Today, 12 (1), 201–225.

Squires, G. (1992). Interdisciplinarity in higher education in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Education, 27 (3), 201–210.

Sundberg, D. (2004). From Pedagogik to educational sciences? Higher education reform, institutional settings and the formation of the discipline of educational science in Sweden. European Educational Research Journal, 6 (4), 393–410.

Tight, M. (2004). Research into higher education: An atheoretical community of practice? Higher Education Research and Development, 23 (4), 395–411.

Tight, M (2012) Researching Higher Education . Maidenhead, Open University Press, second edition.

Tight, M. (2014). Discipline and theory in higher education research. Research Papers in Education, 29 (1), 93–110.

Tight, M. (2018). Higher education journals: Their characteristics and contribution. Higher Education Research and Development, 37 (3), 607–619.

Turner, B. (2006). Discipline. Theory . Culture and Society, 23 (2–3), 183–197.

Uljens, M. (2001). On general education as a discipline. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 20 , 291–301.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YL, UK

Malcolm Tight

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malcolm Tight .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tight, M. Higher education: discipline or field of study?. Tert Educ Manag 26 , 415–428 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-020-09060-2

Download citation

Received : 09 June 2020

Accepted : 11 August 2020

Published : 18 August 2020

Issue Date : December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-020-09060-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Higher education
• Higher education research
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Case Study vs. Research

What's the difference.

Case study and research are both methods used in academic and professional settings to gather information and gain insights. However, they differ in their approach and purpose. A case study is an in-depth analysis of a specific individual, group, or situation, aiming to understand the unique characteristics and dynamics involved. It often involves qualitative data collection methods such as interviews, observations, and document analysis. On the other hand, research is a systematic investigation conducted to generate new knowledge or validate existing theories. It typically involves a larger sample size and employs quantitative data collection methods such as surveys, experiments, or statistical analysis. While case studies provide detailed and context-specific information, research aims to generalize findings to a broader population.

Further Detail

Introduction.

When it comes to conducting studies and gathering information, researchers have various methods at their disposal. Two commonly used approaches are case study and research. While both methods aim to explore and understand a particular subject, they differ in their approach, scope, and the type of data they collect. In this article, we will delve into the attributes of case study and research, highlighting their similarities and differences.

A case study is an in-depth analysis of a specific individual, group, event, or phenomenon. It involves a detailed examination of a particular case to gain insights into its unique characteristics, context, and dynamics. Case studies often employ multiple sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject under investigation.

One of the key attributes of a case study is its focus on a specific case, which allows researchers to explore complex and nuanced aspects of the subject. By examining a single case in detail, researchers can uncover rich and detailed information that may not be possible with broader research methods. Case studies are particularly useful when studying rare or unique phenomena, as they provide an opportunity to deeply analyze and understand them.

Furthermore, case studies often employ qualitative research methods, emphasizing the collection of non-numerical data. This qualitative approach allows researchers to capture the subjective experiences, perspectives, and motivations of the individuals or groups involved in the case. By using open-ended interviews and observations, researchers can gather rich and detailed data that provides a holistic view of the subject.

However, it is important to note that case studies have limitations. Due to their focus on a specific case, the findings may not be easily generalized to a larger population or context. The small sample size and unique characteristics of the case may limit the generalizability of the results. Additionally, the subjective nature of qualitative data collection in case studies may introduce bias or interpretation challenges.

Research, on the other hand, is a systematic investigation aimed at discovering new knowledge or validating existing theories. It involves the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data to answer research questions or test hypotheses. Research can be conducted using various methods, including surveys, experiments, and statistical analysis, depending on the nature of the study.

One of the primary attributes of research is its emphasis on generating generalizable knowledge. By using representative samples and statistical techniques, researchers aim to draw conclusions that can be applied to a larger population or context. This allows for the identification of patterns, trends, and relationships that can inform theories, policies, or practices.

Research often employs quantitative methods, focusing on the collection of numerical data that can be analyzed using statistical techniques. Surveys, experiments, and statistical analysis allow researchers to measure variables, establish correlations, and test hypotheses. This objective approach provides a level of objectivity and replicability that is crucial for scientific inquiry.

However, research also has its limitations. The focus on generalizability may sometimes sacrifice the depth and richness of understanding that case studies offer. The reliance on quantitative data may overlook important qualitative aspects of the subject, such as individual experiences or contextual factors. Additionally, the controlled nature of research settings may not fully capture the complexity and dynamics of real-world situations.

Similarities

Despite their differences, case studies and research share some common attributes. Both methods aim to gather information and generate knowledge about a particular subject. They require careful planning, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Both case studies and research contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their respective fields.

Furthermore, both case studies and research can be used in various disciplines, including social sciences, psychology, business, and healthcare. They provide valuable insights and contribute to evidence-based decision-making. Whether it is understanding the impact of a new treatment, exploring consumer behavior, or investigating social phenomena, both case studies and research play a crucial role in expanding our understanding of the world.

In conclusion, case study and research are two distinct yet valuable approaches to studying and understanding a subject. Case studies offer an in-depth analysis of a specific case, providing rich and detailed information that may not be possible with broader research methods. On the other hand, research aims to generate generalizable knowledge by using representative samples and quantitative methods. While case studies emphasize qualitative data collection, research focuses on quantitative analysis. Both methods have their strengths and limitations, and their choice depends on the research objectives, scope, and context. By utilizing the appropriate method, researchers can gain valuable insights and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their respective fields.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Nevada Today

Using curiosity to make a difference: how one ph.d. candidate found her ‘why’, hailey hermann studies a very rare congenital muscular dystrophy.

