Jones et al. (2010) base their article on poststructuralist theory, which argues that language does not transparently reflect reality but instead constructs it. This has significant implications for field notes:
- The language used to describe observations is shaped by our positionality, assumptions, and cultural context.
- Meaning is fluid and shifts depending on how events and interactions are framed, selected, and interpreted.
- Discourse and power relations—such as binary polarities—affect how experiences are textually represented.
The article makes it clear that the researcher, as both observer and participant within the research context, inevitably influences what occurs and how data is interpreted.
Jones et al. also highlight that our writing can evoke embedded meanings, symbolisms, and cultural references that may not be explicitly stated but are assumed to be understood by readers familiar with the context. These implicit codes are part of a shared cultural knowledge.
Other key points from the article regarding the act of writing field notes include:
- The presence of invisible structuring, relying on contrasts, pairings, and binary oppositions that subtly reinforce what is considered “normal” or “expected.”
- The fact that we actively or unconsciously select what we deem relevant, while omitting other details. This reveals our biases and filters.
- The interference of past memories, which can interrupt the objective description of current events and blend virtual and actual time.
In the context of my Action Research, these dynamics are likely to occur, as both my participants and I share specific idiosyncrasies related to academia and the Visual Effects field—nuances that may not be accessible to those outside this environment. I intend to pay close attention to these occurrences and explicitly articulate my hidden thoughts and assumptions, as well as what is considered expected or unexpected within this context.
Additionally, the article discusses how field note writing often happens in real time, which can lead to assumptions, quick categorizations, careless generalisations, and instinctive writing. In this sense, field notes become more reflective than purely descriptive, due to the pressure to document multiple actions simultaneously.
In my case, since the field notes will be written immediately after the workshop, I will have the opportunity to be more precise with my language and take care to avoid hidden meanings or unconscious biases. The absence of time constraints and the freshness of memory will support this effort.
As I engage in ethnographic field note writing, I acknowledge that the action researcher can never be fully objective. Interpretation, bias, and the influence of past experiences are inevitable. There is always a degree of subjectivity in this form of data collection. To be as transparent as possible, and to acknowledge my positionality*, I have created a template for my field note below.
*Non-white, Japanese-Brazilian ethnicity; Brazilian nationality; privileged middle-class background and education.