The Ethnographic Approach

‘Ethnography’ is potentially a misleading label due to its lack of precise definition (Bryman, 2016; Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007; Hammersley, 1998). Rooted within social and cultural anthropology and later utilised by sociologists in the early

twentieth century (Hammersley, 1998), ethnography has traditionally been used in order to conceptualise society, whether that was in the writings of travellers of anthropology or the pre-occupation of sociologists engaging in the study of their society or societies surrounding them. Bryman draws to attention the difficulty in distinguishing between the definitions of ethnography and participant observation in that both refer to the researcher immersing themselves into a group for an extended period of time observing, listening and asking questions (2016, pp.423-424). As a result these two terms are somewhat loosely used together when exploring the ethnographic approach to this research study.

Beginning with an interest in some particular part of social life, ethnography seeks to investigate the views of those who experience it, how they regard others in the same situation and how they see themselves (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). Not far removed from how we make sense of our surroundings in daily life, ethnography utilises a more deliberate systematic approach that makes sense of the social world we are involved in, in order to produce research knowledge (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). Spinney (2009, 2007) utilises ethnographic methods within cycling research as a primary method for this reason. His focus upon the experiential and sensory side assists him with understanding personal experiences and interprets practices of cultural groups that may otherwise be untranslatable. The researcher will often enter the field with little structure to the research process due to the importance of

immersing themselves, learning the ‘rules, norms, boundaries, and behaviours’

through the establishment of relationships with other members in the field (Schensul

and LeCompte, 1999). This is evident in other cycling research where non-participant and participant observations were respectively used to gather both field notes on particular behaviours and practices but also to gain further access to events and individuals of particular cultural groups (see Aldred and Jungnickel, 2012; Horton, 2006). It will often be unclear where, within the setting, or who, observation should begin. Indeed, throughout the research process, the method of data collection altered and changed in reaction to the reflexivity of myself in the field.

Participant Observation

The method of social investigation most commonly utilised when conducting

ethnographic field research is ‘participant observation’. The opportunity of engaging with the field in order to both participate and observe is structured through numerous techniques of ‘observation by conversations, informal/unstructured interviews, formal interviews, surveys and collecting personal documents (written, oral and photographic evidence)’ (Burgess, 1991, p.2). Gans (1991, p.56-57) outlines that the participant observation role is predicated on the researcher taking a formal participatory role in the social community being studied but without emotional involvement on the researcher’s behalf. The surrender of personal interest is necessary in order to enable the opportunity to freely observe, resultantly becoming a process of registering, interpreting and recording (ibid). The role then, puts the participant observer as close to real data or sources of real data as possible and enables the discovery of new facts, generation of new ideas through the observation and interaction with those who are being observed (ibid).

A paradox exists however in which observation raises issues in attempting to conceptualize the required level of involvement necessary when engaging with the field. Over participation on the researchers behalf may result in them becoming too involved and over sympathetic with the group that observation from a social scientist standpoint is lost or becomes impossible. Whereas keeping your distance and

observing may result in the researcher becoming too aloof and fail to understand the complexity of the human situation within the field of observation (Agar, 1996;

Burgess, 1991; Wolcott, 1999). Whilst this role of participant observer or ‘detached involvement’ is generally identified in qualitative research, Wolcott (1999, p.48)

introduces a role of ‘non-participant participant observation’. By this he

acknowledges the difficulty whether research and its researchers should interact in the field or whether they are actually allowed. This identifies that actual ethnographic research represents elements of these two extremes, creating a continuum where the ethnographer adapts their approach to suit the situation at hand (Agar, 1996).

Wolcott’s (1999) non-participant participant observer makes no effort in hiding what they are doing or deny their presence as an influential factor within the field. But at the same time they don’t go as far as a participant has in taking an active or

interactive role. This identifies a key element of reflexivity on the researcher’s behalf where it is necessary to become self-critical and self-aware in social situations

(Burgess, 1991). Yet it must be acknowledged that whilst this was generally the role I took as a researcher, this is not to say that moments of observation would shift, whereby participation on some level was unavoidable based on being able to gain access to further settings, which required such engagement (for example, see Chapter 4.5.3).

