UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Teaming up in collaborative ethnographic research Niks, Marina Ines 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-0141.pdf [ 6.24MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098941.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098941-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098941-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098941-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098941-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098941-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098941-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098941-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098941.ris

Full Text

TEAMING UP IN COLLABORATIVE ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH by MARINA INES NIKS L i c e n t i a t e i n S c i e n c e s o f Education, U n i v e r s i d a d de Buenos A i r e s , 1988 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDENTS  (Department o f E d u c a t i o n a l S t u d i e s )  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard  THE  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1995  ©  Marina  Ines Niks, 1995  In presenting  this thesis in partial fulfilment  of the  requirements for an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or  by  his  or  her  representatives.  It  is  understood  that  copying  or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  E^Jc^-Vioc^  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  Abstract In t h i s t h e s i s I e x p l o r e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n a r e s e a r c h team and and  results.  how  To  do  team member i n an  the  team approach i n f l u e n c e d  this analysis  I draw from my  ethnographic evaluation  e d u c a t i o n programs.  The  and  relationships  that  two  research tasks e x p e r i e n c e as exemplary  a  adult  r e s e a r c h team's meeting tapes were used as  the major source of d a t a . conversations  of  collaborative  Through an a n a l y s i s of the  discussions  I  reconstructed  were e s t a b l i s h e d  i n the  the  audio taped  collaborative  research  team.  As  a  r e s u l t of t h i s a n a l y s i s , I argue t h a t c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s not a g i v e n ; r e s e a r c h teams become more c o l l a b o r a t i v e Collaboration building  is  a  vision,  relationships  and  an  ideal  working  d u r i n g the  that  shared work.  guides  together.  the  This  team  in  ideal  is  i n f l u e n c e d by c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s - purpose, s e t t i n g s , s k i l l s , and a  confidentiality. concrete  manner,  responsibilities stages i n the  To d e s c r i b e I  present  i n the  a  team and  research.  the  concept of c o l l a b o r a t i o n  characterization how  of  those changed at  I conclude t h a t  -  researcher,  and  spaces,  such  building  a  as  can  fieldworker meetings as  and  context  -  fieldnotes,  be to  constant  supported reflect  taping  changes  scrutiny  when  by  1)creating  transcribing  and  a  is  Basically,  methodology, private  Collaborative  2)regarding  c o l l e c t i v e r e f l e c t i o n s where the  and  of  in  different  traditionally  become p u b l i c .  privately;  the data; 3)making p r o v i s i o n s by  rigorous  roles  d o i n g team r e s e a r c h  d i f f e r e n t from more t r a d i t i o n a l approaches to r e s e a r c h . reflexivity  time,  space  team  for  each  research  team  team makes sense  of  t o acknowledge team meetings as data the  meetings,  and  connecting  the  I l l  transcripts build  on  t o other  people's  sources of data;  strength  and  trust  4)creating structures i n each o t h e r ,  and  that  giving  continuous feedback to r e s e a r c h e r s ; and 5 ) e v a l u a t i n g the advantages and  disadvantages  of  including  liaison  researchers,  p r o v i s i o n s f o r t h a t i n c l u s i o n (or e x c l u s i o n ) . is  that deciding  doing  research  different  to do  by  main  c o l l a b o r a t i v e team r e s e a r c h  e x i s t i n g methods w i t h  methodology.  My  Therefore,  if  and  conclusion  i s not  more p e o p l e . one  making  embarks  simply  It on  a  is  a  team  r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t , one needs t o acknowledge the p e c u l i a r i t i e s of the approach and together, research.  take  advantage  otherwise  of  i t i s not  the  benefits  of  c o l l a b o r a t i v e , and  a  group  working  i t i s not  team  iv TABLE  OF CONTENTS  Abstract  i i  Table of Contents  iv  Acknowledgements  v i  Dedication  v i i  C h a p t e r One  S i t u a t i n g the study Focus o f t h e t h e s i s The e t h n o g r a p h i c e v a l u a t i o n Contributions of this thesis The s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t h e s i s The N a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y D e m o n s t r a t i o n P r o j e c t  1 3 5 7 9 10  C h a p t e r Two  L i t e r a t u r e review O b j e c t i v i t y and s u b j e c t i v i t y The r o l e o f r e f l e x i v i t y Researchers p o s i t i o n s themselves R e s e a r c h e r s work w i t h o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s Collaborative research A f r a m e w o r k f o r team r e s e a r c h Purpose Setting Skills Time Confidentiality A d u l t e d u c a t i o n a n d team r e s e a r c h  14 15 17 21 23 26 30 31 31 35 37 37 38  Chapter Three  Methodology Team members The d a t a Analysis Taped Data Researcher and subject Multiple roles Confidentiality  42 42 47 48 49 52 53 57  Chapter Four  The p r o c e s s o f b e c o m i n g a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team M o t i v a t i o n s and d e f i n i t i o n s o f collaboration The team a s i t b e g a n Factors i n f l u e n c i n g the c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e team Settings Time Skills Roles and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s The c r i s i s a t I s a d o r a ' s Isadora's  59 61 63 63 64 66 67 68 72 73  V  Understanding New s t r u c t u r e s Conclusions Chapter F i v e  Chapter S i x  Bibliographical  the  crisis  P u b l i c and p r i v a t e s p a c e s : Impact o f t h e c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s on t h e r e s e a r c h P a n d o r a ' s box R e s e a r c h team m e e t i n g s Threats to r e f l e x i v i t y i n research team m e e t i n g s Including l i a i s o n researchers Confidentiality The p r e s e n c e o f t h e f i e l d V u l n e r a b i l i t y , c o m p a r i s o n , and t r u s t P r o t e c t i n g r e s e a r c h team m e e t i n g s Conclusions C o n c l u s i o n s and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s Collaboration i s a vision Working towards the v i s i o n D o i n g r e s e a r c h i n a team a f f e c t s t h e project's results A l l o c a t i n g enough r e s o u r c e s f o r t h e meetings Protecting confidentiality P r o v i d i n g continuous feedback Use o f t h e r e s e a r c h team m e e t i n g s Contributions to future research The f o r m o f t h e d a t a Team r e s e a r c h c l a i m s Educational aspects i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e team r e s e a r c h References  77 81 86 90 91 94 97 97 98 101 104 107 111 113 113 115 119 119 120 121 121 122 122 124 125 128  vi Acknowledgements  T h i s t h e s i s i s one o f many p r o d u c t s o f y e a r s o f s t u d y and work. D u r i n g t h e s e y e a r s I have found g u i d a n c e and s u p p o r t i n t h r e e t e a c h e r s , and I want t o u s e t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o t h a n k them. R u t h H a r f i n t r o d u c e d me t o a c o n s t r u c t i v i s t c o n c e p t i o n o f l e a r n i n g . M a r i a T e r e s a S i r v e n t l e d me i n t o t h e w o r l d o f e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . From h e r I l e a r n e d a b o u t r i g o r o u s k n o w l e d g e a n d h a r d work. She a l s o h e l p e d me l i n k my work t o i d e o l o g i c a l commitments a n d t o s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l p r o b l e m s . A l l i s o n Tom p l a y e d a m a j o r r o l e i n my C a n a d i a n e d u c a t i o n a n d i n t h e a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e d i n w r i t i n g t h i s thesis. She i n t r o d u c e d me t o E t h n o g r a p h y , she s u p p o r t e d me and my i d e a s e v e n when i t meant q u e s t i o n i n g h e r own, and she e n c o u r a g e d me when t h e v i s i o n o f b e i n g f i n i s h e d seemed t o o f a r away. She a l s o g a v e me t h e g i f t o f an e x a m p l e t h a t shows t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t o be a g o o d s c h o l a r and a g o o d m o t h e r . E v e r y s t u d e n t who has gone t h r o u g h t h e h a r d p r o c e s s o f w r i t i n g a t h e s i s knows t h a t t h i s w o u l d be an i m p o s s i b l e t a s k i f i t was n o t s u p p o r t e d by h e r f a m i l y . I have been l u c k y i n t h a t r e s p e c t . My h u s b a n d - p a r t n e r , f r i e n d - and my s o n have b e e n a c o n s t a n t s o u r c e o f s u p p o r t and e n c o u r a g e m e n t . I l o v e them f o r t h a t . My f a m i l y , b a c k i n A r g e n t i n a , has b e e n w a i t i n g l o n g t o s e e " l a tesis." A l t h o u g h I d o u b t t h a t t h e y w i l l e v e r r e a d i t , I know t h a t they are proud and h a p p y f o r me. T h e i r good wishes always comforted me. My f e l l o w team members h a v e b e e n e x t r e m e l y understanding. T h e y n e v e r c o m p l a i n e d a b o u t my A r g e n t i n e a n manners - i n t e r r u p t i n g , s h o u t i n g , c h a l l e n g i n g - a n d h a v e r e s p o n d e d p a t i e n t l y t o a l l my requests. T h i s t h e s i s c o u l d n o t have b e e n w r i t t e n i f i t h a d n o t b e e n f o r t h e i r t h o u g h t s , words, and e x p e r i e n c e s , a n d I want t o t h a n k them f o r t h a t . Gracias!  vii  I dedicate t h i s t h e s i s to Pat, My academic buddy, My Canadian f r i e n d .  I CHAPTER ONE: Between 1992 Literacy  and  1994,  Demonstration  SITUATING THE  STUDY  I participated  i n the N a t i o n a l  P r o j e c t r e s e a r c h , an e v a l u a t i o n o f  adult  l i t e r a c y programs i n the Vancouver a r e a .  first  experience  research was  my  part  a r e s e a r c h team.  teams b e f o r e ,  first  i n my  experience  of t h i s  I had  on  team was  thought  of  and  academic c a r e e r i n North  happy I had way  I feel  I had  asked  found  During  to other people  i d e o l o g y about  As think  and  I became i n t e r e s t e d themselves, granted. w o r k i n g on  years  and  I feel  we  And  worked  q u e s t i o n my  own  I l e a r n e d new  for  me.  find I  had  my  was  And  comfortable  together biases,  ways o f  I appreciated  f o r me.  experience  on  this  i n r e s e a r c h teams as an  on  a team o f f e r s . and  experience  Being  working  part  with  discussing ideas.  whereas i n the p a s t  individuality  on  in collaboration  I reflected  Being  r e s e a r c h team I  i n working r e l a t i o n s .  a c o n s e q u e n c e o f my  of c o l l a b o r a t i o n  this  w i t h whom I c o u l d work i n t h e  team work.  n a t u r a l t o me,  interacting  But  an o p t i o n f o r  t h a t b e i n g p a r t o f a team has  a team f e e l s  others,  t o be  t h e two  the o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e f l e c t  relating  in  where I c o u l d n o t  part of t h i s  a group of people  and  of  going  my  America.  I work b e s t .  importance  Argentina.  important  conferences  not  t o be  beliefs,  the  participated  i n team work o r r e s e a r c h t e a m s .  t h a t team work was  not  a r e s e a r c h team i n C a n a d a .  a particularly  interest  When I was  home c o u n t r y ,  with  been p a r t of t a l k s  evidence  I had  T h i s was  two  the  I had  and  team,  ongoing  teams a s  to  journey.  issues i n  taken working  a d v a n t a g e s and  I began  i n teams f o r  disadvantages  that  I wondered about t h e p l a c e f o r  p r i v a c y i n these  teams and  about  the  role  that  2  a  leader  can  play  in facilitating  Collaboration  and  team work a r e  and  more a t t e n t i o n .  was  funded p a r t l y because of  collaboration. learners  The  In  literature  National an  the  teachers  educational  r e f l e c t e d that In  including  students  researchers aspect  are  gaining  Demonstration  i n issues  research,  The  when  researchers  to  an  educational and  have  in their projects,  beginning  Project  e x p e r i e n c e becomes  learning.  more  of  r e a l i z e that  t h e m s e l v e s have been w o r k i n g  i s only recently  that  process.  interest with a varied  extensive discussion. t e a c h e r s and  topics  Literacy  f o r d i f f e r e n t kinds of has  collaborative  interest  classrooms,  work t o g e t h e r  opportunity  the  been  and  i n teams.  This  appear i n the  last  educational  literature. Collaboration concepts. "the  Research i s s a i d  researched.  done by  i s a complex term u s e d t o  two  or  The  1,1  the  investigation  Who  the  people are,  and  the  relationships i n the  T h i s term s u b j e c t s of the x  the  i s done by  term  Other questions does a group of  to  what k i n d that  used to  to  different  when i t  refer  to  includes  research  from d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e s  The  i s done by  alludes  collaborative  i s also  studies.  u s e d when r e s e a r c h  explicit  term  be  more r e s e a r c h e r s  interdisciplinary  collaboration  to  refer  same a d j e c t i v e ,  a team.  two of  or  collaborative,  In g e n e r a l  research process,  they create  is  terms,  i t points  more p e o p l e w o r k i n g  background or  or  roles  out  together.  they  b e t w e e n them a r e  that  have,  not  made  "collaborative." related  to  collaborative  p e o p l e become a c o l l a b o r a t i v e  i s used here research.  to  refer  to  the  teams emerge: team?  How  What d o e s i t  participants  in  or  3  mean t o be c o l l a b o r a t i v e  - how i s " w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r "  How d o e s i t a f f e c t t h e r e s e a r c h role  d i s t r i b u t i o n opposite  differentiation  terms?  rules,  will  research  once t h e y have  on t h e c o l l a b o r a t i v e  T h e s e a r e some o f t h e q u e s t i o n s collaborative  What i s t h e i m p a c t o f  and those r u l e s  by t h e r e s e a r c h e r s ,  A r e c o l l a b o r a t i o n and  What h a p p e n s w i t h t h e  of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ?  institutionalized internalized  process?  defined?  that  i s beginning  been  process?  the l i t e r a t u r e on to address.  In t h i s t h e s i s I  f o c u s o n some o f them. Focus o f the t h e s i s This  research  thesis team.  f o c u s e s on c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r a c t i c e s I t s goal  work i n a r e s e a r c h the  following  members, and  project.  things:  rigorous  relationships  research to  tasks,  practice  knowledge.  that  A methodological  research.  may h e l p  to plan  I f o c u s on  concrete  s i t u a t i o n , the  the impacts  interested Therefore  researchers  team.  i n enriching this  study  some p r o b l e m s .  shapes t h i s t h e s i s .  This  chose  involved i n  c e r t a i n kinds of research  done b y a c o l l a b o r a t i v e  on t h e  one p a r t i c u l a r team  f o r and p r e v e n t  commitment  that  that  I am a l s o  of collaborative  collaborative projects  if  i n a real,  and t h e s t r a t e g i e s  i t i s possible  team,  I look at c o l l a b o r a t i v e  collaborating presents,  presents conclusions  that  team  t o , a n d c o n c e r n s w i t h t h e demands o f  overcome t h o s e p r o b l e m s .  the  examines  t o become a c o l l a b o r a t i v e  a n d how t h e y a r e c o n s t r u c t e d .  that  one  o f team  t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s between r e s e a r c h  understanding collaboration obstacles  the i m p l i c a t i o n s  In p a r t i c u l a r , t h i s study  team members' s t r u g g l e s  their attention  producing  i s to explore  within  I  believe  a r e improved  i s b a s e d o n my c u l t u r a l  4 background, potential  my  of  own  experience,  s m a l l g r o u p s and  interacting  with others.  talking  reflecting  and  and  e n r i c h the In  this  teams t h a t a r e Within out  these  can  chapters can  I b e l i e v e i n the  I will  I am  f o c u s i n g on academics  i n such from  By  a way  what w o u l d h a v e r e s u l t e d  in practice,  n o t i o n o f how everyday  r e s e a r c h teams b e g i n  t h e y want t o f u n c t i o n and,  and  problems.  on  the data  beginning the  has  collected.  of the  work w i t h  as t h e y  evolve.  In  addition,  professors  what may  may  i n the  not  be  a  confront  structures to deal with  new  in qualitative much  data  where e a c h r e s e a r c h d e c i s i o n s t r u c t u r e s t h a t were s u i t a b l e  r e s e a r c h must c h a n g e as b o t h  team  group of people  The  be  to  their structures  their  This i s crucial  b e e n done and  the  are w i l l i n g  a p p r o a c h e s where t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n emerges a f t e r collection  the  r e s e a r c h teams i n t e r m s  1995b) r a t h e r t h a n  work, t h e y a d j u s t t h e i r  situations  group  form.  I purposefully define collaborative  because  of the  Team members u n d e r s t a n d  appropriate  (see Tom,  people  i f each of  share  intent  students.  teams t h a t s e t  t h a t the product  t h a t i n f l u e n c e t h e i r work a n d  their  particularly  I mean g r o u p s o f  power d i f f e r e n t i a l s i n an  how  enhance,  r e s e a r c h teams,  - p r o f e s s o r s and  this  worked i n d i v i d u a l l y .  control  by  explore  fortify,  teams I h a v e c h o s e n t o l o o k a t t h o s e  work i s d i f f e r e n t  of  learn  process.  formed by  work t o g e t h e r  members h a d  ideology.  I t h i n k t h a t we  In the next  t o work c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y .  that  my  with other people  research  thesis  and  a collaborative  collaborative  same d i s c i p l i n e  the  i n the  research  structure for  f o r another.  m i g h t be  depends  distributing  and  one  A group the  of  roles  5 and  responsibilities  equally  i n a team.  a r r a n g e m e n t m i g h t be  u n d e r s t o o d as  members a r e  and  the  same k i n d  project are  students  no  of  might  not  be  moulds t o  an  team i s d i f f e r e n t  research  on  teams w i t h i n  those out  no  process. the  work and  are  sharing  to  In  I am  o f power. Each  and  sharing  that  share  There  research changes this  study  specifically  aware o f power i s s u e s to  team  research  focusing  academic world,  committed  students  in a  follow.  sum,  of  i f the  E v e n more, e a c h g r o u p  i n w h i c h team members a r e  the  that  a professor  recipes  from o t h e r s .  through the research  as  Asking  "appropriate"  f i t and  same k i n d  non-collaborative  professors.  responsibility  The  in carrying  power  appropriately. The The  National  ethnographic  L i t e r a c y D e m o n s t r a t i o n P r o j e c t was  ethnographic  evaluation  to  two  The  1994  - of  adult  programs b e i n g  had  evaluated  their  are  considered  information.  to study the  This  be  useful  way  the  two  models  in  t o d e m o n s t r a t e how  a n a l y s i s of  L i t e r a c y Demonstration Project  kind  the  research  1991  area.  literacy  the The  programs  that  years,  Vancouver  literacy practices.  in providing  t h e s i s i s an  an  three  a l t e r n a t i v e approach to  o b j e c t i v e s , and  ethnography could  National  an  programs i n the  school-modeled adult  a double g o a l :  fulfilling  - done o v e r a p e r i o d o f literacy  work b e c a u s e t h e y o f f e r traditional  evaluation  project  were collaborative  of  process  that  the  team went  t h r o u g h i n b e c o m i n g a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team. The  p r o j e c t was  a proposal Arlene  w r i t t e n by  Fingeret  initiated Dr.  by  the  Allison  Tom  (Hanna), o b t a i n e d  program d i r e c t o r s , (Allison)  funding  and  from the  Dr.  who Hanna  National  with  6 Literacy  Secretariat.  The  e v a l u a t i o n would g i v e achieving  their  information  goals,  programs s h o u l d  be  Although the the  initiated the  of  the  the  and not  by  the  Hanna, as  two  theoretically  study,  i n v e s t i g a t i o n and  that  the  of the  subjects  the  c o l l a b o r a t i o n developed  power  (Tom  et  to the  f o r the  study.  research  The  planning  and  (who  Dyer,  myself.  team was  research  Team members went t o t h e interactions, students  and  from the  t o the  As  study  to plan  recorded  on  the  fieldwork  audio  tape.  defined  sharing  running  teachers and  of  of  the  from the  s i x graduate  replaced  by  literacy students:  Tom  Nesbit),  H a r p e r , Anne M o r l e y , f o r the  fieldnotes.  to give  The  and  fieldwork.  o b s e r v e d c l a s s e s and  periodically  informal  teachers  research feedback  and  through and  team.  activities. The  staff  progressed,  i n t o a more  R e s e a r c h team m e e t i n g s were h e l d r e g u l a r l y t o and  included  l e a r n e r s , and  programs p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the  research  plan  appropriate  responsible  wrote e x t e n s i v e  at  program d i r e c t o r s  the  overall  later  Lynette  sites,  c o n s u l t i n g g r o u p s t h a t met suggestions  the  was  J a n e Dawson, P a t r i c i a  the  or discussed  c o - i n v e s t i g a t o r s were  D e b o r a h Lee,  Cunningham-Dunlop  The  two  team i n c l u d e d two  p r o g r a m s : Mark McCue and Cathie  d e l i b e r a t e and  a l . , 1994).  responsible The  educational  principal  - teachers,  sense c o l l a b o r a t i v e .  a commitment  p r o g r a m s were  of  research  - made i t i n t h a t  one:  two  defined  that  of  the  this  collaborative research.  fact  definition  that  evaluations  the  participation  was  a b o u t how  a b o u t how  conceived  Allison  t e r m was  beginning  and  goal  done.  T h i s p r o j e c t was investigators,  underlying  research  share  These meetings team m e e t i n g  problems  were  tapes  constitute of  the  the  the  core data  conversations,  tapes  for this thesis.  discussions,'  I have a t t e m p t e d  process of  collaboration.  to  yet  concerns about A l t h o u g h the increased research that  dealt the  i n the as  past  of  with within  of  recorded  understand  this  in  the  thesis  major c o n t r i b u t i o n s :  practice  practice  and  examination  2  t h e s i s makes two  matters not  interactions  reconstruct  Contributions This  and  T h r o u g h an  of  the  literature,  collaborative  collaborative  few  years,  the  a p a r t i c u l a r method o f  i t analyses and  team  research  i t explores  research.  i n education  l i t e r a t u r e about  has  team  i n v e s t i g a t i o n does not  reflect  growth. Collaborative  researchers  i n at  teamwork i s a t o p i c l e a s t two  interest  i n the  practice  know how  o t h e r teams c a r r y  respects.  of  i n e l e c t r o n i c mail  list,  Qualitative  b r o u g h t up research,  issues  out  and  Participants d o i n g the  the  questions  topic  same k i n d to  One  of  First,  there  tasks  R e c e n t l y one  that  work.  an  ethical issues.  collaborative research  questions ranged "We  are  mail  (QUALRS-L),  f r o m o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s who  The  to  i n t e r e s t can  electronic  f o c u s e d p a r t i c u l a r l y on hear  is  for  that t r a d i t i o n a l l y  Human S c i e n c e s  about d o i n g  interest  R e s e a r c h e r s want  example o f  lists.  were e a g e r t o  technicalities  research  Research f o r the and  current  team r e s e a r c h .  have b e e n done i n d i v i d u a l l y . found  of  teams. were  from  interested  in  The r e s u l t s o f t h e r e s e a r c h a r e p u b l i s h e d i n two separate reports. I f t h e r e a d e r s a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n l e a r n i n g more a b o u t e i t h e r the l i t e r a c y evaluation (Fingeret e t a l . , 1994) or the a n a l y s i s o f t h e m e t h o d o l o g y (Tom e t a l . , 1994) , t h e y a r e i n v i t e d t o r e f e r t o t h e two publications. 2  be  8 corresponding and  gain  with  insight"  other said  qualitative  the f i r s t  teams  message  to share  experiences  (QUALRS-L,  March  22,  1994) . Researchers theoretical research.  are a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n understanding  and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l The l i t e r a t u r e  the  investigation  1991).  B u t how  research  research  b i a s e s because of t h e i r  into  1986,  - i n team  o f making  research  the tensions  that t h i s  kind of  It describes  i s a f f e c t e d b y teamwork.  p r o b l e m s we  Lather,  the process  and t h e mechanisms  team.  one p a r t i c u l a r  1994;  i n f l u e n c e on  explored.  i t analyses  entails  collaborative process  not  team  the importance of  ( E i s n e r , 1986; H e s h u s i u s ,  t h e s i s looks  collaborative,  us about  t h a t changes - o r does not change  is still  This  implications of doing  tells  acknowledging researchers'  the  that operate  t h e ways i n w h i c h t h e It offers  c o l l a b o r a t i v e team d e a l t w i t h  encountered.  should  benefit practice,  useful  f o r researchers  I a l s o present  research  a d e s c r i p t i o n of and r e f l e c t e d  Because I b e l i e v e t h a t  planning  within a  research  conclusions  how  on t h e results  that w i l l  be  t o do o r d o i n g c o l l a b o r a t i v e  research. This  thesis will  be u s e f u l f o r r e s e a r c h e r s ,  e t h n o g r a p h e r s and c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h e r s , working  it  b e n e f i t s a n d d r a w b a c k s o f team r e s e a r c h ,  specifically  points at aspects  t o be a d j u s t e d team.  find  this  and a d u l t  Researchers analyses  i n teams w i l l  particularly  t h e s i s u s e f u l because and i t  of r e s e a r c h methodology that  o r c h a n g e d when t h e p r o j e c t i s c a r r i e d  The L i t e r a c y D e m o n s t r a t i o n P r o j e c t team,  research  teams e x p r e s s e d  educators.  i n t h e QUALRS-L l i s t ,  as t h e  have  out by a other  c o u l d h a v e made  9  good use that  of  literature  others  learned  recorded  from t h e i r  This because there  had  i t o p e n s new skills  their  the  topic.  experiences  We  so  sometimes  that  we  could  will  be  teaching  that  valuable  for adult  r o l e s f o r them i n r e s e a r c h .  n e e d t o be  developed  so  that  could  Team  also of  a p p e a r s as  adult  for  to p a r t i c i p a t e i n research an  adult  learners  teams.  a l t e r n a t i v e approach to research  education.  It i s a choice and  teachers  The  structure  that  gives  the  t o work t o g e t h e r  If  people that  taught  have  educators  become e f f e c t i v e team members, t h e n i t i s p o s s i b l e be  wished  work.  information  are  r e l a t e d to  can  people research  i n the  field  opportunity  in  research  proj ects.  This  thesis is divided  C h a p t e r One detail.  