Hailey Hermann decided to pursue research as a tangible way to make a difference in others' lives.

Hailey Herman has always been a highly curious person. As a first-generation college student, she completed her bachelor’s degree and knew she wanted to do something to benefit others – she just wasn’t quite sure what that would look like. She joined the Burkin lab at the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine (UNR Med) where she participates in translational research for different types of muscular dystrophies. Immediately, she knew that contributing to this research was how she could make a difference, and she decided to pursue a Ph.D.    

Reflecting on her time at UNR Med, Herman shares, “I love being a part of the UNR School of Medicine. It is a place filled with such knowledgeable faculty and staff. The academic environment is constantly growing and is very supportive of its students.” She plans to finish her dissertation by the end of the year, and then will stay on as a postdoc in Dr. Burkin’s lab. Still unsure if she will land in academia or industry, she plans on taking a similar approach to her research and “figuring it out little by little after graduation.”

Why did you decide to pursue research and what is your focus?

“ I wanted to do something that would benefit others, so naturally I found research (or maybe research even found me). However, it wasn’t until I joined the Burkin lab that I knew for sure that research was for me, and I wanted to continue and pursue a Ph.D.   

“In the Burkin lab, we focus on translational research for different types of muscular dystrophies. I work on LAMA2-CMD, a very rare congenital muscular dystrophy in which patients ultimately die within the first or second decade of life. There currently is no effective treatment or cure. It is caused by a mutation in the LAMA2 gene which causes complete or partial loss of a protein called laminin-211. Our lab has developed a protein replacement therapy and has previously shown it can slow disease progression.   

“Currently, I am using a new technique called digital spatial profiling to study the proteome and transcriptome in individual human and mouse muscle fibers. The aim of this project is to observe major changes between human patients and control tissues. By looking at the molecular changes, we hope to discover novel biomarkers and demonstrate a potential therapeutic intervention for children affected with LAMA2-CMD .”  

What specialty or area are you most passionate about pursuing, and what draws you to this field?

“The general sense that I can make a difference is what truly drives me to do research. Growing up I played a lot of sports and was very active. I was very interested in wellness, nutrition, and maintaining good health. Once I began studying muscular dystrophy I applied these interests in a different way. Many of these adolescent patients will never gain the ability to walk let alone play on the monkey bars at recess. In a way, it felt unfair that they wouldn’t get a similar experience in childhood that I was able to have.  

“During the beginning half of my Ph.D., I went to my first conference in Nashville that focused on rare congenital muscular dystrophies. This conference is smaller than most and is different because parents and their children affected with muscular dystrophies attend the conference too. Watching the supportive community that the CureCMD organization fostered to support these underrepresented diseases was incredibly moving. Seeing these children fly past you in their motorized wheelchairs while playing tag with huge smiles on their faces in the hotel lobby really helped me understand my ‘why.’”   

What is the biggest challenge you have faced in your UNR Med education and how did you overcome it?  

“Imposter syndrome. One minute it is this thing you hear about and the next minute you are convincing yourself that you somehow managed to fool the application committee filled with seasoned professionals and that you shouldn’t be here. Grad school is hard, and it is supposed to be, and it is very different from your undergraduate years because not every answer can be found in a book. The weirdest part is I don’t know when I overcame it, but just at one point I felt confident in the scientist I was becoming and proud of my work.   

“One thing that helped was that I read somewhere that we can’t think of gaining knowledge as linear because gaining knowledge is more similar to gaining compound interest. The more papers you read and techniques you learn will open multiple avenues to explore and gain insight into other areas. The next important thing that helped was giving myself grace and taking a break once in a while. You can’t achieve an accurate perspective if you are always ‘in it.’ Taking a step back and taking a breather can sometimes be the perfect conditions to ground you.”  

Can you share a memorable experience during your training that has significantly impacted your journey?

“One memorable experience was trying to write my qualifying exam introduction and specific aims. The writing format is an R21 grant proposal, so it is a little different from the writing style I was used to at the time. I found myself procrastinating on getting started so I decided one morning I would go to Coffeebar and not leave until I finished the introduction portion. I had bad writer's block that day and ended up there for four hours and drank about five cold brews. I ended up giving myself caffeine-induced anxiety and wrote as fast as I could just so I could get out of there.   

“The next day, I reread what I worked on, and it was terrible. I was off-tangent and kept switching between present and past tense randomly, so I pretty much scrapped the whole thing. I also couldn’t stomach coffee for about a week. Now I put a lot less pressure on when I write, and it seems to work out much better that way.”   

What advice do you have for future students interested in pursuing research?

“ As cliché as it sounds, don't be afraid to ask questions. Some of the most profound ideas I have had happened when I would ask about something that seemed obscure or not super applicable to my project. You never know where a question may take you. I also like keeping a non-formal journal that is for research. It helps me keep track of ideas I have come up with and how I feel while using a new protocol. Sometimes when I confuse myself, I can flip back in it and see what led up to that point .”

