[I-5]Qualitative Researcher Vs Counselor

The article, Researcher vs. Counselor (Konza 1986) highlights a cogent example of a researcher with real questions about whether she complied with the admonition to “to do no harm” as Clarke and Sharf (2007) articulate. The study entailed several interviews with a mother about her ADHD child in school as her actions became progressively erratic to the culmination of the research. There were several ethical core points in the case.

First, it is important to question the rapport strategy observed by Konza. During the course of the study, the interviewee became more dependent on the researcher. Clarke (2006) informs us that a researcher needs to “consider carefully the potential risks of the interview” and its “potential to be therapeutic”. While it is not uncommon to put an interviewee at ease during a session, and sometimes empathy can soothe the exchange or give needed support to continue, one cannot be so caring as to become therapy. Although Konza suggested that Michael's mother might have been promised a source of support that wasn’t delivered, I contest that the sessions had met a need in the interviewee’s life. She was obviously getting something from the visits, even if it was not from the content of the session, but rather as an exploitive vehicle to dramatize her desperation.

I would also propose that, although the researcher did repeatedly emphasize to the mother the need to seek counseling, she alternately offered ( even if was is tacitly) a venue for counseling without the hassle of seeking an agency and paying a therapist. Lastly, Clarke and Sharf (2007) warned that you must be careful when unmasking emotions. One might have perceived the intensity at each session or the accumulative quality of sharing over the course of the interviews as being potentially problematic.

If I were confronted with the situation, I would hopefully have been more perceptive from the outset. However, after realizing the issue, I would make sure that my demeanor was that of a researcher (more businesslike and less empathetic). I would reiterate the stated benefits of the research and reinforce what it is not. If the research study framework allowed, I would assign an associate come in during sessions or switch interviews to a fellow researcher. I would examine my context and impetus for doing the research to study whether I have an agenda, or am too emotionally attached to the research topic. Lastly, I would encourage the principal to follow through with the procedure when a parent is barred from the school, in the hopes that it may contain direct social service intervention.

This article brings up a lot of questions to me about doing my research. It is very likely that my research will be done at my university because we are planning a massive building campaign so I should have the opportunity to directly design and assess the new teaching spaces over the next 5 years. I will need to reflexively review my research and take particular precautions to manage feeling of reciprocity ( and informed consent issues) from my students as I will likely be one of their future professors. Politically I will have to scrutinize my agenda and make sure that my research is not a referendum on teaching methods or traditional teachers verses new technology etc… And I need to consider the length of the commitment of my interviewees so I don’t end up in the “You tube dilemma” of Jordan Crittendon.