fine_lines_strong_cords by grace website

Fine Lines or Strong Cords? Reflections on Being And Doing in the Quest for Quality In Qualitative Research Keynote address for the Quality in Qualitative Research in Education Conference, Johannesburg, 25 – 27 June 2001 Ineke Buskens

Fine lines or strong cords? Who do we think we are and how can we become what we want to be in the quest for quality in qualitative research

Only the shallow know themselves. Oscar Wilde

A mind, which is all and only logic, Is like a knife, all and only blade It will wound the hand That uses it. Rabindranath Tagore1 Stray Birds (p. 53)

Introduction In the quest to answer the question of ‘Who do we think we are and how can we become what we want to be in the quest for quality in qualitative research,’ this paper tackles the subject in five parts. The first part deals with the issue of quality in qualitative research. The qualitative research literature testifies to quality concerns among qualitative researchers, which can be grouped into three broad categories: technical quality, usefulness quality, and social responsibility quality. These concerns are approached by many researchers as dimensions of a general concern around quality - as threads of one cord. In this paper the stance is taken that it would be helpful to add a fourth dimension, a fourth thread to this cord: that of recognisability quality. While this commitment to a multidimensional quality concern will benefit qualitative research practice in many and varied ways, it does not make research life easier for individual practitioners. The quality concerns are very distinct and have very different natures. In turn, they make demands of very different natures on researchers. In the second part the question is raised of what qualitative research means for us. I believe that it is helpful to distinguish between qualitative research and qualitative action research. The differences and similarities between these two approaches are sketched in a broad way. Against the purpose of this paper, however, qualitative research practice is 1

Translated in English out of the Dutch translation Zwervende Vogels p. 23 by Johan de Molenaar from the original English Stray Birds.

approached in a way which gives scope to speak to both approaches simultaneously. The question is asked: “What does the striving for quality mean for qualitative researchers when they are engaged in their practice?”. Both qualitative researchers and qualitative action researchers practice qualitative research techniques. Researchers from both traditions will therefore experience their research at certain times in quite similar ways, and will be faced with quite similar challenges. The third part focuses on the relationship between the researchers’ “being” and “doing”, as a lens through which they can give meaning to themselves and their research acts. Acknowledging this conceptual distinction may be helpful for researchers of both traditions in their striving towards quality. The concept of “fine lines” is introduced to narrow the focus on quality in qualitative research practice. Quality is lost when researchers cross the fine lines. The conceptual lens of researchers’ “being and doing” can give us insight into how, when and why “fine lines” are crossed. Focusing on these “lost” moments will also give us information about the type of quality strategies we would need. We know best what we need when we realise what we have lost, and why we lost it. The qualitative research literature shows a creative variety of quality concepts. While our striving towards research quality will probably benefit from all of these strategies, a choice is made here to discuss only four at some depth. Part four attempts to show how “reflexivity”, “alignment with purpose”, “role-taking” and “dialogical openness” can be employed by researchers in their struggle with the fine lines. These quality strategies are relevant for both qualitative research and qualitative action research. They involve us as researchers in our “being” as well as our “doing”, and they can guide us in our practice when we have to make research decisions. Just as the four dimensions of research quality can be seen as threads of one cord, the four strategies discussed there can be seen as the threads of one cord. Not only will these strategies strengthen each other when used in conjunction, they can prevent researchers from going over board with any of the four. In the process of weaving the quality strategies into one cord, researchers will take into account the specific research situation they are faced with, what they need to do to respond adequately, and who and what they are. This weaving is a creative, individual act, and designed to respond to a specific situation. The researcher will not fall back on a formula or create a formula out of this act. As such, weaving one’s own quality cord is in complete congruence with the specific and unique character of qualitative research practice. It is not easy to do this - weaving one’s own quality cord is a very demanding and challenging act. Part five moves away from research practice and concern about quality towards a focus on the researcher again. Quality strategies in qualitative research of whatever nature (not only the four discussed here) seem to be based on “research reflexivity”, i.e. the researcher being able to entertain a reflexive attitude towards him-/herself during the research. Given the fact that the capacity to “know thyself” is such an important asset for qualitative researchers, part five asks how we can stimulate, develop and maintain this reflexive attitude. Not only our “doing” comes under scrutiny when we do research - our “being” does as well. Can we just assume that qualitative researchers are automatically able to place themselves under scrutiny and even share that personal scrutiny with others in an attempt at dialogical openness? This article concludes by pleading for a shift from an exclusive focus on reflexivity as a strategy for quality, towards a focus on reflexivity embedded in and part of an attitude,

strategy and commitment of care for the self. This care for the self can be seen as the glue which will keep the threads in the two cords together. In this sense, care for the self has to be acknowledged as a very fundamental methodological prerequisite in qualitative research.

Quality in qualitative research

Enhancing the quality of our research capacity, enhancing the quality of our journey, should enhance the quality of our product. Fundamentally, we want to enhance the quality of our research process because we want to give the purpose of our research the greatest chance of success. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Or is it? Is taste not a very subjective quality? When we analyse our methodological engagement with each other, we see a variety of meanings for research quality. We also see a variety in the ways that these meanings are expressed. I have formulated and distinguished four categories of quality concerns. Striving towards quality can refer to the technical aspects of research (technical quality); quality can refer to the relevance and usefulness of the research results (usefulness quality); to the appropriateness of the project’s stance in the wider social context of power and powerrelations (social responsibility quality); and finally to the degree to which it is methodologically recognisable for a community of scientists (recognisable quality). The first three quality dimensions are openly debated in our discourse. Technical quality seems to be beyond dispute anywhere. Usefulness quality has become important as policy makers and funders realise that sometimes even with a lot of research done on a particular problem, the situation has not improved for the people involved. Social responsibility quality has gained an equally accepted status in South Africa because of our particular research history. We have seen how technically excellent research has been abused to deny people their democratic rights. However, striving towards recognisability as a form of research quality may need some argument. Recognisability Sometimes researchers are so preoccupied with the desire that their research be recognised by peers and research commissioners that they follow research designs which have been used before, regardless of the fact that they may not be the most appropriate for their research purpose and context. In following a “tradition” researchers may hope to be safe from methodological critique. Very often, however, they will lose sight of the fact that the purpose of their research is of a different nature to the model they are looking at. Following formulas in qualitative research often contributes to the theory-practice gap, with the unfortunate effect that application of the research results will not contribute to the purpose which gave impetus to the research in the first place.2 2

I want to relate the following Sufi story in this respect: “A man saw Nasrudin searching for something on the ground. ‘What have you lost Mullah?’, he asked. ‘My key’, said Mullah. So the man went down on his knees too and they both looked for it. After a time, the other man asked: ‘Where exactly did you drop it?’. ‘In my own house’, the Mulla answered. But there is no light there.’” (Ornstein, 1997). Sufi stories such as this convey knowledge about questions human beings are faced with and what it would require to respond to these with integrity.

For instance, when a qualitative research project is critiqued because the data analysis is not based on grounded theory methodology or the data collected do not use focus groups, the striving towards technical quality is confused with an unrecognised need for recognisability.3 Qualitative research is becoming more popular and more sought after. It is also becoming more varied, individualistic and heterodox in its application.4 There is more space for researchers to exploit their idiosyncratic personal strengths in their research. However, the examples used above show that the increased freedom and diversity in the way that qualitative research expresses itself, seems not to be matched by an increased freedom and diversity in methodological discourse. It is therefore not surprising that many researchers fear to take the freedom and the space offered at the moment. It is also not surprising that many researchers, research supervisors and research funders struggle in their efforts to “find” or “construct” guidelines for quality. I would suggest that just as researchers have gained the space to express themselves in unknown ways, research reviewers could claim the right that they do not have the knowledge and the insight to review a particular work properly. Qualitative research does not work with formulas and blueprints. It would therefore be appropriate that the act of reviewing qualitative research take place in a fashion which is congruent with its nature. Striving for recognisability would have to take place in the specific relationships where it matters. Communication in these relationships would benefit from an explicit use of the question: “What would we need to recognise the quality of this research?”. This is different to: “How would we assess the quality of this research?”. I would suggest that researchers take the lead in this. It is my contention that researchers could “ease” the communication about their research when they take this need for recognisability seriously. One way of doing this would be to take it on as a separate form of striving towards quality. In this way, the extra work required by the researcher to work with issues of recognisability will get acknowledgement, and our methodological discourse might gain in diversity and freedom. This in turn might liberate researchers from their fear of rejection and their need to conform at all costs. Dimensions of research quality While it is advisable to see the abovementioned quality concepts as different concerns, it is just as advisable to approach them as the various dimensions of a broader concept of research quality. It is obvious that these four dimensions will strengthen each other. It can even be argued that they imply each other. Research which does not have technical quality will not have usefulness quality either. When research users, peer reviewers or funders do not recognise a research project in terms of the methods used, its discourse and its questioning, the technical quality and/or potential usefulness of the research will not have much impact either. Finally, if a research project does not acknowledge the issues of power relations regarding the context of the research, and the intricate relationship between knowledge and power, this lack of social responsibility renders its technical 3

I have earlier discussed that assessment of methodological quality can express itself as an unexamined need for recognisability: Meulenberg-Buskens, 1997. 4 Thorne, 1991.

quality of little significance and its usefulness questionable. The dimensions of quality can be visualised as threads that make up a cord. These threads are so intertwined that they can support each other, and when one thread is missing the cord itself will lose strength.

