Methods for data collection and research design

Having established the complex nature of exploring what counts as ethnography I also introduced the ethnographic tools which include the use of methods and techniques in the previous section. Now I am going to describe them in detail. Following Law’s (2004) insight that methods construct reality, ‘it is that methods, their rules, and even more methods’ practices, not only describe but also help to produce the reality that they understand’ (2004, p.5). The data collection for my PhD thesis consists of video based collection and semi-structured/ unstructured interview and also field notes taken to recall the purpose of each visit as mentioned earlier. I took video recordings when children’s activities were engaged with digital technology. The background information regarding families was collected without the use of video technology, though in keeping with ethnographic informal discussions and observations. I decided to use semi structured interviews to collect more in depth information about the families. This provided a descriptive account in order to interpret and analyse the data. As described earlier this data was collected during the period of rapport building and informal conversation taking place in the social settings. The video recordings were used to observe mainly the children’s digital practices in order to understand the nature of their activities. These two different kinds of observations needed to be described to identify the themes of the study. I transcribed data from the video observation and then described this data in order to identify the themes that addressed the research questions. The interpretations convey meaning and the analysis addresses the outcome of the research. I drew on Wolcott’s (1994) process, which comprises of description, analysis and interpretation. The first approach is to treat descriptive data as subjective.The second is a systematic way of organising and reporting data with an analysis process, in order to identify key factors and relationships among them. Thirdly,

there is a need to interpret these relationships to reach out for understanding and meaning where analysis becomes interpretation.

My data is mainly video based, which consists of both visual and audio communicative modes and captures children’s interaction as multimodal communicative practices through their use of digital technologies (Norris, 2004; Jewitt, 2003; 2010). As according to Pahl and Rowsell (2006, p.9), ‘Ethnography allows us to view multimodality’, it gives an analytical tool to understand children’s multiple modes of communicative practices such as using ethnography to inform multimodal analysis from digital environments (Marsh, 2006). It is however important to describe the elements of my research methods in the context of ethnographic research design.

Discussion of participatory research methods in ethnography:

Participant observation is one of the research methods used as part of my inquiry process, along with other methods such as semi-structured/unstructured interviews and also home-video observation. Benjamin Paul (1953, p. 441) has pointed out, ‘Participation implies emotional involvement; observation requires detachment. It is a strain to try to sympathize with others and at the same time strive for scientific objectivity’. Later, Tedlock (1991; 2000) explored the nature of participation and revealed that in the 21st century, there has been a change in that ethnographers modified ‘participant observation’ towards ‘the observation of participation’.

Tedlock (1991, p. 69) defined participant observations thus: ‘Ethnographers attempt to be both emotionally engaged participants and coolly dispassionate observers of the lives of others.’ In contrast, she defined ‘the observation of participation’ as ethnographers both experience and observe their own and others co-participation within the ethnographic encounter.

This modified view of participation offers the prospect of an enriched understanding of ethnographic encounters and for Tedlock forms the preferred basis for research aims. This continued shift of participation suggested that a 'participant observer' takes part in the research, then steps back to comment on it (attempting to comment objectively on their experience). On the other hand an 'observer of participation' acknowledges that they are part of what's going on by acknowledging their subjective experience.

It seems that a variety of techniques are incorporated under the title of participant observation. In other words, participant observation means not one technique but techniques ‘usually carried out in explicit or implicit combination with other strategies designed to elicit different sorts of data’ (Green and Bloome, 1997, p.184). This technique altered again from the user point of view and the term ‘participatory research’ is now often used as a research method with children from early childhood education. Levy and Thompson (2013) pointed out that a growing body of literature is now using the term ‘participatory research’ commonly for the inclusion of young children’s voices to be heard within social and educational research and argued that it is important to define the term ‘participatory research’ in terms of research design. According to Levy and Thompson (2013, p.4):

The term ‘participatory research with young children’ has many different interpretations, however, most would agree that it has to involve listening to children and hearing their voices. It is not surprising, therefore, that many researchers of children situate their commitment to listening to the voice of the child in the domain of human rights.

Recently, researchers have supplemented participatory methods with participant observations alongside general ethnographic interviews (Pahl and Allan, 2011; Christensen, 2004). The reason for this supplementation is to encourage children to actively engage with the research process in order to get their opinion on the meaning of their activities. In the context of young people’s participation in the research process, Pahl and Allan (2011, p.192) commented that ‘we argue from a methodological perspective, that a participatory, ecological methodology can open up a new research space, which also brings agency into the picture, as the young people in the study actively planned and delivered the research’.

McCall and Simmons (1969) describe the variety of methods involved in participant observation. They stated that:

....participant observation is not a single method but rather a characteristic style of research which makes use of a number of methods and techniques - observation, informant interviewing, document analysis, respondent interviewing and participation with self-analysis.

In my ethnographic approach I accommodated participant observation as a complementary mode of inquiry. This allowed selective flexibility in the type and extent of participation appropriate to the ethnographic situations being encountered. These include participant observations of complex and dynamic home activities such as children’s digital game-playing, using computers and using mobile phone technology, all of which involved some measure of active participation. Appropriate observations and participations over this range of options are used to create insights into the relationship between children’s socio-cultural life practices and their use of digital technologies. Although my research mixed both observational and participatory methods, in this sense it is important to clarify to what extent my study is participatory. It is evident that participatory research with children can certainly be designed to empower them through listening and gathering opinion, and also include them as co- researchers. I am not however, limiting a definition of participatory research to the specific research of my research aims. My focus rather is problematising a critical reflection on the use of participatory techniques with young children while observing their activities relevant to research aims. I viewed participatory research as the ways in which I was observing, listening and occasionally responding to children’s activities – I cannot discount the effect of my presence as an observer in influencing elements of what I observed. Though I could not fully be described as a participant, and though I did not directly take part in any of the children’s activities, this was clearly not a ‘pure’ observation. In order to further my understanding, it was also essential to negotiate a positive and enduring relationship with participating families (children, parents and grandparents) during the period of fieldwork. Children willingly participated in the research and selected the observational activities themselves. They were using digital technologies linked with literacy, language and cultural practices. During the period of using technologies they were talking and interacting on screen regarding each activity. These interactions helped me to gather the meaning of their activities. In terms of including children as co-researchers, I asked them whether they were happy with me videoing them and also checked with them when I need to understand about the meaning of their activities.

Interviews with parents and children were situationally chosen, semi-structured and unstructured. I had a clear list of questions around key issues related to my research, but these questions were open-ended (see appendix 2b and 2c). This allowed interviews to be flexible and adaptive to any important issues that arose. A repeated

process was used to understand children’s digital activities and interview schedules for family visits were revised as necessary. Audio and video recordings were taken for interviews and activities when appropriate. Having established methods for data collection and research design, now I am going to describe how my sampling strategy (family selection) was purposive. Then I will describe family backgrounds together with some accounts of the preliminary home visits with each family which are extracted from the field notes.