Changing directions in methodology

This morning I read chapter 7 in the book I mentioned yesterday:

Kouritzin, S. G., Piquemal, N. A., & Norman, R. (Eds.). (2008). Qualitative research challenging the orthodoxies in standard academic discourse(s). New York: Routledge.

The author, Suhanthie Motha, describes her research journey. Originally intending to base her study of beginning teachers on classroom observations and teacher interviews, Motha was encouraged to change her methodology when her participants felt the need for some kind of group interaction.

I was particularly interested in the way the author describes her role as “connected” researcher and deals with the dilemmas which arose when the way she saw classroom incidents differed from the way  teachers related them in her story.

The author  relates to her teacher partners (as she calls them and not participants) in a respectful and open relational manner. They really are partners in the generation of knowledge in this study. Motha describes her methodology as disturbing the traditional researcher heirarchy. She quotes Motha and Wong (2005) explaining that this blurring of roles enables  “inquiry that is truly dialogic, in which learning is a two-way street”. Sensitivity to issues connected to power and the nature of knowledge are central to this chapter.

In this chapter I was introduced to the work of Michelle Fine (1992) who presents three different stances that researchers can adopt in their writing: ventriloquy, voice, and activism. This is indeed an interesting way of analysing how the researcher is relating to the participant and his or her story. Motha is attempting to follow an approach of activism which she explains with a quote from Fine (p. 41): as a “deep responsibility to assess critically and continually our own, as well as informants’, changing opinions” .

I will certainly return to these definitions when I try to describe my methodology.

I admire Motha’s honesty when she admits:

“What I’m learning to accept is that this work is still me telling someone else’s story” (p. 116).

Despite the dialogic nature of this study, despite the concious effort to present the stories she heard around her kitchen table as they were intended and told, and despite the significant disturbance of the traditional researcher-teacher heirarchy, the author acknowledges the limitations in her study as it is written.

Motha, S. (2008). Afternoon tea at Su’s: Participant voice and community in critical feminist ethnography In S. G. Kouritzin, N. A. Piquemal & R. Norman (Eds.), Qualitative research: Challenging the orthodoxies in standard academic discourse(s). New York: Routledge.

Institutional Ethnography – Dorothy Smith

I have been trying to acquaint myself with the work of Dorothy Smith for some time. Although GP suggested I read Smith’s work on several opportunities, I continually found that I couldn’t see the connection to my own work. I kept putting her articles aside for later on.
Last week I had the opportunity to attend a lecture on Institutional Ethnography and the work of Smith by Dr Orly Binyamin at the Bar – Ilan University.
Before the lecture I reread an article by Smith and arrived with one question in mind: How is Institutional Ethnography connected to my research? How is it relevant?

I learned from the session that Institutional Ethnography is a “methodological perspective”, that you don’t have to “do an Institutional Ethnography”, that you can let the ideas, the perspective color your research.

I was interested to learn that IE is a way of approaching interviews, of opening up the opportunities  contained in interviews by concentrating on the social information they contain. Dr Binyamin stressed that often the context of the interview is far more important than the themes which emerge from the interview transcript.

IE aims to map the social environment in which interviewees act. It aims to explore the connections between these various contexts.

IE explores relations of control and places emphasis on public policy. It examines how these policies affect the interviewees.

IE contends that people in the field possess knowledge and can teach us from their experience. It is the researchers responsibility to take that knowledge one step further in order to promote change. The information possessed by the people in the field isn’t enough as they often don’t have the opportunity to understand the institutional framework which shapes their reality. This is an alternative to research which simply describes behaviour – this is research which promotes action.

Binyamin stressed that we are adding on to the knowledge of the interviewees and not questioning it. The everyday knowledge of the participant is relevant and real. The researcher takes this information and widens the viewpoint and examines it. We are all trapped in our own very specific worlds. Binyamin gave the example of an interview with a cleaner about his or her work. The researcher can hear all of his or her experience and knowledge about the job but will move on to ask others. There are other people, administrators, managers, etc who can shed light on the work of the cleaner through the examination of policies and texts (like contracts) which can shed different light on the professional reality of the cleaner.

Often we are partaking in relationships of control without being aware of it.

In Ethnography the researcher aims to arrive at the study in order to explore, in order to discover. The researcher begins with “I don’t know”.

The term “ruling relations” relates both to structural procedures and texts. Smith explains that often an individual believes that he or she is making their own decision without being aware that they are in fact conforming to the demands of social or institutional forces. Institutional policy enters our personal and professional lives and influences our actions. IE asks what we can learn about the social, the public aspects and not just the reality of the individual. Public refers to the context outside the home.

IE exmines the external contexts in addition to the internal world of the interviewee.

According to Smith the personal is political and the political is personal. In ethnology the political was often neglected.

Binyamin warns that IE is complicated and that she doesn’t allow her PhD students to try it.

What is important to hear in interviews?

  • Daily routines
  • how the everyday makes sense to the interviewee
  • What it means to belong to a certain group

IE suggests asking the interviewee what change is necessary? This is of course the connection to action…

Questions that need to be asked later:

  •  who are various interests and ruling relations paying service to?
  • How are the implications of policy permeating the reality of participants?
  • How are decisions made?
  • What discourses are being used (medical, legal…)?

Often in IE the researcher decides who else to intervew after hearing the participant.

Binyamin explained that IE offers concepts which can be useful in other methodologies. The study must be feasible, she warned against getting “carried away” – there is always a wider circle ready to be approached and interviewed.

The lecture concluded with the words: “Overturn what you took for granted and thought you knew…”.