Health & Medicine

Sanford Center for Aging reflects on community impact during Older Americans Month

Sanford Center shares data and programs in the community

Graduate student in Speech-Language Pathology reflects on her time at UNR Med

Madeleine M. Daugherty shares how a community of support shaped her graduate experience

Office for Community Faculty brings education full-circle

Community faculty at the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine mentor the next generation of medical professionals

Family-friendly casino areas contain unhealthy levels of second-hand smoke, new study finds

Unsafe levels were found regardless of size, age or ventilation system in the facility, according to School of Public Health study

Editor's Picks

Sagebrushers season 3 ep. 4: Associate Professor Thomas White

Geoffrey Blewitt elected to the National Academy of Sciences

Nevada kicks off Wildfire Awareness Month with preparedness activities

University of Nevada, Reno once again nationally recognized as a Voter Friendly Campus

The acknowledgment marks the University’s 5th year in a row to receive this title

Spring 2024 Senior Scholars

The University of Nevada, Reno honors twelve graduating students who have achieved the highest grade-point average for their respective college or school

University of Nevada, Reno to confer more than 3,000 degrees during May 2024 commencement

Five in-person ceremonies held Thursday through Saturday, May 16-18, on the University Quad

University launches program to increase number of Nevada organic producers

Grow Organic Nevada aims to help meet increasing demand for organic products

Big data, advancements in GPS and a search for dark matter earn the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Professor of Geodesy the prestigious nomination

College of Agriculture, Biotechnology & Natural Resources hosts awards night

47 outstanding students, faculty, staff and supporters recognized at the spring celebration

Reynolds School of Journalism students receive more than $178,000 in scholarships

Over 60 students were recognized at the annual Savitt Awards Banquet

Mechanical Engineering doctoral graduate receives Sam Lieberman Scholarship Award

Alessandro Ralls hopes to continue his career in the mechanical engineering field

More From Forbes

New study warns parents not to overdo attunement with their children.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

More parent child attunement is not always better.

Since the advent of the helicopter parent, trending parenting advice has pushed the idea that parents should stay in sync with their kids at all times. In contrast, a new study finds that higher parent-child synchrony may be a signal that something is not working in the interaction. More parental attunement does not imply a better relationship, but may instead reflect interaction issues.

Researchers from the University of Essex in the U.K. studied 140 families in order to measure parent-child dyad synchrony and its relationship to the attachment styles of the parents and children.

More Parent-Child Synchrony Is Not Better

The study has important implications for current parenting practices, which emphasize parental attunement—meaning a parent tunes in to what their child is feeling and needing, trying to get on their wavelength and achieve synchrony. For example, if a child is upset, a parent might comfort them in just the right way without the child even having to ask. High attunement is promoted as a way to ensure the child forms a secure attachment to their parent.

On social media, Vrtička notices a very strong emphasis on seeking high attunement under any circumstance in some parenting approaches. “This is in stark contrast to the optimal mid range model that was suggested fourteen years ago,” says Vrtička. According to the science-supported model, too much synchrony can lead to problems in parent-child interaction and child development in the same way that too little synchrony can. When parents are too attuned to their children, it becomes intrusive, inappropriate or overstimulating to the child. High synchrony may also be related to stress, as found in one study that measured salivary cortisol between interaction partners.

Parents And Children Solve Puzzles Together

For the study, children from Eastern Germany between ages 5 and 6 years old were paired with their biologically related mothers or fathers. The pairs (or dyads) were either instructed to solve a puzzle cooperatively or to relax and close their eyes.

Samsung Issues Critical Update For Millions Of Galaxy Users

Steve bannon will go to jail as he loses appeal on contempt of congress charges, how can ukrainian drones keep dropping grenades into open tank hatches.

The researchers scored the dyads for both behavioral and brain synchrony. Functional near infrared spectroscopy measured brain activity from both parents and children in areas related to effortful attention regulation and perspective taking.

Regarding behavior, the dyads were scored on “how much turn-taking there was during the interaction,” says says study author Pascal Vrtička, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Essex, “which reflects how well the parents take their children's perspective into consideration.”

Attachment Styles

Attachment style refers to the way we connect to the people in relationships and impacts how comfortable we are getting close to others or how we react when they are not around. Based on our childhood experiences with our own parents, we form either a secure of an insecure attachment style. And insecure style correlated with mental health problems throughout adult life.

In order to understand how the attachment styles impacted the puzzle-solving scenario, the researchers used validated tools to assess the attachment styles of the parents, and the attachment representations of the children. By attachment representation, Vrtička explains that he means children’s thinking about the availability and responsiveness of their parents and their own capacity to elicit help when needed.

How Attachment Styles Impacted Synchrony

The team found no relationship between attachment styles and behavioral synchrony: parents and children did equally well with turn-taking while solving the puzzle regardless of whether their attachment representations were secure or insecure.

However, when mothers had an insecure attachment style, they had higher levels of brain-to-brain synchrony with their child. Meanwhile, these mothers did just as well with behavioral reciprocity as other mothers. “We think that where mothers are insecurely attached, their brains, together with their children’s brains might need to work harder to get to the same level of behavioral synchrony, especially in the regulatory attention area,” says Vrtička. “It required more attention, effort and regulatory effort from both of them.”

Differences Between Mothers And Fathers

Mother-child dyads scored higher than father-child dyads for behavioral reciprocity. “With fathers there was less of a give and take. We saw more of one of them taking the lead for extended amounts of time and one being rather disengaged,” says Vrtička.

The team concluded that when one element of the pair is less in sync, another element must compensate by showing higher synchrony. So father-child dyads had higher brain synchrony as compared to mother-child dyads because their behavior was less in sync. “Overall, there is an optimum amount of synchrony that enables the interaction to to actually happen and to function efficiently,” says Vrtička.

Optimum parent child synchrony is context dependent

Children thrive when parents are comfortable enough to both attune to their emotions and needs, and to give them autonomy. “Optimum synchrony needs to be context dependent, and tailor to the relationship and to the interaction,” says Vrtička. “What really contributes to positive child development and a secure attachment is when the parent can take the needs of the child into perspective and act upon that.”

