Methodology literature review

There is much literature in the area of research methods, particularly relating to qualitative studies in the social sciences. For the purposes of this paper I have divided key literature into two themes which are of particular relevance to my research:

a) the position of the researcher b) the voice of research participants.

a) The position of the researcher

Bias and neutrality are perhaps the most frequently raised topics in methodology debates, as the personal beliefs and motives of researchers are arguably central to their approach to their research; this has been succinctly called ‘the ideas people

think and act with’ by Halpin (1994, p.198).

The issue of bias is illustrated by Becker and Gouldner’s high profile argument about whether sociological research can be undertaken in a way which is free from bias. Becker (1967) argued that it is impossible to undertake social research without taking the side of one of the research subjects, stating: ‘there is no position

from which sociological research can be done that is not biased in one way or another.’ (p.245). He argued that society usually sides with ‘superiors’, and that

researchers are normally only accused of bias when they side with ‘subordinates’. Becker (1967) further stated that the question is not can researchers avoid taking sides? because they cannot; the real question is: can researchers avoid bias distorting their work by making sure that they work impartially?

Becker’s perspective was strongly criticised by Gouldner (1971) who challenged the idea that researchers automatically identify with one side or the other, and accused Becker of goading others to side with the underdogs, such as jazz musicians, instead of ‘respectable’ society (p.29).

I am firmly with Becker on this argument, and believe that the very nature of Gouldner’s research shows clear bias again those he accused Becker of siding

57 with. I believe that bias is established in every researcher’s work from the very moment that they set a research topic – their very research question comes from biases that they hold, and I feel that this should be openly acknowledged right from the beginning of the research. As I detail later in this chapter, this is the approach taken with my own research; I felt an affinity with the students who participated, and this was certain to impact upon my research, regardless of any effort I may have made to undertake my research in an objective manner.

This approach is in line with that taken by Carr (2000), who cites Popper (1961 and 1972), stating that facts cannot speak for themselves; they need to be collected and presented in a certain way, and that a researcher’s beliefs and knowledge naturally and unavoidably affect this:

The naïve empiricist thinks that we begin by collecting and analysing our experiences…but if I am ordered to record what I am now experiencing, I shall hardly know how to obey that ambiguous order. Am I to report what I am writing; that I hear a bell ringing; a newsboy shouting; a loudspeaker droning; or am I to report, perhaps that these noises irritate me? A science needs points of view, and theoretical problems (Popper, 1961; 106, cited

in Carr, 2000, p.441).

Carr (2000) stresses that partisanship should not be seen as a negative influence on research:

Far from being some kind of unwelcome intruder whose presence or absence can be empirically detected, partisanship is an essential ingredient in educational research whose elimination could only be achieved by eliminating the entire research enterprise itself. The existence of partisanship in educational research is, therefore, not an empirical matter concerning what, as a matter of fact, is the case but a logical necessity which it is neither possible not desirable to avoid. (p.439).

This perspective is also supported by Halpin (1994), who dismisses as ‘naïve’ the idea that qualitative researchers report their findings without allowing their ideas or presuppositions to have an influence (p.198). Wright Mills (1959) positively welcomes partisanship, arguing that one’s work cannot - indeed, should not - be separated from one’s life. He tells new researchers that:

The most admirable thinkers within the scholarly community that you have chosen to join do not split their work from their lives. They seem to take both too seriously to allow such disassociation, and they want to use each for the enrichment of the other. (p.215/6).

58

I took this position in choosing to undertake research in an area in which I had prior personal experience, and an ongoing interest.

It is, then, clear that some social researchers (e.g. Carr, 2000) agree that partisanship is unavoidable. Some welcome it; I certainly do because I recognise that if I had not been so committed to my research topic, I would not have had the insight to research it. I also believe that it was beneficial to have pre-conceived ideas; this gave me something to work towards, a goal, and I was fully prepared to change the direction of my research if the goalposts changed in any way, which eventually came to pass.

A closely related area is the question of whether research can ever be truly ‘neutral’, however carefully it is planned. I feel that these questions of neutrality are very closely interlinked with bias; just as researchers cannot help having bias with, or against, certain research subjects or topics, similarly I do not believe that researchers can plan to approach research in a completely neutral way. Walford (1991) states that:

it is now widely recognized that the careful, objective, step-by-step model of the research process is actually a fraud...There are now several autobiographical accounts by scientists themselves and academic studies by sociologists of science that show that natural science research is frequently not carefully planned in advance and conducted according to set procedures, but often centres around compromises, short-cuts, hunches and serendipitous occurrences. (p.1).

Walford (1991) gives an example of a researcher and Prize winner James Watson, who was frank about his research: ‘His revelation of the lucky turns of events, the

guesswork, the rivalries between researchers and personal involvement and compromise gave a totally different view of how natural science research is conducted from that given in methods textbooks.’ (p.2).

