Issues arising from the methodology

Although the methods utilised to conduct this research project were broadly successful and the variety of approaches ensured weaknesses in one tool were compensated for in another, a couple of issues arose that should be discussed further.

Firstly, my use of the term „community‟ in the early stages of fieldwork affected participant‟s responses. This was particularly noticeable in the focus group where many participants used the term to describe their activities and the groups in which they participate in ways I did not expect from my previous engagement with the scene (for example, „my folk singing community‟ where I would have expected „my folk club‟). I subsequently used the term more selectively during interviews and personal

communications. This had a notable impact upon the ways participants phrased their responses when compared to the focus group data. However, as much of the participant recruitment was carried out before this change in policy it may have affected the nature of information participants felt relevant to divulge. I have addressed this through periods of intensive observation in areas where I have identified this could affect the research findings, for example the nature of relationships as discussed in Section 5.3. While „community‟ is a key element of my research question, I have approached this area through the literature, rather than seeking participants‟ reflections on community as a concept.

The necessity to gather data from newcomers to folk singing provides a second issue. A study from the perspective of music sociology would suggest taking participants who have never been to a folk singing event and monitoring their expectations and experiences. The necessity of long-term involvement within the folk scene to become an active member of the group dictates a longer term process to be monitored – above and beyond

reasonable expectations of a research participant. From an

ethnomusicological perspective such a one-off method with isolated

participants seems incongruous and a sociological method too far. To gather newcomer experience I encouraged some people who I knew were relatively new to attending folk singing events to complete the diary project and asked longer term participants to reflect on their experiences both as newcomers to the scene as a whole and as participants in new events they had not

previously attended.

This method only generates data from people currently participating in the folk scene and omits the experiences of those who found the barriers to participation too cumbersome. In my defence, the experiences provided by active participants were diverse and the folk scene has many facets. Many found complete barriers to certain events and chose not attend for a variety of reasons. The experiences of relatively new practitioners therefore shed some light on barriers to participation, though further investigation with those who stopped attending might also be useful in a future project.

A third issue arose when listening back to the audio recordings as my vocal appears most prominently. This is due to a combination of my decision to use an unobtrusive table-top recording method and my active

participation. Although single point recording inevitably results in volume differentiation between those closest and those furthest away from the device, for future recordings I would further consider the implications of microphone positioning.

Whilst this research project was deemed low risk by the University of Sheffield‟s ethics committee and passed its review procedure, there were a number of ethical considerations not yet discussed that affected the

research. Attaining consent from participants was a key issue. Gaining permission for people to be actively involved in the diary, interview and focus

groups was relatively straightforward and consent forms were produced, but the less clearly defined method of participant observation proposed some problems.

Although I recognise it was not viable for me to gather signed consent from everyone I witnessed during the course of this research, I do not want to risk accusations of covert research. I made it publicly known that I was conducting a research project in the field of contemporary folk singing and while my public interaction was ostensibly for the purpose of recruiting participants, I also used it as an opportunity to alert others to the research. This was achieved through two means: letters to regional and national folk magazines outlining the research and making public announcements at events. Though people learned of the generic research project there was confusion as to the detail of what I was researching and when, an issue raised by Georgina Born (1995:89). Some people appeared suspicious of me and appeared anxious that they would feature in my work without having given consent. To an extent, this is substantiated, as all my activities

(whether explicitly labelled as research or not) have contributed to the thesis. However, I have not used specific singers‟ names or identifiable examples within the thesis without first gaining explicit consent; where this has not been possible, I have translated the data into general terms.

The change in relationships between myself and some other singers as a result of becoming a researcher also caused some personal problems. Although most people were willing, indeed enthusiastic, to contribute to the research I felt there were some who had issues with my undertaking the project. A status shift was recognised by some and I felt a perception that I thought myself better than others, demonstrated by my self-given role as a spokesperson for the group (Shelemay 1997). Although I do not assume any intrinsic worth over and above my fellow singers, I note that the luxury of having spent a prolonged period researching the phenomenon and my subsequent qualification to discuss it within certain contexts provides