In one example, Vrtička explains that the popular trend of baby wearing in order to promote attachment can backfire. When parents are told they should be very close to baby all the time, even co-sleeping, it pushes their behavioral synchrony with the baby to a very high level. But is this actually appropriate for the baby? "To have high synchrony all the time, regardless of the circumstances, might be detrimental and actually lead to insecure attachment and relationship problems,” he says.

The danger of parenting styles that emphasize high synchrony at all times is that they leave no room for one of the most important learning experiences a child can have: rupture and repair. “No interaction is perfect, right? Many interactions consist of rupture and repair cycles. And that's exactly where children learn the most because that's when they need the parent as an external co-regulator, which has been shown to be very important for the development of a secure attachment,” says Vrtička. Healthy relationships show a fluctuation of engagement, disengagement, high synchrony, low synchrony, mistakes and apologies. And these cycles give children space to learn.

Future Research

In their next investigations, the research team will look synchrony within families with neurodivergent children as well as in adopted children. Ultimately, their hope is to further clarify what an optimal range of synchrony looks like, in order to help parents form healthy relationships with their children.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• (877) 445-7180

What’s the Difference Between a Graduate and Undergraduate Degree Program?

When you’re starting to consider your path in higher education, degrees — such as BBA, BS, MBA and MS — can look more like alphabet soup than the academic accomplishments they are.

An undergraduate degree, which commonly refers to a bachelor’s degree, is the next educational step you can pursue after high school. After you earn a bachelor’s degree, you can consider pursuing a graduate degree, which commonly refers to a master's degree. A bachelor's degree is required before a master’s degree because master’s programs generally build on bachelor-level education with more in-depth study.

If you’re considering a path in higher education, use this guide to learn more about undergraduate and graduate degrees.

What is an undergraduate degree? Undergraduate degrees usually require students to take general education courses in areas such as math, language and culture, as well as courses focused on their majors.

Many institutions offer bachelor's degrees in a wide range of subjects. Bachelor's degrees can look slightly different depending on which subject you major in. For example, if your major is information technology, you might earn a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Information Technology. If you major in English, you might graduate with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in English.

While the term undergraduate degree most commonly refers to a bachelor's degree, some students earn a two-year degree called an associate degree after high school before or while pursuing a bachelor's degree.

What is a graduate degree? If you want to continue your studies after completing your bachelor's degree, the next level of education is a graduate degree . Graduate degrees vary significantly depending on the type of degree and the specific program you pursue. Overall, graduate studies provide a more advanced, in-depth curriculum and often practical industry experience to help prepare you for a specific career or field.

There are many types of graduate degrees. You might pursue a master's degree, such as a Master of Arts (MA), Science (MS), Education (MED), or Business Administration (MBA). Other graduate degrees include doctoral and professional degrees, such as Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Juris Doctor (JD) and Doctor of Medicine (MD).

Undergraduate vs. graduate degrees: What’s the difference? While both undergraduate and graduate degrees involve courses and developing new skills, there are significant differences between the degrees, including:

Order of degrees Consider degrees as educational building blocks. After completing high school, you have the foundation to pursue an undergraduate degree, such as a bachelor’s degree. Once you've earned a bachelor's degree, you can pursue further studies in your chosen field through a graduate degree.

Course of study The academic content and focus vary between undergraduate and graduate degrees. For example, if you are completing an undergraduate degree in business, the concepts will be more foundational and general. These concepts lay the groundwork that allows business graduate students to study more specific disciplines, concepts and applications.

Number of courses Given the foundational nature of bachelor’s programs, they typically require more courses to graduate than master’s programs, which are more specialized. For example, the Strayer University Bachelor of Business Administration program has 40 courses, and its Master of Business Administration program has 10 courses. Remember that the time it will take you to complete a degree program can vary depending on the specific program and your academic performance.

Is earning a degree worth it? Undergraduate degrees can help you explore your interests, gain valuable knowledge and skills, expand your professional connections and pursue your career goals. Meanwhile, graduate programs can help you learn the more specialized skills you might need to further your career goals.

Some institutions offer their students assistance to offset costs and support every step of the way. At Strayer University:

• Enroll in a bachelor’s program and we’ll give you a brand-new laptop to help you with your coursework.*
• We offer access to up to 10 no-cost gen ed courses through our affiliate, Sophia, to help you save time and money.*
• For every three bachelor's courses you pass, earn one on us tuition-free, to be redeemed near the end of your program with the Strayer Graduation Fund .*
• You’ll have a dedicated student service coach who will help guide you through your program.
• Access our Career Center with on-demand tools, tips and resources to help you succeed during your program and after graduation.

Still wondering if an undergraduate or graduate degree is worth it? This is a worthwhile question for each potential student to explore. Many careers require a certain level of education or specific skills, so research the career pathways you're interested in and weigh the qualifications needed against your priorities to determine the best next step for you.

*Eligibility rules and restrictions apply. Connect with us for details.

Learn more about Strayer University’s online degree offerings .

Category : Value of a Degree

Published Date : MAY 5, 2024

Request more information

Do you have transfer credits?

U.S. military affiliation

By providing your information, you consent to receive occasional special promotional offers and education opportunities by phone, text message, WhatsApp and email via automated technology from Strayer University and its affiliate Capella University. Consent is not required to purchase goods or services. You can always call us at 1.866.314.3547 .

