Collaborative Researcher – Participant Relationships

The first of these revolves around the nature of the relationship between the researcher and other participants in the study. Ife (2008, p.169) has called for an anti-oppressive focus which seeks to maximize participation through a dialogical praxis in which knowledge created in interaction between participant and researcher leads to shared action. Meaning is derived through interaction, it is collectively created and relational in nature. This

implies that the researcher respects the value of the relationship and authentically invests in the community affected by the study. It also entails a humility and flexibility about goals. Perhaps, most important is that an anti-oppressive approach necessitates a reframing of power relations. It involves a shift from vertical (knower-object) relations to more horizontal ones where the learner-expert paradigm is inverted with the researcher adopting the learner role. Experts are the participants who invite the researcher to share in their world, and their understanding of it.

Karen Potts and Leslie Brown (2005, p.263) signal the essential aim of this respect for culture(s) imperative and the researcher-as-learner role when they assert that “we don’t begin to collect data in a community until all the dogs know us.” With its emphasis on doing groundwork and building trust through developing relations with participants prior to commencing with the study, respect for culture(s) represents the first step in a process where responsibilities are ideally shared and aims negotiated.

Although, I did not reach the level of cultural embeddedness prior to initiating the research implied in Potts and Brown’s quote, I did endeavour to build a foundation of trust with the partners from the outset. Contacts with gatekeepers for the integration educations including head administrators and teachers were established well in advance and preceded by detailed letters of introduction and consent. I was also fortunate enough to have a family member employed in NorQuest College’s LINC program who laid the groundwork for my visit to Canada and prior personal friendships with the integration coordinators and administrators at Arbis and Medis who vouched for me with their colleagues. All of these eased my fieldwork introductions and established me, if not as an insider but at least as a kindly predisposed visitor. In addition, I visited all three institutions several times in the months leading up to the fieldwork, including doing some introductory interviews with educational planners in the case of Arbis and Medis.

With migrant student groups, I did not meet similar levels of cultural embeddedness before initiating my fieldwork and this placed me at a distinct disadvantage when considering the respect for culture(s) imperative. I realized that given my role as a stranger, coupled with the limited time available for observations and group interviews, I had to

concentrate fully on building trust and rapport during the months of fieldwork. I hoped to mitigate this lack of prior familiarity by organizing introductory information sessions to present my research, talk about my own background and answer relevant questions. Student participation was also solicited by distributing formal letters of consent in language level appropriate English or Swedish where the voluntary nature of participation as well as issues of confidentiality and privacy were emphasized. Socializing with them during coffee or lunchbreaks and after school proved helpful, as did assisting on class assignments and rotating between different student groups. Additionally, the data collection process with students reflected a collaborative approach, even though the methods of collection were decided by the researcher. For example, interviews were not pre-structured and themes emerged serendipitously depending upon the varying constitutions of student groups. Giving voice and choice to participants dictated arrangements – a policy which also guided my interactions during the observation period where I participated as one of the group in all curricular as well as extra-curricular activities. Correspondingly, I developed relationships of genuine warmth and mutual respect with many students while there were others with whom I never managed to proceed beyond a neutral politeness. In some cases, varying degrees of language proficiency obfuscated this interaction although undeniable differences rooted in social position, gender and power hierarchies doubtlessly also played a part. For a more detailed discussion on these, refer to the ethical reflections later in the chapter.

With the teaching and support staff, however, given time and logistical constraints, the interview process became more researcher-centred.

Interview guides were semi-structured though they allowed for flexibility and amendments given the particularities of individual interview situations.

Transcripts were also made available to contributors for perusal prior to being finalized. Despite these efforts, similar open collaborations in shaping the process of data collection which characterized engagements with migrant students were limited. Additionally, some of the truly anti-oppressive potential in data analysis characterized by participant driven collaboration in data coding and in selecting final themes and results could not be realized in this study. However, other strategies were used to ensure that the analysis “rang true” to participants and reflected their experiences.

Dissemination presentations at a national seminar attended by Arbis participants and discussions of findings individually tailored to both students and staff at NorQuest and Medis were arranged during which the main results were interrogated. In the student sessions, it became clear that the results validated their experiences with many wondering how and when program changes would be implemented by administrators. The staff sessions also clarified findings and extended opportunities to critique those institutional procedures and practices that they experienced as disempowering.