Common use of Negotiating access Clause in Contracts

Negotiating access. My first job was to negotiate access to Hoshūkō as a researcher. Although it was easy for me to gain partial access as a parent helping in the library, access to the classrooms proved problematic. I feel that negotiating access was ‘the most difficult phase in the entire process of ethnographic research’ due to the multiple negotiations that needed to be performed with the numerous gatekeepers (Gobo, 2008, p. 118). This is partly because it was a cross-cultural environment so it had to be negotiated through third party native Japanese speakers and partly because it had to be negotiated three times: twice at Figsbury Hoshūkō and once at Appleton Hoshūkō. At Figsbury Hoshūkō, the intermediary, my partner, negotiated access. This was because as well as being a Japanese native speaker, he also knew the senior teachers at Hoshūkō. After having helped in the library six times between September and December 2009, the intermediary explained my research intentions to the kōshya chō (which I am calling the deputy head teacher) at the beginning of January 2010 and he gave all the information to him. He in turn passed all the information onto the kōchō sensei (head teacher of the three London sites) who was based on a different site. He wanted all the documents translated into Japanese so that they could fully understand them. This was something which I had previously overlooked as I had wrongly assumed that the senior teachers would be able to understand written English. The intermediary was told that the matter would have to be discussed internally. He was also told that a lot of similar requests are made and that they are not in a position to say yes to everyone, which did not sound very promising. I felt that my research was being subjected to ‘close scrutiny’ by the gatekeepers (Gobo, 2008, p. 122), which may have been because to them I was an ‘unwanted stranger’ (Xxxxx, 1984). My experience of gaining access to Hoshūkō was similar to Fry’s as she reported: In general the schools [full-time Japanese day school and Hoshūkō] were very cautious about such non- government-related research - some were reluctant to participate at all […] (Fry, 2009, p. 371). However, this was in contrast to Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxx’x (2010) ESRC funded research into Chinese59, Bengali, Gujarati and Turkish complementary schools in the UK whereby the researchers were positively received and the schools were pleased that they had been selected by the research team. A week passed since access to Hoshūkō had been requested and I was starting to become anxious about the whole process. After receiving ethical approval, my assumption had been that this was a green light for the research to go ahead. In retrospect, this assumption seemed somewhat narcissistic as it did not take into consideration the real thoughts and concerns of the gatekeepers. The Hoshūkō gatekeepers did not feel obliged to grant access to a non-funded PhD student. This could be because ‘much social research may be of no direct use or interest to the people studied’ (Xxxxxxx, 1984, p. 137). During the process of gaining access to Hoshūkō I felt totally powerless. Although in the literature there is a great deal of discussion about the power of the researcher (Xxxxxxxxxx, 1995; Xxxx and Xxxxxxxxx, 2002; Ali, 2006), it would seem to be somewhat of an outdated notion as Gobo (2008, p. 141) stipulates, ‘the image of the powerful researcher pertains to a pre-World War II conception of the ethnographer’. Ethical approval would seem to have dismantled the researcher’s power to a certain degree as the gatekeepers have the power to prevent the researcher from entering the research site (Xxxxxxxxxx, 1995; Xxxxxxx and Xxxxx, 2001; Gobo, 59 In the Chinese schools the teachers felt that the research project could help raise the profiles of the schools (Xxxxxxxxxx et al, p. 95). 