Skills

Qualitative Research and Fieldwork

12 weeks · 0 milestones

Conduct a real qualitative study — semi-structured interviews (minimum 6 participants) or ethnographic observation (minimum 4 documented sessions with location and date records). Document your research question, methodology rationale, participant recruitment process, ethics consideration, coded analysis, and findings. Anonymised transcript or observation note excerpts must be available to your verifier as evidence of real fieldwork. Proof is your research report plus a methodology challenge from a sociologist or qualitative researcher who questions your coding scheme and sampling approach — your written response addressing their challenge is a required part of the proof.

Part of: Social Sciences, Law & Humanities · Proves for: UG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Develop Research Design and Ethics Protocol

3–4 weeks

Qualitative research begins with a research design that justifies why qualitative is appropriate for the specific question, and an ethics protocol that protects participants. Develop a complete research design specifying: research question, methodological approach (ethnography, grounded theory, thematic analysis, or IPA — choose one and justify), sampling strategy (purposive or theoretical), and data collection method. Include an ethics protocol covering informed consent, confidentiality, right to withdraw, data storage, and participant harm assessment.

Proof required

Submit: (a) the research design document (minimum 1,000 words) covering all four elements: question, methodology with justification, sampling strategy, and data collection method, (b) the ethics protocol covering all five areas listed, and (c) a written methodology review from a social scientist (academic or professional researcher with postgraduate training) confirming the methodology is appropriate for the question and the ethics protocol is adequate.

What gets checked

Methodology choice is justified with reference to the specific research question — not just 'I chose qualitative methods'
Ethics protocol addresses participant harm specifically, not just consent
Methodology reviewer confirms appropriateness — not just general encouragement

Common mistakes

Research design treats methodology as a label — 'I will use qualitative methods' without specifying the framework is not a research design
Ethics protocol copied from a template without adapting to the specific participant population

Resources

What a verifier looks for

Does the methodology align with the epistemological position implied by the question? Phenomenological questions require IPA; pattern-generating questions require grounded theory. A mismatch produces invalid findings.
Check the ethics protocol for vulnerabilities specific to this population — power dynamics, stigmatised identities, or sensitive topics require protections beyond the generic five areas.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Conduct Fieldwork and Produce Primary Qualitative Data

6–10 weeks

Conduct the fieldwork as specified in your research design. For interview-based approaches: complete at least six semi-structured interviews (30–60 minutes each), audio-record with consent, and produce verbatim transcripts. For observation-based: complete at least 40 hours of participant observation with contemporaneous field notes. All data must be anonymised before submission.

Proof required

Submit: (a) anonymised transcripts or field notes from fieldwork (minimum 50,000 words for interviews/observation), (b) a reflexivity log (minimum 400 words) documenting how your positionality affected data collection and your responses to that effect, and (c) a methodological memo (minimum 300 words) documenting one significant unexpected development during fieldwork and how you adapted.

What gets checked

Primary data volume meets the minimum — a 30-minute interview typically produces 3,000–5,000 words of transcript
Anonymisation is thorough — names, locations, and identifying details replaced with codes
Reflexivity log is specific about positionality effects — not a general claim about remaining neutral

Common mistakes

Interview questions lead participants toward anticipated answers — qualitative fieldwork should seek disconfirming evidence
Reflexivity log written as an afterthought — reflexivity is continuous during fieldwork

Powstik Guide

Anonymised transcripts or field notes from real fieldwork.

Steps

Get consent before each session.
Record and transcribe promptly.
Replace names with codes.
Store data securely.

Template

| Session | Date | Participant (code) | Consent | Words |
|---------|------|--------------------|---------|-------|
Total words:

What gets sent back

Participants identifiable.
No consent record.
Below the word minimum.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Review the reflexivity log: does it describe concrete instances where positionality affected an interaction or interpretation? Generic claims about 'remaining objective' indicate it was not genuinely engaged with.
Check the methodological memo: does the unexpected development represent a genuine challenge to the research design, and was the adaptation methodologically sound?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Analyse Data and Defend Methodology to a Social Science Peer

4–6 weeks

Complete a full qualitative analysis using the method specified in your research design. Produce an analysis report. Present to a social scientist with relevant methodological expertise who will challenge at least two interpretive or methodological decisions in a live or recorded session.

