ANALYSE DES SYSTEMES DE PRODUCTION PAR TYPE DE STRUCTURE DES FACTEURS DE PRODUCTION

The analysis of publicly available documents represents the main source of data gathering in this study. The collected and analysed data include magazines, brochures, leaflets, marketing material, books and articles. Documents are considered social facts by virtue of being

“produced, shared and used in socially organised ways. They are not, however, transparent representations of organisational routines, decision-making processes or professional diagnoses. They construct particular kinds of representations within their own conventions” (Atkinson and Coffey in Silverman, 1997: 47).

In line with the social constructionist perspective adopted in this study, documents are not considered an objective reality.

Instead, they represent and construct specific discourses that are in turn historically, culturally, and socially situated. During analysis, it is therefore important to consider their context, authenticity, and access (Matthews and Ross, 2010). All the documents analysed are currently available publicly from direct sources, or from the organisations’ websites or stands at the Fertility Show. The choice of documents reflects the aim of each

research question as well as the spectrum of organisations exhibiting at the Show: specifically, the documents collected are publicly available books, newspaper and journal articles, and texts produced by private clinics, the government, NGOs, and other fertility-related businesses.

4.7.1.2. Observation

Observation is “said to make no firm assumptions about what is important” (May, 2011: 163). This characteristic is related to the strong reflexivity and self-reflection qualitative researchers are expected to practise in the field (Skeggs, 2001). For the purpose of data gathering I attended the Fertility Show both in 2013 and 2014. Here I physically collected organisational documents available at the various stands, and attended a number of seminars on various topics related to infertility. The two experiences were very different and provided me with insightful observations and reflections. Observing the world around us is “brought on by the stimulus to be necessarily aware” (Sanger, 1996: 3), and importantly, we observe what our mind-sets want us to observe (Sanger, 1996). As per the knowledge the researcher should gather prior entering the field, two positions can be taken: the researcher can either attempt to gather as much information as possible, or as little as they can. Prior to my fieldwork, I knew little about what was going to happen at the Show. At the 2014 Show my understanding was more thorough, and my observational goals more defined.

In 2013, I allowed myself to be surprised (even upset at times) about the amount and sort of information I was gathering. In 2014, I was more prepared: I knew who was exhibiting, who was going to be there, and the kind of discourses that were taking place. This second fieldwork allowed for new, different, and perhaps more challenging observations and questions to

emerge as to how certain dynamics occur. In the analysis, I employ my observations so as to provide further background and context to the organisational texts I analyse through CDA.

An important factor is the very short amount of time I had to collect a fairly dense set of data. The Fertility Show lasts two days and only takes place once every year, making me an observer only for a few intense days. This does not necessarily mean that I would have collected more data had I had the opportunity to spend more time in the field, but rather that it was a condensed and strong experience. Another challenging aspect of observation lies in the ‘participant’ feature. I did not actively participate in the Show, I was not exhibiting or intervening at the seminars, and I only engaged with exhibitors following full disclosure of my researcher status. However, when doing this type of research we are “walking the fine line”

between how much to disclose about what we do, and how much to keep to ourselves for the sake of data authenticity (Sanger, 1996: 36).

Keeping this in mind, when researching in the field I only observed exhibitors and speakers, as a way of adhering to ethical codes of research with respect to prospective patients. I did not interact with them, nor did I intentionally observe them with the aim of collecting data. Of course it is impossible to completely ignore our surroundings, and inevitably I have perceived other individuals and have been aware of this.

However, in order to behave ethically, I consciously avoided reflecting upon them as subjects of research, or as something to be studied and analysed. By ethical behaviour I mean making a proactive and continuous effort not to take notes or critically observe people who were attending the Show in their individuality; making an effort not to be visibly analysing all my

surroundings; and clearly disclosing my researcher status upfront to the organisations I talked to.

The ethical procedure of the study changed over the second and third year of the PhD programme. I conducted three pilot interviews in the second year with the HFEA, the NGO Progress Educational Trust, and a corporate head from the private clinic Care. These interviews are not part of the analysis, but contributed to my knowledge and awareness of the field. I soon realised that the material I needed was not obtainable through interviews, but rather through organisational documents. Consequently, the ethical approval of my work changed from the second to the third and fourth year.

With respect to observation, field research is a contested terrain where field relations can be understood in discursive terms. The field researcher both constructs and is constructed by discourses that they themselves embody and enact (McLaren, 1991). These reflections were very important to consider during my fieldwork, but they also represented a big challenge in terms of empathising without acting on behalf.

Attending the Fertility Show but not being a prospective patient, a mother-to-be, or a mother, meant that my view and perception of a lot of issues were inevitably biased and different from the people the Show was originally meant for. McLaren stresses the importance of “feeling the everyday experiences of subjects” (1991: 154). However, trying to feel what others around us feel still does not represent full co-construction, but in turn positions researchers in a privileged position with respect to the researched. To help with this dilemma, feminist ethnographers suggest thinking of the question “in whose interests?” (Skeggs, 2001: 437) as a constant reminder of the power we produce and simultaneously are subject to. I tried to keep this question in mind during my fieldwork, and yet I found

that the answer was really available to me only after carrying out data analysis.