Relationships and The Dog...

Building a relationship with the informants is the single most important thing one can think of doing in the field. I have 21 interviews after 4 weeks of research, but I am not sure how many are actually of any use, because I don't know how some of them represent the truth about what these people do and think in their work.

People, and journalists specially, can be very doubtful of our intentions in asking all those questions about how they do things, they are afraid that giving in to much could put them in risk, or make them vulnerable. Also, I perceive in some of them a discourse that matches the management's discourse, and the opposite in others, which means that the the first case is when they are not disclosing what they really think, what they really do: they are just afraid of where am I going to send that tape...

Also, I am not sure if I observed enough. It is very difficult to tell what they are doing from any distance. Unless they talk you through it, it is a very misterious -- or dull, depending on your take -- think to do to watch a journalist working.

I had some very honest testimonies, people that said very confidential things, complained and told me what they think about things. But in those the problem is now separating their personal opinion about management from what are actually processes they go through in a days' work.

I think the most difficult part of my job is about to start: analysing this data will be The Dog...

Looong time no see

So, that was it, I dropped the ball. It is too much, the whole fieldwork thing is too much. I thought that the uncertainty was something that haunted you on the first couple of days, maybe first week. But here I am, fourth week in, and still don't have a clue.

The funny part of it is that I seat there, at the newsroom, and sometimes I think I've seen it all, I heard it all, I know how it works. It can't be, I know, I know. And that is when my paranoid side talks louder into my ears (which are soar from the combination transcription headphones + glasses): "You must be missing something. "These people are all lying to you. You have no idea of what goes beneath..."

I think I should had just remained as a journalist, a profession where paranoia is a great skill.

Have I finished? Being bored and finding it easy means that I'm done? Should I know what to write about? Am I extending this further than I need to? Do I have enough material to write about? Did I find anything interesting?

I have 6 weeks to find out.

The story so far

Almost end of the third week in the field and I have done 16 interviews. I don't know what am I going to do with all this... I started reviewing the literature again (very slowly) to guide my thoughts in this last week, and I think I drew a line here and there, of things that I am NOT interested in. For example, I am not interested in the details of editor's interactions with the Content Management System. Poor usability there abounds, but this is not what my theses is about. In the same way, I am not interested in fixing management problems (shortage of staff, for example).

On the other hand I can start seeing patterns in what people tell me, about what story I can tell about the comparison I set myself to do.

"Acting with Technology" is Bonnie Nardi and Victor Kaptelinin's new book on Activity Theory, which I recommended to UCL's library to purchase and happily collected today!

After the badge, the backpack attacks!

After a few weeks at the newsroom, I have the strong feeling that people started avoiding me. They look at me and pretend they didn't see me -- even if their eyes cross mine -- and they change their routes to avoid me.

There are two very possible things happening here:

1) They have been told off by management for slowing or not being very efficient, because they were being distracted by me

2) They got gradually aware that I am talking to everyone in the newsroom, and therefore the possibilities that I know things that they don't increased, as well as the risk of me letting off information they gave me or opinions they expressed.

I also realize that people pretend not to see me or get slightly uncomfortable when I approach them with my blue notebook -- which is not full of "secret notes" -- in hands. So I left the notebook in the bag and, else, went to see people with my backpack in place (on my back, of course), so to transmit the message: "I will not disturb you now, whatever I will tell you will be quick, because I am either arriving at the newsroom or most probably, leaving". It did work!

I interviewed a very concerned person today. And I must say it was a shame to have to ask this person if I could turn on the recorder, because the issue we discussed was very delicate, and I am sure that had we been just chatting I would have got more from him. But then, how would I remember it in detail? Specially today, as I seem to have a gray cloud over my head.

Trade offs.

The more people tell me what they think, the more I get involved with delicate issues, and the bigger my awareness of how it is important to keep their identities safe.

Changing habits

Interesting comment by Julia Hailes, sustainability consultant:

The biggest challenge is not the technology, but in changing peoples’ habits.

After these weeks at The Newspaper, I couldn't agree with her more.

Bad interview

Today I did what was probably my poorest interview so far. I was carried away from my main subjects and didn't have the power to stir him back in.

The interviewee -- being a schooled journalist himself -- made sure to take a long time and add a lot of detail to the inoffensive questions and not so much in the ones I was really interested in, which, in turn, made the interview longer than necessary, very dull and not very useful.

Also he didn't tell me what he really thought, I think. I have the impression that either I failed in making him comfortable with the confidentiality with which I would treat the data, or he does believe in the success of the operation for the sake of his job. After all, waking up in the morning for something you think is doomed mustn't be easy.

What could I have done better? Interrupt him in the dull parts was out of question. Contesting what he said was impossible, because he was giving his opinion about things.

So my question is: what kind of science is this that ethnography does that is based on people's opinions? Is this what we are trying to capture: detailed accounts of what people think of ongoing processes? How much objectivity needs to be put in an interview to make it valid?

Cold feet

So I reached half of the period I have for the observations: two weeks. And I think I reached a critical point, that point that what Hammersley calls "the tunneling" effect needs to happen, and quick.

I basically have three paths to follow.

1) Clash of cultures: how do two cultures, the newsroom journalism and the online journalism work together? How does one influence the other and how do they change the other? Changing habits, routines, quality x speed, rhythm of production, tensions both in human relations and resources x constraints.

2) Decision making under pressure: how the decisions that need to be taking in writing and editing are constrained by the time limits imposed by the online edition

3) I forgot. Which means that is probably not important.

I'm more inclined to think like the first one. Specially because I have been thinking about it through "Activity Theory's eyes". But then I am afraid I should submit this theses at the Sociology department, not the Interaction Center...

Simon says "it's fine". And the chief of the department, a carrier researcher, says it's fine too. I just wonder if I won't be telling an old story, something that is not the whole truth, because the newsroom is just too much of a complicated environment for me to absorb in a month, or something that is of no use...

I think I have cold feet.