I agree with Marion's comments. This seems pretty much non-negotiable, like
not using unapid interns as cheap labour.
But the thing that surprises me is that it seems to be taken for granted by
a lot of the voices in this discussion that non-payment of disabled
interviewees is some sort of value-free option.
I have learnt as a freelancer that, if I undercharge for my work it gets
undervalued. If our participation is seen as something that can be made use
of without payment, our voices are likely to be devalued accordingly. (For
more on this issue of whether our vioces get noticed, see the introduction
to 'Neglected Voices', link below.)
I would have thought it was also liable to skew the sample towards more
pliable, less angry and demanding voices. I am certainly less likely to
take part in any focus group that does not pay its particpants. It's not
that the odd thirty quid makes a great deal of difference to my needs, but
any researcher who can't be bothered to organise even a token payment can
get stuffed as far as I'm concerned.
Best wishes
Allan Sutherland
Read 'Neglected Voices', four cycles of transcription poems by Allan
Sutherland, based on interviews with disabled people.
http://wwwdisabilityarts.org/Neglected-Voices
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Hersh" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: Celebrating resilience project
Dear All,
There are a lot of issues round power. as well as issues round payment.
With regards to payment there is not just the issue of whether, but how
much. Some of the concerns about payment are paternalistic e.g. that
people will get involved with risky research because of the money. If
research is that risky, it should not be taking place anyway. There are
generally power differences between researchers and participants - the
fact of being researchers and asking the questions tend to give them
more power. This is reduced to some extent in more participative
approaches to research, but not totally. Is there any evidence that
participants are more likely to bias their responses to what they think
the researcher wants because they are paid? Otherwise, this assumption
seems patronising. In general in would seem good practice to pay
participants, though the available funding may put limitations on this.
Relevant power issues (and there are others) include
Disabled/non-disabled
Income and class
Researcher/participant
Gender and race
Education and access to resources.
Marion
Larry Arnold wrote:
> All I can say is that those who answer do so from a position of privilege,
> for
> sure I too am a researcher, but unfunded, who has been disadvantaged by
> not
> having funding to even contemplate paying participants who are as
> essential in
> the production of the research as I am , and my true peers.
>
>
>
> I just wonder, I have done ever since I started on this list, where I
> belong,
> how I survive, and frankly how “disabled” in the sense of culturally
> disenabled
> I am. It’s a class thing, which I think many can’t understand unless they
> have
> been served up the same shit sandwich.
>
>
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Gareth Millward
> *Sent:* 21 November 2011 00:44
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Celebrating resilience project
>
>
>
> Surely (and I'm also saying this from a position of privilege, so forgive
> me)
> the issue is with the ethics of paying people for their participation.
> This
> isn't so much to do with sharing the wealth or redistributing income, but
> to do
> with the ethical considerations of how data can be corrupted when people
> are
> paid for their contributions; or even how the position between researcher
> and
> participant is corrupted when payment is involved.
>
> I'm not saying that research funders, who tend to be bankrolled by exactly
> the
> sort of people who SHOULD be spreading their ill-gotten gains more
> readily,
> aren't using this as an excuse to not give money to disabled people and
> their
> organisations; but I think it's a little more complicated than simply the
> powerful refusing to give money to the "weak".
>
> G
>
>
> ________________End of message________________
>
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
> Disability
> Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>
> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Archives and tools are located at:
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> <http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html>
>
> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web
> page.
>
>
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
(www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4029 - Release Date: 11/20/11
19:34:00
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|
