Berger (2015) suggests that it is critical for a researcher to reflect on their position before engaging in research. My experiences of growing up in Liverpool as part of a multi-race and multi-faith family in the 1970s and 80s have influenced the type of research topic I have chosen, as well as the areas I have chosen to consider within the research. Richardson (2000) considers self-reflection, the consideration of the choice of research topic alongside why and how one decided the topic, as well as the choice of research design, an important exercise, suggesting:
I consider writing, as a method of inquiry, a way of finding out about a topic... form and content are inseparable (2000: 92).
Presumptions and Positionality
When considering one’s philosophical position, C Wright Mills (2000) suggests that, as an exercise, it can allow the researcher to consider why they are engaging in research and what drives them. However, he also suggests that philosophical musings are not the whole sum of research and that it may be better to spend time allowing the research some imagination and creativity to answer questions, saying:
Awareness of it enables us to become more conscious of our conceptions and our procedures, and to clarify them. It provides a language with which we can do these things. But its use ought to be of a general nature; no working social scientist need take any such model very seriously and above all, we ought to take it as a liberation of our imagination and a source of suggestion for our procedures, rather than as a limit upon our problems (2000: 120).
111 | P a g e
With this in mind, this research is tentative to place its feet within any philosophical camp. Whilst being critical of the way in which policy is constructed and implemented, and the effect on communities either deliberately or coincidentally targeted, it is at the same time realistic, and aware of the need to have counter- radicalisation/terrorism policy in place. As a researcher, my own experiences of discrimination, including homophobia and racism towards my family, have shaped my own position and influenced my choice of research area. Racism directed at members of my family and friends, although not directed at me, has affected my life choices politically, culturally and socially. As a young person I was not aware of government policy or legislation, and yet I felt their effects.
Similarly, whether or not the respondents in the study are aware of counter- radicalisation/terrorism legislation, they may have felt its effects. For example, an increase in detention without charge, stop and search under the umbrella of counter terrorism (C/T) legislation or increased security within targeted communities identified as vulnerable may have affected them in some way. This again is a point addressed by this research, by asking what the respondents know about the current policy, and if they felt they had been affected by counter-radicalisation policy, and how?
The Production of Knowledge
Archer et al. (1998) suggest that the focus of the production of knowledge should be based within the natural elements of society, saying:
It is socially produced knowledge of a natural ([hu]man-independent) thing (1998: 65).
112 | P a g e
Similarly, Zachariadis, Scott and Barrett (2013) suggest that knowledge can then be sub-divided and examined in three distinct ways, arguing:
Besides the distinction between transitive and intransitive dimensions of knowledge, critical realism assumes a stratified ontology divided into three domains: the real, the actual and the empirical (2013: 857).
I suggest that it is important to understand the distinction between transitive and intransitive dimensions, as this helps illustrate that there is no one reality. It is also important to understand that researchers will not necessarily have access to realities that are not their own, even if they are able to observe fully every aspect of another’s [individual] reality. Within the domain of the ‘real’ are objects and structures that have inherent causal powers and liabilities which result in a mechanism that may not be visible. Lawson (1997) suggests that by observing the way things (society, philosophical constructs, and social interactions) work or do not work as a mechanism will help determine the phenomena of the world, suggesting:
A mechanism is basically the way of acting or working of a structured thing … structured things [physical objects or social processes] possess causal [or emergent] powers which when triggered… act as a generative mechanism to determine the actual phenomena of the world (Lawson, 1997: 121).
Similarly, Bhaskar (1978) contends that while generative mechanisms may not necessarily constantly be observed empirically, their capability to ‘have effect’ may still exist, whether they are exercised or unexercised. The ‘actual’ is thus a subset of the ‘real’, which can include generated events from both exercised and
113 | P a g e
unexercised mechanisms. It may be argued that one of the main objectives for critical research should be to use the perceptions of events that can be observed or experienced [empirical] to identify the mechanism that in turn gives rise to those events (see Volkoff et al., 2007). For example, the respondents may not be aware of the specifics of policy, but then may feel like they were affected by the policy nonetheless. Within the context of this research, consequently, the experiences of the respondents may be recorded, given value and shared.
Approaching research from this position allows for a basic understanding that cause does not necessarily equal effect. There is, within distinct relationships, an often non-linear process of events: (A) may be followed by event (B), and yet this does not mean that event (A) somehow caused event (B). If event (A) did cause event (B), then understanding the mechanism of how and why this happened is paramount to critical research (CR) (Volkoff et al., 2007: Sayer, 1992).
However, due to the influence placed on everyday interactions between people, and how language is used to construct their reality, this research also accepts that there must be some form of social construction occurring. This is important, given the interest this research has in the effect of policy, identity and the individual’s ‘place’ within society. This research questions the use of legislation, the terminologies within legislation and its impact upon the reality of minority groups living in Liverpool. This is important when we consider how language is being used in legislation, due to its power to affect the perceptions of people within society and the way they are presented to a wider social audience.
By accepting that society exists both subjectively and objectively, one can take a critical yet realist stance (Andrews, 2012). This allows the research room to address
114 | P a g e
questions regarding the impact of society’s language and the shaping of the individual’s realities and identities whilst staying realistic in its reach, understanding that it is concept-dependent and requires interpretive understanding. Placing one’s feet tentatively within critical realism allows me a place to consider the intransitive domain within social structures. These can be addressed whilst remaining critical of their influence and inference, inference being the conclusions someone comes to, based on evidence and reasoning. Unlike influences, which are innate (often cognitively unconscious), inference is considered (a cognitively conscious process). Huberman and Mills suggest this is fundamental, saying:
Fundamentally, we think of social phenomena exists not only in the mind, but in the objective world as well, and that there are some lawful, reasonable stable relationships to be found among them… it is from these that we derive the constructs that account for individual and social life (Huberman and Mills, 1998:182).