Ámbito de la actividad comercial electrónica

“The personhood of the researcher, including his or her membership status in relation to those participating in the research, is an essential and ever-

present aspect of [any] investigation”

(Corbin, Dwyer & Buckle, 2009, p. 55).

As mentioned in Chapter 1 the issue of my personhood within this research is most relevant and significant. The inquiry involves research into my place of work; one aspect of it involves research into the expectations of a group of which I am a member (academic staff) and the other involves research into a group where a power relationship may be said to exist (student and academic staff member). In addition my previous recent role as a high school teacher adds another dimension to my identity within the research and the fact that I have been all of these things will ‘matter’ to the participants and they also matter to me in my role

65

as researcher; I do appreciate the privilege of being able to conduct research on pedagogic relationships, a topic that as an experienced educational practitioner is so important to me (Corbin et al., 2009). This situation could therefore be said to bring about “unique

epistemological, methodological, political and ethical dilemmas” (Anderson & Jones, 2000, p. 430) which will now be discussed and addressed within the context of how it has shaped the methodology of the research.

There is much discussion about the merits and drawbacks of researchers being members of the population they are studying (Corbin et al., 2009; Kanuha, 2000; Mercer, 2007; Moore 2012). An insider is “someone whose biography (gender, race, class, sexual orientation and so on) gives her [sic] a lived familiarity with the group being researched” (Griffith, 1998, p. 361). Within this research process I have the identity of an insider on occasions, sharing some of the characteristics and experiences of some of the participants (academic staff). Creswell (1998) warns that interviewers who share experiences and similarities with participants can “minimise the ‘bracketing’” that is essential to construct the meaning of participants in phenomenology and reduces information shared by informants in case studies” (p. 133). As I have chosen to take a phenomenological stance within this research (as detailed in Appendix 2) this suggests the need for a cautious approach within the qualitative research in order to keep ‘myself’ and my preconceptions ‘out of the interview’ (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003). However, academic staff participants are likely to be more willing to share their experiences as there is a notion of shared understanding and shared distinctiveness – I am a ‘member of their gang.’

Moreover, adding to the multi-layered complexity of my researcher positionality, in addition to my current role of academic lecturer and researcher, my relatively recent longstanding past career, as mentioned previously, has been that of a high school teacher. This complicates the simplistic suggestion of being an insider and as DeVault (1996) points out demonstrates that identities are “always relative, cross cut by other differences and often situational and

contingent” (p. 40). My past membership of the high school teaching profession positions me as an outsider to the academic staff whilst giving me more of a familiarity with the student research participants. This is even more pronounced as one of the reasons why this research has come about is due to the anecdotal feeling of many academic staff that students’

expectations of the pedagogic relationship have become unrealistic and distorted, due to changes in recent years in the relationships that high school teachers have adopted with their

66

students, leading to less independent learning and a more ‘spoon fed’ approach (Clinton, 2011). In Smith and Wertlieb’s (2005) study the fact that a teacher had been a part of the research procedure was identified as both a drawback (the information gained from the participants may have been less genuine due to a “social desirability effect” (p. 168) in their responses) and an advantage (ease of access to participants and ability to interpret results). Conversely my own ‘context’ is a key distinguishing feature of this research and therefore makes a contribution to this methodology as it allows the reader some assurance that the analysis drawn from the semi-structured interviews has been understood in its proper context (Johns, 2001).

Figure 4.1 An Illustration of the Multi-layered Complexity of the Positionality of the Researcher Depending on the Role in which she is perceived by the Research

Participant. Outsider Insider The Space Between Academic Staff Mother of Students High School Teacher Academic Staff High School Teacher Mother of Students Researcher Positionality as Perceived by Student Research Participant Researcher Positionality as Perceived by Academic Research Participant Researcher Positionality as Perceived by Student Research Participant Researcher Positionality as Perceived by Academic Research Participant

67

Therefore as commented by Corbin et al. (2009) to categorise myself as being an insider and/or an outsider is “overly simplistic” (p. 60). As a researcher I have many factors affecting my positionality and as such I need to look at research strategies and methods “for

researching at the hyphen of insider – outsider” (Kanuha, 2000, p. 443). Indeed, as Merton (1972) points out “as situations involving different values arise, different statuses are

activated and the lines of separation shift” (p. 28). This suggests that there is a need to ensure that within the data analysis I recognise and reflect upon my impact on the participant. As has been intimated there are costs and benefits to be considered regarding the insider versus the outsider status of the researcher. Within my research, being an insider can raise the problem of undue influence of my perspective, however this can be mitigated by the gains which can be achieved within the research process of candour, rapport and familiarity with participants. Again though, as Armstrong (2001) noted, “my empathy and enthusiasm for a subject dear to my own heart may have kept them [i.e. the participants being interviewed] from considering certain aspects of their experience” (p. 243). As Hayano (1979) warned “an insider’s position is not necessarily an unchallengeable ‘true’ picture; it represents one possible perspective” (p. 102) and the assumption therefore cannot be made that as an insider one has intimate knowledge of the particular and situated experiences of all members of that group (Kanuha, 2000). Mercer (2007) points out that there is much discussion as to whether increased familiarity leads to “thicker description or greater verisimilitude” (p. 6). However with awareness and detailed reflection these issues need not arise. As Corbin et al. (2009) state it is not the researcher’s status which is the issue but his or her “ability to be open, authentic, honest, deeply interested in the experiences of one’s research participants, and committed to accurately and adequately representing their experience” (p. 59) which is of the essence.

This discussion has highlighted the fact that I do not consider the position of insider/outsider as an either/or duality. It is not dependent upon a single characteristic such as being a

member of academic staff or an ex high school teacher, rather it is an amalgamation of many different characteristics, some inherent and some not. As Corbin et al. (2009) and Mercer (2007) have argued we need to conceive the positions as points on a continuum that are fluid and as such their potential strengths and weaknesses should be acknowledged but their value per se should not be diminished. My perspective of the insider/outsider conundrum has influenced my ontological and epistemological principles as discussed below (see section

68

4.3), and throughout the research process consideration has been given to the potential impacts of my identities upon participants’ responses as this is an ethical issue which has been highlighted in the literature. (Further discussion concerning the ethical dilemmas

presented in relation to my role in the research and within the case study organisation is given in section 4.9.)

4.3 The Production of Knowledge - Ontological and Epistemological Principles