Research Roundup

Research 101: Fieldwork Research for Human Rights 

By Emily Williams, Mindbridge Research Associate

When designing a research study, there are multiple methods one can use to get data. At Mindbridge, we typically employ online survey recruitment and methodology but on some occasions will venture into more mixed-methods approaches. This was the case for a recent field research project in Mississippi in February of 2024. 

Three members of our team ventured to the south to investigate a local town’s experiences surrounding police interactions and perceptions. To do so, we used a technique called “courageous conversations” that include semi-structured interview questions that are carried out by trained volunteer research assistants (VRAs). While on-site, we spent two days training local volunteers on how to collect data in a way that is ethical, objective, and detail-oriented. 

Research suggests the vast benefit of collecting data in-person using an informal interview structure (Bavelas et al., 2000; Khoa et al., 2023; Lavee & Itzchakov, 2023; Lune & Berg, 2017; Mertens, 2023). While more time consuming than online data collection, this “courageous conversations” approach prioritizes building rapport, empathy, and active listening.  These techniques can be particularly beneficial in yielding rich data as they take a non-confrontational, but personable, approach. For example, recent research by Kalla & Broockman demonstrated this style of non-judgmental communication increased respondents’ openness to discussing “hot button” topics in the United States, like abortion access or transgender rights (2020). 

Overall, this project would not have been able to yield nearly 150 data points without the hard work and dedication of our trained volunteer research assistants (VRAs). We are so thankful for their time during training and willingness to engage in courageous conversations with members of the community. Mindbridge team member Tyler McGinley, who was on-site for this project, noted “Without our connection with the VRAs on site, I am not confident the project would have yielded such success”. 

Mindbridge is clear that in order to change hearts and minds, you must first be able to access them. In this case of this field research project, it had the success it did in part because its methodology had a focus toward building relationships and empowerment from both the volunteer research team and the participants we collected data from. This person-forward approach began with a foundation of trust, active listening, and empathy.   

When reflecting on the project and this method of data collection, here’s what our team had to say: 

“I was extremely aware of my identity—a white woman from the Northeast who had never been to the true South. I was nervous about being an “outsider”  … why would anyone want to listen to what I/we had to say? However, I quickly learned that this was not the case. I will forever remember that our connection to the people mattered …. real genuine connection made the difference, something that you don't always see prioritized in other approaches to research”              
- Tyler McGinley, Mindbridge Institute Program Manager 

“As an African American woman doing this work, I often have to balance the inherent need to protect other minority communities. I entered the space with a deep connection and I believe that this connection and relatability aided in our discernment as we navigated the challenges of field work. We spent a lot of time cultivating the methods, but building relationships, establishing trust, and prioritizing the wellbeing of everyone involved is what truly made this project successful.”
-Kayelin Tiggs, Mindbridge Educator

“This project was a stark reminder of the importance and benefit of cultivating relationships - between our team and the volunteers, and the volunteers with the participants. This was my first fieldwork experience, and to an entirely different region of the country at that matter. I look forward to the next opportunity to use this method of data collection and the process of collaborative efforts to make lasting community change”
-Emily Williams, Mindbridge Research Associate   

References:
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79(6), 941–952. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.941
Kalla, J L, and D. E. Broockman (2020).  “Reducing Exclusionary Attitudes through Interpersonal Conversation:
Evidence from Three Field Experiments.” American Political Science Review
Khoa, B. T., Hung, B. P., & Hejsalem-Brahmi, M. (2023). Qualitative research in social sciences: data collection, data
analysis and report writing. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 12(1–2),
187–209. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPSPM.2023.132247
Lavee, E., & Itzchakov, G. (2023). Good listening: A key element in establishing quality in qualitative research.
Qualitative Research, 23(3), 614–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211039402
Lune, H., & Berg, B. L. (2017). Qualitative Research Methods in Social Sciences (9th ed.). Pearson Global Edition.