Common use of Different stances in participant observation Clause in Contracts

Different stances in participant observation. As I was positioned in various locations during the 94 hours and 45 minutes of participant observation at Hoshūkō, the participatory stances I adopted were not fixed and stable. They changed according to the context and the relationship between myself and the other social actors present. Xxxxxx (1960) cited in Xxxxx (2004, p. 229) outlines four stances66 in participant observation: complete participant, complete observer, participant as observer and observer as participant. Complete participant implies covert observation; the researcher is carrying out research without anyone being aware of this. This could be a class teacher researching her own class without informing the students. According to Xxxxxxxx (1993, cited in Xxxxx et al., 2000, p. 314) covert participant observation has become a largely unacceptable research method because it violates the tenets of informed consent, invades the privacy of individuals and the places they inhabit, treats the individuals as research objects and places the researcher in a misrepresented position. Although it is considered to be unacceptable, it can generate a complete understanding of the situation (Xxxxx, 2004). It could be argued that when I was in the library my research was to some extent covert. Only the head of the library knew that I was a PhD student, the other mothers saw me as a volunteer. I was also a covert observer when I was observing my younger son’s class and the cultural events as I was positioned as a parent and not as a researcher. Although it was relatively easy for me to adopt this positioning, it was impossible for me to become fully integrated in the group because I was a White British mother and all the other mothers with whom I came into contact were seemingly Japanese, so I stood out both racially and linguistically. The second stance is that of complete observer. This means that the researcher observes people without any social interaction with those being observed in order to reduce the possibility of reactivity. An extreme example of this would be to observe students through a one way mirror (Xxxxx, 2004). However, this quasi-scientific stance has serious limitations as the observer may not be able to understand the meanings of the people being observed and, therefore, an alien framework of meaning could be imposed on the events (Xxxxx, 2004). Moreover, it would also be problematic in terms of understanding what the people being researched made of their world due to a lack of social interaction. Although the roles of complete participant and complete observer are both covert, they form opposite poles of a continuum which move from ‘complete participation’ to ‘complete detachment’ (Xxxxx et al., 2000, p. 311). I feel that at times my positioning at Figsbury Hoshūkō bore similarities to that of complete observer even though this had never been my intention. This was because the teachers of the classes I observed at Figsbury were not over enthusiastic about my presence so I like Xxxxxx (1996) mainly watched the lessons from the back 66 Although Xxxxx (2004) uses the word role I have replaced it with stance/positioning because these words are more nuanced than the fixity of role. of the classroom. In addition, I like Xxxxxx felt, ‘painfully out of place’ (Xxxxxx, 1996, p. 205). This was because I was a White British middle-aged female whose Japanese proficiency was lower than that of those being observed. However, I did interview three of the young people from the two classes I observed at Figsbury, so I could gain some understanding of how they made sense of their worlds. For much of the time during the observations at Figsbury Hoshūkō I felt like a fly on the wall or a silent observer. Although Xxxxxxx et al. (1995, p. 3) state that during participant observation ‘the field worker cannot and should not attempt to be a fly on the wall’, I argue that not all ethnographic contexts can readily lend themselves to effective participation by the researcher especially in a cross-cultural environment. Each ethnography is context specific so no two situations are identical. Moreover, the stances of the observer (and the participants) are not fixed and static but are changeable over time (Xxxxx, 2004). No one rule is suitable for the myriad of contexts that exist. My research involved the difficulty of participation in a predominately teacher- centred Japanese speaking classroom environment. The third stance, participant as observer, means that the researcher informs the people being observed of his/her intentions and there is an emphasis on participation and social interaction rather than on observation so that a trusting relationship can be developed (Xxxxx, 2004). However, with this method there may be the problem of reactivity and over-rapport if too close a relationship is formed (ibid). The fourth stance, observer as participant, means that the emphasis is on observation rather than on participation. As there is little interaction with those being observed, certain lines of inquiry may be missed and the activities of those being observed may be misunderstood (ibid). In one particular class I observed in Appleton Hoshūkō I feel I was somewhere between these two stances (field notes, 06.03.2011), which is considered commonplace in overt ethnographic research (Xxxxx, 2004). I feel that this was because the teacher was happy to let me observe her class. I had already interviewed her so she knew me and as previously stated she tried to include me in part of the lesson by asking students to translate their presentations for me (field notes, 05.03.2011). As the teacher was happy and enthusiastic about my presence, some of the young people seemed to mirror this behaviour and they came up to speak to me in the break time. I am writing my notes when all of a sudden a Japanese boy comes to speak to me about my research. He is really interested in my research and why I’m doing it. I tell him about my two sons etc. I talk to him for about five minutes. He tells me that he has been in England for three years but he has only just started Hoshūkō because he didn’t know about the school. I ask him where his parents are from and he says they are both Japanese. I tell him that his English is good and he says that he went to international school in Japan and in the Philippines. I ask him how long he is staying in England and he says he doesn’t know. He also told me that he is at university. I am surprised. So he said that he dropped down a year at Hoshūkō so that he could stay for longer as there would be no point in going just for a couple of months. Then there are about six more students standing around me. Xxxxxx asks me if I am Xxxxxxx’s [my younger son] mum. I say yes. He asks about my research and then he tells me he wants to be a doctor67. Another Japanese girl says she recognises me from Xxxx Side School68. She says she is in year 13. I say that my son is in year 9 and my other son is at university. I’m quite surprised that she recognises me. […] Xxxxxx asks me what my older son is doing at university and I tell him. Some of them are trying to read my notes so I explain to them what I am doing. One boy says it is really unusual to have a white person in the class (field notes, 05.03.2011). This is in xxxxx contrast to what I experienced at the other Hoshūkō where no one spoke to me in the break time. At this particular Hoshūkō some of the young people saw me as someone who was interesting, one saw me as a familiar face and another saw me in racialised terms as a White British researcher. This was an example of a moment in the field when my stance was clearly as a participant observer. The stances adopted by myself during participant observation at Hoshūkō changed throughout the fieldwork process. When I was in the library I positioned myself as a parent volunteer which meant that I was participating in many of the practices which I was observing. When I was observing in the classrooms, the level of participation was partly dependent upon the teacher’s perception of my presence in the classroom. My stance went from that of a ‘fly on the wall’ (Xxxxxxx et al., 1995) to that of participant observer. When I was observing my younger son’s class and the regulatory practices I was generally positioned as a parent at Hoshūkō and I was a complete observer as participation was generally not required. The different stances I adopted at Hoshūkō affected the type of field notes that I could write because ‘field notes are writings produced in or in close proximity to the ‘field’’ (Xxxxxxx et al., 1995, p. 353). This illustrates the interconnectivity of participant observation and writing field notes which form the core data in the tradition of the doing of ethnography (Xxxxxxx et al., 1995).

Different stances in participant observation. As I was positioned in various locations during the 94 hours and 45 minutes of participant observation at Hoshūkō, the participatory stances I adopted were not fixed and stable. They changed according to the context and the relationship between myself and the other social actors present. Xxxxxx Junker (1960) cited in Xxxxx Walsh (2004, p. 229) outlines four stances66 in participant observation: complete participant, complete observer, participant as observer and observer as participant. Complete participant implies covert observation; the researcher is carrying out research without anyone being aware of this. This could be a class teacher researching her own class without informing the students. According to Xxxxxxxx Mitchell (1993, cited in Xxxxx Cohen et al., 2000, p. 314) covert participant observation has become a largely unacceptable research method because it violates the tenets of informed consent, invades the privacy of individuals and the places they inhabit, treats the individuals as research objects and places the researcher in a misrepresented position. Although it is considered to be unacceptable, it can generate a complete understanding of the situation (XxxxxWalsh, 2004). It could be argued that when I was in the library my research was to some extent covert. Only the head of the library knew that I was a PhD student, the other mothers saw me as a volunteer. I was also a covert observer when I was observing my younger son’s class and the cultural events as I was positioned as a parent and not as a researcher. Although it was relatively easy for me to adopt this positioning, it was impossible for me to become fully integrated in the group because I was a White British mother and all the other mothers