Participant Observation

TCL is an advanced form of peer learning and in order to explore these interactions, Cotton et al (2010) believe it is best observed in its natural setting. Kawulich (2005) defines ‘Participant observation as the process enabling researchers to learn about the activities of the people under study in a natural setting through observing and participating in those activities’ (pg. 2), while Lofland (1971) sees it as the ‘circumstances of being in or around an ongoing social setting for the purpose of making a qualitative analysis of that setting’ (pg. 93). Combining these definitions, an insider participant observer hopes to gain a greater knowledge and a deeper understanding than would be possible, if studying the phenomena from the outside. Insiders in the participant observation role focus on specific features including: human interaction, interpretation of human understanding and open ended inquiry. Population size is an important factor and according to Jorgenson (1990) best suited to a small sample as in this study.

There are two types of participation observation, the participant observer who actively participates in the process, as in this study (DeWalt and DeWalt, 2002; Wellington, 2000) and the non-participant observer who stands aloof from the

78 group (Cohen and Manion, 1994). The level of participation and the researcher’s membership of the group under study are two important factors that determine where a researcher fits on Adlers and Adlers’ (1987) and Spradley’s (1980) continuum. Spradley (1980) places researcher participation on a continuum from researcher non-participation to complete participation. On Spradley’s scale I am a moderate participant, meaning that I am identifiable as a researcher, am part of the research action, interact with the participants, but I am not totally immersed in the process. In relation to this study I facilitate the TCL process.

Adler and Adler (1987) categorise membership roles from no membership role for a researcher, through peripheral to full membership. I am not on site with the participants in their daily lives, as with true ethnographic research, so cannot be considered to have full membership. In this study I appear to have peripheral membership. This means, I am seen as a member of the group, part of the scene (in the facilitator/tutor role) and recognised as an insider by the group. This allows me some insight through the TCL interactions to gain a deeper understanding of how the participants make sense of their daily lives (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002; Jorgenson, 1990).

The benefits of observation are that it is a direct way of obtaining data, ‘it is what they actually do’ (Gillham, 2000:47) or say and can be used ‘to obtain qualitative description of the behaviours of a group’ (Foster, 1996:58) and support other data in a multi-method research approach. The opportunity associated with insider research is, that a researcher as an insider who is present during the research, may be able to see, hear and experience in more detail what is happening, something someone external to the case may not see, that may create an opportunity for a researcher to produce a more accurate account of the phenomena under study (Yin, 2009). The observer in using observation may also be able to see patterns over a period of time that would not be obvious to participants.

79 While recognised authors in the field (Cohen, Manion and Morrisson, 2007; Dewalt and Dewalt, 2002; Foster, 1996), among others, speak frankly about observation, all agree that it is a difficult discipline that requires a lot of time, effort and practice. Gillham (2000) states that ‘being a good observer…is not a normal natural activity’ (pg. 49). Initially the difficulty for a researcher according to Jorgensen (1990), is deciding what is important. In the context of this research question where all sessions are recorded by audio and video, my memory would not be called into question but the importance of notes ‘regarding personal feelings, hunches, guesses and speculations’ (Jorgensen, 1990: 96) would allow me debrief and takes notes on what seems important at the time. The one concrete task that the researcher performs according to Lofland (1971) during and after observation is taking field notes and if these are not done the researcher might as well not be in the research setting at all. Balancing the roles of researcher and participant observer are a real challenge in that the ‘participant role may simply require too much attention relative to the observer role’ (Yin, 2009:113), one of the reasons I chose to video the classroom sessions discussed further in the next section.

The challenges in participant observation span two distinct categories, the challenge of managing working with the participants and the challenge of managing the researcher’s participant subjectivity (Cohen and Manion, 1994; Yin, 2009). Managing the participants is a combination of access, building relationships and trust. By developing relationships with the participants I accessed behaviour that had ‘been influenced as little as possible by the researcher’s presence or process’ (Foster, 1996:70; Vinten, 1994). Observation is both ‘fallible and highly selective’ (Gillam, 2000:47) and there is always the danger that the researcher’s selectivity may misinterpret the data (O’ Leary, 2010). Conversely participant observation carried out in a rigorous manner can result in rich in-depth qualitative data both verbal and non-verbal (O Leary, 2010).

80 I found the thought and responsibility of observation as a primary technique quite daunting, but was reassured by Gillham’s (2000) thoughts on the topic:

‘a conscious attempt at rigour can usually lead to a reasonable judgement: we can expect no more’

(Gillham, 2000:47). In this study, video recording will be used primarily as a visual record or visual diary of the sessions, allowing me to perform my dual role as both participant observer and class facilitator.