Mark garner and Peter sercombe
Introduction
doing research in the social sciences implies participating in a range of relationships.
The nature of these relationships and their role in the successful conduct of the research vary considerably. The least personal are the formal relations with funding or auspicing institutions. Relations within the wider discipline community often include some more personal communication, but are for the most part conducted through some form of written communication, in which the social element is more or less absent. in all of these relationships, the researcher is the central, common element and has rights and obligations with regard to the other parties (erickson, 1986).
Relations with the subjects of the research, however, typically involve interpersonal interactions and are social in the most direct sense. The way in which these social relations are developed and maintained critically influences both the conduct of the research proceeds and the quality of the data that are obtained. This is self-evident for certain methods, for example, participatory research (see Taylor, chapter 14) and case studies (see Zucker, chapter 16), but any study that involves some personal contact, however slight, with the participants will be influenced to some extent by the nature of that contact.
it is essential for the researcher to be sensitive to these relations and to develop the skills necessary to ensure that they are conducted in a manner that is not only ethical and humane, but also as conducive to the research outcomes as possible.
Reflection on one’s own experience as social science researcher will show the extent to which the conduct and outcomes are determined by the mutually defining social relations with the participants.
Yet social relations are rarely explicitly mentioned in research methods courses.
an informal survey of around two dozen Master’s programmes that we conducted prior to introducing a new degree at a British university revealed, despite different methodological emphases, a broad consensus on what constitute the essential research skills in the social sciences. These can be simply summarized as the capacities to:
• read, synthesize and evaluate the research literature,
• formulate a research question and, where relevant, associated hypotheses,
• decide what data are relevant to answering the research question,
• identify a study population from whom data can be gathered,
• select one or more appropriate methods for gathering data,
• apply the method(s),
• systematize the findings,
• analyse and draw relevant conclusions from the findings.
certain aspects of social relations, such as ethics, are included in most methods courses. Participatory methodological approaches, such as ethnography and action research, as well as data gathering techniques, such as focus groups and case studies, may also involve some discussion of how to interact with those who are the object of the research. Further, many of the contributions in this book attest a widespread view of research as praxis, the interplay of theory and application, reflection and action. Praxis is an inherently social process:
Roberts (2000), drawing on Freire, characterizes it as critically conscious dialogue with others.
nonetheless, social relations seem to be rarely, if ever, focused on as a topic deserving of study in its own right. one reason for this may be the lack of an easily grasped framework within which social relations in research can be described and discussed. an experienced researcher can readily give general advice to students about how to interact with informants, but it is much more difficult to describe them in a way that draws attention to key features of relationships and how they influence the collection of data. A simple model for describing the relationship types that a researcher may expect to encounter helps students to grasp the concept of praxis within a social relations framework, especially as teachers can draw on their own research experiences for illustrative examples.
in this chapter, we discuss an attempt at introducing social relations into the curriculum of our research methods course for postgraduate students of applied linguistics and sociolinguistics. There are many models of social relations in the literature (erber and gilmour, 1994), but many are too complex for use in teaching students who have no background in social psychology. one accessible model is Fiske (1992), which we have used (with slight modifications) as a means of focusing on, among other things: the ethics of sociolinguistic research;
the practical conduct of fieldwork; and the interpretation and evaluation of data.
in the remainder of this chapter, we give a brief summary of Fiske’s model, describe how we presented the social relations component of the course, and reflect on our own and the students’ reactions to it.
Fiske’s Model of Social Relations in Research Fiske (1992, p. 689) postulates that the:
people in all cultures use just four relational models to generate most kinds of social interaction, evaluation, and affect. People construct complex and varied social forms using combinations of these models implemented according to diverse cultural rules.
his four models of relationship types are predicated on those aspects of interactions that people attend to and on those personal attributes that are meaningful to the interactions. The types are defined according to two intersecting scales:
• equality ↔ inequality
• independence ↔ interdependence
Fiske treats these as ‘either/or’ categorical dimensions, but it is more helpful for our purposes, and arguable on theoretical grounds, to treat them as parameters (that is, points along a continuum). in brief, the four models are as follows. (For a more extensive treatment, see garner et al., 2006, where we examine its application to research ethics.)
an equality matching (eM) relationship is characterized by equality and independence. eM relationships are based on in kind reciprocity, as each participant continuously monitors the relationship to ensure that the benefits derived from it balance his or her contribution to it. Focus groups used for collecting research data depend for their success on the effective maintenance of eM relationships between researcher and informants. Too great a degree of interdependence can undermine the necessary detachment of the researcher from the information being presented and too great an inequality (in either direction) may threaten participants’ desire to share information.
