Common use of Problems with an ethnographic Clause in Contracts

Problems with an ethnographic. perspective Three key problems, which can be linked to an ethnographic perspective, are reactivity, subjectivity and researcher bias. This is because ethnography is based on constructionism, which envisages society as not an object-like reality waiting to be discovered by a researcher but as being socially constructed in the process of individuals making sense of their world (Xxxxx, 2004). The first problem, ‘reactivity’, is defined as, ‘the effects of audience, and indeed of context generally, on what people say and do’ (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007, p. 102). Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx point out that the effect of the researcher on the data is unavoidable: As a fieldworker, you never belong ‘naturally’ or ‘normally’ to the field you investigate, you are always a foreign body which causes ripples on the surface of smooth routinised processes. There is always an observer’s effect and it is essential to realise that: you are never observing an event as if you were not there (Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx, 2010, p. 27). I think I minimised this effect to some extent by not bringing video cameras or audio-equipment to the classrooms (Blommaert and Dong, 2010) which was in contrast to Xxxxxx et al.’s (2007) observations in eight complementary schools. However, for part of the class at one Hoshūkō (field notes, 06.03.2011) I did affect the situation due to my lack of Japanese proficiency. In order to help me understand what was happening in the classroom, the teacher had asked students to translate their presentations for me into English whereas normally the use of English in the classroom was not encouraged. I felt awkward, as had Xxxxxx (in Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxx, 2010) when observing classes in Gujarati a language in which he was not proficient, that the teacher interrupted the lesson so that I could understand. Had I been a fluent Japanese speaker, this scenario would not have happened65. Another problem linked to ‘reactivity’ is the perceptions of the young people and teachers about the researcher. In one class I observed one student asked me whether I was from the FBI and another thought I was there to check her Japanese ability. The teacher introduces me to the class in Japanese, which seems to cause a commotion. She asks if they have any questions. One boy asks if I am spying on them from the FBI. Another girl is worried that I am going to check her Japanese ability. She asks the teacher to use ‘easy words’ so that she can do well. I introduce myself in English. They seem worried about my role in the classroom. One boy asks me what I think of them and I say that I think that they are all good at Japanese because they attend Hoshūkō (Field notes, 12.02.2011). Another problem linked to an ethnographic perspective is that of subjectivity. This is because ‘reality is subjective and is known only as it is experienced by individuals’ (Pink, 2007, p. 24}. Xxxxxxx (1997) points out that the observer may only see what s/he wants to see. This is because the observer enters the field with a specific research agenda of what is to be observed. Xxxxxxx (1997, p. 38) believes that participant observers may be guided by preconceptions as: Ideas do not spring direct from observations in the field. The mind of the researcher is ‘programmed’, ‘energized’, ‘keyed’, with ideas from a social science that ‘disciplines’ the production of ideas. However, Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx stress that subjectivity is part and parcel of an ethnographic perspective: The result of your research will not be a body of findings which can claim representativeness for a (segment of the) population, it will not be replicable under identical circumstances, it will not claim objectivity on grounds of an outsider’s position for the researcher, it will not claim to produce ‘uncontaminated’ evidence, and so on. It will be interpretive research in a situated, real environment, based on interaction between the researcher and the subject(s), hence, fundamentally subjective in nature, aimed at demonstrating complexity. […] Ethnography produces theoretical statements, not ‘facts’ nor ‘laws’. […] The object of investigation is always a uniquely situated reality: a complex of events which occurs in a totally unique context […]. […] you are always working in a series of conditions that can never be repeated. […] So the thing you will investigate will be a particular point in time […] (Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx, 0000, p. 17). My stance, too, is that subjectivity cannot be avoided when adopting an ethnographic perspective and it is necessary in order to uncover the complexity of the context. Linked to the notion of subjectivity is researcher bias. This is because the researcher interprets knowledge which has been constructed through interaction (Xxxxxxxxx, 2009). Holstein and 65 I seemed to have overlooked the question of my language use which is common with anthropologists who do not like to admit that ‘they have not been fluent in the language spoken where they did their fieldwork’ (Borchgrevink, 2003, p. 102). I like Xxxxxx (in Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxx, 2010, p. 92) felt ‘frustrated because I was unable to understand everything that was happening in the classrooms’. Gubrium (2004) believe that ‘bias’ only exists if a narrow view of interpretive practice is taken. Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx (2007, p. 102) believe it is impossible to completely avoid bias: The aim is not to gather ‘pure’ data that are free from potential bias. There is no such thing. Rather, the goal must be to discover the best manner of interpreting whatever data we have, and to collect further data that enable us to develop and check our inferences. The concept of bias would seem to be a redundant concept when adopting an ethnographic perspective within a qualitative framework as it is necessary to focus on how useful information can be generated and on the processes used to generate such information (Holstein and Gubrium, 2004, p.145). I, like Xxxxxx (2006), stuck closely to what the informants said when assigning meaning to the data by including their self-representations rather than offering a magisterial account of what they said. I tried to stay true to my data because I only mentioned the institutions, practices and objects that were salient to my informants even though I was aware that these were only the tip of the iceberg as in reality a great deal more existed (see chapter 7). In addition, I did not prompt my informants to only focus on their Japaneseness whilst talking to them, they were also free to talk about their Britishness even though this was not my focus. In order to guard against ‘reactitvity’, ‘subjectivity’ and researcher ‘bias’ in the construction of knowledge, ethnography is understood as a reflexive approach (Xxx, 2006; Pink, 2007; Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007). Xxxx (2007, p. 24) points out that, ‘it is important to recognise the centrality of the subjectivity of the researcher to the production of ethnographic knowledge’. Pink acknowledges that a reflexive approach may only be a token gesture in the avoidance of subjectivity as: At the end of the twentieth century postmodern thinkers argued that ethnographic knowledge and text can only ever be a subjective construction, a ‘fiction’ that represents only the ethnographer’s versi on of a reality, rather than an empirical truth (Pink, 2007, p. 23). Xxxxxxx et al. (1995, p. 3) believe that, ‘the task of the ethnographer is not to determine “the truth” but to reveal the multiple truths apparent in others’ lives’. Xxxx (2007, p. 23) argues that it is ‘through the intersubjectivity between researchers and their research contexts that we may arrive at a closer understanding of the worlds that other people live in’. In order to get close to the worlds of the A-Js I used an ethnographic perspective with multiple ethnographic tools.

Problems with an ethnographic. perspective Three key problems, which can be linked to an ethnographic perspective, are reactivity, subjectivity and researcher bias. This is because ethnography is based on constructionism, which envisages society as not an object-like reality waiting to be discovered by a researcher but as being socially constructed in the process of individuals making sense of their world (Xxxxx, 2004). The first problem, ‘reactivity’, is defined as, ‘the effects of audience, and indeed of context generally, on what people say and do’ (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007, p. 102). Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx point out that the effect of the researcher on the data is unavoidable: As a fieldworker, you never belong ‘naturally’ or ‘normally’ to the field you investigate, you are always a foreign body which causes ripples on the surface of smooth routinised processes. There is always an observer’s effect and it is essential to realise that: you are never observing an event as if you were not there (Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx, 2010, p. 27). I think I minimised this effect to some extent by not bringing video cameras or audio-equipment to the classrooms (Blommaert and Dong, 2010) which was in contrast to Xxxxxx et al.’s (2007) observations in eight complementary schools. However, for part of the class at one Hoshūkō (field notes, 06.03.2011) I did affect the situation due to my lack of Japanese proficiency. In order to help me understand what was happening in the classroom, the teacher had asked students to translate their presentations for me into English whereas normally the use of English in the classroom was not encouraged. I felt awkward, as had Xxxxxx (in Xxxxxxxxxx Blackledge and Xxxxxx, 2010) when observing classes in Gujarati a language in which he was not proficient, that the teacher interrupted the lesson so that I could understand. Had I been a fluent Japanese speaker, this scenario would not have happened65. Another problem linked to ‘reactivity’ is the perceptions of the young people and teachers about the researcher. In one class I observed one student asked me whether I was from the FBI and another thought I was there to check her Japanese ability. The teacher introduces me to the class in Japanese, which seems to cause a commotion. She asks if they have any questions. One boy asks if I am spying on them from the FBI. Another girl is worried that I am going to check her Japanese ability. She asks the teacher to use ‘easy words’ so that she can do well. I introduce myself in English. They seem worried about my role in