In conducting the current research I have adopted multiple identities. From a student of organisation studies, to a researcher, researcher-as-subject, actor, interviewer, observer, interpreter, consultant, and factotum
(during my time in the field I acted as both a painter and a decorator). Since withdrawing from the field I have become an artist, creator, author, and narrator of the current research text. As such, I subscribe to the view that there are multiple selves within our self; and along with Arnaud (2002: 13), I also subscribe to the view that there is,
… a n eed to resp ect th e fun dam en tal system o f th o ugh t o f th e in dividuals un der study, [an d] that researchers should fully assum e a ro le o f “b rin gin g to ligh t”.
In becoming a full participant in the research study, I believe that as a researcher, I should include my voice. But this will not be done at the expense of other voices. The main aim in my research is to uph o ld th e p rin cip le o f “equivalen t vo ices” (B o je & R o sile, 1994: 9) an d th erefo re, give p rivilege to th e p articip an ts‟ vo ice w h ile w ritin g m y ow n experien ces in to th e text. O n th is, effo rts h ave b een made to ensure that my voice is not given priority over an y o th er vo ice, “fo r th is w o uld co n traven e th e p rin cip le o f equivalen t vo ices an d equivalen t p articip atio n ” (B o je & R o sile, 1994: 9).
3.3.2.1. On multi-voicing practices
To ethnographically represent equivalent voices, the researcher is required to be “m o re creative and exp erim en tal in w ritin g” (A lvesso n et al., 2004: 10) when authoring a text. Writing about personal experiences as consultants, Boje & Rosile (1994) discuss how to present multiple voices in a case study format. The sub-headings they use, such as „D avid‟s C o n sultatio n Story‟ (p 10); „N o ra‟s Sto ry T o ld in A uth o r‟s V o ice‟ (p 11); „D avid‟s Side o f the Sto ry‟ (p .11); „N o ra K in g‟s Side o f th e Sto ry in H er V o ice‟ (p .12); „A uth or‟s Sto ry R eflectio n s‟ (p .13), serve as tem p lates fo r research ers to use for w ritin g a case study. Such a “sch izo p h ren ic” attitude to w ritin g requires research ers to ado p t a so rt o f “controlled immersion” an d develo p a “distin ct fam iliarity” (A rn aud, 2002: 111, citin g Mainsonneuve, 1972 and Matheu, 1986 respectively, with my emphasis added in bold italics), the researcher-as-sub ject treads a fin e lin e b etw een “ab usive self-referen cin g” or “n arcissism ” an d “an objectivist attitude that excludes the researcher from his or her own system and renders all personal implication tab o o ” (A rn aud, 2002: 111). T h is b egs th e questio n , given the exten t o f em o tio n al in vo lvem en t in th e curren t study o n p lace m akin g, is it an o verly “idealistic illusio n ” (B o je & R o sile,
89 1994: 13) to believe that everybody can be given equal voice? Is there such thing as fair play, alluded to ab o ve. W hat m easures w ill I h ave to take to guard again st “ab o lish in g th e o b servee an d in stallin g [m yself] in the latter‟s p lace”, (A rn aud, 2002: 111, citin g B arel, 1984)? I w ill n o w detail the steps I have taken and the methodological devices employed to guard against this.
3.3.2.2. The argument of multiple realties
I h ave decided to ado p t “m ulti-vo icin g p ractices” (A lvesso n et al., 2004: 9) to avoid removing the vo ices o f th e in dividuals un der study. I, “researcher-as-sub ject” reco gn ize th at I am “p art o f th e research p ro ject, a sub ject just like an y o th er” (A lvesso n et al., 2004: 10). By adopting practices of multi-vo icin g, “th e p rivileged p o w er p o sitio n o f th e research er in relatio n to th e research sub ject is reduced” an d in do in g so “th e reader is given a m o re active ro le in in terp reting m ean in g”, (A lvesso n
et al., 2004: 10). T h is p ractice reso n ates w ith P utn am ‟s (1996) o b servatio n s w h ich also call in to question the nature of authorship. She calls for the need to open up research texts to multiple readin gs. C en tral to P utn am ‟s (1996: 384) view , is th e b elief th at “lan guage is fluid an d m ultifaceted”.
A ll th is b rin gs m e b ack to o n e o f M an n ‟s (1992: 279) co n clusio n s th at,
As a researcher, I can only ever have access to an o th er‟s life exp erien ces th ro ugh th e sto ries th ey tell me. There is no objective truth to be found – only a glimpse of subjective experience through the structures, conventions and webs of language.
Following this thread of analysis, in describing what my research project on place making sets out to achieve, and how my story about FifeX fits in, my aim in using narrative is best expressed using the w o rds o f R h o des & B ro w n (2005: 168). “… [A ]ssum p tio n s th at favo ur p luralism , relativism , and sub jectivity” un derp in th is research . [… ] T o auth o r a sto ry is alw ays a creative act”, an d m y sto ry is “just o n e o f m an y th at co uld b e to ld” ab o ut F ifeX . T h ere are m an y research / w ritin g strategies I could employ to produce such stories, of which the high ly qualitative “life sto ry” (M an n , 1992) is just one of them. To reiterate, mine is not a quest for scientific truth, but a quest for meaning (adapted from Rhodes & Brown, 2005: 167). Following on from that, there are multiple truths and multiple realities. On this, the question as to whose reality is being presented in my research text b eco m es redun dan t. T h ere are m ultip le realities. I, as a research er, cann o t ado p t “o b server‟s n eutrality”, act as a “disin terested scien tist”, an d try to rem o ve m y “theoretical ro o ts”, “so cial
90 referen ce p o in ts”, an d “auto m atic reactio n p atterns th at are tran sm itted to us fro m b irth via th e fam ily an d traditio n ” in o rder to search fo r the true understanding of ontological reality (Arnaud, 2002: 104).