• Introduction
• Conclusions
• Article Information

eTable 1. Description of cancer cases diagnosed in Manitoba, Canada from January 2015 to December 2021

eTable 2. Ratios and 95% confidence intervals between fitted and counterfactual incidence values for cancer sites with no significant COVID-19-by-time interaction from April 2020 to December 2021

eTable 3. Ratios and 95% confidence intervals between fitted and counterfactual incidence values for cancer sites with a significant COVID-19-by-time interaction by month from April 2020 to December 2021

eTable 4. Ratios and 95% confidence intervals between fitted and counterfactual incidence values for breast, colon, rectal, and lung cancer by age group and month from April 2020 to December 2021

eTable 5. Estimated cumulative fitted and counterfactual number of cancer cases, difference, and percent difference by site as of December 31, 2021

eFigure 1. Incidence rate for breast cancer for women <50, 50 to 74, and ≥75 years of age by month, Manitoba

eFigure 2. Incidence rate for lung cancer for individuals <50 years, 50 to 74, and ≥75 years of age by month, Manitoba

eFigure 3. Incidence rate for colon cancer for individuals <50, 50 to 74, and ≥75 years of age by month, Manitoba

eFigure 4. Incidence rate for rectal cancer for individuals <50 years of age, 50 to 74, and ≥75 years of age by month, Manitoba

eAppendix 1. Cancer types included in each category and International Classification of Diseases for Oncology version 3 (ICD-O-3) codes

eAppendix 2. R code and simulated data for an interrupted time series analysis

Data Sharing Statement

See More About

Sign up for emails based on your interests, select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Get the latest research based on your areas of interest.

Others also liked.

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn

Decker KM , Feely A , Bucher O, et al. New Cancer Diagnoses Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(9):e2332363. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.32363

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

New Cancer Diagnoses Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

• 1 Paul Albrechtsen Research Institute CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
• 2 Department of Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
• 3 Department of Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
• 4 Department of Internal Medicine, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
• 5 Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
• 6 Section of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
• 7 Section of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
• 8 Department of Radiation Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Question   Is there an association between the COVID-19 pandemic and cancer incidence in Manitoba, Canada?

Findings   In this cross-sectional study including 48 378 individuals with cancer diagnoses, a significant decrease in cancer diagnosis incidence was observed in the first few months of the pandemic, particularly in breast, colon, and rectal cancer incidence. Other cancer sites showed minimal long-term changes in incidence.

Meaning   The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with an initial decrease in cancer incidence followed by a return to previous incidence rates for most cancer sites.

Importance   Disruptions to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic may have led to missed cancer diagnoses. It is critical to evaluate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and cancer incidence to address public and patient anxiety, inform recovery efforts, and identify strategies to reduce the system’s vulnerability to future disruptions.

Objective   To examine the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and cancer incidence in Manitoba, Canada.

Design, Setting, and Participants   A population-based cross-sectional study design was conducted using data from the Manitoba Cancer Registry and an interrupted time-series analysis. All individuals diagnosed with cancer in Manitoba, Canada, from January 1, 2015, until December 31, 2021, were included. Individuals diagnosed with breast, colon, rectal, or lung cancer were grouped by age as follows: younger than 50 years, 50 to 74 years, and 75 years and older.

Exposures   COVID-19 pandemic.

Main Outcomes and Measures   Age-standardized cancer incidence rates and the estimated cumulative difference between the number of cases in the absence of COVID-19 and observed (fitted) number of cancer cases.

Results   A total of 48 378 individuals were included. The median (IQR) age at diagnosis was 68 (59-77) years and 23 972 participants (49.6%) were female. In April 2020, there was a 23% decrease in overall cancer incidence. Cancer incidence decreased by 46% for breast, 35% for colon, 47% for rectal, 50% for head and neck, 65% for melanoma, and 33% for endocrine cancer diagnoses and increased by 12% for hematological cancer diagnoses and 8% for diagnoses of cancers with an unknown primary site. Lung cancer incidence remained stable until December 2020 when it decreased by 11%. Brain and central nervous system and urinary cancer diagnoses decreased consistently over time from April 2020 to December 2021 by 26% and 12%, respectively. No association was observed with gynecologic (1% increase), other digestive (1% decrease), or pancreatic (7% increase) cancer incidence. As of December 2021, Manitoba had an estimated deficit of 692 (5.3%) cancers. The largest estimated deficits were for breast (273 cases, 14.1% deficit), colon (133 cases, 12.2% deficit), and lung cancers (132 cases, 7.6% deficit).

Conclusions and Relevance   In this study, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with an initial decrease in cancer diagnosis incidence followed by a recovery for most cancer sites. However, the cumulative deficit for some cancers with high fatality needs immediate attention.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the reorganization of health services to provide care for patients with COVID-19. This reorganization included greater use of virtual visits, temporary suspension of or reduction in cancer screening and diagnostic services, triaging patients with cancer for treatment based on acuity, and the redeployment of cancer care staff. Measures to address COVID-19 also varied throughout Canada and over time as COVID-19 caseloads changed. 1

Disruptions to routine health care services may lead to missed or delayed diagnoses for individuals with suspected cancer, leading to a potential cohort of individuals with missing cancer diagnoses. 2 Modeling studies have estimated that these individuals could experience more advanced disease at diagnosis and inferior outcomes, including decreased survival. 3 - 5 It is therefore critical that we examine the association between the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic and the cancer care system in order to address public and patient anxiety, direct COVID-19 recovery efforts, and identify strategies for reducing the system’s vulnerability to future disruptions. We previously found a 23% decrease in the number of new cancer diagnoses, an 83% decrease in Papanicolaou tests, an 81% decrease in fecal occult blood tests, and a 54% decrease in the number of screening mammograms at the start of the pandemic in Manitoba. 6 , 7 In this study, using a population-based cross-sectional study design and an interrupted time-series analysis, we examined the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and age-standardized cancer diagnosis incidence rates by disease site and estimated the difference between the observed and estimated number of cancer cases that may have been diagnosed in the absence of COVID-19.

