This research had close scrutiny from the University of Tasmania’s Human Research Ethics Committee (Tasmania) Network. Entering into the lived experience of the ‘other’ is complicated in this research given that, as mentioned above, whilst I belong to each of these four rural Anglican communities of faith, I am not a live-in member of any of the four communities. My role as a researcher and as an Enabler (Priest) places me in an ambiguous position. Whilst I am immersed in these four rural Anglican communities of faith at New Norfolk, Channel/Cygnet, St Helens, and Hamilton, I do not actually live in any of them. Therefore, the boundary between ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ is not clear-cut or tightly defined in any way. That is, I am neither ‘other’ nor ‘not other’. Therefore, any ‘covert observation’ (Abercrombie, Hill and Turner 1988) is problematic as I am required by the Ethics Committee to have the approval and signed consent of anyone whom I interview (see Appendix 4).
The research might be used by the parishes to inform and reflect on their practice, which makes the parishes identifiable. Hence, there is a risk that, even though an interviewees’ identity remains anonymous, statements made by interviewees might potentially be identifiable. However, the risk of interviewee identifiability has been mitigated by the use of a pseudonym for each interviewee. As I knew those to be interviewed, two options were given as to where the interviews took place. Those to be interviewed were given the choice to have the interviews either in their own homes, or at the various Parish offices.
Furthermore, in order to make a clear distinction between my work and my research I only used what interviewees said in their interview in my research. Nothing that interviewees said to me outside of the interviews is used in my research. Therefore, if in an interview it became evident that an interviewee was in need of pastoral care it was, in this situation, appropriate to stop the interview, engage in the pastoral situation and then, if appropriate, re-engage with the interview (if the interviewee felt that they were able to continue). All of this was dealt with in an up-front, negotiated way so that the interviewee felt that they were safe and were given the opportunity to decide whether to continue with the interview or not.
In terms of the ethical implications of my situation, I am perceived to be in a position of power in each of these four rural Anglican communities of faith (the reality is that as an Enabler I enjoy no privileges of tenure or even incumbency). Therefore, I needed to be very conscious of whether people whom I interviewed were telling me what they thought I wanted them to tell me; or, on the other hand, were people not telling me things because of my position? In reality, though, I have worked very hard at allowing for honesty within the affairs of the four parishes so that difficult issues can be named and dealt with in healthy and constructive ways, so I hope that this applies as much to the interviews and to my research. Namely, that people were honest.
Another ethical concern is not so much my relationship with the four parishes but my relationship with the Diocese in general and with the Bishop in particular. As a priest, I am licensed by the Bishop to whom I am answerable. In the traditional understanding, any priest is under the ‘orders’ of the Bishop; that is, all clergy in a
diocese swear an oath to obey the Bishop “in all things lawful” (wording from the Oaths and Declarations made prior to licensing for a particular priestly role). So, whilst some people within the parishes might look on me as having power I am, in fact, quite powerless in an institutional sense. This adds another level of ambiguity to my role as a researcher and as an Enabler (Priest).
This ambiguity is further heightened by the critique developed within my research regarding the preferred ‘style’ of being church (namely, the ‘success’ oriented church-growth model) within this Diocese. This model manifests in some parishes (particularly in the larger urban ones) within the Diocese and appears to be unsuited to the needs of all the parishes (particularly in the smaller rural and urban ones) in the Diocese. The reason for this is it seeks to import a model that, because of demographic, cultural, social and philosophical trends at the local, national and international level, is not applicable in every situation. In addition, within such a ‘success’ oriented purpose-driven church model there is little analysis or recognition of the social and cultural trends that have brought about profound changes in society. These changes have also strongly impacted on the Diocese, in which there is both a lack of sociological analysis and a persistent hope that someone or something (a model/plan/scheme/programme) will reinvent the Diocese and save it from further numerical and financial decline.
