In the Field: Observations

Observations involve the researcher witnessing first-hand the actions behaviours and interactions of individuals within the field under investigation. But what and how one observes, as well as how these observations are recorded are important considerations.

3.7.1 What to Observe

Researchers have offered various strategies to help structure observational practices most of which advocate beginning with a broad viewpoint before progressively narrowing in on the deeper elements of the setting (Thorpe & Olive, 2016). For example, Wolcott (1981, p. 255) identifies four strategies relating to ”what to look for” which are: observe and record everything; observe and look for nothing in particular; look for paradoxes; and look for the key problem(s). Adler and Adler (1994, p. 381) advise a “funnel” approach that progressively narrows and directs attention onto the key elements of a research setting. Similarly, Markula and Silk (2011, p. 165) identify three stages for observations: descriptive observation, where the researcher aims to record everything they can; focused observation, which refers to more specific observation that concentrates on more defined activity or location in the field; and selective observation, that refers to further specified observation of a more specific aspect of an activity or location. Although Markula and Silk (2011) present these as separate stages, they also emphasis that not all ethnographers will use each one and often all three occur at the same time. This position is supported by Thorpe and Olive (2016, p. 130) who refer to “zooming in and out depending on the requirements of the situation”.

In keeping with the phenomenologically-inspired approach of this study, maintaining an open-ended approach was important because it allowed both my role and the style of observation utilised to be flexible. The observations took place during and around the training sessions that coincided with the three periods of immersion in the field. During each of these three immersions, I attended pool sessions that where typically scheduled between 5:30-8:00am and 5:30-8:00pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, 12:00-2:00pm on a Wednesday, and 5:15 to 6:45am on a Saturday (these were subject to change, and often were changed based on coach preference or other events). I also attend land-based training sessions when able to. On average, I participated in and observed an average of 25

97 hours of training each week. In addition to this and equally important was the time spent before and after each session with the swimmers and coaches because this was where rapport was built, and informal conversation could take place. Such an approach enabled me to witness aspects of the swimmers’ experiences which they may not have been able to articulate during interviews, such as their body language, social interactions, physical expressions and nuanced behaviours. These observations, interactions and discussions were recorded in the form of typed fieldnotes on my iPhone utilising the OneNote application and subsequently written up in more detail after each session (see appendices 3 and 4 for examples of each).

3.7.2 Recording Observations: Fieldnotes

Although seen by some as an arduous task, Hammersley and Atkinson (2007, p. 142) argue that without adequate note-taking an ethnography is “like using an expensive camera with poor quality film” resulting in foggy pictures. As a result, the what, how and when of taking fieldnotes becomes important. This process is different in each ethnography and for each ethnographer, but must be as detailed a possible to provide enough empirical material for analysis, including both observational (descriptions, connections to previous literature) and personal notes (feelings, struggles, doubts, reflections) (Markula & Silk, 2011).

The process of when to make fieldnotes is also something with which researchers must contend, especially if they actively participated in the activity under investigation (Thorpe & Olive, 2016). In this project, taking notes during training sessions was very much situation dependent. Sometimes I could type rough notes onto my iPhone while swimmers completed the various repetitions of a set. At other times this was not possible as repetitions were shorter or more intense, or the swimmer’s technique demanded my full attention, or when I was left in charge of sessions while coaches where away. No matter which situation presented itself, I always had my iPhone available, so I could type notes at the first possible opportunity, for example, during recovery periods within the session, after the session while still on poolside as the swimmers completed their post-pool stretching routines, or as I returned to my accommodation. As mentioned above, the swimmers trained both early mornings and evenings, allowing me the opportunity to write more detailed notes, carry out preliminary analysis, and record my reflections after one

98 session and before the next; a process that prevented my observations from fading from memory (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007).

In keeping with the phenomenological nature of this project, Ravn (2016b) outlines a list of questions/ideas that helped guide my observations in terms of what to look for. These included:

1. How is the practice organised by the practitioners? Describe the different kinds of practices within the practice. Aim at being specifically aware of the differences, similarities and connections between these kinds of practices within the practice when it comes to the movement that can be seen and felt. 2. How do the practitioners use their attention and (maybe) change their

awareness in the different kinds of practice within the practice? Which kinds of sensations seem to be of importance or of special interest to them? 3. Which kinds of sayings, words and concepts are used by the practitioners?

How and when do they communicate, and how is the communication timed in relation to or as part of movements and interactions?

4. How can the sensory involvement related to the practice be described? Prepare certain tasks for yourself to enable you to strategically use a shift in your own perceptual mode of awareness when observing. For example, use 10 minutes three times during the training session to specifically note the sounds of practice, the smells, the temperature and so on (Ravn, 2016b, p. 209).

I therefore made notes of what was going on, what the swimmers did, how they did it, and how it seemed to affect them. Notes were taken not only about specific incidents or moments, but also in reference to the normal or routine things, in order to give as full a picture of the swimming lifeworld as possible. Aspects such as the swimmers’ demeanour, who arrived first or last to training, which lanes swimmers went in, with whom, who led or brought up the rear of each lane, and the atmosphere before and after each session were all recorded. Even things like the temperature of the water and air, and smell of the chlorine were noted. By doing so, I was able to build up a basic description of each training session, that utilised not only sight but a gamut of other senses, in order to engage with the wider sensorium and shared experiences (Pink, 2009a). As I became more experienced with this process and guided by preliminary analysis from each immersion, the notes became more specific.

99 To avoid my observations becoming purely descriptive, they were written up in the form of a first-person narrative, allowing for the inclusion of my own reflections from the field in a manner akin to, but not as rigorous as, an autoethnography where a researcher would explicitly situate and write her/himself into the account as a key player. In doing so, I was able to acknowledge my active immersion within the research environment and provided myself with a space to reflect upon the more nuanced individual behaviours I observed (Ellis, 2004).

In closing this section, I would highlight that although observations allowed me to get close to the athletes, build rapport, and question them on some elements of their lifeworld, the environment of the swimming pool and a swimming training session did still pose some challenges to the research process. For example, the building acoustics, along with the playing of loud music especially during key sessions, made it challenging to hear certain conversations and utterances. Additionally, the swimmers generally spent 75-80% of their time with their face in the water completing metre after metre, and when they did stop, they were normally taking instructions from coaches and/or trying to recover and refuel. This made direct conversation with them during these times, and at other key moments, more challenging. As a result, the need to supplement the periods of observation with semi-structured interviews was acknowledged, to develop a fuller picture of the swimming lifeworld and to assemble the swimmers’ own direct descriptions of their experiences too.