OBSERVER PARTICIPANT

By being present in all of the classroom sessions from the start of the academic year to its end the anticipation was that I would become accepted within the social fabric of the classroom. Participant observation is what produces rapport and to be able to see what might not be seen in other

circumstances by ensuring that everyone is comfortable with the presence of the researcher (Bernard, 2006). It is defined ‘by researcher presence at the event being observed’ (Schensul, Schensul and LeCompte, 1999: 92). By blending into the community the participants will act naturally and as Bernard (2006: 334) comments it ‘puts you where the action is and lets you collect data […] experiencing the lives of the people you are studying as much as you can’. The caveat

that Bernard draws into this participant immersion is not to get too involved and lost in the

experience, as the researcher also needs to remove themselves from the immersion so that the data can be collected, ‘so you can intellectualize what you’ve seen and heard, put it in perspective’ (Bernard, 2006: 344). Alongside this viewpoint a ‘“prolonged engagement” and “persistent observation”’ in the field is considered by Lincoln and Guba (1985: 193) as capable of producing more trustworthy findings, as there are then greater opportunities to observe and interact within the research site. Although, as indicated in the previous section this can develop the risk of ‘going native’ through the prolonged engagement (ibid.).

To observe without participation in this context bore the risk of being more intrusive by alienating myself from those within the room. Especially as being a tutor I presupposed that the students might ask for support if the session tutor was otherwise engaged; under such circumstances you then ‘occupy the place where an act pushes you’ (Lacan, 2008: 5). To resist this would distance myself from those that I was trying to understand. One outcome from this that was hoped for, was that the periodic interviews then became a less formal event and more of a discussion, and from the students’ point of view just one of the occasional events of their time at college.

Therefore during the research the aim was to adopt the role of a participant observer, or more appropriately an observing participant (Alvesson, 2003: 174) with the more limited role of an academic support tutor. From the outset, it was made clear to the students that apart from my research interests I was also available to support them with any questions they had with their academic coursework, if the tutor was preoccupied. In this way it also helped in getting to know the students more and their approaches to their work and uses of technology. Although there was the potential risk that this could focus my attention too much towards students being on-task, or off- task this support role was passive and only triggered on a student’s request. If students directly asked me for support I would discuss any issues with them, if the tutor was busy, but I would avoid directly asking students if they needed help if I became aware of a need through observation, or comments overheard. This situation raised the distinction between the ‘participant-as-observer and observer-as-participant’ (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007: 85) and the concomitant risk of

becoming too much of a participant and losing sight of the researcher responsibilities. Therefore there was a continual need to manage the primary role of ethnographer, especially as the immersion became more prolonged and there was a risk of becoming too involved in the participant identity. Although in practice, the researcher administrative routines, prior to the sessions starting, and the

subsequent observations and note making also acted as identity establishing acts for the primary purpose of being in the classrooms.

There is also an alternate way of considering how being immersed in an environment can affect and change a researcher’s outlook both as an individual, and a professional. As an assemblage of many parts I am ‘both effected through relations…[but] at the same time, life is not reducible to effected or actual relations’ (Colebrook, 2005: 3). By engaging with the participants there was the risk, as discussed earlier, of getting to know both students and tutors more than before, with the subsequent concerns around partisanship and developing sympathies with those I was researching. This could then jeopardise the integrity of the research. There is also the argument that to try and minimise observer effects, and also the situational effects on the observer there is a risk to the rich data that can emerge from an ethnography. Therefore, to ‘impose artificial constraints on the fieldwork [could] diminish the scientific endeavor’ (Monahan and Fisher, 2010: 370). It is the interactions with informants that can bring the ethnographic ‘rewards’. By retaining a presence with the

participants, rather than forcing a distance, any ‘webs of significance’ (Geertz, 1973: 5) can become more apparent.

There is not only how the observer participates in the research field to consider but the effect they can have on it by actually being there, and the following section will now examine that in more detail.