This research was limited in a number of areas. First, I was not able to observe committee or board meetings, nor was I able to conduct as many focus groups as I had initially planned. It was difficult to discover dates, times and locations of meetings
because the Co-op does not have a main contact person nor staff member. It also does not have a central office or central meeting place. As the committee meeting dates, times, and locations are scheduled by the committee members themselves, I would have had to request personal telephone numbers for individual committee chairs. This might have raised some additional questions regarding privacy and may not have been viewed as appropriate by those who I was attempting to contact. It was unfortunate that the
committee meetings that I would have liked to attend did not take place during my field research visit.
The lack of central office, meeting place, staff member and main contact also constrained my ability to schedule focus group interviews. I had initially believed that I could ask each committee for an hour or so of their time in order, for example, to convene a focus group right after a regularly scheduled committee meeting. However, one committee does not meet formally and I perceived a sense of unwillingness on part of
some of the other committees to schedule focus groups. Also, I worried that any further attempts to organize focus group meetings would be perceived as ‗pushy‘. Many of the members are likely committed to various groups and tasks. They volunteer their time to attend various meetings and take part in community events. I did not want to ‗push‘ for attendance at yet another volunteer meeting. I felt that the information I was receiving through individual interviews would be sufficient for the study.
This research involved my presence in and around the homes of individuals living in a compact and close-knit community. Issues of privacy loom larger in this study than in some other kinds of research. I was worried about engendering a negative reaction.
Too much pushing on my part might have led to the closing of doors—literally and figuratively. Also, the Co-op had recently been the subject of another, separate study and I did not want to contribute to any feeling that people were being over-taxed by
researchers.
As with any study, spending more time at the research site would have been beneficial, specifically to conduct more observation and perhaps to gain access to some committee meetings. With more observation, I could have more fully researched individual and group experiences within the community. I may have uncovered more information about some of the conflictual issues that were revealed in some interviews with individuals. Also, I was not exposed to all members‘ viewpoints as I did not interview all members of the community. The way the study was structured, due to ethical reasons, may have influenced the sample in ways that were out of my control.
More outgoing Co-op members may have come forward to be involved in the study, while other, more reserved members may have chosen to not participate. Each member has their own unique perception of the reality within the community (Danermark et al.
2001). However, I made a conscious effort to interview members from different relevant
‗categories‘, which included founders, non-founders, participators, and non-participators.
More time at the research site would have been valuable but I was limited by personal time constraints. Also, my funding for field research at a distance was limited.
I did not pursue interviews with staff members of the CMHC. If I had been able to do that, it would have added an important dimension to this study. It would have given me an additional opportunity to ‗triangulate‘ by learning more about the perspectives of
an important organization involved with housing co-operatives. However, as this particular co-operative is no longer directly involved with the CMHC, I did not see it as absolutely necessary. The interview with a senior staff member of the Agency for Co-operative Housing seemed sufficient as she was able to address some of the ways that the CMHC viewed and dealt with housing co-operatives.
Another potential limitation is that during the interviews and the periods of field observation, people may have not discussed certain issues in the community that they did not want revealed. Members may have chosen not to share some information in order that particular issues remained undisclosed to the immediate housing co-operative community and/or to the wider (housing co-operative) community.
Finally, the participants and I jointly created the data set, yet during the research process, I made important decisions as to how the data would be interpreted. I was not able to check out my conclusions through any sort of follow-up consultation with the co-op members. That said, I believe that my interpretation of the data is valid. Issues were thoroughly discussed during the interviews, the analysis process was systematic and rigorous, and I paid attention to the need for careful reflection and for reflexivity (Schwandt 2001). Multiple informants raised important questions that might otherwise have remained invisible. Triangulation was accomplished by checking field interview and observation data against other sources of information, including the literature and my personal experiences in a housing co-operative. The latter also helped me to place myself in the members‘ situations and realities (Danermark et al. 2001).
The research is strong is many other aspects as well. My experience living in a housing co-operative for three years prior to conducting this study gave me in-depth, first-hand knowledge of the ways in which housing co-operatives operate, as well as their basic principles. This ‗insider‘ knowledge and experience gave me a certain amount of credibility and confidence, and made interviewing housing members less onerous as they did not have to explain many of the basic concepts that we discussed. Also, I was able to use my own firsthand experience and knowledge and as a point of comparison to the experiences and knowledges of those I interviewed and observed. This background experience was also useful to me in the data analysis phase as I was familiar with the language and terminology used by informants, and with some of the kinds of issues they
were speaking to. I could do this without prejudging what I was hearing and without forcing the data to support or confirm positions that I had come to hold as working suppositions. While I was also able to contribute some of my own examples of learning experiences to the thesis, I was also able to entertain examples that were different in important ways from my own previous lived experiences.
While at the new research site, I was able to take part in an annual event: the Spring Clean-up. This was an excellent opportunity to relate to the members—and them to me. I was able to talk with several of the members while weeding, helping with garbage disposal and recycling, and taking part in the pizza feast and sing-along near the event‘s close. It was a valuable chance to observe members coming together to get work done and to enjoy themselves in other ways after the tasks had been completed. I felt that participation in this event assisted in the building of trust between myself and the
community members. I believe my presence and participation at the Spring Clean-up contributed to the willingness of members to be forthright with me during interviews.