Walford (1991) also stated that researchers can have preconceptions about what they hope or expect to find before starting a research project. He undertook research about the first City Technology College, in Solihull, and was frank and open in admitting that he hoped to find problems with it that could be published in time for the forthcoming election, to damage the Conservative Party. He noted:

59

When we embarked upon this policy evaluation we already had our own ideas about that policy and wished to expose what we thought the problems were…we hoped to be able to show that the CTC programme had severe problems and was acting to the detriment of many children.

(p.95).

Similarly, when embarking upon my research, I had pre-conceived ideas about the costs of education, and their impact, that I wished to ‘prove’, or ‘disprove’. I was very open about this from the very start, and have included further details about my personal experiences in this paper.

Clearly, the position of researchers is not a clear-cut area in methodology literature, with debates in this area having continued through the decades.

b) The voice of research participants

The issue of whether research participants should be given a ‘voice’ – which, for the purposes of this paper, I consider to mean being given the opportunity to have their views heard in their own voices, presenting their own positions and priorities - is a key and ongoing debate in qualitative methods.

I should at this point flag a key distinction between ‘giving a voice to’, and ‘empowering’, research participants. Troyna (1994) notes that the two are very distinct, but that some researchers can blur the boundaries between the two, claiming to be ‘empowering’ research participants when they are actually ‘giving a voice’ to them; he calls this the ‘casual use’ of the term empowerment (p.19).

As noted in Chapter 1: Introduction, it appears from my readings that the majority of qualitative studies do not, explicitly or otherwise, give a voice to research participants, and this is especially noticeable with research which involves children living in poverty (Attree, 2006, p.54). Hazel (1996) also notes that social research about young people often neglects their perspectives. Some researchers have expressed concerns about this; Barnes (1999) notes that without the input of those living in poverty, there is a danger that their experiences will be distilled to numbers on a page (p.vi). Similarly, Apple (2001) argues that those living in poverty must be involved in questioning education and its institutions, as they are the ones who are affected by the way these institutions operate (p.410). It has also been argued that it is becoming ever more important that the voices of those living in poverty are

60

heard as the increasing influence of globalisation and the reduction of the welfare state means that they are increasingly vulnerable (Beresford et al, 1999, p.27).

The idea of giving people who are members of minority or vulnerable groups a voice can be a contentious issue as the research potentially runs the risk of being superficial, intrusive or exploitative (Beresford et al, 1999, p.27). However, including those living in poverty in research arguably has a number of benefits including better informing the poverty debate and enabling poverty action to be stronger and more effective (Beresford et al, 1999, p.26/7).

Several studies have included interviews with parents of children living in poverty which are revealing. Cohen, Coxall, Craig and Sadiq-Sangster (1992) quote a parent who explains the reason why she had to stop participating in the PTA at her child’s school: ‘how could I go to those meetings in trainers with no soles, and

jeans with holes in?’ (p.81). Additions of this type arguably add an immense

richness and depth to studies which cannot be given by statistical analysis alone.

I feel it is important to consider why the voices of those living in poverty, particularly children, are so noticeably absent from most research into poverty. Attree (2006) states this is because of the ethical problems involved in research of this type and, in particular, the practical issues such research involves, such as talking to children in a way that does not negatively impact on them, and enables them to ’participate

on their own terms’ (Backett and Alexander, 1991; Morrow, 2001b, both cited in

Atteee, 2006, p.55/6). The position of researchers, as well as the researched, is also arguably key in approaches to research about poverty. Alcock (1997) notes that a problem with most research on poverty is that academics are usually not living in poverty, and their research tends to ignore the subjective views of people living in poverty.

However, just as research about poverty does not typically involve the voices of those living in poverty, it has been argued that neither does policy-making for those living in poverty. Gewirtz (2001) speaks of: ’a more general tendency in New

Labour education policy-making to ignore the voices of those, who the policies are – at least ostensibly – designed to help.’ (p.375).

It is easy, though, for the idea of giving a marginalised group a voice to spill over to romanticism (Pendlebury and Enslin, 2001, p.363). It is also important to note that

61 there are potentially problems in speaking for others. Pendlebury and Enslin (2001) cite Alcoff in noting that:

It can lead to two equally objectionable responses. On the one hand, it can result in an unself-conscious appropriation of another’s position (‘paternalism’ or ‘imperialism’); on the other, it can result in a guilty retreat from the practice of speaking for (‘collective indifference’ or ‘silence’).The former arises from the speaker’s or researcher’s desire for mastery; the latter from the speaker’s or researcher’s desire to be immune to criticism.

(p.364).

Alcoff suggests that researchers try to avoid the impulse to speak for others, and consider the impact that one’s location has on what one says (Pendlebury and Enslin, 2001, p.364).

This research confirms what I believed before I started to plan my primary research. I was keen to ensure that I gave research participants the opportunity to be heard in my research, although I was aware that ‘giving a voice’ to my research participants did not necessarily mean that I was empowering them.