Into the field – intersubjective interpretations and representations

that will be incorporated into the discussion of each method used.

5.5 Into the field – intersubjective interpretations and representations

One contributing aspect of using a postcolonial lens as discussed earlier is to raise issues of representations of others and reflexivity in research. According to Baxter and Eyles (1997: 506) ‘interpretative geography is in the reality construction business, attempting to develop representations and constructions to describe the

representations and constructions that take place within the social world’. Starting from this definition, this section explores challenges and shortcomings associated with representing lives and perspectives of others through interpretation and how a

researcher can acknowledge these limitations. For instance, a number of scholars have noted the contributions of a postcolonial reflection in deconstructing representations (Spivak, 1988), highlighting the problems of speaking for others (McEwan, 2008), and acknowledging power relations in representations and research, including inequalities between the researcher and the researched (Kindon et al., 2007; Mohan, 1999; Mercer et al., 2003; and Raghuram and Madge, 2006). A useful concept through which to explore these issues is intersubjectivity.

5.5.1 Intersubjective accounts

Acknowledging critiques of positivism that reality can only be subjectively defined as interpreted social action, Kindon et al. (2007) note a cultural turn in social science research, starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Writing at that time, Haraway (1988) raises an academic concern with coming to terms with objectivity and needing to situate knowledges to acknowledge subjective partial perspectives. More recently Denzin and Lincoln (2008) and McEwan (2008) are among those who discuss research and associated representations as ‘loaded’, because they are situated

activities imbued with situational constraints. In that research process the

interpretations of the researcher are guided by a particular set of beliefs and views of the world.

Regarding subjectivity, no participant can truly be objective; each has a knowledge that is partial and situated. As the research process involves participation,

relationships, and conversations between people of various cultures, engagement between participants generates intersubjective accounts where perspectives of the researcher and the researched are heard alongside one another (Baxter and Eyles, 1997). Those accounts produce divergent, intersubjective truths or multiple versions of truths of an event or phenomena (Crang and Cook, 2007; Pain, 2001) that reflect the different partial and situated knowledges.

Considering that no researcher can be entirely objective, there is a need to reflect on the cultural politics of speaking and writing on behalf of others with imperfect knowledges (McEwan, 2008). One aspect of reflection is to consider one’s positionality.

5.5.2 Disciplined subjectivity

The importance of recognising the positionality of a social science researcher entering the social world of others has gained increasing prominence in the social science research field. For instance, as Moser (2008) notes, there needs to be

acknowledgement that researchers all have different positionalities. Baxter and Eyles (1997: 514) use the term ‘disciplined subjectivity’ as ‘being mindful of one’s own ethnocentricity and biases’ as a positioned subject. Positioning oneself in relation to a particular set of beliefs and views of the world is the key to grounding knowledge in a specific intersubjective context (Haraway, 1988).

From whatever background, all researchers face the challenge of dealing with bias in research. Certain biases are formed from upbringing, cultural surroundings,

geographical location, and experiences. Raghuram and Madge (2006) argue that it is necessary therefore to acknowledge this bias and be open to recognising positions of other research participants. Therefore, to enhance credibility in research the researcher needs to be sensitive to other cultures and agendas that some participants may have.

For this reason, in my research it was particularly important to be aware of local needs and priorities and try to avoid attaching any prejudice in conducting interviews and analysing the responses received.

The positionality of a researcher refers to factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, class, or education level, (Rose, 1997; Moser, 2008) that situates both the knowledges of a researcher and shapes a particular set of relations with research participants. It is acknowledged that a researcher can do little to alter his or her positionality but should be aware of it to avoid potential pitfalls (Skelton, 2001). Of relevance to my research, this point is emphasised by Rose (1997) who notes that a critical geographer should acknowledge partial knowledges to foreground issues of knowledge produced in specific circumstances. Therefore, to recognise imperfect knowledge is to

acknowledge how ‘power and knowledge are inextricably connected’ (Rose, 1997:

318).

