Catherine Edwards, Division of Adult Continuing Education, University of Sheffield

9350

On the relationship between researcher and researched: in pursuit of methodological integrity, congruence and the democratisation of the research process

Introduction

This paper is being written as a workshop contribution for the SCUTREA conference in July 1993. Participants at that workshop will be invited to offer further illumination and critical comment on the issues raised, based on their own experience.

The paper offers an analysis of certain aspects of my recent research experience as a practitioner in the field of adult continuing education and training. The research in question comprised of ‘a study of the employee roles and learning in the context of organisational change’. It was undertaken when I was employed as a local authority training officer and working with a group of women managers.

The paper explores the multi purposes of the practitioner/researcher – to influence, in this instance, the management practice of first line managers, my own practice as a trainer, and to write a Masters Degree thesis – and how these led to the development of an action research methodology[1] using a variety of methods for ‘data selection’. It explores how the combined roles of ‘practitioner’ and ‘researcher’ were sometimes complementary and sometimes in conflict. And it looks at questions of power, status and ownership which arose during the relationship between ‘researcher’ and ‘researched’.

Finally the paper focuses specifically on how this relationship began to shift significantly when a ‘life and work history’ approach to interviewing[2] was used as one of a number of research methods. This was only one of several ‘arenas’ within which they could reflect on their practice as managers and their relationship as women to the employing organisation. Its particular value was that it gave immediate access to a longitudinal perspective on the participants’ formation as managers and as women which could not otherwise have been achieved within the time span of the research period. In addition, for many of the participants, it offered a valuable tool with which they could become co-researchers, using the narrative of their accounts for their own ‘objective’ analysis and reflection. Over time this could no doubt have been developed even further and to greater effect.

Devising an appropriate methodology

The research was located in a Local Authority where the author worked within a small team of training officers. It was undertaken in ‘collaboration’[3] with a group of 25 women managers of the Domiciliary Care Service, the majority of whom described themselves as ‘working class’. Together, we looked at the extent to which their experience and learning ‘en route’ to becoming managers had adequately prepared them for the demands of the role, particularly in relation to changes in the nature of service provision following the NHS Community Care Act of 1990. It involved an ongoing evaluation of the education and training in which we were currently engaged together. These elements of the study were then set in the context of a critique of the employing organisation, whose recognition and support of them in that management role was currently limited by a perception of them as administrator/organisers as opposed to Social Work or Management Professionals. Thus the research activity grew organically out of the author’s professional practice as an educator and trainer of adults and had several key purposes.

to improve the management of the Domiciliary Care Service
to improve my (our) practice as educators and trainers
to enhance the image of the managers within the organisation in order to procure the resources and support they needed to do the job adequately.
to analyse and write about the above.

Both the purposes of the research and the values of the researcher led to the development of an action research approach.

The key characteristic of action research past and present is collaboration, which allows for mutual understanding and consensus, democratic decision making, and common action.[4]

The author felt that this would be congruent with her espoused ‘humanistic’ values drawn from adult learning discourse [5] and mindful of her political commitment to anti-oppressive practice, in relation to class and gender in this instance.

Roles, status, power and ownership

The nature of the professional relationship between Training Officers and Domiciliary Care managers inevitably affected that between ‘researcher’ and ‘researched’. However much we, as Training Officers and I, as a ‘researcher’ aspired to practice in an empowering ‘egalitarian’ vein it seemed there would always be ‘unequal’ aspects of that relationship which could never entirely be overcome. The theoretical models used to analyse the ‘power’ aspect of that relationship were drawn from Transactional Analysis, Organisational Development[6], and from socialist/feminist discourse. Inequalities were both real and perceived. Training officers were graduates with professional qualifications. They did not have regional accents and did not originate from the local working class community as the managers did. They were also perceived as having much more influence at the centre of the organisation over issues of policy and practice although this was not always necessarily the case. ‘Research’ in this context was seen as a privileged, albeit useful activity. As a researcher I was more likely to persuade the managers to participate with ‘my’ research than would have conversely been the case. This was mainly because I was their Training Officer, and because the research and the training sometimes coincided. On the other hand the Domiciliary Care Managers had much more power over their staff and the service they managed and were possibly more influential than they realised at organisational level. The way forward, both for professional working practice and for research (practice, reflection, analysis and writing up), seemed to be by enabling one’s awareness of these inequalities to actively inform both training and research methods. This involved distinguishing, at any point, the extent to which for example our experiences as women in the organisation were the same regardless of our different job descriptions, and the extent to which they were different because of our different educational and class backgrounds and because of the fixed and institutionalised difference embodied in our different professional roles.