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the University of Manitoba’s Health Research Ethics Board, Manitoba Health’s Health Information Privacy Committee, and CancerCare Manitoba’s Research and Resource Impact Committee. Because data were deidentified, informed consent was not required. This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology ( STROBE ) reporting guideline.

Manitoba, located in central Canada, has a population of approximately 1.39 million. Two-thirds of the population live in the capital city of Winnipeg. CancerCare Manitoba is the provincial cancer agency responsible for providing clinical services to all residents of Manitoba who are diagnosed with cancer. Prior to COVID-19, approximately 6000 individuals were diagnosed with cancer and 5000 received treatment or follow-up care at CancerCare Manitoba each year. The first COVID-19 case in Manitoba was identified on March 12, 2020. By the end of March, the government had implemented restrictions to mitigate the impact of virus. The peak of the first wave occurred in March 2020, the second in November 2020, and the third in May 2021. 8 By October 1, 2021, approximately 70% of Manitoba residents were fully vaccinated. 8

We used a population-based cross-sectional study design to examine the rate of new cancer diagnoses over time before (January 2015 until February 2020) and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and the interventions that were implemented to mitigate its impact (April 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021). All individuals diagnoses with cancer in Manitoba from 2015 to 2021 were included.

Cancer cases were determined using the Manitoba Cancer Registry, a high-quality, population-based registry that is legally mandated to collect and maintain accurate, comprehensive information about cancer diagnoses in Manitoba. 9 The Manitoba Cancer Registry uses disease site groupings according to the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition ( ICD-0-3 ). Population data were based on estimated Manitoba Health coverage provided by Manitoba Health.

Outcomes included the age-standardized cancer incidence rate per 100 000, the estimated cumulative difference in the number of new cancer diagnoses, and the estimated percentage cumulative difference in the number of new cancer diagnoses. The estimated cumulative difference in new cancer diagnoses was defined as the difference between the monthly cumulative counterfactual count (the estimated number of diagnoses in the absence of COVID-19) and the monthly cumulative fitted count (ie, the observed number of diagnoses smoothed). The estimated percentage cumulative difference in the number of new cancer diagnoses was defined as the cumulative difference in the fitted count divided by the cumulative difference in the counterfactual count.

Consistent with routine reporting, cancers were categorized into the following sites: all cancers, breast, lung, prostate, colon, rectal, hematologic, urinary, unknown primary site, head and neck, brain and central nervous system, gynecologic, other digestive, melanoma, pancreatic, endocrine, and other. eAppendix 1 in Supplement 1 lists the cancers in each category and ICD-O-3 codes. Because of the impact of the pandemic on breast and colorectal cancer screening found in prior analyses, 7 we examined breast, colon, and rectal cancers separately for individuals younger than 50 years, 50 to 74 years (ie, eligible for screening), and 75 years and older. Rates were age standardized to the 2011 Canadian population using the direct method.

We used an interrupted time-series analysis that, unlike pre-post study designs, takes into consideration baseline or seasonal trends. 10 If baseline trends are not considered, the difference between the number of diagnoses observed and the number expected in the absence of COVID-19 will be either overestimated (if there was a downward trend in diagnoses prior to the pandemic) or underestimated (if there was an upward trend in diagnoses prior to the pandemic). We compared post–COVID-19 (April 2020 onward) cancer incidence rates to counterfactual rates as if the pandemic had not occurred based on pre–COVID-19 trends (baseline rates) and quantified monthly new cancer diagnoses by cancer type.

Generalized linear models were run and selected for each cancer site based on the distribution of the data (ie, Poisson, generalized Poisson, negative binomial, gamma, or inverse gaussian). To do this, we plotted the projected mean and variance of each model and the observed mean and variance in the data. 11 Scaled quantile residual plots were also used to evaluate the uniformity of residuals and dispersion. 12 Each model included a binary intervention term equal to 0 during the pre–COVID-19 period and 1 during the COVID-19 period and a time term defined as the number of months since the start of the study period. Fitted values (ie, smoothed observed values) were generated using the observed values in the data frame. Counterfactual values were generated by projecting values with the binary indicator of the pandemic as 0 rather than 1. Nonlinear time and seasonality effects were accounted for in the regression model using a flexible spline function. 13

After the generalized linear model was selected, models were fine-tuned by comparing the adjusted McFadden R 2 between subsequent models. 14 Plots were produced using observed, counterfactual, and fitted values. If the counterfactual did not follow the baseline trend, the model was modified (ie, the number of degrees of freedom for splines was reduced) until the counterfactual was consistent with the baseline trend. COVID-19–by–time interactions were considered if the plotted-fitted values in the COVID-19 period did not fit the observed data well (eg, observed values were below fitted values during the early COVID-19 period but higher during the later COVID-19 period). Time interactions were found for some cancer sites but still demonstrated poor fit (ie, fitted values did not fit observed values well). Therefore, we created multiple COVID-19 dummy variables representing different periods during the pandemic to provide a slope for each period, which enabled more accurate projections. The following R packages were used: haven, splines, Hmisc, lattice, MASS, ggplot2, car, DHARMa, multcomp, lmtest, glmmTMB, and forest plot. March 2020 was excluded from the analyses because COVID-19 restrictions and changes to visit and treatment protocols were implemented incrementally throughout March. 6 , 15 , 16

Ratios between counterfactual and fitted estimates and 95% CIs derived from contrast statements were calculated. The estimated cumulative difference in the number of diagnoses during the pandemic was calculated as of December 31, 2021, and plotted using a forest plot. The 95% CIs for the cumulative difference estimates were calculated with parametric bootstrapping and 1000 replications. Data analyses were performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute) and R version 4.1.30.5 (R Foundation). eAppendix 2 in Supplement 1 provides R code and simulated data for conducting the interrupted time-series analysis.