Qualitative research

Our particular playing field is qualitative research. This term is not clear-cut. We use the term “qualitative research” to give meaning to various practices and approaches which are operating on various levels of research design. For instance, we speak about qualitative research when we refer to focus groups used as a research technique, to case study used as a method, and to ethnography used as an approach. It is difficult to give a definition of qualitative research. Qualitative research data collection techniques are not standardised, and qualitative data analysis techniques are not based on quantifying the data. I want us to think about what “qualitative research” means for researchers when they are actually doing it and are concerned about the four dimensions of quality. Practicing qualitative research poses very specific challenges for researchers at the moment that they are engaging in their research. Whether qualitative research is done on the scale of a technique, a method, or a complete research design, or whether it is used in the framework of knowledge construction for discovery or for change and transformation, will of course influence the ultimate research result greatly. This is not the main focus in this article. Here I want to hold the focus on researchers and their experiences. The researcher as research instrument and research constituent It is often said in qualitative research that we, the researchers, are our most important research instruments. This concept has its value. It wakes us up to the reality of our practice. It alerts us to the fact that we cannot rely on blueprints, procedures or formulas for our research designs and research decisions. Despite all the preparation we may do, our observations are only as good as our awareness and sensitivity of the moment. The ‘researcher as instrument’ concept reminds us of the fact that we can never stop scrutinising ourselves. However, it may blind us to the fact that we are always more than a research instrument. We constitute the research and we constitute the research moments. Without us there would not be the research. The same can be said about research respondents/participants and even (especially nowadays) about research stakeholders such as community members and funders. We can formulate a research project as a process where three (or four) groups of actors focus on a research topic in a relationship with each other. This approach brings to the fore that relating with other human beings will form an important part of the qualitative research reality for all actors concerned. Personal involvement and transformation In qualitative research we bring the totality of who we are to the research process. Not only we as the researchers do this, the other actors do so too. The totality of what we as

human beings are revolves around our own lives. It is based on the way in which we live our lives and how we reflect on them. When we bring the totality of who we are to a research project, we engage each other in a conversation about our lives. Regardless of what the specific research focus is, this “personal” conversation will form the subtext, the background. In studying other human beings we are automatically studying ourselves. In assessing other people’s responses to life, we inevitably review our own. Participating in this “conversation about life” may change us. Even when this conversation remains largely unspoken, unexamined and unchallenged, its presence will influence us. When we, on occasions, really meet each other, we may find ourselves changed to the core of our being. It is no longer the privilege (or doom) of the anthropologists to experience mental states such as “going native” and “culture shock”. Most qualitative researchers are trained, to use Garfinkel’s words, to make “the normal anthropologically strange”, to question everything, even that which appears to be beyond questioning because it is accepted as more than normal - as “natural”. This research attitude enables us to see how our respondents maintain and construct their reality through the way they give meaning to their experiences. Many thoughts and practices which are accepted as unchallenged in fact represent choices and options, even though they might be made unconsciously. When we live this research guideline we enhance our insight, reflexivity and perception. The price we pay is the fact that much (if not all) of what we personally might take for granted in the way that we live our own lives is revealed as a rather arbitrary choice, made for us by our cultures and societies. This experience can be very unsettling and at times even anxiety-provoking. Creativity and flexibility Another aspect of qualitative research important for this conversation about research quality is “creation”. Any research is a quintessentially creative act. Something comes into being which was not there before: a new perspective, new questions, and even new action. The specific nature of qualitative research requires from its practitioners to be fundamentally creative during the research process itself. We have to be able to shift our perspective and reformulate our research design and research questions when the situation requires. We often have to design new methods and techniques when we want to respond appropriately to what is happening. We have to be prepared to do something new when necessary, something perhaps never done before. The other research actors, research participants and stakeholders face more or less the same reality. They too have to be able to engage a research reality which may be forever shifting. To summarise the above, in qualitative research the research actors co-create newness in a dynamic interrelationship with each other and they may find themselves doing things they have never done before. Regardless of whether qualitative research is seen as uncovering, discovering or constructing, the act itself is creative and the process is creative, interactive and dynamic. Because qualitative research touches the total ‘human beingness’ of all the actors involved, it effects changes in all who participate in the process. The abovementioned characteristics are the aspects of qualitative research practice which I want to bring to the fore in this debate around quality. These aspects affect the way in

which we experience qualitative research and therefore also influence how we give meaning to the quest for quality. Qualitative research and qualitative action research5 I have already mentioned that qualitative research is essentially a problematic term. Coenen et al. call it a “container notion” (Boog, Coenen, Keune & Lammerts, 1996: 7). It seems that in this context the term “qualitative research” is used to refer to research designs resonating with two different research paradigms, the interpretive-hermeneutic paradigm and the critical-emancipatory paradigm. We could distinguish these two forms by labelling them qualitative research and qualitative action research respectively. Qualitative research would be the form of research as we know it traditionally, with its agenda of discovery and construction of knowledge based on respondents’ perceptions and conceptualisations. Qualitative action research would be action research using exclusively or mainly qualitative methods and techniques. Qualitative action research would be the form of research as it is known in critical circles with its agenda of emancipatory change and transformation. Various qualitative researchers have alluded to the fact that the qualitative research agenda shows signs of an increasing concern with emancipation and action.6 Action research has always given qualitative techniques a very prominent place. Some action researchers would, probably for strategic reasons, not object to having action research defined as a form of qualitative research (Boog, Coenen, Keune & Lammerts, 1996: 7). However, it is useful to see the two approaches in their differences. The reason that I am stressing the similarities here is because I am focusing on moments of qualitative research practice.7 Both could be addressed here as qualitative research because they use mainly or even exclusively qualitative research techniques. While there are similarities between the two abovementioned types of qualitative research, there are also important differences. These differences become important when strategies for quality are discussed. Both action research and qualitative research may use the same methods and techniques, and therefore the same quality strategies may apply. While the two approaches have indeed so much in common that the same quality strategies can be used, those same strategies also show up the differences between the approaches. In the following no justice is done to the variety and diversity of the various forms of qualitative research and action research in their theoretical, methodological and technical aspects. For the purpose of understanding the differences between the two forms in a very general way, many specific characteristics of the various approaches have been glossed over. Differences between qualitative research and qualitative action research Knowledge and knowledge construction processes Where qualitative research aims to describe the knowledge which research respondents have constructed, action research aims to question that knowledge against the purpose of the research. Qualitative research concerns itself mainly with the meanings which people 5

An earlier version of this text on qualitative research and qualitative action research was written for the protocol on “Screening Cervical Cancer in Khayelitsha” commissioned by EngenderHealth, 2000. 6 Denzin & Lincoln, 1994: 11, and Thorne, 1998. 7 It would thus be possible that even quantitative researchers, who would engage in moments of qualitative research practice, would be able to recognise (aspects of) themselves in this text.

