A bit of a Monday cohort traitor, I stepped into the virtual space of the online Wednesday cohort led by Rachel and Liz, swimming in guilt as I enjoyed spending time with peers not from my Monday group, as we explored research methods and AR topics.
The workshop’s break out group discussing Alvesson’s (2012) (reading 1) article on interview categories of positivism, romanticism and localism revealed some of the many intricacies and nuances of interviewing style and process. Ultimately, the reading pointed to the area of ethics and power dynamics, which featured in the afternoon.
I have highlighted some of the following ARP principles from workshop 1 below, which help guide me, or remind me, of the importance of setting a healthy rapport with my students who participate in my AR.
Everyone is an expert.
Critical friendship.
Ask respectful questions.
Facilitate each other’s learning.
Be kind and compassionate: active listening, supportive responding.
Take a break. Embrace silence.
These underpin all my study tutorials, and I strive to reach them.
In terms of how reflecting upon ethics affecting my AR, the workshop and the Alvesson (2012) reading amplifies the stark power dynamic between myself as both researcher and tutor and any participating students I may access for my AR. The power dynamic is already explicit, as my positionality of white, middle-class, middle-income, senior age, experienced traveller and professional may carry perceptible status within the tutorial space.
I have written elsewhere (unit 1) on the fragility of the tutorial space that is co-created, where each takes responsibility in this dialogic learning. But the reality is, the dynamic of the dialogue isn’t balanced as the student’s vulnerability as learner and novice positions them in a less powerful place. Particularly as the overarching agenda surrounding their learning journey is contextualized as ‘being graded’, alongside their histories of educational challenges.
Just as the tutorial space hosts dynamics of positionality, so does the research interview space. Alvesson’s (2012) article is a robust reminder that the researcher has a responsibility to the participant/interviewee, to keep the ethical process underpinned with principles of respect and transparency.
More specifically, the afternoon session on ethics highlighted that I had better get cracking, and tackle some of those forms. I naively didn’t think I would have to complete them, as trialling a time management model is something tutors would typically do anyway in a tutorial. Then it dawned on me, that regardless of this fact, if I am carrying out some research ‘using’ the students I support, then it’s only honest of me, if I let them know what I’m up to. Could my presumptuousness stem from the privilege associated with my positionality?? My arrogance confronted me.
Time to use my privilege to engage in meaningful AR with students struggling with time management. A conclusion prompted by the workshop’s mention of trying to use your power to help others, and bring a change for others (Morrison, 2003).
References
Alvesson, M (2012) Views on Interviews: A Skeptical Review In: Interpreting Interviews. Sage Publication Ltd: London.
Morrison, T. (2003) interview in O, The Oprah Magazine. Available at: https://www.oprah.com/omagazine/toni-morrisontalks-
love/all (Accessed: 9 September 2019)