This section opens with some general comments about observation within the context of ethnographic work. Observation is a major research tool in ethnography. It is used to record the lived stuff of social experience and enables the researcher to document the irreducibility, the complexity of experience (Blommaert, 2007). In this sense, observation is open and unfocussed. However, ethnographers also acknowledge a tension between this and the fact that the observer comes to the field with preconceptions, orienting ideas, and research questions. Put another way:
we never start from a completely clean slate and will always bring ourselves into what we observe while simultaneously retaining an open orientation to what we see.
Creese et al., (2015, p.38). This partiality is to be acknowledged and worked into ethnographic accounts of experience. The ethnographer needs to be self-aware, and to be reflexive, in order to work with what Geertz (1988, p. 144) refers to as this ‘un-get-roundable fact’.
3.4.4.1.1 Observation and the research questions
Classroom observation is a major research tool. I used voice recorders and a digital camera to capture the ways in which argumentation emerged and unfolded in the Adult ESOL classroom. I also took detailed field notes. The overall aim and rationale here was to generate the data to provide a “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) of classroom argumentation, one which would allow me to address all of the research questions in the main study. The discourse analysis would yield a detailed picture of the ways in which argumentation emerges and unfolds in the classroom (Research Question 1). This discourse analysis, though principally linguistically-informed in nature, would also be multimodal, thanks to the use of a digital camera as well as digital voice recorders. It would also allow me to capture the ways in which students authorized argumentation (Research Question 2). This would be revealed through an analysis of discourse markers and also through the ways in which the students appropriated the voices of others. Observational data would also allow me to address the question of how students and teachers position themselves and each other in the unfolding of argumentation (Research Question 3). It would also be possible to address the ways in which they performed identities through argumentative discourse (Research Question 4). Finally, the role that narratives play in argumentation would also be susceptible to analysis (Research Question 5).
3.4.4.1.2 Observation and the role of the researcher
One of the strengths of the research design is that it allows me to take up different roles in observation. Thus, there are times when I was in the role of participant observer and am actively involved in the argumentation emerging in my own classroom. On the other hand, there are times where I was a non-participant observer and was able to observe the argumentation emerging in the classrooms of others from a more detached standpoint. That is, I took up different observational roles. The underpinning notion here was that of a research continuum reflecting differing degrees of researcher participation.
Participant observation
Labov (1972), through his notion of the Observer’s Paradox, suggests that the effects of the observer on the observed may diminish over time. When collecting data in role as a participant observer it is possible to suggest that such effects were in operation. I was the class teacher (or teacher trainer) and the observed classes, in one sense, would be classes too, in just the same way as all the others they had had with me up until that point. There would be no unfamiliar researcher in the classroom.
Like the rest of the data collection process, the taking of field-notes is a positioned activity, as Hammersley and Atkinson (2007, p. 141) put it:
Whether field-notes can be written at all, how, and covering what issues, depends upon the nature of the research, the setting(s) in which the fieldwork occurs and the role (s) taken on by the ethnographer.
In my role as teacher-researcher in my own classroom, I was only able to take field-notes post-hoc, although there were opportunities to record a few observations during lesson breaks, or periods of classroom activity where the students were working independently. Otherwise, these notes were taken immediately after each class to maximise the potential for accurate recall. However, the post-hoc nature of the field notes clearly involves a loss, as the moment of interaction they are meant to record has gone. Similarly, I was not able to observe the classroom with anything other than a fixed camera position when I was a participant observer.
Non-participant observation
In my role as a non-participant observer, I was able to take field notes in a more measured way, at the time of the observed action and thus to maximise accuracy of recall. Most of the time, I opted for leaving the camera in the fixed position, thus allowing me time to make detailed notes, exploiting the potential of my role as a non-participant observer. Although I opted to fix the camera, there were times, especially if I felt there was a potential “rich point” (Agar, 1995, p. 587) in terms of an ethnographic moment, where I operated the camera manually, following the events as they emerged and unfolded. There is a trade-off here between the use of audio-visual recording and the making of field-notes.