give to their experiences, thoughts and emotions. Action research raises the question as to what those meanings could mean for the participants in their lives. Our acts of giving meaning not only express how we see ourselves in relation to that which we give meaning to, these acts of “meaning giving” also establish and maintain that reality. It is through our process of giving meaning that we create and maintain our world. Action research intervenes in this process by questioning the meanings that participants entertain when this meaning giving process interferes with or has repercussions on the purpose of the research. Before researchers and respondents are able to reflect together on the respondents’ meanings, a lot of work has to be done: the researcher must have gained insight into the daily reality of the respondents; she must have gained their trust and willingness to dialogue with her and must have found an effective mode of conducting that dialogue. Where the main technique in qualitative research is therefore the interview, in action research it is the dialogue. Where the main attitude in qualitative research is receptive and the researcher holds her own perceptions, observations and conceptualisations out of the dialogue with the respondents, in action research the researcher’s main research attitude is one of critical collaboration, where she makes herself visible and opens herself and her perceptions, observations and conceptualisations up for debate. Relationship between research purpose, research question and type of knowledge The two types of qualitative research lead to different knowledge. Qualitative research generally produces descriptive and theoretical knowledge. Action research can produce practical knowledge as well as theoretical and descriptive knowledge, in which case the latter will support the former. A qualitative research study can be done with the purpose of bringing about change towards a better quality of life, and qualitative research results can lead to recommendations for action. However, a qualitative research study does not draw the purpose of change into the research question itself. For instance, the question: “How can we stimulate people to become more caring?” can be asked in action research through the process of action research itself. The same question may inspire a qualitative research process, but cannot function directly as a research question. A main research question in such a research process could, for instance, be: “What caring activities or attitudes are people engaged in at the moment?” or: “How uncaring are people at the moment and why are they like that?” and: “How do people see themselves in terms of being caring or uncaring?”. Action, implementation of research results and the theory-practice gap On the basis of the answers to the abovementioned qualitative research questions, recommendations for action can be constructed. However, the recommendations of such a qualitative study reflect ultimately what the respondents’ meanings mean to the researcher, not what they could mean to the research participants themselves. These recommendations do not derive from a questioning of the respondents’ meanings in relation to the research purpose. In other words, qualitative research is in itself not able to overcome the theory-practice gap: implementation of qualitative research results may therefore not necessarily lead to the purpose of the research being met. In action research, researcher and research participants try to understand how participants’ meanings and processes of knowledge construction interface with and maintain practices, and how meanings, processes and practices can be influenced towards a better quality of life.

Action research then tries of offer answers to those questions through the design and implementation of action and the subsequent evaluation of that action. There is another way of formulating this difference between qualitative research and action research. A qualitative research project which has change as its primary purpose entertains at least two main research questions, of which one, the one which should give information about the change process, is not held up for research scrutiny. Only the research question, which focuses on the status quo, is handled as a research process. For instance, the question of how to stimulate people towards becoming more caring will probably be handled in a concluding set of recommendations. These recommendations the researcher has at best argued for, but not researched. Possibilities of implementation and evaluation of these recommendations do not form part of traditional qualitative research. The recommendations form part of the researchers’ world of meaning, very often reflecting her theory of life or her discipline’s mainstream thinking. These ideas do not necessarily work in the lives of the people for whom they are meant. Action research, on the other hand, offers the possibility of closing the theory-practice gap. All research questions entertained by the researcher are asked and answered by the research participants in the process itself. The process of answering the question “How can we stimulate people to become more caring?” could imply all of the abovementioned “purely qualitative” questions. Participation Qualitative research and qualitative action research differ in the way they look at research participation. Qualitative research does not make ‘participation with research participants’ a requirement for research practice, whereas all action research is based on participation.8 Participation in an action research project can take different forms. The ideal of complete and total participation is not always practical, useful or even necessary.9 One can assess pragmatically what type of participation is feasible given the constraints of the research situation, and weigh this up with an assessment of what type of participation would be necessary in the light of the research purpose. In one study participation can take place on many different levels and take various forms. Choices in this regard will depend on the nature and purpose of the various research relationships. Because participation plays such an important role in action research, often to the degree that we speak of ‘participatory action research’, it is important to focus on it a bit. What does participation actually mean? The Oxford Dictionary gives for “to participate”, “to take part in”. I would like to deconstruct this. Participation understood in this sense seems to imply that there is something in existence in which one can “take part”, and that this something exists outside the influence of the “one who partakes”. It also seems to imply that the act of taking part in that something could be rather inconsequential to that something. This reasoning seems valid when that something is of a material nature, like food. Regardless of how many people take part in a feast, the food itself is not 8

“Action research is only possible with, for and by persons and communities, ideally involving all stakeholders both in the questioning and sense making that informs the research, and in the action which is its focus.” (Reason & Bradbury, 2001). 9 “While participatory research may be one tool with empowering, emancipatory potential, it is not the only tool … we might absolve ourselves of some unspoken requirement that all research be ‘pure’ PR (and) instead we might look at ways to move deliberately along the participatory continuum. I am as much an advocate of participation itself, as both a means and an end, whether it be more participatory education, evaluation, management or research. (Maguire, 1994: 29).

qualitatively affected. However, when we look at the non-material nature of a feast, it is easy to recognise that this will definitely and immediately be influenced by the people who participate. The act of “taking part” by individuals will influence that feast to such a degree that we actually cannot speak anymore of something in existence outside the influence of the participator. The other dimension of participation, the fact that individuals who partake in something are influenced and changed by that which they partake in, is easier to see. We are affected by our participation in a feast, in its material and immaterial aspects. Analysing the concept of participation in this way brings to the fore its dynamic aspect. Using again the metaphor of the feast, the relationship between “participation” and “alignment with purpose” becomes clear. One can arrive with the purpose of having a good time, but one cannot predict the outcome of this intent. In other words, what having a good time means in the context of this specific feast depends on the people who participate, the type of music and the atmosphere. In a process of true participation one has to be aligned with the purpose of the process, but one cannot be directed towards a certain outcome. To participate in a process while being decided already on a certain outcome means that one is not open to the potential changes which can take place in a process of participation. This “perverted” form of participation would be a form of manipulation at best. True participation in research would imply that one is prepared to leave the scene of participation with a completely different perspective than the one with which one came. An attitude, which aims to direct the process towards a certain outcome, does not testify of true participation. It is no wonder that processes of participation bring up change and transformation. To participate implies that one needs to be open to change. A different paradigm While qualitative research can be placed within the hermeneutic-interpretive paradigm, action research resonates with the critical-emancipatory paradigm.10 Qualitative research treats the respondents as subjects who interpret their world, and the researcher does not take an overt stance as to the appropriateness of these interpretations or the ‘rightness’ of the world the respondents live in. Action researchers concern themselves about issues such as gender and race discrimination, use and abuse of political power, and the destruction of the environment, to name but a few. Action researchers take a critical stance vis-à-vis the world and they take this stance into their research practice. Action research treats the research participants as emancipatory actors who can accomplish a better quality of life, who are able to learn and change if given the space and the stimulus to reflect on their meanings and practices. Qualitative research takes the researchers’ interpretations out of the researcher-researchrespondent relationship into other relationships, such as those with policy makers, academia, funders, etc. Action research processes the research participants’ data within the dialogue between researcher and the research participants. After having reached consensus of whatever form, the results are shared in a wider forum, with funders, policy makers and the general public. The issues of power and knowledge and the role that power plays within the researcher-research participant relationship are therefore fundamentally 10

See Smaling, 1994. The pragmatic dimension: Paradigmatic and pragmatic aspects of choosing a qualitative or quantitative method.

different in the two forms of qualitative research. In discussing the aspects outlined above we have implicitly discussed the dimensions of our “being and doing” in qualitative research practice. I next want to explore what this concept will reveal to us when we use it in an explicit way - when we use it as a lens through which we look at our practice and ourselves.

