Ethnography is characterised as a research strategy that typically includes long-term data collection, relies on data from natural settings collected through participant observation and personal engagement, and documents the lifeworld of participants and its settings through diverse types of data (Beach, Bagley, and da Silva 2018; Hammersley 2018). Characterisations like these tell us about elements that are commonly included in ethnography, and it is telling that these characterisations often show an elaborate focus on data collection, and less focus on characteristic stages of data analysis. ¬This focus may be due to the characteristic diversity of a data body that gets constructed in ethnographic research, which may include field notes, interviews, photos, videos, or artefacts. It may also be due to different analytical foci, as ethnographic analysis may focus on participants, processes, or phenomena in the field of study. All in all, ethnographic research uniquely subjects both data collection and data analysis to the documentation of local truths of students, pedagogues, teachers, parents, youth workers, and so on. But what are then stages in the construction of ethnographic analysis? Based on reflections on my own ethnographic fieldwork and data analysis, I want to illustrate three stages that remained central in my process of developing ethnographic analysis: The stage of involved fieldwork, the stage of analysis during fieldwork, and the stage of retrospective data analysis. In involved fieldwork, my intention was to learn about a particular setting and its actors: I hung out in these settings and made interviews, participated in practices and video-recorded them, and gradually gained trust of participants through continuous contact. In analysis during fieldwork, I wrote fieldnotes that had both reflective and reflexive elements (Jeffrey 2018, 117–18): My reflective fieldnotes focused on events that took place, and the perspective of participants, while reflexive fieldnotes focused on theoretical concepts and their capacity to provide a horizon for interpretation. After the fieldwork phase, my work focused on a retrospective analysis of videos, interviews, and video diaries, where I used analytical tools from documentary method (Bohnsack, Pfaff, and Weller 2010) to analyse orientations of participants and their discourse organisation. These three relatively distinct stages were central in my analysis of teacher expertise, and the presentation will illustrate each stage by showing fragments from field notes, video ethnography, and retrospective analysis.

Beach, Dennis, Carl Bagley, and Sofia Marques da Silva, eds. 2018. The Wiley Handbook of Ethnography of Education. Wiley Handbooks in Education. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Bohnsack, Ralf, Nicolle Pfaff, and Wivian Weller, eds. 2010. Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method in International Educational Research. Opladen ; Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich. Hammersley, Martyn. 2018. ‘What Is Ethnography? Can It Survive? Should It?’ Ethnography and Education 13 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10/gdshv5. Jeffrey, Bob. 2018. ‘Ethnographic Writing - Fieldnotes Memos, Writing Main Texts’. In Ethnographic Writing, 109–36. Ethnography and Education. New Cottage: E&E Publishing.