Factores limitantes de la comercialización internacional…

One of the characteristics of qualitative inquiry is that the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis. As a human being, a researcher:

…is able to be immediately responsive and adaptive; (s/he) can expand his or her understanding through nonverbal as well as verbal communication, process information immediately, clarify and summarise material, check with respondents for accuracy of interpretation, and explore unusual or unanticipated responses. (Merriam, 2009, 15)

A researcher as the primary instrument for data collection and analysis has disadvantages, mainly because of the subjectivities or biases of human nature. It is crucial to consider this matter when collecting and interpreting the data because those subjectivities shape these processes. As Tracy (2010, 841) points out, ‘research has to be marked by honesty and transparency about the researcher’s biases, goals, and foibles as well as about how these played a role in the methods, joys, and mistakes of the research’.

One of the key issues for identifying how a researcher’s biases influence data collection and analysis is her/his identity in relation to the study being conducted. This means that

one of the decisions the researcher has to make is whether s/he considers her/himself an outsider or an insider. An outsider does not belong to the group being studied whereas an insider is part of the group (Bryman, 2004). It also means that a researcher has to be aware of her/his life story or background that could influence or shape their study (Tracy, 2010).

As I already explained in the introduction to this study, my experience as a social worker in Chile prompted my interest in looking at secondary school students’ understandings of citizenship and CE. Also, my interest in secondary schools was motivated by student movements since April 2011. Even when my experience as a social worker has been crucial for my research choices, I consider that it is my life story that has motivated me more to study topics related to citizenship and students. I was raised in Argentina and moved back to Chile during my adolescence, so my experience allows me to compare two quite different education systems and to reflect on how these systems, and specifically how schools, can shape, define, help or hinder the development of understandings and practices of citizenship. As a student in a secondary school in Argentina, I had more opportunities to interact with my classmates in each class, to learn by doing in different contexts within the community and develop a more parallel relationship with my teachers. On the other hand, even when the school gave more opportunities for students to express their opinions, to propose different activities to be developed in the different classes and participate in them freely, I had to overcome discrimination for being an ‘immigrant’, a situation that put me in a disadvantaged position to my classmates. In Chile, I experienced what it is to be a student in a school under a rigid educational system; a consequence, I might argue, of the neoliberal and authoritarian dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. With respect to practising citizenship within the context of my Chilean school, I cannot identify any meaningful opportunities for that beyond those developed during celebrations of the school’s anniversary.

As previously mentioned, my life story influenced my research decisions but also, I had to be aware of its effect on the way I collect and analyse data. Thus, I had to decide whether I am an insider or an outsider in conducting my study. Although my first approach was to consider myself an outsider as I am neither a member of the schools nor a teacher, and have never worked in the schools being studied, I also thought I am an insider to some degree. This means that the fact I am Chilean, studied in southern Chile and know the context of the city in which the study was conducted, allow me to perceive myself as someone who can connect with students and their life experiences. I could not,

then, choose one or another positionality but both, i.e. I am an outsider and an insider in conducting my research. In adopting this approach, I had to keep in mind what Tracy calls relational ethics that involve an ethical self-consciousness in which researchers are mindful of their character, actions, and consequences on others. As someone who could connect with the researched, I prioritised mutual respect and dignity (Ellis, 2007).

Another issue to take into account is that being and identifying myself as a social worker could have been a risk. The role played by a social worker in Chile is related to the ability to solve social problems; thus, it is someone who holds power to make certain situations change. Introducing myself as a social worker would have raised participants’ expectations of me pursuing the improvement of families’ situations and schools and being a mediator between the school community and local authorities. In consequence, an unequal relationship of power would have been established between me and the participants in the study (Cieslik, 2003). To avoid this issue, I made it clear I was a researcher and decided to not mention my professional background as the key feature of my identity. I shared I had the opportunity of studying social work at the university and that my professional and academic experience allowed me to study abroad.

Finally, being a thirty-seven years old woman presented advantages and disadvantages. On one side, it created a sense of ‘respect’ from the students towards a woman or ‘miss’, who is a more mature age but younger than most teachers at school. My concern was that students would not feel comfortable in our interactions during the fieldwork, but the fact that I was a student seemed to facilitate the communication between the researcher and participants. On the other side, I had to face the fact that Chile is one of the most unequal countries in terms of gender issues and work opportunities for women. Thus, being a woman relatively younger than heads teachers, challenged me to be always very clear regarding the purpose of my research and how to conduct the fieldwork.