III

Being and doing in qualitative research

As qualitative researchers we know that our research practice involves us as the total human beings we are. We also know that we experience change and transformation in and through our research. In striving towards quality, we must therefore pay attention to the dimension of our “being” next to the dimension of our “doing”. The distinction between “being and doing” is of course not an absolute one. We may even communicate this insight with a sentence such as: “When this happened, I could not help thinking…”. As a concept, “being and doing” can be approached as an opposition. It can also be seen as a complementarity, as two expressions of our essence as human being, which can be experienced by us at the same time. From a certain angle “being and doing” can even be seen as one and the same act/essence.11 Here it is not possible to do justice to all the philosophical work done on the intricacies of human being and doing as a concept. I appeal here to the qualitative researcher’s insight that the meaning of a concept is defined by its parameters, the context in which it is used. In the context of our debate, I hope to share my insight that pondering about our being and doing as researchers can be helpful in our quest for quality in qualitative research. Using examples from our research practices, I will embed this concept within the framework of meaning relevant for us as qualitative researchers. It is imperative that the way we think and learn about our research does justice to our research practice and to the way we experience it. We need methodological concepts which stimulate us to develop those aspects of our being and doing which will enhance the quality of our research. We know that our techniques alone do not “make” our research. Correct use of techniques is in itself not an indication that the research was conducted well. The techniques might be implemented impeccably, but in the light of the research question or research purpose, the way in which they have been implemented may have missed the point. It is only from the connection between the researcher and the research respondents against the research question or purpose that appropriate research decisions and choices can be made. This connection is a living, moving reality, and the capacity to stand within that connection, to be influenced by it and live within it, is more than a technique, it is a quality of being. We know we have to be involved in our research with our total human beingness. We need the freedom to bring our being in. Only out of that freedom can we create and reach out to the other research actors. While it is so obvious that we bring ourselves, our being, into the research process, we 11

The Nanumba people from the Northern District of Ghana do not entertain a distinction between being and doing in their language. It took me quite a while of intensive fieldwork before I understood that the phrases “I am/do a woman” and “he is/does a man” had to be unpacked before I could formulate research questions which would begin to make sense for my respondents (Buskens, 1983: Nanumba Vrouwen in Doen en Denken).

have to ask ourselves whether we know what being this is. As Oscar Wilde so aptly said: “Only the shallow know themselves”. We cannot claim that we know who we are. We also cannot claim to know what we are becoming from day to day. We know this dimension of the “human condition” from our daily lives. Research intensifies this dimension and tries to professionalise it. Is research not a venture into the unknown? An adventure towards an unknown destination? Are we not doing research because we do not know the answer to the question we are asking? Will we not change because of this journey - and even while we are on this journey? However, if we do not know who we are and who we might be becoming, where does that leave us in our quest towards quality? When not only the research instrument, but also an important constituting element of the research process turns out to be an unknown variable, how shall we think about our striving towards quality? If we compare research with dance, qualitative research would be a dance where the dancers have become choreographers, designing the steps while they dance, while often not knowing where the music and the other dancers will lead them. What do quality and striving for quality mean in this reality? Fine lines12 Reflections on “quality in qualitative research” bring up memories and insights into moments where quality was lost. Scrutinising these moments brings up the image of “fine lines”. There is, for instance, a fine line between “acceptance” of a respondent as a person and “agreement” with what she says. There is also a fine line between empathy (trying to feel what our respondent is feeling) and sympathy (going with our own feeling), between reflecting what a respondent has shared in our own words and giving our respondents’ sharing a twist of our own. The finest line of all might well be between the efforts to keep the interviewee aligned with the purpose of the interview, and the temptation to manipulate her towards the direction we think the interview should take. In the abovementioned examples the fine lines will be crossed when the researchers’ own personal agenda will play up and overlay the agenda of the research participants and of the research project itself. In this case our acts are influenced by our needs. We may have a need for a particular answer, a need for the interview to go somewhere, a need to agree with the interviewee or to judge her. We may not realise this while we are engaged in the research. Questioning our doing in hindsight, we might reveal a part of our being we were unaware of; a part of our being that could exactly influence us because we were unaware of it. When we as interviewers are uncomfortable with silence, we tend to react by talking too soon, too much. When we feel insecure because we do not understand our respondents, we give meaning to their words even before we have grasped where they come from. Could we say here that we “do too much” when we are “too little”? Are we doing too much talking when we are not confident enough? Are we making sense too soon when we are not patient enough? Our respondents/research participants may in the course of a project press our buttons of 12

The concept of ‘fine lines’ gelled into place during a research workshop I facilitated for Gert van der Westhuizen and his staff in Centurion in 2000.

fear, pity, remorse, guilt, shame, insecurity, rejection, anger, hopelessness, jealousy, hate, betrayal, etc., without knowing, without intention. Practicing qualitative research opens Pandora’s box - not only for our respondents, but for us as well. In an interview we may for instance ask a seemingly innocent question of clarification, and the result may be that our respondents share unexpectedly strong feelings of joy or pain with us, of anger or hope. In doing so they may evoke strong feelings in us too. How will we cope with what we are becoming in the face of these new experiences? Are we prepared to be with the contents of Pandora’s box and to allow the contents to be? Or will we need to deny or distort the contents of that box because we cannot handle what we are presented with? People express themselves not only rationally but also emotionally. Researchers must be able to process this emotional expression as also being data. However, what if a respondent’s negative emotional expression is directed straight at us and hooks into our own repressed anxieties? We may lose awareness and we may blindly react, failing to see what there is to see, or hear what there is to hear. We will merely act out our own phantoms in our unexamined projections of ourselves. When we cannot handle ourselves in the research situation and resort to inappropriate “doing”, it will be obvious that that doing will never be the right thing. Its primary purpose is to alleviate our anxiety and our discomfort. Our research “doing” is no longer a response to what the research itself might need in terms of our interventions. It has become crisis management. It is obvious that we need strategies for our striving towards quality which allow our being to strengthen our doing, and vice versa. We need quality strategies which help us to avoid crossing the lines, which help us to realise when we do so, and help us to get back on track when we have done so. The concept of fine lines is so important for us as qualitative researchers because of the freedom we have in our research practice. Realising that we walk fine lines may help us to stay alert. It would be good if we asked ourselves frequently: “How will I know that I have crossed a line?” and “When do I typically cross lines?”. At the same time, it is important for us to realise that we will cross lines many times. We are human. We know that we enter uncharted territory when we do our research. We will meet the unknown and therefore the unknown in us. Another question we will therefore have to consider is what to do when we have crossed lines.

Strategies for research quality

There are many ways in which qualitative researchers can strive towards quality in their research. Many of these guidelines concern research acts and research decisions. We can think here of learning research techniques and gaining methodological insight, triangulating methods and data sources and leaving an audit trail. These measures mainly seem to be concerned with the dimension of quality I refer to as “technical” quality. These “doing-oriented” and “technique-focused” guidelines are necessary quality measures, and they receive ample attention in the literature. There is a lot we can “do” as qualitative researchers in our striving towards quality. Thinking about the examples described above, there might however also be a lot we can “be and become”. We know from our research practice that our being and our doing are finely intertwined.

Why would we then in our striving towards quality of that research practice leave out the dimensions of being? Even the acts we undertake in our striving towards quality influence our “being” and “becoming”. For instance, learning a qualitative interview technique changes who we are. Keeping a research diary for the audit trail makes us more aware of our research acts and therefore also makes us more aware of ourselves. Various strategies for quality in qualitative research acknowledge the dimension of being next to the dimension of doing. Concepts such as Reasons’ “critical subjectivity”13, Maso’s “radical subjectivity” and “the excellent researcher”14, Smaling’s “open heartedness”, “open mindedness” and “role taking”15, and even the classic concept of “empathy” speak not only to our “dong” but also to our “being”. The methodologists who propose these concepts and the researchers who use them seem to be conveying two important points. In the first place, it is implied that researchers can become aware of themselves, their research acts and the emotional or mental attitude they entertain. Even the concept of empathy needs the researchers’ awareness of what is happening with them, for the state they are in still to be called empathy. Researchers who are so enmeshed in their state of empathy that they become unconscious of the way they changed through their research exposure, and have assumed new learning in an unexamined way, are no longer empathising. They have “gone native”, to use the traditional anthropologists’ term. Speaking in today’s language, we could speak of researchers having lost awareness and a sense of boundaries. The second point which is implied in the abovementioned criteria for quality is that the researchers’ awareness of self will have the potential to bring about the desired research attitude and behaviour. These concepts seem to be based on the assumption that researchers can have a reflective relationship with themselves which enables them to steer the way they feel, think and act vis-à-vis the research situation. Researchers are, it seems, able to learn to be the way they want to be. The strategies of quality I want to discuss here are “reflexivity”, “alignment with purpose”, and “role-taking” and “dialogical openness”. All of them address the aspects of being and doing and the relationship between these. All of them can be applied in qualitative research and in qualitative action research, although they do have a different meaning in these two research traditions. The strategies of quality mentioned here are not exclusive nor the only ones. They have been chosen because when used in conjunction with each other they resonate with the dimensions of quality outlined before. Given space constraints, these strategies cannot be worked out in detail here. The quality strategies carry different weights and meanings in relation to the four mentioned dimensions of research quality. In combination with each other they help the researchers in their efforts to: a) Avoid crossing the lines as much as possible. b) Recognise the moments when the lines are crossed c) Learn from the experience and get the research journey back on track