describes  The  Five  Chapter Four through  and  the  present follows  locates  challenges  this  process  that  a s p e c t s of  through the  process,  that  team m e e t i n g s t h a t  and  explores  the  had  on  the  they are  study.  not  the  In t h i s  chapter  automatically  impact  that  chapter  our  i s that created  changed  triggered  The  in this  data.  into  research  events that  for  team went  It looks  team.  analyses  the  the  m a i n argument  the  Chapters  research  - changes i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n  Chapter Five  i n more  a n a l y s i s of  the  of  methodology used  marked  collaborative,  rest  I confronted.  i n b e c o m i n g a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team.  different  The  thesis within  the  a d e s c r i p t i o n and the  thesis  Literacy Project  Chapter Three d e l i n e a t e s  research  F o u r and  the  i n t o s i x chapters.  National  second c h a p t e r  literature. this  the  of  the  -  or  research  teams become as  such.  collaborative practice  I explore  the  e f f e c t of  public  10 fieldnotes research  on  the  team m e e t i n g s a r e  chapter  presents  of  research.  team  researchers'  The The  collective  conclusions  and  and  argue  fieldnotes.  recommendations  National L i t e r a c y Demonstration  that  The  h e l p monitor the  requested  composed o f  s c h o l a r s and  and  During  the the  an  research process  Secretariat  literacy  o f how  that  an  Project  first  evaluation should the  practitioners  part  of  initiated  expert  project  the  study  be  done.  created  i n the  areas  of  embraced. (October  1991  - March  1 9 9 2 ) , p r e l i m i n a r y f i e l d w o r k and  most o f t h e  were done.  i n v e s t i g a t o r s , Hanna l i v e s  Of  the  two  N o r t h C a r o l i n a , USA,  so  f i e l d w o r k and  the  director.  help her  Lynette  To  Harper  principal she  team work.  (Lyn)  was  aspects  programs b e i n g  evaluated  from the  two  stage,  the p r o j e c t . suggested  programs i n the  welcomed t h e  opportunity  collaborative  dimension of  the  Mark McCue became p a r t  liaison  fieldworkers.  had  most e x p e r i e n c e  the  In A p r i l team was  1992  the  of  data  formed t o perform  student,  The  i n t h a t way.  as  c o l l e c t i o n phase began. The  the  co-  the Deborah team  team was  Lee  as  teachers  permanent p o s i t i o n s i n t h e  that task.  the  of i n c l u d i n g  team.  t o expand  suggested  the  of p r o j e c t  d i r e c t o r s of  research  in  f i e l d w o r k and  emerging r e s e a r c h  T h e y were b o t h and  the  possibility  research the  role  graduate  The  the  investigators  and  one  planning  i n terms of  assumed t h e  h i r e d to help with  of  original  a distant role  Allison  in this  administrative  teachers  had  as  National Literacy  a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e be  methodology the  last  f o r the p r a c t i c e  N a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y D e m o n s t r a t i o n P r o j e c t was  a n a t i o n wide d e m o n s t r a t i o n To  reflexivity  who  programs.  The  research  composed  of  11 Allison, from of  Hanna, L y n ,  Mark and  the Department  had  During was  her  students  and  in  ethnography,  trust  Four  J a n e Dawson, P a t r i c i a as  the  December o f accept  For  She  fieldworker we  argued  on  one  than  1992,  the  was  liaison  Dyer  (Pat),  term  p a r t of the o n l y one  Therefore,  o n l y one  rest  and  3  due  data site.  One  she  graduate  Tom  The  o f us  where c l a s s e s and  instructional  myself  her -  were  (Cathie)  was  until not  c o l l e c t i o n phase, Going  t o one  able  to  own  each  program  o f t h e p r o g r a m s was students  student  attended  focus  smaller  c o m p a r e d t o 62 0 class  - Jane  at  - and  fieldwork i n the o t h e r  interactions  only,  fieldworker to  a  one  the  program,  are c o n s t a n t l y  L a t e r , i t came t o a p o i n t where t h e  team f e l t  0 r i g i n a l l y a n o t h e r s t u d e n t had been h i r e d , b u t the team i n J u n e 1992, Allison h i r e d Anne, who S e p t e m b e r 1992 u n t i l t h e e n d o f t h e p r o j e c t . 3  and  Nesbit.  - were d o i n g  s m a l l e r program.  skills  t o t h e demands o f h e r  s t u d y ) , w i t h o n l y one  r e s e a r c h e r - Deborah  the  to the p r o j e c t  would a l l o w every  of the  on  students  Cunningham-Dunlop  ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y . 70  time  teaches  graduate  c o n t r a c t e n d e d and  i n s t e a d o f two.  at the  graduate  t o know  Anne M o r l e y ,  r e p l a c e d by  i n the meetings,  occurring.  additional  Catherine  then  attended  t h e o t h e r one  time.  five  f o r another  Education  t o work w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e ,  of the  when h e r  first  program  learners  Higher  the  got  students  them a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r  administrative assistant  a renewal  research.  graduate  and  A l l of  teaching A l l i s o n  ability  fieldworkers.  worked as  Columbia.  able to evaluate  i n them.  hired  five  been p a r t of a seminar t h a t A l l i s o n  ethnography.  doing  and  of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e , Adult  the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  students  Deborah,  when he worked  i t  was  left from  12 necessary Lyn  f o r more  fieldworkers  and I took t u r n s  doing  fieldwork  Between M a r c h a n d December data  f o r the p r o j e c t . twice  interactions,  and s t a f f  to  teachers,  the f i e l d  1992  4  t h e team members  a week a n d o b s e r v e d c l a s s e s , meetings.  staff,  we w r o t e  We  a n d f a m i l y members.  copied  and  and  interviewed  E a c h t i m e we  i n the f i e l d .  fieldwork.  other  and t r a n s m i t t e d  week we met  to discuss  and  then  copied  v i a modem t o Hanna. the progress  T h e s e m e e t i n g s were r e c o r d e d  went  Once a week  o u r f i e l d n o t e s o n t o a common d i s k w h i c h was  Once e v e r y  sent  field  fieldnotes - descriptions, reflections  delivered to A l l i s o n  was  collected  informal  talked with  emerging a n a l y s i s - of our experiences we  program.  there.  E a c h f i e l d w o r k e r went t o t h e  approximately  learners,  t o work i n t h e s m a l l e r  on a u d i o  of the  tape and a copy  t o Hanna.  An e l e c t r o n i c n e t w o r k c o n n e c t e d t h e UBC members o f t h e team (Allison was  and t h e g r a d u a t e  students).  c o n s t a n t l y used t o share  team members.  Allison  among o t h e r  sites,  t o update the l i s t  field,  t o share  first  information  u s u a l l y made s u r e  Hanna g o t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n communication,  This  as w e l l . things,  We  form o f communication  among t h e UBC  t h a t Mark, D e b o r a h , a n d  used t h i s  to arrange  form of  f o r r i d e s t o the  o f p e o p l e we h a d c o n t a c t e d  impressions  about  research  i n the  the fieldwork,  a n d t o do  preliminary analysis. In an attempt  to include  programs i n the r e s e a r c h , groups  4  usual  "were i n t e n d e d  l e a r n e r s and t e a c h e r s  from the  c o n s u l t i n g g r o u p s were c r e a t e d .  t o support  the research  These  and t o p r o v i d e  the  D u r i n g J u l y a n d A u g u s t t h e p r o g r a m s do n o t f u n c t i o n i n t h e i r f o r m s o we d i d n o t c o l l e c t a n y d a t a .  13 r e s e a r c h team w i t h intended  t o be  i n f o r m a t i o n about  groups of  research questions  and  r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t was  important  individuals  to provide  ready  issues.  to help  feedback about  r e c e i v e d at the  sites"  shape  the  (Tom  T h e y were the  way  the  e t a l . , 1994,  p.  11) . Fieldworkers' to  participation  accommodate d i f f e r e n t  example, I had  C a t h i e had  to stop doing  Later,  I took  Lyn  research projects. role.  f i e l d w o r k when my  more.  had  a l s o had she  on  The  role  of  the  the  time  the  The  data  complexity  a n a l y s i s and  months, more t h a n analyze  the  research. chapters.  data  part of  the she  and  the  own  research.  threatened. slowly  the a n a l y s i s  the  own team i n a  r e a d what  the  other pieces of w r i t i n g .  was  still  During  the  a n a l y s i s and size  time  i n v o l v e d i n the because  team.  of  a n a l y s i s stage,  w r i t i n g than  prolonged.  t h a t had  t o produce the  Part of t h a t process  Anne  they  originally  o f t h e p r o j e c t demanded t h a t  w r i t i n g p h a s e be  twice  For  d e d i c a t e d to the p r o j e c t s i n c e  she  study.  and  work.  to t h e i r  involved with  fieldworkers also shifted  became more i n v o l v e d i n t h e  and  months) a n d  later  time  T h e n t h e y p r o d u c e d a f e e d b a c k memo  thesis while  developments w i t h i n the  planned.  her  T h e y came t o t h e m e e t i n g s and  the m e e t i n g and  her  two  t o d e d i c a t e more t i m e  T h e y were s t i l l  to monitor  finished  lives  p r e g n a n c y was  (about In the  o t h e r members were w r i t i n g . reflecting  in their  t h e p r o j e c t t o do  a parental leave  J a n e and  consulting  situations  to leave  b e g a n t o work more and stage,  i n the p r o j e c t changed over  two  I t took  eleven  been a n t i c i p a t e d , t o  r e p o r t s t h a t document  i s analyzed  i n the f o l l o w i n g  the  14 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW  In t h i s chapter literature.  I present  the p l a c e of t h i s t h e s i s i n the  I frame the t o p i c o f team r e s e a r c h i n broader  d i s c u s s i o n s about s u b j e c t i v i t y ,  reflexivity,  and an awareness  t h a t the s o l o l e n s i n ethnography has been changed t o a shared lens.  As r e s e a r c h e r s agree t h a t o b j e c t i v i t y i s an i l l u s o r y  ideal,  they a r e s t r i v i n g t o f i n d new c r i t e r i a t o determine the  t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of data and the r o l e o f s u b j e c t i v i t y i n r e s e a r c h . R e f l e x i v i t y p l a y s a c r u c i a l r o l e i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n as one b a s i c element t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s common sense from s c i e n c e . r e s e a r c h e r s have acknowledged t h e i r own i n d i v i d u a l through r e f l e x i v e p r a c t i c e ,  Although  subjectivity  they a r e o n l y r e c e n t l y b e g i n n i n g t o  r e f l e c t on the meaning o f a shared s u b j e c t i v i t y . analyses c o l l a b o r a t i v e research experiences work w i t h p a r t i c i p a n t s , but so f a r l i t t l e  The l i t e r a t u r e  where r e s e a r c h e r s  has been w r i t t e n about  team r e s e a r c h . In the f o l l o w i n g pages I s i t u a t e the t o p i c o f team r e s e a r c h w i t h i n the l i t e r a t u r e .  First,  I analyze  the meaning o f  s u b j e c t i v i t y i n p o s t - p o s i t i v i s t i c thought.  Next, I look i n t o the  meaning and r o l e of r e f l e x i v i t y i n t h a t c o n t e x t .  Then, I examine  how r e s e a r c h e r s , through r e f l e c t i v e thought, have p o s i t i o n e d themselves and t h e i r work.  I e x p l o r e the r e f l e c t i o n s o f  r e s e a r c h e r s working w i t h o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s and t h e i r subjectivity.  shared  I t u r n then t o the l i t e r a t u r e on c o l l a b o r a t i v e  r e s e a r c h f o r a broader  understanding  the p r a c t i c e o f team r e s e a r c h .  o f the a s p e c t s t h a t a f f e c t  Within that l i t e r a t u r e ,  a framework f o r the study o f team r e s e a r c h .  Finally,  I present  I look  into  the p l a c e o f t h i s t o p i c w i t h i n the a d u l t e d u c a t i o n  field.  O b j e c t i v i t y and s u b j e c t i v i t y The  b a s i c o n t o l o g i c a l assumption o f the p o s i t i v i s t i c  paradigm i s t h a t we can know r e a l i t y as i t i s ; t h i s p o s i t i o n i s known as r e a l i s m  (Guba & L i n c o l n , 1994).  argument t h a t f o l l o w s t h a t premise i s t h a t  The e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l "the i n v e s t i g a t o r and  the  i n v e s t i g a t e d ' o b j e c t ' a r e assumed t o be independent  and  the i n v e s t i g a t o r t o be capable of s t u d y i n g  i n f l u e n c i n g i t o r being p. 110) .  entities,  the o b j e c t  without  i n f l u e n c e d by i t " (Guba & L i n c o l n , 1994,  In t h i s view, s c i e n t i f i c knowledge can and s h o u l d  d i s c o v e r and e x p l a i n u n i v e r s a l laws i n an o b j e c t i v e and n e u t r a l manner. From the p o s i t i v i s t i c the r e s e a r c h e r ' s  stand,  a major problem i n r e s e a r c h i s  p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e on and b i a s e s  methods and r e s u l t s of an i n v e s t i g a t i o n . necessary distance  from the o b j e c t  about t h e  To a c h i e v e the  - objectivity -  researchers  need t o prevent t h e i r own s u b j e c t i v i t y from i n f l u e n c i n g t h e research process. researcher Following  By f o l l o w i n g the s c i e n t i f i c method, t h e  guarantees t h a t o b j e c t i v i t y has been a c h i e v e d . s c i e n t i f i c methods ensures t h a t the r e s u l t i n g knowledge  i s unbiased and t r u e . P o s t - p o s i t i v i s t i c thought positivism.  5  has q u e s t i o n e d t h e p o s t u l a t e s o f  The b a s i c o n t o l o g i c a l premise i s c h a l l e n g e d ,  and i t  A l t h o u g h I acknowledge t h a t the term " p o s t - p o s i t i v i s t i c " i s used by some authors (Guba & L i n c o l n , 1994) t o r e f e r t o neop o s i t i v i s t i c thought, I am u s i n g the term p o s t - p o s i t i v i s t i c here i n the sense t h a t P a t t i L a t h e r (1986, 1991) uses i t , t o denote t h e d i f f e r e n t o n t o l o g i c a l and e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l p o s t u r e s t h a t emerged as a critique of p o s i t i v i s m . Hence, they a r e d i f f e r e n t from positivism. 5  16 is  argued t h a t  assumed t h a t  reality  c a n n o t be  i t does e x i s t ) .  knowledge t h a t  is a result  and  of  by  the  object  researchers'  personality. illusory  biased;  Values  i t reflects  "handle"  ways o f  that  research  & Schumacher  "contamination." accepted,  Lather  concerned with  Therefore  she  appropriate  (p. 6 7 ) . own  researcher  Basically,  subjectivity  and  Other researchers subjectivity  as  they  calls biases  differ  we  an  do. i s also  researcher  bring  i n how look For  researchers'  "rampant to look  proposes that  the  ways i t i n f l u e n c e s  different  example, biases  i s value  as  laden.  subjectivity for"  the  She  where  (1991, p.  one  52) .  validity research,  logic  researchers  of  "to  evidence"  monitor  their  research.  Heshusius,  i n research.  propose  influence i s  ideological  distorting  ( E i s n e r , 1992,  their  unfortunate.  research  openly  in  in  they  for  to researchers'  she  necessary  is  subjectivity  biases.  a p p e a r s as  a  the  a r e - c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of  f o r what she  guard against  context,  i s predisposed  offers  and  knowledge  researchers  Some a u t h o r s  understands that  o n l y what one  skills,  activity  meaning of  that  (1989) r e f e r  danger of  influenced  objectivity  i n f l u e n c e of  tasks,  it still  the  personal  scientific  researcher's  In t h i s  although  Patti  finds  the  researchers  worldview.  the  relationship.  controlling  McMillan  is  a particular  accept  produces  inevitably  thought,  positivistic  Although they  research  embedded i n e v e r y  at  (when i t i s  i n t e r a c t i o n between  acknowledge the  into their  view,  ideology,  i n q u i r y have l o o k e d  biases  an  i t is  Research i s thus  are  perspective,  research.  to  of  experience,  A u t h o r s who social  In t h i s  In p o s t - p o s i t i v i s t i c  goal.  From t h i s  study.  known as  1994)  They b e l i e v e  look that  at  generating  new  of  the  be  objective.  g u i d e l i n e s to control,  r e s e a r c h e r on  subjectivity" "procedural  the  (controlling  objectivity"  as b e i n g  i s again  Lous H e s h u s i u s  d i s t a n c e between the self  data  or monitor,  and  a potential  that  one's s u b j e c t i v i t y ) ,  the  refer  "other"  methodological  can  "procedural  is identical  t o an  and  influence  t h a t knowledge  (1994) m a i n t a i n s  because both  self  arguing  the  to  ontological  both  terms see  the  concern.  Don't we r e a c h o u t ( w h e t h e r we a r e aware o r n o t ) t o what we want t o know w i t h a l l o f o u r s e l v e s , b e c a u s e we c a n ' t do anything else? I f t h e r e i s no o n t o l o g i c a l o r p r o c e d u r a l o b j e c t i v i t y to guide the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s , then, ... neither i s there o n t o l o g i c a l or procedural s u b j e c t i v i t y to g u i d e t h e r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s (p. 1 6 ) . Heshusius admits reactions observe  and  i t is crucial  related values.  them c o m p l e t e l y  attentive, be  that  l e t go  and  nonevaluative of"  (p. 18,  But  t o become aware o f he  without  consciousness  i n the  influence.  i t s role,  Objectivity  an  intent  many r e s e a r c h e r s now  does not  a p p e a r as  the  do  not  following  c o r r e c t method g u a r a n t e e  'true' r e s u l t s "  65),  establishing systematic  r e s e a r c h e r s have been l e f t the  trustworthiness of  early  as  "epistemological sciences"  their  data  their  "no  the  longer  (Lather,  problem  i n new,  does  of  and  still  ways. The  As  since  with  deny  universally  But  p.  can  to control i t  i n research i t used t o .  1986,  the  that they  desired value the  to  original).  I n o t h e r words, w h e t h e r i t i s w i t h or to understand  need  e v a l u a t i o n , f o r i t i s in  movement o f  emphasis  "points t o the  personal  (p. 66)  role  i n 1986, and as  of  Patti  reflexivity L a t h e r was  methodological  talking  ferment' i n t h e  a step preceding  the  about  the  social  emergence o f a  new  18 paradigm.  She c a l l e d  trustworthiness. published, criteria the  as  Almost  researchers  t o evaluate  positivistic  admitted  that  widely  then  f o rsuitable criteria  t e n years  are s t i l l  that  article  was  s t r u g g l i n g t o a g r e e on common  qualitative  research.  I f the standards  there  a r e no o t h e r  many a r e a s  criteria  that  have been  of disagreement,  i s not u s u a l l y discussed  and  Atkinson,  the  ability  is  one common  that  emotions,  o r other  point of  reflexivity -  research.  there  Whether i t i s  of self)  to continually scrutinize  researchers research  agree  that i t  p r o c e d u r e s and  on them.  i n the f i r s t  principles first  f o r Hammersley  ( t o become aware o f v a l u e s a n d  M a r t y n Hammersley a n d P a u l section  Although  - i s i n c l u d e d whenever  to evaluate  observe the conduct  necessary  reflect  names  (except  1994, s e e b e l o w ) ,  and c r i t i q u e  d i s c u s s i o n about c r i t e r i a  called  is  extensively  1983, a n d M a r c u s ,  to reflect  accepted  o n e s were.  a g r e e m e n t h a s emerged: t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f r e f l e x i v i t y . it  that  p a r a d i g m h a d s e t up a r e n o t u s e f u l , i t h a s t o be  as the p o s i t i v i s t i c  Despite  after  f o r data  chapter  Atkinson  (1983) d e d i c a t e  o f t h e i r book  i n p r a c t i c e " t o the concept  "Ethnography:  of r e f l e x i v i t y .  draw o n t h e b a s i c m e a n i n g o f t h e t e r m r e f l e x i v i t y  a c t i o n by the s u b j e c t  upon i t s e l f  researchers,  of the social  Therefore,  are part  by s t u d y i n g  ethnography t h i s  our world  concept  world  - an  t h a t we a r e s t u d y i n g .  we a r e s t u d y i n g  i s particularly  n e e d t o know t h e m s e l v e s t o b e a b l e a r g u e Hammersley  They  - a n d a r g u e t h a t we, a s  ourselves.  important  ethnographers a r e the fundamental research  Science,  a whole  t o "know  & Atkinson,  tool.  In  because Ethnographers  others." i s not very  different  19 f r o m common s e n s e and similar.  scientific  What d i f f e r e n t i a t e s  activities  is their  distinctive  researchers achieve  of  In t h e i r concept  kinds  and  Atkinson,  this  between e v e n t s  understanding  everyday  Social  f u n c t i o n of developing  relationship  the  these  intentions.  a c c o r d i n g t o Hammersley and that  and  goal.  and  o f knowledge  inquiry testing  has  and  theory.  Reflecting  on  are  the  i t i s through  And,  reflection the  ideas, researchers b u i l d  an  reality.  c o n c l u s i o n , Hammersley and  of  activities  reflexivity.  There they  Atkinson  focus  again  on  argue:  R e f l e x i v i t y i s , i n our view, the key t o the development of b o t h t h e o r y and m e t h o d o l o g y i n s o c i a l s c i e n c e g e n e r a l l y and i n e t h n o g r a p h i c work i n p a r t i c u l a r . . . . In s c i e n c e , t h e r e i s an o b l i g a t i o n p l a c e d u p o n p r a c t i t i o n e r s t o s c r u t i n i z e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y the methodology by which f i n d i n g s , t h e i r own and t h o s e o f o t h e r s , were p r o d u c e d , and i n p a r t i c u l a r , t o c o n s i d e r how t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e r e s e a r c h e r may h a v e s h a p e d t h o s e f i n d i n g s (p. 2 3 6 ) . Researchers' imperative  fundamental  that they  George Marcus used.  He  has  broaden the "baseline  analyze  differentiated  a self  study,  feelings  analyzed four kinds  as  data.  how  their  has  of r e f l e x i v i t y  critique,  process.  the  practice.  reflexivity  risk  and  been  that  thought.  The  personal  Emphasizing  of t u r n i n g  U n d e r s t o o d more  i s most this  research  profoundly,  a means o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g  researcher's  has  Marcus c l a i m s ,  term r e f l e x i v i t y .  u s e d as  u s i n g the  on  is individual  self  of r e f l e x i v i t y  i t c o u l d be by  the  examination  reflect  term w i t h i n ethnographic  This k i n d of  understanding  of  and  form of r e f l e x i v i t y "  commonly e q u a t e d w i t h  however,  i n k n o w l e d g e b u i l d i n g makes i t  (1994) has  scope of the  examination.  into  role  the  reactions, intuitions,  object and  20  The  second kind of  reflexivity  rigorous  examination of  research•methodology.  "the  commitment  i s mostly a research  to s u s t a i n o b j e c t i v i t y "  limited  f u n c t i o n i n Marcus' eyes.  concept  that  (1986) a n a l y s i s , f o r example,  explicit  a t t e n t i o n as  author defines priori  theory  Marcus  as  a  has  It  representation enters  and  define  i t s own  crosses  reflexivity  any  r e f e r s to the a research  an  e x a m i n a t i o n o f who  as  a means o f p o l i t i c a l The  of the of  the  "other"  are  reflexivity.  Marcus,  that  positioning  reflexivity  the  approach, subjects  within  are  context.  feminist  i s the  kind  thought  researchers  and  has  the  who  of  Patti  the  how  the  a  most  diverse  field  subject  and  of l o c a t i o n of  function,  the  and  sum,  qualitative inevitably  reflexivity research  and  can  be  social  is  methodology. denotes the  Questions of  i n the  context  reflexivity,  brought  to the  position  ethics of  this  and kind  according  to  foreground,  knowledge t h e y p r o d u c e  defined  to  researcher  in  context. In  of  ethnography  historical  reflexivity  u s u a l l y r e f e r r e d to This  the  and  the  process.  the  i t s r o l e and  l o c a t i o n of  the  the  very  comes u n d e r  This understanding  a n a l y s i s of  a  which  research  t o e s t a b l i s h i t s own  f o u r t h understanding of  researcher  the  i n t e r t e x t u a l or  (p. 5 7 0 ) .  In  about  contemporary p r o j e c t of  i n order  voice"  e t h n o g r a p h y as  type of  "emphasizes the  that  validity,  reflexivity"  changed throughout third  has  a  to  meaning of  reflexivity  construct  "systematized  f i n d s the  interesting.  of  (p. 56 9). a n d  i n t h e i r work.  Lather's  part  It i s tied  It i s this  some a u t h o r s e m p h a s i z e  tool,  as  sciences.  c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the  a basic  element  It denotes researcher  in  the and  the  by  object,  or s u b j e c t , of study.  attitude  of  c o n s t a n t and  t h e methods,  do  is difficult  on  including example, prison and  refer  to i d e n t i f y  to i n t h e i r  appear i n "pure"  reflect  Sam  found  culture.  one  that  different  kinds of  characterizations  variables"  researchers to  research,  differences  (p. 1 7 2 ) .  then but  (1978),  in their  inmates.  As  of inmates'  a result  t o a degree  that  lives  of t h i s  taken  own  ethnicity,  professional  background,  For study  of our  of  inmates they  and  relating  professionals.  This  personal field  experience  they  called  awareness of p e r s o n a l  such b i a s e s are not  only  advantage of as w e l l "  r e s e a r c h e r s have p o s i t i o n e d their  "each  by  became i m p o r t a n t  example o f how,  e x a m i n e d how  and  for objective  t o work s o t h a t  i s a clear  as p e r s o n s  attitudes  "strive  that  (1994),  Consequently  They e x p l a i n e d t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s  b i a s e s , and  true  examination,  t h e y were drawn t o d i f f e r e n t  l e d them t o c o n c l u d e  backgrounds,  It i s probably  k i n d of r e f l e x i v i t y .  John G r a y z e l  understanding  This  and  that  as d e s c r i b e d b y M a r c u s  own  minimized,  i t is this  themselves  t h e y engage i n s e l f  F u j i s a k a and  culture,  and  And  the k i n d of r e f l e x i v i t y  them t o t h e i r  bias,  methodology,  I n o t h e r words, when r e s e a r c h e r s  a s p e c t s o f more t h a n  came t o d i s t i n c t i v e  for  researcher's  b e t w e e n common s e n s e  articles.  form.  their practice  they a t t r a c t e d  prison  of the  context.  position  f o u r meanings of r e f l e x i v i t y , not  t o the  inquiry.  researchers the  the  t h a t marks t h e d i f f e r e n c e  Researchers It  refers  rigorous scrutiny  t h e r e s e a r c h e r , and  characteristic scientific  It also  while  involved in  themselves.  gender,  social  have i n f l u e n c e d ,  i f not  (p.  179).  reflexive  They  have  class,  even  determined,  22 t h e i r work. first  In that sense, t h i s k i n d of a n a l y s i s r e l a t e s t o the  and second meaning of r e f l e x i v i t y d e s c r i b e d above,  self  examination and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l s c r u t i n y . As p a r t of the r e f l e x i v e e x e r c i s e , r e s e a r c h e r s have a l s o questioned t h e i r roles i n s o c i e t y .  T h i s l i n e of i n q u i r y  to the t h i r d and f o u r t h k i n d s of r e f l e x i v i t y , examination and p o s i t i o n i n g o f ethnography The t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e of the ethnographer  and  refers  a political ethnographers.  