Entering the Field of Cycling

Researchers themselves are the primary instruments of social investigation (Burgess, 1991; Schensul and LeCompte, 1999). Entering the field of cycling, represented the starting point of ethnographic research, with the motive of establishing relationships important to future research; identification of various groups within the wider cycling population both current and historical; as well as providing an initial grasp of

organisational boundaries and prioritisations (both physical and social) (Schensul and LeCompte, 1999). Schensul and LeCompte (1999) comment that two aspects, time and money generally limit the research period. Therefore, in order to maximize the opportunity of building strong and appropriate relationships within the cycling field, I immersed myself early during November 2014, whilst the conclusion to the data collection was during September 2017.

Field notes were collected at the time of the social events held by particular cycling social sites including cycling oriented events, committee meetings, Annual General Meetings, or general attendance and use of facilities. Furthermore, local council

meetings regarding cycling social events (both local and national) were also attended.

In total 70 events and/or sessions were attended (see Appendix 1). Not only did these events provide observational field notes and monitor those involved, they also

enabled a snowball effect of providing further access and awareness to future events.

Events or sessions therefore generally associated to cycling were attended on the basis of not wanting to miss a potentially important contact or overlook a particular group of individuals. O’Reilly’s (2005, p.97) comment succinctly defines my research experience in that:

“A participant observer needs to observe details in different settings, at different times. It may be that you have to be at every gathering and every event, and be the last to leave and the first to arrive, to be unobtrusive and yet ask questions, to join in and yet remain an outsider.”

Research observation and engagement was primarily conducted in spaces where any member of the public or member of a cycling social site could attend. There were social settings however in which access was difficult. In relation to Newcastle Cycling Campaign, I wished to observe their approach in spaces where they communicated with Newcastle City Council in order to conceptualise the key discourses they would use. These however generally happened behind closed doors.

For instance the ‘Blue House Roundabout Working Group’ was an opportunity to observe such engagement however this was restricted to representative groups in the local area generally referring to local residents associations as well as environmental groups. As a result, in instances like this I was able to negotiate access to this closed, non-public setting through conversation with the City Council due to the rapport I had already established. Nonetheless there were still settings I was unable to access, which would have been valuable to observe, most notably the Technical Advisory Group meetings that involved again, Newcastle Cycling Campaign and Newcastle City Council as well as other cycling social sites.

Overt Ethnography

“The researcher who hides his research role can enter more easily than the researcher who describes himself as such, and begs admittance on the

basis of persuading people that scientific research is useful and desirable.”

(Gans, 1991, p.57)

In order to identify potential key informants whether they are affiliated or not to a particular population group at a distance and ‘unobtrusively’ was generally difficult without informing them of who I was as a researcher. There was not so much scrutiny but more of an interest of who I was and what I was doing as a ‘Newcastle University student’. I attempted to provide enough information that would be informative to individuals who asked. Therefore being a university student studying cycling cultures in Newcastle was consciously used so that individuals could place myself within the current context of their cycling environment. Reflecting upon the role of myself in the research process, it is evident that I used the identity of the ‘university student’ more so in order to establish a perception of my role. I rarely identified that I was engaged in a PhD thesis; rather I mentioned that I was doing research. Agar (1996, p.110) retains a somewhat pessimistic approach of controlling the perception of your role in fieldwork. My approach attempted to bait this perception with the introduction I gave and therefore constructs a ‘front’ or particular role within the cycling network

(Bryman, 2016). If I was to be type casted or identified as something particular in the first stages of research then it was hoped to be perceived as a ‘naïve’ student wanting to learn everything about the situation. This was not necessarily used in order to trick those involved, it was rather to act as reassurance mechanism in the hope that they would not be suspicious of my intentions and consequently hold back information.

The lack of complexity relating to my role enabled me to be consistent in my actions and not create any potential worries or fears with those I was engaging with.

During this period of familiarization within the field and building of rapport, there would no doubt be a level of questioning of my motives and intentions and therefore limited the opportunity to fully observe the field without my presence being felt.

None the less, this role enabled the orientation of the environment, providing a backdrop to the cycling population that encourages a more systematic enquiry (Schensul and LeCompte, 1999). When engaging with the cycling field it was therefore important to identify the approach of engagement.

Observation Framework

As already acknowledged, the role of the researcher is not someone detached from the research field, objective in their observations. Rather, as a research instrument, the researcher will influence the course of the research process in countless ways. But it must also be acknowledged that the ethnographer cannot be in many places at once within the research field observing, taking field notes and describing what they see.

