The correlation between the researcher, researched, and research is profound. Nothing exemplifies this relationship more than Kitchen Stories, a film by Bent Hamer and Jörgen Bergmark. Through the use of humor, this quasi-documentary demonstrates the futility of objectively utilizing direct observation as an effective form of research. As I watched this film I could not help but draw parallels to other forms of observation; the most notably are those on The Discovery Network or National Geographic Channels, that show footage of wildlife. As soon as a camera is set up, it is inevitable that an animal will ultimately interact with that camera, ruining the potential for unbiased, unimpeded, observations of that animal in its natural environment. 

This relationship between the researcher and researched is further illustrated in Kitchen Stories when the researcher comically sets up his large chair to observe the researched. After his chair is set up a nod is given; in this instance, this acknowledgement, destroyed all objectivity and nullified the research. This simple act of non verbal communication established a new relationship between the researcher and researched and ultimately changed the unbiased nature of the research. 

If thought of in the context of events that occur in real life; the researched is always attempting, whether deliberately or not, to ruin the objectivity of a social experiment. Contemplate, for example, a surprise party.  The reason for the party is of little consequence as the relationship between the planner and attender will always be the same, much like the relationship of the researcher and researched. Human nature is that of inquiry, and as such, the researched is always in search of questioning and justifying why an event is occurring. If the researched gains awareness of this surprise party, in any manner, and to any extent, then the research or the ‘surprise’ is rendered ineffective. There is simply no way of going back to see how the researched would have acted were they completely unaware of the party, or research, being conducted in the first place.

This association is again seen in Kitchen Stories, as it is not long after the chair is set up that the researched is modifying his perspective based on his new reality by experiencing, and sitting in the chair of the researcher. To go even further, Kitchen Stories also shows us that it is indeed not just the researched that has been changed, but the researcher as well. Human nature inevitably dictates that even the trained researcher is unable to maintain his objectivity, as he begins to forge a relationship with the researched. In this case, the relationship in the movie seemed to be shown as one that is positive, but regardless of the status, the mere fact a relationship has been forged results in bias on the part of the researcher and skews the research. 

In conclusion, the relationship between researcher, researched, and the research is tumultuous at best. To maintain complete objectivity throughout an experiment is extremely unlikely due to human nature and the construct of human relationships. This complication is what lends practical credence to methodologies of study, such as the various types of ethnographies. An example of one such ethnography is presented in Autoethnography: An Overview, by Carolyn Ellis, Tony E. Adams, and Arthur P. Bochner. These types of methodologies rely on utilizing personal experience and feelings to rationalize and qualify the relationships between the researcher and researched. “Ethnographers do this by becoming participant observers in the culture.” (Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011, p. 3) This approach ultimately helps tie in vital aspects of human nature rather than ignoring it which results in more meaningful research.