g o i n g t o remote c u l t u r e s  to study groups of indigenous peoples has been r e j e c t e d as p a r t of the " r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t the 'comparative method' and  the  anthropology of p r i m i t i v i s m i s i n h e r e n t l y flawed by both i t s E u r o c e n t r i c b i a s and i t s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i n a d e q u a c i e s " ( V i d i c h & Lyman, 1994,  p. 38).  I f r e s e a r c h e r s are not n e u t r a l  o b j e c t i v e o b s e r v e r s , but s u b j e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s , their role?  From Gramsci's  reflections,  ethnographers  and  then what i s  o r g a n i c i n t e l l e c t u a l t o today's and o t h e r s o c i a l r e s e a r c h e r s have  q u e s t i o n e d the u s e f u l n e s s of t h e i r r e s e a r c h and t h e i r own  role in  the l i v e s of the people they are s t u d y i n g . In 1982,  Courtney Cazden d e l i v e r e d an address a t the  Annual  b u s i n e s s meeting of the C o u n c i l on Anthropology and E d u c a t i o n i n Washington, D.C,  i n which she c a l l e d f o r more involvement  p a r t of ethnographers e d u c a t i o n a l change. t h a t we  i n d e s i g n i n g , and b e i n g p a r t o f , She concluded: "at t h i s p o i n t ,  isn't  - the community of l i n g u i s t s and ethnographers  e x p l a i n e d e d u c a t i o n a l f a i l u r e without showing how reversed?"  (Cazden,  Without  on the  1983,  i t true  - have  i t can be  p. 36).  the assumption  t h a t r e s e a r c h has t o be v a l u e f r e e ,  t h e r e i s no t h e o r e t i c a l impediment f o r r e s e a r c h t o be  23 ideologically driven.  In fact,  as has been noted  r e s e a r c h has always been d r i v e n by p o l i t i c a l have n o t been acknowledged.  P a t t i Lather  what s h e o r i g i n a l l y c a l l e d o p e n l y research for praxis,  before,  ideas, only  (1986, 1991) c a l l e d f o r  ideological  r e s e a r c h and l a t e r  "research that i s e x p l i c i t l y  committed t o  c r i t i q u i n g t h e s t a t u s q u o a n d b u i l d i n g a more j u s t (1991,  society"  p . 5 1 ) . From h e r p e r s p e c t i v e , r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e a r o l e t o  p l a y i n empowering t h e p o w e r l e s s Tom  (1995c) a g r e e s  in social  change.  and disadvantaged  i n society.  w i t h L a t h e r about t h e r o l e o f r e s e a r c h e r s  She a r g u e s ,  researchers and researched  though, t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p  that  engage i n i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y one o f  immediate p e r s o n a l change. an  these  When " s u b j e c t s " a g r e e t o be p a r t o f  i n v e s t i g a t i o n they a r e not d e l i b e r a t e l y e n t e r i n g a  relationship of possible individual Therefore,  change.  Tom a l s o l o o k s a t o t h e r a r e a s w h e r e r e s e a r c h c a n  affect the social social  and/or c o l l e c t i v e  structure,  not n e c e s s a r i l y immediate  individual  change.  In today's  literature  i t i s v e r y common t o f i n d t h e a u t h o r ' s  acknowledgement o f t h e i r p o s i t i o n .  Whether i t i s t h e i r  cultural  background o r t h e i r i d e o l o g y , t h e i r gender o r p r o f e s s i o n a l skills,  authors  b r i n g t o the foreground  the aspects  of their  l i v e s t h a t t h e y b e l i e v e t o be i n f l u e n c i n g t h e i r work.  They a l s o  r a i s e q u e s t i o n s about t h e i r r o l e as r e s e a r c h e r s i n s o c i e t y . this  And  i s both a•consequence and a p a r t o f t h e r e f l e x i v e e x e r c i s e . Researchers It  work w i t h o t h e r  researchers  i s i n t e r e s t i n g that i n the process  of acknowledging  t h e y a r e , a n d a n a l y z i n g t h e ways i n w h i c h t h e i r background, and s k i l l s  influence the research  ideology,  practice,  who  researchers  have n o t  research partners. teams and  H e r e I am  referred  collective  the p r o c e s s 1992,  p.  into  their  talking  research partnerships.  frequently Although  looked  about  rarely  "adds new  of e x p l o r i n g s u b j e c t i v i t y "  739),  i t i s not  represented  team r e s e a r c h a r e p r e s e n t e d in  a group does not b e a r  of  the  is  acknowledged but  studies.  researchers'  as  any  influences.  levels  the  that  individually,  Glesne,  Johnston,  Hatton,  Chico,  (Crow, L e v i n e  Hasazi,  & Schatzman,  i t was  1994;  of  produced or  product  subjectivity  other  analyses  that  research  make i n r e s e a r c h  & Nager,  & Schattman,  to  & Nager,  Results  reference to the  collectively,  processes  complexity  team d i r e c t o r ' s  t h a t c a r r y i n g out  and  described.  the p r o c e s s  acknowledge the d i f f e r e n c e s  results  and  of  T h e r e a r e o n l y a few  as o p p o s e d as  research  (Crow, L e v i n e ,  fact  with  although  analyzed  i n f l u e n c e on  i s no  academic  i n t h a t way.  i f the  Most commonly, there  relationships  These groups,  to, are very research  own  1992;  1994;  Liggett,  Olesen,  P o r t e r , 1994;  Tom  Droes, et a l . ,  1994) . G a r y Crow, L i n d a L e v i n e , the  interdisciplinary  study  and  they  conducted  career-change  graduate  collaborative  relationships within their  professionals  from  and  students  and  students.  Nancy Nager  different  advisors.  c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h i n the "internal  collaboration,"  "external  collaboration."  related  to the  difficulty  (19 92)  t o l e a r n more  They t r i e d  to  and  about  three  between t h i s  They a c h i e v e d a g r e a t e r l e v e l  interdisciplinary than  with  team, what t h e y  t h e o t h e r two  They e x p l a i n t h i s of  simultaneously  on  build  team o f  disciplines,  report  team of call  groups,  i n p a r t as establishing  a problem  25 "internal kinds  interdisciplinary  of external  relate  collaboration"  these d i f f i c u l t i e s  students  c o l l a b o r a t i o n a n d two a d d i t i o n a l (p. 7 5 3 ) . The a u t h o r s  to the status  a n d t h e team members  differential  ( a l l professors  also  between  i n t h e same  university). 7\nnette L i g g e t t , Hasazi,  and R i c h a r d  research  experience  Education  honest  struggles  A. J o h n s t o n ,  Susan  Brody  (1994) a l s o d e s c r i b e  their  team  i n the study of the implementation of the  account  of their  work a s a team,  t o "keep i n d i v i d u a l e g o s i n c h e c k , "  together.  In pointing at the d i f f i c u l t i e s  team r e s e a r c h ,  specific  Schattman  Glesne,  f o r A l l H a n d i c a p p e d C h i l d r e n A c t o f 1975 i n t h e USA.  In t h e i r  doing  Corrine  kind  they conclude  of support.  In t h e i r  that  they  share  their  a n d t o work  and c h a l l e n g e s o f  team r e s e a r c h  requires a  words:  I n a n o t h e r s t u d y , we w o u l d s e e k more f u n d i n g t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r t h e teaming e f f o r t . Y e s , we w o u l d f i n d i t r e w a r d i n g t o do [ i t ] a g a i n i f t h e s t u d y c a l l e d f o r a n e e d t o i n c o r p o r a t e d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e b a c k g r o u n d s , i f a s i m i l a r c a r e f u l team s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s was u s e d , a n d i f t h e r e were a d e q u a t e s u p p o r t f o r g e n u i n e l y c o l l a b o r a t i v e , team e f f o r t . Otherwise p r o b a b l y n o t (p. 87, e m p h a s i s i n t h e o r i g i n a l ) . Marilyn  Porter  (1994) h a s d e s c r i b e d  carrying  o u t what s h e c a l l s  analysis  o f f i e l d n o t e s and i n t e r v i e w s  She  "second-hand ethnography"  undertook a major p r o j e c t  t o do t h e f i e l d w o r k .  "became a c u t e l y other  people  diverse This  done b y h i r e d  - an  fieldworkers.  i n Newfoundland t o g a t h e r  a b o u t women a n d work i n t h e p r o v i n c e . assistants  the challenges of  She h i r e d t h r e e  data research  As t h e s t u d y p r o g r e s s e d  she  aware o f t h e p r o b l e m s a n d l i m i t a t i o n s o f u s i n g  t o 'do' o n e ' s own e t h n o g r a p h y b e c a u s e o f t h e i r  and l e s s than comparable  academic backgrounds"  (p.  i s a common p r a c t i c e i n N o r t h A m e r i c a n u n i v e r s i t i e s ;  76).  what' i s  26 s u r p r i s i n g i s t h a t these k i n d s o f r e f l e c t i o n s a r e not more abundant. I c o u l d not f i n d any study t h a t i n t e n t i o n a l l y s e t out t o analyze the r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n a r e s e a r c h team.  The p r e v i o u s l y  d e s c r i b e d a r t i c l e s are r e f l e c t i o n s t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s do a f t e r t h e i r study has ended.  They a r e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s and attempts t o  r e t r a c e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d e c i s i o n s t h a t shaped team a c t i v i t i e s . The l i t e r a t u r e i s more e x t e n s i v e i n a n a l y z i n g o t h e r k i n d s o f p a r t n e r s h i p s , p a r t i c u l a r l y those w i t h "the r e s e a r c h e d , " practitioners  ( e s p e c i a l l y t e a c h e r s ) and community members.  Because the l i t e r a t u r e on team r e s e a r c h i s so s c a r c e , I have used the l i t e r a t u r e on c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h , r e g a r d l e s s o f the a c t o r s i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s , the next  as a framework f o r my a n a l y s i s .  section I turn to t h i s  In  literature.  Collaborative research In t h i s s e c t i o n I examine the l i t e r a t u r e on c o l l a b o r a t i v e research.  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  I d e s c r i b e the r e a s o n i n g  including participants i n research.  behind  I then use A l l i s o n  Tom's  framework o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h t o analyze i s s u e s i n team research.  . -  s  C o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h i s a broad term t h a t r e f e r s t o the a c t o r s i n shared r e s e a r c h .  " C o l l a b o r a t i o n " p o i n t s a t the  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between r e s e a r c h e r s and o t h e r groups who undertake an i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o g e t h e r .  The l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s t h a t the  a c t o r s who engage i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s can be as v a r i e d as the f i e l d .  Researchers  (see Gibson,  1985; Schensul  c o l l a b o r a t e w i t h community & Schensul,  members  1992), w i t h p r a c t i t i o n e r s  (see Cole & Knowles, 1993; F l o r i o - R u a n e , 1990; H o l l i n g s w o r t h ,  27 1992;  Huberman,  McLaren,  1991;  1988), w i t h 1995a,  Chico,  and  can  be  Tom  1994;  Porter,  1992;  r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n r e s e a r c h e r s and  t h e most r e c o r d e d literature  and  experiences,  contexts  literature  research,  The  and  i s about  reflexive  f o r doing can  research.  researchers researched  be As  i n society,  play i n research.  for analyzing this  an  ontological  of  study  reason:  i s as v a l i d  as  the  a n a l y s i s of  k i n d of  role  doing the  is  role  least  different  Second t h e r e  is a practical  that  that  -  there the  Some role  is  object  the  ethical  shouldn't  g r o u p s have demanded a more a c t i v e  of  the important  First,  i s an  reason.  of  three  from  the  as  subjects' understanding  it?  them.  people  of research.  in  i s about  inquiry  the  T h e y have a t  r e s e a r c h i s about a group o f p e o p l e ,  that  for  to the p r a c t i c e  if  researched  been  research  foundations,  a l s o look at the  aspect  has  particular  the purposes  question their  - although  researcher's understanding.  Third, there  practitioners  authors,  challenges.  traced again  they  Glesne,  enumeration of  research with  authors  &  e t a l . , 1994).  i t s methodological particular  Evans,  Hatton,  in collaborative  explores  i t s a d v a n t a g e s and  rationale  research  on  Through the  w i t h i n which t h i s  practised,  reasons  reflected  practice.  this  collaborative  and  Tom,  Pole,  Droes,  Tom  deduced from the p r e v i o u s  & Foster,  Liggett,  Olesen,  1994;  1984;  e t a l . 1994,  (see B u r g e s s ,  & Nager,  & Schattman,  & McCutcheon,  1995b; T r o y n a  1993,  among t h e m s e l v e s  1994;  Kyle  1995a,  (see K e l l y ,  Crow, L e v i n e  Hasazi,  1990;  e t a l . , Tom,  & Schatzman,  As  Johnston,  learners  1994;  Johnston,  the  Tom  1995b),  Priestley,  1990;  they  question, have a  say  traditionally i n research  28 If  t h e r e a r e no  exclusive sense  role  universal  of the  r e s e a r c h e r may  i s understanding  conditions possible  reality  personal  frames  that different  people  situation  and  in different  perspective  i s right  can understand  the o t h e r  understandings  By  involving  analysis, and  Kyle  "the  research  a problem  mean t h a t  i s wrong.  There are m u l t i p l e means t h a t  can understand but  teachers,  of r e a l i t y  of t h e i r  researched"  type  an  f o r example, should  but i t s others'  of r e s e a r c h b r i n g s to  researched  & McCutcheon,  there  reality.  i s a more r i c h  the  or  one  1984;  i n design,  (Gibson,  Troyna data  the  and i n t e g r a t e d 1985;  & Foster,  1988).  collection,  r e s e a r c h a l s o becomes more r e s p o n s i v e t o l o c a l  second  reason  i s linked  b e e n done on  participation  to q u e s t i o n the  a group of people  i n d e s i g n i n g the results  i s a moral  i n the  of  sense  been minimal they  statement.  the  and needs  researched  Traditionally  investigation,  has  r e s e a r c h i s a b o u t them, t h e n  F o r many t h i s  role  t o t h e p r e v i o u s one.  and/or a n a l y z i n g the If  i t is  interests. The  has  d a t a v a l i d a t e d by 1990;  then  I f academic knowledge  process  and  I f making  r e s e a r c h e r s need t o l o o k a t the  k n o w l e d g e and  study with  1992),  which e s s e n t i a l l y  of the b e n e f i t s t h a t t h i s  resulting  esoteric  questioned.  does not  understanding  perceptions  the  understand  Researchers  then  Johnston,  will  i n a c e r t a i n way  o n l y one  and  be  (Eisner,  i t differently.  not  then  a t r a n s a c t i o n between o b j e c t i v e  That  multiplicities,  One  as  reality,  realities.  e d u c a t i o n a l problem  represent  ways.  and  ways o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g are d i f f e r e n t  truths,  s h o u l d be  that  research  their  collecting o r non  data,  existent.  more i n v o l v e d .  F o r example,  those  in  29 interested have the that  right  they  being  i n "empowering" p a r t i c i p a n t s a r g u e t h a t t o be  will  i n v o l v e d i n a s u b s t a n t i v e way  benefit directly  from the  t r e a t e d a s mere o b j e c t s o f  Schensul  & Schensul,  the  1992).  the  process  study  In G i t l i n ' s  i n research  rather  (Lather,  (1990)  researched so  than  1991;  words,  If research i s going to help develop p r a c t i t i o n e r s ' v o i c e s , as o p p o s e d t o s i l e n c i n g them, r e s e a r c h e r s must engage i n d i a l o g u e w i t h p r a c t i t i o n e r s at both the l e v e l of q u e s t i o n p o s i n g and t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f f i n d i n g s . . . . The r e s e a r c h e r and t h e s u b j e c t a t t e m p t t o come t o a m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g b a s e d on t h e i r own s t r o n g l y a r t i c u l a t e d p o s i t i o n s (p. 4 4 6 ) . A third being  important  factor  i n i n c l u d i n g the  studied i s that p r a c t i t i o n e r s  become aware o f t h e i r p a s s i v e increasingly voicing their Fujisaka  and  Grayzel  s u b j e c t s of  research  the  researcher's  all  until  questions,  genuine rapport  In response to these emerged: a c t i o n r e s e a r c h , Tandon,  1983)  Lather,  1991),  Although  description Tandon,  critical  1983;  researchers  and  Reason,  and  responded simply  different  that  way.  their  impersonal way  approaches  research  to  1990),  f r o m one  have c h o s e n t o r e f e r  the  idea  &  (see and  another  approaches see  a l l share  at  have  ( s e e Brown  r e s e a r c h as p r a x i s  different  they  in this  established.  (see G i t l i n ,  these  are  i n a standard  a g r e e m e n t was  research  have  r e f u s e d t o a n s w e r them  participatory  1994)  report  subjects working together.  In t h a t  They  anonymous and  questions  comparison of  t e r m t h a t many a u t h o r s research.  or  approaches are  and  i n research.  ethnography,  educative  these  either  are  community members  f o r example,  t r e a t e d as  and  who  reluctance to p a r t i c i p a t e  (1978),  s u b j e c t s r e f u s e d t o be  role  and  people  Brown  so  on.  (for a &  of  "Collaboration", i s a to that aspect  sense c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h  can  be  of  s e e n as  an  30 umbrella term  f o r these r e s e a r c h approaches.  The  degree t o which  the d i f f e r e n t groups share the work d i f f e r s i n each r e s e a r c h approach, it,  but the f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s work t h a t i s shared makes  i n these usages, c o l l a b o r a t i v e .  The purposes  f o r doing  c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h are d i v e r s e . A framework f o r team r e s e a r c h Most of the l i t e r a t u r e on c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h i s based a n a l y s e s and accounts of e x p e r i e n c e s i n the f i e l d . undertake  Authors  a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t w i t h a c o l l a b o r a t i v e approach  once the study i s f i n i s h e d they r e c o n s t r u c t the process and r e f l e c t on i t . appeared  collaborative  and conclude  a r t i c l e s w i t h words of c a u t i o n and s u g g e s t i o n s .  Tom  the  (1995a)  b u i l d s on t h i s l i t e r a t u r e and on her e x p e r i e n c e i n the  thesis),  and  They emphasize the i s s u e s t h a t  as most p r o b l e m a t i c o r rewarding  Demonstration  on  Literacy  P r o j e c t (the same p r o j e c t t h a t I study f o r t h i s  and p r e s e n t s a frame f o r a n a l y z i n g d e c i s i o n s about  i s i n c l u d e d i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s and r e s e a r c h t a s k s they are i n v o l v e d .  who  i n what k i n d s of  I found t h i s a u s e f u l frame t o  t h i n k about the i s s u e s t h a t the c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e shares w i t h the t o p i c of team r e s e a r c h .  In t h i s s e c t i o n ,  then, I  analyze Tom's framework and look at i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o team research. Tom  (1995a) suggests t h a t t h e r e are f i v e a s p e c t s of the  context i n which c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h takes p l a c e t h a t a f f e c t the d e c i s i o n s t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s make about who and how  c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i l l occur.  settings,  skill,  time, and  w i l l collaborate  These a s p e c t s a r e :  confidentiality.  purpose,  31 Purpose Different  r e s e a r c h purposes c a l l f o r d i f f e r e n t  relationships.  Examples of these d i f f e r e n c e s  t r u s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p that and  participant  a r e the c l o s e and  has t o be secured between r e s e a r c h e r  i n a l i f e history,  and an e v a l u a t i o n  which i t i s e s s e n t i a l t o "demonstrate that l o y a l t y t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n s ' blinded  collaborative  study f o r  [the r e s e a r c h e r s ' ]  goals or administrators  has not  them t o what needs t o be seen i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n s "  (Tom,  1995a, p. 6 ) . In r e s e a r c h teams t h a t the  include  study d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e s  participants,  who w i l l be p a r t  the purpose of  of the team and  what k i n d s of a c t i v i t i e s each person w i l l undertake. a f f e c t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h the o b j e c t  of study, the purpose  of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n a l s o a f f e c t s the r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e s e a r c h team.  Purposes t h a t  By  i n s i d e the  c a l l f o r a more d i s t a n t  r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h p a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l a f f e c t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between team members. When teams do not i n c l u d e  participants,  the purpose of the  study a f f e c t s r e l a t i o n s h i p s between team members i n a d i f f e r e n t way.  Choices about s t r a t e g i e s  are r e s t r i c t e d .  calls  f o r a s e t product, then team members are r e s t r i c t e d i n  t h e i r t a s k s t o those t h a t b u i l d i n t o t h a t g o a l . agency o n l y r e q u i r e s  a report  of a c t i v i t i e s ,  I f the study  I f the f u n d i n g  team members are  more f r e e t o undertake d i f f e r e n t jobs and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Setting Settings Tom p o i n t s  also influence  decisions  i n collaborative  a t t h r e e i n s t i t u t i o n s as p a r t  funders', the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' ,  research.  of the s e t t i n g : the  and the r e s e a r c h e r s ' .  She  32 discriminates and  aspects  responsibilities  their  own  certain  in this  that  institutions  t h e y can  a  two  p a r t i c i p a n t s and  a f f e c t the  b u i l d with each other. amount o f  specific  kind  hours  influence.  kinds The  or  of  a l s o b o u n d by the  find On  the  this  t o p i c , Tom  of  their  reports  on  have  relationships  or  might  in  that  release  t h e y might  p a r t i c i p a n t s and they  still  r o l e as  the  teachers,  difficulties  researchers outside  learners and  that  might  vice-versa.  the  research  team e n c o u n t e r e d w h i l e  t r y i n g t o work w i t h c o n s u l t i n g  groups  included  and  a l s o Crow e t  al.,  influence  at  and  both learners  Clift  et  institutions  composed o n l y  of  researchers  all  team members a r e decisions  researchers'  that in  project,  i n the  I f the the  and  researchers')  and  a third  included.  one  participate  1992,  team i n a t  roles.  r e q u i r e m e n t s on  ways.  an  the  still  as  research  and  e v e n when  First,  of  advise  study  their  role  are  continue  teach  a s s i s t a n t s have t o  the  research  administrative  have t o  it  shapes  kind  ways i n w h i c h i t a f f e c t s t h e  i n committee meetings,  involved  that  - usually a university -  Professors  team i s  same i n s t i t u t i o n ,  l e a s t two  university plays  least  (participants') i f  I suggest  w i t h the  of  i f the  S e c o n d , u n i v e r s i t y team members s t i l l  institutional  Students  are  because i t p l a c e s  enlarged.  (see  assess the  affiliated  institution  i t houses.  the  can  academics,  liaison  decisions  we  (funders'  any  affects  teachers  that  a l . , 1992).  I n team r e s e a r c h , two  a  require  have  Teachers c o l l a b o r a t i n g with  l e t go  roles  performance.  r e l a t i o n s h i p s that  investigation.  i t hard to  of  time,  Second, w h i l e w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r , are  the  researchers  institution  for research  of product  First,  their  classes, students.  take courses,  do  33  their  research,  students a job the  or write  have a l i m i t e d  does not decisions  considered  d i m i n i s h the a b o u t who  their  relationships learners the  and  members c a n  should  find  different I am  held outside of  not  i n the  "collaborators  they  are  Tom  on  professors  and  and  still  and  As  way  in  team  in a  may  Sork  be  from those them.  hard  to  also differ  in  i n adult education  (p.  t o make s u r e  viewed p o s i t i v e l y  that  team they  that  they  accomplish.  t h a t t o a v o i d i t becoming a  be  students  Maintaining  different  (1994) a l s o p o i n t a t t h i s  problems  the  i n a research  relationships  s h a p e d by  motivations  t h e i r work w i l l  accountable"  the  their  in a different  different  s h o u l d work t o g e t h e r  Differences research.  team a r e  relationships  They suggest  outcomes o f  has  research process.  responsibilities  i t , although  rewards,  sum,  institution  t h a t p r o f e s s o r s and  t h a t the  collaborative problem  that by  discrepancy  the  those  t o whom  52).  i n needs and  rewards p l a y a key  E v e n when a l l r e s e a r c h e r s  to  how.  t o each other  advocating  arguing  a p o i n t of p o t e n t i a l  research.  In  from t h a t which they h o l d o u t s i d e of  I am  different  institutions. as  dedicate  institution  the  interact  to r e l a t e  same k i n d o f  1995c),  Needs,  same  permeates  affect  c o u l d not  i t hard  want t o e s t a b l i s h  two  role  can  students.  composed o f b o t h  i n ways t h a t may  s h o u l d have the  those  to the  c o l l a b o r a t e and  out-of-the-team  Although  (see Tom,  universities  Demonstration P r o j e c t ' s c o n s u l t i n g groups,  relationship team.  time  i n f l u e n c e t h a t the  teachers  Literacy  I n some  full  t h a t a l l team members b e l o n g  When r e s e a r c h teams a r e students,  theses.  amount o f h o u r s t h a t t h e y  i f t h e y want t o be  fact  their  i n the  role  i n team  team n e e d t o  be  34 r e c o g n i z e d i n the same way, the i n s t i t u t i o n i n f l u e n c e s through i t s Tom p o i n t s  decisions  d e t e r m i n a t i o n of who s h o u l d be rewarded and how.  As  out,  S h a r i n g c r e d i t w i t h members of the community p r a c t i t i o n e r s , advocates, c l i e n t s o r s t u d e n t s - as authors,grant r e c i p i e n t s o r a u t h o r i t i e s on the r e s e a r c h g e n e r a l l y d i m i n i s h e s (and almost never i n c r e a s e s ) the academic r e s e a r c h e r ' s s t a t u s and c r e d i t i n the u n i v e r s i t y system (1995a, p . 8 ) . A p r o f e s s o r who i s working towards g e t t i n g  tenure would f i n d  v e r y hard to share c r e d i t w i t h o t h e r team members, because would mean l e s s r e c o g n i t i o n of her work i n terms o f  it  that  tenure  competition. The f u n d e r s '  i n s t i t u t i o n affects decisions  because  it  shapes  the b a s i c h i e r a r c h y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h i n the team.  P o r t e r (1994) d e s c r i b e s  Sciences  i n d e t a i l how SSHRC  (Social  and Humanities Research C o u n c i l ) g u i d e l i n e s  influenced her decisions her team.  about what k i n d s of p e o p l e t o h i r e f o r  She had thought of h i r i n g advanced d o c t o r a l  w i t h e x p e r i e n c e w i t h feminism, ethnography  f o r funding  sociology,  (a background l i k e P o r t e r ' s ) .  Marxism,  and  The "low pay r a t e s  a l l o w e d f o r r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t s , " among o t h e r t h i n g s , pushed her to make d i f f e r e n t those d e c i s i o n s  choices.  