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.

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?

Ethics

Almost two weeks down the road of the observations at The Newspaper I can say I am sure I did the right choice of not introducing myself as a journalist.

Today I watched, for the second time, a sub-editor doing his job. He let me seat behind his chair and literally look over his shoulder for about 2 hours. At one point he asked me what were the notes I was taking and I showed him my notebook and explained a few pages, and what are the things I am interested in.

After that he opened up and explained me another universe of things he does when editing. Now, imagine if I had introduced myself as "hi, I have some experience in this field and I would like to watch your work".

The ethics of the situation has been pinching my brain, and my concern of not being entirely true or trustworthy to the participants led me to an almost paralisis. However, my mind came to peace when I concluded a couple of things:

- One, I am not lying, because nobody asked me if I am a journalist yet. And if they do ask I will tell them what I have done in the past. In fact, the ones who asked me if I had been in a newsroom before I said that yes, I had, but not as a journalist, and that is true.

- Two: I am not a journalist. I am a researcher and I am looking at their work from the perspective of Human Computer Interaction.

Apart from that I am doing all I can to respect the participants, protect their identities, member check and be accurate and clear about my work and my interest. Consent forms are filled in and signed, rules are explained before interviews... and, of course, I still walk around with my badge...

There is a really fine line between being ethic and not in an ethnographic study. I wonder how the researchers from the Chicago School dealt with with when doing their 10 years long studies, how did they hide their other lives, how did they live through it and how they remained ethical.

I wonder if I should talk to them at after the research is done.

The badge-trigger

Today I had a real revelation: badges can do you a big favor in an overt observation. At The Newspaper there are a lot subeditors or writers who are "casuals", i.e., that come to the newsroom in an irregular basis. And they do rotate a lot, there are a lot of different people coming and going everyday. So, as far as everybody is concerned, I am just another "sub", or another "temp".

So this morning I had an insight: I noticed that nobody wears their badges, which works as a security pass, opening doors and allowing you in and out of the building. My theory was that if I did wear a badge, it would be a sign for people to notice that I am not one of them. I dress up like them, (I'm wearing my glasses and hair tied back, which gives me this "journalist look"), do a lot of what they do: take notes and write in a computer, which allows my existence in the newsroom without causing disturbances.

But there is a little sign hanging around my neck saying "are you interested? talk to me!". And it worked! People looked at me and asked what on Earth I was doing there, which gave lead to explain the project and what I am doing and ask questions about them. It is quite tacky, but I don't mind. I think it is worth it. Also prevents me from losing it.

Strange are the triggers of conversations in the field...

First day in the field

So, if all they say in the books about feeling extremely uncomfortable, quite lost and drained on your first day in the field is true, I think I am on the right path. It is one of the most exhausting things I have ever done. Because it is not like going to a press conference, where the "thing" you want to know is there in front of you, or interviewing someone looking for a lead that is news. It is more subtle than that.

Today I just let myself get acquainted with the place: who is who, who seats where, where is the bathroom, how does it all feels together. I think I did a good job on that.

It is a funny game to be an ethnographer: you want to be as discrete as possible, to "merge with the background", but you also need to be interesting enough for people want to talk to you. And I tested it today: it all depends on your attitude and your body language. I am sure that some people thought I am a complete weirdo, others got interested in what I do, others couldn't care less. But in all cases it really depended on my attitude.

The other thing is that it is quite difficult not to confuse it with "the first day in your new job". I don't work there, and I won't work there. These people are not my colleagues, they are my subjects, I am interested in what they do -- trivial that it sounds when I explain it to anybody outside my own little usability/ethnography world -- and how they do what they do. So that might be kept in mind.

Tomorrow is the second day. And I don't have the "admin+getting to know the place" excuse. I need to bring home some solid results.

Points of general interest

Before going to the field later on this morning, I elaborated this list of points that can be of general interest to me. It is short, which I think is a good thing, since each of these points can originate a paper of its own. I am sure, though, that it will be changed and expanded with time and as I get to know the business better.

• Process: how is a story born and how is the path it follows in the newsroom? What goals people have individually and how to they compare with the goals of the organization?
• Sources of news: original material x newswire material. Who produces them, how do they do that, why do they do that, what are the differences?
• Destination of news: online x paper for deadlines (time), formats, requirements, planning, editorial meetings, interactions with the readers, multimedia, people involved, production involved.
• Organization of the newsroom: how are desks distributed, “themed” x “un-themed desks”, hierarchies, flows of interactions
• Flows of interactions: communications, duplications, disposition, rules, means, “outlouds”…)
• Jobs: as they are described x reality, what each “type of job” does (editor, writer, subeditor, head of desk, etc)
• Routines: what are the routines people have in the newsroom, how were they created (may be impossible to find out), what purposes do they serve, how do they change?
• Added value: how does a story get “The Newspaper" value? How do the people involved in its production make it unique, how do they communicate about it. Novices x experienced journalists.
• Software: how does it support what they need to do? Different softwares for different activities?
• Documents: how are they used and produced. Tangibility, hierarchy, meanings, format (printed, screen, PDFs, available, not available, public, restricted, etc).


I believe that I will have to choose one of these to follow, instead of trying to understand them all. A good hint of that is Macaulay's theses, which is entirely focused on origin of news. My main flaw, so far, is that in the proposal for this project I didn't limit this focus, and offered a quite wide one ("how do journalists gather, process and convey information").

As for today, I need to talk to my gatekeepers and find out where I can start talking to people. An internal change in the company will make my life more difficult today (or not, because people love to criticize internal changes). It might not be a very productive day, but it is important that I leave the newsroom today with a sense of its dynamics, who is who, who seats where. According to Hammersley, I hope not to feel comfortable, because when one feels comfortable in the field it is a sign either that things are not going well or that they are finished.

Let's see what the day reserves