Introduction
This chapter will introduce and explain the methodological, theoretical and analytical framework of this thesis. Drawing upon interviews and observations, I will explain why these methods were the most suitable for my research questions and also how they fit within an ethnographic framework. I will then explain why the theoretical framework of symbolic interactionism was necessary for my research, and how the analytical framework which supports a symbolic interactionist perspective, provided the apt analytical tools to address my research questions.
The Methodological Framework
One of the founders of ethnography, Malinowski (1922/1984), placed an emphasis on the importance of language within ethnographic studies, yet very few others followed his lead (Urry, 1992, p. 50). By the 1960s this was changing and Dell Hymes was calling for ‘an ethnographic study of language use across speech communities’ (Duranti, 2001, p. 17). Supporting the work of Hymes, Duranti (2001, p. 17) called for ethnographic researchers to look for acts, situations and events that are embedded within language, to demonstrate community membership, competence and knowledge.
The origins of ethnography were embedded within social anthropology and were associated with British colonial occupation (Brewer, 2000, p. 11; Schwoch &
White, 2006, p. 12). Early British anthropological research and early island research (see Malinowski, 1922; Radcliffe-Brown, 1948) have been criticised and somewhat discredited for being sexist, ethnocentric and ‘scientific’ (O’Reilly, 2005, pp. 9-17). Ethnography has since shifted from a search for facts and a scientific approach (Urry, 1984, p. 60), into yet another phase. Ethnographic fieldwork began to focus on one single society, often considered representative of other societies and cultures, with ‘the idea of the (village) community as the unit of study’ (Clammer, 1992, p. 67). However, in a globalising world, academics are now conscious of networks, links and interaction as opposed to pure, isolated, self-contained entities (Clammer, 1992, p. 67). Ethnographers have since shifted once more from a desire to generalise into a wider context, to a desire to gain a localised understanding of a specific culture. However, what ‘dogs it to this day: [is] the common-sense notion that it offers mere description of things foreign, exotic and peculiar’ (Brewer, 2000, p. 13).
Despite the shifts and transgressions within ethnographic research, ethnography remains firmly established as a respected methodology within many disciplines and subjects. Moreover, the methods used within ethnography have diversified from merely drawing upon researcher description to also including native language, texts, surveys, and technical aids such as tape recorders and cameras (Clammer, 1992, p. 66). Ethnography ‘involves the application of a full range of methods available to any researcher in a way that is obvious to common sense’ (O’Reilly, 2005, p. 1). It provides the foundation for the collection of empirical data for the production of situated, rich, thick, non-reductive, detail of social life (Taylor, 2002, p. 3).
The Empirical research: an Ethnographic Framework
I am positioning my research within an anthropological and ethnographic framework. Although I am not claiming my research to be a ‘legitimate’ ethnography because I did not totally immerse myself for a significant length of time within the St Helenian community, I am claiming my research is embedded within an ethnographic framework. I have been involved with the community, in one way or another, for over ten years and my research draws upon my own experiences and observations, in addition to the principle method of interviews.
Hammersley and Atkinson clarified that ethnography involves the study of people in their everyday contexts (in the field), which is usually small-scale, in-depth research which draws from methods such as participant observation, asking questions and/or collecting documents (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007, p. 3). They also confirmed that ethnography ‘is not used in an entirely standard fashion; its meaning can vary ... it is variable and sometimes contested in character’ (2007, p. 1). Similarly, Taylor (2001, p. 1-2) makes it clear that the practice of ethnography is varied and wide-ranging.
According to O’Reilly (2005, p. 1) ‘ethnography is difficult to define because it is used in different ways in different disciplines with different traditions’ (O’Reilly, 2005, p. 1). O’Reilly (2005, p. 112) noted how although ethnography tends to be associated with participant observation, interviews can be the main source of data collection within an ethnography. Some ethnographers will make use of informal conversations with people who they encounter on an ad hoc basis.
However, other researchers prefer more formal interviews where a mutually agreed time and place has been established (O’Reilly, 2005, p. 115). In these instances, O’Reilly (2005, p. 115) argued that the ‘ethnographic fieldwork provides the context’.
Within this thesis, the majority of the data referred to derives from interviews. However, this thesis falls within an ethnographic framework because the encounters that I had with the St Helenian community provided the context for the interviews. For example, as already stated within this thesis, before I embarked on this research I had worked with some members of the St Helenian community due to my involvement with the St Helenian link. These encounters created my initial research questions and also, to a certain extent, led me to create assumptions about the community such as the (mis) assumption that most St Helenians had not left the island until the return of British citizenship in 2002. Subsequently, by the time I went to St Helena to work in the field, I had existing knowledge and assumptions which fed into the research process and the questions which I asked during the interviews.
