Access lo the Research Settings

Another ethical issue was the rights of not only the individual, but also of the institutions involved. A certain wariness on the part of the latter was not only likely, but also understandable in view of the possible repercussions of the research in terms of damaging disclosures. Johnson (1976) stresses the need for a multi-stage ‘progressive entrée’ and this was practised in the case of those institutions approached.

Illustrative of the “wariness” previously described is the fact that it had originally been intended to carry out the research in an overt ethnographic study, involving participant observation, within a psychiatric hospital ward. With this in mind, I made an application to "bank” nurse at a local N.H.S. Trust’s psychiatric unit. The interview was conducted by two deputy ward managers who seemed immensely wary o f my interest in research into ethics. Despite my years of practice experience with mentally disordered patients and current registration with the UKCC5, the application was refused on the grounds that're-training’ would be necessary. Given this experience of what might be described as the ‘defensive capabilities’ (Cassell, 1988, p54) of the institution in question, the idea of an ethnographic study was abandoned. Not only would it apparently prove difficult to

enter a hospital for this purpose, hut the research itself was potentially vitiated and lacking in objectivity as a result of this experience.

The potential sensitivity of the topic, at least as far as some professional carers are concerned, was evidenced by this event and by another incident in which a senior male nurse agreed to arrange interviews with his colleagues. After several telephone calls to finalise the details, he cancelled these only hours beforehand on the grounds of his own ill-health. Having promised to reconvene them ‘in the near future’, he failed to do so or to explain the reasons for this.

Renzetli and Lee (1993) give a ‘preliminary definition’ of a sensitive topic as:

‘... one that potentially poses for those involved a substantial threat, the emergence of which renders problematic for the researcher and/or the researched the collection, holding and/or dissemination of research data’

(p5)

They continue, saying that those areas of research most likely to be perceived as threatening are, amongst others, those which enter into ‘... some deeply personal experience’, arc ‘concerned with social control’ and impinge on ‘the exercise of coercion or domination’ (p6). These were, effectively areas upon which the project could have touched and this may explain why these particular “gatekeepers” were reticent in allowing access to their particular "houses” .

All this resulted in a radical rethinking of the research strategy which, in turn, avoided the need for ‘negotiating up’ (ibid.) with a Research Ethics committee.

This was possibly an advantage, since the demands imposed by ethical committees prior to research fieldwork in this particularly sensitive area could involve

' I'hc United Kingdom Care Council, which keeps a record of registered nurses, ensuring that their practice skills are up to date and that they have not been suspended from the register, either temporarily or permanently.

1 4 2

modifications of a kind which have been known to result in the abandonment of a project altogether, due to an inability to meet the exigencies of the committee within the stringent time limits of the research project. Restrictions are occasionally so numerous that it can become ‘impractical or impossible to conduct valid evaluative research’ (Bradbum, 1982 cited in Sieber, 1982, p94).

Another reason for not being discouraged by the prospect of abandoning the intended ethnographic study was that several accounts confirm that the reliability and validity of ethnographic research now trouble researchers (Burgess, 1984), the main concern being that of the impact of this upon the researcher, rather than on those being researched. Given the nature of the project and the results obtained, a study of this type proved neither necessary, nor in retrospect perhaps even desirable, since the final sample includes a wider cross-section of users and care workers in terms of geographic location, age, class, education, diagnosis and gender, than would have been possible in an ethnographic study.

However, detailed negotiations with team managers, research nurses and so on were, in some cases, still necessary. This typically involved an introductory letter, a subsequent telephone contact, followed by the submission of an outline of the project and a list of the topics to be discussed, before an interview could be arranged. In the case of the Survivor’s Centre, after an initial written contact with the Manager, informal visits intended to gain the users’ confidence took place before any interviews were requested or, later, questionnaires distributed. In the case o f some practitioners too, the first respondent would arrange interviews with his/her colleagues, in a process of “snowballing”. Two inner-city, out-patient

1 4 3

services contacted refused to participate on the grounds that they were already involved in research projects and, in the interests of their users, did not wish to participate, for the time being, in yet another.

On occasion, opportunities presented themselves. At congresses in London and Wales, through contacts in the Department of Sociology itself, and at a

“Survivors’ Fair” in Oxford, it was possible to discuss the research with and

‘recruit’ an interesting and highly eclectic sample of respondents for both interviews and the completion of the questionnaire. In consequence, interviews eventually took place with, and questionnaires were distributed amongst a wide cross-section of users and mental health practitioners over a geographical area which included London, Oxford, Coventry, Birmingham, Kendal, Wolverhampton, Derby and Northampton.

This research, apparently seen as threatening by some groups was, as Renzetti and Lee (1993) claim is frequently the case, thought innocuous by another. There was virtually no need for ‘negotiating down’ with user groups. ‘Recruits’ abounded and seemed enthusiastic and pleased to express their views and participate in a research project. In spite of initial reserves as to whether the few spontaneous

"volunteers” were not perhaps typical of the groups involved, but rather people with a particular axe to grind, or merely the desire for (brief) recognition, it was decided that it is de facto almost impossible to speak of ‘typicality’ in dealing with mental disorder and they were included. However, one such “volunteer” dropped out upon discovering that he would not be remunerated for the interview. ‘Some other researchers’ from London were offering fifteen pounds an hour for each

1 4 4

user’s time. Since his experience as a user was his only “capital”, it was not difficult to sympathise with his claim that “user time” was in no way less valuable than “researcher time”, something he assumed to be paid.

Anyone reluctant to participate at the ‘formal’ interview was encouraged to go away and think about it before making a decision. Only one possible user respondent dropped out as a result. The origins, aetiology and narratives of the final sample were most varied and the fact that some users were “volunteers”, in the sense of having directly asked to participate, did not invalidate their contribution to this study.

To paraphrase Burgess (1986), leads were followed, others dropped, new key informants adopted and others neglected. Such switches had, as Burgess says, to be anticipated, even welcomed, although at times the volume of information offered was overwhelming and transcribing the interviews within the research period frequently appeared to be a task worthy of Sisyphus.