El modelo institucional en la constitución de 1998

and help to pursue mediation practice, but it was always with an exceptional case or when they had more time than usual. It was partly due to this expressed interest but also to a hunch - Dalton (1964) - that I speculated that practitioner research conducted within the context of an ordinary fieldwork unit may well aid the accessibility of the ideas to other workers. Research often appears dis­ tant to practitioners, particularly when conducted by external researchers who are seen as having no empathy with the 'real' work. This suggests it is necessary to include other workers and for the research to be part of their daily experience. As one officer commented:

"...if people are involved in it (research) they are more likely to take notice of the actual work that is done..."

So the research aims and the chosen methodology were inter-related, and had a two-fold intention:

1) to detail the degree of interest and understanding of mediation within the Service by interviewing and

talking to probation officers, and to observe whether this changed over time;

2) to introduce the ideas and practice of mediation while working alongside probation officers in an advisory, encouraging and supportive way, hence to see if such a method would stimulate practice and encourage its development.

My status as a researcher

The methodological approach was conducted along action research principles using the techniques of participant observation, conversational interviewing and consultative "teaching11. As I am a practitioner who remains involved with the working Division, the research necessarily included an assessment of my own position in relation to individual colleagues and the Service generally. Familiarity with the Service, with procedures, pressures and personalities, can on the one hand be enlightening, but on the other, can be inhibiting:

"...ethical questions are implicit about relations with informants and collection of data ... each division ... has an unprinted code about loyalty due it. ... the social investigator must sort out his values and obligations and weigh them repeatedly throughout the research process... he is committed to give as clear a picture to what exists as his limitations allow. Some of his research subjects will oppose him ... he may have to feel his way, protect his values while reconciling them with those of others."

Dalton (1964) pp 59-61 Thus I have attempted to build in an awareness of my own prejudices and value systems. This has been partly done by interviewing myself on the same schedule as my colleagues

and by discussing every step of my research, data interpretation and personal feelings about my role with my supervisor. I had to constantly check my personal hopes and desires in relation to my role and its potential influence on others and the service, as well as to remain able to present an impartial argument. My lengthy experience as a professional colleague was hoped to provide a foundation of trust and credibility within the division; but an awareness of the "over-security" of this is also noted. For example, as regularly happens with the plethora of circulated material, a colleague may not read a discussion document that is circulated, particularly if it is known that someone else will speak to it, but they make time for it if formally told to do so. In practice however, problems proved minor and were greatly outweighed by the advantages of my position and familiarity. Despite this, people outside South Yorkshire discussing my research, whether researchers, academics or other probation personnel, would constantly ask the question "how do you get away with it?"; they were basically questioning my status to do research and my position as a researcher. Not only was I not a researcher and had no previous experience, but I am only a maingrade probation officer. Those who have questioned me have done so from two stand-points:

1) that as a probation officer I am not in a suitable position in the hierarchy (high enough up the hierarchical ladder) to interview those above me; the assumption being that to do so is presumptious and

questionable in terms of the political confidentiality of the views of those in positions of power and authority, and

2) that as a probation officer I do not have the background or understanding to effectively research an organisation of which I am a part.

These are both points of which I have been acutely aware throughout my research. In practice neither appeared to present problems, but retrospective analysis suggests that my inability to affect decisions and the continuation of my marginal position may have been due in part to my main grade role. This is considered in Chapter 14. Although, during my contact with officers and throughout my inter­ viewing this presented few problems, and may be due to forethought and constant awareness, but also due to care­ ful planning before the research even reached the official proposal stage. Having worked as part of a Special Project Team for three years, I had achieved a measure of credibility and standing as a probation officer working on something "different11, and the experience had developed my expertise in working in "alternative" ways. I had acted as an advisor to other Services setting up similar projects, had spoken at conferences and seminar groups at various levels, both within and outside the Service, so to an extent I was not seen as an ordinary probation officer when I moved to research mediation practice. Prior to the research being accepted I had discussions with members of the Service hierarchy, which allowed an informal test­

ing of my own potential value as a researcher, as well as the value of the research for the benefit of the Service itself. This allowed the development of trust and the growth of awareness that my proposal would be of benefit to the Service.

That many of my sample knew me already, was a crucial factor as it aided the acceptance of myself and my role -despite my main grade status. Personality was probably important here. One manager commented when asked if my status concerned him:

"no, I think you're in a better position as a probation officer to talk to everyone anyway, because of who you are I can't see anyone not wishing to talk frankly to you, you have a reputation for working well and for being straight and trustworthy."

Main grade probation officers also seemed to feel happy with my position. Without exception all colleagues stated they were happier being interviewed by myself than by an external or unknown researcher. They said that it made it easier to talk as they felt more at ease, and also they felt understood in terms of their job and the language of probation officers. As I was a main grade officer they also felt equal and able to be realistic and honest, which they would not have done with someone of a higher grade. Many also remarked on a therapeutic element in the discussion interviews, perhaps due to my approach but also due to their ability to talk freely, and explore their own views and feelings. This aspect of research interviews has been noted by others - for example by Schein:

"The researcher... must assume the role of a clinical interviewer who is helping the (interviewee) search in his own mind for the deeper levels of explanation that can help both persons decipher the basic assumptions of the culture (of the organisation)."

Schein (1985) p.116 Considering the second stand point: that I have no background as a researcher. This is perhaps answered by my previous experience and standing in the three year Special Project. This not only placed me in the position of working in a different way but also created a certain amount of detachment from the probation culture by removing me from mainstream work. Whether I am an effective researcher cannot be answered until the end of this present project; although it must be a relevant question for all research projects and open to a mixture of interpretations. The impression gained so far is that it can be valuable to have a practitioner conducting research, particularly in order to aid the accessibility of the ideas; Such issues are developed by Finneman and Eden (1979), Holman (1987), Davies (1986) and Newton

(1988).

A practitioner researcher

So I decided that I can get away with it! (a) due to my