the classroom. One boy asks me what I think of them and I say that I think that they are all good at Japanese because they attend Hoshūkō (Field notes, 12.02.2011). Another problem linked to an ethnographic perspective is that of subjectivity. This is because ‘reality is subjective and is known only as it is experienced by individuals’ (Pink, 2007, p. 24}. Xxxxxxx (1997) points out that the observer may only see what s/he wants to see. This is because the observer enters the field with a specific research agenda of what is to be observed. Xxxxxxx (1997, p. 38) believes that participant observers may be guided by preconceptions as: Ideas do not spring direct from observations in the field. The mind of the researcher is ‘programmed’, ‘energized’, ‘keyed’, with ideas from a social science that ‘disciplines’ the production of ideas. However, Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx stress that subjectivity is part and parcel of an ethnographic perspective: The result of your research will not be a body of findings which can claim representativeness for a (segment of the) population, it will not be replicable under identical circumstances, it will not claim objectivity on grounds of an outsider’s position for the researcher, it will not claim to produce ‘uncontaminated’ evidence, and so on. It will be interpretive research in a situated, real environment, based on interaction between the researcher and the subject(s), hence, fundamentally subjective in nature, aimed at demonstrating complexity. […] Ethnography produces theoretical statements, not ‘facts’ nor ‘laws’. […] The object of investigation is always a uniquely situated reality: a complex of events which occurs in a totally unique context […]. […] you are always working in a series of conditions that can never be repeated. […] So the thing you will investigate will be a particular point in time […] (Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx, 00002010, p. 17). My stance, too, is that subjectivity cannot be avoided when adopting an ethnographic perspective and it is necessary in order to uncover the complexity of the context. Linked to the notion of subjectivity is researcher bias. This is because the researcher interprets knowledge which has been constructed through interaction (Xxxxxxxxx, 2009). Holstein and 65 I seemed to have overlooked the question of my language use which is common with anthropologists who do not like to admit that ‘they have not been fluent in the language spoken where they did their fieldwork’ (Borchgrevink, 2003, p. 102). I like Xxxxxx (in Xxxxxxxxxx Blackledge and Xxxxxx, 2010, p. 92) felt ‘frustrated because I was unable to understand everything that was happening in the classrooms’. Gubrium (2004) believe that ‘bias’ only exists if a narrow view of interpretive practice is taken. Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx (2007, p. 102) believe it is impossible to completely avoid bias: The aim is not to gather ‘pure’ data that are free from potential bias. There is no such thing. Rather, the goal must be to discover the best manner of interpreting whatever data we have, and to collect further data that enable us to develop and check our inferences. The concept of bias would seem to be a redundant concept when adopting an ethnographic perspective within a qualitative framework as it is necessary to focus on how useful information can be generated and on the processes used to generate such information (Holstein and Gubrium, 2004, p.145). I, like Xxxxxx (2006), stuck closely to what the informants said when assigning meaning to the data by including their self-representations rather than offering a magisterial account of what they said. I tried to stay true to my data because I only mentioned the institutions, practices and objects that were salient to my informants even though I was aware that these were only the tip of the iceberg as in reality a great deal more existed (see chapter 7). In addition, I did not prompt my informants to only focus on their Japaneseness whilst talking to them, they were also free to talk about their Britishness even though this was not my focus. In order to guard against ‘reactitvity’, ‘subjectivity’ and researcher ‘bias’ in the construction of knowledge, ethnography is understood as a reflexive approach (Xxx, 2006; Pink, 2007; Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007). Xxxx (2007, p. 24) points out that, ‘it is important to recognise the centrality of the subjectivity of the researcher to the production of ethnographic knowledge’. Pink acknowledges that a reflexive approach may only be a token gesture in the avoidance of subjectivity as: At the end of the twentieth century postmodern thinkers argued that ethnographic knowledge and text can only ever be a subjective construction, a ‘fiction’ that represents only the ethnographer’s versi on of a reality, rather than an empirical truth (Pink, 2007, p. 23). Xxxxxxx et al. (1995, p. 3) believe that, ‘the task of the ethnographer is not to determine “the truth” but to reveal the multiple truths apparent in others’ lives’. Xxxx (2007, p. 23) argues that it is ‘through the intersubjectivity between researchers and their research contexts that we may arrive at a closer understanding of the worlds that other people live in’. In order to get close to the worlds of the A-Js I used an ethnographic perspective with multiple ethnographic tools.

