By Richard Wu

One might think that, for the student ethnographic researcher, Student Life offers abundant opportunities for immersive field research. After all, like other students, the student researcher should in principle have equal access to the many opportunities for student engagement and development which Student Life is mandated to provide. Yet, as a student researcher in ANT473: Ethnographic Practicum, my initial attempt at negotiating entry into a bureaucratic division of Student Life was challenging. 

My first meeting with my main contact, a higher-education professional acting as a department director at Student Life, was somewhat awkward. As I was only able to articulate an inchoate research plan, the director could only refer me to one of his subordinates as a further contact, without promising access to any other venue for research. I felt that I failed to pique the interest of my interlocutor; but then how do you pitch your research project to your interlocutor when, at the initial stage, you have yet to formulate a refined research question and agenda? Stumped, I decided to find my own ways to get as immersed into the field as I can. Since the division I am researching hosts many workshops and events open to all students, using my status as a student I signed up to attend several of them. My plan was to gain access to the events first, then find opportunities to gather general consent from fellow participants before proceeding to conducting ethnographic observations. This approach, it turned out, was a big no-no for the staff in the department. They perceived this approach as intrusive and “unethical”. Frustrated, the director considered withdrawing his department from the ethnographic research. At this point, the ANT473 professor had to step in to help guide a resolution to this crisis. We resorted to negotiating some “research ground rules” with the director, including refraining from participating in workshops and from reaching out to the department’s other staff without permission. 

To adapt to this limiting situation, I redirected my ethnographic efforts to the many documents published on the department’s public-facing website. This led to a careful analysis of a series of guides on how to manage social relations in certain professionalized contexts. A prominent theme stood out to me: the use of contract-like agreements to establish mutual expectations in a social relation. Analyzing these guides, I realized that, in my initial engagements with the department, I had overlooked an important step – the co-construction of a working “contract” with my interlocutors. Upon this realization, I experimented with applying many of the contract-based practices in my further interactions with the department’s staff. Admittedly, such practices tended to generate positive responses. The staff and I formed clearer mutual expectations. And, on this basis, the staff turned out to be very willing to help where they can. Through them, I was referred to further interlocutors who became key sources of information for my ethnographic project.  Lesson learned: In researching a professional field, it pays to align your ethnographic conducts with the cultural expectations of the professional fields in which your interlocutors reside.