In a message dated 28/08/01 17:11:43 GMT Daylight Time, PAULIMAG writes:
<<
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 >>
Pauline,
Many thanks for your words of encouragement, it was much appreciated and
absolutely, we must never give up on this one.
Yes I do remember speaking to you on the phone (I much prefer telephone or
face to face contact rather than email contact anyday of the week!) regarding
the "disabled women's conference"......now theres an issue.
<< 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 .......>>>
Yes , as part of the emancipatory research process, we must not ignore
participants perspectives ....IS IT wrong to re-define participants
perspectives in a way that may be more politically acceptable? The political
is political, surely.
Liz Fetes
________________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.
|