To summarise, authors with a bent for constructionism (Boje & Rosile, 1994; Putnam, 1996; Hardy, 2002, and Alvesson et al., 2004) believe that the author must put his / her imprints on the final text, b ut n o t to o m uch . A fter all, “… eth ically, isn ‟t p art o f sch o larly w o rk about giving the silenced a vo ice?” (H ardy, 2002: 17). B ut w h at co n stitutes to o m uch ? A t w h at p o in t do es im p rin tin g o n e‟s voice on the final text start to silence another voice? Alvesson et al., (2004) note one important caveat w h en p uttin g o n e‟s im p rin t on the final text. In order to give greater space to the research participants, as part of a reflexive researcher‟s effo rts to „do w n p lay‟ h is o r h er vo ice, s/h e m ust guard against drawing considerable attention towards him or herself (adapted from Alvesson et al., 2004: 11). It is, therefore, to the consequence of authors leaving too big an imprint on the final text that I now turn.
3.3.2.3. Confessing my sins: recounting my subjective position
M akin g full use m y o w n sub jectivity w h ile attem p tin g to “step o utside o f m y skin ” (Sch w an dt, 2000: 195) -so as to clim b in to th e skin o f an o b servee in o rder to p ursue an “o b jective” in terp retatio n o f his or her subjectively experienced reality- brings me up against several pitfalls. Many researchers have worried about these pitfalls for a long time. Here I want to review those which seem most relevant to my study on place making.
First, by accepting subjectivity I might privilege my own voice over those of the actors. Putnam (1996: 385) n o tes th at, “T h e w ay we produce knowledge in organizational studies is a form of representation- one that is rooted in assumptions about who is privileged and who is un derrep resen ted”. A s such , I run th e risk o f un co n scio usly im p utin g m y p rejudices up o n the observee, which would reveal more about me (researcher as observer) than about the object of observation (Arnaud, 2002: 105). Secondly, if I were to ask research participants questions such as: “A cco rdin g to yo u, h o w m an y so cial classes are th ere?” th en I run th e risk o f p uttin g “a sch o lar in side th e m ach in e” (B o urdieu, 1996: 133). In o ther w o rds, utteran ce o f th e w o rds “so cial classes” unwittingly places a system of social functioning, and a model, in the mind of the individual under study. Such a model, or construct, might not have been there had the question been framed
91 differently. On this, research questions risk producing self-fulfilling answers because when researchers fail to resist implanting themselves in the place of participants, they (researchers) end up puttin g w o rds in to o th ers‟ m o uth s.
Many authors (such as Cunliffe, 2002) have turned to reflexivity to explore possible ways of avoiding these three pitfalls (i.e. abolishing the observee; imputing researcher prejudice upon the observee; putting a scholar inside the research participant). Practising reflexive sociology is now widespread in management inquiry, and especially in narrative research. Rhodes & Brown (2005: 178) note one important caveat in narrative research:
When research is re-cast as a process of telling stories about stories, the means by which those stories are created is an important area for analysis and methodological reflection. T h is draw s atten tio n to th e reflexivity in heren t in th e research en terp rise…
This research is not a treatise on reflexivity but it acknowledges the need to be sensitive to the possible ways in which I as a researcher might infect the research setting and the research text itself, and in turn, the knowledge I produce. This section calls out the main reflexive points that are pertinent to my study on place making, and so my examination of reflexivity is confined to these few paragraphs here. I will however, in a reflexive manner, include a personal account of my research experience at the very end of this text.
3.3.2.4. The call to practice reflexive sociology
T h e reflexivist is an “adven turer-exp lo rer” w h o is aw are o f th e “so cial fo rces th at sh ap e th e kn o w ledge p ro ductio n pro cess” (A lvesso n et al., 2004: 12). It has already been outlined that practices related to multi-voicing are most relevant to this project. Since there is a range of reflexive practices an d n um ero us “co m b in atio n s” (p .12) o f w ays in w h ich th ese can b e p erfo rm ed, A lvesso n
et al., (2004) argue th at “th ere is a need to reco gn ise th is diversity o f ap pro ach es to reflexivity”, h en ce “reflexivities” (p .3, o rigin al em p h asis). T h e auth o rs distin guish b etw een D-reflexivity which stands for deconstruction and declaiming, and R-reflexivity which stands for reconstruction, reclaiming and re-presentation. Drawing on my earlier discussion on situating the author (Putman, 1996; Boje & Rosile, 1994) and pluralism (Hazen, 1994), it is clear that R-reflexive practices have been em p lo yed in m y study to “illum in ate [...an d...] o p en n ew p ath s, aven ues, an d lin es o f in terp retatio n ” (Alvesson et al., 2004: 16) to unsilence the marginalised creative productions of place that are
92 unheard in everyday work interactions and decision-making practices. Alvesson et al., (2004: 16-17) rem in d us th at “m ulti-voicing practices are related to R-reflexivity in that they encourage co n sideratio n o f altern ative view s” an d b ecause R-reflexivity is ab o ut “d evelo p in g an d adding so m eth in g”, en gagin g in th is lin e o f in quiry an d beco m in g an R-reflexivist m ean s th at I am in “th e
construction in dustry rath er th an dem o litio n in dustry” (p .16, m y em p h asis added in b o ld italics). It
is th erefo re, to th e issue o f b ein g in the “co n structio n in dustry” (A lvesso n et al., 2004: 16), or constructionism, that I now turn.