*Fieldnotes have the advantage that one can describe anything that is judged potentially relevant, whether or not it has been anticipated; whereas in the case of structured coding what is to be noted down has to be predetermined. Furthermore, in writing fieldnotes it is possible to characterise events or actions in terms that seem most appropriate for conveying what was happening; whereas with structured coding the descriptive terms have been predefined, and examples may not always fit these closely. This means that the codings produced may not provide a very accurate picture of what was happening.*
*Structured coding has the advantage that it is relatively clear what should be recorded, and the observer is attuned to look out for examples of the categories, which should mean that few instances are missed. In addition, it is probably possible to do this coding for longer stretches than fieldnote writing, especially if some form of sampling is used. This means that larger samples of interaction can be studied, especially if a team is involved. And the data the team produces should be comparable, in the sense that they are all focusing on more or less the same things. Finally, this approach generates counts that enable comparisons between different actors and settings, which may show up important similarities and differences.*