DETALLES DE DISEÑO DEL CONCEPTO

Past concerns with the exploitation of participants by researchers who are positioned as the all knowing and all powerful experts, has led to feminists placing considerable emphasis on balancing the power within the research relationship (Reinharz, 1992). This ethical commitment to egalitarianism and collaborative research is difficult and challenging in all research, but particularly within a social constructionist framework. Knowledge is seen to be constructed in the interactions between people and therefore it can be said that the researcher-researched relationship is by its very nature equal. In addition, as the researcher, I recognise that I am dependent upon the women for my research.

However, it is words rather than people that are the object of study and the words are not taken to be accurate and neutral reflections of experience. Stenner (1993), in his discourse analysis of jealousy, captured the problem with this when he described himself as “painfully aware of having power and control over other people’s words” (p. 131). In the end, it is my analysis, my interpretation of the women’s words, which will stand as the final results of this study and it is this which firmly positions me as the more powerful (Olesen, 2003; Seibold, 2000). I do not believe that this tension between the epistemology of social constructionism and the values of feminism can ever be completely overcome, but as Webb (1993) points out, it is critical that the power differential is acknowledged and managed as well as possible. I have endeavoured to do this through certain specific strategies.

Firstly, semi structured focus groups were chosen as the data collection method. Such groups are considered less hierarchical than individual interviews and thus reduce the power imbalance (Wilkinson, 1999b). In addition, while trigger questions were used, the discussion remained very loosely structured to allow the women in the groups to direct the talk towards the issues most important to them. Other aspects of the rationale for focus groups are discussed in the next chapter. Secondly, I aimed to build rapport within the group through making my own role as equal as possible through openness and honesty. Oakley (1981) describes the traditional interviewing paradigm as based on values of objectivity, hierarchy, and detachment and suggests feminist interviewers can overcome these problems. In particular she stresses the need for empathy and to openly answer any personal questions the participants ask. Self disclosure, described by Acker, Barry and Esseveld (1991) as reciprocity, is an important tool for balancing power in the relationship. Prior to the groups, I committed to being honest and open in expressing my own on-going struggles, engaging in reciprocity, and making it clear I am not an expert on family/work decisions. However, such attempts at building rapport and equality are not without problems. Firstly, as Acker et al. point out, it is critical that the researcher not impose their definitions of reality onto the researched. During the groups I became very aware of the risk of this happening and in the end contributed very little myself until after the groups were formally finished. More importantly, Acker et al. also suggest that rapport building strategies can result in friendships forming and this risks increasing rather than reducing exploitation due to the inherent tension between a friendship and the researcher’s goal of gathering information. However, as I have only met each woman once or twice this has not been a problem.

The third strategy for managing the power differential was, rather than simply take the women’s words for my own use I consulted them at two later stages. Once the transcription was complete, each member of each group was sent a copy and given the opportunity to delete or change any of their own talk. Allowing editing in this way helps to reduce the objectification inherent in the research process (Webb, 1993). However Weatherall, Gavey, and Potts (2002) point out that a potential difficulty with this is that oral transcriptions appear messy and inarticulate which can make participants want to

“correct” their speech. I used a relatively “clean” style of transcription to reduce this problem and while none of the women wanted to make amendments, a couple did say that they felt they came across badly in the transcript. I was able to reassure them that this is always the case with transcribed speech, particularly with groups where there is a lot of interruption and over-speaking. Sharing the interpretation with the participants is also recognised as a useful tool (Thompson, 1992) and this was done at the end of the research. While some feminist researchers take this further and involve the participants actively in the analysis, this is not appropriate for discourse analysis. Weatherall et al. (2002) highlight the problems and risks associated with even sharing the analysis: The interpretation may be dramatically different from the women’s own views, especially given that it is unlikely the participants will have an understanding of the social constructionist perspective that drives the analysis. This can be distressing to the women and can be constructed as not respecting their reality (Acker et al., 1991; Weatherall et al., 2002). For this reason I invited the women to attend a group presentation of the analysis. I felt this would allow me to more carefully explain the nature of the research and would also give the women the opportunity to seek clarification immediately. This session, while attended by only half of the women, was appreciated. For the women who were not able to attend, I prepared a written summary of the thesis.

It must be acknowledged that attempts to equalise the power of the relationship can be of only limited success. As the researcher, I designed the research, instigated the interaction, and for all that they were semi-structured, the focus group discussions were directed towards certain topics through my trigger questions. This in itself positions me as more powerful. In addition, the very act of transcribing, summarising, and analysing someone else’s words is an act of objectification that therefore constitutes power (Acker et al., 1991; Webb, 1993). However, this is tempered by the fact that I present my work only as my own interpretation and, as with all discourse analyses, acknowledge it as both individual and partial. As Thompson (1992) recommends, I remain “humble about [my] conclusions and the limitation of social science” (p. 10). As an acknowledgement of the fact that this research is only my interpretation, and as a means of recognising my dependence upon the women for my research, I have finished this thesis not with my own words, but with those of one of the mothers from the focus groups.