Data were collected using multiple qualitative methods; these included non-participant observation, qualitative semi-structured interviews and focus groups. A mixed methods approach, using quantitative and qualitative methods is generally regarded as the most suitable methodology in intersectionality research because it produces both conceptual and empirical findings. However, this study chose a mix of qualitative methods instead for several reasons. These include the complex approval formalities of conducting
172 quantitative research on this topic because of its political sensitivity and the repercussions that this might have on the timeframe of the fieldwork process, as well as the lack of access to primary datasets that are desegregated according to ‘place of origin’ (in this case Transjordanian and Palestinian Jordanian).
Nevertheless, the use of a variety of qualitative data collection tools increased the trustworthiness of findings (Anney, 2014). Having a mix of qualitative methods was also necessary because the research looked at different target groups, which required different means of collecting data from (Morse and Niehaus, 2009). Applying an intersectionality approach in my study also increased the robustness of the qualitative data-collection methods. This is because intersectionality highlights the importance of retheorising the significance of social markers at every stage of the research (Thomas, 2010).
The section below provides an overview of the data-collection tools used for the purpose of this study.
Non-Participant Observation
Non-participant observation in research gives the researcher insight into the actualities of events as experienced by participants in their natural settings, in order to compare them with their reported views and beliefs (Gillham, 2000). This allows for a more in-depth understanding and analysis of data findings. I chose to use non- participant observation over participant observation because I wanted to gain a better understanding of people’s behaviours,
173 actions and beliefs through the discussions and interactions that they carried out in their daily lives without having an influence on them. To avoid misinterpreting recordings of inferences made during observations, these issues were further discussed in focus groups with participants and informal discussions with gatekeepers.
Other measures taken to overcome the limitations of non- participant observation included keeping a research diary to document observations and informal discussions throughout the fieldwork (Gray, 2009). Another effective method practised to gather rich data was to recall events of the day in detail when returning from field visits, either on paper or using an audio-recorder. I made sure to document these events on the same, or the next day at the latest, so that my observations and thoughts remained fresh in my mind. Field notes comprised direct observation, researcher inference, and analytic and personal notes (Taylor, Bodgan and DeVault, 2015).
The field visits consisted of a total of 48 days (around 336 hours in total), and the duration ranged per day from five to nine hours. Field notes documented all visits carried out relevant to my PhD in Kafa and Amman. These included field visits to community centres in Kafa and shops in Kafa town centre, as well as Alpha and Beta camps. Field notes in Amman included documenting observations during visits to policy makers, as well as activities carried out with gatekeepers. For example, I made sure to write down my observations when accompanying the male and female gatekeepers from Alpha camp to job interviews in Amman upon their request. I also recorded my observations during home visits in Kafa,
174 as well as when participating in conferences and workshops relevant to my research.
A key challenge faced when recording field notes involved the actual documentation of observations and conversations as they took place. This was not possible because it created tension in the environment under study. For example, I was invited to attend a presentation organised by a community centre in Alpha camp for a group of foreign visitors. The discussion involved presenting to visitors an overview of the camp demography and the key challenges that residents faced compared to their host population. I arrived early and sat in the room where the discussion was taking place. There were several camp residents in the room, including local volunteers. They were talking about issues that I found interesting so I began taking notes until one volunteer jokingly commented about me recording their discussion, insinuating feelings of distrust and unease. To avoid tension, I joked about the situation and chose to avoid writing down notes as the discussion took place. Instead, I waited for the presentation to commence, during which I wrote down bullet points of the key issues mentioned during the discussion. I did this so that I would be able to recall and elaborate on them when I returned home. I also faced similar challenges when visiting the managers in their offices, when different conversations would arise as local community members entered their offices.
Hence, taking direct field notes when events were actually happening was not a practical method for collecting data, as this tended to disrupt the natural flow of discussion. A more appropriate