a market pricing (MP) relationship is characterized by inequality and independence. it is based on proportionality and participants focus on ‘rates of exchange’, of which the archetype is of course money. Research using paid participants – for example, experiments involving university students – involves this type of relationship. in others the payment may be in kind, for instance, when a researcher in an immigrant community gives english lessons in return for community members’ participation in the research.
eM and MP relations are both transactional, predicated on the independence of the participants, who are free to choose whether to contribute or not, either through
‘give and take’ (eM) or through ‘buying and selling’ (MP). The transactional parameter is not uncommonly regarded as the only measure of social relations, on the assumption that people remain in a relationship only as long as they are receiving sufficient reward from it. This is, however, too restrictive a view to
account for a large proportion of human relationships, including many of those entered into during the research process (Mills and clark, 1994).
an authority ranking (aR) relationship is characterized by inequality and interdependence. here, social relations are not simply a matter of unequal power, but of mutual dependence, which also involves obligations. The aR model most closely resembles the relationships involved in positivistic social research. The researcher determines the theoretical framework and knows what data are sought and why. The informants are required to provide data on demand – for example, by filling in a questionnaire – and have no access to the theory or control over the intended outcomes.
a communal sharing (cs) relationship is characterized by equality and interdependence. What each participant contributes to the relationship is complemented by the contributions of others. This sort of relationship is found in consultative approaches to research. on the basis that they have information and understandings that may be of value to the research, subjects have access to the theory and intended outcomes. They may, and often do, have some input into how the research is planned and conducted. The obligations of reciprocity are thus essential to maintaining the research relationship. The attempt to build a cs relationship is a presupposition of ethnographic approaches to research and, in particular, ethnomethodology (see agar, 1980; Malinowski, 1935).
If we treat the defining characteristics as parameters and not categories, Fiske’s four models can be seen as ideal types in terms of which various kinds of research relationship may be classified. A given relationship is described according to how much it resembles, or is dissimilar from, one of the types. asking students to place a given relationship along two parametric axes, as shown below, can be a valuable stimulus to class discussion.
,QGHSHQGHQW
(TXDOLW\PDWFKLQJ 0DUNHWSULFLQJ
&RPPXQDOVKDULQJ $XWKRULW\UDQNLQJ
8QHTXDO
(TXDO
'HSHQGHQW
Figure 7.1 Four models of social relations
The social relationship between researcher and participant can also evolve, and is frequently negotiated as work progresses. Furthermore, it is possible, perhaps even probable, that the relationship is likely to be perceived differently by the parties involved, and disparate views of what is taking place in the research process may lead to misapprehensions that can impede the research (garner et al., 2006, discuss real examples of such problems). Research is much more likely, therefore, to be successful if the researcher is both aware of his or her own perceptions and expectations of the relationship and sensitive to those of the subjects.
it is important to note that we are not advocating here a course in ‘how to make friends and influence people’. The issue is not personal development (in the popular sense of that term), but a critical and academically well-informed perspective on one of the more elusive and complex processes of the many that are involved in doing social science research. The objective of including it as a topic within the research methods curriculum is that students will develop an understanding of research methods as praxis: that they will learn not simply how research is done, but how to do it themselves.
can a practically relevant understanding of social relations, however, be explicitly taught or can it be acquired only through the trial and error of experience?
Will students perceive it as of theoretical relevance to methodology as well as of practical use? This was the question we attempted to answer in the project reported in the next section.
Teaching Research Methods with a Social Relations emphasis
The opportunity to put forth the idea of a social relations component arose when we received funding from our university’s teaching and learning committee to develop a practice-oriented research methods course. it was to be conducted over successive semesters, in each of which a different group of students worked as ‘research assistants’ to the teaching staff, who were conducting a study of perceptions of identity among international students in newcastle in the united kingdom.
like some others reported elsewhere in this collection, the course was designed around students’ active participation in the various stages of the study. students helped to design the research tools, identify potential informants and gather data.
Data were collated and compared, and the findings developed collaboratively.
at every stage, there was discussion of conceptual, methodological and ethical issues. in addition, throughout the semester there was a consistent emphasis on social relations.
We aimed, in the first two classes, to develop students’ awareness of the inherently social nature of research, by presenting and discussing a version of the framework outlined above. The next four classes were devoted to different methods for data gathering. as well as the theoretical framework and implementational issues involved in each method, we also considered the kinds of relationships with
the subjects that each one could be predicted to engender. Two of these methods – survey questionnaires and structured interviews – need no further explanation.
