Observations

Observation can be defined as a research method “that enables researchers to systematically observe and record people’s behaviour, actions and interactions” (Hennink, Hutter and Bailey, 2011, p. 170). In the context of this study, some Libyan students in the various and separate master’s classes were observed in the classroom during a number of taught sessions which last two hours during the first and the second semesters. The observations include: 1) the nature of the interaction between Libyan students and their colleagues (i.e. British, international and other Libyan colleagues) _{and tutors and 2) Libyan students’} participation in shared activities such as discussion and group work. According to Hammersley and Atkinson:

Research is an active process, in which the accounts of the world are produced through selective observation and interpretation of what is seen, through asking questions and interpreting what is said, and through writing field notes.

(Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007, p. 16) I chose observation because it offers the researcher an opportunity to observe

102

data, rather than asking the participants or relying on second-hand data (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998; Robson, 2011). Furthermore, I chose observation because field notes are always a very useful element to complement the interview data and to explore the impact of the context as Robson states: “observation can be used as a supportive or supplementary method to collect data that may complement or set in perspective data obtained by other means” (Robson, 2011, p. 317). The aims are to develop a relationship with participants and to have the possibility of sharing an experience with them while seeing the impact of context. Patton (2002) emphasises that direct observation enables the researcher to understand the context where the interaction takes place. Furthermore, observation gives the researcher an opportunity to observe things that the participants are unwilling to talk about in the interview (Denscombe, 2010). In this study, I observed that all Libyan students did not interact with other Libyans, I subsequently asked about it in the interview. I used the observations to inform the other data rather than primarily as a data source in itself.

There are different roles that observers adopt in the natural setting, and they differ according to the extent of the researcher’s immersion in the context of the research_{: “Participant-as-observer, observer-as-participant, and complete} observer” (Robson, 2011, p. 318). 1) Participant-as-observer in which the observer builds trust relationships with the participants being observed in order to maintain the dual role as observer and as participant by participating in activities. 2) Observer-as-participant in which the observer is involved in what is being observed and this gives him or her an opportunity to gain an insider perspective. 3) In the complete observer role, the observer does not seek to be involved in the setting being observed. Also, she or he does not interfere in what is going on in the setting. The observer observes and records field notes. In this study, I assumed a complete observer role because I did not want to be obtrusive or affect the context that was being observed in any way. I wanted to observe things as they were without any intervention, although my role was overt to the group. I observed the participants by sitting near them; I observed what happened, their interaction with others; in the break time I talked to them, listened to what was

103

being said and in the interviews asked the participants to explain different aspects about what had been going on.

I found that observation was a useful way to gain “insight” into the interactions between Libyan students and their colleagues and tutors and to appreciate the dynamics of this relationship (Denscombe, 2010, p. 206). My interest was not only in the content of the interaction, but also in the nature of the interactions such as manner, tone and facial expression. The insight gained in the classroom helped to inform the questions that I subsequently used in interviews. By observing students in a situation, observations generated a more holistic view as Simons states: conducting observation enables the researcher to obtain “a comprehensive picture of the site” (Simons, 2009, p. 55). Time on site was essential to gain trust and to establish rapport. I observed conscientiously and kept fairly detailed field notes (Silverman, 2005, p. 174) on what I observed from five sessions in two semesters in total (see appendix 6). This amounted to ten hours of observations, the notes of which were recorded directly after the end of the sessions. To avoid disrupting the naturalness of the setting, however, classroom observation was not audio recorded because I felt this might be too obtrusive. Permission had to be gained from the class tutors to observe the participants in session. While some tutors were welcoming and comfortable to my presence, others did not agree to have me in class, so I observed another class. However, Robson (2011, p. 317) points out “reactivity” by which an observer may affect the naturalness of the situation being observed. Power relationship between the researcher and those researched might affect the observation in that participants may change their behaviour to please the researcher (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007); or they may feel anxious and self-conscious and, therefore, behave differently (Patton, 2002). Similarly, Denzin and Lincoln state: “The possibility of the observer’s affecting what he or she observes, nonetheless careful researchers are supposed to adhere to rigorous standards of objectivity reporting designed to overcome that potential bias” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005, p. 730). Therefore, several techniques were followed to reduce this potential effect, by which participants became familiar with my presence and less aware of being

104

observed. Through this and being Libyan and an international student, and through interviewing them three times; it was possible for trust and acceptance to develop over a period of time. The participants became accustomed to my presence and carried on as if I was not there. Also, I tried my best to be friendly and responded promptly if contacted. The approach was one of rapport and reciprocity and brought me closer to these _{students’ experiences, perceptions} and interactions within the master’s community.

Sparkes (1992) has suggested that observation (i.e. field notes) is purely subjective because if different researchers were to enter the same setting, they may well generate different data. Field notes are the researcher’s perspective while watching and listening, and so depend on the interests and sensitivity of the researcher. In this study, I was observing specific things (i.e. the nature of the interaction), which may reduce that subjectivity (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). The nature of the interaction is primarily a matter of evaluation.

As I said earlier, observation enables the researcher to gain real-life or first hand data on people’s actions and behaviours. However, the observer has no opportunity to access the participants’ thoughts, intentions and motivation. In the context of this study, interviews were conducted after the observations in order to gain more explanation and insight _{into participants’ thoughts and intentions.}