Forging Personal Relationships in the Field: Reflections on objectivity and

Given the amount of time that I spent in the field and with many of my

participants, it is unsurprising that I came to develop friendships and caring relationships with some of them. This often came down to having certain things in common, such as similar ideologies and beliefs, as well as shared interests and social habits. Therefore, it is important to consider the extent to which this impacted my research.

100

Developing friendships or caring relationships with participants is not uncommon when researchers become deeply embedded in their research environment (Dickson-Swift et al., 2006; Ellis, 2007); indeed, in some cases it can seem almost unthinkable not to (Ellis, 2007). While the idea of developing such relationships with participants has sometimes been discouraged (Glesne, 1999), in some cases it can lead to the obtaining of data that might not otherwise have been available (Phillion, 2002).

From my experience with conducting this research, I found that in some cases this forging of relationships was in fact necessary to achieve in order to gain access to

particular groups. For example, some of the student groups I engaged with would only allow me access to their activities if they thought of me as a friend. They often stated that this was due to their general distrust of outsiders, particularly in the context of the

problematic relationship between activists and the government. Consequently, it was only through developing these relationships that I was able to obtain the data that I did in those instances.

When spending time socialising with some of my participants we debated political issues, compared things such as university life within Ecuador and the United Kingdom, we enjoyed similar music and even shared libraries of songs. For a while, I saw this as both a positive and a negative. On the one hand, I was pleased that I was able to develop meaningful relationships with my research participants, but on the other I worried that I was losing my ability to be “objective”. However, after speaking with colleagues and supervisors, I came to realise that these personal connections were not a bad thing, they were not to be shied away from, and they were most certainly nothing to be ashamed of. I realised that these relationships and my ability to develop and sustain them was

something that provided my research with a particular sort of value, as well as a particular sort of character. Furthermore, the idea that the researcher is able to remain as an

objective outsider is highly problematic from the outset. As Kim England asserts:

“Neopositivist empiricism specifies a strict dichotomy between object and subject as a prerequisite for objectivity. Such an epistemology is supported by methods that position the researcher as an omnipotent expert in control of both passive research subjects and the research process. Years of positivist-inspired training have taught us that impersonal, neutral detachment is an important criterion for good research. In these discussions of detachment, distance, and impartiality, the

101

personal is reduced to a mere nuisance or a possible threat to objectivity. This threat is easily dealt with. The neopositivist’s professional armor includes a carefully constructed public self as a mysterious, impartial outsider, an observer freed of personality and bias.”

(England, 1994:243) I had no ability to claim that I could be a “mysterious, impartial outsider” or “an observer freed of personality and bias.” Indeed, it was my ability to reject this that enabled me to build meaningful relationships with the people I was dealing with.

However, at the same time it was important not to lose my sense of being critical during my fieldwork. In this sense I had a responsibility toward my research process to ensure that the data I obtained and the manner in which I represented it were not blind to any problematic realities or phenomena that I witnessed. Furthermore, it was also necessary not to prioritise the viewpoints and experiences of those who I was personally closer with compared to those with whom I was not.

Consequently, I regard the issue of forging friendships or caring relationships with some participants as an overall benefit to my research, albeit one that had to be

considered and reflected upon sufficiently so as to acknowledge the ways in which it shaped parts of the research process and outcomes.

Finally, it is important to state that all research which involves establishing connections with other people bestows a responsibility upon the researcher to

communicate their results or findings to those who were involved throughout the process of data collection. This is embedded in the idea that as researchers we are not neutral actors who have no effect on the places within which we operate personally and professionally (Desai and Potter, 2007; Bazeley, 2006). Rather, as I have discussed throughout this section and continue in the next, the researcher plays a key role in the process of data collection and research as a whole. Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge and act upon this duty of responsibility through the dissemination of research findings to participants when and where this is possible.

In line with this process of ethical thinking and engagement, I shall disseminate my research findings to relevant participants in a format which is suitable for their uses and interests. This will involve producing a summary, in Spanish, of my thesis and the key arguments I have made. I will then send this summary to as many organisations and

102

individuals who were involved in the research as possible, while also maintaining the key ethical responsibilities I have outlined in the previous section. This will be aimed at two primary audiences:

1) Grassroots rights of nature activists in Ecuador.

2) Convenors of the United Nations Harmony with Nature project.

Through doing this, I hope to provide my research participants with a resource they can use to enhance, and reflect upon, their efforts to promote and defend the rights of nature in their own social and political spaces. Furthermore, I hope to foster greater dialogue between grassroots rights of nature activists and more elite, internationally-networked activists.

4.12 Reflections on Positionality: The political production of knowledge and