Perfil de la respuesta inmune

Ideally, the researcher is an impartial interpreter of observable phenomena. This concept is an ideal type, and cannot in practice be realised. This section aims to uncover those areas in which the ideal type has been deviated from, and outline the measures taken to reduce this deviation to a minimum.

The research topic was not dictated externally, or from a logical progression from earlier projects. The general theme of conflicts between ecocentric values and anthropocentric lifestyles arose from an interest in the underpinnings of the environmental movement, while the selection of genetically modified foods as a case study was at the time an obvious choice for an emergent controversial environmental issue, on which comparatively little research had been done. Thus from the outset, neutrality was compromised; interest in the environmental movement came about partly as a result of sympathy for its aims, and, inevitably, as knowledge of the movement increased, personal standpoints on the various issues within it became more developed. The particular focus on value/action conflicts arose in part from personal experience trying to equate a fairly typical anthropocentric lifestyle in the UK with a value system wholly incompatible with it.

It is difficult to imagine any researcher being able to maintain a detached viewpoint on a case study so universally relevant as food, and so this inevitable interest combined with the interplay between GM food as an issue and the environmental movement removed any chance of uncontrived impartiality.

Throughout the project, and particularly during the fieldwork, this bias in my own viewpoint was kept in mind as much as possible, in order to try to reduce its impact on the project. However, the core of the fieldwork was probing interviewees about ecocentric values, and how those values interact (or not) with

their work. Many interviewees clearly did not grasp the purpose of the interviews, although I made every effort to explain it, and considered that the proper topic for discussion was the detail of their professional work. In those circumstances, the introduction of ecocentric values by the interviewer would immediately cast the interviewer as an environmentalist, whether or not that was the case. Thus it can be argued that when researching this topic, the views of the interviewer are less relevant than at first appear, because the line of questioning necessarily creates the impression that the interviewer is himself ecocentrist. When interviewees seemed to be uncomfortable with this perception, the situation was often improved by explaining that confronting the statements of the interviewee was a useful technique for exploring those statements in greater depth.11 This perception was also reduced by devoting time during the interview for the interviewee to explain their viewpoint in a deliberately non- confrontational atmosphere, with the interviewer’s input being limited to encouraging nods and other comments indicating understanding of the interviewee’s position.

In order to be able to conduct the interviews successfully, and to give credibility to myself as a researcher, it was necessary to familiarise myself with the types of arguments interviewees were likely to use. Although this process did little to alter my own opinions of the issues involved, it did enable more balanced coverage during the interviews, and often evidence of knowledge of the interviewee’s work or views on my part, elicited more detailed responses. Conversely, given that a high proportion of interviewees were scientists, I found my own lack of scientific knowledge helpful when trying to introduce the arguments put forward by environmentalists. Typically: I’m not a scientist,

although I have looked at some scientific literature. I’m finding it really difficult to reconcile the writing of those scientists who appear to be against GM food, who typically write about uncertainty and risk, with those who appear to be in favour, who write about the technology as precise and predictable... This

approach enabled me to probe views about the interpretation of science, without presenting myself as having arrived at a conclusion in advance. Although this device was most commonly used in this context (due to the number of scientists),

11

the stance of an informed, interested lay person seemed to elicit the most useful responses while best concealing my own views.

Away from the interview situation, coping with personal bias is more problematic. While bias necessarily influenced the material that was gathered, I believe that this effect was evident mainly in the selection of the research topic. Once the topic was selected, and the interviews underway, the techniques outlined above reduced the effect of this bias. However, analysing the results involved reducing the data - a process of selecting parts of the data to illustrate the themes running through it. This process carries with it the danger that excerpts are selected, perhaps out of context, to back a conclusion reached in advance. With this in mind, most of the excerpts are long, giving the context in which the remarks were made, and without editing out caveats the interviewee may have added to their statements.

The task of the researcher at this point is to interpret the data he has collected, and this is the next point at which personal agendas can impose themselves on the final result. A possible way round this, which I rejected, is to redefine the role of researcher to be more akin to that of a journalist, providing only excerpts, and allowing the interviewees to speak for themselves12. The supposed removal of bias here is an illusion, since the biased researcher has conducted the interviews, and selected the excerpts. The presentation of interview material is a process of interpretation which contains bias, and picking a point to cease that process based on the false assumption that bias would only exist if the process continued past that point is misleading, and takes away from the researcher the chance to make a useful, if flawed, contribution to the understanding of the reader. I have elected to attempt an interpretation of the data, while keeping in mind, and making explicit the sources of bias.

Miles and Huberman frame the question of the interest of the researcher differently. When considering the ethical dimension of qualitative research, specifically the ‘worthiness’ of the project, they write:

12

In general, a study that is only opportunistic, without larger significance or real meaning for you [the researcher], is likely to be pursued in a shallow way, with less care devoted to design and data collection. First conclusions may not be questioned; follow-up analyses with rival hypotheses may be rare. The report will be written to “look good” rather than to be right.13

This insight concurs with the researcher’s own experience where interest in the material provided much of the motivation to complete what was a long and difficult process. In that sense, while disinterest may have removed some of the bias from the project, it may also have led to non-completion or at least to a lower standard of work.