In the article “Researcher v Counselor”(Konza 1986) I think that the researcher should have concurred with the spirit of Silverman’s advice in his earlier book (2004) and ended the interview sessions after repeated episodes of distressed behavior in the principal’s office. I wonder about the incidences that we didn’t read about in this article – those when professional boundaries were tentatively breeched or when the mother’s divergent behavior was encouraged (or at least unchallenged) instead of rebuked during the course of personal interviews. I wonder if the researcher imparted an “irresistible” value as discussed in our readings. Perhaps the researcher presented a non-judgmental empathy within the mother’s environment where that did not reside. So many things seem to be the responsibility of the researcher. I absolutely think that the researcher lost her focus. Maybe the researchers’ passion is another factor that blinded these observations, but as is said “The burden rests with the researcher”.
After reading the article, ‘”Differing Realities (Konza 1986) it seemed as if the ethnographer developed a second agenda during the interview. Rather than conducting a fact-finding mission to reflect the couple’s beliefs, it became one of surreptitiously steering the couple to reach an alternate conclusion about their supposition, within the course of a planned interview. I cannot see this as very laudable. I am reminded about the Regulations and Ethical Guidelines of the Belmont report from NIH office of human subjects research http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html#goc2 linked to our resources for this week. In it they describe ‘beneficence’, which is based on and extends the central tenet of the Hippocratic oath -“Do no harm”. It should be noted that although the interviewees have an erroneous opinion that may be harmful to their wellbeing- it is not a supposition brought by the researcher and there should be no direct responsibility to contest that within the course of the research. As Silverman states, they can be directed to counseling resources if they appear to be overwhelmed as a result of the interviews. I certainly don’t want to appear cold-hearted and I can relate to how painful it is to come to the realization of a child’s diagnosis as you witness in your profession. I once wrote about the time of my revelation: “as a loving father, it was hard to fight back the tears- partially to mourn the death of my son, the scholar; partially to dispel the dream of reliving my scholastic life vicariously; partially in guilt for nightly threatening matches over homework; but mainly because my child’s opportunities in life were officially reduced.” As is said, researchers should not normally inject themselves into the emotional processes of the interviewee- albeit difficult.
After reading the article, ‘”Differing Realities (Konza 1986) it seemed as if the ethnographer developed a second agenda during the interview. Rather than conducting a fact-finding mission to reflect the couple’s beliefs, it became one of surreptitiously steering the couple to reach an alternate conclusion about their supposition, within the course of a planned interview. I cannot see this as very laudable. I am reminded about the Regulations and Ethical Guidelines of the Belmont report from NIH office of human subjects research http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html#goc2 linked to our resources for this week. In it they describe ‘beneficence’, which is based on and extends the central tenet of the Hippocratic oath -“Do no harm”. It should be noted that although the interviewees have an erroneous opinion that may be harmful to their wellbeing- it is not a supposition brought by the researcher and there should be no direct responsibility to contest that within the course of the research. As Silverman states, they can be directed to counseling resources if they appear to be overwhelmed as a result of the interviews. I certainly don’t want to appear cold-hearted and I can relate to how painful it is to come to the realization of a child’s diagnosis as you witness in your profession. I once wrote about the time of my revelation: “as a loving father, it was hard to fight back the tears- partially to mourn the death of my son, the scholar; partially to dispel the dream of reliving my scholastic life vicariously; partially in guilt for nightly threatening matches over homework; but mainly because my child’s opportunities in life were officially reduced.” As is said, researchers should not normally inject themselves into the emotional processes of the interviewee- albeit difficult.
No comments:
Post a Comment