2008). However, what needs to be borne in mind is that the stances of the researchers and participants are not fixed (see section 2.4.1.1) and there may be times when the researchers are in a position of power and times when they are at the behest of the participants. Three weeks later, after numerous e-mails and telephone calls between the intermediary and the head and deputy head teacher, clarification of how I intended to start my research had been requested because it was felt that this information had not been provided. So the following timetable (from my field notes, 30.01.2010) was e-mailed to them: Saturday 23 January 2010 Meet the class teacher to explain my research Saturday 30 January 2010 Give information to the young people Saturday 06 February 2010 Meet parents and young people to explain my research and to obtain signatures from the young people Saturday 13 February 2010 Start observations Finish March 2011 I asked to observe lessons every other week and to help in the library when not observing, as I thought this would be less intrusive for the class teacher. The deputy head teacher was only compliant with the observations starting on 13 February 2010. I could only observe two lessons60 because it was fast approaching the end of the Japanese school year. In April (the beginning of the school year in Japan) there would be a new deputy head teacher. The intermediary would have to recommence negotiations with the new deputy head teacher. This is an example of negotiating access not being an uninterrupted linear process but a process of skilful negotiation and renegotiation (Xxxxxx, 2000, p. 83). Negotiations with the new deputy head teacher began in April. In May he gave permission for me to observe classes but he said it was up to the individual class teacher to agree (field notes, 22.05.2010). It wasn’t until October that I actually managed to observe subsequent classes, I observed four classes: two classes in October (1 hour and 15 minutes and 2 hours and 45 minutes respectively), one class in November (2 hours and 45 minutes) and one in December (1 hour). I also observed 4 one-hour long classes in my capacity as a parent. As the process had been so slow at this particular Hoshūkō, I decided to move my research to another Hoshūkō site, where I knew one of the class teachers61. I was not very hopeful as this class teacher had told me that he had not been given permission to observe lessons himself at Hoshūkō for his PhD62 research (interview, 14.06.2010). My partner initially contacted the school to ask for permission in January 2011. Again progress was slow. As my partner was ill at this time, he was no longer 60 I observed two classes lasting 2 hours and 25 minutes each. 61 It was this contact who arranged the interviews with teachers. 62 He was only given permission to watch lessons for one hour during the parent observations. able to negotiate access. After not having received permission to observe classes, after three weeks my contact approached the deputy head teacher and told him that I could observe his class. Although this was not really the age group (10 – 11) I had intended to xxxxxxx00, I thought it would be preferable to no observations. The deputy head teacher agreed to this observation. After observing the lesson, my contact and I approached some other class teachers, two of whom I had previously interviewed (see appendix D): one agreed to be observed and one refused. Two further teachers agreed even though I had not interviewed them (see appendix G). The deputy head teacher also agreed to these observations. Again the deputy head teacher was leaving to return to Japan in April. It was at this point that I decided to stop observing lessons at Hoshūkō. My experience illustrates the difficulty of negotiating access especially in a cross cultural environment. Although it was easy for me to gain partial access as a parent volunteer helping in the library, it was difficult to gain access to the classrooms because negotiations had to take place between the intermediary, the head and deputy head teachers and the class teachers. All in all, I was only able to observe 6 classes (a total of 13 hours) in eleven months (from February to December 2010) at one Hoshūkō as well as 4 hours of observation as a parent, whereas I observed 5 classes (a total of 8 hours and 45 minutes) in only two months (February to March 2011) at another Hoshūkō (see appendix E, F and G). The process at the latter Hoshūkō was faster as I had a contact teacher who helped me to gain access. This was because as Xxxxxx (1996, p. 202) points out, ‘[…] it is very wise to contact respondents through informal channels but, once having secured access, it is important to gain official approval as well’. This is exactly what I did at this Hoshūkō.

