Aleksi Seger<\/p>\n\n\n\n
INVEST Blog 4\/2022<\/p>\n\n\n\n
During the fall semester, we conducted ethnographic fieldwork for an ongoing project titled \u2018Contexts of Youth\u2019s Inclusion\u2019. Our research sought to increase academic knowledge on how youth of linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds understand \u2018belonging\u2019 and the ways through which they can work towards a \u2018common good\u2019. More specifically, we wanted to understand how minority ethnic youths\u2019 sense of belonging, agency, and capacities for civic engagement can be shaped by their ethnically pluralistic urban neighbourhoods and existing communities (e.g., religious organizations) within these areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this blog post I will describe some of the challenges we encountered as a research team during our fieldwork. Due to its personal nature, distinctions between \u2018researcher\u2019 and \u2018participant\u2019 may often become obscured during ethnographic practice. Citing in-field experiences, I will highlight how personal mishaps informed my own ethnographic practice and my \u2018role\u2019 as a researcher.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Common Challenges<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Though we managed to gain a good range of participants, we also encountered a variety of issues. The convoluted nature trust-building was arguably the most significant takeaway we had as a research team. For people of minority ethnic backgrounds, having mistrust towards an \u2018outside\u2019 researcher is understandable. Even when a researcher may belong to same linguistic or cultural groups as the participant, trust cannot be taken for granted and in most cases, it must be earned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Collaboration with local organizations was therefore identified as a way we could minimize mistrust and better embed ourselves within the research contexts. While several organizations gave the \u201cgreen light\u201d for cooperation, establishing dates for meetings or participant recruitment sessions was difficult and communications sometimes fell silent. Likewise, several youths expressed initial interest in participation yet following through and establishing a mutually suitable time for interviews often proved challenging. Many insisted that \u2018next time\u2019 they would do it, but many of these individuals were not heard from or seen again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Prior to fieldwork, \u2018snowballing\u2019 was identified as the most suitable tool for participant recruitment, but in practice, direct contact with young people seemed to be a better approach. This is not surprising in retrospect, as being asked by a friend to participate in an unknown project may feel intimidating, whereas during face-to-face contacts, participants can voice their questions or concerns directly to the researcher they would be interviewed by.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These points seemed to corroborate our focus on after-school activities and spaces (e.g., youth centers and sports clubs). Many young people congregate at such locations and as these spaces are often overseen by adults with strong ties to the local community, our peculiar presence may be somewhat legitimized. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Role of the Researcher<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The personal nature of ethnography carries a host of ethical and practical concerns, and throughout my fieldwork experiences, I often found myself inhabiting a gray area between that of an idle observer and active participant. W\u00e4sterfors (2022) fittingly summarized this feeling:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cEthnography is, in that sense, inevitably a bit silly and uncomfortable, at least at times. We end up in places with no particular role to play, with no routine to follow, no timetable, and we have left our comfort zones behind us: the home or office, our well-used hideouts and well-practiced habits of dealing with emerging troubles.\u201d<\/em> (p. 13)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite my well-rehearsed recitations of a catchy summary of our project and numerous casual attempts at contact, most of the youth we approached in our first weeks at the local youth center appeared standoffish and uninterested in us and our project. Participant recruitment in these initial weeks, was seemingly leading nowhere and I found myself questioning whether I had over-imposed myself and if my attempts at garnering rapport and trust were compromised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As alluded to in W\u00e4sterfors\u2019 quote, there are no universal rules for ethnography and at times I found myself embroiled in embarrassing moments too. During our second visit at the youth center for example, I was asked by one of the youths about my favourite colour. Considering the innocent nature of the question I simply answered \u201cblue\u201d, but this answer would result in \u201ccop\u201d becoming my nickname among the youths. The name stuck and with each of my subsequent visits the youths would greet me using the newly acquired moniker.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the time I regretted answering the question so haphazardly without any consideration for its potential negative associations. Simultaneously however, the nickname arguably opened new avenues for interactions which may have not been possible otherwise. Indeed, each time I was greeted with \u201cHey cop!\u201d I would jokingly respond by asking the youth whether they remembered anything \u2018real\u2019 about me (e.g., my name or age). During the initial weeks they did not remember, but eventually my nickname had transformed into \u201ccop Aleksi\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Interestingly during my last two visits, my entrance with a grocery bag full of snacks sparked the youths\u2019 interest with many reciting different facts I had shared over the weeks with hope of receiving snacks in return. The act of sharing personal information is a common recommendation for rapport-building (Ennew & Abebe, 2009), and I wonder whether the youths\u2019 tongue-in-cheek use of the nickname and my lighthearted insistence on them remembering my actual name aided in this process. Perhaps one could construe the youths\u2019 behaviour as humoristic reactions to the absurdity of my presence in the youths\u2019 own space? Many appeared to be consciously aware of the nickname\u2019s humorous nature, with one youth even asking me at the end of our interview about how it felt to be called a \u201ccop\u201d this whole time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As these experiences unavoidably informed me, in order to \u2018do\u2019 ethnography, one should embrace its innate silliness and revel in its absurdity.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Author <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Aleksi Seger <\/strong>works as a doctoral student in the INVEST Research Flagship at the University of Turku. His research focuses on social stratification and youths\u2019 school-to-work transitions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ennew, J., & Abebe, T. (2009). The Right to be Properly Researched: How to do rights-based, scientificresearch with children<\/em>. Bangkok: Black on White Publications, Knowing Children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n W\u00e4sterfors, D. (2022). My face turned red, but it led me \u2026 nowhere. Notes on epistemically pointless embarrassment in ethnographic practice.\u00a0Qualitative Research: QR<\/em>, 146879412110728\u2013. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/14687941211072800<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n