students,  however,  She d i r e c t l y addresses  how  r e s u l t e d i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l team:  The g r a n t was i n my name. I was u l t i m a t e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the p r o j e c t and the money; I had c o n s i d e r a b l e power and a u t h o r i t y over o t h e r members of the r e s e a r c h ' t e a m . ' No matter how we d i s g u i s e d i t , o r how f a r we t r i e d t o a c h i e v e more e q u a l r e l a t i o n s and more democratic p r o c e d u r e s , the i n e s c a p a b l e f a c t was t h a t I had more power than my ' a s s i s t a n t ' and, u l t i m a t e l y , i t was my r e p u t a t i o n t h a t was at stake (p. 73). There i s yet another aspect suggests i s  an i n f l u e n c e  of the s e t t i n g  in decisions  t h a t Tom (1995a)  about r e l a t i o n s h i p s  in  35 c o l l a b o r a t i v e research.  "Researchers  affect participants' livelihoods, power  have the p o t e n t i a l power to  c a r e e r s or s e l f esteem and  this  between r e s e a r c h e r s and p a r t i c i p a n t s i n f l u e n c e s r e s e a r c h "  (p. 7 ) .  I would suggest  a f f e c t the r e s e a r c h e r .  t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s a l s o have the power to P a r t i c i p a n t s can harm a study or the  r e p u t a t i o n of a p r o f e s s o r by b o y c o t t i n g an i n v e s t i g a t i o n , l e a k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t o a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and  or  funders.  When people get i n v o l v e d i n teams, they get i n v o l v e d i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h o t h e r people. more v u l n e r a b l e to each o t h e r .  By doing t h i s , people  Power.issues between r e s e a r c h  team members are a complex t o p i c . p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a study, r e s e a r c h team.  As r e s e a r c h e r s can harm  r e s e a r c h e r s can harm each o t h e r i n a  P r o f e s s o r s can p l a c e a v e r y h i g h demand of  and s k i l l s on students, and can i n t h a t way career.  Students  affect  o t h e r p r o f e s s o r s ' c a r e e r s as w e l l .  time  students'  can a f f e c t p r o f e s s o r s ' r e p u t a t i o n by  rumours, or doing poor work, f o r example.  complexity  become  initiating  P r o f e s s o r s can  affect  Other i s s u e s b r i n g more  t o the power r e l a t i o n s i n an academic r e s e a r c h team.  When a p r o f e s s o r h i r e s s t u d e n t s , she becomes t h e i r employer boss.  To add more complexity  to t h i s i s s u e , o f t e n the r e s e a r c h  d i r e c t o r i s a l s o the s t u d e n t s ' a d v i s o r . connected  and  Researchers  then  are  t o each o t h e r through many - sometimes c o n f l i c t i n g -  relationships.  The m u l t i p l i c i t y of r o l e s and  between the r e s e a r c h e r s can become a source of  relationships problematic  situations. Skills S k i l l s i s the t h i r d aspect of the context t h a t Tom as an i n f l u e n c e i n d e t e r m i n i n g  presents  collaborative relationships.  It  36  i s important, she e x p l a i n s , t o make d e c i s i o n s about  training  people i n the s k i l l s  roles  effectively"  (p. 9).  "that they need t o c a r r y t h e i r  Tom p r e s e n t s the concept o f s k i l l s as  "project-relevant s k i l l s . "  A l t h o u g h not e x p l i c i t l y r e f e r r e d t o  by the author, t h i s i s an important p o i n t i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h , because  the p o t e n t i a l f o r d i s c r i m i n a t i n g  different  kinds o f knowledge f o r b e i n g e i t h e r too t h e o r e t i c a l (the r e s e a r c h e r s ' ) o r too p r a c t i c a l  (the p r a c t i t i o n e r s ' )  i s great. .  I n v o l v i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s i n r e s e a r c h assumes t h a t p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge are v a l u a b l e .  Both k i n d s o f knowledge are  c o n s i d e r e d important and n e c e s s a r y i n r e s e a r c h , a l t h o u g h admittedly d i f f e r e n t  (see a l s o K y l e & McCutcheon, 1984; Schensul  & Schensul, 1992; Tom and Sork, Skill mentioned  1994, Troyna & F o s t e r ,  i s an important f a c t o r i n team r e s e a r c h . how P o r t e r (1994) d e s c r i b e s the importance  p l a c e d i n the s k i l l s  1988).  I already t h a t she  she wanted the r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t s t o have.  L i g g e t t e t a l . (1994) a l s o d e s c r i b e the r e l e v a n c e o f s k i l l s i n s e l e c t i n g the team members.  They s t r e s s that one o f the s k i l l s  t h a t they found e s s e n t i a l was i n t e r - r e l a t i o n a l s k i l l s ,  "persons  who c o u l d work t o g e t h e r without i n t r u s i v e egos b l o c k i n g interaction, (p.  78).  [and] who would enjoy spending time w i t h each o t h e r "  They admit  t h a t they p l a c e d as much emphasis on  p e r s o n a l i t y as they d i d on knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e .  Although  l i t e r a t u r e on team r e s e a r c h does not r e f e r t o t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s for  team members, t h e r e a r e a l l u s i o n s t o r e t r e a t s o r time  spent  t o g e t h e r i n which team members became a c q u a i n t e d w i t h each o t h e r and a sense o f team emerges.  37  Time Time i s one of the most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned drawbacks i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e research.  Most authors  r e f l e c t on the f a c t  that  c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h takes more time than n o n - c o l l a b o r a t i v e research. people  Because t h i s k i n d o f r e s e a r c h i n v o l v e s d i f f e r e n t  working together,  the a l r e a d y needed f l e x i b i l i t y i n  q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n i s exacerbated.  I t i s not always  p o s s i b l e t o p l a n and p r e d i c t the development o f events. p r e s e n t s a h i g h r i s k f o r o v e r l o a d on c e r t a i n r o l e s , the d i r e c t o r ' s .  This  particularly  Tom argues t h a t "the c h a l l e n g e f o r d e a l i n g w i t h  the time p r e s s u r e s  i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e work i s t o f i n d c r e a t i v e ways  t o b u i l d and r e t a i n a sense o f c o n n e c t i o n between the members of the c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t i n ways t h a t maximize time use"  (p.  12).  Time i s a l s o s c a r c e i n team r e s e a r c h . n e g o t i a t e meanings and procedures.  Authors  Researchers  need t o  (Crow e t a l . , 1992,  L i g g e t t et a l . , 1994, P o r t e r , 1994) d e s c r i b e the p r o c e s s o f making meaning together,  d i s a g r e e i n g and compromising t h a t  they  have had t o go through.  When some of the team members have more  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y over the p r o j e c t than o t h e r s , time demands may result i n overload r o l e s .  Tom e t . a l (1994) r e p o r t on how team  members' r o l e s were overloaded, director.  Researchers  p a r t i c u l a r l y t h a t o f the r e s e a r c h  need t o engage i n team r e s e a r c h  acknowledging the e f f e c t s t h a t t h i s approach w i l l have i n the study,  time b e i n g one o f them.  Confidentiality The  l a s t aspect t h a t Tom r e f e r s t o i s c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y .  C o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h c h a l l e n g e s the t r a d i t i o n a l n o t i o n s o f  38 c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y because these researchers  a r e separate  a r e based on the assumption t h a t  from p a r t i c i p a n t s .  An a d d i t i o n a l  q u e s t i o n a r i s e s when some p a r t i c i p a n t s want t o be named. argues t h a t i t i s n e c e s s a r y  t o e x p l i c i t l y d i s c u s s these  between the c o l l a b o r a t o r s t o make d e c i s i o n s  even w i t h the use of pseudonyms,  This challenge  participants.  information  they a r e s h a r i n g i t w i t h the whole team.  keeping c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , a challenge.  issues  together.  In team r e s e a r c h , when p a r t i c i p a n t s share one r e s e a r c h e r ,  Tom  with And becomes  i s sharpened when the team i n c l u d e s  With the e x c e p t i o n o f some (Tom e t a l . , 1994, Tom,  1995a), most authors  do not mention the problems t h a t  around c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i n team r e s e a r c h .  arise  I agree w i t h Tom  (1995a) t h a t acknowledging the c h a l l e n g e and working i n s i d e and o u t s i d e the team on i s s u e s o f c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i s e s s e n t i a l t o team r e s e a r c h . Adult education  and team  research  To r e f e r t o the r e l a t i o n s between a d u l t e d u c a t i o n  and team  r e s e a r c h I am going t o look a t the two meanings t h a t the word r e s e a r c h has i n the d i s c o u r s e o f a d u l t e d u c a t i o n Research can be c o n c e i v e d  o f as a p r o c e s s ,  (Blunt, 1994) .  "a c a r e f u l and  s y s t e m a t i c means of study o r i n q u i r y conducted w i t h the i n t e n t i o n to  d i s c o v e r new knowledge and understandings"  product,  the outcomes o f such a p r o c e s s  (p. 167), o r as a  that are considered  of the academic f i e l d o f a d u l t e d u c a t i o n .  The t o p i c o f team  r e s e a r c h i s connected, through both meanings o f r e s e a r c h , adult education  part  t o the  field.  As a p r o c e s s ,  team r e s e a r c h r e f e r s t o one p a r t i c u l a r way of  doing r e s e a r c h t h a t i s growing f a s t i n a d u l t e d u c a t i o n  research  39 projects. First,  T h i s i s a consequence o f at l e a s t two p r o c e s s e s .  r e s e a r c h e r s are s t u d y i n g complex phenomena t h a t r e q u i r e  more than one r e s e a r c h e r t o gather data P o r t e r , 1994, Tom e t a l . , 1994) .  (Burgess  Second, working i n groups has  been a p p r e c i a t e d as a b e n e f i c i a l f a c t o r i n o t h e r enterprises.  e t a l . , 1994;  educational  6  In the broad  educational f i e l d ,  group work i s an i s s u e t h a t  i s g a i n i n g more and more a t t e n t i o n from e d u c a t o r s . l i t e r a t u r e e x p l o r e s how students work together,  The  i n whatever l e v e l  of e d u c a t i o n we r e f e r t o , and the impact of t h a t p r o c e s s l e a r n i n g experience Gere, 1987). non  (Cowie & Rudduck, 1990, Doise,  From primary  formal i n s t i t u t i o n s ,  techniques  on the  1990, Ruggles-  s c h o o l t o u n i v e r s i t y e d u c a t i o n , and  t e a c h e r s are u s i n g s m a l l group  to f a c i l i t a t e l e a r n i n g experiences.  Cooperative  groups appear t o f a c i l i t a t e the achievement of i n d i v i d u a l , social,  and p o l i t i c a l g o a l s .  When l e a r n e r s work i n c o o p e r a t i v e  s m a l l groups t h e i r m o t i v a t i o n i s i n c r e a s e d , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and i n i t i a t i v e a r e developed,  understanding  i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s are f a c i l i t a t e d  i s e n r i c h e d and  (Cowie & Rudduck, 1990) .  But even when r e s e a r c h e r s work j o i n t l y , not r e f l e c t e d t h a t p r a c t i c e . ( L i g g e t t , Glesne, Levine,  Johnston,  Except  the l i t e r a t u r e has  f o r a few r e c e n t  accounts  H a s a z i , Schattman, 1994; Crow,  & Nager, 1992) r e s e a r c h e r s who work o r have worked  j o i n t l y have not documented, o r a t l e a s t p u b l i s h e d , accounts o f the p r o c e s s e s  and problems they went through w h i l e t r y i n g t o work  I consider that research i s in itself an e d u c a t i o n a l u n d e r t a k i n g where an i n v e s t i g a t o r , o r a group, s e t s out t o l e a r n more about a s p e c i f i c p r o c e s s , s i t u a t i o n , o r problem. 6  40 i n a team.  The  adult education  l i t e r a t u r e has almost  no  r e f e r e n c e t o the process of c o n s t i t u t i n g a team, or the i n f l u e n c e .that t h i s k i n d of work has on the r e s e a r c h or on the As a product  researchers.  - the knowledge r e s u l t i n g from r e s e a r c h -  s t u d y i n g team r e s e a r c h opens p o t e n t i a l r o l e s f o r a d u l t In o t h e r words, the i n s i g h t s t h a t we teams r e v e a l t h a t a d u l t educators of  r e s e a r c h team members.  together,  g a i n from s t u d y i n g  may  Although  educators.  be needed i n the  research training  r e s e a r c h e r s have been working  t h e r e are no models f o r doing r e s e a r c h i n teams.  Researchers  are o n l y b e g i n n i n g  t o understand  the s k i l l s  t h a t are  needed i n d o i n g t h i s k i n d of r e s e a r c h . The skills  l i t e r a t u r e t e l l s us t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s have found some  to be  important  i n working as a team.  L i g g e t t et a l .  (1994) r e f e r t o the importance of n e g o t i a t i n g meanings among team members, o t h e r s emphasize e s t a b l i s h i n g t r u s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s and communications roles  (Johnston,  ( H o l l i n g w o r t h , 1992;  t h e i r mistakes,  1990), yet o t h e r s look at Olesen,  1994).  Researchers  reflect  on  and share t h e i r c o n c l u s i o n s i n the hope t h a t  other r e s e a r c h e r s w i l l  l e a r n from t h e i r r e f l e c t i o n .  t h a t i t i s time t o . f i n d a more s y s t e m a t i c way researchers' r e f l e c t i o n s . necessary  shifting  I f we  of u s i n g  can agree on the s k i l l s  t o be e f f e c t i v e members of teams, then we  ways of t e a c h i n g these s k i l l s .  I believe  Tom  and Sork  t h a t are  can look at  (1994) c l a i m t h a t  c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h - which i n c l u d e s team r e s e a r c h Is not an easy approach t o r e s e a r c h and i t r e q u i r e s a s e t of s k i l l s t h a t are r a r e l y p a r t of t r a d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h methods courses taught i n u n i v e r s i t i e s . . . . Academic r e s e a r c h e r s must l e a r n the s k i l l s t h a t a l l o w them to be e f f e c t i v e , nono f f e n s i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the p r a c t i t i o n e r s ' worlds (pp. 48,50).  41 Tom  and  Sork e n v i s i o n t h i s  process  training  i n collaborative research,  collaborators Adrian w h i c h he  throughout  Blunt  work, and  He  the  f u t u r e of  and  this  but  i n n o v a t i v e and In t h i s  approach,  t o take  research.  we  article  field  of  in  adult  interdisciplinary  i n team  research.  i t s potential  as  a  difficult  approach. research  around c o l l a b o r a t i v e p a r t n e r s h i p s between r e s e a r c h e r s  the  confronted  r e c e n t l y beginning  among r e s e a r c h e r s .  m e t h o d o l o g y o f my  literature  team  issues  i t i s only  the  of  the  relationships  Although  topic  within  practitioners,  research  i n a n a l y z i n g the  I  need t o acknowledge i t s  I have framed the  literature.  an  i n the  are present  advantage of  worthwhile  chapter  parallel  p e d a g o g i c a l l y r e l e v a n t knowledge.  If  t o use  a  supports  f o r e s e e s more c o l l a b o r a t i v e and  more s o c i a l l y  peculiarities  the  research  characteristics  are  of  that  as  recently published  argue t h a t these we  one  course  (1994) has  explores  education.  the  component  and  data.  In the  explores  to address  next  e x p l a i n the  chapter,  the and  the I  challenges  describe that  I  CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY  To team  analyze  the c o l l a b o r a t i v e  I have l o o k e d  r e s e a r c h team. I begin data  processes  at the National L i t e r a c y Demonstration Project  In t h i s  chapter  I d e s c r i b e how I d i d t h i s  b y d e s c r i b i n g t h e team members.  I u s e d a n d how I a n a l y z e d  analysis  of the challenges  i t .  that  r e s e a r c h a n d how I d e a l t w i t h problems o f doing  within a research  I describe the  Following,  I encountered  them.  r e s e a r c h about  a d v i s o r a n d I were b o t h  Next,  study.  I p r e s e n t an while  Particularly  doing  I look  a team i n w h i c h my  this into the  academic  involved. Team members  The  r e s e a r c h team was composed o f t e n p e r s o n s :  students, The  two l i a i s o n  liaison  were b e i n g  p r o g r a m s i n c e 1984. teacher the  f o rf i v e  time  inclusion  Before  years  easily  help  i n t h e B.C. p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n  centre  liked  some t i m e  about  leaving i t .  t o t h i n k about  as p o s s i b l e .  Mark, a n d t h a t t h e y their  I n t h e team m e e t i n g s ,  The f a c t  f o r the  system.  frustrated  At with  Mark's f o r him t o  t h e program.  so r e s e a r c h e r s c o u l d c a r r y out t h e i r  r e s e a r c h team f a c i l i t a t e d site.  Mark was f e e l i n g  that  elementary  i n c r e a t i n g an atmosphere o f a c c e p t a n c e  and e f f e c t i v e l y  learners  he h a d w o r k e d a s a n  i n t h e team was c o n s i d e r e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y  a great  literacy  this  and had been t a l k i n g  have a c h a n g e a n d t a k e was  from t h e programs  Mark h a d b e e n w o r k i n g a s a t e a c h e r  of the investigation,  the program,  graduate  f i e l d w o r k e r s , a n d two c o - i n v e s t i g a t o r s .  f i e l d w o r k e r s were two t e a c h e r s studied.  six  He  at the  tasks as  t h a t t e a c h e r s and  knew he was p a r t o f t h e .  acceptance  of our presence  i n the  Mark was a r e f r e s h i n g p a r t i c i p a n t .  43 He  l i k e d t o joke and at the same time he brought  t o the team an  i n s i d e r ' s c r i t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e of the program. Deborah Lee immigrated was  t o Canada from Hong Kong i n 1985,  h i r e d by the C i t y of Vancouver i n 1988.  language program as a l e a r n e r when i t f i r s t  She  had  joined  started,  in  ( i n Hong Kong), she  the  1990.  Because of Deborah's hands-on experience w i t h the program, her former p r o f e s s i o n as a t e a c h e r  and  and  was  seconded from her p o s i t i o n w i t h the C i t y of Vancouver t o a job w i t h the School Board as a t e a c h e r i n the language program where she now  works.  Although  i n the b e g i n n i n g she was  not sure about  b e i n g p a r t of the r e s e a r c h team, she q u i c k l y came t o enjoy new  aspect of her work.  She  arranged  this  f o r team members t o meet  w i t h l e a r n e r s and t e a c h e r s , and d e d i c a t e d a l o t of a t t e n t i o n t o making sure we  found people t o t a l k t o i n the programs.  team meetings Deborah was the d i s c u s s i o n s .  u s u a l l y q u i e t ; she enjoyed  She t a l k e d whenever she was  q u e s t i o n about the program, her own d i s a g r e e d w i t h what was  a  specific  Deborah i s a f i r m  i n the p h i l o s o p h y of her program and,  The graduate  l i s t e n i n g to  p h i l o s o p h y , o r when she  being said.  programs' p e r s p e c t i v e t o the  asked  In the  believer  t h e r e f o r e , brought  the  meetings.  students were e n r o l e d i n the master's  and  d o c t o r a l programs i n the Department of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e , A d u l t , Higher E d u c a t i o n i n the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. the s i x graduate graduate  students were h i r e d as f i e l d w o r k e r s .  student, C a t h i e Cunningham-Dunlop, was  administrative assistant. r e s e a r c h s t u d y i n g how  C a t h i e was  F i v e of The  other  h i r e d as the  working on her d o c t o r a l  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i d e o l o g i e s and  and  individual  i n t e n t i o n s are t r a n s l a t e d i n t o p l a n n i n g s t r a t e g i e s f o r a d u l t  44 education  programs.  meetings,  but  team.  She  little  of  that the  the  the  technological  was  not  always present  a constant  a b u r d e n as  her  presence  Tom  originally  adult  life  fully  already and  involved  and  growing  education.  the  role.  He  b e g i n n i n g her  much t i m e  from her  own  i n workers'  a b o u t by  being  and  well  as  an  research  the  team  to  family.  ethnography  being  research.  i n the of  most  a  wife  course  position. adult  Tom  was  teaching  student  i n what he  to  be  u n d e r s t o o d was  a  w a n t i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e more i n had  time  was  was  for. at  educational  afraid  She  the  stage  of  processes  in  reluctant  to accept  i t would take  came t o  w h i c h she  the  too  team w i t h  h o p e d she  would  the  an  learn  l i t e r a c y program t h a t  trained  J a n e as  rational,  p a r t i c i p a n t i n the  of  in  interesting opportunity  about  she  dedicated  been i n v o l v e d  f o r the  been o r i g i n a l l y  I think  had  fieldworkers,  education,  involved  workers.  organized  the  team b e c a u s e  interest  municipal  of  Jane had  i n the  the  s.o  with  moved t o C a n a d a w i t h h i s  a n a l y s i s t h a n he  doctoral  workplace.  position  as  has  d i s s e r t a t i o n on  found himself  team m e e t i n g s and  He  to apply  found t h i s  J a n e Dawson, one  the  He  in a collaborative project  supportive  to deal  to her  his doctoral  Tom  as  overworked  left  research  the  work was  she  After taking  l e a r n i n g mathematics,  representative.  i t easier  in  I n J a n u a r y 1993  i n v i t e d him  w o r k i n g on  f o r everyone  from N o r t h e r n England,  to workers'  she  team  Nesbit.  h i s d o c t o r a l work.  with A l l i s o n ,  the  More t h a n o n c e she  collaborative projects before. t o do  at  administrative  team members f o u n d  problems.  by  the  possible.  attention  replaced  Tom, his  was  was  a l w a y s made s u r e t h a t  r e s t of  dedicate She  she  She  team.  a reflective, Her  reflections usually  45 triggered interesting discussions. her quotes have been of g r e a t t h e s i s as  She  writes  i n s i g h t i n the  beautifully  reports  and  and  in this  well.  Pat Dyer's background i s i n o c c u p a t i o n a l  therapy.  She  h e r s e l f f r u s t r a t e d w i t h the h i e r a r c h i c a l medical model  and  d e c i d e d to change her feminist  issues,  and  career. at the  student r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  She  had  long been i n t e r e s t e d  time of the  i n v e s t i g a t i o n she  i n the Department of A d u l t  the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, at the t a k i n g her had 1991,  l a s t two  been t a k i n g and  were v e r y c l o s e .  studying Pat was  in was  Education i n  same time t h a t  courses f o r the master's program.  courses and  found  t o g e t h e r s i n c e we also involved  she  Pat  and  met  in  and,  of l i t e r a c y and  as the p r o j e c t  Pat  p r o j e c t her  team long b e f o r e i t was  e n d l e s s energy and  t e a c h e r s i n the Lyn  and  had  issues by  (ESL)  formed.  She  commitment to the  brought to  learners  the  and  programs.  team was  formed.  s i x months  While working f o r the p r o j e c t  a l s o working on her master's t h e s i s which e x p l o r e d  e x p e r i e n c e s of a Lebanese immigrant t o Canada. as an a n t h r o p o l o g i s t team meetings.  Lyn  emerged i n her has  concerns about r e s e a r c h constructive  the  hoped t o become a  Harper became i n v o l v e d w i t h the p r o j e c t  b e f o r e the was  time E n g l i s h as a second language  knew about the p r o j e c t  member of the  engaged i n  language l e a r n i n g , which she pursued l a t e r  working as a f u l l teacher.  developed, she  I  w i t h a church  community agency that worked i n the Downtown E a s t S i d e w i t h mentally i l l  was  way.  Her  the  the  Lyn's background  l i v e l y comments d u r i n g  a b i l i t y t o r e f l e c t and  t a s k s and  bring  problems i n a p o s i t i v e  e x t e n s i v e and  she  the up and  r i c h f i e l d n o t e s have been a  46  g r e a t s o u r c e of i d e a s when r e - t h i n k i n g the N a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y Evaluation Project. Anne M o r l e y , a B r i t i s h immigrant t o Canada, came i n t o the team i n September 1992.  She was  w r i t i n g her m a s t e r ' s t h e s i s  on  mature women s t u d e n t s ' e x p e r i e n c e s i n a c a r e e r p r e p a r a t i o n program.  A l t h o u g h Anne kept r e m i n d i n g the team members t h a t she  "came l a t e , " none of the o t h e r s f e l t any d i f f e r e n c e . accommodated q u i c k l y t o the dynamics o f the team. understanding  w r i t i n g poems.  I f e l t compelled I immigrated ago. me  She b r o u g h t an  and compassionate l o o k a t p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  p a r t i c u l a r l y v o l u n t e e r s , i n the programs. as i f she was  Anne  Anne t a l k s and w r i t e s  E v e r y time I found a quote from her  t o copy i t and i n c l u d e i t i n t h i s  thesis.  t o Canada from A r g e n t i n a f o u r and a h a l f  I have a background i n t e a c h i n g and, when A l l i s o n  t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s p r o j e c t , I was  the t o p i c f o r my master's t h e s i s . o p p o r t u n i t y of w o r k i n g always more concerned  invited  at the p o i n t of  I chose t o t a k e  years  choosing  the  i n a team, w h i c h I e n j o y d e a r l y .  I  was  about the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s t h a n I was  the r e s e a r c h c o n t e n t , i f t h e y c o u l d be s e p a r a t e d i n such a  about way.  A l l i s o n , one of the p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s and t h e r e s e a r c h d i r e c t o r , came t o Canada from t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s e l e v e n y e a r s  ago.  She has an a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l background, w i t h a s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n ethnography and f e m i n i s t i s s u e s .  T h i s was  the  first  c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o j e c t , o r team, t h a t A l l i s o n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n , not to.mention  directed.  A l l i s o n s t r u g g l e d t h r o u g h the p r o j e c t t o  a c h i e v e a l e v e l of c o n s i s t e n c y between her p h i l o s o p h y multiple role responsibilities.  and  As a r e s e a r c h d i r e c t o r she  s u p p o r t i v e and u n d e r s t a n d i n g , y e t demanding.  was  47 Hanna was we  a l l felt  a geographically distant  that.  With  her background  known f o r h e r work i n l i t e r a c y could  spend  more t i m e  meetings  was  very well  always  by  meeting  tapes.  expert"  and  was  busy,  too short.  r e a d i n g our  I n more t h a n one  i n the  During  to February  helping  1994)  feel  i n Vancouver.  the meetings on  source of data.  part  f o r two  I took  she  f o r team us  t o the  team  o f h e r as  "the  "bigger p i c t u r e "  stage  f o r three hours  and w r i t i n g  o f what  stage  (April every  intention  (January  Although  of i n c l u d i n g  o f t h e team, a c o p y  1993 or  these Hanna  and  o f t h e t a p e s was  kept  used  for  project.  