In a message dated 28/08/01 08:49:43 GMT Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> Hold on a minute, please can this debate be kept in some kind of
> perspective!
>
> Firstly, I hardly think Pauline is going to be jolted into giving up her
> research on the basis of my personal opinion alone (and if she did my god
> what power!) secondly, Pauline I did not say that your research was
> worthless, far from it, those are your thoughts not mine and thirdly,
please
> don't try and tell me how I feel, you can't know how I feel. Ok that's
that
> out of the way.
>
> << Also, participants are also equipped with knowledge of assisting
> Disability and women's organisations, and perhaps contact with these orgs
> may
> go some way to hinder women individualising their experiences of
disability
> and dv.">>>
>
>
>
> Pauline, I work in the same field as you, and as you know it is not easy
> work. People will stigmatise you for the very fact that you dare to carry
> out such work and you seem to have good support systems, which is crucial
to
> any type of work like this and I say, keep chipping away!
>
> Because of the nature of the issues I am raising, I too have been
> stigmatised. You have to be strong, you have to be able to take care of
> yourself extremely well, you have to be able to jump through hoops, you
have
> to watch your back and sometime you have to remind yourself to see the
funny
> side of life! So you don't have to explain to me how difficult this type
of
> work is.
>
> In summary Pauline, I was merely asking what the "direct benefits" are
> within the research process, for the disabled women you are researching. I
> am sorry but I don't think you have answered my question very clearly, for
> example, do you support emancipatory research principles?
>
Dear Liz,
You are absolutely correct - one person's opinion is not going to result in
this research being halted - other people's opinions are vital - and indeed
often spur one on to continue ... thanks.
yet on the other hand, part of
> the research process is to subject disabled women to discussions around
> multiple definitions of their impairments, isn't that a process of
> individualisation?
> Seems like a wee bit of a contradiction here?
Liz, you have not seen, heard or read the points participants and myself
discuss during interviews: For the record, I do not ask women to engage in
discussions surrounding multiple definitions of their impairments. As
discussed in my initial email, this notion of a hierarchy of impairments
emanates from participants' definitions of their situations. As part of the
emancipatory research process am I in a position to ignore participants'
perspectives, to gloss over them, or to re-define them in a way that may be
more policitally acceptable? No, I think I did the responsible thing and
opened this dilemma up for debate. And what a debate .......
I thank you for your advice about seeing the funny side of life ... believe
me, I am now ... and it works. Also I apologise for guessing at your
emotions - just that you read/sound so different to how you do so on the
phone. I realise you work in the same field as myself - all power to you
... remember we have spoken on the phone regarding the violence and disabled
women conference ...
Finally, I do support emancipatory research - though I can forsee a huge
debate surrounding definitions and of emancipatory research and its praxis.
Good luck with your work ... it is vital.
Pauline Magowan
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|