Problems with an ethnographic. perspective Three key problems, which can be linked to an ethnographic perspective, are reactivity, subjectivity and researcher bias. This is because ethnography is based on constructionism, which envisages society as not an object-like reality waiting to be discovered by a researcher but as being socially constructed in the process of individuals making sense of their world (XxxxxWalsh, 2004). The first problem, ‘reactivity’, is defined as, ‘the effects of audience, and indeed of context generally, on what people say and do’ (Xxxxxxxxxx Hammersley and XxxxxxxxAtkinson, 2007, p. 102). Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and Xxxx Dong point out that the effect of the researcher on the data is unavoidable: As a fieldworker, you never belong ‘naturally’ or ‘normally’ to the field you investigate, you are always a foreign body which causes ripples on the surface of smooth routinised processes. There is always an observer’s effect and it is essential to realise that: you are never observing an event as if you were not there (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 2010, p. 27). I think I minimised this effect to some extent by not bringing video cameras or audio-equipment to the classrooms (Blommaert and Dong, 2010) which was in contrast to Xxxxxx Creese et al.’s (2007) observations in eight complementary schools. However, for part of the class at one Hoshūkō (field notes, 06.03.2011) I did affect the situation due to my lack of Japanese proficiency. In order to help me understand what was happening in the classroom, the teacher had asked students to translate their presentations for me into English whereas normally the use of English in the classroom was not encouraged. I felt awkward, as had Xxxxxx Martin (in Xxxxxxxxxx Blackledge and XxxxxxCreese, 2010) when observing classes in Gujarati a language in which he was not proficient, that the teacher interrupted the lesson so that I could understand. Had I been a fluent Japanese speaker, this scenario would not have happened65. Another problem linked to ‘reactivity’ is the perceptions of the young people and teachers about the researcher. In one class I observed one student asked me whether I was from the FBI and another thought I was there to check her Japanese ability. The teacher introduces me to the class in Japanese, which seems to cause a commotion. She asks if they have any questions. One boy asks if I am spying on them from the FBI. Another girl is worried that I am going to check her Japanese ability. She asks the teacher to use ‘easy words’ so that she can do well. I introduce myself in English. They seem worried about my role in the classroom. One boy asks me what I think of them and I say that I think that they are all good at Japanese because they attend Hoshūkō (Field notes, 12.02.2011). Another problem linked to an ethnographic perspective is that of subjectivity. This is because ‘reality is subjective and is known only as it is experienced by individuals’ (Pink, 2007, p. 24}. Xxxxxxx Shipman (1997) points out that the observer may only see what s/he wants to see. This is because the observer enters the field with a specific research agenda of what is to be observed. Xxxxxxx Shipman (1997, p. 38) believes that participant observers may be guided by preconceptions as: Ideas do not spring direct from observations in the field. The mind of the researcher is ‘programmed’, ‘energized’, ‘keyed’, with ideas from a social science that ‘disciplines’ the production of ideas. However, Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and Xxxx Dong stress that subjectivity is part and parcel of an ethnographic perspective: The result of your research will not be a body of findings which can claim representativeness for a (segment of the) population, it will not be replicable under identical circumstances, it will not claim objectivity on grounds of an outsider’s position for the researcher, it will not claim to produce ‘uncontaminated’ evidence, and so on. It will be interpretive research in a situated, real environment, based on interaction between the researcher and the subject(s), hence, fundamentally subjective in nature, aimed at demonstrating complexity. […] Ethnography produces theoretical statements, not ‘facts’ nor ‘laws’. […] The object of investigation is always a uniquely situated reality: a complex of events which occurs in a totally unique context […]. […] you are always working in a series of conditions that can never be repeated. […] So the thing you will investigate will be a particular point in time […] (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 00002010, p. 17). My stance, too, is that subjectivity cannot be avoided when adopting an ethnographic perspective and it is necessary in order to uncover the complexity of the context. Linked to the notion of subjectivity is researcher bias. This is because the researcher interprets knowledge which has been constructed through interaction (XxxxxxxxxGallagher, 2009). Holstein and 65 I seemed to have overlooked the question of my language use which is common with anthropologists who do not like to admit that ‘they have not been fluent in the language spoken where they did their fieldwork’ (Borchgrevink, 2003, p. 102). I like Xxxxxx Martin (in Xxxxxxxxxx Blackledge and XxxxxxCreese, 2010, p. 92) felt ‘frustrated because I was unable to understand everything that was happening in