team h e l d a t o t a l  meetings  to other  were h e l d w e e k l y , b i w e e k l y ,  t h e r e s e a r c h team m e e t i n g The  When  data  I have a n a l y z e d t h e t a p e s o f t w e n t y  that  thought  t h e n e e d o f t h e team.  i n the L i t e r a c y  I have u s e d  tapes  the  listening  T h e s e t a p e s have n o t b e e n s y s t e m a t i c a l l y  data a n a l y s i s  The  and we  we  came t o know a l l o f  data c o l l e c t i o n  the data a n a l y s i s  were t a p e d w i t h t h e her  she  t h e r e s e a r c h team met  monthly depending meetings  But  way  well  her.  the scheduled time  and  programs.  F o r most o f t h e p r o j e c t ' s  week.  and  and  had  The  December 1992)  team,  a l l hoped t h a t  l e a r n more f r o m  fieldnotes,  t h e team member who  g o i n g on  i n sociology  r e s e a r c h we  t o g e t h e r and  came t o V a n c o u v e r she was  member o f t h e  tapes  a s my  main  of twenty  three  meetings.  r e s e a r c h team  a r e m i s s i n g , so  (as a team member) a n d  I relied  meetings. on  the  t h e a g e n d a t o know what  7  notes were  T h e r e c o r d i n g q u a l i t y o f t h e t a p e s f o r one o f t h e m e e t i n g s was v e r y bad, s o a l t h o u g h I h a v e h e a r d them, I h a v e n o t b e e n a b l e to analyze the data i n depth. 7  48 the  topics  from  d i s c u s s e d i n them.  a p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t the  program  i n the U n i v e r s i t y  worked w i t h  fifty  used  messages,  e-mail  were d i s t r i b u t e d support  six  data  final  team.  w i t h no  was  not The  of the  conversations.  r e p o r t s , and  i n t e n t i o n behind  Accordingly, tapes  intentional  questions of c o u l d not  f o c u s o r g u i d i n g on my  In the  the people  ask  the  also  memos t h a t as  valuable  who  on  Thus,  the  have a n y  d u r i n g the data  after  will  the  assuming t h a t they  are  documents,  the process  fact,  been a d i f f e r e n t the  processes  on  o v e r what was  the  approach  I as  team  I would  get  in  most p r o b a b l y  not  already collected  i n i t and  what was  collaborative process. - and  a different  team m e e t i n g s t o u n d e r s t a n d  t h a t the  the  and  c o u l d h a v e c h o s e n t o i n t e r v i e w e a c h team member a n d reflection  ask  I felt  I c o u l d ask the  cannot  be  the  project.  I w o r k e d w i t h was  control  meetings  I have used  they view the p r o c e s s  T h e i r t h i n k i n g today  i t was  of  meetings,  that h i s t o r i a n s  wrote h i s t o r i c  the p r o c e s s  the  part.  documents,  same way  i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t how  retrospect.  t a p i n g the  team members t o comment a b o u t  members t o r e f l e c t  analyze  I  intention  are a r e c o r d of  t h e y w o u l d h a v e done d u r i n g t h e p r o c e s s .  current  I have  team members, Hanna, as c l o s e a s p o s s i b l e  records of a process.  not  tapes  Education  Overall  c o l l e c t e d with the  as a r e s e a r c h e r w o u l d u s e  same a s  more  t o e a c h team member d u r i n g t h e p r o j e c t  I used  t o k e e p one  tapes  Columbia.  hours of taped  fieldnotes,  documenting a p r o c e s s .  t o the  two  team g a v e i n t h e A d u l t  of B r i t i s h  (56)  I used  documents.  The  was  In a d d i t i o n ,  team went t h r o u g h .  the  study.  and  not.  I  analyze  That  I did  would  I chose  their have to  collaborative  I took  f o r granted  that  49 the  fact  that  limitations with  I could not -  shape the d a t a e n t a i l e d  t o the k i n d of a n a l y s i s  the d a t a  t h a t was  I c o u l d do.  some I c h o s e t o work  already there. Analysis  The dealt  following section presents  with the  analysis  of the data  that  t h e work p r e s e n t e d .  that  one  the  of  the  analysis  the paths  Taped  data The  The  of t h e i r  strategies  share  form  first  o f my  data,  money t r a n s c r i b i n g b e f o r e and As analysis be  any  another  I found  the  useful  literature  t h a t t h e r e were no not  assume o t h e r  to  enhance and  i t essential  to  thesis.  a challenge to  me. I  t h e most r e l e v a n t p a r t s spending  never  time  reasons forms.  why  the  data  analysis.  qualitative  data  had  to  Although  d a t a by w r i t i n g ,  and  my  and  of  and  worked w i t h o r a l  ethnographic  t h a t would c o n t r a d i c t  Fieldnotes, journals,  argue  collection  references to guide on  challenges  (1989) do  I  t o d e c i d e whether o r not  idea of  I had  D e c i d i n g what was r e l e v a n t f o r t h i n g t o do i n t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s , t h e themes f o r the a n a l y s i s p r o c e s s . How c o u l d I what n o t t o t r a n s c r i b e b e f o r e h a n d ? 8  I found  presented  p r o d u c e most o f t h e i r  argument form.  Schumacher  explicit.  or at l e a s t  tapes.  find  I e x p l o r e d the  w r i t t e n down and  find  all,  o f how  the p a r t i c u l a r  r e s e a r c h e r s can  t o t a c k l e was  the  c o u l d not  ethnographers  and  account  i s t o make t h e d a t a  tapes,  I struggled with  8  and  that I walked to w r i t e t h i s  i s s u e I had  tapes.  data  t h e y use  needed t o t r a n s c r i b e the  McMillan  things qualitative  credibility  a detailed  having  the  diaries  I could  data  are  not  in  an  my t h e s i s was a v e r y d i f f i c u l t data a n a l y s i s . A s i n most o f t h i s t h e s i s emerged t h r o u g h o u t d e c i d e what t o t r a n s c r i b e and  50 interpretation observations, 1990). the  The  that  t h e r e s e a r c h e r makes o f h e r e x p e r i e n c e s  they are r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of r e a l i t y  form  representation transcripts,  affects  though,  that  i s presented,  that  image d i f f e r e n t l y .  a r e no  form  Written  i s n o t more r e l i a b l e  than  the  other.  between the e t h n o g r a p h e r  he p o i n t s o u t  affects  of  taped  the r e l a t i o n  that  each  than  Geertz  data but  and  to r e a l i t y  One  written  form  closer  conversations. stresses  (Ottenberg,  of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n the r e s e a r c h e r chooses  image o f t h e e v e n t  and  and  the need f o r r e f l e c t i o n  on  the what  data i s , a representation: What d o e s t h e e t h n o g r a p h e r d o ? - he [ s i c ] w r i t e s . Or, a g a i n , more e x a c t l y , ' i n s c r i b e s . ' Most e t h n o g r a p h y i s i n f a c t t o be f o u n d i n b o o k s a n d a r t i c l e s , r a t h e r t h a n i n f i l m s , r e c o r d s , museum d i s p l a y s , o r w h a t e v e r . Selfc o n s c i o u s n e s s a b o u t modes o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ( n o t t o s p e a k o f e x p e r i m e n t s w i t h them) h a s b e e n l a c k i n g i n a n t h r o p o l o g y . (1973, p. 19) Robert  Sanjek  ethnographers  s y n t h e s i z e d the advantages  found  i n u s i n g tape  r e c o r d i n g by  hand: a c c o u n t s  information,  and  recorded texts  are r i c h e r  they c o n s t i t u t e  eight  hours  offices  and  of t r a n s c r i b i n g studies"  resigned note: stay"  (1990, p.  transcribed  one  and  (p. 1 1 4 ) .  "Technology 115).  i s not p a r t  hour  texts"  Sanjek of t a l k  some  instead  in details  "instant  h a r d work o f h a n d r e c o r d i n g f o r h o u r s . the problems of t r a n s c r i b i n g ;  that  and c o n t e x t u a l compared t o  can  take  Whether o r not  and  taped t e x t s  these t e x t s  of h i s d i s c u s s i o n ,  s i x to  s i t i n many  ends t h e d i s c u s s i o n  m a r c h e s on  the  a l s o p o i n t s out  "untranscribed tapes He  of  on  a  are here  are to  be  i t i s taken f o r  granted. My Why  d a t a were c o n v e r s a t i o n s , l a u g h s , d i s c u s s i o n s  would  I n e e d , o r e v e n want,  to translate  them t o  -  sounds!  another  to  51 t  form?  Hammersley and  essential,  "one  can  Atkinson  simply  indexing,  summarizing,  p.  Although  161).  the use  of taped  theoretical  I o n l y found  reasons  and  I began by  of  I kept  themes, a n d  the  that t r a n s c r i p t i o n  tape  as a  s e c t i o n s of  brief  i t " (1983,  concrete  description  transcription,  I found  9  never  choice.  done i t w i t h  listening  to a l l the  I used  t h e page  about  when n e e d i n g  records: a l o g of The  first  issues  of the  form  emerging  r e c o r d was  recorder.  until  reliable While  topics,  a  a l o g of For  0342 t h e r e was l o g was  As  I t s e r v e d as  was  o f themes, a l i s t  from  I c o u l d see  and  how  an  this  authority.  interesting  t o the they  tapes  the  a  very  useful listen  index. of  ideas  and  T h e s e were or  to explore  related i n the  themes b e g a n t o  emerged a g a i n a n d  again  problems  in  take ensuing  Robert Sanjek d e s c r i b e s how P a u l Bohannan, t h e project d i r e c t o r f o r a r e s e a r c h team t a p e d h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h h i s f i e l d w o r k e r s and l a t e r t o o k n o t e s on t h e t a p e s (1990, p . 3 3 2 ) . 9  on  f o r example  r e s e a r c h team m e e t i n g s ,  w o u l d be  I listened  the data,  list  F o r example,  tape.  inclusivity,  t h a t I thought  and  tape  This counter  r e c o r d I kept  t h a t were d i s c u s s e d i n t h e  analysis.  0109  authorship.  I saw  confidentiality,  points  the  t h a t from  section  second  that  on  had  t o q u o t e team members, o r when I went b a c k t o  a specific The  counter  I recorded  discussion  to  the  no  taped  tapes.  i s s u e s t h a t were b e i n g d i s c u s s e d i n t h e m e e t i n g .  purpose  I  t o c r e a t e a s y s t e m t h a t w o u l d be  a quasi journal.  of  transcribe.  I had  three d i f f e r e n t  i s not  document,  consequences of t h i s  I had  so  one  f o r the need t o  a n a l y s i s b e f o r e but  practical.  the  i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h no  conversations.  doing  treat  and/or copying  T h e r e were p r a c t i c a l done t e x t  suggest  52 meetings. The list  third  i n c l u d e d i s s u e s such  feelings  that  baby i n the boy  r e c o r d I kept  now,  I had  tapes,  calling  with the  taped  while and  me;  a s my  for personal r e f l e c t i o n s . memories o f t h e m e e t i n g s ;  listening  suddenly  t o my  hear  him,  o r even p r a c t i c a l  listened about  to a l l the  information  I had  description  f o r e a c h theme.  e a c h theme and At  gain complexity.  I went b a c k t o t h e went t o s p e c i f i c context  son, an  a two  e i g h t e e n month o l d of d e a l i n g  tapes  I e n d e d up  over  and  tapes  together  w r o t e a one  t h a t p o i n t the  segments o f t h e  of the  I put  chapters  and  again.  but  procedures  I used  traditional  written data I had  team members.  Researcher  I got  which and  of the  back the  I was  taped  I distributed  copies f i l l e d  I  my them.  The  i n many  of a n a l y z i n g  Hammersley & A t k i n s o n thesis  I  listened  d a t a were s i m i l a r  procedures  I i n c o r p o r a t e d t o the  with  (1983) .  copies to a l l  scribbles  subsequent  Once  and  drafts.  subject  I h a v e done an a n a l y s i s a way  the  qualitative  as d e s c r i b e d by  a complete d r a f t  suggestions  w h i c h seemed t o c o n t r a d i c t  to analyze  I  content.  arguments,  those  thesis.  T h i s time  made s u r e  c o n v e r s a t i o n as w e l l as t h e  to  inclusive  in this  o n l y f o r c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t would c o n f i r m also  page  themes b e g a n  with eight  over  the  o r two  looked not  ways t o t h e  the  month o l d  difficulties  tapes  themes w h i c h i n t u r n became p a r t o f t h e  to the  This  data.  Once I h a d  converge and  was  studying myself;  c a r r i e d b e n e f i t s and  of a project I was  drawbacks.  insider's perspective.  I had  On  i n which  I worked.  r e s e a r c h e r and  subject.  the p o s i t i v e  s i d e I had  been p a r t of the p r o j e c t  and  In This an  knew  53 what i t f e l t l i k e t o be p a r t o f t h e team. memories o f t h e meetings w h i c h h e l p e d discussions.  I have v e r y  strong  t o c o n t e x t u a l i z e some  I have i n c l u d e d some d e s c r i p t i o n s b a s e d on my  memories o f t h e e v e n t s when t h e r e was no r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e e v e n t s i n t h e r e s e a r c h team m e e t i n g  tapes.  On t h e o t h e r hand I had t o c o n v i n c e m y s e l f t h a t I was more than a subject i n t h i s research.  A t one p o i n t I was c o n f u s e d  about where my a n a l y s i s was coming from and f e l t v e r y I felt  insecure.  I had t o c o n s u l t w i t h e v e r y team member t o make s u r e  t h e y f e l t t h e same way I d i d about what I was w r i t i n g .  that  Once I  r e a l i z e d t h a t I was p l a y i n g two r o l e s and a r t i c u l a t e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between them, I c o u l d handle t h e t e n s i o n more e a s i l y . A l t h o u g h I am aware o f t h e f a l l a c y o f d i v i d i n g m y s e l f i n t o two d i f f e r e n t r o l e s - r e s e a r c h e r and s u b j e c t - I f o u n d i t necessary.  I t was v e r y u s e f u l t o t h i n k o f m y s e l f as p l a y i n g two  different roles. it.  The t e n s i o n d i d n o t cease b u t I became aware o f  I found i t u s e f u l t o a s k m y s e l f on what d a t a  analysis. claims? the time?  Was t h e r e a n y t h i n g  I based my  i n t h e t a p e s t o s u b s t a n t i a t e my  Or was I t a l k i n g from what I remembered I was f e e l i n g a t U l t i m a t e l y t h e way i n w h i c h a r e s e a r c h e r  c o n c l u s i o n and v a l i d a t e s h e r a n a l y s e s  a r r i v e s at a  d i f f e r s v e r y much from t h e  way a r e s e a r c h p a r t i c i p a n t r e f l e c t s on t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . As a s u b j e c t I d i d n o t have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e d a t a , o r w i t h t h e o t h e r team members. on how I f e l t .  As a r e s e a r c h e r ,  I c o u l d base my s t a t e m e n t s  however, I had t o work much  h a r d e r w i t h i s s u e s o f v a l i d a t i o n and r e l i a b i l i t y . Multiple roles I was n o t t h e o n l y p e r s o n i n v o l v e d i n t h i s s t u d y  holding  54 more than one r o l e . for  This research  i s an a n a l y s i s o f a p r o j e c t  which my academic a d v i s o r , A l l i s o n Tom, was the d i r e c t o r .  A l l i s o n and I had a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t some c o m p l i c a t i o n s as a r e s u l t o f her double r o l e i n t h i s study. d i r e c t o r she was a l s o one of my r e s e a r c h academic a d v i s o r she was r e s p o n s i b l e How would those two r o l e s i n t e r p l a y ? be able t o stop the r e s e a r c h a specific direction? v o i c e was t a l k i n g ?  could a r i s e  As the p r o j e c t  subjects.  As my  f o r s u p e r v i s i n g my  research.  Would the r e s e a r c h  advisor  s u b j e c t from d i r e c t i n g the t h e s i s i n  How would she be a b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h which  On the o t h e r hand, how would I be a b l e t o  w r i t e about the p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r ' s r o l e without w o r r y i n g about my research  supervisor's  reaction?  One o f the t h i n g s we d i d t o prepare f o r f u t u r e  complications  was t o make sure t h a t I would be able t o f i n d someone e l s e t o t a l k t o i n the event of a c o n f l i c t i n g s i t u a t i o n .  This person  would have t o be someone t h a t both A l l i s o n and I f e l t talking to.  F o r me i t was important t o f i n d someone who would be  able t o understand me should For A l l i s o n ,  comfortable  I f i n d I c o u l d not t a l k t o A l l i s o n .  f i n d i n g someone she t r u s t e d was e s s e n t i a l because  t h i s r e s e a r c h was about her and i f I had t o share any i n f o r m a t i o n I would be exposing her.  So t h i s became a c r i t i c a l  criterion  when we chose the p r o f e s s o r s f o r my t h e s i s committee.  And i t  proved t o be worthwhile. A l l i s o n and I were a b l e t o work t o g e t h e r  up t o the p o i n t a t  which I began t o a c t u a l l y w r i t e the data a n a l y s i s  chapters,  p a r t i c u l a r l y Chapter Three which d e a l s w i t h i s s u e s o f l e a d e r s h i p . In one meeting we became aware t h a t there were "too many people s i t t i n g around the t a b l e : " the r e s e a r c h  s u p e r v i s o r and the  55 researcher; and  the p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r and  the employee; and  c o n v e r s a t i o n was  the t e a c h e r  and the student.  a mixture of r e f l e c t i o n s and  a d v i s o r t o the advisee, r e s e a r c h s u b j e c t , and  new  Our  advice  from  We  the n e c e s s a r y  space and  the  i n f o r m a t i o n from an i n t e r v i e w of a  feedback from a r e s e a r c h e r t o a  participant.  having  the f i e l d w o r k e r ; the boss  r e a l i z e d t h i s was  not working.  research  I was  not  freedom to w r i t e and A l l i s o n was  having  not  her r i g h t f u l space t o r e a c t .  Researchers do not commonly share  t h e i r a n a l y s i s with  r e s e a r c h p a r t i c i p a n t s u n t i l they have an a r t i c u l a t e i d e a t o present.  Ideas evolve as the w r i t i n g develops,  and  researchers  can and must view t h i n g s from d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s i n these e a r l y stages.  My  f i r s t d r a f t s f o r Chapter Three, f o r example,  were v e r y c r i t i c a l ,  and  lacked contextual  A l l i s o n p o i n t e d to the context what I had she had to  my  on the tapes,  considerations.  by adding more i n f o r m a t i o n  and by e x p l a i n i n g why  as a r e s e a r c h d i r e c t o r .  A l l i s o n was  she had done what  not a b l e t o respond  a n a l y s i s s o l e l y as a s u b j e c t because she was  r e s e a r c h a d v i s o r , about l e a d i n g my enough space to r e f l e c t . responding,  and  she was  She  than  worried,  r e s e a r c h o r not g i v i n g  as a me  c o u l d not be sure what v o i c e  i n constant  tension.  I, on the  was  other  hand, always s t r u g g l e d w i t h the d e s i r e to make A l l i s o n happy w i t h my  analyses.  In our c o n v e r s a t i o n s ,  behave i n an u n n a t u r a l  were b o t h pushed t o  manner.  I do not t h i n k t h a t we w r i t e t h i s t h e s i s , t h a t we At t h i s p o i n t however, we approach.  we  had  a n t i c i p a t e d , when I d e c i d e d  would not be able t o work both f e l t  A l l i s o n t a l k e d t o one  t h a t we  to  together.  needed a d i f f e r e n t  of the p r o f e s s o r s i n my  research  56  committee, supervise  Dr.  Richard Sullivan,  the w r i t i n g  t h e y were r e a d y supervise  for Allison  This  the a n a l y s i s  helpful  than A l l i s o n ' s , qualitative out  useful  and  c h a n g e was  she was  not  responses,  were t h e  and  i s not  issues,  difficult  and  still and  letting  field."  me  develop  Richard  pointed at  was  different  a different  direction  f a m i l i a r w i t h the k i n d of Therefore  I had  to  relationship.  what k i n d s o f t h i n g s I  a complete  and  b o t h as an responded  a l t h o u g h we  o f one  a d v i s o r and  talked a s we  and  both  to  I  read  her  two  advisor, blue  chapter  felt  to.  hear  Allison  differentiating  the chapter d i d not  we  phone,  chapters  anxious  I  i t was  still  contain  w o u l d make t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h A l l i s o n i t with A l l i s o n  the  she  were u s e d  as a s u b j e c t .  With the next  I felt  on  content  comments as my  and  created a  hard because  of the  to i t , e x p l i c i t l y  subject's responses.  Then I s h a r e d  i t was  a r e s e a r c h e r , I was  p u r p l e s c r i b b l e s were h e r  that  content.  had  work as c l o s e l y  draft  As  y e a r s and  For her  And  m o n i t o r i n g my  since  f o r b o t h o f us b e c a u s e A l l i s o n  t o g e t h e r f o r two  worked w i t h R i c h a r d u n t i l material  "the  were a t t e m p t i n g .  i t with A l l i s o n .  voices:  from  he  a b a n d o n i n g me.  Once I h a d  the d r a f t  that  to methodology  s h a r e b e c a u s e t h e y were p a r t o f t h e  A l l i s o n was  her  would  I felt  would  i n terms o f  H i s e x p e r t i s e came f r o m  a n a l y s i s we  been working  shared  f o r me  however, and  t r u s t i n g working felt  related  and  he  what k i n d s o f t h i n g s I s h o u l d s h a r e w i t h A l l i s o n  s h o u l d not  had  thesis  that  he  Allison  understanding,  t h e y were m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  I  to read.  with less pressure  areas of a n a l y s i s .  This  agreed  reviews. c h a n g e was  extremely  we  chapters u n t i l  the aspects of the  literature  figure  of the  and  any  difficult. time  to  57  work t o g e t h e r  again.  Confidentiality /Another c h a l l e n g e  t h a t . I h a d t o f a c e was one r e l a t e d  i s s u e s d e s c r i b e d above.  Promising  r e s e a r c h team members was v e r y p r o m i s e t h e team members t h a t  confidentiality  difficult.  to the  t o the  I knew I c o u l d n o t  I would d i s g u i s e t h e i r  words.  T h e r e were n o t many o f u s , a n d we know e a c h o t h e r v e r y w e l l . addition, students  Allison  i s a l s o t h e a d v i s o r o f most o f t h e r e s t  i n t h e r e s e a r c h team.  T h i s m i g h t have c r e a t e d  In  of the  difficult  situations  i f a team member w a n t e d t o s a y s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h e  leadership  and w o r r i e d  relationship fieldnotes to  with A l l i s o n .  f o r almost  about. being  Allison  two y e a r s  and t h e k i n d s  had been r e a d i n g o u r  a n d i t w o u l d be d i f f i c u l t  transparent  accept  distorting  t h a t , as i n o t h e r  t h e way t h i n g s w e r e .  could not d e l i v e r .  the quotes  from  them.  issues of this  research,  I could not promise  The c o n s e n t  not promise secrecy  t o t h i n k and t a l k  I could prevent  to her without  f o r her  She i s f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e  o f t h i n g s we t e n d  T h e r e was no way t h a t  I decided  did  how t h a t comment w o u l d a f f e c t h e r  n o t know who h a d s a i d w h i c h w o r d s .  ways we t a l k  to  about  I had  something I  f o r m t h a t t h e team members  from A l l i s o n  o r from any o t h e r  signed  team  member. During  t h e time  I wrote t h i s  thesis  was g e t t i n g t h e c h a n c e t o u n d e r s t a n d r e s e a r c h e r s d i d not. Allison process, to  about  As I a n a l y z e d  situations the data  some o f t h e i s s u e s t h a t  I came t o u n d e r s t a n d  I became aware t h a t I  and t a l k e d w i t h  I saw i n t h e c o l l a b o r a t i v e  them d i f f e r e n t l y .  be p a r t o f some o f t h e r e f l e c t i o n s  t h a t my f e l l o w  I had t h e chance  that A l l i s o n  had a f t e r the  58  r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s was over. of u n d e r s t a n d i n g  With those r e f l e c t i o n s I had new ways  some o f the team p r o c e s s e s .  I see t h i s as a  privilege. I always wondered what would have happened w i t h the r e s e a r c h team tapes i f I had not a n a l y z e d them. have been a n a l y z e d . misfortune.  I t h i n k they would not  I f e e l s t r o n g l y i t would have been a  I hope then t h a t my f e l l o w r e s e a r c h e r s t h i n k of t h i s  t h e s i s as a present t o them.  The next c h a p t e r s e x p l o r e our  e x p e r i e n c e s and the c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t we b u i l t . am g i v i n g my f e l l o w r e s e a r c h e r s the g i f t o f a n a l y s i s , some e x p l a n a t i o n s , and some (more!) q u e s t i o n s .  I  ST CHAPTER FOUR: THE  PROCESS OF BECOMING A COLLABORATIVE TEAM  The N a t i o n a l the  principal  L i t e r a c y D e m o n s t r a t i o n P r o j e c t was d e s i g n e d b y  i n v e s t i g a t o r s t o be a c o l l a b o r a t i v e i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  "Collaboration"  was s e e n t o h a p p e n a t d i f f e r e n t  the  two c o - i n v e s t i g a t o r s , w i t h i n  the  programs and t h e r e s e a r c h  a project  that  That d e s i g n process.  had a l r e a d y  the research  project.  collaboration.  that We  team,  between  and between  The f i e l d w o r k e r s  been d e s i g n e d and p l a n n e d by  determined the research  Within  levels:  team's i n v o l v e m e n t  came t o others.  i n the  f r a m e , we w o r k e d t o w a r d s a v i s i o n o f  struggled  t o g e t a s c l o s e a s we c o u l d  to that  vision. This Literacy  chapter  describes  the process  Demonstration P r o j e c t  collaborative  team.  team went  The c h a p t e r  that  chapter  development. i s that  constructed not  start  The b a s i c  through the research  the development o f the  factors that  argument t h a t  collaboration within  the National  t h r o u g h t o become a  presents  team's r e l a t i o n s h i p s a n d t h e c o n t e x t u a l in  that  I make  a research  process.  o u t as a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team,  10  intervened i n this  team i s  A research  team d o e s  i t becomes  collaborative. Writing assumptions to t h i s  this that  chapter I brought  g a v e me t h e o p p o r t u n i t y  t o question the  t o t h e p r o j e c t as a f i e l d w o r k e r ,  t h e s i s as a r e s e a r c h e r .  and  In p a r t i c u l a r I had t o review  U n l e s s t h e members h a d w o r k e d a s s u c h b e f o r e . Even i f they did, t h e new p r o j e c t w i l l take them t o d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of collaboration. 1 0  my  beliefs  and  students. project  biases  about  Although  expecting  t o have a l l t h e  the  d i f f e r e n c e s between t e a c h e r s  i t i s hard  teachers,  answers.  f o r me  I learned  composed o f b o t h p r o f e s s o r s  learning  to create  research with  Trying  We  created  recreate  three  according different  team.  although  and  students  of working  a new  The  an  the  begins  with  motivations  for participation  the  team a s  i t began,  the  team  and  responsibilities.  the  time,  events i n the  i n the  skill),  and  created  Isadora's,"  a manifestation Following,  project.  the  t o t r y t o accommodate t h e  new  had  to  forms.  still  capture  process  in  I  describe  the  research  Then I  describe  c o n s t i t u t i o n of the  roles  s t r u c t u r e s as created.  structures that  they  Next,  situation  become u n s u i t a b l e  new  own  team members'  a problematic  o f what had  I explore  team was  the  t o new  a d e s c r i p t i o n of  a n a l y s i s shows t h e  "crisis  o f work.  its  project.  a d e s c r i p t i o n of  analyze as  Creating  experience  the  relationships within  r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t when t h e  arose  and  f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the  This  at  were a l l  had  I chose t o c u t  were i n t h e the  we  1 1  o l d o n e s g a v e way  easy task.  moments i n t h e  (setting,  research  f o r most o f  who  s u c h a complex p r o c e s s  to important  chapter  the  This project presented  them as  the  case,  together.  