This impossibility of an “all-seeing ethnographic and theoretical eye” (Law, 1994, p.74) alludes to the conscious decisions the ethnographer has to make on who to observe, where, at what point in time and how to record the data.

Writing field notes including events, behaviour, conversations overheard, and casual interviews are generally considered as the primary materials of participant

observation (Dewalt et al., 1998). But Dewalt et al. (1998) emphasise that the act of writing is critical in that observations themselves are not data unless they have been recorded in some form, enabling analysis. Observational notes require ‘concrete descriptions of social processes and their contexts’, in which various properties and features are captured (Walsh, 2012, p.255). This period of observation was therefore less structured and less selective in what was recorded. Maintaining ‘generative questions’ according to Strauss (1987, p.17) assists with the observation process with these questions generally originating in the early phases of the study, serving as a guide as well as a challenge to the researcher to study the identified phenomenon. As a result, these questions assisted somewhat with the embryonic stages of this research providing a level of structure with the common question of ‘how do cycling social sites contribute to cycling culture and practice?’ generally being asked in order to generate observations and notes. With this in mind, I was able to approach early events and sessions with more focus in regards to the research, yet still enable a broad observational approach.

During this period of observation, field notes largely took on the recording of behaviour and monitoring experience from distance. This is in comparison to

‘experience near’ which would have involved communicating with and understanding an individual’s ability to provide an account of a situation (Agar, 1996). As a result, observations of interest were “places, people, social interaction, clothing, language,

and other aspects of the community setting” (Schensul and LeCompte, 1999, p.87).

Note taking contributed to an account which reflected a ‘stream of consciousness’ in many cases, whereby questions and connections were continually asked and created throughout the development of notes (Cook, 2005, p.181). Agar (1996) criticises the use of field notes if their use is not fully understood or outlined. Failure to do so results in an attempt to ‘vacuum’ everything possible, thus limiting the ability to pay sufficient attention to observe the proceedings. Agar (1996) may consider this amount of awareness when observing as too broad but it was felt necessary to do so to begin with. Indeed as time progressed observations that were common were generally referred to in notes but not necessarily explained at length due to the recurring nature of it and previous description. As a result field notes began to generate a sense of focus on particular topics, which would inform the next step of the ethnographic study of the semi-structured interviews.

The data collection in this form attempted to remain descriptive and

non-interpretational for the fear of wrongly assuming something or ‘glossing’ over a topic due to pre-conceived assumptions that the researcher holds (see Chapter 4.5.2).

However, this fundamentally cannot be removed. Field notes are not only data but they are also analysis. As Dewalt et al. (1998, p.271) identify, field notes are a record of events, behaviour, conversations and observations but the record is constructed from the perspective of the researcher. This does not conceive that field notes were ever ‘objective’ in nature but it does reveal a fear I had as researcher of assuming too much in the field notes and drawing on my previous knowledge, experiences and associations to cycling. The researcher may already be enculturated in some form and being consciously being aware of this may help; but the process of participant

observation only seeks to build upon this with a tacit understanding being developed (Dewalt et al., 1998). But as Clifford (1990) observes ‘pure inscription’ is not attainable, in that producing pure recordings in field notes cannot be sustained as no matter what, the production of field notes through participant observation is always a construction of the ethnographer. This then always assumes a level of analysis on the researcher’s part that distances the method from objective observation. It is the recording of notes which allows the opportunity to read and re-read them searching for topics of discussion that refer to things that are not only not understood or

incomplete in their explanation but also reveal moments of enculturation that must be acknowledged and used as further topics of discussion.

In regards to ‘when’ to write down observations much of this happened during the observations themselves. Walsh (2012) identifies that the researcher should develop strategies in relation to the setting under study. Whilst it was not uncommon for individuals to take notes during the various events attended, my observational approach meant that my note taking was still somewhat more excessive than others.

However with an overt approach to the research, it was generally assumed that individuals were aware of my note taking. In certain circumstance such as the Newcastle Cycling Campaign’s Cycle Safari Rides, the 10^th anniversary celebration of Recyke Y’Bike, and more social gatherings after particular events, note taking reverted to a reflective approach in which notes were typed up after the event had been observed. It was in settings such as this that the image of myself with pen and paper noting interesting moments felt out of place. A risk with this is the deterioration in quality of the field notes due to the problem of memory recall (Walsh, 2012). Once I had left the events, I regularly began to make keynotes on my mobile phone before expanding upon these later when I was able to provide fuller details on the topics of discussion.