Observations

At the beginning of the study, I was uncertain whether I should adopt a non- participant or “unobtrusive” (Robson, 2002, p. 310) approach, where I would have acted as a “detached observer” (Coates and Coates, 2006, p. 225) who sat in a separate area from the children, observing without interacting with them, so as to have a naturalistic observation as possible. However, I immediately understood that this was not going to work on several levels. First, it is against my nature to be surrounded by children and not communicate with them; besides, I consider it as unethical to ignore the children’s queries and their need to disclose their experiences with others. Secondly, the KGA conveyed to me that, for the duration of the study, the drawing area was my responsibility. This meant that I had to keep a close eye on the area and make sure that it was enjoyed fairly by all children. Thirdly and more importantly, I wanted to closely follow all that the children were doing and saying. It

____________________________________________________________________ 113 was therefore, vital for me to be active and prompt, encourage or ask for the immediate elaboration from the children as otherwise the meaning would be lost. Using non-participant observation would have probably hampered the data collection process and the validation of the data.

Consequently, I considered participant observation, as the most appropriate strategy to use for my study where I took the role of what Emond (2005) defines as an “overt participant observer” (p. 125). Considering myself more of a participant rather than an observer, my emphasis during the data collection process was to elicit the children’s views, explore and problematise their drawings, listen to their ways of communication and simply grasp all that was occurring; an approach recommended by Montgomery (2014) and Warming (2005). In the process I also took Leitch’s (2008) advice, and worked to create a non-threating space, by developing a respectful and collaborative atmosphere, share informal conversations with the children and negotiate and develop my relationship with them. As MacNaughton, Hughes and Smith (2007) claim, the onus rested on me as the researcher to be considerate and in- sync with the children’s interests and to respectfully follow their cues, encourage related narratives and understand what they were communicating. Tay-Lim and Lim (2013) and Jones and Somekh (2005) suggest, that this can be quite a challenging process as it entails finding a balance between engaging with the children, supporting their views, and understanding and interpreting their perspectives while simultaneously taking note of everything that is occurring. I noticed that the more I interacted with the children, the more comfortable they felt in my company, and the more they were themselves. So while I recognise that my presence could be considered as an intrusion in the children’s daily lives, and I do not deny that at times they could have reacted differently if I was not present, yet, I argue that for most of the times, the children acted naturally as if I was their KGA or a family friend. The ground work I did in the preliminary visits in getting to know them, and the duration of the study, served their purpose for me to build a trusting relationship with them.

Conducting observations at school was easier for me, mainly because I was used to doing research in such a setting while it was the first time for me to enter children’s homes. Being a public domain, the school context allowed me more freedom of

____________________________________________________________________ 114 movement and therefore, I could focus on different children simultaneously. Contrastingly, I considered the home context as a sanctuary of private family affairs, where, in wanting to respect the families’ privacy I avoided unnecessary intrusion into their personal matters; thus, I was more conscious of the effect of my role on the children and the family. However, the families appeared comfortable with me in their homes. My visits allowed me access to the site and thus provided me with unique insights about the children and their experiences, conventions and ways of doing things, as well as with enough contextual information that abetted my analysis of the children’s drawings.

I adopted an involved “open-ended” (Jones and Somekh, 2005, p. 139) method of note-taking for my observations, where I did not take any formal or written records, but I took mental notes of as many details as possible. Meanwhile, I also used a Flip Ultra HD camera as part of my “multi-approach strategy” (Warming, 2005, p. 65) of data collection that helped me capture the children’s activity and document their voices. Once I returned home after each visit, I became more of an observer and I immediately reviewed the video-recordings, which served as an “aide-memoire” (Bryman, 2012, p. 457) of the children’s drawing processes. The permanence and flexibility of the video-footage as highlighted by Heath et al. (2010), enabled me to repeatedly watch, uncover and analyse the multi-layered production of the drawing experiences with more scrutiny. Subsequently, I developed a set of notes of my observations sessions which I kept on a Word-processing file in the form of a research diary (discussed in more detail in Section 4.7.7), where I regularly reflected on particular drawings and episodes that caught my attention.

Video recording the observations.

Aware that taking notes while collecting data in research can become problematic as one can miss on observation and participation (Jones and Somekh, 2005), I used videographing as a form of “indirect observation” (Haw and Hadfield, 2011, p. 9) where, as was noticed by Heath et al. (2010), the camera acted as a research assistant that captured the children’s complex interactions and processes as they unfolded. I considered the videos as my “visual field notes” (Marion and Crowder, 2013, p. 28) where, like any other field notes, they generated information which, I could go back

____________________________________________________________________ 115 to consult, review and analyse as needed. With a capacity to “capture, document or note-take a scene” (Prosser and Burke, 2008, p. 412), with a high level of detail and in a permanent and multi-layered way, I considered the video-camera as a “research instrument par excellence” (Lomax, and Casey, 1998, p. 5).

I opted to use Flip Ultra HD cameras for their light-weight, small size and manageability, as well as for their affordability, and their easy-to-use and reliable technology. The image generated on a Flip Ultra HD camera is in high-definition and sound is captured clearly. This also proved to be very useful as I could immediately upload the clips on my computer. However, while digital technology can be flexible and practical, it can also be problematic. Sometimes, it happened that either the battery went flat or the camera stopped recording due to a full memory, which meant that sometimes I lost precious minutes of recording until I got the camera running again. Moreover, after each home or school visit I had to download all the videos from the camera onto an external hard-disk, archiving them in separate folders accordingly, while securing an extra copy, and re-charging the battery to be ready-to- use. This process was very time-consuming. At the onset of each observation session, I stabilised the camera on a tripod and set it up on the side to ensure a non- invasive procedure for the children as possible, while directing it at the children’s drawings. Although this provided a focus on the drawing, it was also limiting as it left out a significant amount of activity that was occurring beyond the camera, a limitation also pointed out by Jones and Somekh (2005). Moreover, I did not have a fixed place where to put the camera but I changed it accordingly depending on the position of the child. This was difficult at school as the drawing area was small, and sometimes finding a space to set the camera from an adequate distance proved to be challenging. This meant that at times the video-camera was within the children’s easy reach who sometimes moved it around and consequently changed its angle, making me miss some of the data. Another problem that sometimes arose in the class was the fact that additional noise was captured by the camera, at times making it difficult for me to understand what the child was saying.

____________________________________________________________________ 116 To provide the reader with authentic exemplars of the observations, the children’s sociocultural situatedness and the drawing processes they engaged in, I included an edited video excerpt of a drawing from each of the home and school settings of each child. The six videos were edited and reduced to a manageable, viewable length, where I ommitted small talk, other non-related action or long episodes of the child silently drawing, to bring out the essence of how children created their drawings. In each video excerpt, the sound level was lowered as the conversations were mostly in Maltese even if English was regularly used by the children. I then included sub- headings with direct translations in English. I saved these videos as Windows Media Video (.wmv), which can be accessed from the SD (memory) card attached at the back of this thesis, in a folder under the name of each child ex. Luke’s Video-

Recordings, which can be located in the folder Children’s Video Recordings.

Obvious storage space inhibited me from presenting all videos recorded. Each video varied in length and hence in size, depending on the duration of the drawing and the post-drawing conversations. Table 4.3 provides an indication of the digital storage space needed to save all the videos.

Table 4.3

The digital storage space of all videos.