72
The question of methodologies for Internet research has been characterised by innovation and anxiety in equal measure. It is clear that in social science we depend to a large extent upon precedent in our assessments of methodological adequacy. Presenting a methodology as innovative is double-edged: While we value innovation, we may be cutting ourselves off from useful resources (P.245)
So while the potential of Internet-based qualitative research methods is substantial, such methods are not without their problems. Some of these methodological challenges are unique to the medium, while others are similar to those of more traditional qualitative methods (Moloney, Dietrich et al. 2003). The most important question to ask then, when considering the use of online methods, is how from a methodological and theoretical stance is online data generation a good or even a best fit to this research activity.
The purpose is of course to generate data! The challenge of this thesis is to understand how nurses are interpreting the social conditions of which they are a product (Bourdieu et al 1999), specifically the perceived impact on them of changes in the field of nurse education. The question is then whether online forums can generate this type of data and what advantages might this offer? Do they outweigh the challenges? How are levels of self-consciousness, reflexivity and interactivity promoted using this medium?
Bourdieu referring to face to face interviews, describes in his text “the weight of the world- social suffering in contemporary society” (1999) where respondents, especially the most disadvantaged, grasp a research situation as an opportunity to carry their personal experience over into the public sphere with the ‘interviewee’ taking over the interview. “The density and intensity of their speech finding a sort of relief, accomplishment…joy in expression”, the individual using the experience as permission for “self-examination” and give “vent at times” to “experiences and thoughts long kept hidden” (p. 615). This he appears to have achieved by minimising the researcher ‘presence’ or ‘influence’ within the interview. These tactics can be reproduced or even improved by using on line spaces whilst acknowledging that any ‘reading’ of research data (or even research questions) are perhaps constrained but definitely orientated by the interpretive schema employed (Bourdieu et al 1999).
73
The Internet does then offer an opportunity to enter a research space where researcher presence is minimised. Indeed beyond the initial setting of the scene which admittedly is an act that sets the rules of the game (Bourdieu et al 1999) and betrays the cultural and social capital of the researcher in the first instance, (educated, researcher, IT literate etc.) it is possible for the researcher to play no further part other than witnessing the developing story. This may enable avoidance of some of the ‘distortions’ that “have to be understood and mastered” as part of research practice (Bourdieu et al 1999) at least in the stage of data generation. The intrusions inherent in any social exchange, including research activity, can be minimised in order to enable the respondent to reveal their story undirected. Presuppositions, which will be minimised through working reflexively as far as possible from the posing of the discussion group questions, will therefore be absent from the developing discussion board debate.
This of course throws up many challenges. What Bourdieu describes as the distance between the objective of study as perceived and interpreted by the respondent and the object assigned by the investigator (Bourdieu et al 1999) may cause ambiguity and production of data that does not enable the researcher to address their questions. It is of course essential that the discourse is constructed in a way that yields the elements necessary for explanation! This may require researcher intervention in the discussion group but the overall activity of the research has to be akin to active and methodical thinking which reduces as “much as possible the symbolic violence exerted” (Bourdieu et al 1999) through the research participant relationship.
It may be indeed that the ‘community’ of a professional forum actually enables this process if indeed it is possible to accept the notion of ‘online communities’ as discussed previously. This is because seeking neutrality by minimising researcher presence or ‘eliminating the observer’ has been posed by Bourdieu et al (1999) as an illusion as paradoxically all spontaneous processes are constructed. The most ‘natural’ of conversations are based on posing a problematic or an issue in order to elicit opinion, even for example a simple
74
enquiry such as ‘what do you fancy for lunch’! It is possible therefore to pose the research question in a discussion forum as a ‘problematic’ or ‘issue’ similar to all the themes or topics posed by the community to elicit opinion: from a clinical query such as ‘has anyone had any success with the new product X,’ or ‘I have a problematic patient who is suffering with X’…’anyone help’ to a query about the impact of changes in the new standards for nurse education: 'anyone think the new standards for education will change practice?’ The key will be posing a question that excites interest. Discourse analysts should encourage animated conversations in order to elicit frank and direct responses and thus gain rich data (McNamara 2010)
75 Chapter 5
Using Critical Discourse Analysis