When on the island, my observations and interactions also led me to ask particular questions. For example, some of my questions stemmed from seeing the British flag flying at The Castle; seeing the French flag flying at Napoleon’s home, Longwood House; attending the Remembrance Sunday Service at The Wharf and the Songs of the War evening at the Consulate Hotel. I spent 9 weeks on the island and had many informal conversations with St Helenians including those who I lived with, which fed into the research process. Additionally, the interviews that I had with
St Helenians living in the UK were informed by my experiences on the island. Subsequently, the interviews that I had with the St Helenian respondents on and off the island, were informed by my ethnographic experiences. Had I undertaken the interviews without such ethnographic experience, and in isolation from any knowledge of the island and the islanders, my research would have been very different.
As stated above, the primary data for this thesis has been collected as 68 interviews with St Helenians both on and off the island. Whilst on St Helena I interviewed 46 St Helenians, made fieldnotes, and collated any printed material I could use as data (tourist leaflets, St Helena Government papers, population statistics). Moreover, I visited the archives on island, as well as the museum of St Helena and Napoleon’s house, and as many formal and informal places as I could. Whilst in the UK, I have interviewed a further 22 St Helenians. Moreover, I worked alongside the St Helenian community for eight years whilst I worked within the St Helena Link Office. I have since stayed in touch with the St Helenian community, in particular my St Helenian friend whom I stayed with whilst on the Island as she now lives in the UK.
The Sample – the decisions
The data comes from two arguably distinct samples, collected at two distinct stages within the research process. This was due to my original decision to collect data for a comparative design. My original intention was to divide my sample of St Helenians into those who had never migrated away from the Island and those who had migrated away. However, when arriving on the island I realised the impossibility of this task
due to the migration patterns within the St Helenian community. Many St Helenians spend a significant length of time overseas for work or for study, or to accompany spouses, parents or children whilst they work or study. Very few St Helenians who I approached had never been off the island.
Another original intention was only to interview those in the UK, who had recently migrated as a consequence of British citizenship being returned in 2002. I had assumed that the St Helenian migrants who had left in the 1960s or 1970s would be small in number and not reflect a typical St Helenian experience. Moreover, I had assumed those who left the island between 1981 and 2002 would be a non-typical few, who had retained British citizenship due to the birthplace of their parents. However, as already stated, the parameters and boundaries of migration from the island were not as clear as I originally assumed. Some St Helenians moved to the UK before 2002 on work permits or education permits. They repeatedly renewed these when possible and then applied for British nationality whilst already living within the UK.
One other initial problem for the research was deciding who was a ‘legitimate’ St Helenian. Baldacchino (2008, p. 47) raised the problem of defining who is a legitimate islander and who is not. In a world characterised by migration, movement and multiple identities, the distinctions between an islander as an insider, in contrast to an islander as an outsider, is not clear and such distinctions can induce a form of prejudice and exclusion, or in research terms, a form of bias or ignorance.
When I arrived on the island I discovered ‘multiple migration processes’ (King, 2009, p. 68) within the St Helenian community. For example, there were people who have lived on the island for over forty years and who had married an islander and had St Helenian children, yet had no St Helenian heritage themselves. There are also islanders who are St Helenian but have only recently moved back to the island after 50 years of living overseas. Additionally, there are St Helenians who were born on Ascension, live on Ascension and only visit their ‘home’ of St Helena for short holidays. There are also people who live on the island and have a St Helenian parent, yet they do not feel St Helenian due to their self-recognised difference from the rest of the community.
Gibbons (2010, p. 166) argued that to be an islander and to have islander status, is something that has to be negotiated through symbols and cultural capital. Subsequently, people not born on an island can achieve island status over time. However, I decided that the condition I would have for the basis of my sample, was that the interviewees had to have at least one St Helenian parent and be first generation St Helenian. In other words, my sample would include people who had spent significant parts of their lives either on St Helena or Ascension Island, and born to a St Helenian parent. Thus my sample excluded people who were born in the UK to at least one St Helenian parent, and who had never or barely spent time on the island.
My sample however, does include St Helenians who were born on Ascension and grew up on Ascension. Those on Ascension are officially St Helenian citizens, have a firm attachment to St Helena and identify themselves as St Helenians.
Moreover, those on Ascension visit St Helena or their ‘home’ on a regular basis, perhaps once every three or four years, to visit family and often to see to their own home.
In addition to interviewing 68 interviewees who had at least one St Helenian parent and a firm sense of a St Helenian identity, I also interviewed two other people who have lived on the island for a substantial period of time, married a St Helenian and had St Helenian children. However, they have no St Helenian heritage themselves. Subsequently, I have actually completed 70 interviews, which totals just under 74 hours of interview recording. Because I identify these interviewees as not being St Helenian, I have distinguished these interviewees from the main sample of 68 interviews. A count of the interviewees included in this thesis can be seen in Table 1 below. A character synopsis of each interviewee can be found in appendix c. All interviews have been transcribed and investigated using NVivo. (See appendix D for how the interviews were coded).