Reason (1994). Maso (1996). 15 Smaling (1995). 14

Applied together, these strategies form a strong cord that can help researchers in their struggle with the fine lines of qualitative research practice. Reflexivity The concept of researchers scrutinising themselves and their actions as part of the striving towards quality is well established in both traditions of qualitative research. In qualitative research it is best known as the concept of reflexivity. Mason urges qualitative researchers to “constantly take stock of their actions and their role in the research process, and subject these to the same critical scrutiny as the rest of their data” (Mason, 1996: 6). She sees the researchers’ reflexivity as a conscious strategy to respond flexibly to the research context without falling into the trap of working “in an ad hoc or haphazard way”. Her way of doing this would be to ask questions to herself about research actions. In qualitative action research the concept of reflection is part of the research design itself. All action research knows cycles of action and reflection. The concepts of the reflective practitioner and critical self-reflected awareness, used in the areas of education and of people development respectively, reflect the participatory aspect of action research.16 The research participants are co-researchers in qualitative action research and not mere respondents. They must be able to reflect on themselves. In qualitative research researchers need the courage to reflect on themselves and need to have the analytical mental skills to do so. Qualitative action researchers need these too, but they need something else as well - the ability to stimulate that same capacity in their co-researchers. In this sense they must (learn to) play a role as research educators (Meulenberg-Buskens, 1996: 40-49). What does applying the concepts of reflexivity, the reflective practitioner and critical selfreflected awareness mean in research practice? In questioning the research decisions we make, we question ourselves in a broader sense too. When we ask ourselves the questions “What shall I do now?” and “Why am I doing this?”, we also ask ourselves the questions “What is the self I am bringing to the project right now? What is the self, who reveals and expresses itself in relation to the research focus and the research participants now?”. In and through this process of reflection we will inevitably become more aware of who we are. If we persist with this discipline, we build up a reflective relationship with ourselves. From this reflective space we learn from our experiences. This is the relationship we need to go to when we have crossed some lines and must get back on track in our striving towards quality. This is the place where we, after having realised that we crossed a line, learn from what happened, take responsibility for it and move on. All dimensions of quality will benefit from the researcher’s reflective stance; technical quality in qualitative research is impossible without the researchers’ reflexivity. As a strategy it can help us to avoid crossing a lot of lines. Very often, however, reflexivity alone cannot help us realise when we have crossed a particular line. We are never completely self-aware. Even when we are committed to becoming aware of the “self” we bring to a specific project, we might get a lot of surprises. We might discover aspects and dimensions of ourselves we did not know we had. Maybe the best we can do for ourselves 16

The concept of critical self-reflected awareness is from Anisur Rahman (1993: 81) and was developed in the context of development effort. The term the ‘reflective practitioner’ is used in educational action research and was originated by David Schon (1987).

in terms of reflexivity is to be aware of the fact that we are not completely self-aware, and that this might become obvious during a research process. Reflecting refers to a mental state and a mental activity. We think about ourselves. However, we know that when we think about ourselves, we have emotions about it. Upon reflection, we have to admit that the emotional attitude with which we scrutinise ourselves is actually very often harshly critical and judgemental. It may even be punishing and derogatory. This can make it very painful to reflect on ourselves. This can make it so painful that instead of welcoming every opportunity for self-reflection, we avoid it. This attitude towards the self resonates with the atmosphere so often prevalent in our academic communities. Our academic environment is often characterised by aggressive debate, an emphasis on performance, a fixation on publishing (“publish or perish”), and denial of emotions next to an over-appreciation of the intellect. It would come as no surprise that we, who are socialised in this environment and have learnt to relate to others on this basis, have developed this same attitude towards ourselves. It is easy to see that this emotional attitude is not effective in promoting, supporting and sustaining ongoing acts of self-clarification. The reflective work needs to be accompanied by an attitude which will embed, carry and sustain this. The qualities of being which we need in order to watch over our inner world and take responsibility for it are, in my experience, generosity of spirit, compassion for the self, self-forgiveness, perseverance and a good sense of humour. As a last consideration about reflexivity, it has to be noted that becoming aware is a transforming act in itself. Becoming aware invites change. Qualitative researchers and action researchers have commented on the fact that the act of self-reflection brings about changes.17 Changing can be very unsettling, even when the changes are welcome. Every change carries with it the potential of an identity crisis. Alignment with purpose In qualitative research we align ourselves often with a purpose we know will not be attained through our specific research efforts, because the ultimate purpose is too vast and too involved. For instance, we do research in the hope that it will contribute to the alleviation of poverty, to the compliance of people to a health programme or to better education. In qualitative action research alignment with purpose is intrinsically built into the research process. In other words, it is the researchers’ intent to see the purpose attained. Furthermore, the purpose being more specific, more local and more contextualised can very often be attained. Qualitative research has a more problematic relationship with “purpose alignment” than qualitative action research. How does alignment with purpose help qualitative researchers in their striving towards quality? And what kind of work or doing does it entail? I will sketch a possible scenario in qualitative research. As already explained, in qualitative research the research question does not draw the purpose of the research into the research design itself. Researchers will formulate their research questions at the beginning of the research on the basis of their interpretation of the research purpose and their knowledge of the field. 17

Reason, 1995: 10; Meulenberg-Buskens, 1998: 4; Mash, 2001: 161; Van der Walt, 2001: Conclusions.

Imagine a research purpose such as “improving compliance to a health programme”. The researcher could assume that improving the relationship between health care provider and patient will contribute to better patient compliance. The research questions she has formulated focus on a description of health care provider behaviour. As the research progresses, she realiszes that in this specific context, the relationship between health care provider and patient may not hold the key to improved patient compliance. She might have to look at the relationship between the health district manager and the health care providers instead. She is now faced with a dilemma. She realises that the journey towards the research purpose is better served if she changes the research question. If she does that, she responds to the dimension of quality we described as the usefulness quality. Knowing that she responds to this quality requirement may in itself give her a form of confirmation and therefore of security. However, changing a research question might bring her into conflict with the other research actors. She will have to explain and argue her insights very well. She will therefore need courage and a good relationship with her research co-creators. She must have established trust among the other research actors in herself as a researcher, and respect for her work. She must also be so passionate about the purpose of the research that she will be able to temporarily forego a sense of knowing where she is going and of acceptance by her relevant role players. She must be able to stand alone for a while. She will need passion, courage and an independent mind in order to do this. These are qualities of being. She also must have certain skills. She must be able to think in terms of relationships: the relationship between her and the other research actors, the relationship between her research project (at the various times of her reflection) to the purpose. She will need to have good communication and arguing/negotiating skills as well as analytical and conceptual capacity. It is obvious that choosing “alignment with purpose” as a quality criterion has its consequences for researchers in qualitative research. Qualitative research allows for an open, fluid and evolving design. Qualitative research knows cycles of data gathering and data analysis, which brings with it, for instance, shifts in interview questions and observation foci. Qualitative researchers are used to this type of change. Alignment with purpose introduces the potentiality of change into the research plan to a point where even the main research question could be altered. In itself this possibility is a logical consequence of the qualitative research process. The formulation of the research question is done at the beginning of the research. A research question is in fact a translation, or interpretation or operationalisation of the research problem as seen at the beginning of the journey. As the research progresses, the researchers and research participants learn more about their problem and their assessment of the best way forward may change. This applies to both the traditions of qualitative research and qualitative action research, but in qualitative research taking alignment with purpose as a quality criterion might entail quite a dramatic dilemma for the researcher. It is easy to see that “alignment with purpose” will contribute to a project’s usefulness quality. Yet there is more. Qualitative research as well as qualitative action research involve open-ended and evolving processes. Researchers acquire masses of sometimes very detailed data. If they have not yet been overwhelmed by the data collection process, they will definitely struggle with fear of drowning in the data analysis phase. When confronted with a daunting mass of complex data while not being able to make sense of it

yet, it can become tempting to introduce their own meanings into the process. Giving meaning creates a sense of control. We can see various coping strategies at work to give researchers a sense of control: researchers attempting to direct the research process towards a certain outcome, or to close the investigation prematurely and exclude data which are conflicting or which complicate the findings beyond the researchers’ present understanding. In qualitative action research researchers might get sidetracked because of the dynamics of the action research process itself. Action research is about change and transformation, and most research participants do already have some ideas about how they want their life to be changed before any researcher has entered the scene. In qualitative action research alignment with purpose is so built into the research design that the actors know beforehand that the outcomes of the research process will be unknown at the start. Nothing is really certain. This brings its own very specific form of anxiety for researchers. Imagine if nothing happens - imagine if the research process does not deliver an action or a product that shows that the purpose of the research process has been met. That would mean that the research has not been properly and successfully done. When and how will they know that the process is on track towards the desired purpose? To handle this type of anxiety, researchers need trust - trust in the other research actors, trust in the process of action research itself, and trust in themselves. They also need to do the work of “staying aligned with the purpose” on a regular basis. This means that they have to take some distance from the process and reflect. They then need to feed their observations back to the other actors. The qualitative action researchers must be able to stand alone. They must have the courage to suggest change to their co-researchers. They need the same qualities and skills as the qualitative researchers. A difference is that the qualitative action researchers know beforehand that they will need these qualities and skills because the criteria of alignment with purpose are so intrinsically part of the research process. Staying firmly aligned with the actual purpose of the research will help researchers to stay focused without needing to engage in negative coping strategies and becoming directive or manipulative. Alignment with purpose therefore not only enhances a project’s usefulness quality but also its technical quality. It supports researchers in their striving to do justice to the complexity and richness of the research process. Alignment with purpose helps researchers to stay focused on the research process as it unfolds and to avoid bringing their own agenda in. In this sense it helps researchers to avoid crossing lines. It can also help them to get back on track if they have temporarily lost their focus. Role taking According to Smaling, “Role taking does not only mean empathy, sympathetic introspection or re-enactment, it also refers to explaining human action in terms of culturally determined, and other more or less unconscious phenomena”.18 Role-taking thus refers to taking the role of the other in the broadest possible sense. This implies that we as researchers must go beyond the information which respondents are able or willing to give to us. 18

Smaling, A. (1990). Role-taking as a methodological principle. Paper presented at the William James Congress. August 1990, Amsterdam.

Researchers have to sensitise themselves to the research participants’ perspectives, emotions, thoughts, dreams, cultural images and norms, economic and historic situation, and their capacity to exercise power or to be autonomous. Researchers can prepare themselves through training, literature, dialogue with and observance of participants. It is my experience that striving towards non-judgement will help researchers to develop the necessary sensitivity. Non-judgement in its purest form could be seen as unattainable for humans. This does not mean that we should not strive for it. We could use the concept as a “contra factual regulative principle”.19 When we look to discern and not to judge, we will find that layers upon layers of meaning reveal themselves about a respondent’s life or a particular situation. Role taking does not take place in a vacuum. Researchers take the role of the other from a certain perspective, from a certain point of view. Ideally, researchers make this perspective clear. While it may appear that there is a contradiction between an attitude of non-judgement on the one hand and the choice of a certain perspective on the other, this is not the case. Judgement refers here to the emotional need of researchers to judge. Most often we are unaware of the fact that we think and act judgementally. Openly embracing a normative stance, like: “the world is not a good place to be in for a lot of people”, or “research should contribute to a better quality of life for the respondents” does not imply judgement of research participants’ meanings and experiences. Furthermore, an openly embraced normative stance can be debated. The researchers contextualise themselves through openly admitting this stance and they open themselves up to being held accountable. It is obvious that role taking is absolutely essential in both traditions of qualitative research. Without our capacity for role taking, we will not be able to make sense of what respondents think, feel, share and express. However, it also becomes obvious that this strategy itself might become compromised. We can project into our role-taking a lot of our own unexamined phantoms. Researchers’ lack of reflexivity shows itself in two forms of unsuccessful role-taking. On the one hand, there is the possibility that researchers become so identified with the research participants that they cannot observe and report any longer. They have become participants and are not observing any longer. The danger, on the other hand, is that the researchers become so judgemental that they learn nothing new and only regurgitate opinions they already held before they undertook the research. They have refused to participate and therefore their observation remains very shallow. These aberrations of role taking may occur in both traditions of qualitative research. However, in action research the dialogue between the research actors may be able to address this. The more reflexive that researchers are, the better they will be able to engage role taking in a true sense. It is important that researchers are able to watch themselves carefully even in the midst of action. Role taking as a strategy is not only crucial to the dimension of technical quality; it also enhances the dimension of social responsibility quality. Capacity for role taking helps us in our striving to be ethical in our practice and to prevent potential harm of the research for our respondents/research participants. This is very important for qualitative research practice because no ethical guidelines will ever be able to guide qualitative researchers in 19

With gratitude to Smaling, who formulated methodological objectivity as a contra factual regulative principle (Smaling, 1987).

a very real sense. What would informed consent mean for a research project where the researchers do not really know beforehand what type of knowledge will be constructed? How can one then predict how this knowledge may later expose the respondents to harm or exploitation? It is sensitivity with respect to the respondents’ positions, even where they cannot express it themselves (yet), which can guide researchers in their efforts to prevent unwanted effects of the research. Dialogical openness20 Smaling’s concept of dialogical openness refers to research actors opening themselves up for a true dialogue, a dialogue that strives for “communicative symmetry”. Communicative symmetry amounts to “equal chances for participants to initiate, continue or stop acting and reacting, talking and listening, discursive speaking and empathic feeling. This symmetry presupposes not only equality concerning power, but also openmindedness and open-heartedness” (Smaling, 1995: 28, 29). Open-mindedness and open-heartedness are the two openness conditions for a real dialogical relationship. Smaling describes open-mindedness as a “purposeful mental activity” as well as “goal-free receptivity” (Smaling, 1995: 24, 25). In order to be able to be open-minded, it is important not to have any dogmatic theoretical or methodological viewpoints or technical incompetencies. These prevent the possibility of being really open to the other. Smaling describes open-heartedness as “self-revealing, self-disclosing, frank, honest or candid” (Smaling, 1995: 27). While open-mindedness is more a general state of mind, open-heartedness is explicitly expressed vis-à-vis the other. It knows its expression in relationships. Smaling acknowledges the risk that exclusive focus on either open-mindedness or openheartedness might degenerate into a perverted form. Open-mindedness might degenerate into a distant awareness and even an impressionistic narcissism. Open-heartedness might degenerate into an expressionistic narcissism and even exhibitionism. When this happens, true dialogical openness is not possible of course. On the other hand, for a dialogue to be truly “open”, the partners need to strive towards open-heartedness and open-mindedness. Otherwise a dialogue can become shallow and superficial and the partners will not truly meet. Smaling poses that a dialectical relation between open-mindedness, openheartedness and dialogical openness will potentially lift all three strategies to a higher level (Smaling, 1995: 29). Dialogical openness is an important capacity for the practice of qualitative research. In order to conduct qualitative interview techniques well and engage successfully in participant observation, it is important to be open-minded and open-hearted. In action research dialogical openness is, if possible, even more essential than in qualitative research. Dialogue is the foundation of action research (Coenen, 1989; Reason & Bradbury, 2001). Regardless which form of action research is referred to, cycles of action and reflection play themselves out in the forum of the dialogue between the participants. In dialogue between research participants, the research questions are formulated, the process discussed, the individual reflective processes mirrored. Without dialogical openness, it will be impossible for action researchers to keep the research process aligned 20

Smaling has developed the concept of the dialectical interrelationship between dialogical openness, openheartedness and open-mindedness as a methodological guideline for social researchers.

with the research purpose. In action research it can be very important to be open-hearted; to be frank and open about ourselves, our thoughts and emotions. Researchers will benefit from opening themselves and their thoughts, emotions, and reactions up for scrutiny of all research participants. Dialogical openness complements reflexivity. Very often we need others to make us aware of our blind spots. We see here a difference between qualitative research and qualitative action research. In qualitative research, researchers often operate alone. They have to stimulate their reflexivity on their own. They can write diaries to nurture their inner dialogue and if they are lucky, they may have some debriefing sessions with peers. In action research, the dialogue between the research actors is the forum where everybody’s reflective process finds a mirror and a sounding board. Researchers are supposed to share their observations and reflections with other research participants. This sharing will automatically stimulate personal reflexivity. Reflexivity and dialogical openness used in conjunction with each other will help us in our struggle with the fine lines. When we have crossed lines in research and we might be unaware of this, it will be our degree of dialogical openness which will facilitate the process where others feel free enough to tell us. There is a dialectical relationship between dialogical openness and role taking. Dialogical openness is a prerequisite for role taking. It is our capacity to engage in real dialogue that will enable us to get the information we need to “take the other’s role”, to imagine ourselves in other people’s situations. On the other side of the coin, role taking takes place in a dialogue. A dialogue could even be seen as a process of mutual role-taking, where the dialoguing partners take each other’s place in turn. Dialogical openness is important in the striving towards dialogical intersubjectivity for qualitative researchers and for action researchers alike. Qualitative researchers who work on the same subject need to engage with peers about their work as part of their striving towards quality. As suc,h dialogical openness is a vehicle for a process of striving for quality to take place. It is easy to see that dialogical openness is absolutely crucial in the striving towards all four dimensions of quality: technical quality, usefulness quality, social responsibility quality and recognisability quality. The strong cord: Weaving the strategies of quality together We can understand how dialogical openness and role taking need each other and how both require a certain form of reflexivity from the participants. We can see how dialogical openness and role taking can strengthen ones’ reflexivity. Action researchers Reason and Torbert link reflexivity with “alignment with purpose” in one concept: “First person research/practice skills and methods address the ability of the researcher to foster an inquiring approach to his or her own life, to act awarely and choicefully, and to assess effects in the outside world while acting. First-person inquiry takes us ‘upstream’ toward the source of our attention. This upstream inquiry helps us clarify both ‘where we are coming from’ and the purposes of our inquiry, for ourselves and for others”.21 It is also easy to realise that keeping a research process aligned with purpose not only needs reflection, but the capacity for role-taking and dialogue openness as well. 21

Reason & Torber, 2001.

The strategies of quality presuppose each other. They can correct and balance each other. They can deepen each other to new levels of functioning. Together they can form a strong cord helping the researchers in their struggle with the fine lines. Because the quality strategies are so intricately intertwined, they are all important in the striving towards each and every quality dimension, although each quality strategy seems to foster specific dimensions of quality in a more pronounced way. I am thinking here of the special relationship between usefulness quality and alignment with purpose, dialogical openness and recognisability quality, technical quality and reflexivity, role taking and social responsibility quality. Every research has its own specific context and history. Every research will offer different challenges for researchers. Striving for quality while focusing on the four quality dimensions, with the help of the four quality strategies, will enable researchers to be creative, innovative and responsive in striving towards quality. Researchers will have to weave a different quality cord for every project. As such the practice of striving for quality is congruent with the nature of qualitative research itself. The four quality strategies refer to essential human qualities. We are all innately equipped to apply them. And yet professionalising them as guidelines and applying them rigorously requires a lot from researchers. I am not making this point because I am trying to win sympathy and understanding for us and our research practice. I am concerned whether this striving for quality is do-able for researchers, because only a strategy which is do-able will be sustainable. The quality strategies can be beautifully formulated, but if we are not able to live up to them, how practical and useful will they be?

From ‘know thyself’ to care for the self

All four strategies of quality require researchers to engage themselves critically. In the act of clarifying our acts, thoughts and emotions to ourselves, we will meet ourselves on many levels and from many angles. “Being and doing” are so intertwined in qualitative research that scrutiny of researchers’ “doing” will also automatically place focus on our being. Because qualitative research is evolving in design and may take researchers on unexpected journeys, we will meet the unknown in us. In our striving towards quality, we will inevitably ask ourselves “Who do we think we are?” and “What do we want to become?” on an almost ongoing basis. Can it be assumed that researchers are able to meet this challenge all the time? Should we not ask what researchers would need to support and sustain them in this? Up to this point I have mainly looked at what we need to do and be in order to strive for quality. Now it is time to emphasise the question “What do we need to be and do in order to exercise the quality strategies?”. Are we equipped to know ourselves? Discussing the four quality strategies, we found that there were certain qualities of being which would help researchers to meet the challenges a specific strategy would pose. Qualities such as courage, being able to stand alone, self-forgiveness, non-judgement of

self and others, passion, and an independent mind would all be helpful. We have to ask ourselves here how realistic it is to suppose that we bring these qualities with us? Any research project is a venture into the unknown and brings its own mixture of challenges and anxieties for researchers. How do we succeed to call forth these qualities of being when we need them the most? It is obvious that these qualities of being are not part of our research methodology curriculum. We are not trained in courage, self-forgiveness and passion, for instance, as part of our professional socialisation. All quality strategies need an effective measure of self-reflective capacity. The degree to which we can apply dialogical openness, alignment with purpose and role taking depends on the degree to which we can reflect on ourselves. We need to be able to see where we can improve on ourselves and what we can do to change. We need to see what we are about in order to understand where our research participants are coming from. The success of all quality strategies is thus based on us having an effective reflective relationship with ourselves. As already stated in the discussion around reflexivity, our thinking about ourselves is often accompanied by an attitude of harsh critical judgement instead of non-judgemental compassion. In our research process we use ourselves and our humanity to understand our research participants. Throughout this process we have to witness what the contact with those “others” brings up for us. In doing this we constantly confront ourselves. What if we are too frightened to look inside? How will we then be able to use our capacity to understand our research participants to the fullest measure? We are in a predicament here. The qualities of being we need, the qualities which would potentially be able to nurture us in our quest, are not acknowledged as part of our training. Also, the attitude we do learn in our socialisation is thwarting our very efforts towards an effective reflective relationship with ourselves. We know that as qualitative researchers we are, of necessity, on a permanent path of getting to know who we are. It will be the emotional attitude with which we undertake this journey that will define its ultimate success. Taking care of the self Reflexivity is known in Western culture as the adage to “know thyself”. According to Foucault, the concept of care for the self is older and more encompassing than the concept of “know thyself”.22 The primary position of the concept of care for the self got lost with the evolving Christian tradition, which placed the concept of knowing thyself in the foreground. Care for the self would include reflecting on the self but would be embedded in a wider attitude of taking responsibility for the self in a multitude of ways. Foucault approaches the concept of taking care of the self in a most fundamental sense, including physical, sexual, social, emotional, political and spiritual dimensions.23 He points out that taking care of the self was seen as a political responsibility for all citizens. Foucault emphasises that while care for the self seems to be an individual and ultimately self-related act, it is nonetheless socially and culturally mediated and constructed. The notion of care for the 22

Foucault, 1995. Breekbare Vrijheid. De politieke ethiek van de zorg voor zichzelf. (Selected Interviews and other writings), pp. 43, 44. 23 Foucault, 1984. The Care of the Self; The history of sexuality, vol.3.

self must be socially supported before individual human beings can follow or develop practices of self-care. Taking care of the self: An act of power and freedom Foucault approaches power as a dynamic and fluid force. He holds that power is not possessed but is exercised; that it is exercised in all directions and permeates all.24 Foucault makes a distinction between power and domination. Complete domination destroys power and power relationships.25 Domination is the perverted use of power. It has to be avoided because it brings about the end of power relationships and therefore of freedom. To exercise power presupposes freedom and exerting power is an exercise in freedom. Taking care of the self brings with it a complex relation to others, a relationship Foucault describes in terms of power; power over self, and power between self and others. In this web of power relationships, we find ourselves as “changing positions”, able to engage power as an exercise in freedom. Freedom and power presuppose each other and they necessitate that we take care of the self. Foucault postulates that the sense of an autonomous subject is an illusion and that we experience ourselves as changing positions.26 While he sees the idea of an autonomous subject as an illusion, he acknowledges autonomy as the act of exerting power over self in relationships with others. Autonomy in that sense is also an act of forming the self. But is it not so that something in us is watching and experiencing our “position-taking”, or at least would be able to do that? Can we not say then, that in this sense the self is indeed a subject (albeit not in a rigid and objectified sense), a subject that is able to witness, choose, act and also able to reflect and communicate about all these experiences? Foucault stresses the expression of power as an exercise in freedom and taking care of the self, and he sees autonomy as an act of power over self and a way of forming the self. He also stresses the responsibility to take care of the self. Can power and responsibility then to be seen as two complementary concepts in the care of the self? We have the responsibility to take care of the self and in doing that we also express our quest for quality as qualitative researchers.