From 2015 to 2021, there were 48 378 cases of cancer diagnosed in Manitoba (eTable 1 in Supplement 1 ). The median (IQR) age at diagnosis was 68 (59-77) years and 23 972 participants (49.6%) were female. Ratios between fitted and counterfactual incidence rates by month and 95% CIs are provided in eTables 2-4 in Supplement 1 . Figure 1 shows observed, counterfactual, and fitted age-standardized cancer incidence rates for all cancer sites combined from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2021 (excluding March 2020). The 95% CI of the ratio of the fitted to counterfactual value is also included. In April 2020, there was a 23% decrease in cancer incidence. By June 2020, there was no significant difference between the fitted and counterfactual cancer incidence rates.

Figure 2 shows the observed, counterfactual, and fitted age-standardized incidence rates for breast (n = 6548), lung (n = 6477), prostate (n = 5849), colon (n = 3876), and rectal (n = 2021) cancers. in April 2020, there was a 46% decrease in breast cancer incidence. Breast cancer incidence remained 11% lower than the counterfactual until December 2021. There was no association observed with breast cancer incidence among women younger than 50 years, a decrease of 46% in April 2020 and 73% in May 2020 in women aged 50 to 74 years (screening eligible) followed by a sustained decrease below the counterfactual, and a 20% sustained decrease among women 75 years and older (eFigure 1 in Supplement 1 ). Lung cancer incidence remained stable until December 2020 when it decreased by 11%. Because of this decrease, we ran a post hoc subgroup analysis by age to see if the association was consistent across age groups. An association was seen only in the 75 years and older age group (eFigure 2 in Supplement 1 ), where lung cancer incidence decreased by 46% in April 2020. There was no association observed with prostate cancer incidence. Colon cancer incidence decreased by 35% in April 2020. By August 2020, there was no difference between the counterfactual and fitted colon cancer incidence rate. There was no association observed for colon cancer incidence among individuals younger than 50 years and a 34% decrease in those aged 50 to 74 years and those 75 years and older in April 2020 (eFigure 3 in Supplement 1 ). Rectal cancer incidence decreased in April 2020 by 47%. By May 2020, incidence was 5% higher than the counterfactual. Except for April 2020 for the 50 to 74 years age group for whom incidence decreased by 45%, rectal cancer incidence rate was nonsignificantly higher than the counterfactual in all 3 age groups (eFigure 4 in Supplement 1 ).

Figure 3 shows the age-standardized observed, counterfactual, and fitted incidence rates for hematologic (n = 4655), unknown primary (n = 1764), head and neck (n = 1674), endocrine (n = 1130), melanoma (n = 1952), and brain and central nervous system (n = 662) cancers. There was a 12% increase in hematologic cancer incidence in April 2020 followed by a 4% decrease in January 2021. There was an 8% increase in the incidence of unknown primary site cancers in April 2020 followed by an 18% decrease in January 2021. Head and neck cancer incidence decreased by 50% in April 2020, but this increase was no longer significant by June 2020. Endocrine cancer incidence decreased by 33% in April 2020 and then slowly increased over time to 27% higher than the counterfactual in December 2021. Melanoma decreased by 65% in April 2020, then increased to 9% below the counterfactual in May 2020. From April 2020 to December 2021, brain and central nervous system incidence decreased by 26%. Urinary cancer incidence (n = 2982) decreased by 12% ( Figure 4 ). There was no association observed with gynecologic (n = 3228), other digestive (n = 3164), pancreatic (n = 1352), or cancers combined into the other category (n = 1053) ( Figure 4 ).

Figure 5 and eTable 5 in Supplement 1 show the estimated cumulative difference and percentage cumulative difference between the fitted and counterfactual number of cancer diagnoses. As of December 2021, Manitoba had 692 (5.3%) fewer cancers diagnosed than expected in the absence of COVID-19. The largest estimated differences were for breast (273 cases, 14.1% deficit), colon (133 cases, 12.2% deficit), lung (132 cases, 7.6% deficit), prostate (99 cases, 5.6% deficit), urinary (99 cases, 11.7% deficit), melanoma (68 cases, 11.5% deficit), and brain and central nervous system (56 cases, 25.6% deficit) cancers. There was an estimated surplus in the number of cancer cases for rectal (12 cases, 2.4% surplus), hematologic (34 cases, 3.0% surplus), gynecologic (8 cases, 1.0% surplus), pancreatic (25 cases, 7.3% surplus), and cancers combined into the other category (25 cases, 10.3% surplus). There was no deficit or surplus for endocrine cancers.

In this cross-sectional study, we observed a decrease in overall age-standardized cancer diagnosis incidence and incidence for most cancer sites in Manitoba at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Longer-term decreases in incidence and cumulative deficits in the number of diagnoses were seen for breast, lung, prostate, colon, urinary, melanoma, and brain and central nervous system cancers. The association between the COVID-19 pandemic early on and breast and colon cancer incidence in individuals aged 50 to 74 years and the cumulative deficits may be explained by reductions to Manitoba’s breast and colorectal cancer screening programs during April and May 2020 7 and reductions in the rate of colonoscopies in the province. The increase in rectal cancer incidence above the counterfactual in May 2020 is likely related to the use of a central endoscopy waitlist for most endoscopies performed in Winnipeg and the prompt and appropriate triaging of individuals with suspected rectal cancer. The decrease in breast cancer incidence among women 75 years and older may be related to reductions in diagnostic mammography availability, reluctance to seek medical care during the pandemic, or the impact of COVID-19 on mortality among older adults. 17 , 18