with whom I came into contact were seemingly Japanese, so I stood out both racially and linguistically. The second stance is that of complete observer. This means that the researcher observes people without any social interaction with those being observed in order to reduce the possibility of reactivity. An extreme example of this would be to observe students through a one way mirror (XxxxxWalsh, 2004). However, this quasi-scientific stance has serious limitations as the observer may not be able to understand the meanings of the people being observed and, therefore, an alien framework of meaning could be imposed on the events (XxxxxWalsh, 2004). Moreover, it would also be problematic in terms of understanding what the people being researched made of their world due to a lack of social interaction. Although the roles of complete participant and complete observer are both covert, they form opposite poles of a continuum which move from ‘complete participation’ to ‘complete detachment’ (Xxxxx Cohen et al., 2000, p. 311). I feel that at times my positioning at Figsbury Hoshūkō bore similarities to that of complete observer even though this had never been my intention. This was because the teachers of the classes I observed at Figsbury were not over enthusiastic about my presence so I like Xxxxxx Lareau (1996) mainly watched the lessons from the back 66 Although Xxxxx Walsh (2004) uses the word role I have replaced it with stance/positioning because these words are more nuanced than the fixity of role. of the classroom. In addition, I like Xxxxxx Lareau felt, ‘painfully out of place’ (XxxxxxLareau, 1996, p. 205). This was because I was a White British middle-aged female whose Japanese proficiency was lower than that of those being observed. However, I did interview three of the young people from the two classes I observed at Figsbury, so I could gain some understanding of how they made sense of their worlds. For much of the time during the observations at Figsbury Hoshūkō I felt like a fly on the wall or a silent observer. Although Xxxxxxx Emerson et al. (1995, p. 3) state that during participant observation ‘the field worker cannot and should not attempt to be a fly on the wall’, I argue that not all ethnographic contexts can readily lend themselves to effective participation by the researcher especially in a cross-cultural environment. Each ethnography is context specific so no two situations are identical. Moreover, the stances of the observer (and the participants) are not fixed and static but are changeable over time (XxxxxWalsh, 2004). No one rule is suitable for the myriad of contexts that exist. My research involved the difficulty of participation in a predominately teacher- centred Japanese speaking classroom environment. The third stance, participant as observer, means that the researcher informs the people being observed of his/her intentions and there is an emphasis on participation and social interaction rather than on observation so that a trusting relationship can be developed (XxxxxWalsh, 2004). However, with this method there may be the problem of reactivity and over-rapport if too close a relationship is formed (ibid). The fourth stance, observer as participant, means that the emphasis is on observation rather than on participation. As there is little interaction with those being observed, certain lines of inquiry may be missed and the activities of those being observed may be misunderstood (ibid). In one particular class I observed in Appleton Hoshūkō I feel I was somewhere between these two stances (field notes, 06.03.2011), which is considered commonplace in overt ethnographic research (XxxxxWalsh, 2004). I feel that this was because the teacher was happy to let me observe her class. I had already interviewed her so she knew me and as previously stated she tried to include me in part of the lesson by asking students to translate their presentations for me (field notes, 05.03.2011). As the teacher was happy and enthusiastic about my presence, some of the young people seemed to mirror this behaviour and they came up to speak to me in the break time. I am writing my notes when all of a sudden a Japanese boy comes to speak to me about my research. He is really interested in my research and why I’m doing it. I tell him about my two sons etc. I talk to him for about five minutes. He tells me that he has been in England for three years but he has only just started Hoshūkō because he didn’t know about the school. I ask him where his parents are from and he says they are both Japanese. I tell him that his English is good and he says that he went to international school in Japan and in the Philippines. I ask him how long he is staying in England and he says he doesn’t know. He also told me that he is at university. I am surprised. So he said that he dropped down a year at Hoshūkō so that he could stay for longer as there would be no point in going just for a couple of months. Then there are about six more students standing around me. Xxxxxx Taishi asks me if I am XxxxxxxRichard’s [my younger son] mum. I say yes. He asks about my research and then he tells me he wants to be a doctor67. Another Japanese girl says she recognises me from Xxxx Mote Side School68. She says she is in year 13. I say that my son is in year 9 and my other son is at university. I’m