 |
 |
Hi Alison My own perspective is researchers should start from the humble perspective that they are not experts and that the experts are the people they want to study. Moroever, I think that means we have to be humble of about the social model as well and that there is a worry that if we take the 'social modle first' approach we could decend into anthropological hypothesis testing and that any of a respondents perspectives which don't fit with the social model would be written off as false conciousness (this is outlined in a more measured sense in Davis, J. M. (2000): 'Disability studies as ethnographic research & text: Research strategies and roles for promoting social change?' Disability & Society (forthcoming)). My perspective has been greatly influenced both by anthropologists and working with Mairian Corker and I would suggest that you follow up her work particularly Corker, M. (1999a) New Disability Discourse, the principle of optimisation and social change, in M.Corker and S.French (eds). Disability Discourse, (Buckingham, Open University Press). and Corker, M.(1999b) Differences, Conflations and Foundations: The limits to the accurate theoretical representation of disabled peoples experience, Disability & Society, 14: (in press) I believe that researchers should adopt a learning role. This is an ideal and it often doesn't work out this way when you enter a location that already has power structures in place (as Mandell's experiences demonstrate). The complexity of this process when working with disabled children is outlined in a paper Davis, J M, Watson N, Cunningham-Burley S (1999), Learning the lives of disabled children: developing a reflexive approach, in Christiensen P and James A eds, Conducting Research With Children, Falmer. Which I have been told is coming out this month. Whilst on the 'Life as a disabled child' project which ran as apart of the ESRC's Children Programme we linked ideas in the 'new sociology of childhood' in the UK (surprisingly named concidering the amount of anthropologists who acted as fore mothers and fathers to the paradigm and still work within it) to disability studies. I myself specifically drew from Mandell in an article: Davis J M (1998) Understanding the meanings of children: a reflexive process', Children and Society 12 (5): 325-335 In her paper Mandell, N, 'The Least Adult Role in Studying Children', in Waksler, F C ed. (1991) Studying the Social Worlds of Children: Sociological readings. Falmer She is very good on the variable role of the ethnographer, however, she dissapoints when she only uses her role to explain the differences between boys and girls and fails to account (as pointed out by Barrie Thorne about children's research) for the fluid nature of gender relations in children's worlds. Again this demonstrates the problems of using notions of culture in a fixed way, as Russell and Devva have themselves pointed out. I havent come across any other of Mandell's works, do you have any more references that might be a bit more up todate? In terms of hermeneutics I think there is a lot to be gained from people like Geertz in anthropology, however problems arise when hermeneutic based research only represents the one voice of a percieved 'group', 'tribe' 'culture' (this criticism can be found in the text Writing culture which I referenced in an earlier email) and the one voice of the researcher. I think multi-voiced texts are much more interesting and recently, myself, Mark priestly and Nick Watson presented a paper at the BSA in Glasgow which illustrated the way that different children negotiated the terms Disability and Disabled. (If can send you a copy of that if you are interested). Also Mairian Corker and myself have just finnished a paper (as indicated in an earlier email) looking at the multiple selves of the researcher and the shifting roles which are encountered in the ethnographic research process. This text includes our own two voices (including verbal and visual voices), the voices of children we worked with and adults whom they encountered on a daily basis. These texts don't desend into cultural relevatism (which is a worry outlined in Mark P and Emma Stone's papers on emanciipatory research) becaseu the web of cultural, structural and material forces which the children, adults and researchers encountered in their lives are evident in their talk and bodily practice. This also includes talk about impairment. Sorry once again for the shameless self publicity Much Enjoying the recent postings and the fatc that I'm too tired to stay here and spell check this message. Cheers John Dr John M Davis Department of Public Health Sciences/ Research Unit in Health and Behavioural Change The University of Edinburgh Medical School Teviot Place Edinburgh EH8 9AG tele 0131 650 3244/6197 fax 0131 650 6909 email [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%