Ethnographic developments

As ethnography highlights the importance of everyday accounts in local contexts and provides insights into participants’ lives and the contexts affecting participants’ lives, the reflective role of researchers during the research process is critical (McCarty, 2010, Blommaert, 2009, Troman, Jeffrey & Walford, 2005). For this reason, ethnographers wrestle with ways to provide a perspective and space for the voices of others while accounting for researchers’ subjectivities as sources of potential bias. Thus what counts as good and true ethnography is a highly complex and contested issue (Walford, 2007; Heath & Street, 2008; Blommaert, 2009). It involves constant learning, observing, reflecting, assessing and then arriving at some kind of hunch during certain stages of the research project. Consequently, using ethnographic lenses can be messy and fraught with moments of complex entanglement between the researcher, the researched and the setting. Finding a way through the messiness of ethnographic research involves understanding its epistemological roots: findings will not claim representativeness or objectivity, will not claim to produce uncontaminated evidence but will rather produce theoretical statements of the location, event or setting (Blommaert, 2007).

Due to the nature of ethnography and its reliance on participant observation, ethnographic researchers face firmly negative commentary from positivist researchers - commentary directed at what they see as the subjective nature of ethnographic research (McCarty, 2010; Blommaert, 2007; Davies, 2009; Heath & Street, 2008; Walford, 2007, 2005; Pole, 2003). The positivist suggestion that ethnographers shape their research around merely telling stories about their participants poses issues of validity and reliability that misconstrue the value added through ethnographic research. This misconstruing of ethnography can be quite daunting for emerging ethnographers in that their projects can be attacked as not real, being value-laden, and thus not true research. However, facts, truth and reality can be contested and as such ethnographers are firm in their belief that their endeavour is not to produce God-like facts but rather to produce accounts of the social world based on participants’ views (McCarty, 2010; Blommaert, 2007; Walford, 2007, 2005). Ethnographic projects can thus be seen as valid in that they give account of participants in the field, using a range of data

71

collection techniques. Yet, this does not account for the role of the researcher in the field and Bourdieu (1977, 1990, 1994) argues that to bridge the divide between positivist and interpretative research, it is crucial that the dialectical relationship between the field, the participants and the researcher needs to be explored, that is, the researcher needs to objectify him/herself as well as the epistemological and methodical knowledge that they draw on to construct meaning in the field. Accordingly, he argues that “Only a reflexive method guards against an overly constructed interpretation, where the researchers’ conclusions can be regarded as the uncovering of a God-given truth” (Bourdieu, cited in Grenfell & James, 1998, p. 176). Thus the notion of reflexivity has become central and fundamental in ethnographic pursuits as it can shed light on the nature of the research, the circumstances and the quality of interaction and observation as it occurred in the field (McCarty, 2010; Blommaert & Dong Jie, 2010; Blommaert, 2009; Davies, 2009; Heath &Street, 2008; Walford, 2007, 2005).

The notion of reflexivity emerged due to the contested and complex debates concerning representation in qualitative (and specifically in ethnographic) research, which was often critiqued as subjective story-telling: “... epistemological foundations have been shaken by a general loss of faith in received stories about the nature of representation” (Geertz, 1988, p.135). Thus, questions about validation and legitimization of qualitative research have proliferated (Davies, 2009; Pillow, 2003; Lather, 1995, 1993; Marcus & Fischer, 1986; Rosaldo, 1989). Initial conversations and debates raised critical issues around the politics and power of the gaze in qualitative research. In other words, representation and legitimization of findings which are predominantly written up by researchers located in their own contexts and worldviews becomes a contested issue. As a result, most publications on qualitative research now advocate reflexivity for enhancing the reliability and validity of representation (Britzman, 1995; Wasserfall, 1997).

Reflexivity is often employed as a methodological tool by scholars in various disciplines using critical, feminist, race-based, or post-structural theories, as a means to enhance representation and legitimization or to call research data and findings into question. However, most researchers use reflexivity without defining how they are using it, as if it is something we all commonly understand and accept as standard methodological practice for critical qualitative research (Pole, 2003; Pillow, 2003). This lack of definition foregrounds the debates and complexities of what it means to do qualitative research after poststructuralism (St. Pierre & Pillow, 2000). Nonetheless, the most visible theme is researchers’ subjectivity

72

during the research process – the spotlight is on the identity of researchers and the role that they play in the field: that is, how knowledge is acquired, organized, and interpreted, and how this is relevant or impacts on the claims made (McCarty, 2010; Davies, 2009). Therefore, questioning the role of the researcher has generated more questions about researchers’ ability to represent their participants or to know fully.