quite surprised that she recognises me. […] Xxxxxx Taishi asks me what my older son is doing at university and I tell him. Some of them are trying to read my notes so I explain to them what I am doing. One boy says it is really unusual to have a white person in the class (field notes, 05.03.2011). This is in xxxxx stark contrast to what I experienced at the other Hoshūkō where no one spoke to me in the break time. At this particular Hoshūkō some of the young people saw me as someone who was interesting, one saw me as a familiar face and another saw me in racialised terms as a White British researcher. This was an example of a moment in the field when my stance was clearly as a participant observer. The stances adopted by myself during participant observation at Hoshūkō changed throughout the fieldwork process. When I was in the library I positioned myself as a parent volunteer which meant that I was participating in many of the practices which I was observing. When I was observing in the classrooms, the level of participation was partly dependent upon the teacher’s perception of my presence in the classroom. My stance went from that of a ‘fly on the wall’ (Xxxxxxx Emerson et al., 1995) to that of participant observer. When I was observing my younger son’s class and the regulatory practices I was generally positioned as a parent at Hoshūkō and I was a complete observer as participation was generally not required. The different stances I adopted at Hoshūkō affected the type of field notes that I could write because ‘field notes are writings produced in or in close proximity to the ‘field’’ (Xxxxxxx Emerson et al., 1995, p. 353). This illustrates the interconnectivity of participant observation and writing field notes which form the core data in the tradition of the doing of ethnography (Xxxxxxx Emerson et al., 1995).

Different stances in participant observation. As I was positioned in various locations during the 94 hours and 45 minutes of participant observation at Hoshūkō, the participatory stances I adopted were not fixed and stable. They changed according to the context and the relationship between myself and the other social actors present. Xxxxxx (1960) cited in Xxxxx (2004, p. 229) outlines four stances66 in participant observation: complete participant, complete observer, participant as observer and observer as participant. Complete participant implies covert observation; the researcher is carrying out research without anyone being aware of this. This could be a class teacher researching her own class without informing the students. According to Xxxxxxxx (1993, cited in Xxxxx et al., 2000, p. 314) covert participant observation has become a largely unacceptable research method because it violates the tenets of informed consent, invades the privacy of individuals and the places they inhabit, treats the individuals as research objects and places the researcher in a misrepresented position. Although it is considered to be unacceptable, it can generate a complete understanding of the situation (Xxxxx, 2004). It could be argued that when I was in the library my research was to some extent covert. Only the head of the library knew that I was a PhD student, the other mothers saw me as a volunteer. I was also a covert observer when I was observing my younger son’s class and the cultural events as I was positioned as a parent and not as a researcher. Although it was relatively easy for me to adopt this positioning, it was impossible for me to become fully integrated in the group because I was a White British mother and all the other mothers with whom I came into contact were seemingly Japanese, so I stood out both racially and linguistically. The second stance is that of complete observer. This means that the researcher observes people without any social interaction with those being observed in order to reduce the possibility of reactivity. An extreme example of this would be to observe students through a one way mirror (Xxxxx, 2004). However, this quasi-scientific stance has serious limitations as the observer may not be able to understand the meanings of the people being observed and, therefore, an alien framework of meaning could be imposed on the events (Xxxxx, 2004). Moreover, it would also be problematic in terms of understanding what the people being researched made of their world due to a lack of social interaction. Although the roles of complete participant and complete observer are both covert, they form opposite poles of a continuum which move from ‘complete participation’ to ‘complete detachment’ (Xxxxx et al., 2000, p. 311). I feel that at times my positioning at Figsbury Hoshūkō bore similarities to that of complete observer even though this had never been my intention. This was because the teachers of the classes I observed at Figsbury were not over enthusiastic about my presence so I like Xxxxxx (1996) mainly watched the lessons from the back 66 Although Xxxxx (2004) uses the word role I have replaced it with stance/positioning because these words are more nuanced than the fixity of role. of the classroom. In addition, I like Xxxxxx felt, ‘painfully out of place’ (Xxxxxx, 1996, p. 205). This was because I was a White British middle-aged female whose Japanese proficiency was lower than that of those being observed. However, I did interview