experience o f us  in this  c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s and  to describe  dynamics i s not  three,  way  r e l a t i o n s h i p s was  collaborative research.  continually  its  a different  that  team members, e v e n f o r t h o s e  challenges.  I came i n t o  university professors  team was  collaborative  t o admit,  and  that  structures were  r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and  their  The l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s a r e d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s p a r a g r a p h as students because of their previous experience with research, p a r t i c u l a r l y e t h n o g r a p h y , and a l s o b e c a u s e o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with A l l i s o n . i:L  I  61 manifestation  through the  issue  summarize  c h a p t e r and  present  the  collaborative  team  research  s t u d e n t s who  the  and  project  not  the  enthusiasm  November 1991,  f o r the  work.  nature of  were i n t e r e s t e d  i n the  the  who  then  practice  us  of  For  t h i s was  a new  way  had  been working  of  Deborah. of  and  for  research an  interest  in  the  team members  collaborative  work,  n e e d e d t o work t h a t  working that  a  Although  the  a l l shared  Some r e s e a r c h of  graduate  n e v e r w o r k e d as  s h a r e d an  personal benefits  w o r k e d i n teams b e f o r e  The  aspect  team, we  project.  o t h e r s had others  I  had  knew Mark and  Some o f the  Lyn,  collaborative  reason they j o i n e d  collaborative  f o r the  1992.  knew e a c h o t h e r b u t  t h e r e were some f o r whom t h e was  team.  collaboration  formed i n A p r i l  Hanna, A l l i s o n , and  since  i n the  conclusions  d e f i n i t i o n s of  team was  were h i r e d  group b e f o r e .  ownership  research.  Motivations The  of  way.  t h e y wanted  to  explore. I n one articulate  of our  the  first  research  expectations.  The  team m e e t i n g s , tapes r e v e a l  Mark w a n t e d t o  explore  collaborative  had  them o r  because  read about  wanted t o  improve.  g u i d e d by  A l l i s o n and  be  in getting  the  useful  expectation  a c a d e m i c work. s o m e t h i n g we before, it  we  For  that For  felt  we  knew t h a t  - g u i d a n c e and  Pat  the  rest  of  that  took time Allison  r e l a t i o n s h i p s because  they f e l t  i t was  we  that  important the  team.  was  a  t o be She  skill  through the  the  c o l l a b o r a t i v e work w o u l d h e l p me and  me  the  n e e d e d : we we  liked  had  i t and  companionship.  master's program.  collaborative  aspect  worked i n r e s e a r c h what we  could  they they  get  and  t h i s would  her  Lyn  and  supported  felt  to  I  shared with  was teams out  of  my  62 We e x p e c t e d project. theses, yet  We  a l o t from t h e c o l l a b o r a t i v e  expected  i t t o h e l p us g e t s t a r t e d  t o h e l p us g e t o r g a n i z e d ,  still  l e t u s be c r e a t i v e w i t h  t e a c h u s how t o be c o l l a b o r a t i v e , skills.  What t h e s e  identify  concepts.  The for  shared  concealed  was t h a t ,  participation  We d i d n o t  o r what  i t meant  h i d the fact  i n d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s e s .  differentiation  of roles  experiences  h a d w o r k e d i n teams b e f o r e ,  had n o t .  t h e r e were j o k e s  and what was n o t .  s e n s e t h a t c o l l a b o r a t i o n meant d o i n g t h e r e was no d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n next  have  It also h i d  Those  some o f  experiences  of collaborating  team.  was c o l l a b o r a t i v e  that  we w o u l d  i n research before,  others  that  and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .  o u r p h i l o s o p h i e s f r a m e d t h e way we t h o u g h t this  even  c o l l a b o r a t i o n we were r e f e r r i n g t o  u s e o f t h e word c o l l a b o r a t i o n  In t h e b e g i n n i n g  The  t o improve o u r  We n e v e r d e f i n e d t h e t e r m .  Each o f us had d i f f e r e n t  and  us and  t o be p a r t o f t h e team.  c o n f u s i o n about  in  and f i n a l l y  some o f u s c o l l a b o r a t i o n meant t h a t we e x p e c t e d  equal  us  and guide  the required a s s i s t a n c e , to  how we w o u l d do t h i n g s t o g e t h e r ,  concretely  of t h i s  o n o u r own  to discipline  high expectations  t h o u g h we a l l t a l k e d a b o u t different  aspect  quote i l l u s t r a t e s  need t o have d i f f e r e n t collaboration everything  what  The j o k e s were h i d i n g a e v e r y t h i n g t o g e t h e r , and  of roles  and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .  t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s we  responsibilities  i n action,  i n t h e meetings about  felt  between t h e  a n d t h e way we d e f i n e d  w h i c h seemed t o be d e f i n e d a s d o i n g  together.  A T : I h a v e a g u t i n s t i n c t a n d whoever w a n t s t o s a y c a n , t h a t i t i s not c o l l a b o r a t i v e but I f e e l that i f you're going t o do a n i n t e r v i e w t h a t I o u g h t t o know a h e a d o f t i m e s o t h a t  63  I'm k e e p i n g t r a c k o f who's b e i n g i n t e r v i e w e d and by whom and f o r what p u r p o s e so t h a t we're n o t g e t t i n g i n t o a p r o b l e m o f s p e n d i n g a l o t o f t i m e on one k i n d o f p e r s o n o r one k i n d o f i n t e r v i e w , o r i n t e r v i e w i n g somebody p r e m a t u r e l y when i t needs t o wait o r whatever. I t ' s a resource a l l o c a t i o n thing b o t h i n t e r m s o f p e o p l e ' s p a t i e n c e w i t h us and i n t e r m s o f our time. Allison  felt  that  she  would have t o  supervise  doing,  justify  and  to  had  and  her  t o e x p l a i n the  know what t h e  "gut  were much more t h a n t h a t .  experience  i n research,  from her  p o s i t i o n as  from her  the  expectations,  to define  boundaries of our  f o r what.  referring  also  i d e a l s without  s i t u a t i o n s and  translate  Factors We what t h e no  i n f l u e n c i n g the never defined research  we our  w o u l d be  We  d i d not  struggled with  As  the  as  those  how  methodological  behaviour  research  - o f what  i n research  difficult  responsible  were u s i n g concepts.  the We  real  were and  i d e a l s would  in this  the  research  team.  team  meant by  - and  c o l l a b o r a t i o n , or  distribution the the  context  report  'research the  There  were  of  structures within  a c e n t r a l t e n s i o n between the  c e r t a i n norms o f  was  collaboration.  clarify and  i t was  shared  i t began  explicit  working together  relations.  ethical  team as  project defined  responsibilities.  how  c o n s t i t u t i o n of  no  who  never  c o n t r a s t i n g them w i t h  what e a c h o f us  j o b d e s c r i p t i o n s and  and  to d i f f e r e n t  responsibilities  The  ethnography,  definitions,  expressing  i n t o r o l e s and  her  c o l l a b o r a t i o n , we  often  concrete  no  "gut  t a l k i n g from  B e c a u s e we  r o l e s , and  same l a n g u a g e b u t to  was  she  were  Allison's  knowledge o f  with  When t a l k i n g a b o u t  referring  She  team d i r e c t o r .  more t h a n o u r the  fieldworkers  instincts."  instincts"  r e a s o n s why  would  describes,  influence "we  need t o adhere really  need t o  i s ' and  create  which  our  to of  64 research Within  process  a s we went a l o n g "  the research  team, t h a t meant  principles  that  deliberate  and a p p r o p r i a t e  create  we w a n t e d t o l i v e sharing  that  there  o f power,  1 , 1 2  or role distributions.  areas of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y clearer,  c l e a r e r that  As t h e f i e l d w o r k  responsibility  the  contextual  chapter  there  as w e l l .  defined  a n d became  or  project,  discussed. the  research  and i n terms  T h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s c a n be l i n k e d t o  explore  how  i n chapter  two.  s e t t i n g , time,  influenced  t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f t h e team.  the  o f purpose and  effect  preset  began, t h e  were d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n  factors delineated  I particularly  had t o  and d e c i s i o n making d e v e l o p e d  team i n t e r m s o f o b l i g a t i o n t o t h e r e s e a r c h of  b u t we  T h e r e were no  a l t h o u g h t h e y were n o t e x p l i c i t l y  became  were c e r t a i n  up t o , p a r t i c u l a r l y " t h e  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a s we went a l o n g .  definitions  It  (Tom e t a l . , 1994, p . 3 ) .  Chapter  In t h i s and  skills  f i v e examines  confidentiality.  Settings In terms o f the o b l i g a t i o n t o t h e r e s e a r c h and  Allison  were e a c h r e s p o n s i b l e  organizations  for fulfilling  and  liaison  but  d i d not enter  product This  researchers  that  a contract.  were c o n t r a c t e d  i n t o t h e same k i n d  h e l d Hanna a n d A l l i s o n "  translated into different  dedication  to their  and consequent  The g r a d u a t e to provide  during  This notion of the p r o j e c t .  student  their  services  o f agreement t o p r o d u c e a (Tom e t a l . , 1994, p p . 4 5 ) .  commitments i n t e r m s o f t i m e  responsibilities.  e s t a b l i s h e d i n a c e r t a i n context.  1 2  "Hanna  (very d i f f e r e n t )  C o l l a b o r a t i o n d o e s n o t h a p p e n i n a vacuum, are  project,  collaboration  was  Three  the r e l a t i o n s h i p s  institutions  a r t i c u l a t e d by  Allison  65 influenced the  the  research  decisions  team: f u n d e r s ' ,  institutions.  The  Secretariat, be  that  administering responsible the  and  had  on  to  w o u l d be  funds,  actors  suggesting  also  had  research  the  team.  role  funds  project.  for that  role.  be  Thus, o n c e s e l e c t e d by  the  investigators  (I e x p l o r e  about  literacy  that  liaison  role  the  program  hired  directors  t o work on  A l l i s o n , a l l the  w i t h the  In  inside-the  c o - t e a m members, and  as  further  the graduate addition,  f o r t h e i r programs.  these r e l a t i o n s h i p s  budget  programs  program d i r e c t o r s .  interplayed  e a c h o t h e r as  by  influenced  plan.  The  w o u l d be  It  philosophy  principal  would  of  Allison  i n proposing  Deborah c o n t i n u e d working  researcher  the  the  Their  The  Literacy  i n charge  Hanna and  project.  a v e t o power o v e r who  r e l a t e d to  be  in  researchers'  way  i n charge of  that  a key  teachers  out-of-the-team roles We  the  o r i g i n a l research  s t u d e n t s were i n t e r v i e w e d Mark and  and  National  i n s t i t u t i o n s , the  played  team.  would p a r t i c i p a t e  w i t h t h i s agency about d e c i s i o n s  participants'  were e v a l u a t e d , and  and  i n the  major changes to The  the  some r e q u i r e m e n t s on  who  consult  how)  participants',  a community a s s o c i a t i o n the  of  (and  agency,  f o r running the  choice  also  funding  placed  managed and  required  a b o u t who  These team-roles.  teacher  i n the  to  next  chapter). The Columbia,  researchers' also  influenced  team members had graduate we  university,  the  research  each other.  A l l the  project's  office  University  The  the  the  the  the  team.  i n r e l a t i o n to  s t u d e n t s and  r e l a t e d to  institution,  roles  university, director,  of  that  British each of  p a r t i c u l a r l y the  influenced  the  team m e e t i n g s were h e l d  was  on  campus,  the  and  by  the  way at end  the of  66 the  i n v e s t i g a t i o n t h e u n i v e r s i t y was  funds. other  Also,  except  f o r the l i a i s o n  team members were a s s o c i a t e d  was  teaching  her courses,  and  advising  students.  and  / o r were i n v o l v e d  graduate students dedicate with  the  with  in their  own  had a l i m i t e d  a n d Hanna, t h e  the u n i v e r s i t y .  number  Out-of-the-team r o l e s  (I a n a l y z e  this  meetings,  was  courses  Most o f t h e  of hours that  of the s i x graduate students  Allison  were t a k i n g  investigations.  F o r example, A l l i s o n  d i r e c t o r o f t h e team  research  p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n departmental  t o work i n t h e s t u d y .  for five  the  fieldworkers  The g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s  t h e team r o l e s .  advisor  administering  they  could  intertwined  t h e academic a n d s h e was  aspect  later  also  i n this  chapter). The the  way  that  these three  institutions  affected decisions i n  team i s a n example o f how. s e t t i n g s i n f l u e n c e d e c i s i o n s i n  collaborative explored  research.  these  difficult  The f a c t  influences during  t h a t we h a d n o t  explicitly  t h e p r o j e c t made i t more  to understand the d i f f e r e n c e s within  t h e team.  Time In terms of time, of  time t h a t  no w r i t t e n  Hanna a n d A l l i s o n  agreements l i m i t e d  had t o d e d i c a t e  t h e amount  t o the p r o j e c t ;  t h e y w o u l d work a s much a s was n e e d e d t o g e t t h e r e s e a r c h In c o n t r a s t , dedicate  the fieldworkers  t o the p r o j e c t .  from t h e i r  full-time  positions with to  The l i a i s o n  the research  project.  students  into  t o the research  of time t o  were  seconded  half-time  T h i s meant  a l s o were h i r e d f o r l i m i t e d  h o u r s o f work a week  amount  fieldworkers  employment c o n t r a c t s  15 h o u r s a week t o d e d i c a t e  graduate  had an e x p l i c i t  done.  that  t h e y h a d up  project.  The  amounts o f t i m e ,  12  ( C a t h i e was h i r e d f o r s i x t o t w e l v e h o u r s o f  67 work a w e e k ) . more h o u r s , The in  And a l t h o u g h  that limit  differences  a l l t h e team members e n d e d up w o r k i n g  explicitly  guided  i n contracts inevitably  o u r i d e a s about resulted  time.  i n differences  responsibilities. Skills Other  elements a l s o  c o n t r i b u t e d to the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s  within  t h e r e s e a r c h team: e x p e r i e n c e  and knowledge.  sense,  these  to the i n f l u e n c e that  differentiations  relate  have o n r e s e a r c h teams.  Allison  experience  i n research.  Overall,  experience  and knowledge about  member, b u t i t was l e s s some o f t h e g r a d u a t e  than  students  f i e l d w o r k e r s were m o s t l y  a n d Hanna h a v e a  research varied  broad  from  member t o  t h a t o f Hanna a n d A l l i s o n .  novices  i n ethnographic the s i t u a t i o n  research. regarding  The l i a i s o n  fieldworkers  knew t h e p r o g r a m s i n a way t h a t none o f t h e o t h e r team knew them; t h e y h a d b e e n w o r k i n g a s t e a c h e r s  of  the programs.  T h e y were a l s o  one i m p o r t a n t  and p h i l o s o p h y  connection  the programs and t h e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t .  Teachers,  even program d i r e c t o r s  the progress  investigation. people  They d e s c r i b e d and p r e s e n t e d  i n t h e programs.  the programs.  Research  They a l s o  t o t h e r e s e a r c h team. both  them a b o u t  between  s t u d e n t s , and of the  the study  team members a s k e d  d e s c r i b e d and r e p r e s e n t e d  In e i t h e r p o s i t i o n  members  i n the l i t e r a c y  T h e y knew t h e h i s t o r y  asked  Although  had r e s e a r c h e x p e r i e n c e , t h e  a n d k n o w l e d g e was d i f f e r e n t .  programs f o r a l o n g time.  skills  t h e o t h e r t e a m members'  When i t came t o t h e p r o g r a m s , experience  In t h i s  t h e y were  to the  them  their  about programs  insiders,  i n t h e program and i n t h e r e s e a r c h . Paradoxically,  the l i a i s o n  r e s e a r c h e r s were a l s o o u t s i d e r s  68 in either position.  By b e c o m i n g p a r t  of the research  team,  they  s t e p p e d away f r o m t h e i r p r o g r a m s a n d made t h e m s e l v e s somewhat outsiders,  they a f f i l i a t e d  And i n t h e r e s e a r c h not  part  themselves w i t h us, the o u t s i d e r s .  team t h e y were o u t s i d e r s b e c a u s e t h e y  were  of the u n i v e r s i t y c u l t u r e .  I s u g g e s t t h a t i t i s f a l l a c i o u s t o e x p e c t e v e r y t e a m member t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e same way situation input  - and t h e p r o j e c t ' s  they can b r i n g .  defined  i n the research  t e a m when  - l i m i t s the time and k i n d s  A collaborative research  Other considerations  relationships.  of  team i s n o t  b y e v e r y t e a m member d o i n g t h e same t h i n g s  t e a m member.  their  as every  other  i n t e r p l a y i n the  The i n f l u e n c e t h a t s e t t i n g s , s k i l l s ,  and t i m e  have on c o l l a b o r a t i v e teams r e s u l t i n d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o n t r a c t s , knowledge, and e x p e r i e n c e and t h e r e f o r e when d e s c r i b i n g a r e s e a r c h  team.  t h e y c a n n o t be  overlooked  I n t h e next s e c t i o n I examine  how t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s r e s u l t e d i n d i f f e r e n t r o l e s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w i t h i n the research  team.  R o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w i t h i n t h e team Although the research explicitly were v e r y  without  a c k n o w l e d g i n g d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e members,  there  d e f i n i t e d i f f e r e n c e s i n terms of r o l e s and  responsibilities.  Hanna a n d A l l i s o n w e r e t h e c o - i n v e s t i g a t o r s .  T h e y h a d a more b i n d i n g were r e s p o n s i b l e since  team s e t o u t t o work  r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e p r o j e c t and u l t i m a t e l y  f o r the i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  i t t o o k s h a p e , a n d w e r e now  They h a d b e e n p a r t  responsible  of i t  f o r the o v e r a l l  running  o f t h e p r o j e c t : managing the budget, d e a l i n g w i t h the  funding  agencies,  e s t a b l i s h i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g  the program d i r e c t o r s , p l a n n i n g ,  relationships with  and making s u r e t h a t  the project  69 was  p r o g r e s s i n g a c c o r d i n g t o the g o a l s .  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was The  their  to h i r e and d i r e c t the r e s e a r c h team.  r e s e a r c h team was  the f i e l d w o r k  Part of  designed  to be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r doing  (doing o b s e r v a t i o n s , w r i t i n g f i e l d n o t e s ,  i n t e r v i e w s , and case s t u d i e s ) .  I t was  doing  a n t i c i p a t e d that  f i e l d w o r k e r s would be p a r t of the i n i t i a l  a n a l y s i s and  the validation  of the data, but the r e s e a r c h team's main r e s p o n s i b i l i t y fieldwork. The  was  13  next  quote comes from a meeting i n which A l l i s o n  e x p l a i n e d t o the r e s e a r c h team the program f o r the  advisory  committee meeting t h a t would take p l a c e the f o l l o w i n g week. Hanna and A l l i s o n , w i t h C a t h i e ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e l p ,  had  o r g a n i z e d the a d v i s o r y committee meeting which i n c l u d e d v i s i t s the l i t e r a c y programs; c o n v e r s a t i o n s with l e a r n e r s , t e a c h e r s , s t a f f ; and  a s e s s i o n i n which they shared the p r o g r e s s  study w i t h the committee members.  of  to and  the  T h i s quote g i v e s an example of  the r o l e the team members p l a y e d i n t h i s meeting, i n c o n t r a s t to Hanna and A l l i s o n ' s  responsibility.  AT: A l l we need on those days i s f o r you t o show up f o r d i n n e r at 6:30 and on Wednesday I need one person to p i c k up two a d v i s o r y committee members and Hanna and d r i v e them to Invergarry. So t h a t ' s a l l I need from you i n terms of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the a d v i s o r y committee meeting. The  graduate students'  r o l e i n t h i s meeting was  circumscribed to  Among the f i e l d w o r k e r s , the l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s had a d i f f e r e n t k i n d of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y both to the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t and t o t h e i r programs. They were r e s e a r c h i n g t h e i r own p r a c t i c e and they had a v e s t e d i n t e r e s t i n the r e s e a r c h i n a way t h a t the graduate students d i d not. A l s o , two graduate s t u d e n t s , Pat and I, had planned to w r i t e our master's theses on t o p i c s t h a t we would s e l e c t from the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . T h i s proved t o be a v e r y d i f f i c u l t t a s k t h a t we c o u l d not accomplish d u r i n g the time we were p a r t of the team. 13  70  a dinner gathering.  We  were e x p e c t e d  t o be  sources  of  i n f o r m a t i o n about the p r o j e c t f o r the a d v i s o r y committee. One and  of the consequences of not h a v i n g d e f i n e d  not having d e f i n e d the d i f f e r e n t  p r o j e c t was  t h a t t h e r e were d i f f e r e n t  responsibilities. team s h a r e d  I t was  not  r o l e s i n the  d e c i s i o n making processes  change d e c i s i o n s . meeting tapes  t h e r e s e a r c h team h a d  Specific  interactions  t h e one  at l e a s t  they d i d not understand  the  research  I t was  as  not  opportunities to  i n t h e r e s e a r c h team  show t h a t t h e t e a m members t h o u g h t  t e a m was  about  w i t h o t h e r groups such  the a d v i s o r y committee o r the program d i r e c t o r s . c l e a r i n which areas  research  expectations  c l e a r i n what a r e a s  collaboration  the  research  making d e c i s i o n s about the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t , o r t h a t t h e y were n o t .  This  s i t u a t i o n c r e a t e d moments o f a w k w a r d n e s s a n d c o n t r a d i c t o r y a t t i t u d e s and  behaviours.  AT:We've a g r e e d t h a t a n y b o d y t h a t w o r k s w i t h a l i t e r a c y i n s t r u c t o r i s a l i t e r a c y student. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e y s p e a k E n g l i s h . We c a n ' t o p e n up i n t o S c h o o l Bridge instructors. We a r e a l r e a d y o v e r o u r h e a d s . M N : W e l l , we c a n c o n s i d e r o t h e r p e o p l e . I f t h i s person w a s n ' t a l i t e r a c y s t u d e n t and he h a d a v i s i o n f r o m t h e o u t s i d e o f l i t e r a c y w h i l e b e i n g i n I n v e r g a r r y , we a r e not t r e a t i n g him as a s t u d e n t but h i s v i e w o f t h e l i t e r a c y p r o j e c t i s important. I s n ' t i t ? Or i s t h i s p r o j e c t o n l y about i n t e r v i e w i n g people w i t h i n the L i t e r a c y Program? L e x : N o ! We c a n t a l k t o p e o p l e o u t s i d e , l o o k a t p e o p l e i n s e t t i n g s o u t s i d e a b o u t what t h e y t h i n k , t a l k t o p e o p l e i n t h e s c h o o l b o a r d a b o u t what t h e y t h i n k . S o r r y A l l i s o n . AT:Wait a minute. Why a r e y o u a p o l o g i z i n g t o me? I liked your answer. I t h o u g h t i t was g o o d . S h o u l d we w r i t e "COLLABORATION" on t h e w a l l ? PD:I am t r y i n g t o k e e p m i n u t e s a n d I am n o t d o i n g a g o o d job. AT-.This i s a d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t how f a r o u t we go. PD:0k, b u t a n y o n e who i s ... AT:Who i s w o r k i n g w i t h a l i t e r a c y i n s t r u c t o r a n d t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e y w o r k w i t h t h e l i t e r a c y i n s t r u c t o r we a r e l o o k i n g a t them. The l o o k o f a l a r m on my f a c e when y o u [ M a r i n a ] b e g a n t o s p e a k was we c a n ' t a s k what e v e r y b o d y  71 i n School B r i d g e t h i n k s about L i t e r a c y . We c a n ' t g e t t h e w h o l e w o r l d l o o k i n g i n a t L i t e r a c y , we h a v e t o p u t t h e most o f o u r t i m e a n d a t t e n t i o n i n L i t e r a c y a n d t h e n we move o u t . I n t h i s q u o t e we c a n s e e how Hanna a n d A l l i s o n n o t i f i e d t h e t e a m o f a d e c i s i o n t h e y h a d made.  They h a d t a l k e d a n d d e c i d e d on  what d e f i n i t i o n o f l i t e r a c y t h e t e a m was g o i n g t o u s e . members b r i n g t h e i r o p i n i o n s ,  i n what c o u l d  t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n s h a p i n g what t h e r e s e a r c h outside the  perspectives.  be s e e n as an i n t e n t would  When o n e member a p o l o g i z e s  boundaries of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , A l l i s o n  Two t e a m  include, f o r crossing  says there  a r e no  reasons t o apologize,  as i fthere  t h i s was a d i s c u s s i o n  t o make a d e c i s i o n , b u t t h e n s h e s u m m a r i z e s  the  conversation Two i s s u e s  going back t o h e r d e c i s i o n . a r i s e i n t h e previous quote, d e c i s i o n  power a n d knowledge d i f f e r e n c e s . position t o define A l l i s o n explained discussions meetings.  that  were no b o u n d a r i e s , a n d a s i f  Hanna a n d A l l i s o n w e r e i n a  what t h e p r o j e c t w o u l d s t u d y . that  making  In retrospect  t h e d e c i s i o n was made b a s e d o n t h e  the research  team h a d d u r i n g  the previous  T h a t a s p e c t o f t h e d e c i s i o n was n o t t r a n s m i t t e d  t othe  team, t h e d e c i s i o n was p r e s e n t e d a s i f i t h a d b e e n made b y t h e co-investigators discussion  that  alone.  They chose t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e  t h e t e a m h a d b u t t h e y d i d n o t h a v e t o do t h a t .  They were t h e ones d e c i d i n g , that  a n d t h e t e a m members d i d n o t o p p o s e  situation. A n o t h e r way t h e d e c i s i o n h a d t o b e made was w i t h a n  u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f what c o n s t i t u t e s a n a d e q u a t e f o c u s f o r t h e s t u d y we w e r e d o i n g .  Not i n c l u d i n g o u t s i d e  methodological decision.  perspectives  The t i m e t h a t  was a  d o i n g t h a t would have  72  involved into  i s not  account.  because of they  something the Hanna a n d  their  research  Allison  experience  had  team members were  t o do  that k i n d of a n a l y s i s ,  i n ethnographic  were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e  overall  taking  p r o j e c t s , and  design  of  this  because  research  project. Although  the  research  structures with  b e g a n were n o t  explicitly  looking  r e l a t i o n s h i p s and  acted that  at the  on  i n the b e g i n n i n g  research  and  l o g s , and  d i d the  planned  program d i r e c t o r s , T h i s way  deduce those  sites,  discussed  funding  and  long run.  agencies,  write  their  common d i s k . to  Hanna r e a d  advisory  first  some p r o b l e m s b e g a n t o emerge as we  expected  In  part  the  fieldwork the  They d e a l t w i t h  and  u s e f u l i n the  actually  I t was  issues related  Allison  from  people  investigation.  