DOCUMENTO DE INFORMACIÓN GENERAL Y COMPROMISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD

Research is the gathering of knowledge - more usually, not for its own sake, but for its use within a variety of different applications. It is about control, resource allocation, information and equity. It is about power (Te Awekotuku: 1 99 0 .

Confidentiality for the participants was essential and discussed at the beginning of each interview. Contributing my personal information was always a matter of not intruding upon the woman's story and of only adding information which I felt comfortable sharing and thought might add to the discussion. Most of the women chose to use pseudonyms and where the women were known to each other I also reiterated the importance of confidentiality between participants in relation to my role as researcher and was not drawn into any discussion of other women's issues.

One woman was particularly concerned about anonymity. She believed that her circumstances were so unusual that she would be identified no matter how careful I was as her way of getting a home was somewhat unorthodox. She also challenged me on my use of her material. She identified what she perceived to be her advantages and was concerned that because she was able to improve her situation, others less fortunate might be judged less competent. She was worried that her information might be used by government agencies to harm or modify other women in similar circumstances. This interaction was lively and extremely useful for developing my ideas concerning methodological issues. My impression of her actions was that they involved considerable ingenuity and I could not think that she was anything other than deserving of the outcome which she achieved. However I did appreciate her concerns and after some discussion she decided to withdraw from the second interview. She felt she was letting me down as she had agreed to do two interviews but I reminded her that I had always given the assurance that she could withdraw at any point which reassured her. I also said that I did not have to use the first interview if that was what she wanted. She decided to let me use the first interview on my agreement to get her permission for any quotes used in the writing up of the thesis which I obtained at the end of the research.

Two of the respondents were known to me which resulted in a different style of interview where some information was taken as understood and some was divulged which may not have been disclosed under different circumstances. One of these interviews was difficult which we both acknowledged when I called her back to make sure all was well. I had noted that during the interview I was attempting to protect the woman by frequently checking to see if she wanted to continue and assuring her that she could stop at any time as I was not sure that she would have felt able to do so. This woman admitted that she had difficulty maintaining her boundaries and perhaps disclosed more than she would have liked in terms 'of a formal interview as opposed to our personal friendship.

This point raises ethical issues as noted by Finch (1986) and Graham (1984) who discuss this problem and observe that even where a friendship is not involved, the type of atmosphere encouraged in this sort of interview can easily be abused with a woman confiding to a degree that she later regrets. The fact that the woman

mentioned was able to edit her transcript partly redressed the issue but this type of interviewing makes the boundary between the research and the personal appear blurred at times, especially when a lot of effort goes into bridging the gap between the researcher and the women researched. I believe it is important to be open to any possibilities and constantly sensitive to the interviewees so that the interview becomes a continuous process of reflexivity and response. Certainly my own vulnerabilities were also brought into focus in a couple of the interviews where we had areas in common.

An important issue is personal supervision outside academia which I regard as being very necessary. This is a tradition within other cultures such as Maori (Smith: 1986, Stokes: 1985, Te Awekotuku:1991) and Pacific Island peoples but not necessarily among Pakeha. I sought quite specific supervision at a community level from the agency I work for and from a worker in the area of housing. This support was particularly important after a challenging interview where a woman was upset, or I was concerned about her circumstances, or just needed to discuss what had happened. It also kept me grounded within the community environment. The effect of interviews on the interviewer is also rarely discussed in academic literature. Apart from supervision, I found the keeping of a journal, which noted my process and thoughts as the research progressed, to be particularly helpful and as a result I learned a great deal.