three of the young people from the two classes I observed at Figsbury, so I could gain some understanding of how they made sense of their worlds. For much of the time during the observations at Figsbury Hoshūkō I felt like a fly on the wall or a silent observer. Although Xxxxxxx et al. (1995, p. 3) state that during participant observation ‘the field worker cannot and should not attempt to be a fly on the wall’, I argue that not all ethnographic contexts can readily lend themselves to effective participation by the researcher especially in a cross-cultural environment. Each ethnography is context specific so no two situations are identical. Moreover, the stances of the observer (and the participants) are not fixed and static but are changeable over time (Xxxxx, 2004). No one rule is suitable for the myriad of contexts that exist. My research involved the difficulty of participation in a predominately teacher- centred Japanese speaking classroom environment. The third stance, participant as observer, means that the researcher informs the people being observed of his/her intentions and there is an emphasis on participation and social interaction rather than on observation so that a trusting relationship can be developed (Xxxxx, 2004). However, with this method there may be the problem of reactivity and over-rapport if too close a relationship is formed (ibid). The fourth stance, observer as participant, means that the emphasis is on observation rather than on participation. As there is little interaction with those being observed, certain lines of inquiry may be missed and the activities of those being observed may be misunderstood (ibid). In one particular class I observed in Appleton Hoshūkō I feel I was somewhere between these two stances (field notes, 06.03.2011), which is considered commonplace in overt ethnographic research (Xxxxx, 2004). I feel that this was because the teacher was happy to let me observe her class. I had already interviewed her so she knew me and as previously stated she tried to include me in part of the lesson by asking students to translate their presentations for me (field notes, 05.03.2011). As the teacher was happy and enthusiastic about my presence, some of the young people seemed to mirror this behaviour and they came up to speak to me in the break time. I am writing my notes when all of a sudden a Japanese boy comes to speak to me about my research. He is really interested in my research and why I’m doing it. I tell him about my two sons etc. I talk to him for about five minutes. He tells me that he has been in England for three years but he has only just started Hoshūkō because he didn’t know about the school. I ask him where his parents are from and he says they are both Japanese. I tell him that his English is good and he says that he went to international school in Japan and in the Philippines. I ask him how long he is staying in England and he says he doesn’t know. He also told me that he is at university. I am surprised. So he said that he dropped down a year at Hoshūkō so that he could stay for longer as there would be no point in going just for a couple of months. Then there are about six more students standing around me. Xxxxxx Taishi asks me if I am XxxxxxxRichard’s [my younger son] mum. I say yes. He asks about my research and then he tells me he wants to be a doctor67. Another Japanese girl says she recognises me from Xxxx Side School68. She says she is in year 13. I say that my son is in year 9 and my other son is at university. I’m quite surprised that she recognises me. […] Xxxxxx Taishi asks me what my older son is doing at university and I tell him. Some of them are trying to read my notes so I explain to them what I am doing. One boy says it is really unusual to have a white person in the class (field notes, 05.03.2011). This is in xxxxx contrast to what I experienced at the other Hoshūkō where no one spoke to me in the break time. At this particular Hoshūkō some of the young people saw me as someone who was interesting, one saw me as a familiar face and another saw me in racialised terms as a White British researcher. This was an example of a moment in the field when my stance was clearly as a participant observer. The stances adopted by myself during participant observation at Hoshūkō changed throughout the fieldwork process. When I was in the library I positioned myself as a parent volunteer which meant that I was participating in many of the practices which I was observing. When I was observing in the classrooms, the level of participation was partly dependent upon the teacher’s perception of my presence in the classroom. My stance went from that of a ‘fly on the wall’ (Xxxxxxx et al., 1995) to that of participant observer. When I was observing my younger son’s class and the regulatory practices I was generally positioned as a parent at Hoshūkō and I was a complete observer as participation was generally not required. The different stances I adopted at Hoshūkō affected the type of field notes that I could write because ‘field notes are writings produced in or in close proximity to the ‘field’’ (Xxxxxxx et al., 1995, p. 353). This illustrates the interconnectivity of participant observation and writing field notes which form the core data in the tradition of the doing of ethnography (Xxxxxxx et al., 1995).