Fieldwork and data collection

In ethnography, fieldwork is the cornerstone of the research (Fetterman, 2010). The research field was defined as “where the phenomenon exists” (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 227). Ethnographers usually choose the setting in the light of the research question and purpose (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007).

4.3.2.1 Choosing and accessing the setting

In the present study, the setting was chosen based on the main research question, and the purpose of the research. As mentioned earlier in this chapter the question guiding this study is:

How can literacy practices in the Creative Curriculum that were designed for a different linguistic and cultural context contribute to Arabic early literacy development for preschoolers in Saudi Arabia?

Thus, the research setting was chosen because it represents the implementation of early literacy practices that are derived from a Western pedagogy, the Creative Curriculum, and have been applied for the first time in Saudi Arabian preschools. Indeed, the Creative Curriculum has been put into practice in a number of public preschools in some of the country’s provinces. However, there are only four preschools in Riyadh, the city where I live; three of them applied the Curriculum through a pilot implementation from the MOE, while just one public preschool, which is affiliated with a university, has purchased the Curriculum through a training contract with the owner company. Therefore, the latter location was chosen as it has implemented the Curriculum on a permanent basis. Indeed, the director of the preschool was the facilitator who paved the way for my entry to the setting. Further details regarding accessing

Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) argued that some personal characteristics of the researcher play a vital role in gaining access to the research setting. In the case of this study, my gender as a female researcher facilitated my entry to the setting since the Saudi Arabian educational system is single-gender-based and the preschool education is only supervised by females. Besides this, there were other factors that facilitated my entry to the research setting; these included my long and extensive experience in the field of preschool education in Saudi Arabia, and the professional network that I have built up with the practitioners and the leaders in this field.

During the first days in the research setting, I needed to familiarise myself with this new location. Barley and Bath (2014) argued that although the “familiarisation period” is a critical stage in ethnographic research, it has not been widely considered. The familiarisation period is particularly significant when the ethnographer is working with young children as it helps build trust between researchers and children, which will enhance the research process (Barley and Bath, 2014). In view of this, I spent two weeks visiting the preschool, observing different classrooms, hanging around in the preschool building, and talking to administration staff and teachers. After I had built a general idea about the preschool, and after I felt that my presence had become familiar to the preschool community, I started my fieldwork in one of the preschool classrooms.

At the beginning, the classroom teachers introduced me to the children as a visitor teacher who will visit the classroom some days a week. After a couple of days, the teachers explained to the children that I am a teacher at King Saud University and I am carrying out research to investigate learning and literacy

122

practices in their classroom. Indeed, I initially thought that it may take a long time to become familiar to the children and the teachers; however, as time went on, I found that some children began to see me as a member of their classroom. One explanation for this, as the classroom teachers mentioned, is that the children were used to visitors such as university students and faculty since the preschool is located within a university campus. The following table illustrates the phases of the fieldwork.

Table 4.3 Phases of the fieldwork

Research phase School Year Terms Duration (weeks) of Number visits Observational hours St u d y Pi lo t 2014- 2013 ye ar Sc h o o l (K G 2 ) 1 Term 31/8/2013 to 15/1/2014 weeks 7 7 22hours co ll ect io n da ta Ma in 2 Term 25/1/2014 to 24/5/2014 weeks 12 19 54hours 2015- 2014 ye ar Sc h o o l (K G 3 ) 1 Term 7/9/2014 to 31/12/2014 weeks 5 35 hours 140 per hours (4 day) 2 Term 25/1/2015 to 21/5/2015 weeks 14

Total 38(weeks) 61(visits) 216(hours)

The above table outlines the time period that I spent in the research site. The entire fieldwork lasted 38 weeks (non-sequential) resulting in a total of 61 visits and 216 hours of participant observation. As the table shows, at the

beginning the research was conducted as a pilot study for seven weeks which took place in a KG2-level classroom where children were aged between four and five years. After that, I started the second phase of the research to collect the main data; this lasted for 31 weeks. As Table 4.3 shows, the main data collection started in the school year 2013-2014 and took place in a KG2-level classroom, and continued to the end of the school year 2014-2015 where the same group of children were moved to a KG3-level classroom. Indeed, the prolonged immersion in the research setting not only helped in establishing a rapport and trust with the research participants, but also allowed me to gain a holistic understanding of the phenomenon being studied over a period of two years.

4.3.2.2 Methods of data collection

Data collection is not merely a technical phase; it needs to be organised well enough to provide answers to the research questions (Silverman, 2010). The ethnographic study has been characterised by its multiple methods of data collection; however, what makes a study ethnographic is not only the multiple data collection methods but the socio-cultural interpretation of the collected data (Fetterman, 2010).

