Condiciones y definición del estado de trabajo

Conducting the pilot study allowed me to question my position as a researcher within my own community sharing an identity, language, and experiential-base with my study participants (Asselin, 2003). I realised that being an insider enhanced the depth and breadth of understanding of my community. Questions about objectivity, reflexivity, and authenticity of my research project were raised by the participants and in my own mind. This was perhaps because I knew too much or I was too close to the project and may have been too similar to those being

107

studied (Kanuha, 2000, p444). This complete membership role gave me a certain amount of legitimacy (Adler & Adler, 1987) and allowed me more rapid and more complete acceptance by the participants at particular times. I found that the participants were open with me which added a greater depth to the data gathered.

A key benefit of being a member of the group one is studying is acceptance. My participants were willing to share their experiences both positive and negative as I was seen as one of them, someone who understood them and thought like they did. This status enabled access and entry as well as a common platform from which I could begin my main study.

Being an insider also has its potential problems. In Adler and Adler’s (1987) discussion of complete member researchers, they suggest that in this ‘ultimate existential dual role’ (p73) researchers might struggle with role conflict if they find themselves caught between ‘loyalty tugs’ and ‘behavioural claims’ (Brannick &

Coghlan, 2007, p70). Asselin (2003) has pointed out that the dual role can also result in role confusion when the researcher responds to the participants or analyses the data from a perspective other than that of the researcher. This confusion becomes greater if the researcher gains entry through a role other than that of a researcher and then fails to explain their role fully. This ambiguity may cloud the researcher’s perceptions by his or her personal experience and s/he may find it difficult separating themselves from their participants once they are seen as a group member. Furthermore, undue influence of familiarity might affect the analysis leading to an emphasis on shared factors between the researcher and the participants and a lack of emphasis on factors that are discrepant, or vice versa.

108

Fay (1996) addressed the question, ‘Do you have to be one to know one?’ (p9), and, does the researcher become an insider or remain an outsider? There are social, physical and background-related factors that make someone more of an insider or an outsider. Surrounded by these factors I had to reflect on my identity in field research. Also the status of an insider/outsider carries with it other assumptions, superficial, visible and experiential factors that do make someone more of an outsider than an insider. The only factor that could hinder me from being an insider would be if the participants were not clear about the purpose of my role and how I intended to use the data. This factor could be minimized through taking the time to explain to the participants the purpose and intention behind my research and data-use.

Fay’s (1996) view is that being a member of the group being studied is neither necessary nor sufficient to being able to know the experience of that group. The four reasons he outlined to support this stance are, firstly, individuals with their own experiences are not able to put the adequate distance required between them and the participants to know where their experience is lacking whereas someone from the outside may be more adequately equipped to conceptualize the experience. Secondly, being an insider one can have confusing, ambivalent, mixed, and sometimes contradictory goals, motives, desires, thoughts, and feelings. Due to these features an outsider might sometimes be able to see through the complexity in ways the insider cannot. Thirdly, an outsider is often able to appreciate the wider perspective with its connections, causal patterns, and influences. Finally, Fay proposed that we hide ourselves from ourselves out of fear, self-protection, and guilt, from which it might be extremely difficult to disentangle oneself.

109

From the above discussion, it is clear that there are both positive and negative aspects of insider and outsider status. As an insider I had to be aware of these aspects in relation to my particular status to the group I was studying. It was very important for me not to hide behind the mask of rapport or the wall of professional distancing (Glesne, 1999). As a qualitative researcher I needed to be fully authentic in my interactions with my participants and as Glense (1999) stated

‘honour the consequences of acting with genuineness’ (p105), highlighting the necessity of remaining reflexive.

When I reflected on and acknowledged my own reality and had an awareness of my own basic attributes, ideological assumptions, position of power within my culture and biases, which are fundamental to the process of carrying out any research, I realised that my study did not fall within traditional ethnographic studies. It was becoming more and more apparent that more and more ‘natives’

have become authors of ethnographic studies of their own cultural group.

Appadurai (1990) pointed out that

‘the ethnographic project has changed because the world that ethnography confronts has changed.’

Denzin (1997) extended this by stating that

‘National boundaries and identities blur. Everyone is a tourist, an immigrant, a refugee, an exile, or a guest worker, moving from one part of the world to another’ (introduction: xii).

Particularly more and more women, ethnic and marginal groups, and scholars from the peripheries are becoming ethnographers writing about their own representations of the communities they study. Knowing how others see me and how I see the world can shape my research but this also puts me in a position to protect the integrity of the process. As Hammersley and Atkins (1993) point out, as

110

a social researcher doing a study within my own community I needed to remain faithful to the phenomena observed. In order to do this I had to act ethically and my aim was to conduct the research in a way that would take into account my biases and subjectivities as a researcher and protect the dignity and welfare of the researched.

Pink (2001, p23) mentioned that researchers should maintain an awareness of how different elements of their identities impact on the research process. For example, gender, age, ethnicity, class and race are important to how researchers are situated and situate themselves in ethnographic contexts. Ethnographers ought to be self-conscious about how they represent themselves to informants and they ought to consider how their identities are constructed and understood by the people with whom they work. These subjective understandings could have implications for the knowledge that is produced from the ethnographic encounter between researcher and informants. The gender of the researcher here was an important issue as I worked with Muslim families and am Muslim myself. Being a woman as a researcher was also an important issue for religious and cultural reasons. From an Islamic faith perspective there is a protocol of interaction that is maintained with those that are outside the immediate family. A woman will not normally take part in an interaction, as is involved in a research study, if the researcher is male, particularly within the home environment. Therefore, being female, Muslim and from the Bangladeshi community, I had all the elements to my identity that enabled me to gain easy access to the homes of the families. The fact that I was working with the female members of the family was also an advantage. I still needed to be aware as Delgado-Gaitan (1993) remarked that sharing the same ethnic background as the participants (as she did)

111

‘does not make the researcher more knowledgeable about the meanings of the participant’s feelings, values and practices based on influences such as assumed cultural knowledge’ (p391).

She acknowledged her potential biases and subjectivity and as a result kept her participants informed and shared as much data as possible with them to ensure accuracy, which I also tried to do.

In order to ensure objectivity I needed to control or reduce the effects I as a researcher could have on the research situation. Such attempts included maintaining distance during observations as well as trying to be as neutral as possible. Although at certain instances during the research I faced obstacles in ensuring the trust of the participants (which are addressed later), my motive and empathy enabled me to earn their sincerity and trust. This collaborative approach helped to secure a healthy communication structure and enabled honesty and transparency to be a part of the interaction between me and my participants.