Stage two: mapping and participatory occupations

Carspecken‟s (1996) description of social activities as occurring within particular sites fit with my interest in exploring the relationship between immigrants‟

occupations and the places where those occurred. As his work was located within educational research, the observation process he described took place within one particular site (i.e. classroom). Data generation for my study occurred in multiple sites so I altered the participatory observation process to reflect this. In addition to describing the sites within which each session took place, I added a mapping exercise to highlight the varying places and sites of importance to the participants. This section further describes this stage of data generation. Process consent was obtained prior to beginning stage two. As noted above, in addition to better understanding what the participants did on a daily basis, I was also interested in the places where their occupations occurred. This stage thus began by engaging in a mapping exercise with the participants (example maps are included in appendix E). They were asked to draw their map of London and to tell me about the places they went in the city, and what they did in them. These maps detailed local spatial use and served as a way of identifying routine occupations that participants‟ may not have thought important enough to highlight explicitly. My interest in the tacit or „mundane‟ nature of occupation and its

contribution to identity made the identification of such forms of doing relevant to the study. After drawing their maps and explaining them, which gave me a sense of what participants routinely did, and where they did it, participants were asked to select an occupation we could engage in together. Some had specific places

or particular occupations they wanted to show me; while others were unsure of what types of occupations might interest me. I participated in all occupations the respondents selected, and if they asked me what I wanted to do, I suggested a series of occupations they had mentioned as part of their narratives or during the mapping exercise, leaving the final decision up to them.

I then spent additional time with six of the participants during the second and third sessions to engage in their routine and meaningful occupations with them. The purpose of this stage of data generation was discussed with participants at the time of the first interview. The use of an occupational perspective to explore theoretical concepts (e.g. habitus) as affected by migration was addressed in layperson‟s terms: that is, the importance of doing for one‟s sense of being, becoming and belonging following an international migration. By participating in routine and meaningful occupations with the respondents, I was able to gain additional insight into the nature of their routine occupational engagement as well as their places.

Descriptions of these observation sessions are not detailed in full in order to protect the respondents‟ confidentiality and anonymity. Examples include preparing meals, running errands, visiting service providers, having tea and chatting, and participating in leisure activities. When necessary, individuals within a setting where observations were taking place (e.g. family members) were informed about the research and could choose not to take part (letter of

information for those in private areas where observations took place is included in appendix F). In order to protect the participants‟ anonymity when participatory sessions occurred in public settings passersby were not informed; moreover, specific details related to others in the vicinity (e.g. people in line at a grocery store) were not included in the observation record.

This stage entailed not only engaging in occupation with the participants, but also the compilation of a „record‟ consisting of descriptions and additional field notes when audio-recording was not possible. Descriptions included observations

relating to elements such as the setting and details of the occupation engaged in. For instance, I examined what was occurring in the site and considered what roles the participants were fulfilling (e.g. employee, friend, parent, spouse). Field notes captured comments taken from memory following the period of

observation, and my reflections throughout the process. The record was thus a dense and focussed account of the participants‟ occupations, social interactions, places and activities (Carspecken, 1996). Daily routines were further addressed in follow-up interviews as I did not spend entire days with participants.

In addition to the narrative interview, the mapping and participatory occupation stage allowed me to familiarize myself with the context of the participants‟ lives, as the socio-cultural „norms‟ familiar to me differed from those of the participants. For instance, my upbringing within a Canadian nuclear family household led me make assumptions about the living arrangements of some participants. When meeting one respondent who I knew to be married and have children, I hoped to be able to meet his family. Upon arrival to his home however, I learned that they lived in another province. He moved to Ontario to pursue English language learning and was temporarily separated from his family. While familial separation may not be a „norm‟ for his family, it differed from my expectation that married couples generally live together. Carspecken (1996) explained that,

[W]hile we need prior understandings of norms to get any impression of meaning, once we have an impression of meaning we can bring out the norms constituting it for explicit examination. We can then modify them if the actors we study seem to deviate in some way from our initial expectations, and we come closer to an insider‟s view in the process. (p. 101)

The purpose of this stage was, therefore, to become better acquainted with the participants‟ contexts and to raise my awareness of the occupations embedded within their daily lives.