Participant observation is the key data collection method in any ethnographic work (Fetterman, 2010). Ethnographic research relies mainly on qualitative methods as they are compatible with the naturalistic inquiry (Mukherji and Albon, 2012). The following section discusses the data collection methods that were applied in the current study, focusing on the theoretical principles for each method and how these methods were employed practically in my research.

Participant observation

Observation is a fundamental data collection method in early childhood research (Roberts-Holmes, 2014). Mukherji and Albon (2012) argued that observation is a well-suited method in carrying out research involving young children since they might not be able to provide answers through interviews or surveys due to their developmental stage. In addition, observation provides live data for the studied phenomenon which cannot be obtained from other methods (Cohen et al., 2011).

Research questions help the researcher decide what form of observation needs to be employed (Bryman, 2012). In ethnographic studies, naturalistic observation is used which allows researchers to observe their participants in their actual setting. Thus, this form of observation differs from laboratory observation where the setting is pre-prepared by the researcher such as in experimental studies (Cohen et al., 2011). In addition, participant observation is the best way to not only observe participants in their real lives but also to interact directly with them (Wolcott, 2014). In this respect, Clark (2003) argued that although observation is a crucial method of listening to young children, it draws largely on adults’ perspectives; thus, besides the traditional methods of observation, it is important to apply participatory research tools to hear children’s voices such as taking photographs by children on tours led by them and involving the researchers, book making and map making using photographs and drawings.

In the present work, participant observation was the most appropriate method for data collection. In other words, being a participant observer helped me to get insights into the actual early literacy practices that were implemented in

this classroom. In addition, as my research involves young children, observation becomes a crucial method in data collection and to listen to children’s voices. Indeed, the main bulk of data for the current study was collected through observation, and all other data that were collected through interviews, documents and mind maps were driven by the observational data.

Participant observation is considered a process that moves from descriptive observation to focused observation to more selective observation. This progressive feature requires ongoing analysis of the data that have been collected by observation as the preliminary analysis helps the researcher to reflect on the collected data and generate initial themes (Cohen et al., 2011). Mukherji and Albon (2012) reported that culture, social class, religion, education and previous experience influence researchers during the observational process. Indeed, keeping in mind the progressive nature of the observation helped me to reduce my worries and concerns over how to keep my observations focused and selective.

Several considerations should be taken into account during participant observation; these include accessing the setting, establishing trust, and determining which role the observer will adopt in situ. Cohen and colleagues (2011, p. 404) suggested four roles that the observer can adopt in the setting:

§ Complete participant: the observer is a fully participating member of the setting and the research is undertaken covertly.

§ Participant as observer: the observer remains in the setting for a long period of time, and the research aims are explained to the participants.

§ Observer as participant: the observer is not a member of the studied group, but participates in some activities. The research is undertaken overtly.

§ Complete observer: the researcher just observes and does not participate with the group being studied. The research is carried out covertly and the identity of the observer remains anonymous.

In this study, my role was observer as participant. Despite not being a member of the preschool where the study was conducted, I participated in some activities during the daily routine. In addition, my identity as a researcher was disclosed to all members of the preschool and the research aims were explained to all participants.

On the other hand, practically, the researcher has to think about specific matters such as how to take notes, move, stand or sit while observing, and what exactly needs to be recorded (Mukherji and Albon, 2012). Another consideration is related to stopping observation and leaving the field. It has been suggested that ethnographers can stop observation when the observational data become repeated as this means that theoretical saturation has been reached (Cohen et al., 2011). In the present work, I approached theoretical saturation gradually when the collected data became repeated and no new data were observed.

In participant observation, the researcher records in narrative form exactly what happens in the situation under observation. This type of observation produces unstructured data. Although this type of observation does not need prior preparation in the setting, the produced data, which are unstructured, take

obtained through observation are sensitive to contexts; this requires researchers to be fully aware about the context of the research.

It was mentioned above that observation has been criticised for its time- consuming, subjective nature, and the observer effect. Some have argued that the participant observer needs to spend a considerable period in the researched setting to reduce the reactivity effect (discussed earlier in Section 4.2.2.2) (Cohen et al., 2011). In this respect, McKechnie (2000) suggested that considering certain strategies can reduce observer reactivity; for instance, spending a familiarisation period with the participants before collecting the main data, avoiding eye contact with participants being observed, and ongoing analysis of the collected data to identify any observer effect that might be present. With regard to subjectivity, participant observers need to balance between their role as researchers and their role as participants so they be aware of and trying to minimise their biases (Fetterman, 2010). Moreover, participant observers need to avoid any judgments, evaluations or expectations when documenting their observations (Cohen et al., 2011; Mukherji and Albon, 2012). The following excerpt comes from the reflective part of my field notes, as an example of my feelings as a participant observer.

