Category Archives: ethics

The Fourth Israeli Interdisciplinary Conference of Qualitative Research – Inspiring

Posted on by
Reply

I’m back from a two day break at the 4th Israeli conference on qualitative research which was held at the Ben Gurion Uni in Be’er Sheva. I found the sessions extremely stimulating and motivating and I left inspired and enthusiastic to continue my research.

Plaza

I am gradually going to sift through my notes to find the points and the people I want to remember.

I arrived at the conference on time and immediately  bought the new book by Rivka Tuval-Mashiach and Gabriela Spector-Mersel: Narrative research: Theory, creation and interpretation. It won’t be easy reading but I must get acquainted with the Hebrew terms for my work.

The first session was about teacher education. A group from Levinsky Presented their work on metaphoric collages. Teacher educators created collages representing the way they understand the feedback sessions they hold with students. Narratives were then a means of describing the visual creation. This encounter of metaphor reminded me that I have been planning to examine metaphors which can help me describe my work. In this case, the most common metaphors were pregnancy and birth, journey and food.

I was disappointed that the main speakers, Prof Carolyn Ellis and Prof. Arthur Bochner couldn’t make it in person, but the videoed session they sent was informative and well presented.

According to Bochner, the goal of social science inquiry is the creation of meaning in social life. There are 3 different purposes: a. prediction and control, b. interpretation and understanding, c. criticism and social change.

An important point made was that there is a false dichotomy between theory and story. Story can be very theoretical (e.g Dickens).

Qualitative research, according to Bochner, is looking at how we should live and not only exploring what we can know.

Another important point was to let our work tell the story and to stop being defensive about doing qualitative research.

Regarding autoethnography, Ellis and Bochner are less interested in defining the term as they see the search for definitions mainly political. People try to categorize research for the politics of publishing, tenure etc.

In the beginning they began with writing in the first person . There was a space in academic work that needed opening. There has always been controversy surrounding the term – “vocabulary has consequences”.

The speakers were asked what is the role of other peoples’ stories in autoethnography and the answer was of course, that all good ethnography has some self in it and that this work should portray the connection between self and others. Self is never in isolation. The researcher must attempt to touch the role of others and bring them in.

Autoethnography directs attention to the reason you chose to study this community. What is the engagement? What do you owe those communities as a researcher? These connections should be explicit.

The speakers were asked: What kind of a researcher is needed to do autoethnography? The answer included:

  • in tune to self
  • able to step outside and see yourself in different roles
  • a good writer
  • willing to be vulnerable
  • able to present yourself in a vulnerable light

The answer to the question: How do you educate others to do autoethnography? was:

An autoethnographer is firstly a story teller. He or she must read a lot of literature, stories and write a lot. Audience awareness is very important. The writer need to attend to what the audience is doing with the story. In opening up the conversation, the reader is supposed to develop his or her own stories after reading the texts of others.

In autoethnography and personal narrative, the reader is seen as a collaborator in making meaning and not as the receiver of knowledge.

Ellis and Bochner were asked which issues are suitable for this research and it was explained that the theme does not have to be sadness and suffering. The researcher writes in order to “figure something out”. It was explained that it is more difficult to write about happiness, there is less tension in the writing, there is less “call to write”. Suffering is central to much autoethnographic work, as is social justice. The speakers stated that young researchers may not have the depth of experience required.

I want to look for Revision by Ellis when it comes out. It takes stories written in the past and looks critically at how they were written. Changes that have occurred since the writing was done and new interpretations are explored. The book reminds me of Fields of Play by Richardson.

When asked about contradiction, uncertainty and puzzles addressed by autoethnography, the answer given was that if  subjectivity is not displayed on the page, the work is problematic.

Regarding ethics questions, Bochner explained that the search for universal ethics guidelines , good for every situation isn’t very helpful. There are no easy answers.

Final messages were:

  • -we need to find the opportunities to present the best of this work in our institutions
  • -People are listening and are giving credibility to this research
  • -concentrate on who in the world can join your conversation
  • -Ask: Does this mean anything? Can it do something important?
  • -Don’t do research for research’s sake

I’m of to a Monash HDR seminar online, I’ll try to summarize more in the morning.

Thank heavens for ebooks!

Posted on by
Reply

Now that I’m well on the way to writing my paper as an autoethnography (well…not really…but at least I’ve decided on a direction!) I have been devouring more articles and book chapters on the topic. This morning I discovered a fantastic ebook which will prove to be very helpful in the writing of my methodology chapter.

