Atkinson and Hammersley (1994:249) speak of ethnography as well as social research and state, ‘In a sense, all social research is a form of participant observation, because we cannot study the social world without being a part of it.’ Following the onto-epistemological underpinnings of my research detailed in section 3.1, this statement rings true because there is no reality out there of which the researcher is seeking to be a part. Engaging in social research involves constructing a shared reality through interactions with the participants as the research process takes place (Cunliffe, 2016). From this starting point being reflexive about the role of the researcher becomes an important consideration. Writing on reflexivity, Cunliffe (2003) maintains that reflexivity involves a reflection on our philosophical commitments as researchers and exposing these commitments to critical reflection. Furthermore, she states, that ‘reflexivity also raises fundamental questions about our ability as researchers to capture the complex, interactional and emergent nature of our social experience’ (Cunliffe, 2003: 984). Hardy, Phillips, and Clegg (2001) echo this statement; they state that reflexivity in organization studies involves the inclusion of the researcher in what is being studied. In this sense, it is important to explain my role as a researcher in the study. This is done in two ways, first by reflecting on my identity and the power relations or questions of legitimacy that arose in the field.
I approached all organizations for my study as a student researcher, sending each organization a project information sheet, cover letter, and my academic CV. One of the reasons why access was a relatively smooth process was because access to the organizations was negotiated through my father and his friends who had worked both with the owner of Crewco, with Captain W who was in charge of the training department and with the gatekeepers at CCTC. This was the potential reason that I was given carte
blanche access to the organization’s training center. At Crewco, my role was interpreted by the management as that of a student researcher, but also that of an outsider who could give them a new perspective on their training. Arriving in Manila, my identity as a researcher was reinforced through each introduction via the gatekeeper who introduced me to the faculty. In the classroom training this identity of the researcher shifted, I found that I perceived myself as a learner and a researcher in the same role. I realized this after the first two weeks of fieldwork, where my notes reflected not only what was happening in class, but also the content of the classes. Having been in higher education as a student for a while, this was a role that felt more familiar than that of a researcher. Once this was noted, I still took notes on the contents of the class but also tried to critically reflect on what was happening within that setting from a situated learning perspective.
My role as a student researcher had to be negotiated not only in the classrooms but also during the interviews. Both cadets and officers treated me as a conduit to make their voices heard by the management. For example, in one of the interviews, an officer implied that I could help him get a job for his younger brother. In another case, a cadet mentioned that he thought the sea-time training should be supervised more. This was usually brought up in interviews when I asked the question, ‘is there anything you feel I have missed out, or anything you would like to add that you feel important?’ At this point, I would mention that the study aimed to be descriptive rather than prescriptive and that I would provide a report to the management about my findings and the end of the research. I did pre- emptively state that I was conducting the research as a part of an independent study and that all personal information would be confidential, this is addressed in further detail earlier in the chapter (section 3.5)
On board MV Sea-line, I assumed the same identity of a student researcher and learner, however, during my interactions with the crew members, I was also ascribed the identity of an outsider from the perspective of seafarers, this was particularly true as I had not sailed before. In order to negotiate this identity, I did mention that I had accompanied my parents as a child on board oil tankers and while I was an outsider to their community, I had heard stories from my father about his sailing days and his role as a member of the community. As I spent time on board, my role changed from being an outsider to being, an interloper, someone who was interested in their lives and work. Hence, this positioned me as someone who would acknowledge their version of the ‘us’ and ‘them’ culture between the sea and shore.
Furthermore, during the interviews, social interactions and if asked during the observation sessions in the classrooms and on board MV Sea-Line I would position myself as a learner. This meant that I would state that I was new to the industry and did not know much about the practices of seafaring. The naivety of the role of the learner allowed me to probe assumptions that the participants made about their world and work practices. It helped me to understand the assumptions of the community better. At CCTC I also developed a close relationship with three experienced captains who were working as training consultants there. This relationship was extremely useful as I had a sounding board to reflect on my observations from the day, usually over or after dinner. These relationships and those with other participants took time to cultivate and staying at the training center was good because I had daily interaction with the participants and the people which allowed for the formation of these relationships. However, during interviews, I found that positioning myself purely as an outsider or a learner meant that the participants would gloss over details of their work assuming that I would not be able to understand the technicality of their work.
A point to be mentioned is my identity as a female in a predominantly male-dominated industry. At CCTC this was not much of an issue because there were other women at the training center. At this point I had already conducted ethnographic studies in the industry at three different sites, two studies in India and one in the UK; this meant that I was familiar with being the only woman in a classroom or office that was predominantly composed of men. At CCTC my identity as a woman came into play during the classroom observations when cadets were distracted by my presence in class initially; however, this was managed by training instructors who either joked that they should pay attention to the lesson and not to me, or they re-iterated my role and my reason for being there. Prior to going on board MV-Sea Line, I was apprehensive about being the only woman on board, especially after reading Sampson and Thomas’s (2003) account of conducting ethnography at sea as female ethnographers and the risks involved. Talking with my parents, especially my mother about her experiences at sea, when she sailed with my father, helped allay some of the fears. My connections with the company, being at CCTC and talking also with acquaintances I made helped prepare me for spending a month on board.
On MV Sea-Line at the beginning of the ethnographic study, the captain asked me to greet the crew as they wanted to know if there was a lady on board. They were as unused to my presence as I was of being on board, and I think a large part of the smooth process was that the captain and the senior officers were accepting of my presence on board. The trepidation of being the only woman slowly went away. An aspect that did cause difficulty on board was being sea-sick. Sea-sickness was something that I did not think I had to contend with because it was never a problem when I sailed with my father as a child. However, on board MV Sea-Line especially during rough weather conditions, sleeping and eating became a
problem when the ship constantly pitched at rolled. On those days conducting observations and interviews was a challenging process.
This leads to a reflection on the power relations that exist between the researcher and the participants. Due to the access of the research setting, there was a curious power dynamic, while the gatekeepers controlled access to my participation as a researcher in the settings, as I had secured access in a top-down manner, the power relations between the gatekeepers at the sites of practice and myself were negotiable. While gatekeepers at CCTC were comfortable with me having access to participants, information, and space, on MV Sea-Line, access was negotiated primarily with the captain. This meant that he had more power in terms of controlling access to participation, space, time and information. For example, as mentioned earlier, I was not allowed on deck unsupervised for safety reasons. Another example was when I tried to negotiate a shadowing session with the cadet and was told that I could speak to him after he had completed his day work if he was willing and not tired. My position of power relative to the gatekeepers also sheds light on my legitimacy as a learner on board. As I mentioned earlier, I found myself unconsciously falling into the role of a learner during the classroom sessions.
Upon reflection, during my nine months of data collection, at Crewco and other organizations, I participated partially in the training process that the cadets underwent. I sat in their classes, did some of the compulsory training such as firefighting, went to a ship visit to familiarize myself with the setting and underwent sea time experience. However, being an outsider, I was given opportunities for participation that were not extended to the cadets, this involved access to old-timers, resources, and spaces that the cadets were not given.