Figure 1 below offers a picture of the research relationship. At the beginning of the action research process the ‘researcher’ is the author; the ‘researched’ both the organisation and the Domiciliary Care Managers.

Towards the end of the research period the relationship was beginning to shift significantly. The managers were gaining in confidence and asserting their own ‘analysis’ of their situation more readily. This was to some extent because, over time, the trust between them and the training team had deepened as our earlier collaborative aspirations were beginning to mature. Thus they become co-researchers, whilst the ‘researched’ remained their practice as managers, ours as trainers, and the organisation.

I will now focus specifically on the life and work history interview as a method, note some of the particular problems it threw up and explore its potential for involving participants in the analysis of the data as well as the provision of that data.

Figure 1

Using life and work history as a collaborative and empowering tool

Truth is a matter of the imagination. The soundest fact may fail or prevail in the style of its telling ... If at moments the facts seem to alter with an altered voice, why then you can choose the fact you like best; yet none of them is false, and it is all one story.[7]

Twenty three Domiciliary Care Managers were interviewed on their own in order to gain further insight into their individual life, work and educational histories. It was hoped that this would provide evidence about what was helping or hindering their development as effective managers. Part of the purpose was to explore whether they felt their life experiences as women had something of special value to offer their management role, and what could be done about the fact that this experience was often perceived by themselves and within the organisation as detracting from rather than enhancing their effectiveness.

The tape-recorded interviews were semi-structured in format, and were conducted in an open-ended conversational style. The influence of the perceived ‘sameness’ and ‘difference’ between us as women and as professionals affected what aspects of their ‘stories’ they chose to tell me and which elements of those stories I chose to give credence and significance to in the thesis. There were a number of problems inherent in this approach. As we all worked in the same organisation it was natural that we would share some of the same experiences and taken-for-granted assumptions. We were less likely to question or see the significance of these perhaps, than an external researcher[8]. As women, there was also the danger that I would focus naturally on issues where I felt there was greater empathy between us and minimise those where I felt some hostility. For example, a minority of participants were not at all happy with the emphasis on gender and did not want to be thought of as women managers. This ‘difference’ was ultimately respected both in the report and in the variety of further training initiatives which emerged partly as a result of the research. But it would have been easy to have minimised this difference in my anxiety to pursue and act on the main ‘thesis’.

There was also the complex issue of confidentiality. Some of the interviews contained some very personal information. I could offer assurances as a researcher that this would be treated with sensitivity and respect and that they could veto its use in writing. But as their Training Officer I could hardly forget what I had heard. In addition it was important that the rest of the training team should have access to those aspects which related to our joint work. A thorough discussion of these issues before each of the interviews, and with the training team helped establish a workable agreement for all concerned.

In spite of these problems the dialogue which developed through these interview conversations, nevertheless provided a real opportunity for reflection and analysis on their practice as managers and on their relationship as women to the organisation which genuinely enhanced that practice and their development generally. The conversational style enabled the analysis to develop through dialogue, with researcher and participant sharing ownership of that process.

Conclusions

In most kinds of qualitative research there are as many shades of the ‘truth’ as there are storytellers and indeed ‘none of them is false and it is all one story’.[9]

One of the ethical responsibilities of the researcher and of practitioners who aspire to ‘empower’, is to acknowledge this to research participants and to offer them some kind of access to the analytical process, as well as the rationale of the methodology. Thus the role of the researcher enhances that of practitioner in contributing further opportunities for reflection and learning.

My own particular conceptual framework for shaping the interview questions and subsequently the analysis of data grew initially from my experience as a woman and from knowledge of the participants’ concerns from earlier work with them in the organisation. It was also amended after a number of pilot interviews, and continued to be amended each time I encountered the unexpected, the hostile and the ‘different’.

The thesis I wrote offers an analysis of the participants’ strengths and needs as managers, of what might help or hinder their future development. The life and work history method informed that analysis. It has also provided participants with a means by which they can continue to reflect on and analyse their learning and practice. This can be utilised in training, supervision or peer group support. And the shape, content, and form of these ‘stories’ will be influenced by the context in which they are told, by the needs and purposes of the moment.

This paper emphasises that the integrity and congruence of research methodology with research purposes may always be limited by expediency and by contextual factors we do not yet have the power to overcome. In action research the best we can aspire to is to be as honest as possible about our own research stories and, when writing, to present our ‘truths’ as ours indeed, whilst using methods which have the potential to empower and contribute to collective understanding.

[1] K Lewin (1946) Action research and minority problems. In Journal of Social Issues vol 2 no 1; J Gill and P Johnson (1991) Resea