In such a context, the model of Enabler Supported Ministry is quite anarchic as it is a ‘ground-up’ way of being church that is grounded in the realities of the demographic, cultural, social, and philosophical trends that are evident from the local level to the international level. At the same time, however, ESM is also deeply grounded in theology and church practice. So, it is anarchic from within, while mindful of the riches that come from within and the reality of the effects of the ‘outside’ world. Geertz (1973: 5) emphasises both the search for meaning in culture and in the research of that culture:
The concept of culture I espouse ... is essentially a semiotic one. Believing, with Max Weber, that man [sic] is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning.
Following Geertz (1973), I have sought to explicate and interpret the meanings that the parishioners attach to their lives, behaviours, and actions in the living out of a new way of being church (ESM). In my research, then, I not only describe the meanings that the parishioners attach to their lives of faith, I also seek to understand and interpret them.
One further ambiguity about my role as a researcher and as an Enabler (Priest) is the relationship between the ‘academy’ and the Church. I seek to tell the story of these four rural Anglican communities of faith in a sociologically sophisticated way that takes into account the social and cultural context affecting all levels of our society. I also do this in a theologically relevant way. In taking this approach, I am combining the sociological and the theological. In doing this, I am consequently running counter to the trends in the ‘academy’ where, as Carroll maintains (2008), mainstream Christianity is seen either as irrelevant to the above-mentioned trends (as it has largely been by trying to pretend that they do not exist) or is seen as having lost the capacity to engage any longer in these issues (for the very same reason that it has tried to pretend that it is the sole bearer of truth and that the post- modern world, where pluralism prevails, is not relevant).
Therefore, I am seeking to convey the ‘truth’ of these four rural Anglican communities of faith as they engage with their social context. However, I am not seeking to present these parishes as being custodians of the ‘only’ truth. They represent a response to the complex changes in our society and not the only
response. This research has sought to provide some interpretation of the responses made by each of these four rural Anglican parishes; that is, my interpretation.
The narrative approach to my research has sought to tell the story of the experiences of parishioners in these four rural Anglican communities of faith with particular reference to their lived experience of Enabler Supported Ministry. I have had to make decisions about what aspects of the interviews are more noteworthy than others but, as Karp (1996: 200) maintains, this is unavoidable:
I am suggesting the inappropriateness of using strict numerical guidelines in choosing whether a theme is worth writing about. Although numbers surely matter, the choice is guided as much by
subjective judgements that some things respondents say are more noteworthy than others.
Nevertheless, my engagement with their stories and my subjective interest in and respect for their stories has provided, I think, a measure of clarity in what I tell. In addition, I am convinced that, given the dire situation that the Anglican Church faces in many parts of Australia, and the world, the story I tell will be of more than passing interest. In addition, as Geertz (1973: 23) maintains, the telling of stories can have relevance to other contexts, too:
The methodological problem which the microscopic nature of ethnography presents is both real and critical. But it is not resolved by regarding a remote locality as the world in a teacup or as the sociological equivalent of a cloud chamber. It is to be resolved – or, anyway, decently kept at bay – by realizing that social actions are comments on more than themselves; that where an interpretation comes from does not determine where it can be impelled to go. Small facts speak to large issues, winks to epistemology, or sheep raids to revolution, because they are made to.
Conclusion
In this chapter I have discussed the method and methodology employed in my research. Drawing on both qualitative and quantitative approaches, my research is, nonetheless, primarily qualitative. Using interviews and the collection of demographic data as my method of data collection I have pursued ethnographic research into four Anglican parishes in rural Tasmania. This research tells the story of these four rural Anglican communities of faith. The telling of their individual stories in a sociologically sophisticated way requires that issues such as rural demographics, poverty, rural religious identity and other such phenomena are infused into the description of these four communities. In this, I hope that their stories will, as Karp (1996: 14) puts it, explicate the theoretical issues “of the topic under investigation”.
My telling of the stories of these four rural Anglican parishes in Chapters Five to Eight reveals the underlying Weberian orientation of the thesis; that is, that a theology that is inductive and sociologically informed (ESM) is shown to be informing and shaping the social organization of each of these communities of faith. That is, ESM, facilitates an ‘elective affinity’ between the faith position of these parishes (their theology) and their social context.