It has been suggested that in ‘whatever way researchers are an instrument of, or in, their research, their emotions, memories and subjectivity will affect their understanding […] such that in order to engage with the lives of others, they must be willing and able to engage with their own’ (Haynes, 2011: 143). However, as Collins and Cooper (2014) assert, ‘graduate courses do little to address feelings evoked through the research process and how to handle them’ (:89). This is important since, as Collins and Cooper further suggest, ‘qualitative inquiry is unique because it requires both emotional maturity and strong interpersonal skills to “collect data” or, more precisely, hear the stories of others and use their words to describe phenomena’ (2014: 89). However, research ethics boards do not often account for the emotions inherent in the research process, which Aluwihare-Samaranayake refers to as ‘emotional risk’. She suggests that ‘the static, formalized guidelines may render invisible the inherent nature of tensions, fluidity, and uncertainty of ethical issues arising from qualitative research’ (2012: 66). I would assert that, regardless of topic, every PhD researcher has emotion attached to their work because, at the very least, there is so much time, energy and often passion invested in their studies. This has, for me, manifested itself in several different ways including ‘Imposter syndrome’, and a resurgence of anxiety. Whilst I completed the rigorous ethical approval process, I did not feel that my mental health was considered on the forms – although I had to account for how I would be safe physically during fieldwork, stating that I would always be accompanied. In accounting for the non-maleficence and beneficence of the research, I did not consider the impact that pushing myself out of my comfort zone, in order to recruit participants and collect data, would have on me and as a result my anxiety became a factor that limited the scope and quantity of data I was able to collect. Rather, my main concern, following the lead of the ethics forms, was on participants, their experience of the research, and doing justice to their words and accounts. But emotion also arises, of course, within interactions with participants
84
themselves and within my research there has been both laughter and upset – alongside a myriad of other emotions, as I am sure is experienced by other qualitative researchers and as is the nature of personal and in-depth interviews. Hammersley and Traianou suggest that:
there is a common tendency to treat research ethics as primarily or even exclusively about how researchers should treat the people they study, this often being conceptualised in terms of protecting rights and interests, for example avoiding harm, respecting people’s autonomy, and preserving their privacy. [They] argue that, while such matters are important, they do not identify the primary obligation placed upon researchers, which is to pursue research in ways that answer worthwhile questions to the required level of likely validity. Other ethical considerations, [they] suggest, must be evaluated against this background’ (Hammersley and Traianou, 2012: intro).
I would further this argument by suggesting that whilst, of course, research ethics must be concerned with the people being studied, and whilst the pursuit of research is important and worthwhile, the welfare of researchers must also be considered. As Aluwihare-Samaranayake also states, Research Ethics Boards ‘are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring respect for research participants, that participants enter research voluntarily and with sufficient information of the research procedures and possible consequences’ (2012: 73), however she also points out that researchers have to manage and deal with the emotional content of their research. I agree, therefore, with Aluwihare-Samaranayake that more questions should be asked and the emotional conditions of the research further considered, not to judge the effectiveness of the researcher but to ensure they have adequate support should they require it.
Miller and Bell (2002) argue that receiving ethical approval is not the end of the ethics process. They suggest that ‘“consent” should be ongoing and renegotiated between researcher and researched throughout the research process […] satisfactorily completing an ethics form at the beginning of a study and/or obtaining ethics approval does not mean that ethical issues can be
85
forgotten, rather ethical considerations should form an ongoing part of the research’ (Miller and Bell, 2002: 54). I believe this is an important consideration to hold with you whilst undertaking research, for it needs to be remembered that you are representing real people with real stories. This came to play a part, for example, when I felt a certain quotation out of context from a participant would have done them a disservice in terms of their representation. I therefore decided that, rather than misrepresent them, I would remove the quote from my account and discuss their opinions and answers in a different way. Also, as has been discussed above, since the researcher plays such an inherent part in and for the research, they need to be mindful of their own role and their own emotions. Within my research this has been most prevalent in the interview process. Dollard suggests that conducting research such as this means that the researcher ‘pays the price’ of becoming intensely aware of themselves and others (1949: 20). This amounts to qualitative researchers being inherently reflexive of the research, something which Galletta and Cross (2013) believe is important for the interview process. They state that ‘it is fundamental to reflect and act upon the nature of the exchange between the researcher and participant. You may prompt the participant, rephrase questions, and make changes according to the interview situation. In this manner, the idea of researchers as instrument is a frequent point of emphasis evident in qualitative research’ (Galletta and Cross, 2013: 75). Upon reflecting on the research process I realised that my anxiety had been an issue, however as Galletta and Cross allude to here, this reflexivity, whilst potentially causing worry/anxiety from overthinking, can be useful in paying attention to participants and having the right reaction at the right time. For example being empathetic and laughing at appropriate times can lead to better rapport building and a more rewarding interview, as is discussed in greater detail below. I have also come to appreciate that which Arksey and Knight argue that ‘being socially skilled is not the same as being voluble. For example, a quiet and sensitive person may make a far better qualitative interviewer than an egregious party-goer who overwhelms others’ (1999: 41). Once I realised that the majority of participants also felt a little nervous or apprehensive of the
86
process I feel that my empathy took over and I was able to approach the interviews in a more productive way and build rapport with participants.