Negotiating access. My first job was to negotiate access to Hoshūkō as a researcher. Although it was easy for me to gain partial access as a parent helping in the library, access to the classrooms proved problematic. I feel that negotiating access was ‘the most difficult phase in the entire process of ethnographic research’ due to the multiple negotiations that needed to be performed with the numerous gatekeepers (Gobo, 2008, p. 118). This is partly because it was a cross-cultural environment so it had to be negotiated through third party native Japanese speakers and partly because it had to be negotiated three times: twice at Figsbury Hoshūkō and once at Appleton Hoshūkō. At Figsbury Hoshūkō, the intermediary, my partner, negotiated access. This was because as well as being a Japanese native speaker, he also knew the senior teachers at Hoshūkō. After having helped in the library six times between September and December 2009, the intermediary explained my research intentions to the kōshya chō (which I am calling the deputy head teacher) at the beginning of January 2010 and he gave all the information to him. He in turn passed all the information onto the kōchō sensei (head teacher of the three London sites) who was based on a different site. He wanted all the documents translated into Japanese so that they could fully understand them. This was something which I had previously overlooked as I had wrongly assumed that the senior teachers would be able to understand written English. The intermediary was told that the matter would have to be discussed internally. He was also told that a lot of similar requests are made and that they are not in a position to say yes to everyone, which did not sound very promising. I felt that my research was being subjected to ‘close scrutiny’ by the gatekeepers (Gobo, 2008, p. 122), which may have been because to them I was an ‘unwanted stranger’ (XxxxxHicks, 1984). My experience of gaining access to Hoshūkō was similar to Fry’s as she reported: In general the schools [full-time Japanese day school and Hoshūkō] were very cautious about such non- government-related research - some were reluctant to participate at all […] (Fry, 2009, p. 371). However, this was in contrast to Xxxxxxxxxx Blackledge and Xxxxxx’x Creese’s (2010) ESRC funded research into Chinese59, Bengali, Gujarati and Turkish complementary schools in the UK whereby the researchers were positively received and the schools were pleased that they had been selected by the research team. A week passed since access to Hoshūkō had been requested and I was starting to become anxious about the whole process. After receiving ethical approval, my assumption had been that this was a green light for the research to go ahead. In retrospect, this assumption seemed somewhat narcissistic as it did not take into consideration the real thoughts and concerns of the gatekeepers. The Hoshūkō gatekeepers did not feel obliged to grant access to a non-funded PhD student. This could be because ‘much social research may be of no direct use or interest to the people studied’ (XxxxxxxAkeroyd, 1984, p. 137). During the process of gaining access to Hoshūkō I felt totally powerless. Although in the literature there is a great deal of discussion about the power of the researcher (XxxxxxxxxxHammersley, 1995; Xxxx Eder and XxxxxxxxxFingerson, 2002; Ali, 2006), it would seem to be somewhat of an outdated notion as Gobo (2008, p. 141) stipulates, ‘the image of the powerful researcher pertains to a pre-World War II conception of the ethnographer’. Ethical approval would seem to have dismantled the researcher’s power to a certain degree as the gatekeepers have the power to prevent the researcher from entering the research site (XxxxxxxxxxHammersley, 1995; Xxxxxxx Goodson and XxxxxSikes, 2001; Gobo, 59 In the Chinese schools the teachers felt that the research project could help raise the profiles of the schools (Xxxxxxxxxx Blackledge et al, p. 95). 2008). However, what needs to be borne in mind is that the stances of the researchers and participants are not fixed (see section 2.4.1.1) and there may be times when the researchers are in a position of power and times when they are at the behest of the participants. Three weeks later, after numerous e-mails and telephone calls between the intermediary and the head and deputy head teacher, clarification of how I intended to start my research had been requested because it was felt that this information had not been provided. So the following timetable (from my field notes, 30.01.2010) was e-mailed to them: Saturday 23 January 2010 Meet the class teacher to explain my research Saturday 30 January 2010 Give information to the young people Saturday 06 February 2010 Meet parents and young people to explain my research and to obtain signatures from the young people Saturday 13 February 2010 Start observations Finish March 2011 I asked to observe lessons every other week and to help in the library when not observing, as I thought this would be less intrusive for the class teacher. The deputy head teacher was only compliant with the observations starting on 13 February 2010. I could only observe two lessons60 because it was fast approaching the end of the Japanese school year. In April (the beginning of the school year in Japan) there would be a new deputy head teacher. The intermediary would have to recommence negotiations with the new deputy head teacher. This is an example of negotiating access not being an uninterrupted linear process but a process of skilful negotiation and renegotiation (XxxxxxBrewer, 2000, p. 83). Negotiations with the new deputy head teacher began in April. In May he gave permission for me to observe classes but he said it was up to the individual class teacher to agree (field notes, 22.05.2010). It wasn’t until October that I actually