Power dynamics during data collection

Engaging people from marginalised groups such as the deafblind and Usher communities to participate in research has historically proved challenging, mainly due to communication differences between participants and researcher. As people with sensory needs are all different and use different types of communication,

multiple communication and interview methods were crucial in the research process.

From the conduct of my research an approach called ‘Multiple Sensory

Communication and Interview Methods’ (MSCIM) was developed and used when conducting research with the participants, and then explored in a paper published in the British Journal of Social Work (Appendix A). Though the use of MSCIM is considered throughout this chapter, in this section it will be discussed in relation to power dynamics that can arise when collecting data.

Although in my role as a sensory social worker it was natural for a service user to choose their interview and communication method, within the research this

approach led to a measure of unexpected equalising during data collection between the participants and the researcher and this empowering of these individuals as active participants in research contributed to inclusivity and promoted

trustworthiness of the research.

After my paper was published a further exploration of the issue of power dynamics between researchers and researched during data collection identified that although there have been studies providing insight into the nature of power between

researched and researcher, interviewing, with people classified as global elites (Conti and O’Neill, 2007) foreigner elites (Herod, 1999), and in cross cultural settings (Mullings, 1999), no sensory or Usher specific literature was identified.

Fisher (2011) discussed collaborative research relationships between researcher

and organisations, specifically the “municipal network in India⁴⁸” (p456). Although her work is with organisations, the issues identified relating to power of the people being researched is relevant on an individual level as organisations are a group of individuals (albeit with joint aims) and individual power dynamics still arise. For example Fisher writes about the power she perceived she had compared to the limited level of power in reality. This also arose in my current study because

although I perceived I had a level of power as a researcher, the reality was that as I was not communicating in my first language, my position of power was reduced due to the power dynamics which occurred due to language differences.

Mullings (1999) considered her experiences of conducting interviews with managers and workers in an information processing company in Jamaica. Again Mullings discusses the ‘insider’/ ‘outsider dilemma as well as positionality during data collection. Mullings discussed that although she felt disempowered in some interviews, when she interviewed the business elites she felt empowered when interpreting the data. This also arose in the current study because at times when I was collecting data and not communicating in my first language, I too felt

disempowered.

Herod (1999) discussed interviewing foreign elites who were, “foreign nationals who hold positions of power” (p313). Herod explored the importance of “positionality”

(p313), for example whether the researcher is an “outsider” or an “insider” (320), within the research. Herod highlighted that being an “insider” was useful as the researcher was perceived as having knowledge relating to the research being conducted as opposed to being an “outsider” with little or no knowledge. However, he also acknowledged that positioning is not always simple because interviews are fluid and the researcher’s position can change depending on the discussion. In the

current study insider knowledge was useful in terms of understanding equipment issues rather than the participant having to stop their flow and explain.

Conti and O’Neill (2007) interviewed the global elite which included diplomats, private attorneys and member nation trade delegates and shared their experiences of “the strategic content over authority” and their feelings of “despondency that resulted from being talked down to” (p61-82). Conti and O’Neil highlighted that feminist approaches are useful when interviewing in situations with powerful people who mould the interview process. Conti and O’Neill refer to the usefulness of feminist approaches to research when negotiating the power balance between the researched and the researcher. Feminist researchers explore the complex nature of power and critique the relationship between researchers and researched suggesting that this relationship informs and influences the data that is collated in terms of interpretation and representation (Rose, 1997, Conti and O’Neill, 2007). Rose further proffers that for a researcher to examine their position within the research process, reflexivity is essential. The importance of reflexivity was also considered in the current study as a key aspect to the study was researcher reflexivity with regard to the impact of the research on the participants and will be discussed later in the chapter.

Critiquing this literature highlighted that the power dynamics within data collection are often two-way, because in some instances power will shift to the advantage of the researcher but in other instances it will be in the favour of the researched. This concluded that although various approaches can be used to address the issue of power dynamics during data collection between researchers and researched, the literature shows that situations can only be addressed as they arise (Conti and O’Neill, 2007). Having considered the data collection methods and issues that can arise, next data analysis will be considered.