Although the respondents were invited to contact me at any time, and some did, an opportunity for input arose with the return of their transcripts, if they wished, for comment and editing. In most cases this proved useful with the exception of two cases where the return of the transcript was not found to be beneficial. I had experimented by editing my transcribed comments and questions for brevity and leaving the women's verbatim. This was a mistake for one woman who commented that it contrasted negatively with the way she expressed herself making my words seem more articulate and hers not. She was distressed by what she termed her inarticulateness and what she perceived to be her depressing circumstances. The two women both commented that reading some of the material did make them more aware of their difficult circumstances. The situation of another of the women was too traumatic at the time and she did not feel able to read her transcript. These

situations were resolved through discussion by spending some time with these women talking through the issues and attempting to establish parameters which would be more helpful to them as well as dealing with their feelings as a result of the interviews.

Subsequently, for the second interview I decided to transcribe my words in the same way I did the women's. I also edited the women's comments a little for clarity and obvious grammatical errors. I made a point of talking about the transcriptions and what conversation looks like when written down. While I had made it clear, both in the written information given and verbally, that I or the Women's Centre could be contacted if necessary, a call to these two women immediately after the interview would have been helpful. My learning from this was not to wait until the transcriptions had been done before contacting the women, but to call each one a day or so after the interview as well as after they had received the transcript. I did this after the second interview which seemed more satisfactory as far as I could tell. I would question the effects of verbatim transcriptions, as used in some forms of analysis, on the women interviewed when transcriptions are returned for the reasons I have discussed. This experience highlights the problems associated with participatory methods which may be 'correct' but not helpful to the participants and researchers need to be sensitive to this issue. The support from the Women's Centre which I have been able to offer participants has at times been particularly important and was utilised by two of the women.

While accepting that women's experience is central to qualitative feminist research it seems necessary to take this further by questioning the basis for collecting this information and considering who is going to benefit. This raised a number of questions for me which focussed on why women would want to participate and as

a result I included the question as part of the evaluation in my final interviews. "To

act only as the provider of knowledge and insights can be to abdicate responsibility for how that knowledge is used" (Finch: 1986:212). This issue has also been raised by Finch (1986) and Bryson (1979), "[e}nthusiasm for promoting qualitative research as being of direct usefulness to policymakers must be tempered by a recognition that this is an issue in which ethical issues are raised in a sharp form" (Finch: 1986:20 1). There is a danger that the information may be co-opted by

government policy agencies and used for targeting harmful policies on the single mothers submitting the information, an issue also raised by one of my informants and mentioned previously in this chapter. Alternatively, they are viewed as a valuable source of information over which they have no control. Information concerning undeclared income illustrates this point. So often, in Stanley and Wise's terms (1990), " ... [women's] experiences are institutionally specified, named, theorised, organised and so colonised"(34). Also of importance is the power we hold as researchers being "in a position of power to translate and interpret" (Standing: 1998: 189). This point is emphasised in the quote at the beginning of this section (Te Awekotuk.u: 1991). I hoped that through the flexible processes used and the return of the transcribed interviews which were collected and included their comments in some cases that this power differential might not be as marked.

The role of advocacy, "to intercede for another" (Collins English Dictionary: 1991) and giving voice to those who would not normally be heard, as Finch (1986) points out, may only have the effect of "reinforcing popular prejudices about the incapacity of that group to act on it s own behalf" (216). Certainly an advocate seems to me to be someone who is appointed by the group rather than self appointed. This issue was of particular importance to me and became more so as the research progressed. In the research context it is usual to keep to the negotiated role of writing up the information, any further roles being designated by the participants. However to engage in public debate regarding the research issue, findings and associated policy on the participants behalf is another matter and I see this as one of the expectations. A key question to be constantly asked and identified by Bryson (1979), Boyles (1994), Chile (1996), Lunn (1997) and Waring (1989) is, 'who benefits'? Much research can be said to benefit those in dominant positions and the fact that it is more often carried out by experts alienated from those researched, can create a separation and dependency that is not helpful. Some 'idea of what a policy response might be to a situation, in the form of recommendations, is also an important part of the research. The question, 'who benefits', has to be asked in terms of whether the information, if made public, will further marginalise different women's positions by reinforcing society's prejudices and generating more punitive policies.