4.5.1 Positioning myself regarding ethics
Qualitative research typically involves interpersonal relationships, interpretations and experience, and there are certain issues of which qualitative researchers need to be aware (Dowling, 2000). In the research process, it is important to reflect over the role of a researcher. I clarified with the informants that the researcher is a student, and the purpose was only to collect meanings and opinions for her own purpose, and nobody else was to see them, except her supervisors. I assured them that research would not harm them by any means. One can expect some variation in attitudes and practices among various population groups. As a social scientist, it is therefore important to always be aware of the possible importance of "variables" such as gender, age, social class and education.
Ethics can be defined as the behaviour of scientists, and their responsibilities and obligations to those involved in research, including funders, the public, and most importantly, the subjects of the research constitutes a problem that must be addressed in my research (Dowling, 2000). Ethical questions in the research relationship have become more significant, qualitative research continues to change and researchers face new issues using new tools to produce knowledge (Miller et al., 2012). Ethical issues in research interviews occur especially because of the complexities associated with "exploring people’s privacy and adding descriptions out in public" (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). As a researcher, carefully considering the ethical significance of your actions in different contexts is important and one must be prepared to take responsibility for your actions. It is important to create a relationship with the key informants, but with certain limits. It is also important to consider the different power conditions encountered.
65
Qualitative methods involve an invasion of a person’s privacy by asking personal questions or observing interactions. Therefore, it was important for me to assure the interview objects that they cannot be recognized through descriptions in the thesis.
It was important that my research would not my informants to risk, either mentally or socially. Given the extreme level of conflict among rural communities associated with large carnivore issues this was not a trivial matter. I also had to be careful not to ask questions that may offend or upset the individual farmer.
I was fully aware that this was an inflammatory topic for many and that there existed strong opinions that might be difficult to handle and be impartial to.
Key aspects of the interview phase are objectivity, subjectivity, inter-subjectivity, critical
reflexivity, position and personality (Dowling, 2000). In my case it was impossible to be solely
objective, but it was however important to reflect on my role as a researcher. Being subjective will create a deeper understanding of those who are interviewed and their opinions. It seemed important and useful to have an ability to engage with, instead of pulling away from the objects (Crang and Cook, 2007). Being clear on positionality will lead to more insightful analysis To embrace subjectivity also means embracing inter-subjectivity 'meanings and interpretations
of the world that are created, confirmed, or not confirmed as a result of interactions (language and action) with other people within specific contexts' (Dowling, 2000). Inter-subjectivity can
for example be a game between researcher and the interviewees (farmers). Critical reflexivity is "a process of constant self-conscious examination of yourself as a researcher and the
research process. It deals with analysing your own situation as if it was something you studied. What is happening? What social relations are introduced? Will they affect data? '
In my role as a scientist, I recognized the power of information of my objects, the farmers; they had been engaged in this activity for many years and even decades. They also had a better and deeper understanding of the various policies in agriculture, as well as strong opinions about how they performed. I as an observer can / will be seen as the outsider that will not be on the same level as the interviewees.
My own perception of reality is not always consistent with what the farmers answered or alluded to. In such situations, it is good to have training and not show disagreement, incomprehensibility or start a discussion rather than to record the farmers' actual meanings for use in the thesis. What I find in the farmers' response is defined as the core of the findings. The findings will be used as research results, and nothing else.
66
I expected to meet a number of different reactions, with some being accommodating and willing to disclose to me as the outsider, others might be more reserved and may not even want to disclose in any way. It was important for me to create an understanding of my role in different settings, and try to create a comfortable and pleasant atmosphere around the interview. The advantage I had was that I was already involved and had experiences with sheep husbandry. Thus, I could more easily be respected and heard, and gained better access as a researcher. Personality and emotional intelligence is claimed to be of equal importance for the outcome of a research project (Moser, 2008).
4.5.2 Validity, reliability and transferability
In qualitative research, credibility is central to the concepts of validity, reliability and transferability (Rolfe, 2006, Creswell and Miller, 2000). Creswell and Miller (2000) define the viewpoint for establishing validity in a study as a lens. They argue that qualitative researchers use a lens established using the views of people who conduct, participate in, or read and review a study. The assessment of credibility in the qualitative research interview involves to which extent the researcher has produced results that are reliable, valid and transferable. It is important that the research is relevant and has significance, this is achieved through documented reflexivity, which means that the researcher has a critical look at their own ideas, role, the use of methods, meeting with informants, interpretation and so on.
By its nature an in-depth qualitative study with a limited sample size is not representative of the overall population of farmers, therefore there are valid questions concerning the transferability of the results. Because the arguments presented by the interviewees reached saturation we are fairly confident that our findings have a generalizable validity, although it must be born in mind that each farmer will have their own variation on the broad themes identified here.
67