  

Firstly I was happy to see that I already “know” most of the researchers mentioned in the chapter I read, “Autoethnography”. The chapter provides helpful definitions in simple language.

Etherington presents a reassuring point as she opens this chapter. She quotes Gergen and Gergen (2002, p.14):

 “In using oneself as an ethnographic exemplar, the researcher is freed from the traditional conventions of writing. One’s unique voicing – complete with colloquialisms, reverberations from multiple relationships, and emotional expressiveness – is honoured” (p. 137).

Why does this quote attract me and reassure me? Here is another example of my worrying that my writing isn’t good enough, isn’t up to standard. The pressure my colleagues feel when instructed to write in school or PD settings is what I can identify in myself here. But is it reassuring? Is personal voice easier than copying traditional conventions…that I will see in the next few weeks.

“Autoethnography is an autobiographical genre of writing and research that has been described as a ‘blend of ethnography and autobiographical writing that incorporates elements of one’s own life experience when writing about others’ (Scott-Hoy 2002, p.276); a form of self-narrative that places the self within a social context (Reed-Danahay 1997).  Autoethnography is a word that describes both a method and a text.

Ellis and Bochner (2000, p.739) describe the process of how researchers create autoethnography: As they zoom backward and forward, inward and outward, distinctions between the personal and the cultural become blurred, sometimes beyond distinct recognition…

Ethnography, has traditionally focused on the ‘other’ as an object of study, typically spending time observing people in other cultures and societies, but in more recent times, influenced by feminism, postmodernism and an increasing understanding of the role of researcher reflexivity, experimental methods have been proliferating among sociologists, anthropologists and more generally across disciplines such as communication studies, psychology, women’s studies, management and  organizational studies, theatre studies, literature, health sciences, education and sports science (Bochner and Ellis 2002; Ellis and Bochner 1996) (Etherington, 2004, p. 139-140).

When I read Mel’s description of her research journey I sat in front of the computer screen and cried. I connected with her honest descriptions of her experiences and discoveries. Mel’s short text about her research has helped me to better understand the criteria Laurel Richardson (2000, p.934) uses for assessing social science papers for publication:

  • Does the work make a substantive contribution?
  • Does the work have aesthetic merit?
  • Is the work reflexive enough?
  • What is the impact of this work on me?
  • Does the work provide me with a sense of ‘lived experience’?

Another point made about the validity of self study is made by Etherington. She quotes Braud (1998, p. 219):

“When feelings of excitement, surprise, and delight are supplemented by feelings of awe and gratitude, researchers can be assured that they are being true to the experiences that are being explored and that their approach and findings are valid” (p. 149).This is of course the challenge awaiting me…

The author mentions researchers (Mykhalovskiy, 1997; Picart, 2002; Sparkes, 2002) who disapprove of autoethnography, those who claim that this kind of work is  egoistic, self-absorbed and vain. The author explains that in order for the researcher producing autoethnography to ensure that his or her work does not fit those negative descriptions, they must ensure that they fully understand the purpose of the study, are entirely aware of their own reasons for choosing this kind of research and have the ability to ensure that the work is high in “aesthetic, personal, social and academic value” (p. 141).

Etherington also presents Janice Morse’s criticism of autoethnography. Morse (2000) claims that it is extremely difficult to protect other people connected with narratives in the study as they are often recognizable. The advantages and disadvantages of publishing autoethnographic research under pseudonyms are discussed.

Another problem with this exposive kind of research is the risk of the student/new researcher becoming vulnerable or disadvantaged professionally after publishing stories of weakness or difficulty.

I was interested to read about memory and it’s role in the process. One of the things that has been worrying me is that maybe I won’t remember enough. Since I have begun writing narrative drafts, I have been surprised by the way that I seem to draw threads of recollection from my teaching memories.  I will definately return to the following quote:

“Writing stimulates and facilitates the motor and sensory regions of the brain, and can help us recover additional fragments of former experiences (Penn 2001). Half-known aspects of our selves can be accessed through the metaphors we use in our writing as we ‘reach intuitively into some part of ourselves that is outside our notice – still unnamed but there’ (Penn 2001, p.45). In telling our stories we are also re-affirming and re-educating our selves, our experiences and our lives and creating new stories. Writing autoethnography involves us in a kind of ‘recollection’, which is more than remembering” (p. 146).

