DESCRIPCIÓN DE MÁQUINAS Y EQUIPOS

The second location and group of men selected for the project were from a gymnasium in which I was an existing member. It was anticipated that entry into this group would be far easier than the first location. I also believed that conversational style focus groups and interviews would also be feasible in accordance with my research aims and institutional expectations.

My journal notes indicate that I perceived the environment in the gymnasium as low fuss and unpretentious (14th July, 2005). The equipment was old and outdated, and the place could generally be described as run down and dirty. On the plus side it was spacious and generally quiet and hence suited the more advanced weight trainer.

The majority of clientele were men between the ages of 18 and 45. However, again in this location, despite my feelings of having landed a more congenial location and having some familiarity with intended participants, from the moment the data collection process began I noted that I perceived those relationships differently and had become task oriented. My position was altered as I was now also representing the research institute and its inherent expectations. In order to overcome this regression to

outsider, and achieve the transition towards collaboration and the participant observer role I had to step back and reflect on my process. I began by significantly extending the period of time I spent at the gym, and began increasing the level of engagement with gym members. I initially discussed the project with the gym owner and two other members whom I knew quite well.

As time went by I slowly informed more and more group members of my research role. Initially when participants became aware of my motivations they became slightly hesitant and curious and attuned to the type of testimony expected, as well as the ways in which the testimony may be perceived and presented to others. This regression and guardedness occurred despite a degree of familiarity with myself. As a consequence, I realised that any collection of interview testimonies at this stage in the research would remain to some degree guarded and reflect a power differential between participants and myself.

An interesting process that occurred at this stage was what Burgess (1991) identified as the ongoing negotiation and renegotiation of relationship, and involved the to-ing and fro-ing between engagement of myself as an insider/outsider as the participants worked out who I really was, and how much they wanted me to know or be included. My intuition was telling me to continue participant observation and that rapport and trust were not sufficient to conduct interviews that would accurately reflect the group. Although participants would normally agree to be interviewed they would then find excuses to not be available as the interview times grew nearer. I noted that, at this time, I was aware of how, when the topic of recorded interviews was raised, I felt the dynamic change between myself and the group member, and the power differential would be evoked more strongly. For example, as noted in my journal on the 15th of December 2006, I felt that Spiros’ and my normally jovial conversations were strained and awkward and reflected that this may be due to the anxiety the upcoming interview was provoking in him. This distancing threatened the integrity of our relationship. At this stage my instincts in managing relationships and maintaining the integrity of the project were heavily weighed against the overall goals and time restraints of the project. I did not want recorded conversations that were different to the groups’ everyday interactions. In the case of Spiros, I noted wondering how long it would take for, or if at all, a conversational style interview (Burgess- Limerick & Burgess-Limerick, 1998) could be conducted. I also began to despair of

reaching institutional targets or being enabled to progress if I didn’t get some ‘hard’ data.

In another instance, I had approached Petro and he agreed to do an interview. I noted in my journal that he then began avoiding me and possibly the interview by coming into the gym at different times. I felt that the best thing to do was to not raise the topic again unless Petro did. I was right. The lack of pressure and demand from me was needed. After a few weeks of playing it down and resuming normal

conversations Petro said ‘hey, so when are we doing that interview, I thought you were keen to do one’, and the interview was done shortly after.

The first evidence of a change in the nature of my relationships with group members came when I received an unexpected phone call on a Sunday afternoon. Alex told me he needed to speak to me straight away and I met him at a cafe near his home. He explained that he had broken up with his girlfriend and needed to send her some flowers but they did not deliver on Sunday. He asked me to drive to his

girlfriend’s house and deliver his flowers disguised as a delivery driver. I was happy to do this so as to make a positive contribution to Alex’s life. To be able to give back to the group members both resourcefully and symbolically made me feel less of a ‘user’ and more of a collaborator (Burgess, 1991). I was pleased also that he trusted me with this personal information and that he would seek my help and advice. This gesture strengthened our friendship and Alex’s trust in me. It was a significant step in becoming a group member as my research role was largely dormant and

conceptualised as separate from my role as a friend.

After 18 months with the group of men, and countless inner turmoils and crises relating to the progress of the project I was now relating stories of the group to my research liaison as if I were talking about friends (indeed they were now). It was noted by my liaison that the distinction between friend and participant was now being blurred. The ethnographic process was so subtle and gradual that someone outside the group was needed to recognise the end of the data collection phase.

In the final stages of involvement with the group, the recording of interviews often seemed superfluous, and when conducted, closely resembled everyday

interaction. Moreover, gaining the interviewees consent had minimal impact on relational dynamics. By this stage men began to enthusiastically offer me information for my thesis. ‘Don’t forget to mention that’ they would say. Men were keen to divulge as they felt I knew them well enough to speak on their behalf. Many of the

men felt some narcissistic pleasure in being written about and being part of an academic study.

Over this extended period of research my attitudes and feelings towards the research group moved from a distant observer with an eye for some data, to a full member and confidant of one group. In the end, I believe that the men are proud of me because one of their own is also an academic and a writer. In terms of my group social identity we have negotiated many aspects so that Pete the football fan, Pete the weight trainer, Pete the joker, Pete the researcher, and so on, can co-exist. It was interesting to note that the first time I felt like the group were filling in an identity for me was in receiving a nickname. Having a personal term of reference created by the group relieved the anxiety of group members by placing me on a more equal level. This is further evidence of the necessity for the participants to co-construct the

ethnographer’s group identity (Harrington, 2003). My familiarity with participants was also an important analytical tool as it allowed me to pick up on coded or

abbreviated language. For example during a focus group one of the guys looked away briefly and said ‘paddle pop’. This was a reference to an attractive girl who walked past. Importantly, this reference was well known to all the guys but would appear incoherent alone on an interview transcript, further enforcing the importance of the researcher being truly engaged with their field. Group membership and the joy of engagement is based on a collection of these shared and often quite exclusive cultural and linguistic knowledges. Hence they are integral to understanding the group and in general how a sense of belonging is acquired and negotiated (Frosh et al., 2003).

Within the current project, there were many times, particularly in the first 12 months when I was very close to packing it in, or just grabbing a few interviews and getting out. Unfortunately at the time I was not in access to any form of comfort from other’s experiences, which, as noted by Harrington (2003) can be quite cathartic, and I believe invaluable for providing solace in times of doubt. It can often be hard to actually hear what someone close to you is saying, and in times of doubt reassurances through vicarious learning from others in the form of bibliotherapy can be of much comfort and reassurance (Pennebaker, 1999). It was simply a pig headed

determination and a desire to fight the system and to be true to my participants that kept me going. As such a component of the writing completed for this study on men were narratives of institutional and personal incompetence. The voice used is personal and the writing angry and impassioned. I found this quite cathartic and at the time I

intended to publish and ‘out’ those whom I felt had failed to support me. A year or two later and I have decided to omit this writing, and talk only of my personal hardships in relation to the data and as a ‘tale from the field’. Despite this I don’t underestimate the importance of that writing exercise to the overall project. In particular, it helped me to progress from that angry position to a more contemplative and evaluative position. The subjective process of development as a fieldworker then has influenced my relationships with participants, my interpretations, and my analysis. As noted above, this is where education and support from experienced fieldworkers can be of most benefit. Unfortunately, there was not a lot of support for me outside of my research liaison, and I learned about the realities of fieldwork predominantly from personal experience. This was a heavy burden at times, and I can see now that it could have been lessoned through support, and understanding of the need for flexibility in methods and time.