My learning as a researcher – reflections on the research process

My main challenge as a researcher was what Bourdieu called ‘objectivation’, by which he meant ‘objectivizing the [researcher’s] subjective relation to the object’ (Bourdieu, 2003:282). In my understanding, ‘objectivation’ involved a constant critical reflection of myself as a researcher, and of my relationship to the object of the research, and to people – especially former colleagues. For example, I had to identify and tackle both positive and negative biases towards former colleagues and managers – or even towards the

organisation - as well as understanding that they too might similarly have biased perception towards me as a researcher, and the research project itself. I also had to acknowledge my colleagues’ insecurities, expectations or even their indifference towards the research. Thus as I was not on the case study location site very often, colleagues often forget to keep me informed of events, staff changes, or documentation that could have been relevant to the research.

Also, while I was generally trusted as a colleague, this trust needed to be renewed in my new role as researcher. This may have raised some suspicions, as the research was closely managed by the Chief Executive. The limited involvement of other staff also resulted in a low level of ownership by others colleagues in the research, and information was shared primarily with the Chief Executive. In fact, he acted as gatekeeper to information sharing, particularly towards the Board of Trustees. The limitations linked to low ownership became more obvious during the dissemination phase, and after a change of Chief Executive towards the end of the research project, the new postholder was even less aware why the research had been commissioned at all. It also turned out that few trustees had been kept informed about the research progress and its findings, and what it could offer to the organisation. As a result, after the research was completed, neither the new CEO nor the board of trustees requested a presentation of the research findings. What I learnt from this was that for research collaborations it is important to involve different stakeholders throughout the research process, which in this case, however, had been

discouraged by the previous CEO. Clearly, with such a long project as a PhD, this is more challenging than in the case of shorter projects.

Research activities and changes made to the research design

Probably the most significant change had been the realisation, as part of the data analysis and my ongoing literature review, of the significance of the organisational management and other operational issues connected to the programmes. What I had previously

considered to be merely internally contingent issues, specific to this organisation, emerged in fact as has having a wider significance and being symptomatic of the New Labour’s policies with the third sector and the consequences of managerialism on third sector organisations (Milbourne, 2013). Apart from this addition, my other three research questions remained unchanged in outline, and were able to inform the investigation in three key areas of inquiry.

Flexibility was a key requirement and applied throughout the data collection, in order to reconcile the research activities to the contingencies of the organisation. The CVS was under particular pressure during the delivery of the Take Part Pathfinder. This required both patience and sympathetic understanding of the constraints and stresses that colleagues were under, to balance the needs of the research with those of the organisation.

Another change to the initial design was that I had to abandon the plan to run focus groups with learners, intended to add an element of participation by allowing them to comment on the findings. This was mainly due to a lack of capacity (mine and the organisation’s) to organise and support focus groups and to process the data that would emerge. The decision was not just mine but made jointly with the CEO and the supervisor.

Literature review and data analysis

Apart from managing a vast amount of data (about 200,000 words of interview transcripts) described above, the main challenges for me as a third sector practitioner were the

academic conventions in this country, and the scope of the literature. Having been

educated in France, and in disciplines that were only partly relevant to this research, I was not only new to the concept of literature reviews, but also my research topic demanded a broad swathe of literature to be reviewed.

With hindsight, had I been more cognisant of the literature before starting this research I would likely have adopted a more focused approach to the research questions.

Negotiating the insider-researcher position

In the above section I already described some of the challenges flowing from the insider position, and what steps I took to manage these dilemmas. In sum, however, there were distinct advantages which appeared not only during the research (countered by

disadvantages) but in terms of the depth of analysis. I was able to compare my insider position with that of a research colleague, who was appointed as an outsider researcher on a similar project in another organisation, and the results turned out to be somewhat surprising. Where one might have expected it to have been easier for the outsider-researcher to take on a critical stance towards her research object, the opposite was in fact the case. Due to my insider-researcher role my understanding of the organisation and its recent history added both breadth and depth to my analysis and particularly to an analysis that could be more critical both towards positive and negative achievements. This was to no small extent enabled by the existing relationship of trust between myself and the organisation, and the support it had provided me with. However, the research was seldom a priority for the CVS compared with their day to day work - not helped by the fact that for most of the time I was mostly ‘out of sight, out of mind’ as far as the CVS staff were concerned. Some new staff members did not even know who I was. Despite these reservations I enjoyed an overall positive and trusting relationship with the CVS. Even their relative indifference towards the research findings was in some way advantageous as it gave me greater freedom in writing up and publishing my findings (e.g. Recknagel, 2013, Recknagel and Holland, 2013). This highlighted the importance of relationship of mutual respect and trust that predated my research undertaking in this organisation, whilst it would need to be consciously fostered by ‘outsider’ researchers.