Excerpt 1

Today I have felt a set of mixed feelings regarding my role as a participant observer. Although I feel happy that the classroom’s children began to trust me and asked me to participate with them in their play, I found myself questioning: to what extent should I strengthen this relationship? How can I distinguish between my role as a researcher and my role as a participant? At the time I focused my observation on the children who are participating in my study, what about the other children, who are not participating in my study, and are asking me to play with them?

) Arabic from translated , 2014 March 16 notes, Field (

Observational tools Field notes

In ethnographic studies field notes is a key method for recording observational data (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). Thus, considerable attention needs to be given to how field notes will be recorded, organised and analysed. Taking notes in the setting is not an easy task even if the research is carried out overtly. In other words, it is not only hard to record everything that happens in the observed situation, but it is also difficult to decide how and when to write down the notes. It was mentioned earlier in this chapter that observation is guided by the research questions so, in this sense, field notes need to be selective (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). At the beginning of the current research, I had the same worries about not only what to write, but also about how and when to write. Indeed, bearing in mind that my observation needs to be driven by the research questions, I found that my notes became more selective as the research progressed.

In terms of field notes content, usually field notes consist of two parts; the first part is descriptive and the second part is reflective. The descriptive part includes accurate description (factual data) about date, time, place, setting, people, activities, and actual words. On the other hand, the reflective part includes the researcher’s reflections on the descriptive data, concerns, questions, feelings, obstacles and ethical issues (Cohen et al., 2011). Heath and Street (2008) made a practical suggestion that some ethnographers write their field notes in a separate document from that of their reflection notes, while others keep both in the same document in separate columns. In this respect, Wolcott (2014) suggested a framework for writing field notes, which consists

In order to ensure the validity of the field notes, Cohen et al. (2011) suggested that observers need to have the following sets of observational data; short notes taken in situ (jottings), expanded notes that are written up as soon as possible after observation, journals to record the researcher’s reflections, and ongoing organisation and analysis.

In the current work, observational data and reflection notes were written down in a small notebook that could be carried around in the classroom; these notes were in the form of jottings. After each visit, on the same day, these jottings were typed out in Word, with more expansion and detail (54 sets of field notes). The expanded form of the field notes were entered in a particular form (Appendix 1) that was designed to help me with organising and analysing the collected data.

Visual data

Educational researchers can collect data by using a variety of visual methods such as photographs, videos and artefacts. In ethnographic studies, some scholars have suggested that visual data may make a considerable contribution to the findings (Fetterman, 2010). In addition, Kendrick (in press) suggested that visual data allow the researcher to explore the participants’ perspective in literacy studies. The decision to use visual data depends on whether it is appropriate for the research purposes and whether it is applicable in the research setting (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). In addition, the use of such data is surrounded by ethical issues that need to be considered by researchers (Fetterman, 2010).

Although visual data reflect particular situations, they are not neutral as they have meaning and they cannot be seen as isolated from their social and cultural

contexts. Therefore, visual data need to be analysed and interpreted as any other kind of data are. In addition, visual data need to be selective based on the research questions, as is the case with observational data (Cohen et al., 2011). It has also been argued that visual data usually present an incomplete story, which raises the need for other sources of data (Fetterman, 2010).

With the evolution of digital technology, cheap and high-quality cameras are available to researchers. Indeed, visual data are valuable for many reasons: they capture the reality; they are repeatable; they are time-efficient compared with written notes, and they provide rich details (Mukherji and Albon, 2012). On the other hand, using visual tools such as cameras and video recording may affect the normal behaviour of the participants.

With the evolution of the online network and the emergence of social media tools, Pink (2013) suggested that researchers could undertake visual ethnography by exploring the visual culture of a particular research setting through websites, blogs, video and photograph-sharing programs. In the current work, some visual data were viewed in the preschool’s Instagram account, a social media tool for sharing videos and photographs, which was created by the preschool administration as a communication tool with the children’s families.

In this study, visual data such as photographs and video clips were employed. Indeed, these kinds of data were used in order to construct a comprehensive picture of the studied phenomenon and provide triangulated data. In other words, visual data would enhance and enrich the observational data that were recorded in the field notes. In this study, a moving camera was used instead of a fixed camera. Despite the advantages of using a fixed camera, in the setting

cultural and social reasons. Therefore, I used the camera from my iPhone to take photographs and video clips since it has a convenient size, clear sound and image quality, and the facility to transfer the photographs automatically to the laptop (MacBook Pro), which assists in organising and analysing the collected data. In particular, photographs (507) and short-clip videos (94) were taken selectively according to their relevance to the purposes of the research.

Some have argued that the use of a moving camera is intrusive and artificial (Cohen et al., 2011). In the case of the current research, I found that children were not distracted when I was taking shots, since the classroom teachers frequently take photographs by using the cameras on their smartphones to document children’s work. In addition, when I was introduced to the class as a researcher, it was clearly explained to the children that I would be using my smartphone to take photographs of them, and this was again explained to each of them, individually, when seeking assent from the children. With regard to