3.4.4.1.3 Data collection instruments
Audio-visual recordings
The observational data was collected using voice-recorders and a digital video camera. I deal with each in turn. The voice recordings were made using a number of portable Olympus voice-recorders, which were unobtrusive and had built-in microphones. The size and portability of these recorders made them ideal for use in the classroom. I used 3 voice- recorders during the research process. In effect, I made sure that there was a voice recorder on each of the tables where group work was happening in the classroom. The classes I observed were all quite small in number, ranging from 5-15 students so the technology was perfect for capturing what was in effect small group interaction. Whole-class interaction was also captured (albeit less effectively) on each individual recording. I tested each of these immediately before the recording process began and checked playback immediately after it had ceased. In this way, I ensured their effectiveness.
A standard digital video-camera was used to collect audio-visual data. The rationale behind this was the opportunity it provided for collecting non-verbal data in addition to verbal data on argumentation. I video-recorded each of the 6 classes in the non-participant observation phase. Only 1 of my classes was video-recorded, as I wanted to minimise the intrusiveness of the camera. This was because one of my students was uncomfortable with the presence of the video camera. I discuss this in more detail in the section on ethics later in this chapter.
The ways in which the camera is to be used is also important. If it is used in a fixed position there are, as Blommaert and Jie note (2010), “blind spots”, however wide-angled the lens, especially if, as was the case in my research, only one camera was used. Thus, not everything in the class was captured. Choosing where to position a fixed camera is important and, again, there are trade-offs. In most cases, I decided to position the camera so as to capture small group interaction. In addition to this, having the camera in a fixed position allowed me to make detailed field notes and it is to this that I now turn.
Field Notes
Field notes are a major source of primary data. They can be used to document the voices of the research participants and the voice of the researcher. Anyone reading should ‘immediately get a sense of the people involved and the social context in which the activity takes place’ (Creese, 2015, p. 69). They provide part of what coheres to become a ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973) of the research context. In short, they are an essential part of the
more holistic picture ethnographic study strives to achieve and they should ‘conjure up for the reader the lived-stuff of the social environment’ (Creese, 2015, p. 69).
I made field notes throughout the main study, recording my reflections on both the classroom observations and the interviews. These field notes were handwritten into research notebooks, which I kept by my side throughout the research. I also recorded my ongoing reflections on the research process in these notebooks. I wrote up these notes later, in order to maximise recall, ensure legibility and add detail. It should be acknowledged, though, that returning to field notes at a later date is to adopt a different stance in relation to one’s research data. Emerson et al., (1995, p. 142) observe that:
the notes, and the persons and events they recount, become textual objects (although linked to personal memories and intuitions) to be considered and examined with a series of analytic and presentational possibilities in mind.
Field notes, as Blommaert (2010, p.37) observes, tell you not just about what you saw but about how you saw it. Like transcription, as we will see, they involve a process of interpretation. They are an essential part of the ethnographer’s repertoire. They can help you to fill-in any gaps or blind-spots that may become apparent during the fieldwork, contributing to a “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) of the classroom and emergent reflections upon it. They are also a part of the research archive, as ideas about what is important will evolve as the research progresses. Blommaert and Jie (2010, p. 37) observe that they often become more focussed as research progresses. This did happen at certain points. For example, I began to focus increasingly on the role of language play in argumentation and on the role of gestures and facial expressions in its performative unfolding. This allowed me to capture research data that might otherwise have been lost by raising my awareness of it. This evolutionary process is valuable as it minimises the process of inference needed and makes it easier to begin to reconstruct the events witnessed (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007, p.145). However, the limitations of field-notes, particularly those written after the event, should be recognised. They are inevitably partial in that they only provide a record of what gets written down. This, of course, reflects the researcher’s preoccupation so they inevitably constitute an act of interpretation, not a factual record of classroom interaction, if ever such an aim were realisable.