Etherington, K. (2004). Becoming a reflexive researcher: Using our selves in research. London: Jessica Kingsley Press. Available from www.ebooks.com/ 

Potential problems for teacher researchers

Posted on by
Reply

Gordon Griffiths wrote about the problems facing teachers who wish to research their immediate work environment. Difficulties mentioned are:

  • It is not easy for teachers to look at their everyday surroundings and see them as unfamiliar.
  • Recording the enormous amount of activity happening in a school hour/lesson/day.
  • Finding the time to rewrite the large volume of field notes.
  • The tiring research process which is in addition to the exhausting duties of the teacher.
  • Knowing who the research plans and processes should be negotiated with and at which stage.
  • One or more of the researcher’s regular school positions may hinder the process of data collection. This in turn may prevent the researcher from following certain research trails.
  •  Collegues may feel threatened by the research, even if the teacher is researching his/her own classroom.
  • There is danger of the teacher researcher exploiting the information gathered for purposes other than research goals.
  • The teacher researcher is often jeopardizing something – position, social contacts, respect…in the exposing research process.

 An important point raised is that even if a teacher is researching his/her own classroom practice, the context must be presented, involving the whole school environment. 

   

Griffiths, G. (1985).  Doubts, dilemmas and diary-keeping: Some reflections on teacher-based research. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Issues in educational research: Qualitative methods (pp. 197-215). London, UK: The Falmer Press.

Ethics in Internet Ethnography

Posted on by
Reply

 Yesterday I started looking into the ethical aspects of doing research through the Internet. Sveningsson (2004)  explains that this is a relatively new area and that as yet there is no agreement on which guidelines are suitable and relevant for virtual communication. Each type of Internet environment is very different from another. Doing research on a chatroom is very different from examining email correspondence, for example.

In ethnography questions relating to culture are in the forefront. The researcher examines the way a group of people live their lives. He or she is “studying members’ thoughts and conceptions of the world, norms and values, as well as the practices that are attached to them” (p. 46). In a previous article, Sveningsson (2003) explains that ethnography is not a single research method, rather it is an approach to research.

Paccagnella (1997) writes of “online ethnography” and Hines (2000) writes of “virtual ethnography”.  

In this article, Sveningsson (2004) examines present ethical guidelines in the light of Internet research.

The Informational Requirement:

Sveningsson (2004) notes the different roles of the researcher in ethnographic research:

  1. participant observer
  2. reporter – open observation without participation
  3. undercover participant observer
  4. hidden nonparticipant observer

If I embark on this kind of research I will have to choose between the first two groups.

Questions relating to how to inform participants in the study must be answered. The article deals mainly with participants in a chatroom situation and less with participants chosen ahead of time. I imagine that in my study, as in the PhD study being done by Ward, participants will enter the Internet environment intentionally as part of the research process.  In cases like these questions of consent appear to be similar to those in traditional research methods. 

Questions of confidentiality are extremely relevant. The first issue deals with the need for personal or sensitive material to be managed without unauthoirzed access. The second issue is that individuals must not be recognized.

Weblogs can be fully open to the public or closed to an authorized group. Sveningsson points out that one of the problems with the Internet is that people feel they are in a private environment when if fact they are exposing themselves in a public arena.

The third issue is that on the Internet it is often diffficult to know whether a person is who they say they are. The article deals with pseudonyms and the problem of choosing pseudonyms for chosen usernames. Usernames usually contain elements a person is using to portray a particular identity, “the nickname thus works as a ‘face’…” (p. 52).

 The requirement that data be collected only for the purpose of a particular research project is not at all problematic.

The Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) was set up in 2000 to develop international ethical guidelines. http://aoir.org/  This organization found that 2 variables are useful for examining materials from the Internet: (Ess, 2002, as cited in Sveningsson, 2004, p. 55)

  1. “How public the medium is”
  2. “How sensitive the shared information is”.

An important question posed by Sveningsson is “Can we really do ethnographic study of a culture tht we ourselves have created?” (p. 56).

How relevant is this in the kind of research I am planning? Again I am returning to the question of the interaction between the participants. How important is it to me to have a conversation going on? This is the group interview vs individual interview debate.

Sveningsson, M. (2004). Ethics in Internet ethnography. In E. A. Buchanan (Ed), Reading in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 45-61). Sweden: Information Science Publishing. Retrieved from http://books.igi-online.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/downloadPDF/pdf/ITB9489_NdB67QZEZJ.pdf