��ɫ����

Several years after ‘finishing’ collecting data for my ethnographic case study, I still can’t think about leaving the field without worrying about my exit. In 2020 I began my Education PhD, conducting longitudinal ethnography with two educational organisations to better understand the processes of learning and change required to develop a trauma-informed organisational culture.

Although carefully curated documents framed my entry, and reflective conversations ran throughout, contextual circumstances meant I was not prepared for the exit from fieldwork that later occurred. While preparing to enter the field and conducting research within it is explored in great depth through literature and researcher training alike, as Smith and Delamont (2023) point out, reflections and guidance around exits from fieldwork are few and far between.

In theory, the researcher leaves the field when theoretical saturation is achieved. The researcher has gathered data to answer their research questions within timeframes set in advance, pleasantries are exchanged, and the researcher goes on their way. The reality is often not so straightforward, and many factors can complicate exits from fieldwork.

Complications to exiting the field

Leaving the field can be complicated when physical exits are not possible. Practitioner research, for example, requires the researcher to move between practitioner and researcher within the same physical space: there is no traditional exit (Smith & Atkinson, 2017). The increase of virtual fieldwork can blur these boundaries too, especially when virtual presence or online connections are retained (Mclnch & Bowles, 2023). This can bring significant implications for both the researcher and the researched alike. Emotionally, the researcher may feel increased responsibility, complicating their positionality within the research process. Decision-making processes could become complex, too, as ethical considerations regarding the researcher’s continued positioning to participants would need critical attention.

Relational aspects between researchers and participants can also complicate exits. The blurring of relational boundaries is especially significant within ethnographic practices, when lines between observer and participant can become less defined. Within my study, I became increasingly embedded into day-to-day organisational practices, for example through post-meeting coffee breaks and staff room chat.

‘I was no longer embedded into organisational practices and hadn’t anticipated the impact of this “rupture!” to my routines and communities.’

Exiting the field can impact researcher’s own identities, too. Recent research has questioned how long engagement with the field physically remains – for example through writing up future papers – and how long emotional engagement remains too. Ending fieldwork can cause ‘rupture to the self’, ‘terminating a big part of [our] identity, both personally and academically’ (Thomas, 2023, p. 79). Through prolonged engagement with my participating organisations, I felt this ‘termination’ deeply. I was no longer embedded into organisational practices and hadn’t anticipated the impact of this ‘rupture’ to my routines and communities.

Can we prepare?

Existing literature concludes that researchers should consider their exit plan in advance (Franco & Yang, 2021); however, unforeseen circumstances can complicate this considerably. Considering this, to what extent is it possible to prepare researchers for exiting the field? Given the emerging nature of literature exploring this, it is not surprising that existing research primarily raises these questions as opposed to answering them.

What is missing?

Recent literature highlights the lack of discussions around leaving the field. There is an emerging offering from researchers sharing a diversity of experiences; however, such reflections are personal and unique. While offering reassurance and solidarity, there is a lack of guidance and training for doctoral and early career researchers around planning and implementing exits from the field, and advice and support for when things ��Dz�’t go to plan.

My experience of exiting the field initially destabilised my research. Worries about my exit and ethical complexities moving forward had lasting impacts on my subsequent analysis and presentation of my findings. I needed to capture nuances in the spaces in-between the data; interactions and relationships underpinning the journey of organisational change that an ethnographic approach can capture. However, my exit had me overthinking decisions, with anxieties around getting things right underpinning initial decision-making.

Increased focus on fieldwork exits throughout my researcher development could have assisted both my perceptions of the exit that transpired and my initial approach to analysis. Addressing this gap could have significant implications for both the novice researcher and the quality of research conducted.

Given that considerations around leaving the field are largely absent across both existing research and training for developing researchers, it is necessary for research training to encourage the researcher to keep raising questions (Smith & Delamont, 2023), as, after all, our planned exit from fieldwork can never be guaranteed.

References

Franco, P., & Y. Yang. (2021). Exiting fieldwork ‘with grace’: Reflections on the unintended consequences of participant observation and researcher-participant relationships. Qualitative Market Research, 24(3), 358–374.

McInch, A., & H. C. R. Bowles. (2023). Reflections on care and attachment in the ‘departure lounge’ of ethnography. In R. J. Smith & S. Delamont (Eds.), Leaving the field: Methodological insights from ethnographic exits (pp. 62–73). Manchester University Press.

Smith, K., & Atkinson, M. (2017). Avada kedavra: Disenchantment, empathy, and leaving ethnography. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9(5), 636–650.

Smith, R. J, & S. Delamont (Eds.). (2023). Leaving the field: Methodological insights from ethnographic exits. Manchester University Press.

Thomas, G. M. (2023). Unfinished business: A reflection on leaving the field. In R. J. Smith & S. Delamont (Eds.), Leaving the field: Methodological insights from ethnographic exits (pp. 74–85). Manchester University Press.