The association between the COVID-19 pandemic and lung cancer incidence differed from breast and colorectal cancers. Lung cancer incidence dropped in December 2020 (wave 2) but only among individuals 75 years and older. This may be partly due to the increased rate of COVID-19 infections in Manitoba in the second and third waves leading to a higher number of deaths among individuals with undiagnosed lung cancer. These individuals were more vulnerable in general as well as to severe COVID-19 outcomes because of advanced age and comorbidities. 19 , 20 These individuals may also have been reluctant to seek health care. 21

Head and neck and melanoma cancer incidence also decreased at the start of the pandemic, likely due to reductions in primary care visits, but returned to prepandemic levels quickly. The decrease in urinary cancer incidence persisted over time without any observed recovery. This may reflect reduced access to cystoscopy, challenges diagnosing and managing urothelial tumors throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, or a decrease in the incidental diagnosis of kidney cancers because of reduced abdominal imaging availability. Brain and central nervous system and endocrine cancer incidence also showed large decreases in incidence but because of the small number of cases, the results must be interpreted with caution. Because the pre–COVID-19 baseline for hematologic cancers is inconsistent and there was no cumulative difference by December 2021, the post–COVID-19 change in hematologic cancer incidence may be due to a random variation.

We found no association between the COVID-19 pandemic and prostate, gynecologic, other digestive, pancreatic, or other cancer incidence. Organized prostate cancer screening for asymptomatic individuals using the prostate-specific antigen test is not recommended in Canada. 22 Because prostate-specific antigen testing is not standardized, the actual practice is variable, which leads to unstable incidence of prostate cancer diagnosis and varying rates of overdiagnosis. Hence, prostate cancer has unreliable counterfactual values. The other cancers for which no association in incidence was observed are frequently diagnosed symptomatically and often have a high fatality rate. Therefore, despite pandemic restrictions, the health care system was still able to diagnose and prioritize these cancers resulting in minimal or no cumulative differences in the number of diagnoses.

Prior studies have evaluated the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and cancer incidence in Canada 23 - 28 and internationally 29 - 31 and also found significant declines in cancer incidence early in the pandemic, although the association for each cancer site differed by jurisdiction. However, most of these studies have important limitations, including using a pre-post study design that inadequately controls for time trends and can bias the estimated differences in the number of cancer cases 23 - 30 ; only including cancers diagnosed at a single center, resulting in a small number of cases and limited generalizability 24 , 25 , 27 , 30 ; and having a short follow-up time that provides no information about the association between the pandemic and cancer incidence over the long term. 23 - 25 , 29 , 31

This study includes several important strengths. First, we used population-based, high-quality cancer registry data. Second, our interrupted time-series analysis had a long preintervention period that permitted the evaluation of outcomes before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and the inclusion of seasonality and interactions between COVID-19 pandemic onset and time in the analysis. 10

This study has limitations. Although we included the first 3 waves (21 months) of the COVID-19 pandemic, the association between COVID-19 and subsequent waves as well as by area of residence and sex must still be measured. This work is ongoing. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons; hence our results are exploratory. Because the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and cancer incidence may differ between jurisdictions, our results must be interpreted within the Manitoba context. Population-based studies should be performed elsewhere that consider pre–COVID-19 trends in cancer incidence and include sufficient follow-up time. The R code and simulated data we have provided in Supplement 1 will help facilitate this work.

In this study, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant decrease in cancer incidence in Manitoba, Canada, in May and April 2020, primarily in breast, colon, and rectal cancer incidence. Breast and lung cancer incidence among individuals 75 years and older, urinary, and brain and central nervous system cancers showed sustained decreases. All other cancer sites demonstrated minimal long-term changes in incidence. However, the cumulative deficit for some high-fatality cancers is concerning and needs attention from health care delivery organizations. Because of the heterogeneity in the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and cancer incidence, observational studies should be done to examine this association in other regions.

Accepted for Publication: July 30, 2023.

Published: September 5, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.32363

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License . © 2023 Decker KM et al. JAMA Network Open .

Corresponding Author: Kathleen M. Decker, PhD, Paul Albrechtsen Research Institute CancerCare Manitoba, 825 Sherbrook St, Winnipeg, MB R3A 1M5, Manitoba, Canada ( [email protected] ).

Author Contributions: Dr Decker and Mr Lambert had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design : Decker, Bucher, Singh, Lambert.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data : All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript : Decker, Bucher, Thiessen, Lambert.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content : All authors.

Statistical analysis : Decker, Feely, Bucher, Lambert.

Obtained funding : Decker, Bucher, Czaykowski, Singh, Lambert.

Administrative, technical, or material support : Kim, Pitz.

Supervision : Decker, Lambert.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Singh reported serving on advisory boards or consulting for Pendopharm, Ferring Canada, Amgen Canada, Roche Canada, Sandoz Canada, Takeda Canada, Bristol Myers Squibb Canada, and Guardant Health. None of these advisory board and consulting activities are related to the submitted manuscript. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by a research grant from Research Manitoba and the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation (2020-2021; funding reference No. 4459) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2022-2024; funding reference No. 179890).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2 .

Additional Contributions: We thank Katie Galloway, MSc, and Grace Musto, BSc (Department of Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, CancerCare Manitoba), for providing feedback on this article; Erin Dean, MD (Department of Medical Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba), for assistance interpreting outcomes; and Kelly Brown, MSc (Department of Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, CancerCare Manitoba), for study coordination. These individuals received no compensation for their contributions.

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts