Thanks for this contribution Kip, you have given me lots to think about. My
first thought is that not all research contexts are appropriate for
performance ethnography, so in my current work it brings into question the
concept of 'equals' - in the 'battle' of equals - ideally everyone should
thrive, which is not the same thing as nobody having harm done. I prefer to
think in terms of reciprocity,  following the feminist ethics of care
theorists, rather than equality who would probably problematicise the ideal
of equality in this context.
I really like the idea of innovative means of dissemination - I can imagine
that here is a forum in which people can thrive.
Best wishes,
Debra

Dr Debra Hopkins
Research Fellow
Dept of Sociology, Anthropology and Applied Social Science
Room S012 Adam Smith Building
University of Glasgow
Bute Gardens
Glasgow G128RT
Tel 0141 3304517

-----Original Message-----
From: Kip Jones [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 28 October 2005 10:45
To: Debra Hopkins; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Discussion-one week later - ethical issues


Debra brings up some points for further thought.

I went back to Denzin in the past few days to get his
take on some of this.

He believes that performance ethnography falls outside
of a 'one model of research fits all forms of inquiry'
model. '...A collaborative, public, pedagogical
relationship betwen subject and researcher is
developed.  ...Confidentiality disappears, for there
is nothing to hide, or protect.  Participation is
entirely voluntary, hence there is no need for a
consent form. ...participants are not asked to submit
to specific procedures or treatment conditions.
Instead, acting together, researchers and subjects
work to produce change in the world' (Denzin
2003:7-8).

If I understand Denzin correctly, he calls for
research that is not built upon a binary of
researcher/researched but is an inclusionary,
collaborative effort between equals.

This takes me back to my original thoughts about the
purpose of performative social science:

My expectation is that these sorts of efforts will do
two things:
	1. honour the people who gave us their biographies in
the first place, and
	2. find new audiences for these narratives, thus
insuring that they are not just buried in academic
journals.

Thinking about what Denzin has to say and my own work,
I now see that I need to abandon completely the
researcher/researched binary and aim my data
collection more clearly at participatory
collaborations that engage with people who have
stories to tell that they want others to hear and are
willing to 'let go' of those stories in order to reach
a wider audience and contribute to the common good
through collaborative efforts with the researcher as
well as others. One part of making this possible is by
using innovative means of dissemination of that data
that include various media and production techniques.
In the end, the ideal story will be one built upon the
original data, but reflecting the process of
production--thus contributing to participating in
'enriching the forms of societal practice (Gergen
2001: 431).

Cheers,
Kip

Denzin (2003) IRBS and the turn to indigenous research
ethics (draft).  Available at:
http://www.law.uiuc.edu/conferences/humansubject/papers/CHPT_14-1401-CAS_1.p
df

Gergen, K.J. (2001)  Construction in Contention
Toward Consequential Resolutions.  Theory &
Psychology, 11, 3: 419-432.
------------------------------------------------------

--- Debra Hopkins <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear All,
> Thanks for this discussion - I really enjoy these
> forum exchanges and find
> them stimulating and challenging.
> I have a few thoughts, rather than solutions I
> think. Firstly, it is really
> important that we as qualitative researchers take
> the ethical in our work to
> heart, as so many of our colleagues don't.
>
> I think there are a few threads in the discussion
> below. One is the question
> of 'respectful' consent, and what that means. This
> may mean the passing over
> of a consent form, the acquisition of a signature
> and the legally informed
> obligations and privileges that emerge from this.
> Another articulation of
> this process would be outlining to people who
> participate in the process of
> analysis - assuring anonymity is one thing, but on
> the basis of my
> experience some people may be concerned about the
> interpretive process in
> the analysis, the possibility that what we
> ultimately decide as the best
> interpretation for a text, or a section of it, is
> not a reflection of their
> 'life world'. I recently had such an occasion when I
> was interviewing a
> person, highly articulate and intelligent, and
> although the consent form was
> signed without any hesitation, she quietly but
> firmly challenged the process
> of the interview, the assumptions that narrative
> interviews give narrators
> control over the interview and the generation of
> data, from the beginning to
> the end. She didn't give a toss about my promises of
> anonymity. Rather we
> had a lengthy discussion about how she could be
> reassured that what the
> researchers did with her data did her justice, and
> for her it mattered
> enormously. My offering to an agreeable
> understanding was that she could see
> the script after it was transcribed, and she could
> withdraw her story at any
> time. I suggested that if the group decided to do a
> detailed case structure
> including told and lived story (according to BNIM)
> or case study of any
> sort, where the where sections of the text where
> sunjected to hypothesising
> and counter hypothesising, and very detailed
> analysis, that she could have
> access to this process.
>
> Some people would criticise me for this, and they
> would be justified because
> it is not unproblematic.  What would have happened
> if I had taken any one of
> alternative routes to mutual understanding, I
> wonder?  What are the
> consequences of what I did?
>
> During my doctoral work I used another type of
> narrative method, involving,
> at one level, group analysis. Every person in the
> group (including me) was
> both a part of the research group, and also a
> contributor to the collective
> narratives (data). So my narrative was dissected in
> the group, along with
> everyone elses, and yes, all sorts of hypothesisng
> and counter hypothesising
> went on. It was challenging to say the least. What I
> learned form that was
> that it is important to be respectful to people's
> narratives, and
> consequently our group agreed rules of respectful,
> caring and dignified
> conduct, but unfortunately not before a few
> distressing episodes where I saw
> people really distressed.
>
> So should narrators be given access to their
> analysed data? Does this go far
> enough, and should they have the right to a
> 'metaanalysis'- and if so, this
> of course is itself data, and so the whole process
> could go on until someone
> dies.....There are clearly all sorts of ethical
> considerations, but also
> methodological and philosophical ones too. Or should
> there be some kind of
> standing agreement that researchers are entitled to
> privileged
> interpretation, as ome kid of articulation of
> academic freedom and
> recognition of expert training?.
>
> I wonder if other people, other professions turn
> themselves inside out like
> this - a doctor, nurse etc, social worker taking a
> patient history, other
> less reflexive or rigorous qualitative researchers,
> quantitative researchers
> etc....
>
> Interested to hear what others think,
> Debra
>
> Dr Debra Hopkins
> Research Fellow
> Dept of Sociology, Anthropology and Applied Social
> Science
> Room S012 Adam Smith Building
> University of Glasgow
> Bute Gardens
> Glasgow G128RT
> Tel 0141 3304517


Dr Kip Jones
Reader in Health Related Social Science
Centre for Qualitative Research
Institute of Health & Community Studies
Bournemouth University United Kingdom
Website: www.kipworld.net



___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com