1) Of course, they may not let on (or be fully aware of) what they
feel or think about me at any particular stage in the research. I will
still have to use my own instincts to decide what is the nature (or
'truthfulness') of what they have to say about me.
2) Even if I take regular soundings, that still does not give me
answers about who they thought they were talking to in a particular
exchange, or at a particular moment during a specific utterance.
So ... even if I am systematic, regular and tenacious in trying to
check out who my respondents think I am, I am still going to have to take a
lot as read. I suspect that, in general, we do not take into account enough
'dimensions' in trying to establish who our respondents think we are. My
metaphor may betray my scientific ignorance here, but maybe we
underestimate the fourth dimension - time. I change from every moment, just
as someone else's image of me does. Is it appropriate to assume my identity
is basically 'fixed' for my respondents?
What implications does this have for understanding the dialogue of
meaning in a research relationship? At one level, I can take the basic
building blocks of someone's statement, and say, 'it means this'. i.e. at
an uncontentious level, there would be agreement about what was meant by
'She was clearly busy at the time'. But we also speculate why the
respondent made that statement at that moment in the interview. There is
context to think about.
To take a real life example, a substitute teacher was very angry
and "pissed off" with the deputy head, and felt let down by her for
administrative headaches for which she was responsible. She asked him at
lunch how things were going, and he simply answered 'Fine'. Why? At first,
he told me, 'She was clearly busy at the time'. But that did not sound like
much of an answer. I took a while before he acknowledged he did not want
the deputy head to associate problems with him (even when he did not create
them), for fear of not being asked into the school again. Given that he had
been deceptive, and not stood up for himself, this was something of an
uncomfortable admission for him to make to me (as well as, perhaps,
himself?). What he thought of me (perhaps fear of being judged?) may well
have influenced what he said.
So ... what I am being told depends on who the speaker thinks I am
AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT, and, perhaps more subtly, what the speaker dares
acknowledge or reveal to himself (there is, of course, the issue of the
image a person wishes to sustain for himself, i.e. who he believes himself
to be, or would like to be).
Has anyone got any ideas how I can systematically establish, even
tentatively, who my respondents think I am at any given moment?
Alexander
******************************************************************************
Alexander Massey, <alexander.massey@edstud.ox.ac.uk>
DPhil student, Department of Educational Studies, Oxford University, 15
Norham Gardens, Oxford OX2 6PY, England