Ethnographic fieldwork: context and practices 65

Ethnographic fieldwork was carried out for 12 months during the second year of my PhD project – from July 2015 until July 2016. During the course of data collection, I was immersed in the field and engaged in different kind of activities, alongside my participants. Through this process, I participated in the flow of their daily lives and in social events, such as: leisure activities, family meetings and social gatherings. Data was collected through employing a range of different research techniques, including participant observation and in-depth or semi-structured interviews.

In this study, ‘participant observation’ refers to the collection of discussion and narratives via naturally occurring conversations. Whereas ‘interviewing’ refers to the collection of narratives in a more ‘formalized setting’, characterised by the presence of the audio-recorder, and with agreement for it to be switched on and off, accordingly to different needs and situations. In-depth and semi-structured interviews were conducted with different participants or with the same participants but on different occasions. Generally, in-depth interviews were conducted with participants that I had met before the interview, on different occasions during the participant observation phase of the project. Whereas, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants I had met only for the purpose of the interview. The various techniques used during research encounters ranged considerably in duration over the course of fieldwork: from short, passing conversations to spending many hours together with research participants – depending on the nature of those daily life

activities and the developing rapport between myself and participants. The meetings which culminated in interviews were conducted through sharing everyday life activities: sharing meals, coffees, drinks. Sometimes during these activities, while the interview was occurring, participant observation was used to compliment the process of interview. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge the blurred boundaries between the two techniques.

A total of 60 older Italian migrants were recruited for this study, and with whom I built deeper research ties as documented in my fieldwork diary. I primarily conducted regular participant observation in a community-based setting that I attended weekly for the duration of the fieldwork. In addition to this, over the course of the fieldwork, participant observation was conducted in other settings through attending social events.

A total of 4118 in-depth and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 participants. I did not interview any participant on more than 3 occasions, but I met a number of them on more than one occasion. All the audio-recorded interviews were conducted when ethical consent was obtained by participants. Only after written consent of participants, interviews started. Sometimes, even the more private research encounters were not ‘one-to-one’, as I had expected: I wish to acknowledge the role of family members who were not considered participants, but who agreed to participate to the interviews (an example of this will be illustrated in Chapter 4) who were asked to sign the informed consent alongside former participants. On occasions, other members of the family, friends, or neighbors were involved, as either required by participants or simply because they were in the same place and became interested in the study. Despite the unexpected nature of these additions, I was always enthusiastic to engage other people in the conversation. Such conversations often led to insightful reminiscences, discussions and debates – which represent a further layer of data. Sometimes during the course of the interviews, the people involved initiated conversation with participants about topics relevant to my research. This occurred spontaneously amongst them, and I benefitted from being there as an ‘invisible observer’. Although these additional people (a total number of 12 including partners, family members and friends) participated in the interviews,

18 _{After the formal data collection (June 2015-July 2016), some extra interviews were conducted for}

the purpose of interpreting the research findings alongside with 5 participants. This produced a further layer of data. These conversations have also been recorded, but not considered as part of the data and consequently not transcribed or analyzed, as I explain further.

they were not considered formal participants as they did not meet the requirements of my recruiting (i.e., age, nationality).

All the semi-structured and in-depth interviews were audio-recorded when consent was negotiated. However, some interviews, which included 4 different participants, were not recorded as the participants’ consensus was to decline recording. Given their explicit desire for the interview not to be recorded, I only used the information gathered on this occasion to inform the context of the research. When consent was negotiated, each interview encounter took an average of 3 hours, and on some occasions substantially longer – an entire afternoon or even a full day. In one case, when high trust was built in advance, I felt confident to stay overnight at my participant’s house to continue the interview the following day and bake together a dessert that required two days.

The topics of conversation, information and data gathered differed on each occasion with research participants, and was influenced by the relationship built up with each of them. Please find in Appendix (D) a topic guide for the interviews with participants. In most cases, I also conducted a visual documentation of both private and public domains (photographs at homes or private businesses) where the interviews took place. The visual material also included some other elements selected to elicit answers or initiate conversations with participants, or that participants chose to show me (i.e., personal photographs, family archives, maps of the city, objects of affections, and various sorts of documents – official, publicly available, or personal, etc.), that were relevant to the research questions. I was also involved in exploring the interpretation of my research findings with five participants, which produced a further layer of data. This conversation was also recorded.

To recap, my ethnographic documentation included: field notes; material acquired from the participant observations; audio-recorded interviews; and photographs of the domestic objects or home layout various sorts of documents (i.e., personal photo albums, journal articles, and so forth).