Researcher Role

The researcher’s role can take on many forms along a continuum from complete observer (total observation, no involvement) to complete participant (total involvement with aim of becoming accepted in natural environment) (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007; Sparkes & Smith, 2014). Each of these roles has its own distinct advantages and disadvantages. As a complete participant, the researcher often attempts to pass as an ordinary member of the group being studied (Karp, 1980; Pettinger, 2005), which according to Jules-Rosette (1978a, 1978b) and Ferrell and Hamm (1998) is the ideal position to aim for as it offers the most accurate insider perspective. It can, however, be argued that to adopt the role of complete participant is unsustainable as to do so a researcher would have to place all scholarly activity on hold, because as Hammersley and Atkinson (2007, p. 83) note complete participation not only restricts the methods or tools available to a researcher (for example, note taking and probing of informants) but “places great strain on the fieldworkers’ dramaturgical capacities”. At the other end of the continuum, as a complete observer, a position that is also arguably unattainable, as to be present in a research setting is to already be intersubjectively involved, the researcher may encounter paradoxically similar predicaments. On one hand, they are able to observe with only minimal influence upon the natural behaviours of the participants, but on the other, they are severely limited in what can and cannot be observed, and questioning participants could be impossible (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). Although both these roles have their advantages and disadvantages, Hammersley and Atkinson argue that:

…adopting either of these roles alone would usually make it very difficult to generate and test accounts in a rigorous manner, though both may be useful strategies to adopt during particular phases of fieldwork, and in some situations may be the only options possible (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007, p. 85).

As a result, most fieldwork is usually situated somewhere between these two poles, where the researcher shifts between roles allowing access to different kinds of data (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). Therefore, to maintain a level of flexibility that allowed me to move along this continuum when necessary, I adopted the role of a volunteer assistant (coach), providing support to the coaches and swimmers where necessary, giving me the option to observe from differing degrees of proximity. This is a position I was very familiar with,

94 having been both a swimmer and also a swimming coach, making me what some would consider to be a ‘cultured insider’ (Evers, 2006; Wheaton, 2002). Although this level of active involvement offered me a unique position from which to gain in depth insights, as Allen-Collinson (2013) notes:

…it is debatable whether anyone can ever be deemed a complete member of any culture, subculture or social group…rather, it might be more accurate to posit that there are degrees of insiderness and outsiderness, which change over time, place and social context (Allen-Collinson, 2013, p. 287).

Keeping this in mind, I was aware that although my role had been defined as a volunteer assistant, my insider/outsider status was very much in flux throughout the project with each position bringing its own specific possibilities, challenges and limitations (Thorpe & Olive, 2016).

My position as a ‘cultured insider’ on the one hand helped me to gain access to the research site, provided me with a potential ‘head start’ in recognising what the significant issues, concepts and themes of the investigation could be, and afforded me the opportunity during initial observations to walk around the pool engaging with the participants in informal conversations to build rapport and quell any authority myth which might have occurred. As I began to know the swimmers and coaches better, I developed a greater level of emotional connectedness to the cultural practices of the programme. It was Matthew and Wade who delivered the news that I was being accepted into the programme when they asked if I would be attending a competition with them during immersion one. When I said I wouldn’t be, they asked “why not?”, as I was now a “member of the team”. The instant they said this I knew their comment had left a mark on me in terms of changing the perception I had of my position within the research setting from an outsider to an insider. These significant moments happen rarely within fieldwork and when they do, they leave the impression of constituting an important step in the research project.

On the other hand, my experience did cause issues with maintaining a critical distance from which to work effectively and from which to represent the participants’ worldviews (see also Thorpe & Olive, 2016). My dilemma centred on trying to avoid becoming identified with just one side of the coach-athlete divide. I wanted to be perceived as neutral rather

95 than having to define precisely whose ‘side’ I was on. I wished to maintain this neutrality so that the swimmers would not see me as ‘a coach’ and therefore remain willing to talk openly around me. The following reflective note does, however, highlight my frustrations at trying to maintain this neutrality as time went along, where my experience, and skills as a coach were increasingly called upon to provide advice on planning, session design, technique and disciplinary matters:

To say I’m getting a little frustrated is an understatement. I know Tony has been away quite a bit lately and it’s great that they [the coaches] trust me to fill in, but it’s also frustrating. I feel as though I have definitely been more of a coaching insider as opposed to researcher over the last few days or week. I am really finding maintain a position challenging…I never thought that it would be this difficult and I’m finding it harder and harder to balance being coach, researcher, confidant etc. I’m not their coach, but I am part of the coaching group while I’m here. I’m also a researcher, however, and having to strike that balance is proving more and more challenging the longer I am here. It’s even more challenging when I always end up with the same group. I understand that I can only observe what is in front of me but it’s also frustrating as I feel I am missing out on other things going on in the pool. Additionally, as a result of feeling frustrated, I’m then not really focused on what I am doing and what’s directly in front of me (Fieldnote, 8th _February

2018 PM).

This was not an isolated incident and occurred more frequently as time in the field increased. In these situations, the researcher/voluntary assistant (coach) role balance was constantly in flux. At one point, this role tension drew comment from one former coach at ANP Swimming, who jokingly expressed concern at whether I was still able to undertake my academic research as well as the coaching work. To manage these challenges, I had to continuously engage with reflexive work both with my supervisory team, and individually through self-reflections, in an attempt to sustain bracketing, and to regain what Dwyer and Buckle (2009, p. 60) refer to as the “space between”, allowing me to continue to question the events and practices observed. These steps, as detailed earlier, thus became vital throughout my data collection and analysis.

As the previous sections portray, adopting an appropriate role at the right time is essential for accessing and making sense of the lifeworld under investigation. Participant observation, with its attendant field notes, is thus a useful starting point for data generation in a study of this nature, and it is to these practices that I now turn.

96