managed to observe subsequent classes, I observed four classes: two classes in October (1 hour and 15 minutes and 2 hours and 45 minutes respectively), one class in November (2 hours and 45 minutes) and one in December (1 hour). I also observed 4 one-hour long classes in my capacity as a parent. As the process had been so slow at this particular Hoshūkō, I decided to move my research to another Hoshūkō site, where I knew one of the class teachers61. I was not very hopeful as this class teacher had told me that he had not been given permission to observe lessons himself at Hoshūkō for his PhD62 research (interview, 14.06.2010). My partner initially contacted the school to ask for permission in January 2011. Again progress was slow. As my partner was ill at this time, he was no longer 60 I observed two classes lasting 2 hours and 25 minutes each. 61 It was this contact who arranged the interviews with teachers. 62 He was only given permission to watch lessons for one hour during the parent observations. able to negotiate access. After not having received permission to observe classes, after three weeks my contact approached the deputy head teacher and told him that I could observe his class. Although this was not really the age group (10 – 11) I had intended to xxxxxxx00observe63, I thought it would be preferable to no observations. The deputy head teacher agreed to this observation. After observing the lesson, my contact and I approached some other class teachers, two of whom I had previously interviewed (see appendix D): one agreed to be observed and one refused. Two further teachers agreed even though I had not interviewed them (see appendix G). The deputy head teacher also agreed to these observations. Again the deputy head teacher was leaving to return to Japan in April. It was at this point that I decided to stop observing lessons at Hoshūkō. My experience illustrates the difficulty of negotiating access especially in a cross cultural environment. Although it was easy for me to gain partial access as a parent volunteer helping in the library, it was difficult to gain access to the classrooms because negotiations had to take place between the intermediary, the head and deputy head teachers and the class teachers. All in all, I was only able to observe 6 classes (a total of 13 hours) in eleven months (from February to December 2010) at one Hoshūkō as well as 4 hours of observation as a parent, whereas I observed 5 classes (a total of 8 hours and 45 minutes) in only two months (February to March 2011) at another Hoshūkō (see appendix E, F and G). The process at the latter Hoshūkō was faster as I had a contact teacher who helped me to gain access. This was because as Xxxxxx Lareau (1996, p. 202) points out, ‘[…] it is very wise to contact respondents through informal channels but, once having secured access, it is important to gain official approval as well’. This is exactly what I did at this Hoshūkō.

Negotiating access. My first job was to negotiate access to Hoshūkō as a researcher. Although it was easy for me to gain partial access as a parent helping in the library, access to the classrooms proved problematic. I feel that negotiating access was ‘the most difficult phase in the entire process of ethnographic research’ due to the multiple negotiations that needed to be performed with the numerous gatekeepers (Gobo, 2008, p. 118). This is partly because it was a cross-cultural environment so it had to be negotiated through third party native Japanese speakers and partly because it had to be negotiated three times: twice at Figsbury Hoshūkō and once at Appleton Hoshūkō. At Figsbury Hoshūkō, the intermediary, my partner, negotiated access. This was because as well as being a Japanese native speaker, he also knew the senior teachers at Hoshūkō. After having helped in the library six times between September and December 2009, the intermediary explained my research intentions to the kōshya chō (which I am calling the deputy head teacher) at the beginning of January 2010 and he gave all the information to him. He in turn passed all the information onto the kōchō sensei (head teacher of the three London sites) who was based on a different site. He wanted all the documents translated into Japanese so that they could fully understand them. This was something which I had previously overlooked as I had wrongly assumed that the senior teachers would be able to understand written English. The intermediary was told that the matter would have to be discussed internally. He was also told that a lot of similar requests are made and that they are not in a position to say yes to everyone, which did not sound very promising. I felt that my research was being subjected to ‘close scrutiny’ by the gatekeepers (Gobo, 2008, p. 122), which may have been because to them I was an ‘unwanted stranger’ (Xxxxx, 19840084). My experience of gaining access to Hoshūkō was similar to Fry’s Xxx’x as she reported: In general the schools [full-time Japanese day school and Hoshūkō] were very cautious about such non- government-related research - some were reluctant to participate at all […] (Fry, 2009, p. 371). However, this was in contrast to Xxxxxxxxxx Blackledge and Xxxxxx’x (2010) ESRC funded research into Chinese59, Bengali, Gujarati and Turkish complementary schools in the UK whereby the researchers were positively received and the schools were pleased that they had been selected by the research team. A week passed since access to Hoshūkō had been requested and I was starting to become anxious about the whole process. After receiving ethical approval, my assumption had been that this was a green light for the research to go ahead. In retrospect, this assumption seemed somewhat narcissistic as it did not take into consideration the real thoughts and concerns of the gatekeepers. The