Toby Lipman wrote:
>
> The problem I have (not really a problem, more a conundrum) is how to
> interpret my own input and reactions. I share their culture, know many
> of them personally, and am deeply involved (and known to be deeply
> involved) in teaching and developing evidence-based practice. I think
> this has many advantages, in that I can understand and empathise with
> what they are saying, but the downside is that:
>
> 1) they may tell me what they think I want to hear in order to seek my
> approval
> 2) I may not challenge shared assumptions about the nature and value of
> evidence (during analysis rather than during the interviews)
> 3) my experience as a clinician may be too close to theirs to see issues
> that a more detached researcher might detect more easily
>
When I was interviewing people for a dissertation in Comparative
Religion, I was immersed in the same problem. I finally decided that it
couldn't be solved: to stand outside of my own culture, I had to stand
outside myself. It just couldn't be done. I had to leave the
outside-critic position for those who could genuinely occupy it.
What I could do was twofold. I could attempt to represent the
experience of my respondents faithfully. That meant in part deliberately
making an analysis that the informants would agree with. The other part
was to be a thoughtful commentator, which might mean making comments the
informants would not agree with.
Steinar Kvale, in his *Interviews : An Introduction to Qualitative
Research Interviewing* suggested that one might return what one wrote to
the informants for their comments. I did so, and included their further
responses in each chapter. The dissertation became a conversation among
the participants.
This was a wonderful solution. I could attempt to understand what the
informants said with the assurance that they might correct my
misunderstandings. I could disagree with their beliefs openly, and they
could respond.
So may I second Rachel Hopkin's comment:
> > ... Don't forget that the
> >'expert' you can return to with your codes can also be the
> >respondent, for who else can 'expertly' say "yes that is
> >the essence of what I was trying to get across".
>
Toby Lipman continued:
> So far I have found things that surprised me, such as that those GPs who
> have the most sophisticated understanding of the evidence are also the
> most relaxed about accepting decisions by high risk patients not to have
> the treatment. This begins to reassure me a little, but I'd be
> interested in others' views on studying one's own culture.
>
Learning something surprising is the best part of qualitative research,
methinks.
Birrell Walsh
MicroTimes Magazine
San Francisco
|