However, some scholars argue that the debates on reflexivity are exaggerated, that it is “research wallowing”, and, at worst, that it weakens the conditions necessary for objective research (Kemmis, 1995; Patai, 1994, p. 64). For example, Patai (1994) argues that “people who stay up nights worrying about representation” are privileged academics engaging in methodological self-absorption. He suggests: “At present, in my view, we are spending much too much time wading in the morass of our own positionings” (1994, p. 69). Yet, the solution is not to stop talking about researcher identity and how this identity lends itself to certain positions, makes other positions almost impossible and shapes data or findings. Rather, we need to move away from too much self-absorption towards the ways in which our research identity opens up or limit the possibilities for critical representations.

The next section details the research methods and the analytical procedures that I followed to gain access to the field and while engaged in the research process.

3.1.3 Research methods

Fieldwork is the cornerstone of ethnographic research and its complexities are a huge focus of ethnographic discussions and reflection. The complex and chaotic nature of being in the field is emphasized by Blommaert and Dong Jie (2010) as, “...often a period of deep frustration, disappointment and confusion, sometimes even bitter tears” (p. 24). In the field, researchers, participants and space connect and become intimately interwoven. Therefore, fieldwork contains moments of uncertainty and these moments and issues are not normally highlighted or written about in dissertations. Yet ethnography can provide an additional dimension of reflection on the moments that led to unplanned events and their impact on the outcome of the research.

73

Tools of the trade to produce the stories of the vulnerable

In order to familiarize themselves with local ways of doing, seeing and valuing, ethnography offers unique and diverse methods that can be seen as tools of the ethnographic trade and include (among many others) ethnographic fieldnotes, participant observation, interviewing and document collection.

Ethnographic fieldnotes

The nature of fieldnotes and specifically the writing of ethnographic fieldnotes has become a huge discussion point in ethnographic research over the last twenty-five years (Sanjek, 1990; Jackson, 1990; Ottenberg, 1990; Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995). These discussions highlight a gap in many ethnographic guides in that they take for granted the existence of a set of fieldnotes without offering much advice on how to write them. Writing fieldnotes is now seen as an important skill to develop in order to improve the quality of ethnographic research: for example, Davies (1995) declares, “We reject both the sink or swim method of training ethnographers and the attitude that ethnography involves no special skills or no skills beyond those a college-educated person possesses” (p. xi). This indeed implies that ethnographic skills need to be developed and sharpened over time and that ethnography is not an ad hoc, unplanned, impromptu and informal methodology but a systematic, rigorous and meticulous research tradition. Accordingly, explicit guidelines and suggestions are necessary to address gaps in thinking around what exactly constitutes ethnographic fieldnotes, and expand emergent ethnographers’ skills.

Coding of fieldnotes and interviews

One approach to developing guidelines is discussed by Emerson, Fretz and Shaw (1995). Drawing on interpretative ethnography, the authors highlight the importance of scrutinizing fieldnotes as they develop in the field, in order to pick up on technical, interactional, personal and theoretical issues as they emerge during the research process. Thus taking stock of unintended, unexpected or unplanned occurrences during observation and immersion in the field can illuminate the impact of meso and macro factors on local conditions and contexts. Therefore, interrogating fieldnotes as they are written allows for a deeper analysis of data. Hence, ethnographic fieldnotes should include deeper reflexive writing on the ways that our epistemologies and methods, our presence and who we are impact on our participants.

74 Participant observation

Researchers themselves are primary instruments and partially construct what happens at the site during fieldwork (Walford, 2005, 2007; Heath & Street, 2008; Blommaert, 2009; McCarty, 2010). Understanding the context and phenomenon under scrutiny requires particular qualities because of the duality of the researcher’s role. As participant observers they are both ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’; they both observe and participate in the field. It is therefore crucial that researchers analyse their own experiences when gaining access and doing fieldwork: “Understanding emerges out of interaction between me as a researcher and the situation within which I find myself – out of the questions that emerge from my response to the situation” (Williams, 1990, p. 254). Thus it is through reflection that researchers interrogate how the research processes influence the context, the researcher and the researched, and understand findings as our own reordering and rewriting of a lived reality. Although the literature highlights what participant observation is and how it should be conducted, and situates the levels of participation, it should also be emphasized that it is a process fraught with risks and dilemmas (McCarty, 2010; Blommaert, 2009; Davies, 2009; Walford, 2007, 2005; Pole, 2003). Firstly, researchers may be plagued by the ‘objective versus subjective’ dichotomy. Secondly, the extent to which researchers participate in the field could also be dependent on their age, gender, class, and ethnicity. Finally, being a researcher and an outsider doing participant observation is highly dependent on the group members’ willingness to provide access that allows for researcher insider status. All in all, ethnographers must be aware of the complexity of access, objectivity, and community expectation (Blommaert & Jie, 2010; Merriam, 1998).