Hoshūkō gatekeepers did not feel obliged to grant access to a non-funded PhD student. This could be because ‘much social research may be of no direct use or interest to the people studied’ (Xxxxxxx, 1984, p. 137). During the process of gaining access to Hoshūkō I felt totally powerless. Although in the literature there is a great deal of discussion about the power of the researcher (Xxxxxxxxxx, 19950095; Xxxx and xxx Xxxxxxxxx, 20020002; Ali, 20060006), it would seem to be somewhat of an outdated notion as Gobo (20080008, p. 141) stipulates, ‘the image of the powerful researcher pertains to a pre-World War II conception of the ethnographer’. Ethical approval would seem to have dismantled the researcher’s power to a certain degree as the gatekeepers have the power to prevent the researcher from entering the research site (Xxxxxxxxxx, 19950095; Xxxxxxx and xxx Xxxxx, 20010001; Gobo, 59 In the Chinese schools the teachers felt that the research project could help raise the profiles of the schools (Xxxxxxxxxx Blackledge et al, p. 95). 2008). However, what needs to be borne in mind is that the stances of the researchers and participants are not fixed (see section 2.4.1.1) and there may be times when the researchers are in a position of power and times when they are at the behest of the participants. Three weeks later, after numerous e-mails and telephone calls between the intermediary and the head and deputy head teacher, clarification of how I intended to start my research had been requested because it was felt that this information had not been provided. So the following timetable (from my field notes, 30.01.2010) was e-mailed to them: Saturday 23 January 2010 Meet the class teacher to explain my research Saturday 30 January 2010 Give information to the young people Saturday 06 February 2010 Meet parents and young people to explain my research and to obtain signatures from the young people Saturday 13 February 2010 Start observations Finish March 2011 I asked to observe lessons every other week and to help in the library when not observing, as I thought this would be less intrusive for the class teacher. The deputy head teacher was only compliant with the observations starting on 13 February 2010. I could only observe two lessons60 because it was fast approaching the end of the Japanese school year. In April (the beginning of the school year in Japan) there would be a new deputy head teacher. The intermediary would have to recommence negotiations with the new deputy head teacher. This is an example of negotiating access not being an uninterrupted linear process but a process of skilful negotiation and renegotiation (Xxxxxx, 2000, p. 83). Negotiations with the new deputy head teacher began in April. In May he gave permission for me to observe classes but he said it was up to the individual class teacher to agree (field notes, 22.05.2010). It wasn’t until October that I actually managed to observe subsequent classes, I observed four classes: two classes in October (1 hour and 15 minutes and 2 hours and 45 minutes respectively), one class in November (2 hours and 45 minutes) and one in December (1 hour). I also observed 4 one-hour long classes in my capacity as a parent. As the process had been so slow at this particular Hoshūkō, I decided to move my research to another Hoshūkō site, where I knew one of the class teachers61. I was not very hopeful as this class teacher had told me that he had not been given permission to observe lessons himself at Hoshūkō for his PhD62 research (interview, 14.06.2010). My partner initially contacted the school to ask for permission in January 2011. Again progress was slow. As my partner was ill at this time, he was no longer 60 I observed two classes lasting 2 hours and 25 minutes each. 61 It was this contact who arranged the interviews with teachers. 62 He was only given permission to watch lessons for one hour during the parent observations. able to negotiate access. After not having received permission to observe classes, after three weeks my contact approached the deputy head teacher and told him that I could observe his class. Although this was not really the age group (10 – 11) I had intended to xxxxxxx00, I thought it would be preferable to no observations. The deputy head teacher agreed to this observation. After observing the lesson, my contact and I approached some other class teachers, two of whom I had previously interviewed (see appendix D): one agreed to be observed and one refused. Two further teachers agreed even though I had not interviewed them (see appendix G). The deputy head teacher also agreed to these observations. Again the deputy head teacher was leaving to return to Japan in April. It was at this point that I decided to stop observing lessons at Hoshūkō. My experience illustrates the difficulty of negotiating access especially in a cross cultural environment. Although it was easy for me to gain partial access as a parent volunteer helping in the library, it was difficult to gain access to the classrooms because negotiations had to take place between the intermediary, the head and deputy head teachers and the class teachers. All in all, I was only able to observe 6 classes (a total of 13 hours) in eleven months (from February to December 2010) at one Hoshūkō as well as 4 hours of observation as a parent, whereas I observed 5 classes (a total of 8 hours and 45 minutes) in only two months (February to March 2011) at another Hoshūkō (see appendix E, F and G). The process at the latter Hoshūkō was faster as I had a contact teacher who helped me to gain access. This was because as Xxxxxx (1996, p. 202) points out, ‘[…] it is very wise to contact respondents through informal channels but, once having secured access, it is important to gain official approval as well’. This is exactly what I did at this Hoshūkō.

