Developing research relationships with research participants

I started by reflecting on my personal relationships with research participants at the central (MOE), and local (PES, DEB, school and community) levels. To develop relationships with the research participants, two main notions were reinforced during the first cycle of my research project. These concepts were:

ƒ the importance of harmony and hierarchy at the MOE

ƒ hierarchy and the importance of maintaining local harmonious relationships

As discussed earlier it was not difficult for me to establish a research relationship with participants at the MOE because I already had personal and professional relationships. In other words, I was known professionally and personally, but not in my new role as a serious researcher. To develop a research relationship with my new role as a researcher the importance of harmony and hierarchy was emphasized. To harmonise my working relationships I had to maintain my reciprocal responsibilities to the MOE. The MOE required continued high involvement and active commitment to the EQIPII/TTEST project as the researcher has been and continues to be a participant in the organization. Apart from my formal responsibilities, I also have obligations to superiors and colleagues in the MOE as well as my family. For example, I was assigned to represent the MOE at an international conference, at donor reviews and workshops, to interpret at the meeting and so on, whilst at

the same time meeting research imperatives. The research role is more isolated, more theoretical, demands greater objectivity and is often much more challenging than I had anticipated (See Coghlan & Brannick, 2005).

Although the above tasks and tensions created stress and some insecurity in my research journey as well as increasing my work level, I received cooperation and support from the MOE for my research project. As the outcome of my position at the MOE my research project was approved was by the Director General of the Department of Teacher Education (DTE) on 7 Jan 2009 and I received the Ministerial Decree number 79/MoE.DTE/2009 dated 14 Jan 2009 (see Portfolio Exhibit 1). It is the MOE’s requirement to obtain a Ministerial Decree or

khortoklong in order to conduct any activities. In our system, the Ministerial Decree with a

red stamp and signature is a very important document. It not only showed that I had received formal permission from the Ministry but I also had support and cooperation from my organization. The decree was seen as a legal support document which provided security and trust for both researcher and participants and respondents. To obtain the Ministerial Decree would be not so easy for outsider researchers who might not understand how important the decree was, particularly when the research sites were in public schools.

Harmony and hierarchy were emphasized at the MOE and were also important at the local level. This was reflected in the process and communication of my permission to conduct research. Although I had the Ministerial Decree I needed to send each PES an official announcement letter or nangsiuchaengkan. It was the MOE practice to send out the official announcement signed by the Director General of the MOE Cabinet with reference to the Decree, to the PES prior to the commencement of any activities carried out by a MOE official including my trip to Champasak and Luang Namtha provinces. This practice was a sign of showing respect to the local levels and keeping them informed, as well as a form of protection for me and the local people. Once the PES received the official announcement, then they would inform the district levels and hopefully the message reached the school levels. Again this was a custom which was commonly practiced where channels of communication flowed from the centre to the local levels respectively and vice versa. This pointed up the issue of communication and the levels of bureaucracy.

A courtesy visit is also another form of showing respect for local hierarchy and maintaining local harmonious relationships. I started my field visit to each province with a courtesy visit

to each PES and DEB before I travelled to schools and villages. In the Lao PDR it is a common custom to pay a courtesy visit to the PES and DEB respectively before visiting schools. My visits to the PES and DEB would lay down a framework for cooperation and collaboration with the PES and DEB for the following visits and would make it easier for me to talk with the local people. I had learnt this custom and protocol from being a MOE official, and understood that these visits were always an effective strategy. This type of visit was not only a form of showing respect to authority and seniority, but also a form of establishing relationships and securing networks with local people. I could view my journey like Pholsena who described her trip to research sites at a village level: “I went down from the capital to attain the village. It was not merely a geographical displacement-I went through the hierarchy of power, from the centre to the periphery, (Pholsena, 2006, p. 9).” My visits from the central ministry not only crossed provincial borders but also inner boundaries within the MOE. Some of my inner boundaries were also crossed. Although it was an early stage of my research project, I could not stop the local people from seeing me as a MOE official rather than an independent researcher. For the local level, especially at school levels I appeared to be a conduit to the education hierarchy. This often meant that I was invited to give a speech and provide guidance into current official thinking. I was also expected to make some contribution to school improvement. In addition, I had to sit down and listen to their needs and concerns. These activities helped to establish my credibility and develop harmonious relationships with local research participants.

Some methodological issues and implications emerged during this stage. First, one emerging concern about my choice of action research is being an agent of change. Although I have approval from the MOE to conduct my action research project, it is not easy for me to influence ongoing action for change because I do not have legitimate power or authority. On the other hand, local people may see me as someone with power because I work for the MOE and had initiated the research and they expected some change. However, to bring change in school leadership is a complex issue because it involves both power and authority relationships and decision making at and between the central and the local levels.

Role duality also emerged. Undertaking research in the By Project mode and adopting the practitioner action research was a new academic practice at the MOE. A combination of this type of research is very challenging because action research is also new for education management in the Lao PDR. Although it was an early stage of my research it was quite hard

to keep my twin roles balanced and to make people understand these roles. Tensions emerged when I returned to Laos in January 2009 to undertake preliminary research. Despite letters from my supervisors and my superior, it was assumed by many colleagues and some of my superiors that I had returned to work and that my research was very secondary. It was expected that I would slot back into my former roles. A trip to the Philippines to represent the MOE was an example. To conduct this research project at schools in rural remote areas is even harder. I clearly saw how school leaders viewed themselves as phounoy or inferiors who could not be decision makers (or even influence decisions) and treated me as phouyai who had power and authority. For example, I was invited to give a speech at Phonthong cluster meeting, at the MOE I was asked to interpret at EQIP II/TTEST Joint Annual Review Mission meeting. I became aware that the different perspectives between the central and local levels on my role would continue to create tensions.

The ongoing process of reflection inherent in the cyclical process of action research as well as time spent at RMIT University involving continuing reference to literature and discussion with my supervisors has helped me to clarify my twin roles. I became increasingly aware that it is challenging to go through this process because I was engaged in different research, work and day-to-day living contexts moving between Laos and Australia; between the workplace and home and the university and between two different research sites at the local level in Laos. Once I had immersed myself in each context I often felt reluctant to return because I was concerned about the needs of people in each context and my responsibilities to them as a member of the MOE and as a researcher.