Interviews

Ethnographic interviews are conceptualized as humanistic and interpretative in various ways. However, where interpretative research sees interviews as simply a continuum where researchers move between informal, unstructured and structured modes of interviewing, recently a stronger constructivist stance has suggested that the interview itself is entangled in power relations (Blommaert, 2007; Pole & Morrison, 2003). From this perspective, the positionality of researcher and participant is at the heart and purpose of ethnographic interviews; the interview itself is a construct where both researchers and participants are engaged in the construction of making meaning (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995). Thus, interviews are interactive and co-constructed through interviewers’ and participants’ perceptions of each other and their respective subject locations, which in turn have a bearing

75

on the nature and outcome of the interview. It thus becomes important for researchers to be aware of their own assumptions as well as their emotional responses in an interview, because these may be in direct conflict with those of participants. If our own assumptions are not made explicit we run the risk of framing questions in a way that might lead towards a particular response. Consequently, while ethnographic interviews are associated with procedures that appear unstructured, this does not make them disordered, chaotic or haphazard. Instead, interviews within this framework require even more systematic planning and reflection on the researcher effect, in order to account for it as themes developed during the interview process (Blommaert and Dong Jie, 2010, Pole and Morrison, 2003).

Document analysis

The role of document analysis is to record and understand communication of meaning in textual modes in order to make links with theoretical relationships (Walford, 2005, 2007). Document analysis can engage with national policies, provincial circulars and local contextual guidelines with the purpose of making sense of language in these texts, reflected in various modes such as format, style, and visuals. Consequently, policy documents can shed some light on the underpinning beliefs, values and ideologies in relation to pedagogy, teaching, learning and assessment as well as highlighting the cultural and institutional factors that influence routine school practices. Understanding language use in such documents can shed light on the ways that they regulate and guide teachers’ practices which in turn provides themes to look for during interviews and participant observation. Accordingly, the researcher must aim to be systematic and analytic, but with a reflexive rather than rigid stance, embracing endless discovery, in order to continuously compare relevant issues and probe language use and images that contribute towards meaning-making. However, conducting document analysis alone is not enough in seeking to understand unique local school practices.

3.1.4 Analytical procedures

One issue in analysing data in ethnographic research is that not all researchers agree on when exactly this process should and does occur (Blommaert & Dong Jie, 2010, Pole & Morrison, 2003; Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995). For some it starts before the research, others believe it starts in the field and for others it starts after data collection is finished. Thus, in ethnographic research there is no distinct, clear-cut phase at which to start data collection. In the present study I found that data analysis began prior to fieldwork and continued through all the phases as a recursive process through which I attempted to deepen my understanding.

76

In order to engage with my data, I first transcribed and coded my daily classroom discourse fieldnotes and looked for themes relating to SFL genre-based approaches; then I coded these fieldnotes as well as those associated with space, learners, teachers and management, drawing on Bourdieu’s concepts of field, habitus and capital in order to gain insights into the local contextual practices at each school. Here, a combination of SFL and Bourdieu opened up a space to explain school histories, identities and cultural practices in and outside of the classroom.

Secondly, I transcribed and grouped my ethnographic interviews at both schools and then coded them for patterns. After this, I grouped these patterns into tentative themes as comparative data based on similarities and differences, and used these themes to initiate follow-up conversations at both schools. Here, I drew on Bourdieu to illuminate the ways in which national policies constructed perceptions of local practices as well as to foreground positionings enacted in local contexts.

Thirdly, I conducted content analysis of the national policies for language education. Here, drawing on SFL genre-based theory assisted me in understanding language teaching and learning theories and pedagogies and the consequences of these policies for constructing sound writer identities. This lens was also useful for evaluating the extent to which curriculum, pedagogy and assessment tools inducted learners into the key ‘genres of schooling’ (such as information report, explanation and argument) necessary for success across the curriculum at school and university. Then, I analysed school-based documents, drawing on SFL and Bourdieu to help me highlight the ways in which routine practices were aligned to national policies, and to open up aspects like the organizing practices at school, the differing kinds of cultural capital and the conversion of this capital into other forms of cultural and symbolic capital at these two schools. Finally, in the content analysis of grade 12 language question papers and first year student scripts, drawing on SFL allowed for a rigorous linguistic analysis that could foreground the extent to which writers managed the three metafunctions (ideational, interpersonal and textual) as the basis for coherent, well-structured, genre-appropriate writing.

The next scene highlights reflexivity and what it offered in relation to the personal, methodological and epistemological insights that I gained. Below follows an account of the moments of complication prior to access and during fieldwork, and the methods that I used to collect and analyse data.

77