Apunts sobre la campanya

Common methods employed in ethnographies are observation and interviews.

4.10.1 Observation

Observation as a research method implies that it is something more than the observation we do each day of the world around us. Ethnographic research is characterized by regular and repeated observation of people and situations in order to respond to a theoretical question about the nature or behaviour of a social organization. Gold (1958) distinguished four observation ‘stances’ or categories of researcher roles, in a typology which included ‘complete observer’ where the ethnographer is detached from the setting and neither seen nor noticed, with the implication that this provides objectivity, to ‘complete participant’ where the observer disappears into the setting perhaps to the extent of being covert in the researcher role. Participation to a greater or lesser extent is inevitable. In my observations, I was openly a researcher but not a member of the group as I did not participate, however in order to observe I had to interact with co-ordinators leading up to the meeting and on the day, with Chairs and committee members and with researchers. I chatted to researchers before the meeting, I spoke to Chairs and committee members in breaks and sometimes after the meeting. I did not participate in the discussion or decision- making although this was sometimes difficult. I was not a member of the committee so was careful not to reveal my feelings, and tried to maintain a neutral countenance all the way through (difficult!). I was conscious that committee members were looking at me for reactions and at times I was addressed directly after a discussion and asked what I made of the debate and discussion. I had not quite anticipated all of the qualities I would need.

is different to your own. In the sense of technical language, this was certainly true for me and there was a certain amount of ‘jargon’ which I had to become familiar with. Being explicitly aware of ‘mundane details’ was important. These are details which in everyday observation, we might filter out but which became important in observing the REC because gestures, seating arrangements, who had a voice, who contributed most and so on all provided me with insights into the social relations within committees. Angrosino also refers to ‘good memory’ because it is not always possible to record at the time, on the spot. For me this might be replaced with speedwriting because I was unable to record but I also needed to remember details after the meetings, which I was not able to record in the meeting. This especially linked to the approaches made to me and asides which were outside of the formal business. Observational data only comes to life if placed in a narrative so Angrosino claims that writing skills are an essential quality. The second part of the thesis attempts a coherent narrative building up an account of the REC which describes

what happens through to how it happens. In negotiating access and consent to attend each committee meeting, I had to remain ‘neutral’ or marginal in the eyes of the committee. Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) described how:

‘Marginality is not an easy position to maintain, however, because it engenders a continual sense of insecurity… many fieldworkers report that they experience some degree of discomfort by virtue of their ‘odd’, ‘strange’, or ‘marginal’ position’.

(Hammersley and Atkinson 2007:89).

This discomfort was often very real for me as I was made to feel ‘strange’ by some committee members. I reassured REC members that I was not there to evaluate in any way and yet my position (usually at the conference table, though sometimes just behind) meant that this was difficult.

4.10.2 Challenges in the observations

Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) described how most researchers in the field experience a degree of discomfort due to their strange or marginal position. It was difficult at times to maintain distance because I had to make some connection (in a comparatively short space of time) at the observation so that I had a good chance of them allowing me to do a follow-up interview. Hammersley and Atkinson also refer to a sense of betrayal (to those who have been observed) which I did not experience at the time but I have felt at times when appearing critical in writing up. Early on in the fieldwork, observations of the work of ethical regulation at meetings revealed

differences but key similarities. As I became more familiar with the ways that reviewers had of understanding, discussing applications, making judgements and reaching decisions, patterns began to emerge which were not articulated but implicit. Identifying these ‘common-sense’ and everyday ways of doing ethics review involved a great deal of unpacking and analysis. Altheide and Johnson comment that immersion and concrete detail are necessary for researchers to ascertain tacit knowledge which is the “largely unarticulated, contextual understanding that is often manifested in nods, silences, humour, and naughty nuances” (Altheide & Johnson, 1994:492).

Campbell and Gregor (2008) note some distinctions between being an observer when the observer is in a familiar field (such as a social worker or nurse) when practices are very well known, and being an observer when the field is unfamiliar. Collecting data in these circumstances is a challenge, however, because some ‘problematics’ or questions are carried into the site of observation, the researcher is looking for elements which appear to relate to those problematics. This is how the methods of institutional ethnography assisted me. I went into each field with a frame of questions which guided the data collected. As I went along, I paid increasing attention to ‘useful’ data, filtering out what was irrelevant. Of course, what this means is that I was not a neutral observer. I have not claimed to be neutral and have been open about subjectivity in the research and thesis. It remained the case however that I needed an element of objective structure in which I could frame my observations and the following chapter on data collection describes some of the ways in which I managed the recording of data. Using observation as a method is challenging and one can end up with a lot of data – Campbell and Gregor comment that it is typically the case that ‘very little, but very specific data is needed for an analysis in institutional ethnography’ (p77).