the classrooms’. Gubrium (2004) believe that ‘bias’ only exists if a narrow view of interpretive practice is taken. Xxxxxxxxxx Hammersley and Xxxxxxxx Atkinson (2007, p. 102) believe it is impossible to completely avoid bias: The aim is not to gather ‘pure’ data that are free from potential bias. There is no such thing. Rather, the goal must be to discover the best manner of interpreting whatever data we have, and to collect further data that enable us to develop and check our inferences. The concept of bias would seem to be a redundant concept when adopting an ethnographic perspective within a qualitative framework as it is necessary to focus on how useful information can be generated and on the processes used to generate such information (Holstein and Gubrium, 2004, p.145). I, like Xxxxxx Harris (2006), stuck closely to what the informants said when assigning meaning to the data by including their self-representations rather than offering a magisterial account of what they said. I tried to stay true to my data because I only mentioned the institutions, practices and objects that were salient to my informants even though I was aware that these were only the tip of the iceberg as in reality a great deal more existed (see chapter 7). In addition, I did not prompt my informants to only focus on their Japaneseness whilst talking to them, they were also free to talk about their Britishness even though this was not my focus. In order to guard against ‘reactitvity’, ‘subjectivity’ and researcher ‘bias’ in the construction of knowledge, ethnography is understood as a reflexive approach (XxxAli, 2006; Pink, 2007; Xxxxxxxxxx Hammersley and XxxxxxxxAtkinson, 2007). Xxxx Pink (2007, p. 24) points out that, ‘it is important to recognise the centrality of the subjectivity of the researcher to the production of ethnographic knowledge’. Pink acknowledges that a reflexive approach may only be a token gesture in the avoidance of subjectivity as: At the end of the twentieth century postmodern thinkers argued that ethnographic knowledge and text can only ever be a subjective construction, a ‘fiction’ that represents only the ethnographer’s versi on of a reality, rather than an empirical truth (Pink, 2007, p. 23). Xxxxxxx Emerson et al. (1995, p. 3) believe that, ‘the task of the ethnographer is not to determine “the truth” but to reveal the multiple truths apparent in others’ lives’. Xxxx Pink (2007, p. 23) argues that it is ‘through the intersubjectivity between researchers and their research contexts that we may arrive at a closer understanding of the worlds that other people live in’. In order to get close to the worlds of the A-Js I used an ethnographic perspective with multiple ethnographic tools.

Problems with an ethnographic. perspective Three key problems, which can be linked to an ethnographic perspective, are reactivity, subjectivity and researcher bias. This is because ethnography is based on constructionism, which envisages society as not an object-like reality waiting to be discovered by a researcher but as being socially constructed in the process of individuals making sense of their world (Xxxxx, 2004). The first problem, ‘reactivity’, is defined as, ‘the effects of audience, and indeed of context generally, on what people say and do’ (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007, p. 102). Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and Xxxx Dong point out that the effect of the researcher on the data is unavoidable: As a fieldworker, you never belong ‘naturally’ or ‘normally’ to the field you investigate, you are always a foreign body which causes ripples on the surface of smooth routinised processes. There is always an observer’s effect and it is essential to realise that: you are never observing an event as if you were not there (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 2010, p. 27). I think I minimised this effect to some extent by not bringing video cameras or audio-equipment to the classrooms (Blommaert and Dong, 2010) which was in contrast to Xxxxxx et al.’s (2007) observations in eight complementary schools. However, for part of the class at one Hoshūkō (field notes, 06.03.2011) I did affect the situation due to my lack of Japanese proficiency. In order to help me understand what was happening in the classroom, the teacher had asked students to translate their presentations for me into English whereas normally the use of English in the classroom was not encouraged. I felt awkward, as had Xxxxxx (in Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxx, 2010) when observing classes in Gujarati a language in which he was not proficient, that the teacher interrupted the lesson so that I could understand. Had I been a fluent Japanese speaker, this scenario would not have happened65. Another problem linked to ‘reactivity’ is the perceptions of the young people and teachers about the researcher. In one class I observed one student asked me whether I was from the FBI and another thought I was there to check her Japanese ability. The teacher introduces me to the class in Japanese, which seems to cause a commotion. She asks if they have any questions. One boy asks if I am spying on them from the FBI. Another girl is worried that I am going to check her Japanese ability. She asks the teacher to use ‘easy words’ so that she can do well. I introduce myself in English. They seem worried about my role in the classroom. One boy asks me