The particular quality challenge for qualitative researchers Technical skill, theoretical knowledge and methodological insight are crucial for qualitative researchers. However, we know that we must also develop “being” capacities to get the most out of these skills and insights. We realise that very often our “being” embeds our “doing”. Our “being” seems to form the parameters for our “doing”, as if we can go as far with our “doing” as our “being” can carry us. The intricate relationship between “being and doing” plays a role during the total research process. We know that we will not do the right thing, even if we would theoretically and practically know how to do it, when we are not able to handle ourselves in relation to a specific research situation. 24

Foucault, 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other writings. Foucault, 1995. Breekbare Vrijheid. De politieke ethiek van de zorg voor zichzelf. (Selected Interviews and other writings). 26 Foucault, 1995. Breekbare Vrijheid. De politieke ethiek van de zorg voor zichzelf. (Selected Interviews and other writings), pp 34, 35. 25

And yet the concept of “being” as the essential base which supports our “doing”, has been lost in our general methodological discourse of “technologies, skills and procedures”. We blind ourselves to the daily reality of our research practice by maintaining the concepts we use to describe and reflect on our practice, the concepts which so often obscure our “being and “becoming”. When we take as definition of the striving towards quality “the researchers committing themselves to do justice to the object of study in the fullest possible way and to do whatever it takes to accomplish this”27, we make the being which accompanies our doing, pretty invisible. The concept of the responsible self-caring researcher Only when we as researchers embrace the fact that we “do” out of who we “are” at any time during the research process, will we create a space for “who we are”. Only when we have created adequate space for our “being” and “becoming” will we be able to give these aspects of our researcher-selves the focus and care that they need. This focus on and care for our selves needs to be seen as relevant research work at all stages of the research process: before we start the research in our time of preparation, during the research, and also afterwards when issues related to the research might still come up. Any research project is to venture into the unknown and brings its own mixture of challenges and anxieties for the researcher. We must make space for the being that engages emotionally with the subject, the being that might be afraid of change and feels challenged, the “being” that needs to “become” in order to rise to the situation. We need to address ourselves in our needs vis-à-vis a certain research situation in order to do our research well. Our very first step of self-care could be that we acknowledge that we need to develop strategies and practices of self-care which will support us in our practice. Care for the self has come to be seen in our Western culture as something self-indulgent. We need to free this concept and claim care for the self back as an important and necessary ethical stance. Towards a methodological discourse enriched with notions of being and caring In our striving towards quality, a striving that has to do justice to the particular nature of our research practice, it is important that we recognise and address issues of being and the relationship between being and doing. These issues are important to consider, especially for those among us who are preoccupied with research development and research education. We know that in our education as researchers and in the way we educate our apprentices we emphasise the doing aspect over the being aspect. Very seldom in a research education context is the question asked “How can we become more so that our doing can be appropriate?”. The importance of qualities of being is usually underestimated in any skill development programme. It is a fact that learning to walk the “road of being” is tough and challenging (although rewarding in its own way), and it is understandable that many teachers and learners of research opt to walk the “doing” road exclusively. However, in a quest for 27

This was the formulation I used for the abstract of the paper that this article is based on, to be presented at the Conference on Quality in Qualitative Research in Education, Johannesburg, 25-27 June 2001. Old habits die hard.

quality in qualitative research, we need the methodological courage to include “being” and “becoming” in our focus, next to the aspects of “doing”. This would be the first step in developing a strategy to have care of the self acknowledged as a methodological prerequisite. If we want to establish care of the self as part of the professional commitment of a methodologically responsible qualitative researcher, our methodological discourse has to support this. This will be a challenge, but one I believe is worth taking on. The journey will be interesting and rewarding for us in many ways.

References Argyris, C., Putnam, R., McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action Science; Concepts, Methods and Skills for Research and Intervention. Jossey Bass Publishers, California. Boog, B., Coenan, H., Deune, L. & Lammerts, R. Theory and Practice of Action Research. With special reference to the Netherlands. Tilburg University Press. Buskens, I. (1993). Nanumba vrouwen in Doen en Denken. Unpublished Thesis Doctorandus Degree, University of Leiden. Coenen, H. (1989). Handelingsonderzoek als exemplarisch leren. Jan van Arkel, Utrecht. Daniels, K. & Meulenberg-Buskens, I. Experiencing Care: A literature review on care and caring. A Health Systems Trust Research Project, Cape Town, 1996. Foucault, M. (1995). Breekbare Vrijheid. De politieke ethiek van de zorg voor zichzelf. (Selected Interviews and other writings). Boom/Parresia. Foucault, M. (1984). The Care of the Self; The history of sexuality:Volume three. Random House. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other writings. Pantheon, New York. Maguire, P. (1994). ‘Participatory research from one feminist perspective. Moving from exposing androcentrism to embracing possible contributions of feminisms to participatory research and practice. Voices and Visions.’ In de Koning, K. (ed.) Proceedings of the International Symposium on Participatory Research in Health Promotion. Education Resource Group, University of Liverpool, School of Tropical Medicine, UK. Martin, M. (1996). Issues of power in the participatory research process, in: Participatory Research in Health, Issues and Experiences. London: ZED Books, Johannesburg: NPPHCN. Mash, B. (2001), The development of distance education for general practitioners on common mental health disorders through participatory action research. Doctoral Thesis

submitted, US Stellenbosch. Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage. Meulenberg-Buskens, I. (1996) An approach towards learning and teaching in Participatory Research. In K de Koning (ed.) Participatory Research in Health. London: ZED Books, Johannesburg: NPPHCN. Meulenberg-Buskens, I. (1997). Turtles all the way down? On a quest for quality in qualitative research. South African Journal of Psychology, vol. 27, nr 2. Meulenberg-Buskens, I. (1998). Reflections on Research Methodology and Research Capacity Building in a Participatory Action Research Project in South Africa 1996 – 1998, in Fehrsen, S. et al. Coping Strategies Project Report South Africa, Unpublished Research Report E.U. Brussels. Ornstein, R. (1997) The Psychology of Consciousness”. (details will follow). Oskowitz, B. & Meulenberg-Buskens, I. (1997). Preparing researchers for a qualitative investigation of a particularly sensitive nature: reflections from the field. South African Journal of Psychology. vol. 27, nr 2. Rahman, M.D.A. (1993). People’s Self-Development, ZED Books, London. Reason, P. (ed.) (1995). Participation in Human Inquiry. London: Sage. Reason, P. and Torbert, W.R. (2001) “Towards a Transformational Science: a further look at the scientific merits of action research” Concepts and Transformation. 6 (1), 2001, 137. Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds.) (2001). Handbook of Action Research, Participative Inquiry and Practice. London: Sage. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Smaling, A. (1987). Methodologische objectiviteit en kwalitatief onderzoek. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Smaling, A. (1998). Dialogical partnership: The Relationship between the Researcher and the Researched in Action Research in: The complexity of Relationships in Action Research by Boog, Coenen, Keune, Lammerts (eds.), Tilburg University Press. Smaling, A. (1995). Open-mindedness, Open-heartedness and Dialogical Openness: The Dialectics of Openings and Closures in: Openness in Research, The Tension between Self and Other. Maso, I., Atkinson, P.A., Delamont & Verhoeven, J.C. (eds.), Van Gorcum, Assen. Smaling, A. (1994). The pragmatic dimension; Paradigmatic and pragmatic aspects of

choosing a qualitative or quantitative method. Quality and Quantity 28: 233 – 249. Smaling, A. (1990). Role-taking as a methodological principle. Paper presented at the William James Congress. August 1990. Amsterdam Tagore, R. Zwervende Vogels. (Stray Birds – translation Johan de Molenaar). Wereld Biliotheek. Amsterdam. Thorne, S. (1997). The Art (and Science) of Critiquing Qualitative Research. In J. Morse, J. (ed.). Completing a qualitative Project. Details and Dialogue. London: Sage. Thorne, S. (1991). Methodological Orthodoxy in Qualitative Nursing Research: Analysis of the Issues. In Qualitative Health Research. Vol. 1 No. 2, p 178 – 199. Tronto, J. (1993), Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. Routledge, New York. Van der Walt, H. (2000). Nurses and their work in the Tuberculosis Control Programme for the Western Cape: Too close for comfort. Unpublished PhD Thesis, UCT. Cape Town.