Observations

Brewer (2000: 6) notes,

‘Ethnography is the study of people in naturally occurring settings or ‘field’ by methods of data collection which capture their social meanings and ordinary activities, involving the researcher participating directly in the setting, if not also the activities, to collect data in a systematic manner.’

While ethnography encompasses a wide array of research methods, observation is one that has been long associated with ethnographic research through the work of social researchers, such as Van Maanen and Kolb (1983, and Barley (1986). Observation in a field setting involves looking at as well as listening to the interactions and doings that take place within such a setting. As Van Maanen (2006: 18) notes,

‘Ethnography maintains an almost obsessive focus on the “empirical.” The witnessing ideal with its intense reliance on personalized seeing, hearing, experiencing in specific social settings continues to generate something of a hostility to generalizations and abstractions not connected to immersion in situated detail.’

This is particularly important because, from a practice perspective, ‘social and organizational life stem from and transpire through the real-time accomplishments of ordinary activities’ (Nicolini & Monteiro, 2017: 111). To make sense of these ‘real time accomplishments of ordinary activities’ I needed to observe the mundane, ordinary activities. Ethnographic observation involves being in a naturally occurring setting, looking at and listening to what is going on and recording those experiences. Due to the danger of observing everything without focus, Silverman (2006: 89) cites

Emerson et al.’s (1995: 146) set of questions when making field notes. These questions served as a good tool initially to make sense of what was going on in the setting, these are noted in table 3-6, below.

Table 3-6 Questions to Guide Field-Notes

During the fieldwork, three research notebooks were maintained, these included formal observations, social interactions, and personal notes, as well as the initial memos created while in the field. Formal observations were recorded in-situ; social interactions were recorded after the fact. Additionally, when possible, the observation sessions were also audio- recorded, which helped relieve some burden of missing an essential aspect of what was being said, and allowed me to pay attention to the looking point of observation (Silverman, 2006).

3.6.1.1 Conducting Observations at CCTC

On the first day at the training center, Ms. C and I went over the timetable which had details of the classes I would observe each day, the duration, room number, and name of instructor. The classes would usually last from 0800 to 1700 with a break between 1000-1030, 1200-1300 and 1500-1530. It had been decided earlier that I would observe classes specifically from the deck department. In all, 30 formal classroom observations were conducted over a period of four months lasting an average of 5.5 hours each. Initially, an effort was made to observe classes each day and a new class every day to obtain an overall view of the training courses. However,

as time passed the number of observations was reduced to ensure time for analysis and writing field notes. The idea behind the classroom observations was to obtain a sense of the practices of training and formal learning that took place in the organization. This was done to gain an understanding of how novices learned in a materially different environment than the one in which they worked; the influence of the trainers on the learning and the context within which these practices took place.

Formal observations were noted as the classes were being conducted and were also audio-recorded to allow me to access the data in case more information was required (See appendix B for field note sample from CCTC). Opportunities for informal observation took place usually at meal times or when for special courses such as a third-party training course that I was invited to sit in on and an immersion course for math and physics teachers from local partner colleges in the Philippines. Field notes from daily observations were written up as brief notes during the day and were subsequently rewritten as extended memos in a fieldwork diary at the first available time. Some informal conversations took place each day, usually lasting for a few hours. These were mainly with two retired German captains who were working as consultants for the company to reorganize and develop the training programs and another retired British captain who was in Manila to develop a training course for management level officers at his organization. These conversations provided a particularly useful source of data through narratives from their sailing days, their expert opinions on the prospective officer training and were immensely helpful for me to understand the language and principles of the practice with which I was unfamiliar. Additionally, informal conversations during lunch and dinner were usually observed with the management team at the company.

3.6.1.2 Conducting Observations at MV Sea-Line

On MV Sea-Line the idea was to spend time observing the work and life at sea. During this time, I lived on the ship along with the crew in the cabin reserved for a third officer. I ate meals with the officers in their mess and primarily spent my time on the bridge with officers to understand navigational practices. As mentioned earlier, due to reasons of safety I was not allowed to go unsupervised on deck, which limited the observation of deck work. During my first week on board, I was given a familiarization of the ship where I was guided through the ship structure. Here, I was shown the deck by the second officer on board, the mooring stations, the stores, the main deck where the cargo was loaded, the gangway, the cargo operations room, the accommodation block, the mess rooms, the galley, the engine room, and the bridge (See appendix B for field note sample from MV Sea-Line). The observation sessions included observation of navigational practices such as keeping watch at sea, berthing and un- berthing at port, master-pilot interactions at port, approach and departure from port, anchorage, and drills. Additionally, I went up to observe the watch of each of the officers to learn about the practices that were particular to their ranks. Usually, I would spend 0.5- 2.5 hours on the bridge and one hour at each meal time for social interactions. Furthermore, I spent additional time on the bridge for social interactions on occasion. As at CCTC, informal conversations with officers and ratings during meal times or with officers during their watch were also noted. These proved useful for clarifying points that were unclear during operations. Moreover, meal times were useful for observing interactions between officers and crew in an informal setting. There were instances when formal procedures described during bridge observations or interviews were formulated again in terms of what happened in practice. For example, during an initial talk with the chief officer about the cargo operations, he described the ideal process; however, the next week over lunch when I asked him how the

cargo operations had proceeded that morning he highlighted the breakdowns and tensions within the process that were not mentioned in the earlier talk. Furthermore, the social interactions at meal times were useful in obtaining information about the lives and work of the officers in a more informal setting, which also helped to start building their trust. The data collected also include personal notes of experience on board, documents and interviews with all crewmembers. A particularly useful time for data collection was during the watch with the officers on the bridge, where we spent time discussing their opinions about the training on board as well as generally within the industry, as well as their personal trajectories and experiences on board.