Think first. Frame later

We writers are always happy to research. It’s satisfying work and almost always more fun than sweating over a keyboard. But we usually conduct research to find definitive answers, and at the beginning of a story, this is premature. Looking to research for experts and answers naturally leads to thinking you know what story you’re going to find (which, of course, leads to finding that story). It leads to framing the story before you have even explored its possibilities. It leads to narrowness of vision and the kind of know-it-all arrogance that people hate about the media.

Anthropologists also conduct research before they venture out into the field, but they look at this preliminary work in a different way. They read the research not as expert testimony circumscribing their own work but rather as part of an on-going conversation they would like to join. What have others said about this culture I am going to study, anthropologists ask themselves as they read. What approaches did they use? What perspectives did they bring? Where do I fit in?

When I began my own initial forays to the library and on the web, I worked consciously to adopt this new attitude toward research. I trained myself to listen not for the voices of experts who would tell me what to think but for ideas to mull over. I resisted the impulse to let the research limit my vision or fool me into thinking I knew more than I knew.

Locate a path

Because we writers generally think more about ourselves -- our information, our story, our schedule -- than the people we write about, we don’t often take the time to consider how best to establish contact with them. Pick up the phone and call the top dog. Call the person who’s already been in the news. That’s pretty much standard operating procedure. But does this always make the most sense?

Field anthropologists realize that their initial contact with a group may have significant implications for the future of their work. The person with whom they establish their first relationship, the person who will be their first link to the group may determine everything from how field workers are perceived to who will talk to them to how comfortable people are in their presence. Establish initial ties with the leader, for example, and you may be forever perceived as "one of them" by the rest of the group, which will affect who talks to you and what they feel they can say. Establish initial ties with a group dissident and you may be forever perceived as a critic or outsider.

Good anthropologists take time reasoning through these implications. Most of us writers just march into terra incognita without a thought. Instead, we should map the terrain before we set off on the journey. We should spend time learning about the composition and dynamics of the group before we insert ourselves in its midst. We should make an informed decision about the person who will be our initial link and will set the tone for our involvement. At the very least, we should realize the importance of this first relationship.

In my work with female athletes, in particular collegiate basketball players, the path was clear: I had to approach the coach first. It was protocol, and it was the only way I could gain access to the world of practices and games and lockerroom jeremiads. But going to the top had consequences. Because it was the coach who first introduced me to the team, I was seen from day one as part of her world not the players’ world. It took me a long time to realize this, and a longer time to overcome it.