Proof required

Submit: (a) the analysis report (minimum 3,000 words) presenting findings with direct quotes from primary data and a clear analytical narrative — not just a summary of what participants said, (b) an attendance record for the peer review session (reviewer name, qualifications, date), and (c) a Q&A log (minimum 500 words) documenting at least two challenges to analytical decisions and your responses.

What gets checked

Analysis report moves from data to interpretation — not just rich description of what participants said
Q&A log shows real analytical challenges — the reviewer challenged specific interpretive decisions
Reviewer has methodological expertise in the specific approach used

Common mistakes

Analysis describes themes without depth — finding 'participants felt stressed' is description; explaining the discourse at work is analysis
Peer review conducted by someone without social science background who cannot challenge qualitative methodology

Powstik Guide

A 3,000-word analysis defended to a social science peer.

Steps

Code the data systematically.
Build themes with direct quotes.
Present to a qualified researcher.
Record methodology challenges and answers.

Template

Themes:
Reviewer:        Role:
| Challenge | My answer |
|-----------|-----------|

What gets sent back

Under 3,000 words.
No direct quotes.
Reviewer credentials missing.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Your most important questions target the interpretation layer: 'Why did you code this passage as Theme 2 rather than Theme 1?' and 'How did you handle member validation?'
After the session, provide written confirmation (minimum 200 words) of your qualifications, the specific decisions you challenged, and your assessment of the submitter's ability to defend interpretive choices.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Sociology & Social Research →Social Work & Community Development →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Develop Research Design and Ethics Protocol

3–4 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Methodology choice is justified with reference to the specific research question — not just 'I chose qualitative methods'
Ethics protocol addresses participant harm specifically, not just consent
Methodology reviewer confirms appropriateness — not just general encouragement

Common mistakes

Research design treats methodology as a label — 'I will use qualitative methods' without specifying the framework is not a research design
Ethics protocol copied from a template without adapting to the specific participant population

Resources

What a verifier looks for

Does the methodology align with the epistemological position implied by the question? Phenomenological questions require IPA; pattern-generating questions require grounded theory. A mismatch produces invalid findings.
Check the ethics protocol for vulnerabilities specific to this population — power dynamics, stigmatised identities, or sensitive topics require protections beyond the generic five areas.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Conduct Fieldwork and Produce Primary Qualitative Data

6–10 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Primary data volume meets the minimum — a 30-minute interview typically produces 3,000–5,000 words of transcript
Anonymisation is thorough — names, locations, and identifying details replaced with codes
Reflexivity log is specific about positionality effects — not a general claim about remaining neutral

Common mistakes

Interview questions lead participants toward anticipated answers — qualitative fieldwork should seek disconfirming evidence
Reflexivity log written as an afterthought — reflexivity is continuous during fieldwork

Powstik Guide

Anonymised transcripts or field notes from real fieldwork.

Steps

Get consent before each session.
Record and transcribe promptly.
Replace names with codes.
Store data securely.

Template

| Session | Date | Participant (code) | Consent | Words |
|---------|------|--------------------|---------|-------|
Total words:

What gets sent back

Participants identifiable.
No consent record.
Below the word minimum.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Review the reflexivity log: does it describe concrete instances where positionality affected an interaction or interpretation? Generic claims about 'remaining objective' indicate it was not genuinely engaged with.
Check the methodological memo: does the unexpected development represent a genuine challenge to the research design, and was the adaptation methodologically sound?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Analyse Data and Defend Methodology to a Social Science Peer

4–6 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Analysis report moves from data to interpretation — not just rich description of what participants said
Q&A log shows real analytical challenges — the reviewer challenged specific interpretive decisions
Reviewer has methodological expertise in the specific approach used

Common mistakes

Analysis describes themes without depth — finding 'participants felt stressed' is description; explaining the discourse at work is analysis
Peer review conducted by someone without social science background who cannot challenge qualitative methodology

Powstik Guide

A 3,000-word analysis defended to a social science peer.

Steps

Code the data systematically.
Build themes with direct quotes.
Present to a qualified researcher.
Record methodology challenges and answers.

Template

Themes:
Reviewer:        Role:
| Challenge | My answer |
|-----------|-----------|

What gets sent back

Under 3,000 words.
No direct quotes.
Reviewer credentials missing.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Your most important questions target the interpretation layer: 'Why did you code this passage as Theme 2 rather than Theme 1?' and 'How did you handle member validation?'
After the session, provide written confirmation (minimum 200 words) of your qualifications, the specific decisions you challenged, and your assessment of the submitter's ability to defend interpretive choices.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.