Field Notes, Photos, and Video Recordings

When conducting an ethnographic field work, a core activity it participant observation. This implies the production of written accounts and descriptions that are suitable to bring the versions of the participants’ worlds to others (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2001). Given that children in multicultural kindergartens represented a diversity of ‘worlds’, my initial

perceptions were that the tools for collecting the data should be at least as diverse and varied.

Tracy (2010) contended that crystallisation, rather than triangulation, inspires researchers to gather different kinds of data using different methods in order to open up for more complex understandings of the issues under study. Writing field notes, collecting and writing the children’s stories and narratives, as well as taking photos and video recordings were

considered by me as appropriate techniques in order to capture the diversity in the fields I was about to enter. I assumed that a combination of photos, video recordings, and detailed field notes would contribute to a richness in data sources and would also provide me – as a researcher – the ability to show what was going on in the field, rather than tell, and thus give

75

the reader the opportunity to make his or her own interpretations (Tracy 2010, pp. 843–844;

Peters et al., 2020).

Further, I had the idea that taking photos and recording videos would allow for the opportunity to discuss the content together with the participating children and thus gain access to their meaning making of belonging. ‘Member reflections’ and ‘multivocality’ have been discussed by Tracy (2010) as entrances to allow for the participants’ voices to be heard and to dialogue with them about the findings. Particularly, multivocality, which includes getting multiple and varied voices in the analyses, provides opportunities for a diversity of meaning making.

Drawing on Dylan Yamada-Rice (Yamada-Rice, 2017), I assumed that the children would be familiar with the use of different visual media, and thus, this kind of approach would fit in naturally within the kindergartens’ settings. The procedure for taking the photos and recording the videos was influenced by my epistemological point of departure – social constructionism and cultural-historical theory. Thus, my camera lens was initially aimed to be directed towards the children’s expressions and interactions with each other, as well as how they engaged with places and artefacts. As accounted for in section 4.1.2., my attempts to engage the children in taking photos as well as recording videos did not work out as I had imagined beforehand. Perhaps there was another side of ‘being familiar with visual media’

that I was not aware of at the time. Particularly in the first kindergarten, the kindergarten’s own devices for taking photos were used frequently by the teachers and assistants; the children’s everyday lives in kindergarten were emphatically documented, and several of the children seemed to be very familiar with taking photos – and being photographed. After the first days of curiosity, my camera and tablet were simply not that interesting to the majority of the children. Another equally relevant explanation is that it was my first attempt to use visual media in research; thus, I did not have the adequate experience that perhaps could have contributed to a better outcome concerning these matters.

As my camera lens was supposed to capture the children’s social interactions, the ethical issues of day-by-day and minute-by-minute consent (Graham et.al., 2016; Dockett, Einardottir, & Perry, 2012; Harwood, 2010) as addressed in section 4.1.2. disturbed my initial ideas of capturing children’s meaning making of belonging through the lens. Specifically, when it came to using video recordings as a tool for research, I experienced challenges. As

76

outlined by Michael Peters et.al (2020), this required cautious consideration and navigation.

My idea of having the children look through, approve, and comment on the recordings, in retrospect, eventually seemed to bore them. When conducting the recordings, I struggled with technical issues of how to avoid capturing children who were not participants by their parents’

consent when, for instance, video recording a couple of children playing soccer at the small football pitch, and suddenly, they invited several others to join in. A more experienced researcher within visual methodology would be able to solve such issues technically;

however, for me, it was either to stop the video immediately, or, rather, being too slow to stop recording, having to delete the whole video. A number of recordings were thus deleted due to ethical concerns; others were useless simply because of poor craftsmanship such as a finger in front of the lens and similar.

The writing of thick and detailed descriptions is stated by Tracy (2010) as an

important means to achieve credibility in qualitative research. Emerson et al. (2001) described the writing of field notes as a way of reducing the recently observed persons, places, and happenings into written accounts that can re-constitute the world of persons, places, and happenings in a preserved form, available to be studied over and over again (2001, p. 353).

My field notes included observations, written with the use of abbreviations, keywords, and codes, and also small drawings and illustrations – quickly scribbled down of the situations observed. The style and form of the field notes changed as the field works progressed, reflecting the preliminary and transitory quality compared to the transcribed texts that were written in retrospect at my office (Emerson et al., 2001). Starting out the first field work, I wrote the field notes as some kind of report, trying to be objective and downplay my own role as a narrator. This strategy, however, did not last, as it became impossible not to write down my own subjective reflections as comments along the way. As some of the field notes were messy and incoherent, characterised by short abbreviations and codes, others were detailed descriptions and in shape more like narratives than notes. I tried to describe the persons and happenings in as much detail as possible, and when it came to describing places and artefacts, I used the camera, as well as drawing illustrations of places. As I assumed that the children’s own narratives and stories could provide me insights in their meaning making of belonging, I encouraged the children by taking a distinctly attentive and listening attitude when they took the initiative to share stories with me. Thus, I spent quite some time listening to and writing the children’s stories that they shared with me and the stories they shared with each other. In

77

this process, I adopted an approach drawing on Sveinung Sandberg (Sandberg, 2010, p. 447) that whether the children were telling ‘true’ stories was not essential when it came to the stories’ significance and meaning to the individual child, and in the context and relation to others.

The field notes that were written during the lunch observations in the second field work were characterised by a more systematic approach than the other field notes as I was located on the sofa, observing the meals from a small distance, listening to the children’s, teachers’, and assistants’ conversations without engaging or taking part with them. I illustrated how the children and teachers and assistants were located around the tables and drew lines between them as to visualise their interactions, supplemented with notes, comments, and my own analytic reflections on what was going on. As I wrote field notes, both in retrospect and simultaneously as participating with the children, I also wrote a field diary (Emond, 2005) in parallel. This digital field diary was written in retrospect when I had returned to my office, and to a larger extent than the field notes that were written in the kindergartens, the diary included methodological reflections and theoretical interpretations of my experiences in the field.