>==Dear Mark and David ( and all),
On reflection, I wouldn't mind an open -ended set of prompts coming out as
an attachment, with an invitation to respond, through the list, on the topic
of the history of community psychology in the UK. I would like to have the
opportunity to take part. I'd approve it even more if there was, in addition,
an opportunity for some participant influence on/ voice in the research
process as well as provision of information: as potential participants in the
research, list members could have an opportunity to comment on/ potentially
influence the process : eg comment on the questions before they were
finalised, suggest other questions and commnet on the ones that we think may
be missing, and on the analysis and conclusions. Along with Craig (and George
Kelly) I too think that as humans we are all researchers, and, taking a
critical realist stance as I do, I take it that all research activity is
socially constructed ( and should be overtly so - making the process as widely
and inclusively social as is manageable in the circumstances) and tentative
in the conclusions that can be drawn. As far as I can judge it I trust the
people involved in this histroy writing project to be open and reflective/
reflexive/ tentative about their process - and these email exchanges will
likely make them even more so which seems to be good to me. I do think that
David is right to challenge us to stop and think collectively about the
processes of gathering sharing knowledge and views in our world. (Within our
mutually shared identity it must be possible to critique but of course that
inevitably slows ius down and makes it hard to meet deadlines). We might
wonder what a history of community psychology would look like from the
perspective of people who are not prfessional psychologists, ( community
experts rather than psychologists by training) or who are psychologists of
other persuasions (supposing they were interested). But these are different
questions to the ones you are wanting to address here, as far as I can judge.
An issue for me in research is whether the intention is attempting to be in
line with the values of community psychology ( eg relationship based, not
grasping for personal power/gain at expense of others, trying to promote the
interests of those who have less access to socially valued resources etc). I
don;t feel anything like as suspicious of this endeavour as I am of others
when the vested interests are rather more malign than I judge them to be here.
As far as I can see it, drawing in the views of others who have an interst/
stake in conveying the history of community psychology from a shared
perspective seems a worthwhile endeavour.
So - my proposal would be - send out the questionnaire on the list - and,
instead of apologising ( or as well as!), invite us to comment on the
research process as you do so, and offer the chance as well to comment on the
analysis/ chapter - before publication - and include something of the debate/
critique on the process in the final version.
Here i am writing emails at some ungodly hour - there would be no hope of me
taking the time to reflect like this in the daily grind. When we debriefed
from the Exeter conference recently the non-professional psychologists/
community members said that the question that struck them most on reflection
was why as workers we aren't doing more to look after ourselves - so we've
put that down as our topic for our next south west network meeting. ( some
user -led research looking at why professional helpers don't look after
themeselves - that would be a turn-around). And it's become even an more
timely question for me as I had a small car crash in a hurry to get away from
work in rush hour last week. Surely we all need to slow down.
So - dear all - let's look after ourselves over the winter festivities!
Love from
Annie
== Original Message From The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]> =====
>------- Forwarded message follows -------
>From: Mark Burton <[log in to unmask]>
>To: David Fryer <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: History chapter
>Copies to: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask]
>Send reply to: [log in to unmask]
>Date sent: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:06:49 -0000
>
>David
>Thanks for your email. Here is a response.
>
>All research methods are problematic. Perhaps 'questionnaire' is a
>misleading term for what we are doing here. It isn't the more usual
>kind of questionnaire with fixed answer options (multiple choice or
>yes/no - for example). Instead it provides respondents with the
>opportunity to write down their thoughts in relation to the prompt
>questions. There is no pretence that the sample is representative
>(representative of what?) but rather the method is what has been
>called 'illuminative' - i.e. to seek some other participants' ideas to
>cast light on the topic. Nor is this the only information that we will
>use in writing the chapter - see the previous outline I circulated and
>some of us discussed at Exeter. With regard to the assumptions made in
>selecting the questions, some of these are based on our previous work,
>which was partly based on bibliographical research, but also on having
>been in British psychology since the beginning of the 1970s. But yes
>they are arbitrary in the sense that others might have chosen
>different questions. What I think we are doing here, in both writing
>the chapter, and in seeking input from the wider CP community is
>essentially a kind of qualitative investigation - that is (as the
>Banister et al text defines it)
> ‘... the interpretative study of a specified issue or
> problem in which the researcher is central to the sense
> that is made.’
> Banister, et al., 1994: 2
>As such, there is no pretence of given objectivity - we need to
>construct the objectivity through the engagement of our various
>subjectivities with the multiple sources of information we gather.
>Unfortunately, as we are indeed all busy this can be no more than a
>provisional and tentative attempt - something we will need to be clear
>about when writing the chapter.
>
>With regard to the possible abuse of the list, I've had a look at the
>listserve site and can't find any rules for its use - unless there
>were a demand for such, that is probably no bad thing. Nobody would
>have to respond, and I'd anticipate a pretty low response rate. By
>signing up to a list, you in effect invite unsolicited correspondence,
>and I don't see how this is any different. However, there are some
>alternatives:- Sendout the questionnaire but apologise as we do it (!)
>Sendout a preliminary email - that would allow people to object.
> If there were a strong feeling against the distribution, then we
>
> could go to the next option.
>Postthe questions on the website - this might sweep in some
> more respondents, but also circulate the list, with the link and
> invite responses. I would advise, however, that the more
> complicated it is to do, the fewer responses we'll get.
>The alternative of starting a discussion could be tried - I think
> the questionnaire would be a good way to trigger this - but
> realistically I'd be surprised if it is more than the usual
> handful of contributors who join in (despite there being 94 on the
> list).
>We just write the chapter without offering people the opportunity
> of contributing their views - this will happen if we can't agree a
> way forward, since the deadline looms.
>
>Mark
>
>
>------- End of forwarded message -------
>
>___________________________________
>
>COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
>To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
>http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
>For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator at
[log in to unmask]
___________________________________
COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator at [log in to unmask]
|
