Whilst the personal positionality of the researcher has affected the research area and methodology (Figure 3.3), its influence on the research process is more difficult to assess. During the work of the researcher as a community care practitioner during the years 1995 to 2004, and then as an academic researcher, the researcher has experienced personal frustration and confusion about the role of mental health research and has even questioned the role of this field. This must surely have an influence on how the researcher behaves towards communities, especially where communities themselves echo that sentiment. In order to understand this, the researcher has studied the interview transcripts with a view to pinning down responses the researcher made and exploring their influence.
Avoiding the question of subjectivity altogether would invite it to have a more restrained yet very important impact on how the researcher conducted the research and its outcomes. This would make research more complicated and that was a fundamental consideration of the field information analysis. Devereux (1980) also clearly demonstrates this when he suggests that the scientist tries by all means to defend themselves against anxiety by overlooking certain data or meanings, overanalysing others, forgetting certain major or minor concepts, or giving unclear or vague descriptions of their findings. These difficulties, often referred to in social science research as self-deceptions (Salner, 1999), are the result of the researcher's use of defence mechanisms.
Another defence mechanism used by the researcher is projection. Projection can be defined as dealing with clashes by incorrectly attributing feelings, impulses, or thoughts to others. A researcher often makes use of projection when "confronted by an object by whom he feels threatened or to whom he feels some affinity" (Perry, 1990, p.19). An in depth scrutiny of the effects of projection can be found in Neck, Godwin, and Spencer's (1996) study of decision making processes and in the later replies by Kahn (1996) and Godwin and Neck (1996). Finally, although many other defence mechanisms can be of possible influence in a research project, two more seem to be often overlooked: reaction formation and omnipotence.
Perry (1990) defines reaction formation as dealing with conflicts by "substituting behaviours, thoughts, or feelings that are diametrically opposed to the unacceptable thoughts or feelings" (p.35), while omnipotence refers to the researcher's response to emotional conflict by acting superior to others, as if they possessed extraordinary capabilities. For example, apprehension and a feeling of not having complete control over the object of a study or over specific fundamentals involved in the study may be
replaced by a feeling of delight and of complete mastery. According to Goleman (1985), self-deceptions tend specifically to overstate the researcher's impression of control as well as their self-esteem. These risks would be more important when (a) the researcher is already "devoted" to a certain understanding or stance, (b) when certain meanings rising from the information may make this stance uncertain and (c) when the researcher feels nervous when confronted with these difficulties. A review led by Rosenthal (1978) of 345 studies seems to confirm these factors.
As the researcher wanted to make effective use of subjectivity, many precautions were taken to overcome these problems. For these reasons and as suggested by Slama (1986), Caspar (1995), and Goldberg (1994), it was important that the researcher used his own subjectivity to undertake contemplative work through a personal deliberation process. As such, many other precautions are often suggested in the literature. For example, the researcher maintained personal journals of thoughts and difficulties as well as of all adjustments of this PhD research process (Salner, 1999).
The following steps were taken by the researcher to avoid the limitations of this subjective research process:
i. Sharing the research with peers and other experts for comments and review:
Apart from Dr. Andrew Collins (the PhD supervisor from Northumbria University) and Dr. Derek Summerfield (the technical supervisor from Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College), the following academics, policy makers and practitioners provided critical comments about the research plan, field information and final drafts of the thesis:
Dr. John Van Eenwyk: John is a clinical psychologist and Clinical Director of the International Trauma Treatment Program, USA. He is also a clinical instructor at the School of Medicine, University of Washington. John has been working with conflict and disaster affected communities in Gaza, Costa Rica, the Philippines, Switzerland, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, South Africa, and Sri Lanka over 20 years. Dr. Alison Eyre: Alison is a medical doctor and Associate Professor of the
Department of Family Medicine at University of Ottawa, Canada. Alison has been working with conflict and disaster affected communities in Sri Lanka, Canada and Haiti for more than 15 years.
Professor Phil O’Keefe: Professor of Economic Development and Environmental Management at Northumbria University. Phil has been conducting research,
evaluation and assessments of conflict and disaster affected communities as well as humanitarian organisations including the United Nations since the 1970s.
Ramani Jayasundere: Ramani is a gender and development researcher and activist from Sri Lanka. She has conducted research about marginalised communities in disaster and conflict situations, humanitarian assistance and women and development issues in Sri Lanka.
Communities from Sri Lanka, Malawi and Sudan: The researcher has engaged the comments and suggestions from the communities involved in the field research, especially in the design of field information collection. Some of the community members who had e-mail access provided comments and suggestions in response to the final drafts of the PhD thesis.
All the above experts and communities were honest and brutal with their comments and suggestions. This gave the opportunity to check the realities of this research process constantly. Furthermore, this review process of the research design, field information and research drafts assisted the researcher to be clear about descriptions of findings and avoid personal reaction formation and omnipotence.
ii. Doing the data analysis in respective communities in order to obtain consensus:
In Sri Lanka, Malawi and Sudan, the researcher managed to analyse data with the communities who participated in the research. By doing that, the research process obtained consensus from the communities and avoided misinterpretation of the field information. Although this was a tiring and time consuming process, the end results provided confidence in the research findings and outcomes.
iii. Validity and reliability precautions:
In this case, the research process received assistance from senior colleagues of UNHCR and GMSL to confirm the validity and reliability of field information. There were lengthy discussions between the researcher and colleagues from Community Services Units of UNHCR in Western Darfur and Malawi as well as the senior programme team of the GMSL regarding this field information. As all these colleagues were working with the same research communities, the researcher provided them with the field information descriptions without personal information about the respondents to protect their identities.
The researcher also reviewed parallel research literature, as well as historical evidence about the communities in Sri Lanka, Malawi and Sudan to confirm the validity and reliability of field information.
iv. Presenting the results of a more objective analysis before proceeding with subjective analysis (Mucchieli, 1979):
Before finalising this PhD thesis, its findings were presented (as part of a larger DDC research project on community wellbeing) at the 3rd International Mental Health Conference in 2006 at King’s College, London and the International Conference of the Royal Geographical Society/ Institute of British Geographers in London during 2008. Because of the nature of these conferences, field information and analysis were presented in an objective manner. The comments received from these two sessions were helpful in the subjective analysis of this PhD research.
v. Making use of a discussant during the research process (Lincoln and Guba, 1985):
The discussant is primarily the role of the two supervisors of this PhD. They insured self-reflection and guided the research process towards new possibilities. Also, both the supervisors are trustworthy, maintained confidentiality of the information and are professionally recognised in the subject matter and research activities.
3.6. PRACTICALCHALLENGES OFCONDUCTINGRESEARCH INCONFLICT, DISASTER AND