what I think of them and I say that I think that they are all good at Japanese because they attend Hoshūkō (Field notes, 12.02.2011). Another problem linked to an ethnographic perspective is that of subjectivity. This is because ‘reality is subjective and is known only as it is experienced by individuals’ (Pink, 2007, p. 24}. Xxxxxxx (1997) points out that the observer may only see what s/he wants to see. This is because the observer enters the field with a specific research agenda of what is to be observed. Xxxxxxx (1997, p. 38) believes that participant observers may be guided by preconceptions as: Ideas do not spring direct from observations in the field. The mind of the researcher is ‘programmed’, ‘energized’, ‘keyed’, with ideas from a social science that ‘disciplines’ the production of ideas. However, Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and Xxxx Dong stress that subjectivity is part and parcel of an ethnographic perspective: The result of your research will not be a body of findings which can claim representativeness for a (segment of the) population, it will not be replicable under identical circumstances, it will not claim objectivity on grounds of an outsider’s position for the researcher, it will not claim to produce ‘uncontaminated’ evidence, and so on. It will be interpretive research in a situated, real environment, based on interaction between the researcher and the subject(s), hence, fundamentally subjective in nature, aimed at demonstrating complexity. […] Ethnography produces theoretical statements, not ‘facts’ nor ‘laws’. […] The object of investigation is always a uniquely situated reality: a complex of events which occurs in a totally unique context […]. […] you are always working in a series of conditions that can never be repeated. […] So the thing you will investigate will be a particular point in time […] (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and Xxxx, 0000, p. 17). My stance, too, is that subjectivity cannot be avoided when adopting an ethnographic perspective and it is necessary in order to uncover the complexity of the context. Linked to the notion of subjectivity is researcher bias. This is because the researcher interprets knowledge which has been constructed through interaction (Xxxxxxxxx, 2009). Holstein and 65 I seemed to have overlooked the question of my language use which is common with anthropologists who do not like to admit that ‘they have not been fluent in the language spoken where they did their fieldwork’ (Borchgrevink, 2003, p. 102). I like Xxxxxx (in Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxx, 2010, p. 92) felt ‘frustrated because I was unable to understand everything that was happening in the classrooms’. Gubrium (2004) believe that ‘bias’ only exists if a narrow view of interpretive practice is taken. Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx (2007, p. 102) believe it is impossible to completely avoid bias: The aim is not to gather ‘pure’ data that are free from potential bias. There is no such thing. Rather, the goal must be to discover the best manner of interpreting whatever data we have, and to collect further data that enable us to develop and check our inferences. The concept of bias would seem to be a redundant concept when adopting an ethnographic perspective within a qualitative framework as it is necessary to focus on how useful information can be generated and on the processes used to generate such information (Holstein and Gubrium, 2004, p.145). I, like Xxxxxx (2006), stuck closely to what the informants said when assigning meaning to the data by including their self-representations rather than offering a magisterial account of what they said. I tried to stay true to my data because I only mentioned the institutions, practices and objects that were salient to my informants even though I was aware that these were only the tip of the iceberg as in reality a great deal more existed (see chapter 7). In addition, I did not prompt my informants to only focus on their Japaneseness whilst talking to them, they were also free to talk about their Britishness even though this was not my focus. In order to guard against ‘reactitvity’, ‘subjectivity’ and researcher ‘bias’ in the construction of knowledge, ethnography is understood as a reflexive approach (XxxAli, 2006; Pink, 2007; Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007). Xxxx Pink (2007, p. 24) points out that, ‘it is important to recognise the centrality of the subjectivity of the researcher to the production of ethnographic knowledge’. Pink acknowledges that a reflexive approach may only be a token gesture in the avoidance of subjectivity as: At the end of the twentieth century postmodern thinkers argued that ethnographic knowledge and text can only ever be a subjective construction, a ‘fiction’ that represents only the ethnographer’s versi on of a reality, rather than an empirical truth (Pink, 2007, p. 23). Xxxxxxx et al. (1995, p. 3) believe that, ‘the task of the ethnographer is not to determine “the truth” but to reveal the multiple truths apparent in others’ lives’. Xxxx Pink (2007, p. 23) argues that it is ‘through the intersubjectivity between researchers and their research contexts that we may arrive at a closer understanding of the worlds that other people live in’. In order to get close to the worlds of the A-Js I used an ethnographic perspective with multiple ethnographic tools.