{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021821631878557873, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.994318181818182, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Now, where were we?’: The highs and lows of hunting data with a research pack

The boundaries of the social have been challenged by recent scholarship in sociological animal studies. Empirical work has begun to open up to the presence of the myriad of other creatures that make up social worlds. Yet much of this research relies on standard practices and human-centred methods. This article reflects on a piece of research characterised by such contradictions, drawn from a project investigating everyday lives with canine companions via observation and interviewing. What was methodologically distinctive was that the majority of interviews involved dogs being present and most were undertaken while walking with dogs. An ethnographic diary was also kept in one field site, mapping events, interactions and routines of dogs, humans and others in the space of ‘dog walking’. How might non-humans intervene in data collection and be reflected in the data? What is lost and gained by researching (literally) in the field with a multi-species research pack?