As this chapter has demonstrated, access to Muslim family carers in this research was challenging at times. Muslim carers may be seen to be a hard-to-reach group. Atkinson and Flint (2001) acknowledge how access to potentially marginalised and excluded groups can be difficult, especially if ‘knowledge of insiders’ are not previously known to the researcher. Similarly to Ashencaen Crabtree et al.’s (2008)
experiences, as a non-Muslim, and having limited knowledge about
142 regrettable social gaffes. Higginbottom and Serrant-Green (2005) note that whilst information about a research group can be gained from books, it is a ‘guide rather than a true record of lived experience’ (p.676). I think a consequence of this revelation was that at times I found undertaking the fieldwork quite emotionally demanding. This was not because I disliked the people I was researching, on the contrary I found myself in awe of the incredible strength of character and
dedication that my respondents showed towards their caring role. I think it was because I felt guilty about how little I could offer them in relation to what they were offering me.
Higginbottom and Serrant-Green (2005) argue that academic research is often carried out to pursue career goals. Consequently, the ‘results may have very little effect on the self identified needs of the target study populations’ (p.667). These issues are discussed in section 3.4.2. This left me feeling guilty as I was aware that the more respondents I spoke to and the more they revealed about their experiences and needs, the more they were helping me to achieve my research aims.
Most of the carers I spoke to rarely had time for themselves and tried to wedge speaking to me between caring, cooking meals, going to the doctors, going to the Mosque and caring for other children. Similarly, many of the professionals I interviewed had dedicated their lives to their occupations. For example, Basir, the head of Organisation A, told me that he set up the organisation after his wife was severely disabled in a
143 car accident. He would drive up to ten people with disabilities and their carers from their home to a hired out space where he cooked them dinner and drove them home again. He told me that sometimes he would have to return the following day to clean up. He reiterated a number of times during the interview that no one can understand what it is like to care for a loved one unless they have direct experience of doing so. As we spoke about his financial difficulties to keep his organisation running, a girl who had been abandoned by her family because of her disabilities cried. She was used to being fed by Basir but because of our interview another volunteer was feeding her. I felt guilty both about taking his time when others seemed to have a greater need for his attention, and for the scholarship I was in receipt of, which could have significantly helped his organisation. As I discuss in section 3.4.2, I subsequently offered to write a summary of the research for each organisation I accessed and present the main findings at a carers meeting. However, at times this felt like a small offering.
Higginbottom and Serrant-Green (2005) argue that it is being in the field that teaches the researcher the most about fieldwork. Retrospectively, I am aware that some of the decisions I made about the fieldwork
process were dependent upon a number of emotional encounters. My conduct during the research process became of particular interest to me when I realised that there were some aspects of my identity that I chose to divulge and some that I chose to withhold. This ‘research identity’ was unique because it was created gradually as I learned what was
144 ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ behaviour in the research group to which I was previously unfamiliar with. This idea adheres to Goffman’s theory of ‘role segregation’ and ‘audience segregation’ (1956), whereby individuals choose to display particular characteristics depending on the circumstances and audience. The quote below describes how
embarrassment occurs when audience segregation breaks down:
Often important everyday occasions of embarrassment arise when the self projected is somehow confronted with another self which, though valid in other contexts, cannot be here sustained in harmony with the first. Embarrassment, then, leads us to the matter of “role segregation.” Each individual has more than one role [...] In every social system, however, there are times and places where audience segregation regularly breaks down and where individuals confront one another with selves incompatible with the ones they extend to each other on other occasions (Goffman, 1956: 269).
My ‘self projected’ seemed confronted with ‘another self’ during a tea break with a support worker. She asked me if I was married and I replied honestly that I was not married but lived with my partner. She was shocked by this and said ‘I thought you were traditional’.
Subsequently, she began to ask me questions about the nature of an unmarried relationship. She also made reference to a character in the soap ‘Eastenders’ who is defined by her sexual promiscuousness. I found myself justifying an aspect of my identity that I am generally private about. I was also embarrassed and concerned about any
145 professional repercussions that I may experience as a result of
revealing an aspect of my personal identity that she explained to be unacceptable and inconceivable in her culture.
The above experiences led me to question conducting research with Muslims as a non-Muslim. I was very aware that my appearance and cultural practices were often different from those I sought to interview and that this could have a significant effect on the outcomes of my research. Higginbottom and Serrant-Green (2005) note that little
research is available on the ethnicity of the researcher and the influence and effect it has on the research group.
My research experiences revealed a number of issues and sensitivities that are present when cross-culturally accessing sensitive groups including language barriers and knowledge of the culture. For example, Kaleemah, a Muslim development worker from Organisation B
described how she was chosen for her role because she understood the cultural beliefs surrounding disability that are specific to a particular region of Pakistan. For example, she talked about how some carers are concerned that their disabled relatives are possessed by an evil spirit. She argued that she could sensitively inform carers of alternative perspectives because of her knowledge of the religion and culture. In this way, it may be argued that her ‘insider’ status within this particular group of Muslim carers allowed her to be more sensitive and
146 Muslim researcher, I was an ‘outsider’ to my research group. The issue of insider/outsider research is explored in more detail below.
Corbin Dwyer and Buckle (2009) argue that reflecting on one’s position as either an insider or an outsider is an essential aspect of conducting qualitative research. They assert that there are costs and benefits to both. They use reflections of their own research experiences to conclude that being an insider may provide a level of trust and openness from participants that may not be present otherwise.
Additionally, one has a starting point of commonality that affords access to groups that may be closed to outsiders. These assertions provide context to my own access issues, where I also experienced challenges when attempting to access a group with whom I previously had little experience or knowledge (see Atkinson and Flint (2001) for an in-depth discussion of accessing hard-to-reach or hidden populations. Also, see section 3.4 for a detailed discussion of access and sampling).
