Social research is a complicated process. Any social research project is rooted in the social world and is, thus, subject to ethical challenges, bias and researcher influence:
Studies have often been written as if they had been executed by machines: not a hint of the ethical, political and personal problems which routinely confront the human researcher and the researched subject can be found (Plummer 2001, p.205).
Over the course of the project I faced many challenges and difficult decisions.
However, the most significant challenge remains my role as researcher. I have faced several dilemmas about my own personal perspective on the research problem and the implications this has for the way in which I have executed the project. These are important issues and they should be addressed as part of the research. The final section will provide some reflections on these challenges and the ways in which I sought to overcome them. First, I will consider my own influences and biases as a self-professed environmentalist researching climate change in a neoliberal world.
Second, I will address the problems I faced as I tried to reconcile a discursive approach with my desire to ‘make a difference’.
4.3.1 A Starting Point from Nowhere?
In the final stages of the research project I presented some of my findings at a climate change workshop. I received a lot of useful feedback and was asked some very interesting questions. I had already thought about many of the questions over the course of the project, but one member of the audience asked a question that I had not considered: If we are all subject to the dominance of a neoliberal discourse, surely your own assumptions are rooted in the same framework. What effect does this have on the way that you ask questions, critique the literature and analyse the data? It was a very good point. Just because I had identified the dominant discourse did that mean I could step outside of it? Carabine (2001) argues that ‘it is sometimes difficult to
103
identify discourses within which we ourselves are immersed, or that we agree with, or which we accept as “taken for granted” or common sense’ (p.288). I had identified the dominant or ‘taken for granted’ discourse, but had I purged myself of its influence and was that something that I could do or wanted to do?
This issue reinforced another problem with which I had been struggling. As a self-professed environmentalist, what kind of bias was I adding to a project about climate change? Essentially, these two questions were part of the same problem. As researchers how much of ourselves do we put into the research? This is a subject of some debate. For Wetherell (2001) researcher bias can affect the value of the research because ‘the analysts may never be surprised by the data. The world is already known and is pre-interpreted in light of the analyst’s concerns’ (p.385). If we allow the research to be interpreted according to our own personal perspective then the whole project is affected by this problem. We cannot consider an issue objectively if we view everything in light of our own personal beliefs and convictions. Antaki et al (2003)26 contend that this is a frequent problem with many discursive projects:
The analyst might wish to align with the sort of position that the speaker is outlining. The analyst's summarising might contain pointed references. It might be said that the speaker 'realises' or
'appreciates' how relationships need hard work... such language might subtly, or not so subtly, indicate that the analyst is aligning himself or herself with the position taken by the respondent.
As discussed earlier, I was conscious about the influence I had on the research participants and I aimed to be as neutral as possible throughout the interviews.
However, it was increasingly apparent that the influence of the neoliberal world in which I lived and my own environmental convictions had potentially wider reaching effects on the research I was conducting. I did review the literature I had critiqued and the chapters I had drafted. I considered the way I had presented my data and the conclusions I had drawn. It was difficult to discern if the work was ‘neutral’.
However, my continuing exploration of this problem elicited different views.
Rubin and Rubin (1995) argue that ‘neutrality is probably not a legitimate goal in qualitative research’ (p.13). Plummer (1991) claims that, ‘to purge research of all these “sources of bias” is to purge research of human life’ (p.156). The contention from these scholars is that it is impossible to be a neutral or objective researcher.
There is no ‘view from nowhere’ (Nagel 1986). As social researchers, and human
26 This paper was published in an online journal and does not include page numbers
104
beings, we are rooted in society and therefore inevitably subject to sources of bias.
The key to valuable research is to acknowledge and evaluate these biases as part of the project. Burman (2003)27 argues that ‘there is no way of avoiding adopting some kind of position. The question therefore is rather which, and on what grounds, is this evaluated’. In writing up the project I have consistently acknowledged the influence of neoliberalism on my work and my own biases as someone who cares about protecting the climate. I have not attempted to ‘nullify these variables’, but I have tried to ‘be aware of, describe publicly and suggest how these have assembled a specific “truth”’ (Plummer 2001, p.157).
4.3.2 A Critical Approach
The second dilemma I faced as a researcher is also rooted in my environmental convictions. In this instance it was not based on the problems
associated with bias, it was based on my desire to ‘make a difference’ in the area of climate change. My research in this area was driven primarily by my aspiration not only to learn about the problems of inaction on climate change but to use that
knowledge to implement change. However, this intention to find a ‘better’ way to do things was not consistent with a discursive approach. In discourse analysis there is no
‘right’ or ‘wrong’; there are only different constructions of reality.
My theoretical framework was rooted in the contention that there was a more complicated process operating than simply individual barriers to behaviour change.
Discourse analysis was a relevant way to analyse these processes and understand how we were in the current situation with the problem of inaction on climate change.
However, it did not offer any solutions that I could incorporate into the project. At the beginning of the project I found this very difficult. I wanted to use discourse analysis because it was drawing out some very important issues but I was concerned about the
‘impact’ of my research if I could not offer a prescription for change.
The reconciliation of these two concerns emerged as I began to clearly define the aims of my research. Rather than viewing discourse analysis as an obstacle to
‘making a difference’, I began to understand it as a ‘stepping stone’ to this end. The project is critical in the sense that it questions the foundations of our knowledge about climate change. Fairclough (1985) argues that, ‘for critical discourse analysis... the
27 This paper was published in an online journal and does not include page numbers.
105
question of how discourse cumulatively contributes to the reproduction of macro structures is at the heart of the explanatory endeavour’ (p.753). The conclusions of the project tell us how climate discourses construct ‘truth’ in society and the effect this has on (in)action on climate change. This knowledge provides a foundation for further research. We need to understand how a process works before we can think about changing it. The value of my research was rooted in this first step.
4.4 Conclusion
The duration of the project was 3 years and 10 months, spanning from October 2008 to July 2012. My research interests and general aims have remained consistent throughout this time. The theoretical framework and empirical analysis have been in a state of constant reassessment and development until the very end. I faced many challenges during the research process, particularly in terms of access and this had implications for any generalisations that could be drawn from the project.
There were also important considerations in terms of reliability and validity. As with any qualitative project, there are limitations to some aspects of the research.
However, I believe that the project is valuable as a detailed qualitative analysis of the climate champion scheme and the relationship between discourse and behaviour. I have endeavoured to work through any limitations in the project and overcome these obstacles. I have spent a long time considering my own personal biases and, although it is not possible for the project to be ‘neutral’, I have
acknowledged my own position and any influence this may have had on the research.
Finally, I have reconciled my own critical standpoint with a discursive approach. The project is purely explanatory, but my own standpoint is not purely constructivist. It is my personal contention that there are better ways to deal with climate change than those that currently dominate. It is my hope that an explanatory approach can provide a basis for more normative work.
106