Beginning in September 2012 my study fieldwork took place across a 6-month period whilst I was employed as a social worker in a statutory setting. The main study participants were a small cohort of social workers situated within my employing agency that represented the main study site. Silverman (2014) highlights how being situated in a practice setting will alter the dynamics of the studied group simply by the researcher being present. It is in this sense the researcher-practitioner must address the inherent problematics of assuming a fieldwork identity.
Silverman (ibid: 249) lists some of the consideration for researchers including: (1) whether to be known as a researcher to none, some or all of those being studied (2) deciding what sorts of investigative activity researchers and participants should be and/or will be willing to engage in and (3) whether to act as an ‘outsider or ‘insider’. Robson (1993) highlights how it is common for practitioners to undertake studies in settings where they are employed. White (1997a) highlights how this proves useful as the institutional realities of the researcher and participants are shared experiences.
- 128 -
However, White (1997a) expresses concern that researcher-practitioners can inherently operate as borderline natives. This is due to the researcher and the participant sharing roles and responsibilities and therefore having a mutual professional identity. White (1997a) indicates insider researchers risk compromising their objectivity due to their inherent ‘complete membership’ role and/or where they are required to adhere to the normative practice(s) of the study setting. White also indicates where practitioners act as insiders, temptation to manipulate the study process to answer research questions is a potential bias.
On developing my study an initial issue that arose was where I was informally observing the practices of colleagues and attempting to applying Archer’s (2003) theory to determine their reasoning and reflexive processes. I was able to identify how my team members’ sense-making and reflexive practices were being determined by the dominant cultural practices of the agency. However, as I was also a member of the social work team, I found myself having to consider my own approach to sense-making and mode of reflexivity and how this was being determined by the cultural constraints of the agency. In addition, as a senior member of the team I had to consider how my role and responsibilities contributed to and/or was influenced by the culture of my employing agency.
To explore potential pitfalls arising in relation to undertaking a study in my employing agency I reviewed the work of Goffman (1959), White (1997a), Schön (1987), D’Cruz (2004a), D’Cruz and Jones (2004) and Silverman (2014). D’Cruz and Jones (2004) argue to develop the social work profession there needs to be blending of practice and research by practitioners. Similarly, as a mark of professionality, Schön (1987)
- 129 -
encourages practice-based social work evaluation. D’Cruz (2004a: 34) argues while in the practitioner-researcher role social workers can provide insights that help develop ‘localised’ practices.
However, on undertaking research ‘at home’ as a team member White (1997a: 64) highlights some important considerations. Among these is how practitioners acting as researchers in their employing agencies can become orientated towards discovering erroneous practices. Consequently, findings on acts of transgression can be produced without relevance to practice development (White, 1997a). In such cases the importance of presenting findings which have a positive influence on outcomes for children and families can remain overlooked. In relation to my study, I was concerned with examining sense-making and reflexive practices. I was orientated towards gathering evidence of positive practice and contributing knowledge to inform best practice in child protection. Therefore, my research focus was on producing findings of relevance to the profession as opposed to a localised problem-focused orientation.
Nevertheless, while acting as a research insider and a practitioner with a complete membership role a range of issues did arise. Among these was where practitioners who were aware of my research-practitioner role would request that I did not report a statement they might have made about their work that could be interpreted as transgressive in nature. Jorgenson (1989) draws attention to the influence researcher-practitioners can have on participants’ ability to act naturally once aware their actions are being observed. White (1997a) confers how, on knowing their practices are being observed, it can be difficult for social workers to behave as they
- 130 -
would if they were not being scrutinised. As my study progressed, and as participants became more attuned to my role as a research, I recorded how some became concerned about my potential reporting on what Goffman (1959: 67) describes as unseen ‘acts’ or ‘backstage performances’.
Utilising the idea of the social presentation of self as a staged act Goffman argues performances are evident within all settings where human interaction takes place. Goffman’s theorising offers useful ideas for researchers to assist in understanding participants as social actors inclined to perform the cultural norms and expectations of occupied settings. Although, White (2006) argues this is not always the case as reflexive practitioners may be observed as inclined to critically questioning the taken- for-granted cultural rules and practices of their employing agencies. Goffman (1959) argues to avoid performance insiders can conceal their studies. Conversely, as Jorgenson (1989) advocates they can make clear their research intent and purpose.
Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) argue covert and overt observations are located on either end of an ethical continuum. Hammersley and Atkinson (ibid: 93) state how the role of participant observer can be separated into four categories. These include: (1) complete-participant (2) participant-as-observer (3) observer-as-participant, and (4) complete-observer. Spradley (1980) identifies five types of participation including: (1) non-participation (2) passive-participation (3) moderate-participation (4) active-participation and (4) complete-participation.
- 131 -
Initially it seemed an overt approach might discourage a more authentic performance of participants’ sense-making and reflexive practices. However, I decided on an overt approach as I wanted to demonstrate my transparency as a trusted member of the team and as an ethical researcher. Although, as White (1997a) points out, it is something of a fallacy to think a researcher can be fully on the inside and out. This was evidenced where, for example, social workers who attended strategy meetings at the office where I was located were unaware they were being observed.