Conversely, Corbin Dwyer and Buckle (2009) also argue that as an insider, one ‘might raise issues of undue influence of the researcher’s perspective’ (p. 59), projecting their own experiences and knowledge of a social group on to the research findings. Furthermore, some
researchers have documented how their being a perceived insider by their research participants has led to assumptions being made about aspects of their identity (e.g. Yip, 2008). Nazir Chaudhry (1997)
147 as a Pakistani Muslim researcher studying Muslims. She explores her difficulties in maintaining good relations with her research participants as she held fundamentally different beliefs about empowerment and feminism, which created tension. In light of these kinds of challenges, Corbin Dwyer and Buckle (2009) go on to suggest that one does not need to be an insider, or a member of a group being studied to adequately represent their experiences. Instead, they posit that:
[T]he core ingredient is not insider or outsider status but an ability to be open, authentic, honest, deeply interested in the experience of one’s research participants, and committed to accurately and adequately representing their experience (p.59).
These arguments are echoed by Elam and Fenton (2003), who argue that although the presence of an ethnically matched interviewer is advantageous in some circumstances, it can also cause some
respondents to assume that the interviewer knows what they are trying to say without giving a full explanation:
The presence of an ethnically matched interviewer can make it difficult for respondents to criticise cultural norms or can give rise to reluctance to admit to deviance from accepted behaviour or values […] during a study of ethnicity and sexual health (Elam et al. 1999) a Muslim interviewer found that Muslim respondents tended to provide limited explanations during the interviews. Instead, respondents would reply with comments such as ‘as you know’, or ‘as you have experienced too’ or ‘as we know from the Qur’ān’ (p. 23)
148 In this way, it may be more useful to regard cross-cultural research, and the positioning of being an insider or outsider researcher, as being a highly complex and unpredictable issue, which is likely to produce particular accounts (Archer, 2002). Consequently, repeating the
research using an ethnically matched, or Muslim interviewer would be a useful addition to knowledge. This is discussed in more detail in
Chapter Seven.
Researchers are also increasingly acknowledging the importance of gender as a significant factor in the experience of researching others (Merchant and Ingram Willis, 2008; Merriam, 2009). Due to the nature of some research projects, some have argued that being a woman in the field limits the potential to explore certain male dominated social groups, especially in typically patriarchal societies (e.g. Altorki and Fawzi El-Solh, 1988). On the other hand, some researchers argue that being female is of paramount importance, especially when studying women. This has been a particular concern for feminist researchers, who have urged that research on women should be carried out by women. Citing Scottm (1989: 69-70), Kvale (1996: 73) describes
feminist research as ‘“qualitative research by women ‘on’ women” with a desire to make sense of women’s lives and experiences; it “must take women’s oppression as one of it basic assumptions”; it is research informed at every stage by an acknowledged political commitment’.
149 carers, in keeping with existing knowledge (see section 2.3.1), the majority of my respondents were women, and I observed that my
presence as a woman was of particular significance during the research process. Here, my gender seemed to act as a common identity whilst in the field that transcended ethnic or religious differences. For example, many of my respondents assumed that we shared common identities based on my being a woman. I was regularly referred to as a wife or mother, who understands what it means to care for others. Similarly, all respondents who wore a niqab that covered their face and head, would
remove it when we were alone in an interview, or in a social setting away from men. I viewed this as a powerful symbolic act of my being accepted across the boundary from formal public life, into the private, domestic and social lives of the women I met. In this way my ‘gender sameness’ seemed to make me accepted as an ‘insider’.
I came to interpret this affiliation that many of the carers, professionals and gatekeepers seemed to express as a form of ‘sisterhood’. There has been significant scholarly investment in the concept of ‘sisterhood’, which has been instrumental in feminist discourses. Its classic definition is saliently captured by Thornton Dill (1983):
Sisterhood is generally understood as a nurturant, supportive feeling of attachment and loyalty to other women which grows out of a shared experience of oppression. A term reminiscent of familial relationships, it tends to focus upon the particular nurturant and reproductive roles of women and, more recently, upon commonalities of personal
150 experience (p. 132).
The definition of ‘sisterhood’ that Thornton Dill (1983) offers echoes my observations whilst in the field, where my gender seemed to have a positive uniting presence, which at times seemed to transcend class, ethnicity and race. These assertions are presented with some caution, whilst I also acknowledge the challenges that the concept of ‘sisterhood’ faces within feminist debates. Hooks (1986) concisely describes these challenges by arguing that:
Sisterhood evoked by women's liberationists was based on the idea of common oppression. Needless to say, it was primarily bourgeois white women, both liberal and radical in perspective, who professed belief in the notion of common oppression. The idea of 'common oppression' was a false and corrupt platform disguising and mystifying the true nature of women's varied and complex social reality. Women are divided by sexist attitudes, racism, class privilege, and a host of other prejudices (p.127).
Although I do not seek to challenge these important arguments; within the context of my research, I do assert that my female presence whilst in the field acted as a unifying identity between myself and the women I interacted with, which at times manifested in what seemed to be a form of ‘sisterhood’.
151 3.9.4 SUMMARY
This section presented a reflexive account of the research process. It first considered some of the key debates in the area. Ethnography was then explored in relation to how aspects of the methodology have influenced me in adopting a reflexive and sensitive approach to the study. A brief discussion of my speaker location attempted to provide context for how I came to conduct this research, and how my
experiences may colour my own perspectives on certain issues. This preceded a discussion of how certain aspects of my identity (for
example, my being a white, non-Muslim woman) may have impacted on my experiences within the field.