# Transcript

A second approach that sometimes underpins qualitative research is concerned with finding out what actually happens in some situation, as against what people say happens, what people actually do rather than what they report they do, what they actually believe as against what they claim to believe. It operates on the assumption that in many contexts people set up a variety of fronts, consciously or unconsciously, to hide what they are doing, believe, or feel. This is often assumed to be particularly true of those in powerful positions, but the argument can be extended more widely. This orientation is sometimes strongly influenced by the methodological philosophy referred to as ‘critical’ research, though it need not be. One example of research shaped by this approach would be that concerning the documentation of racism, for instance among police officers, schoolteachers, or those in charge of admission procedures at colleges and universities. In such work, it is often claimed that many who do not display overtly racist attitudes nonetheless engage in racist practices, perhaps without even being aware of it.

In one of its versions, this argument places particular emphasis on the importance of researchers carrying out observations in natural settings, going to ‘where the action is’, and studying everyday behaviour that is unaffected, or only minimally affected, by research process. Interviews are also an important supplement. They can be the source of evidence about the fronts that are to be penetrated, and may also provide inside information about what goes on behind the scenes; though in this latter role interviews generally come second in value to direct observation, even if in practice they are sometimes the only source of data available. Furthermore, interviews may take on quite a different character from under the first approach. Gaining inside information can sometimes require a concern with building rapport, providing a context where the other person can relax and trust the researcher, but on other occasions the interview tactics may need to be quite confrontational, forcing people to face contradictions, or to explain themselves fully rather than just putting up superficial justifications or excuses.

Documents can also be used within this second orientation, where we are concerned with finding out what really happens or what people actually believe. Their most obvious function is as a source of data about official fronts. However, documents, especially those that were only produced for private purposes, can also be used to get behind these fronts. Personal diaries or letters may reveal people’s real attitudes and behaviour rather than the front they present in more public situations. This is also sometimes true of politicians’ published memoirs.

Equally useful may be documents produced within organisations for internal consumption that are made public through legal prosecution, via unofficial leaks, or which can be obtained by the researcher through negotiation with those who have access to them. These may offer very different accounts of what is being done and why from those that are presented in the official accounts, where the aim was to portray the organisation in the best public light and to promote its interests. At the same time, even official documents intended for publication can sometimes prove inadvertently revealing: people do not always succeed in maintaining fronts.