It was important, therefore, that I acknowledged my position as a visitor to Malawi with a particular positionality as a white, male, university educated researcher, and also recognise the relative positions of those with whom I was engaging (Skelton, 2001). Whilst it is impossible to ignore the influence of different positionalities, I attempted as much as possible to counter differences between positionalities in my approach that gave no privilege to one participant or group over another. Furthermore, I was respectful of the various commitments of participants and made sure that my research schedule fit around their commitments so as not to place undue demands on others.

5.5.3 Working with triple subjectivity

Expanding on this issue of subjectivity, with reference to Spivak (1988) and Townsend et al. (1995), translation is part of the process of (re)constructing representations of others. The research process is imbued with issues of (unequal) power relations and intersubjective factors and cross-cultural translation from one context to another. When social research works with interpreters, such as mine, the potential for biases or misunderstandings increases (Fontana and Frey, 2008).

There is some literature that discusses difficulties associated with working with interpreters in research (Edwards, 1998; Temple and Edwards, 2002; Temple and Young, 2004). However, as these authors note, while there is an established tradition in research methods texts regarding positionality and bias issues, the literature on working with interpreters is light. I discuss this topic now as a contribution to that gap and recognition of the importance of this to my research.

In international development research, researchers often rely on translators, especially when there is a wish to hear perspectives of the most silenced in society (Edwards, 1998). Joining the researcher and participants, interpreters represent a further filter of knowledge, guided by their positionalities. The research process then becomes subject to ‘triple subjectivity’ (Temple and Edwards, 2002: 6).

Recognising the role of interpreters and a researcher’s dependence upon them,

Edwards (1998: 206) puts forward ‘a reflexive model of working with interpreters that does not conceal the politics of the research process’. She argues that by stressing

‘working with’ rather than ‘using’ interpreters, they become more visible as active participants, not just passive devices to translate. In such instances it becomes important to acknowledge how their participation affects the nature of the material collected by reflecting on the issue of triple subjectivity. I adopted the approach of working with interpreters (referred to from now on as research assistants) and recognised a need to confront issues of power in the material collection process as I discuss in section 5.6.

5.5.4 Confronting power in knowledge generation

As noted above, one of the contributions of a postcolonial reflection is to focus on power relations between the researcher and the researched and inevitable inequalities (Mercer et al., 2003; Power, 2003), especially when participants represent a diverse range of demographic groups. In this situation, echoing a postcolonial critique regarding continuing colonial legacies, Kindon et al. (2007) highlight the danger of re-enforcing pre-existing power hierarchies by only presenting elite local knowledge.

Furthermore, there is a potential that some participants may feel they are the

‘subjects’ as the question and answer format of interviewing may reproduce relations of authority (Narin et al., 2005).

Herod (1999) explores cross-cultural or intersubjective challenges related to who are the outsider and insider in knowledge creation. He suggests researchers have varying degrees of outsiderness. Reflecting on this, issues of power, and the context of a postcolonial place, I entered the field with a knowledge and expectation that I would be considered somewhat of an expert visiting Malawi. This expectation stemmed from discussions with other postgraduate development researchers and an employee of Traidcraft who warned me that given my position, farmers would tell me what they think I wanted to hear and what they wanted me to hear. Such a potential lack of openness and honesty could impact upon the credibility of material.

To counter such concerns it was necessary to establish some ground rules to enhance trust and openness in interviewing. This was helped by explaining as clearly as possible the purpose of the research¹⁰⁶ and clarifying consent to participate through the fact that participants were willing to be interviewed (Fontana and Frey, 2008). In my experience there were some positive reactions to my position as a visitor. Many people I met were pleased I was there with such an interest in the country and issues concerning many Malawians. I was easily able to access the people and places I wanted to in order to conduct my research. However, it was important also to reflect on the impact of all positionalities involved in interviews, an issue I discuss through the following methods sections.