t o the  f o r the  o f w o r k i n g was  can  r o l e s t h a t the  the  weekly p l a n n i n g . and  we  c o p y them o n t o t h e  team m e e t i n g s we  fieldnotes  but  of  e a c h f i e l d w o r k e r w o u l d go  fieldnotes  and  defined,  which the p r o j e c t  the  committee. of  moved i n t o  the p r o j e c t the  analysis  stage. The As  the  analysis to was  no  analyze  the  The  longer the  beginning  data,  the  research  We  to generate  role  Isadora's"  and of  we  the  b e g a n t o do research  data  collection  were t r y i n g themes and  but  that the  f i e l d w o r k e r s had  The  emphasis  beginning  t o make s e n s e o f  team members c r e a t e d u n d e r l y i n g  data  on  explanations.  preliminary  team members b e g a n  team m e e t i n g s c h a n g e d t o o .  on p l a n n i n g  data.  research  w o r k i n g on  at  research progressed  of the  shift.  "crisis  the  data  T h i s new  tensions.  gathered.  team members were g a i n i n g more k n o w l e d g e a b o u t  the  to and  role We  for  were  Research topic  we  were  73 researching. advisory  the  T h i s was  the  themes t o be  reports,  and  committee, we  Allison  d i d not  we  d i d not  we  h a v e what we  our  have the  called  in  the  e x c l u s i o n from the  were n o t  were g e t t i n g b y  presented  were w r i t i n g o u t l i n e s f o r  c o n t r a d i c t e d by  advisory  Hanna and We  were p r o p o s i n g  c o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g s and  reports. with  We  thought  general  reading  "the  of  as  the  meeting  authors  perspective  a l l of  the  of  that  fieldnotes  big picture."  Isadora's These t e n s i o n s Hanna had  with  the  surfaced advisory  participated  i n a dinner  T h e r e we  the  met  supposed t o project.  c o m m i t t e e had talk the  the  conversations our  with end  left,  i n a gossipy  shifted;  meeting that A l l i s o n  c o m m i t t e e members.  at a l o c a l  them o u r of  we  the  had  conversation one  were we  included  with  the  stayed  different  them.  At  i n the  advisory  meetings?),  the  the  We  and  began  had  a certain point, had  two  committee meeting and  the  were  research  p e o p l e we  We  1 4  advisory  longer  became a c o m p l a i n t .  r e l a t e d t o the  fieldworkers  time.  with  after  and  (Isadora's) .  first  experiences  gathering,  about  The  restaurant  some f i e l d w o r k e r s  style  objections, not  the  c o m m i t t e e members f o r t h e  share At  1 5  after  other  to  met the  and tone  main (why  regarding  T h i s d e s c r i p t i o n i s b a s e d on my memories o f t h e events b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e e v e n t s i n t h e r e s e a r c h team m e e t i n g t a p e s . The c o n v e r s a t i o n on t h e t a p e r e f e r s t o t h e e v e n t s and t o t h e e - m a i l message m e n t i o n e d i n t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n , b u t I have a l s o a d d e d d e s c r i p t i o n f r o m my own memory t o f i l l o u t t h e s i t u a t i o n here. 1 4  A l t h o u g h t h a t was Hanna and A l l i s o n ' s g o a l , some f i e l d w o r k e r s f o u n d t h a t t h e a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e members were r e l u c t a n t t o t a l k a b o u t work. T h e y were t i r e d a f t e r a w h o l e d a y o f work, some were suffering from jet lag, and they were more interested in socializing. T h i s i n c r e a s e d the f e e l i n g of f r u s t r a t i o n f o r the f i e l d w o r k e r s b e c a u s e t h i s was t h e i r c h a n c e t o s h a r e o u r work. 1 5  74 the a n a l y s i s  of the data  (why d i d we n o t know what t h e o t h e r  f i e l d w o r k e r s were w r i t i n g feedback anger  from  about?  Hanna a n d A l l i s o n ? ) .  grew a s we t a l k e d .  following  Why were we n o t g e t t i n g Our c o n c e r n ,  I t was i n c r e a s e d b y t h e f a c t  e v e n i n g we w o u l d be g i v i n g  the p r o j e c t  i n the adult Columbia,  emphasizing  research.  We d e c i d e d t h a t scheduled  a joint  these  following  day, d e s c r i b i n g  her impressions  h a p p e n e d i n t h e impromptu d i s c u s s i o n . most o f t h e r e s e a r c h team m e e t i n g students'  feelings  was a l l a b o u t . of  complaint  expressed from  frustrations  anxiety  talking  to figure  were i d e n t i f i e d :  network  not having  early  o f what h a d  a f t e r n o o n we  about  spent  the graduate  o u t what t h e d i s c o m f o r t  and expected  i n the meeting  A l l of these  and l o n e l i n e s s  of the  issues i n the  o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n was  The g r a d u a t e  investigators.  having p a r t i c i p a t e d  committee.  That  In t h e b e g i n n i n g t h e tone  t h e two p r i n c i p a l  discomfort not  and t r y i n g  t o Hanna a n d A l l i s o n .  their  aspect  f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g day.  J a n e s e n t a n e - m a i l message t o t h e l i t e r a c y the  that the  at the U n i v e r s i t y  the c o l l a b o r a t i v e  we w o u l d r a i s e  and  p r e s e n t a t i o n about  e d u c a t i o n department  of B r i t i s h  team m e e t i n g  frustration,  students  answers and s o l u t i o n s  Two m a i n s o u r c e s o f t h e "whole p i c t u r e , " a n d with the advisory  f e e l i n g s were m i x e d w i t h a f e e l i n g o f  f o r the graduate  students.  MN:I s t i l l f e e l t h a t I know what I ' v e w r i t t e n a b o u t , a n d I m i g h t have some s e n s e o f what o t h e r p e o p l e h a v e w r i t t e n a b o u t , some t h i n g s t h a t we've t a l k e d a b o u t . But o t h e r t h i n g s l i k e t h e w h o l e , l i k e b u i l d i n g up s o m e t h i n g , I don't f e e l I have t h a t sense. I f e e l i n a way I'm w r i t i n g a l o t , I'm n o t s u r e w h a t ' s b e i n g done a b o u t i t , a n d how t h a t p a r t o f my p e r s o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e i s m a k i n g sense o f the whole. LH:And I'm m i s s i n g t o n i g h t . A n d I'm m i s s i n g n e x t week. So I do f e e l a l i t t l e l o s t . Part of i t I think i s that we're a t a p o i n t i n o u r n o t e s where I'm f e e l i n g l i k e I'm  75 working s o r t o f i n d e p e n d e n t l y on my own and not knowing how i t r e l a t e s t o o t h e r people, s o r t o f t h e b i g g e r picture. /And I don't know what happened t o the A d v i s o r y Committee, so I don't have any o f a l l t h a t r e a s s u r a n c e yet. Mark and Deborah, the l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s , advisory  committee.  were p a r t of the  Mark d i d not share our f e e l i n g s o f a n x i e t y  but he and Deborah d i d f e e l f r u s t r a t e d t h a t t h e r e s t o f the team members were not p a r t o f the meetings w i t h the a d v i s o r y committee. MM:And I agree w i t h Marina, I t h i n k that i t would have been n i c e f o r a l l o f us t o have been a t those meetings. I know the numbers would have been unmanageable, but I t h i n k t h a t i t would have been n i c e , and important I t h i n k , f o r people t o be a p a r t of t h a t too, I agree. DL:That's what I was a s k i n g Jane. I thought they were included. A l l i s o n agreed t h a t i t would have been good t o have a l l of the team members i n the meeting but she e x p l a i n e d  t h a t they  could  not make t h a t d e c i s i o n . AT: [It would have been an] i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g t o have a t t e n d e d and t h a t , but t h e r e ' s a l s o no doubt t h a t i t wouldn't have worked, i n the sense of us not h a v i n g any c o n t r o l over i t . We weren't i n a p l a c e t o do t h a t . Hanna and A l l i s o n r e l a t e d our f e e l i n g of a n x i e t y p a r t i c u l a r stage i n the a n a l y s i s . to f e e l a t t h i s stage o f a r e s e a r c h anxious.  Instead  to a  T h i s i s how we were supposed study, they t o o were f e e l i n g  of d e f e n d i n g themselves a g a i n s t  what c o u l d have  been f e l t as an a t t a c k on t h e i r s t y l e o f l e a d e r s h i p ,  they  v a l i d a t e d our f e e l i n g s by r e l a t i n g them t o a c e r t a i n p o i n t research process,  and by s h a r i n g t h e i r own c h a l l e n g e s  leading the c o l l a b o r a t i v e  i n the  with  process.  HF: There's a l s o t h a t i t ' s v e r y hard a c t u a l l y b e i n g p a r t of a q u a l i t a t i v e p r o j e c t where you have a l o t o f p e o p l e g e n e r a t i n g data because what makes data u s e f u l i s t h a t the r e s e a r c h e r f e e l s l i k e you're a c t i n g autonomously. I mean  76 what makes i t u s e f u l i s t h a t you can get e x c i t e d and you can connect t o the t h i n g s you f e e l p a s s i o n a t e l y about, and you can see something and f o l l o w i t through, and f e e l some sense of the a b i l i t y t o do t h a t at the same time as f e e l i n g connected to a l a r g e r p r o j e c t , and i t ' s a r e a l t e n s i o n , t h a t at the data c o l l e c t i o n stage i t ' s very hard. I don't r e a l l y want a whole l o t of people s h a r i n g each o t h e r ' s data and group t h i n g because the v a l u e of Marina's p e r s p e c t i v e b e i n g so d i f f e r e n t from Lyn's p e r s p e c t i v e , I want t o c a p i t a l i z e on in a project. I want Marina t o r e a l l y be immersed i n Marina's p e r s p e c t i v e and be out there f o l l o w i n g the t h i n g s t h a t r e a l l y matter t o Marina, and not to be c a r r y i n g around Lyn's q u e s t i o n s , which I want Lyn to be out t h e r e f o l l o w i n g . So i t ' s a r e a l t e n s i o n . How do you have a coherent p r o j e c t at the same time as people r e a l l y needing t o f e e l the autonomy of running a f t e r t h e i r own q u e s t i o n s , and how do you f e e l l i k e you're p a r t of a group when what's r e a l l y important i s t h a t you're a s k i n g your q u e s t i o n s . 16  A f t e r t h i s explanation fieldworkers notes.  the sharing  n e c e s s a r y f o r each f i e l d w o r k e r t o keep her  own  so t h a t the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t would b e n e f i t from  m u l t i p l i c i t y of ideas and surfaced.  shifted,  f u r t h e r understood the r a t i o n a l e f o r not  I t was  perspective  the c o n v e r s a t i o n  The  viewpoints.  graduate students  A l l i s o n l i s t e n e d and  But  then a new  began to ask  the  concern  f o r more feedback.  responded.  AT: Maybe we should stop and say t h a t the notes, the work i s e x c e l l e n t and we are r e a d i n g i t and i f t h e r e was a problem, you would hear. You know, i t ' s not l i k e we're going, "Oh  I n a l a t e r c o n v e r s a t i o n , A l l i s o n shared w i t h me her d i f f e r e n t reasons f o r not having a s t r u c t u r e t h a t r e q u i r e d f i e l d n o t e s t o be shared: I thought the o n l y s a f e way t o w r i t e f i e l d n o t e s i s f o r them to be separate and p r i v a t e . T h e r e f o r e I kept them separate and private... I have a r e l a t i o n s h i p of t r u s t between me and Marina, between me and Jane. I can m a i n t a i n t h a t , I can s u s t a i n i t , I can promise t h a t t h a t t r u s t w i l l be honoured but i f we go to the team then the t r u s t has to go not between me and them but h i g h e r . . . For me i t was an i n s t i n c t i v e c r e a t i n g s a f e t y k i n d of a t h i n g . I develop the i s s u e of shared f i e l d n o t e s f u r t h e r i n Chapter Five. 1 6  77  w e l l , you know, no one's ever going t o read A f t e r t h a t , i n an e f f o r t  t o share  it."  1 7  as much i n f o r m a t i o n as was  p o s s i b l e about the meeting w i t h the a d v i s o r y committee, Hanna and A l l i s o n d e s c r i b e d the meeting i n d e t a i l and they d i s t r i b u t e d the agenda and A l l i s o n ' s notes.  T h i s s e r i e s o f events  committee meeting, the d i n n e r a t Isadora's, was one of the most c r i t i c a l would r e f e r t o i t as  (advisory  and the team meeting)  s i t u a t i o n s f o r the team.  L a t e r we  "Isadora's."  Understanding the c r i s i s The  s t r a i n s a t "Isadora's"  were the r e s u l t o f t e n s i o n s  that  had been b u i l d i n g and combined w i t h o t h e r i s s u e s i n the team. Being p a r t o f the a d v i s o r y committee meeting, r e c e i v i n g feedback, o r having  the whole p i c t u r e were not c r i t i c a l ,  important  i s s u e s i n themselves.  although  they were  In t h i s s e c t i o n I e x p l o r e the  d i f f e r e n t c u r r e n t s t h a t c r o s s e d each o t h e r i n t h e team t o c r e a t e the  crisis. From t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f l e a d e r s h i p , t h e r e were mixed  messages sent t o the f i e l d w o r k e r s .  On one hand we were t o l d t h a t  we c o u l d make d e c i s i o n s , but then sometimes the d e c i s i o n s were made a t another l e v e l .  We were t o l d t o w r i t e o u t l i n e s , and  propose themes, but we were not p a r t o f t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n . f a c t that the fieldworkers f e l t i n other aspects t e n s i o n s as w e l l .  The  they were not f o r m a l l y i n c l u d e d  o f the p r o j e c t , such as the a n a l y s i s , c r e a t e d U l t i m a t e l y what these mixed messages  concealed  Today, i n a new c o l l a b o r a t i v e team t h a t A l l i s o n i s d i r e c t i n g , she w r i t e s a memo t o every f i e l d w o r k e r about t h e i r f i e l d w o r k a t least every month. T h i s r e f l e c t s A l l i s o n ' s awareness t h a t f i e l d w o r k e r s d i d have a p o i n t and t h a t she acknowledges t h a t more feedback i s necessary. 17  78 was  t h a t t h e r e were t h i n g s h a p p e n i n g  were n o t  brought  to the  i n the  research project  r e s e a r c h team m e e t i n g s .  acknowledged t h a t s i t u a t i o n  in a later  that  Allison  meeting:  AT: I h a d t o r e a l i z e t h a t a l o t o f t h e s t r u g g l e s t h a t I have gone t h r o u g h , t h a t f e l t s o p r e s e n t t o me were n o t p r e s e n t t o you guys. Some o f t h a t was... a l l t h e t h i n g s t h a t h a p p e n e d a r o u n d t h e a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e , a n d why y o u were n o t i n v i t e d t o the a d v i s o r y committee meeting. Things that I j u s t n e v e r r e a l i z e d n e e d e d t o be a r t i c u l a t e d . None o f t h a t has come i n t o t h e s e meetings. Another area of c o n f l i c t the  fieldworkers' role  that  i n the  a l a c k of c o n s i s t e n c y between  research project  and  the  d o m i n a t e d t h e r e s e a r c h team members' t r a i n i n g  ethnography. definitions Allison  In the  also  d i d not  ethnography.  share  Hanna has The  conflict  t h a t the i n the  definitions  sociological  c a n be  role.  on  share Hanna  of ethnography perspective  understanding  analyzed without  Allison,  team d i d n o t  a sociological  philosophy  in  e a r l y meetings,  with using other people's  observations dominant  same way  of c o l l a b o r a t i o n  collaboration.  not  was  and  and on  of ethnography  data.  Interviews  the data  t h e o t h e r hand has  collector  does  and having  a  an a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l  viewpoint. From t h e research  instruments.  fieldnotes, Moreover, analysis to  a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , ethnographers  analyze  the  the  different  Researchers  i n f o r m a t i o n , and stages  - are very d i f f i c u l t  separate  the processes  the a n a l y s i s process.  collect  - data  do  the data,  write  recording,  I t w o u l d be  t o keep the d a t a c o l l e c t o r  In G e e r t z ' s  the  interpretations.  collection,  to separate.  are  very  away  and hard  from  (1973) words  B u t a s t h e s t a n d a r d a n s w e r t o o u r q u e s t i o n has b e e n , "He [sic] o b s e r v e s , he r e c o r d s , he a n a l y z e s " k i n d of v e n i , v i d i , v i c i c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e m a t t e r - i t may h a v e more deep-  79 g o i n g consequences t h a n are apparent, not the l e a s t of which i s t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h i n g these t h r e e phases of knowledges e e k i n g may n o t , as a m a t t e r o f f a c t , n o r m a l l y be p o s s i b l e ; and i n d e e d , as autonomous " o p e r a t i o n s " t h e y may n o t i n f a c t e x i s t . ( G e e r t z , 1973, p. 20) All  the  Mark and and  research  e m p h a s i s on  conversation she in  about  and  w i t h me,  Hanna had  the  project.  s e m i n a r on  e t h n o g r a p h i c methods w i t h  anthropological Allison  planned, Allison  collaborative  research  relied  structures  on  without  the  reflecting  interactions  The  the  graduate  Allison.  readings.  i n a graduate  strong  b e e n t r a i n e d by  D e b o r a h were t r a i n e d t h r o u g h a s e r i e s o f  discussions  trained  team members had  on  specifically  project that  how  perspective.  r e f l e c t e d on  explained  that  should  s t u d e n t s had  research  she  "didn't  run,  a  structures  the  be  Hanna had  the  In  and  been a later that  team's r o l e know" how  that  originally  she  a  had  proposed  they i n t e g r a t e d with her  own  philosophy. In r e t r o s p e c t , and  how  she  was  structures. consistent  w o u l d be  was  w i t h the  guiding designed  Although  included  the  can  see  the  the  team i n a way  structures  i t was  i n the  became c l e a r e r t h a t research  s a y s she  contradictions  u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y undermining the  She  team members.  Allison  that  not  the  the  fieldworkers  f o r v a l i d a t i o n checks, i t  a n a l y s i s was  team members were a l r e a d y  was  of p a r t i c i p a t i o n f o r  anticipated that  analysis  original  an  ongoing process  doing,  and  was  not  a  that  the  separate  stage. Another personality would  ingredient and  philosophy  " j u s t nod"  would s t a n d  up  that  when we  and  say  h e l p e d t r i g g e r the  of  had  the  graduate students.  questions  what we  crisis  thought  i n our and  how  minds, we  was  the  None o f a l l of  felt  about  us  us  80 things.  When i t became c l e a r t o us as a group t h a t t h e r e were  t h i n g s t h a t d i d not make sense to us, pr made us uncomfortable,  we  brought them up i n the meeting.  be noted t h a t we were a b l e t o do so because we space to  feel I t must a l s o  were g i v e n  the  complain.  "Isadora's" r e v e a l e d another u n d e r l y i n g t e n s i o n . t r y i n g t o work c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y as p r o f e s s o r s and and employees, w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , commitments. We  had never t a l k e d about how  would a f f e c t the j o i n t work.  L i g g e t t e t a l . , 1994).  a l l of us t o f i n d a way  students,  bosses time  distinctions  collaboration  between f a c u l t y and students as a v e r y d i f f i c u l t (Crow et a l . , 1992;  were  different  those  Some authors see  We  t a s k t o achieve  I t was  a c h a l l e n g e to  t o work together, acknowledging  and  r e s p e c t i n g those d i f f e r e n c e s . T h i s event, team.  I t was  "Isadora's," became a r e f e r e n c e p o i n t f o r the  the f i r s t  time t h a t the graduate  s t u d e n t s were able  t o a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r f r u s t r a t i o n w i t h t h e i r r o l e of f i e l d w o r k e r s . We was  wanted t o know more and p a r t i c i p a t e more. a d i f f e r e n t sense of what and why  doing i n t h i s s p e c i f i c way.  From then on  we were d o i n g what we were  I t a l s o r e v e a l e d t h a t the  students, as a group, c o u l d get t o g e t h e r and t a l k about feelings,  and  there  l e t Hanna and A l l i s o n know how  we  graduate our  felt.  I t a l s o showed t h a t Hanna and A l l i s o n d i d not have a l l the answers and were l e a r n i n g w i t h us. were ready t o l i s t e n ,  They demonstrated t h a t they  e l a b o r a t e , respond,  and change t h e i r  d e c i s i o n s , even when t h i s c h a l l e n g e d the boundaries  of  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o r i g i n a l l y c r e a t e d i n the r e s e a r c h p l a n .  The  next a d v i s o r y committee meeting i n c l u d e d a l l of the team members.  81 In terms o f raises  an  factors  t h e o r e t i c a l framework,  i n t e r e s t i n g methodological  influence  team.  But  In our  team,  as  the  their  adjusted  i n the  once the  skills.  the  i n research  "Isadora's"  a n a l y s i s was  assured that analysis the  collective several  us  had  the  New  come up  with while  to A l l i s o n  that  working w e l l essential  i n c l u s i o n of  the  formal.  the  team  had  that  skills.  This  changing  The  research  We  1 8  together  analyzing  our  team members  team members were  t i m e w o u l d be  analysis.  problem at  w i t h the  in  became  included to  intuitive  t o ethnography but  this  i t was  of  the  tried  t o work  together  the  codes t h a t  each  of  own  fieldnotes.  This  But  we  further  point  level  in  facilitate  had  t o go  A f t e r t r y i n g d i f f e r e n t approaches, the  knowledge  Structures  project  the  a good s t a r t i n g e x e r c i s e .  analysis.  challenged.  and  words,  s t r a t e g i e s were i m p l e m e n t e d  process of  be  structures  team m e e t i n g s p u t t i n g  p r o v e d t o be in  the  had  research  teams.  c l e a r and  t h o s e who  stage.  in  the  a  b e e n s e t up  grown i n c o h e s i o n and  New  in  had  In o t h e r  beginning of  team had  of  g a i n e d more s k i l l s that  analysis  contextual  f a c t o r s can  f o r a continuous monitoring of  relationships  After  The  structures  contextual  structures  original  previous  t o accommodate i t s d e v e l o p m e n t .  were a p p r o p r i a t e  change c a l l s  the  the  issue.  c o n s t i t u t i o n and  fieldworkers  challenge  response to  unsuitable  the  teams change and  they could  t o be  the  was  that  " i t seemed  we  analysis that  difficult,  i f not  were is impossible,  F o r a c o m p l e t e and d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s t r a t e g i e s f o r c o l l e c t i v e a n a l y s i s the r e a d e r s are encouraged t o c o n s u l t c h a p t e r five, "Making M e a n i n g T o g e t h e r , " i n Tom e t a l . , 1994. 1 8  82 to work as a group at the second l e v e l of a n a l y s i s r e q u i r e d : checking initial 1994,  i n t u i t i o n a g a i n s t the data c o l l e c t e d and c o n s t r u c t s i n l i g h t of p a t t e r n s  p. The  was  i n the d a t a "  r e s e a r c h team d i v i d e d i n t o two f o r one  of the r e p o r t s .  worked on the e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t . on the methodology r e p o r t . time to t h i s new  f i e l d w o r k e r s were not  I worked  Jane and Lyn were not  Pat  together  a b l e t o commit  they were working  Both of them s t i l l  on  p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the  data.  The  liaison  19  more i n c l u d e d we  were i n the a n a l y s i s and  the more we  t h a t we  A g a i n there was  Each sub-team  i n c l u d e d i n t h i s stage f o r the sake of  c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of the  process,  et a l . ,  Hanna, Anne, and  A l l i s o n and  stage of the r e s e a r c h ;  investigations.  sub-teams.  meetings g i v i n g feedback on the r e p o r t s ' d r a f t s .  The  (Tom  the  126).  responsible  t h e i r own  refining  felt  writing  "owned" the r e s e a r c h  too.  a t e n s i o n between b e i n g p a r t of the a n a l y s i s ,  h e l p i n g t o w r i t e the r e p o r t s , and r e p o r t s , not owning the study. A l l i s o n shared with us a new  not being  authors of  E v e n t u a l l y i n one  the  team meeting  change i n the s t r u c t u r e of  the  proj ect. AT: We [she and Hanna] t a l k e d about how what was r e a l l y n e c e s s a r y at t h i s p o i n t was to c a r e f u l l y t h i n k of the p r o c e s s of a n a l y s i s and w r i t i n g , and c h a l l e n g i n g the assumptions t h a t we'd gone i n t o the p r o j e c t w i t h . Because when we went i n t o the p r o j e c t our assumption was t h a t a l r e a d y at t h i s p o i n t we wouldn't have any h e l p , t h a t we would have spent a l l of our budget and i t would be o n l y me and Hanna working. And t h a t the a n a l y s i s and the w r i t i n g would be something t h a t we would be doing by o u r s e l v e s . Boy are we g l a d we were wrong! And as we went a l o n g we r e a l i z e d L a t e r Mark suggested t h a t i t would have been a good i d e a f o r each of them t o work on the o t h e r program's data. We r e g r e t t e d not having thought of t h a t o p t i o n b e f o r e . 1 9  83 t h a t what makes the most sense i n i n v o l v i n g people i n a n a l y s i s i s a c t u a l l y t o acknowledge t h a t as shared authorship. And t o work on a t o t a l l y , not t o t a l l y , but a v e r y much changed p l a n i n terms of how the work goes. And I i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n an e-mail message t h a t what i t seems r i g h t to do at t h i s p o i n t both i n terms of g e t t i n g the work done and i n terms of acknowledging who's done i t , i s f o r us t o move t o j o i n t a u t h o r s h i p , a l l of us, and p r o b a b l y i n c l u d i n g Deborah and Mark, of the r e p o r t s . I t r u s t nobody has any trouble with that. I suspect t h a t i f anybody was h a v i n g t r o u b l e . . . i t was b e f o r e and not now. T h i s quote from the r e s e a r c h team meeting we 31,  1993  e x p l a i n s the d e c i s i o n from d i f f e r e n t  had on March  angles.  Allison  r e l a t e s the move t o shared a u t h o r s h i p t o p r a c t i c a l matters, as budget and time. reasons  She  a l s o a l l u d e s to e t h i c a l and  f o r making t h i s d e c i s i o n .  i s s u e of ownership had  such  research  A l l i s o n acknowledges t h a t  0  caused some d i s c o m f o r t .  This issue  not been d i s c u s s e d i n the meetings b e f o r e , a l t h o u g h  there  the  had had  been some g e n e r a l r e f e r e n c e s i n the forms of q u e s t i o n s about would own She  who  the data, or whose names would be on the f i n a l r e p o r t s .  i s a l s o s h a r i n g w i t h us t h a t she and Hanna had  their original  challenged  assumptions.  T h i s re-accommodation of r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s brought a new  dynamic to the meetings.  The  tapes are r i c h i n d i s c u s s i o n s  w i t h r e f l e c t i o n s about the p r o j e c t , p a r t i c u l a r l y c o l l a b o r a t i v e processes. than the ones b e f o r e , answers.  In these new  These d i s c u s s i o n s had  i n which we  the a different  sense  asked Hanna and A l l i s o n f o r  d i s c u s s i o n s we were r e f l e c t i n g  collectively. One be found  example of the new  way  we  i n t e r a c t e d w i t h each o t h e r  i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t took p l a c e a f t e r some o f  graduate students wrote an a r t i c l e f o r an a d u l t conference.  