Negotiating access. My first job was to negotiate access to Hoshūkō as a researcher. Although it was easy for me to gain partial access as a parent helping in the library, access to the classrooms proved problematic. I feel that negotiating access was ‘the most difficult phase in the entire process of ethnographic research’ due to the multiple negotiations that needed to be performed with the numerous gatekeepers (Gobo, 2008, p. 118). This is partly because it was a cross-cultural environment so it had to be negotiated through third party native Japanese speakers and partly because it had to be negotiated three times: twice at Figsbury Hoshūkō and once at Appleton Hoshūkō. At Figsbury Hoshūkō, the intermediary, my partner, negotiated access. This was because as well as being a Japanese native speaker, he also knew the senior teachers at Hoshūkō. After having helped in the library six times between September and December 2009, the intermediary explained my research intentions to the kōshya chō (which I am calling the deputy head teacher) at the beginning of January 2010 and he gave all the information to him. He in turn passed all the information onto the kōchō sensei (head teacher of the three London sites) who was based on a different site. He wanted all the documents translated into Japanese so that they could fully understand them. This was something which I had previously overlooked as I had wrongly assumed that the senior teachers would be able to understand written English. The intermediary was told that the matter would have to be discussed internally. He was also told that a lot of similar requests are made and that they are not in a position to say yes to everyone, which did not sound very promising. I felt that my research was being subjected to ‘close scrutiny’ by the gatekeepers (Gobo, 2008, p. 122), which may have been because to them I was an ‘unwanted stranger’ (Xxxxx, 1984). My experience of gaining access to Hoshūkō was similar to Fry’s Xxx’x as she reported: In general the schools [full-time Japanese day school and Hoshūkō] were very cautious about such non- government-related research - some were reluctant to participate at all […] (Fry, 2009, p. 371). However, this was in contrast to Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxx’x (2010) ESRC funded research into Chinese59, Bengali, Gujarati and Turkish complementary schools in the UK whereby the researchers were positively received and the schools were pleased that they had been selected by the research team. A week passed since access to Hoshūkō had been requested and I was starting to become anxious about the whole process. After receiving ethical approval, my assumption had been that this was a green light for the research to go ahead. In retrospect, this assumption seemed somewhat narcissistic as it did not take into consideration the real thoughts and concerns of the gatekeepers. The Hoshūkō gatekeepers did not feel obliged to grant access to a non-funded PhD student. This could be because ‘much social research may be of no direct use or interest to the people studied’ (Xxxxxxx, 1984, p. 137). During the process of gaining access to Hoshūkō I felt totally powerless. Although in the literature there is a great deal of discussion about the power of the researcher (Xxxxxxxxxx, 1995; Xxxx and Xxxxxxxxx, 2002; AliXxx, 2006), it would seem to be somewhat of an outdated notion as Gobo Xxxx (2008, p. 141) stipulates, ‘the image of the powerful researcher pertains to a pre-World War II conception of the ethnographer’. Ethical approval would seem to have dismantled the researcher’s power to a certain degree as the gatekeepers have the power to prevent the researcher from entering the research site (Xxxxxxxxxx, 1995; Xxxxxxx and Xxxxx, 2001; Gobo, 59 In the Chinese schools the teachers felt that the research project could help raise the profiles of the schools (Xxxxxxxxxx et al, p. 95). 