4.10.3 Interviews

Literature has usually advised caution in using telephone interviews because of the lack of opportunity to establish rapport and the absence of visual cues and mannerisms which may contribute to the interview. However, there are practical benefits in terms of travel costs and time. The opportunity for interviewing members of committees and researchers on the day was extremely limited. RECs run to a tight

schedule and researchers attend just for their study and then leave. I was always able to make contact with committee members on the day as the lead reviewers were identifiable as were the Chairs. I had chance for a conversation with the researcher(s) as we were often waiting outside of the meeting together. Nobody I approached refused the request to do a telephone interview, in fact some members pursued me to give me their contact details even though I was (initially) confining myself to Chairs and reviewers. In practice, these distinctions (between lead reviewers and committee members became blurred). It would not have been practical for me to travel back to REC locations to conduct interviews as I attended RECs across England, often some distance away.

Irvine et al (2010) used conversation analysis techniques to closely examine differences between face to face and telephone interviews. They noted that telephone interviews may be used for practical reasons (as in my case) or for ethical reasons when the protection of identity of the research participant might be needed. The aim of their study was to look at implications for researchers and considerations which might be helpful for researchers using the telephone mode for qualitative research interviews. They established that there were interactional differences but that these should not lead to rejecting the use of the telephone. Some of the differences they described were that face-to-face interviews were usually of longer duration with the participants talking more. In telephone interviews, the researcher was relatively more dominant and also indicated that a topic area was delicate or sensitive to the interviewee. It was suggested that researchers may need to be prepared to encourage participants to elaborate. Reflecting on my interviewing experiences, it was sometimes difficult to keep interviewees on track because of the lack of visual cues and this may have led to more prompts and ‘reminders’ of the questions or topics. This may have interrupted the flow.

4.10.4 Experiences of interviewing researchers

These took place over the telephone. At the time of interview, I always reminded researchers of the purpose of my research and reiterated the details on the Participant (Researcher) Information Sheets that I was not involved with the decision-making of the committee. Sometimes the interviews were long because they wanted to talk about the particular challenges of their study and I then had to

work to keep a focus. Researchers varied in how much they wanted to say in relation to my questions about capacity and their experience of attending the REC.

4.10.5 Interviewing Chairs and reviewers

These tended to be longer interviews. To answer my questions about capacity and vulnerability, the context of the study reviewed was often a useful way in to talking about these concepts. This meant a lot of backward and forward discussion of the details of the particular study before we could move on to talk about these concepts in a more general way.

4.10.6 Ad hoc interviews

There were discussions over tea, conversations with researchers outside committee rooms, even a long conversation with a Chair on a train journey home. DeVault and McCoy (2006) writing about institutional ethnography show how interviewing might best be called ‘talking to people’ (p756) because there is a continuum from formal times to interview and serendipitous moments which come about as a result of being involved in the research. This strongly resonated with me as some of the connections made during the observations spun off into agreements to be interviewed. Though these were followed up by email contact to arrange a formal interview). For example, I learnt much about processes from an enthusiastic co- ordinator over tea and then a follow up telephone interview which s/he consented to me conducting. Content of discussions which were outside of formal and consented interviews were not used as data but allowed me to gain valuable insights into the work of reviewing and this was part of the ‘immersion’ in the field so frequently described as a component of ethnography.

Institutional ethnography aims to get at the everyday competence of people in organisations, how people accomplish their daily work. Because these are so commonplace it was necessary to ‘know accurately’ (Campbell and Gregor, 2009, p 78) so checking out and asking what seemed obvious questions became important. For example, asking what ‘lay’ meant seemed at first a strange (or obvious) question to reviewers and co-ordinators, but this question in fact lead to an important point about committee membership and one which when probed, they found problematic to address fully.

I now address governance and ethical approval for the study. I discuss recruitment and sampling. I analyse the ethical considerations in the study using a framework which draws on Gelling’s (2016) suggestions of what reviewers want to be reassured of in review.