Thompson believes lowering field-based science barriers should be an international priority. Photo: COURTESY OF JESSICA THOMPSON

---

As a key qualitative research method in both the social and natural sciences, fieldwork is essential not only for producing accurate, first-hand data but also for fostering enthusiasm among early-career scholars, honing their investigative skills, and broadening their academic and professional networks. In recent years, growing attention has been paid to the practical and ethical challenges faced by field researchers, with the aim of optimizing fieldwork practices and advancing the innovation and dissemination of scientific knowledge. 

Jessica Thompson, an assistant professor of anthropology at Yale University and assistant curator at the Yale Peabody Museum, has centered her work on making field research more inclusive and improving the communication of its outcomes. In a recent interview with CSST, Thompson reflected on her field experiences, the ways they enrich academic inquiry and global understanding, and the ethical obligations researchers bear toward communities and local environments. 

Field experience makes the world better 

CSST: How can anthropology contribute to solving global development issues? 

Thompson: I do believe that the world would be a kinder place if everyone could learn about and even do a little bit of anthropology. Studying our common humanity gives an important perspective on the variety of equally valid ways to live in this world. Field experience solidifies this perspective, because it takes place out in “real life.” What I see around me in the field is far different and certainly more tangible than anything I have read. 

I have had more than 100 international students join me in fieldwork in Malawi, most of whom have not continued into careers in anthropology. However, I have received a lot of feedback over the years about how transformative that experience was for them in other ways. As these people move on into other areas of society, they retain that sense of global responsibility. 

There are also practical benefits to communities and local environments where fieldwork takes place. On my projects, we hire a large team of local community members to excavate with us and work in the field lab. I provide them with letters of recommendation for jobs elsewhere, and I try to take care to teach transferrable skills—as well as about what we are finding as we go. Because field research can have uncertain funding that comes and goes, I make it my goal to contribute something that is longer-term and more broadly meaningful to the communities where I work. Some examples are repairs that I organized for the local cultural festival center in one area, and a set of textbooks for a public reading room in another. 

Fieldwork can also attract publicity and funding. It is a charismatic way of portraying research, and it can draw attention to issues such as the destruction of habitats or cultural sites. However, it can be difficult to strike a balance between bringing attention to the research subject while also not opening up opportunities for new forms of destruction or exploitation. The long-term sustainability of field research, or the conservation programs that can follow from them, is a serious concern. 

The most important role field research can play in identifying and solving problems beyond the immediate research question lies in the ambassadorial role it grants to researchers. You become a direct link between the places that need support and the broader global community, and you can use your first-hand knowledge of a place to spark connections that would otherwise be very difficult to make. 

Standardization and professionalization

CSST: How have both societal shifts and developments within academia shaped the advancement of field research practices? 

Thompson: Field research takes place in what can be called “uncontrolled” environments—places outside tightly regulated campuses or other institutional locations. It can occur even in familiar areas such as neighborhoods or local parks. However, when most people imagine fieldwork, they picture a remote area that takes the researcher far from home. These situations usually come with far more logistical considerations than other types of fieldwork. 

Most of my own field experience has been in international settings with modest to large-sized teams. In my work as a biological anthropologist and archaeologist studying human origins, I lead large teams of students, collaborators, and community members in fieldwork in Malawi, southeastern Africa, which is far from my home in the United States. 

The main obstacle to developing a universal set of approaches to fieldwork is that the number of potential challenges is as limitless as the diversity of settings where it can take place. There are no broadly mandated qualifications to participate in or lead fieldwork, although some formal qualifications can be gained through field schools or practical certificate courses, such as first aid. Historically, experience in planning for and dealing with challenges has been gained through informal and unstructured learning, mainly through participation in projects as a trainee under the guidance of a mentor. 

Over the last 10 years or so, there has been growing awareness of power dynamics within academia and the risks of harassment and bullying during fieldwork. These situations can also arise in the regular workplace, but may be exacerbated during fieldwork by living conditions, the remoteness of the location, and limited oversight. Institutional review boards are designed to protect people and communities in the areas where the research takes place by requiring the lead researchers to justify their methodology in light of international principles of beneficence, i.e. “do no harm.” However, only recently has there been more attention to how such protection must be explicitly extended to the research team itself. There are now individual, association, and institution-wide efforts to professionalize field research and ensure the safety and well-being of all participants. 

Enhancing ethical responsibility 

CSST: Field research allows researchers to leave the “Ivory Tower” and interact with international colleagues as well as local communities, government officials, and the general public. What ethical principles should field-based researchers adhere to? 

Thompson: A myth of earlier anthropological practice is that a person can immerse oneself in a very different cultural setting and simply be a neutral participant or observer. However, the very presence of any new stakeholder or activity in an area will always bring about some form of disruption. This is also true for fieldwork that is more ecological or geological in nature. 

We might imagine that bringing external resources to an area to gain and share knowledge can only have a beneficial impact. However, local residents often have more immediate concerns. Sometimes it can be difficult to anticipate some of the unintended and negative consequences of field research. For example, fossil deposits in northern Malawi are famous for the discovery of “Malawisaurus,” with an excellent specimen described by an international team in the late 1990s. This dinosaur is a point of national pride, but its discovery is disconnected from the communities where the fossils were found. The value of teaching about dinosaurs is abstract, and really only felt in more privileged contexts. The people around where it was found know very little about it, and feel left behind because they had hoped the researchers could help them to build a bridge, a school, or possibly attract income from tourism. 

Although I am studying the ancient past in rural Malawi, the research we do is always embedded in communities that live there today. People are curious about what we are doing, and they very reasonably imagine that it must be for something far more valuable than simply academic knowledge. Why else would a large team of foreigners come so far and at such expense, only to spend time looking around and digging holes? In Malawi, these preconceived ideas are also based on the reality of colonial exploitation in Africa. Continuing today, there is a long history of extracting resources from poorer parts of the world to supply the wealthy. 

The biggest lesson I have learned in all my years of field research is that most people just want to be heard. They want their views to be respected and they want their concerns to be taken seriously. Most of the time, if you explain your position, stop assuming that everyone wants the same things you do, and inquire about theirs, it is possible to find a way to compromise. 

Even if academic research has a relatively passive or neutral impact on local communities, people living there still gain far less than the researchers do. Yet, we expect individuals and organizations on the ground to act as long-term custodians of places that we value. Whether the resources we study are natural or cultural, long-term protection can only come about with more obvious long-term benefits to local stakeholders. This means investment. Even if it is out of the reach of researchers to provide infrastructure such as bridges or schools, they can begin by doing more to return the results of their research. If it is knowledge that field researchers aim to extract, then it is our duty to make that knowledge accessible to people in local communities, governments, and the broader public. 

In my view, engaging with the public and sharing research findings with local communities should become a mandatory part of field research, and it should be rewarded accordingly within academia. The pressure on early-career researchers to find a job and then obtain tenure removes the incentive for researchers to do much except seek funding and build their publication records. Choosing to engage in more public scholarship and community work directly reduces the time avaliable for acadmic writing. As more “extractive” field research strategies can be more efficient and produce academic results faster, the entire academic system is set up to reward researchers who invest minimally at the local level. If we want to be better global citizens during field research, then major structural changes are needed at the institutions where we work. 

Edited by LIAN ZHIXIAN