2008). However, what needs to be borne in mind is that the stances of the researchers and participants are not fixed (see section 2.4.1.1) and there may be times when the researchers are in a position of power and times when they are at the behest of the participants. Three weeks later, after numerous e-mails and telephone calls between the intermediary and the head and deputy head teacher, clarification of how I intended to start my research had been requested because it was felt that this information had not been provided. So the following timetable (from my field notes, 30.01.2010) was e-mailed to them: Saturday 23 January 2010 Meet the class teacher to explain my research Saturday 30 January 2010 Give information to the young people Saturday 06 February 2010 Meet parents and young people to explain my research and to obtain signatures from the young people Saturday 13 February 2010 Start observations Finish March 2011 I asked to observe lessons every other week and to help in the library when not observing, as I thought this would be less intrusive for the class teacher. The deputy head teacher was only compliant with the observations starting on 13 February 2010. I could only observe two lessons60 because it was fast approaching the end of the Japanese school year. In April (the beginning of the school year in Japan) there would be a new deputy head teacher. The intermediary would have to recommence negotiations with the new deputy head teacher. This is an example of negotiating access not being an uninterrupted linear process but a process of skilful negotiation and renegotiation (Xxxxxx, 2000, p. 83). Negotiations with the new deputy head teacher began in April. In May he gave permission for me to observe classes but he said it was up to the individual class teacher to agree (field notes, 22.05.2010). It wasn’t until October that I actually managed to observe subsequent classes, I observed four classes: two classes in October (1 hour and 15 minutes and 2 hours and 45 minutes respectively), one class in November (2 hours and 45 minutes) and one in December (1 hour). I also observed 4 one-hour long classes in my capacity as a parent. As the process had been so slow at this particular Hoshūkō, I decided to move my research to another Hoshūkō site, where I knew one of the class teachers61. I was not very hopeful as this class teacher had told me that he had not been given permission to observe lessons himself at Hoshūkō for his PhD62 research (interview, 14.06.2010). My partner initially contacted the school to ask for permission in January 2011. Again progress was slow. As my partner was ill at this time, he was no longer 60 I observed two classes lasting 2 hours and 25 minutes each. 61 It was this contact who arranged the interviews with teachers. 62 He was only given permission to watch lessons for one hour during the parent observations. able to negotiate access. After not having received permission to observe classes, after three weeks my contact approached the deputy head teacher and told him that I could observe his class. Although this was not really the age group (10 – 11) I had intended to xxxxxxx00, I thought it would be preferable to no observations. The deputy head teacher agreed to this observation. After observing the lesson, my contact and I approached some other class teachers, two of whom I had previously interviewed (see appendix D): one agreed to be observed and one refused. Two further teachers agreed even though I had not interviewed them (see appendix G). The deputy head teacher also agreed to these observations. Again the deputy head teacher was leaving to return to Japan in April. It was at this point that I decided to stop observing lessons at Hoshūkō. My experience illustrates the difficulty of negotiating access especially in a cross cultural environment. Although it was easy for me to gain partial access as a parent volunteer helping in the library, it was difficult to gain access to the classrooms because negotiations had to take place between the intermediary, the head and deputy head teachers and the class teachers. All in all, I was only able to observe 6 classes (a total of 13 hours) in eleven months (from February to December 2010) at one Hoshūkō as well as 4 hours of observation as a parent, whereas I observed 5 classes (a total of 8 hours and 45 minutes) in only two months (February to March 2011) at another Hoshūkō (see appendix E, F and G). The process at the latter Hoshūkō was faster as I had a contact teacher who helped me to gain access. This was because as Xxxxxx (1996, p. 202) points out, ‘[…] it is very wise to contact respondents through informal channels but, once having secured access, it is important to gain official approval as well’. This is exactly what I did at this Hoshūkō.