Two other, much less widely familiar methods were also introduced, namely Q-sort and scrap books. The former requires the informant to Q-sort and re-Q-sort a series of statements on a rank-ordered scale; it is usually applied in quantitative studies, but has also been applied in qualitative research (Brown, 1993; 1996). scrap books are a common activity in primary schools, but would seem to have potential as a research tool, particularly in identity and self-perception studies. The participants, working in a group, are provided with a large amount of pictorial material, such as magazines, brochures and even junk mail, and asked to cut out pictures and text from them and paste them into a book, adding whatever drawings and words of their own they want. When finished, the book is to represent themselves to the others in the group. group members discuss and interpret one another’s books in an open session. These research instruments require different amounts and kinds of social interaction between researcher and informant, which provides an opportunity to reflect on the role of social relations in the research.
after the data gathering tools had been introduced, the students were divided into four groups, and each group was allocated two of the methods. The students then applied these methods to gathering data. since the study was investigating identity among international students, and the majority of the class were themselves in that category, they first piloted the methods on other members of the class.
This enabled them not only to familiarize themselves with the techniques involved, but also to experience the relationships between researchers and researched. We aimed for them to gain an insight into emic and etic perceptions of both researcher and researched. emic and etic are concepts derived from phonology (phonetics and phonemics) that Pike (1967) extended to the study of culture. The former comprise observed phenomena; the latter are the cultural meanings assigned to them. The researcher’s task is firstly to make an etic description of behaviour and then, through interaction with the informants, to arrive at a construction that reflects as closely as possible their own emic perceptions.
Our students then identified two small (n=3–5) study samples consisting of international students outside their own degree programme. They used their methods to complete the data gathering process into informants’ perceptions of their identity and ways in which it may have changed since coming to study in the united kingdom.
The results were collated and their implications discussed (see sercombe and Garner, 2005, for a report of the findings). Each method was assessed for its effectiveness and ease of application. The students also kept a weekly journal in which they reflected on their learning experiences.
as well as assessing the research tools, the students discussed their relations with the subjects, the ways in which the various data gathering methods influenced and/or defined these relations and ethical issues that had arisen. The social relations model provided the framework for description and evaluation. The results included both qualitative and quantitative data, each of which tended to lead to different
kinds of research relationship. at the end of the semester they evaluated the extent of their success, in tackling the research question; and the kinds of relationships that had formed between themselves and the subjects of the research; and, finally, whether the social relations focus had been instructive.
Students’ views of the Social Relations approach
Regardless of the methods used, all students involved, during the research period, gained some degree of hands on experience of conducting social science research and establishing social relationships in the process of collecting data. We asked students to reflect on the course in the final class discussion, and further in unstructured interviews conducted during the semester following their research methods course. What follows is a summary of their views.
a number of positive aspects of the learning experience in the course were identified. There was unanimous approval of the praxis-oriented approach, which the students felt had given them an opportunity to ‘get their hands dirty’ by actually doing research. They felt it gave them a clearer understanding of the demands of designing a project that is theoretically valid as well as practicable. Further, they had encountered the sorts of organizational difficulties (for example, people not turning up for interviews; unclear tape recordings; tape recorders running out of battery power; tapes ending without their realizing it; questionnaires not being completed) that are an integral part of social science research but are rarely mentioned in textbooks. Paradoxically, however, some students tended to interpret this as a failing of the course itself. having been given the role of ‘research assistants’, they perhaps felt that the lecturers, as ‘principal researchers’, should have been able to prevent such logistical and practical problems from arising at all. This is an unavoidable risk in any ‘learning by doing’ approach to pedagogy.
Some students will be so discomfited by the mistakes they make or the things that fail to turn out as predicted that they will be unable to learn from them. For our part, we learned from the reaction of these few students that we must be careful in future to raise students’ awareness at the beginning of the course that problems are inevitable and that the ability to cope with them as they arise is essential for a competent researcher.
in general, however, the majority appeared to have found the course a sort of
‘rite of passage’, after which they began to think of themselves as researchers.
Being engaged in a real research project under relatively stress free conditions thus helped to demythologize the activity and cast it as one that can be creatively and successfully tackled by relative novices to the process.
as far as the introduction to data gathering methods was concerned, some students felt they were disadvantaged by not becoming sufficiently familiar with all four of the research tools employed in the overall project. There was disappointment expressed at not having been more closely involved in the employment of more than two methods (and experiencing the means, functions
and benefits of triangulation). In this respect, it was argued that the praxis was not realistic and less useful than if students had been exposed to the principles of a range of research methods.
as a result, the methodological learning outcomes were not achieved in every case. some students thought that the exercise of using two methods had been intended to make them specialists in those methods, rather than as an exercise that contributed to academic development. having mastered them, they felt that this was all they needed and were not inclined to think of all methods as potentially useful as they began to engage in their own research projects.
given the time constraints of a weekly, two-hour class, it is not easy to see how this problem can be overcome. on the other hand, there is an argument that it may
given the time constraints of a weekly, two-hour class, it is not easy to see how this problem can be overcome. on the other hand, there is an argument that it may