Table 1. Respondents in the Sample
On-Island Interviews Off-Island Interviews St Helenian
Interviews
Female Male Female Male
Age 18-20 5 2 1 21-30 5 2 1 2 31-40 5 4 2 1 41-50 6 4 2 51-60 3 5 6 1 61-70 1 5 71-80 3 2 total 28 18 16 6
Total 46 – on-island interviews 22 – off-island interviews Hours 41 hrs 9 mins on island 29 hrs 47 mins off island Total of St Helenian interviews = 68
Total of hours = 70 hours 56 minutes
‘Other’ St Helenian Community Members
Total 1 1
Hours 30 mins 2 hrs 12 mins
Grand total of interviews in this thesis = 70
Stage 1, data collection on St Helena
On October 19th 2006 I took the RAF flight from the military airport in Brize Norton, Oxford, to Ascension Island, arriving the next day on October 20th. I then travelled by The Royal Mail Ship (RMS) St Helena, leaving Ascension Island on October 20th and arriving at the island of St Helena October 23rd. I spent 8 weeks on
the island, and left on the 15th December. I arrived back on Ascension Island on the 18th December and was due to fly home three days later. However, due to the flight being delayed due to weather conditions on The Falklands, I was actually on Ascension Island for 7 days. I eventually caught the RAF flight home on Christmas day and arrived back in the UK on 26th December 2006. The round trip took just
under ten weeks. Whilst on island I lived with a St Helenian friend who I had met in the UK in 1998 through the St Helena Link Office. Her home was in the district of St Pauls. On the island, this is known to be within the country.
Because of the in-depth nature of this study, and because the research does not wish to make generalisations beyond the St Helenian community, the research did not utilize any form of random sampling. Individuals were selected based upon their availability and willingness to participate. My original intention was to interview between 20 and 30 St Helenians whilst on the island, but after I had reached 30, I decided to continue to interview as many people as I could. Due to time and cost restrictions I could never re-visit the island and it was essential that I gathered as much data as possible whilst I had the opportunity. Throughout the 46 interviews I began to hear recurring themes and by the time I left the island I felt I had reached a point of saturation (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p. 61).
Although I did not aim for a random sample I did aim to approach a cross- section of the population. Most days I walked into the only town on the island (approximately 90 minute walk), knowing that due to a St Helenian custom, people would stop in their cars to offer me a lift. This then provided the opportunity to ask for an interview. Because there are only two roads into the town, people from all over the island could potentially pass me in their car, enabling a diverse cross- section of country and town inhabitants, from all districts of the island, to stop and talk to me.
Once in town I approached people sat on benches, sat in the pub or coffee shop, or those working or browsing in the small number of shops. On occasion, the potential interviewee approached me in the first instance to ask who I was. Some interviewees agreed to an interview as soon as I asked them and so interviews were undertaken in a public place. Other interviewees agreed to an interview in their lunch break and so these were done in their place of work such as in shops and offices. Other interviewees made an appointment for me to visit them in their home on a different day. Only one of the on-island interviews consisted of two people being interviewed together.
To provide some context, of the 46 St Helenians I interviewed on island, 5 people had never been overseas (aged 18, 20, 37, 70 and 78), although one of these left one week after the interview to start employment on another island. Most of the interviewees had been off the island on several occasions, for a variety of reasons, including Medivac, holidays, work, education and training. For more information on each interviewee see Appendix c.
Only three St Helenians refused an interview, and an additional person cancelled an appointment as her daughter had left the island a few days earlier and she felt the interview would be too painful. However, on the contrary to what some islanders predicted, the majority of St Helenians who I approached for interview did not refuse to talk with me and so did not demonstrate a shyness of ex-pats. However, this could be a problem for the ‘outsider’ as I would be unaware of who was avoiding me within this small, close community.
Whilst on-island I worked within an ethnographic framework, and observed the community interactions whilst immersed within the island community for eight weeks. I also obtained an insight into life for St Helenians during my seven days on the neighbouring Ascension Island and five days at sea on the RMS. Fieldnotes were collated as an aide memoir for the research process and I made lengthy contributions to my diary each day, detailing events, conversations, the local environment, my thoughts and feelings.
Stage 2, data Collection off Island
After returning back to the UK from St Helena in December 2006, I started interviewing St Helenians living within the UK in March 2007. However, due to personal reasons I had to take a break from my research and the majority of the interviews were done between October 2008 and May 2009. On average, the interviews off-island lasted longer than those on-island.
those who were recommended to me by the St Helenian interviewees on-island, and those who were recommended to me by the off-island St Helenian interviewees. Therefore, St Helenians were approached in the UK via the means of a snowball sample. Similar to stage 1, stage 2 of my research with St Helenians living off-island did not utilize any form of random sampling and is not representative of all St Helenians living within the UK.
There is no documented evidence that states the number of St Helenians residing within the UK, nor is there information about where they live. However, high numbers of St Helenians are known to live in Cheltenham, Gloucester, London, Southampton, Oxford, Reading and particularly Swindon (commonly known by the St Helenian community as Swindelena). Most interviews were undertaken in Gloucestershire, although not all. On three occasions I interviewed two St Helenians