can  the  education  When the Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Study of A d u l t  84 Education  (CASAE) p l a c e d a c a l l  f o r papers, some of the graduate  students i n the team suggested t h a t i t might be a good i d e a t o p r e s e n t a paper about the N a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y Demonstration Project.  Everybody i n the team was  i n v i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e .  Although o r i g i n a l l y more people were i n t e r e s t e d ,  at the time of  w r i t i n g the paper o n l y Jane, Lyn, Pat, and I c o u l d f i n d the time to work on i t .  We wrote the p a p e r  20  and the n i g h t b e f o r e the  d e a d l i n e f o r s u b m i t t i n g the a r t i c l e we  left  a copy f o r A l l i s o n t o  read. A l l i s o n had concerns about the way During the A p r i l  the paper p o r t r a y e d her.  15th meeting, which o n l y i n c l u d e d the  members of the team, we t a l k e d about the a r t i c l e .  The  UBC following  i s a quote from the meeting t h a t r e f l e c t s the l e v e l of q u e s t i o n i n g t h a t we a c h i e v e d w i t h t h i s new  set of r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  AT:Looking over the d r a f t , my concerns are a l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e f o r me i n terms of what i t f e e l s l i k e t o be the o t h e r . . . . When I l o o k at the p i c t u r e of how I f e e l I look i n [the a r t i c l e ] , i t f e e l s l i k e I l o o k l i k e a v e r y l i m i t e d r o l e and not a person. And t h a t h u r t , t o come a c r o s s as the a d m i n i s t r a t o r . JD:It was a c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n on our p a r t t o not s p e c i f y the k i n d s of programs and not t a l k too much about the o t h e r r o l e s t h a t weren't o u r s . And t h e r e are reasons why t h a t l o o k s l i k e a good d e c i s i o n . . . . And i n terms o f your response too you can see how t h a t c r e a t e s a p e r s p e c t i v e , ... your p o s i t i o n was k i n d of d e p e r s o n a l i z e d , as were the programs.... I t i s a q u e s t i o n f o r me, how do they respond t o becoming a "they"? AT:The shock of becoming the o t h e r . LH:One o f the t h i n g s I f i n d myself t h i n k i n g a l o t about i s my e x p e r i e n c e i n CASAE l a s t y e a r . . . . F o r me t h a t framed my approach f o r w r i t i n g t h i s [ a r t i c l e ] . Some people j u s t went out t h e r e and bared t h e i r s o u l s . So I 20  Dawson, J . , Dyer, P., Harper, L., & Niks, M. (1993). Who knows? Who says so? Who d e c i d e s ? I s s u e s on c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h . In M. T a y l o r & R. Bedard (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual meeting o f the Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of the Study of A d u l t E d u c a t i o n (pp. 137142). Ottawa, O n t a r i o : U n i v e r s i t y of Ottawa.  85  found myself w r i t i n g w i t h that s o r t of [frame].... But of course, the p r o c e s s i s v e r y d i f f i c u l t because w r i t i n g i s d i f f e r e n t [from p r e s e n t i n g ] . And i t has a d i f f e r e n t impact. And I've been f i n d i n g t h a t hard. I r e a l l y want t h i s t o be a v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i v e t h i n g . I t ' s an e x p l o r a t i o n . So having your response was l i k e wow, A l l i s o n i s l o o k i n g at t h i s i n a d i f f e r e n t way. Because t h a t ' s what i t i s ! I t i s w r i t i n g , and i t has ad i f f e r e n t k i n d of an ' e x i s t e n c e . ' I t i s s t i l l w r i t t e n and i t g i v e s t h i n g s a s o r t of i m m o r t a l i t y . T h i s quote g i v e s an example of the new the team.  k i n d of r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n  Instead of e x p e c t i n g A l l i s o n t o g i v e g u i d e l i n e s f o r  reflection,  team members r e f l e c t  together.  Allison  participates  as an e q u a l , as one more team member. Research  team meetings became l e s s f r e q u e n t and A l l i s o n  Hanna took over the w r i t i n g of the r e p o r t s . d r a f t s w i t h the r e s e a r c h team. f e e l i n g they had about  They shared  s h a r i n g these e a r l y p i e c e s of w r i t i n g w i t h they had never done b e f o r e .  r e p o r t s were w r i t t e n we  had t o make sure t h a t the people  felt to  comfortable about  how  Once the  they were p o r t r a y e d .  quoted Pat  2 1  t h a t each and every p a r t i c i p a n t had t o have the o p p o r t u n i t y  read, and p o t e n t i a l l y change, the way  report.  d e a d l i n e s t o meet w i t h p r i n t i n g , reports.  appeared  i n the  There were a l s o  copying and r e l e a s i n g  the  Pat used the e-mail network t o check w i t h o t h e r team  members about she f e l t  s/he  T h i s r e q u i r e d a g r e a t d e a l of work and time, and none of  the r e s e a r c h team members had t h a t time.  get  their  Both acknowledged the awkward  o t h e r people, something  i n them f e l t  and  the promises  we  had made t o the p a r t i c i p a n t s .  t h a t we had a s s u r e d everyone  t h i s chance,  Once  v e r b a l l y t h a t they would  she went ahead and made sure t h a t e v e r y  quote  A g a i n t h i s account i s r e c o n s t r u c t e d from e - m a i l messages and my memories of the events. 21  8 6  was copied, put i n t o s e a l e d envelopes,  and each quoted  p a r t i c i p a n t had a chance t o check " t h e i r p i e c e . " took over 100 hours of f i e l d w o r k .  This process  The methodology r e p o r t  acknowledges Pat's p e r s i s t e n c e . T h i s l a s t episode r e f l e c t s the s h i f t the team.  i n responsibility i n  One team member i n s i s t e d on having each p a r t i c i p a n t  read h e r / h i s own quotes.  Hanna and A l l i s o n were r e l u c t a n t  because of the p r e s s u r e s o f time, money, and e x h a u s t i o n . felt  Pat  she was as r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the r e s e a r c h as anybody e l s e and  she knew what she had t o do.  Her d e c i s i o n d i d not depend on  b e i n g p a i d and she a l s o had h e r own v e r y busy l i f e .  This  episode  i n d i c a t e s how the r e s e a r c h team members ended up f e e l i n g a g r e a t e r sense o f ownership than they began w i t h . Conclusions The p r o c e s s d e s c r i b e d above i s one o f r e f l e c t i o n , change.  We r e f l e c t e d on t h e p r o c e s s , we t r u s t e d t h a t  t r u s t , and every  person was doing h e r / h i s b e s t , and we changed t o accommodate new ways of r e l a t i n g t o each o t h e r and t o the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . terms o f r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s , understanding  In  the b i g g e s t c h a l l e n g e we f a c e d was  the i n d i v i d u a l f e e l i n g s and t r a n s l a t i n g them i n t o  r e s e a r c h r e f l e c t i o n s and c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t would be u s e f u l f o r o t h e r people  t o r e f e r t o when i n v o l v e d i n s i m i l a r p r o j e c t s .  U l t i m a t e l y t h i s was a r e s e a r c h team, our g o a l was t o produce r i g o r o u s knowledge and not simply t o make each o t h e r happy. In terms o f the p r o c e s s the hardest c h a l l e n g e was t o q u e s t i o n our own assumption's as i n d i v i d u a l s , team members, and researchers.  We pushed t h e boundaries  expanded our understandings.  o f our own i d e a s , and we  We came t o t h e p r o j e c t w i t h  87 c o n c e p t i o n s a b o u t what a team i s and worked t o g e t h e r and  that  our  influence negotiated again.  of  and  found that  our  d e f i n i t i o n s were n o t  d e f i n i t i o n s changed. the  new  contextual  the  We  also challenged  f a c t o r s that  r e l a t i o n s h i p s and  Hanna d e f i n e d  what c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s .  shaped the  renegotiated  p r o c e s s of  the  same  the  team.  them a g a i n  collaboration in  We  We and  one  meeting: HF: I've b e e n t h i n k i n g o f c o l l a b o r a t i o n as a p r o c e s s . Well t h e r e ' s some s e n s e i n w h i c h i t ' s a p r o c e s s , b u t i t c h a n g e s a l l the time. F o r me i t r e a l l y i s a b o u t h a v i n g a v i s i o n o f what i t means t o r e s p e c t o t h e r p e o p l e ' s k n o w l e d g e and t o r e s p e c t a k i n d of fundamental sense of the d i g n i t y of e v e r y b o d y who's i n v o l v e d i n t r y i n g t o work t o g e t h e r and t h a t i t i n v o l v e s a p r o c e s s o f n e g o t i a t i o n and r e n e g o t i a t i o n and r e n e g o t i a t i o n t h a t r e a l l y has t o do w i t h where e a c h o f us a r e as i n d i v i d u a l s and where t h e s y s t e m s a r e t h a t we're t r y i n g t o work w i t h i n . And so i t ' s a n o t h e r one o f t h o s e t h i n g s t h a t you're always working towards but i t ' s not s o m e t h i n g t h a t I t h i n k some day I'm g o i n g t o s a y , "Okay, now t h i s i s l i k e the p e r f e c t c o l l a b o r a t i o n p r o c e s s , " i t ' s l i k e growing. In t h i s  chapter  I described  Demonstration Project We  but  without  s h a r e d work. the  I presented  biases  a conversation  shaped the could  kind  benefit  o f what we  contextual  research  the  Literacy  liked  each  expected  from  factors that  team, and  the  influenced  how  those  translated  not  have a r t i c u l a t e d  responsibilities.  expectations  I believe  that  a g r o u p o f p e o p l e who  the  i t is possible  and  team's work, had  the  d i f f e r e n t r o l e s and Although  our  as  a clear definition  c o n s t i t u t i o n of  into  process  team went t h r o u g h t o become c o l l a b o r a t i v e .  began w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r  other  the  we  clearly  that  could i n the  beginning of  the  i t w o u l d have b e e n h e l p f u l t o  a b o u t how  o f work we  that  the  could  context do  and  together.  from h a v i n g d i s c u s s i o n s  our  experiences  Research  throughout  have  the  teams  research  88 process and  i n which they r e v i s i t  i t s limitations.  explored,  re-negotiated  I explored b e g i n n i n g of  the  the  from t h a t  to  awareness of  not  and  crisis  crisis,  adjusted that  we  I delineated  one  example o f  was  not  to  how  the  the  new  roles  show a t y p i c a l o r  example o f  how  relationships  For  i n the our  our  survive  explicit sharing.  flexibility  the  i n the  changed.  goal  a  The  is built  commitment  to  would  change.  team and  of  f i n i s h e d process,  collaboration  and  This  will  relationships  this  but  throughout  be  the  i t s appropriate and  could  realities.  team i n  team t o  were g u i d e d by  power and  collaboration  t o meet c u r r e n t  arose  stage.  have b e e n enough w i t h o u t  Finally  an  these occasions,  analysis  learn an  On  t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n of  gave  chapter  to  present  the  research  process. R e s e a r c h teams a r e different and  backgrounds,  composed o f p e o p l e w i t h d i f f e r e n t d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l and  sometimes d i f f e r e n t c o n t r a c t u a l  differences  a f f e c t the  participate.  In our  case,  limitations,  and  fieldworkers  involvement  affect  skills,  collaboration  very d i f f e r e n t s k i l l s  the  institutional  i n the an  team.  that How  participate equally  f a c u l t y members c o l l a b o r a t e ?  differences,  though,  responsibilities experience. benefit  a p p e a r s t o be  These d i f f e r e n c e s  could  be  from everybody's  people skills.  to  time  the differences Can  i n a team?  people  in  come t o g e t h e r  these  collaborative  translated skills,  with  Can  Acknowledging  essential  according to people's  Ultimately,  framed  open q u e s t i o n .  s t u d e n t s and  projects.  frame,  these  status,  These  team members h a v e  were f a c t o r s  is still  institutional  obligations.  opportunities  skills,  into different  knowledge, i n a team  to  and  89  Thus, c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s not a g i v e n ; r e s e a r c h teams become collaborative.  They become more o r l e s s c o l l a b o r a t i v e , t h e move  t o c r e a t e c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s an open one. We can always work towards a more c o l l a b o r a t i v e As Hanna e x p l a i n e d ,  relationship.  c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s a v i s i o n that always leads  us, but one t h a t we can n e v e r be s u r e we have a c h i e v e d . s i g n i f i c a n c e of our s t r u g g l e l i e s i n the product.  The  l i e s i n t h e p r o c e s s as much a t i t  While involved  i n building  collaborative  r e l a t i o n s h i p s , r e s e a r c h e r s ' work i s a f f e c t e d by i t b e i n g c a r r i e d out by a team.  C h a p t e r F i v e e x p l o r e s t h e ways i n w h i c h  e t h n o g r a p h i c r e s e a r c h changes when i t i s done by a r e s e a r c h team.  So CHAPTER PUBLIC AND IMPACT OF  THE  PRIVATE SPACES:  COLLABORATIVE PROCESS ON  Chapter Four d e s c r i b e d the relationships chapter  w i t h i n the  I a l s o looked  influenced  the  a t how  data  and  c o l l a b o r a t i v e process. implies  that  research box  i s modified.  Reflexivity,  - and  then  explore  and  the  fieldworkers  and  o f p r i v a c y and  the  is one  team.  and  are  I look  the  a f f e c t e d by  i n the  the  as  the  that  the  inclusion  some o f  i n other  team m e e t i n g s .  of  research  liaison  threaten  threat  i n team  the  team m e e t i n g s this  team has  team m e e t i n g s . issues affect  the  I  reflexive  p o s s i b l e problems may  more  sense  into  i n terms  R e s e a r c h team m e e t i n g s h a v e t o  the  can  reflexivity.  team m e e t i n g s a s  two  argument t h r o u g h an  them, one  research  consequences of  confidentiality.  i s aware o f  will  the  I argue t h a t  researchers  transform  that a l l of these  I  n e e d t o do  researchers'  at the  vulnerability  research  chapter  a c o l l a b o r a t i v e process  threats to research  may  skills  In t h i s  disappear.  some o c c u r s  t o make s u r e  I expand t h i s protecting  the  happens i n f i e l d n o t e s o r  I explore  i s s u e of  protected  the  affects  Including l i a i s o n  fieldwork.  theoretical  E m b a r k i n g on  does not  Specifically,  research.  D r a w i n g on  F i e l d n o t e s become more p u b l i c - P a n d o r a ' s  still  spaces,  spaces.  of c o l l a b o r a t i v e  s e t t i n g s , time, of  RESEARCH PROJECT  transformation  researchers  this  though,  reflexivity  private  THE  the p r i v a t e space t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s  i s opened  the  team.  constitution  argue t h a t both  FIVE:  freedom t o  of be  reflect.  a n a l y s i s o f p o s s i b l e ways o f My this  conclusion i n this k i n d of  plan, understand,  research. and  support  chapter Once the  c o l l a b o r a t i v e process. The  a n a l y s i s t h a t f o l l o w s i s based  on the assumption  r e f l e x i v i t y i s , as d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter  that  Two, "the key t o the  development o f both t h e o r y and methodology i n s o c i a l s c i e n c e s " (Hammersley & A t k i n s o n , 1983, p. 236). P a r t i c u l a r l y i n ethnography, the r e s e a r c h e r i s the r e s e a r c h Observations,  instrument.  i n t e r v i e w s , and the e x p e r i e n c e s and i d e a s t r i g g e r e d  by f i e l d w o r k c o n s t i t u t e the d a t a .  Therefore i t i s necessary f o r  the r e s e a r c h e r t o r i g o r o u s l y examine the g e n e r a t i o n o f i d e a s and s t r i c t l y monitor  her e f f e c t s on the data.  By r e f l e c t i n g on the  r e s e a r c h e r ' s r o l e , ethnographers  produce  R e f l e c t i n g on the ethnographer's  r o l e and on the d a t a have  t r a d i t i o n a l l y been p r i v a t e p r o c e s s e s .  interpretations.  In t h i s c h a p t e r I e x p l o r e  the ways a c o l l e c t i v e p r o c e s s o f r e f l e x i v i t y converges traditional individual reflexivity,  w i t h the  and how both a r e a f f e c t e d .  Pandora's box Even when ethnography i s c a r r i e d out by a team, r e s e a r c h e r s are s t i l l field,  the b a s i c r e s e a r c h instrument.  I n d i v i d u a l s go t o the  t a l k t o people, p a r t i c i p a t e , and observe.  their trust meetings,  i n the o t h e r team members and t h e i r use o f the team  r e s e a r c h e r s have t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r own r e l a t i o n s h i p s  i n the f i e l d  and t r y t o make sense o f t h e i r  Traditionally,  experiences.  these p r o c e s s e s take p l a c e i n p r i v a t e spaces -  u s u a l l y f i e l d n o t e s , j o u r n a l s , and d i a r i e s . w r i t i n g t h e i r notes, ethnographers fieldwork.  Regardless of  Although  In the p r o c e s s o f  i n t e r p r e t and r e f l e c t on t h e i r  i t i s impossible t o generalize, f i e l d n o t e s  o f t e n draw on p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s and f e e l i n g s t h a t o n l y l a t e r , i n the a n a l y s i s stage, can be connected  t o the d a t a from the  92 sites  (Jackson, It  1990).  i s not very o f t e n that ethnographers  other ethnographers  read,  their  notes.  share,  o r even l e t  G e o r g e Bond e x p l a i n s :  F i e l d n o t e s a r e a n a n t h r o p o l o g i s t ' s most s a c r e d p o s s e s s i o n . They a r e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , a p a r t o f a w o r l d o f p r i v a t e memories a n d e x p e r i e n c e s , f a i l u r e s a n d s u c c e s s e s , i n s e c u r i t i e s and i n d e c i s i o n . They a r e u s u a l l y c a r e f u l l y t u c k e d away i n a s a f e p l a c e . To a l l o w a c o l l e a g u e t o e x a m i n e them w o u l d be t o o p e n a P a n d o r a ' s b o x (Bond, 1990, p. 2 7 3 ) . I n o u r team, f i e l d w o r k e r s were h i r e d t h e y were n o t e x p e c t e d  t o be p a r t o f t h e a n a l y s i s .  fieldworkers not only shared Allison,  It  their  belonged  d i d n o t make s e n s e t h e n  So  f i e l d n o t e s w i t h Hanna a n d  b u t ' r e l e a s e d ' them t o t h e m .  were w r i t t e n t h e y  t o do t h e f i e l d w o r k ;  Furthermore,  22  once  they  t o t h e p r o j e c t and t o t h e f i e l d w o r k e r . to include very personal  reflections  b e c a u s e t h e y w o u l d n o t mean t h e same t h i n g t o o t h e r  readers, i t  a l s o was s o m e t h i n g t h a t p e o p l e protecting stage  and t h e graduate  writing, one  their privacy.  As t h e r o l e s  students  team members r e a d  c h o s e n o t t o do i n t e r m s o f shifted  i n the a n a l y s i s  g o t i n v o l v e d i n a n a l y z i n g and  and coded each o t h e r ' s  p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t t h e team g a v e a b o u t  aspect  o f t h e p r o j e c t , Jane r e f l e c t e d  shared  our fieldnotes  had on t h e l e v e l  fieldnotes.  the c o l l a b o r a t i v e  on t h e e f f e c t  that  of r e f l e x i v i t y  having  i nher  notes.  A l l i s o n a l s o w r o t e f i e l d n o t e s b u t h e r s were s h a r e d o n l y w i t h Hanna. Although the o r i g i n a l plan d i d not a n t i c i p a t e that f i e l d w o r k e r s w o u l d be s h a r i n g f i e l d n o t e s among t h e m s e l v e s , this h a p p e n e d i n a n i n f o r m a l way. S p e c i f i c a l l y the graduate students shared their fieldnotes with the l i a i s o n fieldworkers with d i f f e r e n t i n t e n t i o n s . Deborah read Jane's f i e l d n o t e s and Jane read Deborah's i n an e f f o r t t o h e l p Deborah l e a r n f i e l d t e c h n i q u e . Mark a l s o u s e d P a t ' s f i e l d n o t e s a s a way t o r e f l e c t o n h i s own b e h a v i o u r i n some m e e t i n g s . 2 2  In  93 JD: I t h i n k t h e r e r e a l l y i s a d i f f e r e n c e i n not j u s t how much you're w i l l i n g to l e t people read but how much you're even gonna t h i n k the t h i n g s t h a t people might read. I am c o n s c i o u s that what I choose to say because I know t h a t o t h e r people are going t o read i t , i s d i f f e r e n t . There i s more of a sense of p r e s e n t a t i o n involved. We written  r e a l i z e d , by our  the  end  f i e l d n o t e s w i t h the  shared i n f l u e n c e d what and was  of the  not much we  o c c u r r e d i n the  how  a n a l y s i s stage, t h a t  awareness t h a t they would we  wrote them.  By  that  c o u l d do about the omissions t h a t may f i e l d n o t e s except r e f l e c t on t h a t .  t h a t r e f l e c t i o n i n the  final  having be  time t h e r e have  We  included  report:  Even though the members of the r e s e a r c h team produced f i e l d n o t e s which were meant to be shared, we were not d e l i b e r a t e i n acknowledging the d i f f e r e n c e between the norm of ' p r i v a t e ' f i e l d n o t e s which u n d e r l a y our t r a i n i n g and the r e a l i t y of ' p u b l i c ' f i e l d n o t e s which u n d e r l a y the e x p e r i e n c e of the p r o j e c t (Tom et a l . , 1994, p. 99). One a way  way  t h i s problem c o u l d have been l e s s e n e d i s by  r e s e a r c h e r s c o u l d have kept p r i v a t e notes.  creating  Each team  member c o u l d have kept a s e p a r a t e s e t of f i e l d n o t e s , o r  a  p e r s o n a l d i a r y where they would have a p r i v a t e space t o  reflect.  I t would then be  the r e s e a r c h e r ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o a n a l y z e these  p r i v a t e notes and analysis  a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r meaning f o r the  the  stage.  I f r e s e a r c h e r s admit t h a t same way  team i n  they do not  when t h e i r f i e l d n o t e s are t o be  n e c e s s a r i l y f o l l o w t h a t team r e s e a r c h when r e s e a r c h e r s w r i t e t h e i r thoughts and  and  think  shared, i t does  loses r e f l e x i v i t y .  more p u b l i c f i e l d n o t e s , they s t i l l  r e f l e c t i o n s on t h e i r f i e l d n o t e s .  the group's r e f l e x i v i t y , the r e s e a r c h  write  in  not Even include  In terms of  t h i s k i n d of t h i n k i n g a l s o happens i n  team meetings.  the  94  R e s e a r c h team meetings R e s e a r c h team meetings  i n the L i t e r a c y Demonstration  Project  were o r i g i n a l l y thought o f as an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and p l a n n i n g t o o l : a p l a c e t o s u p p o r t f i e l d w o r k e r s and make s u r e e v e r y t h i n g was g o i n g on as e x p e c t e d .  In the l a t e r stages of the r e s e a r c h  p r o j e c t , t h e meetings changed and became a p l a c e where we c o l l e c t e d data , analyzed i t , 2 3  process.  and r e f l e c t e d on t h e r e s e a r c h  I n essence t h e team meetings were t h e t i m e s when t h e  team m a t e r i a l i z e d , p h y s i c a l l y , c o n c r e t e l y .  I t was  i n the  meetings t h a t t h e team came t o g e t h e r as a group. As our meetings began, we s a t around the t a b l e and c h a t t e d w h i l e members a r r i v e d . 2 4  families.  We  t a l k e d about our s t u d i e s , work, and  Most o f the t i m e we had f o o d t o s h a r e .  Team members  took t u r n s , w i t h o u t any f o r m a l p l a n n i n g ( w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f two o r t h r e e t i m e s t h a t we p l a n n e d t o have l u n c h ) t o b r i n g something t o e a t .  A l l i s o n p r e p a r e d an agenda f o r a l m o s t e v e r y  meeting based on the t o p i c s t h a t had emerged i n t h e f i e l d n o t e s , o r on i s s u e s t h a t she and Hanna thought were n e c e s s a r y t o discuss. U s u a l l y we began w i t h a round o f d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s we had done i n t h e p r e v i o u s two weeks. o p p o r t u n i t y t o r a i s e q u e s t i o n s and problems. t h e p o i n t s on t h e agenda.  T h i s was  Then we  an  addressed  E v e r y team member had t h e chance t o  The a l l u s i o n t o d a t a c o l l e c t i o n r e f e r s t o t h e t i m e s when we " i n t e r v i e w e d " Mark and Deborah d u r i n g team m e e t i n g s . I describe t h i s p r o c e s s f u r t h e r i n t h e second p a r t o f t h i s c h a p t e r . 23  The t a p e s i n c l u d e t h i s f i r s t c h a t because Hanna a s k e d t h a t we t u r n t h e t a p e r e c o r d e r on. She f e l t t h i s was a way o f b e i n g c l o s e r t o us by l i s t e n i n g t o comments about our week, o u r p e r s o n a l l i v e s , and a l s o about t h e f i e l d w o r k . 24  95 talk.  Some p a r t i c i p a t e d more than o t h e r s , depending on the t o p i c  and on our p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n a l i t i e s . of  We  had fun and we  took care  each o t h e r by b r i n g i n g a cup of hot t e a o r c o f f e e t o another  team member, o r c a r r y i n g a baby around. ended w i t h another round i n which we  The meetings  usually  shared our p l a n s f o r the  f o l l o w i n g two weeks. There were many reasons why of  i t was  important f o r the content  the r e s e a r c h team meetings not t o go'beyond the team members.  The most important of these was  t h a t we were d i s c u s s i n g  t h a t had been t o l d t o us i n c o n f i d e n c e . that we would not t e l l what we  We promised  participants  t a l k e d about w i t h people o u t s i d e  the  r e s e a r c h team, o r t o the l i a i s o n r e s e a r c h e r s .  was  a sense t h a t a l o t of our c o n v e r s a t i o n s were f i r s t  to  understand what was  issues  g o i n g on i n the s i t e s .  Second,  Our  there  attempts  discussions  were not c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e d and c a r e f u l l y v a l i d a t e d p r e s e n t a t i o n s of i n f o r m a t i o n .  The meetings  i n s t e a d were r i c h i n  hunches and i m p r e s s i o n s t h a t were l a t e r checked w i t h the d a t a f o r validation.  The t h i r d reason f o r the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of the  meetings was  t o be a b l e t o t a l k f r e e l y about our  feelings,  f r u s t r a t i o n s and successes i n the r e s e a r c h . I call the of  the meetings the team's " c o l l e c t i v e p r i v a t e "  time t h a t the r e s e a r c h team had f o r r e f l e c t i o n . the r e s e a r c h team meetings  an i n d i v i d u a l ethnographer.  space,  This  purpose  i s p a r a l l e l w i t h t h a t of notes f o r Research team meetings  understood as " c o l l e c t i v e f i e l d n o t e s " i n which  can be  reflections,  f e a r s , a n a l y s i s , data, and p e r s o n a l notes are interwoven i n a p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n t h a t most o f t e n can o n l y be u n d e r s t o o d by those c r e a t i n g i t .  Jean Jackson  (1990) i n t e r v i e w e d a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s t o f i n d out  what they wrote i n t h e i r f i e l d n o t e s and how  they f e l t  about  them.  She concluded t h a t If 'the f i e l d ' i s a n t h r o p o l o g y ' s v e r s i o n of b o t h the promised l a n d and an o r d e a l by f i r e , then f i e l d n o t e s symbolize what j o u r n e y i n g t o and r e t u r n i n g from the f i e l d mean t o us: the attachment, the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the u n c e r t a i n t y , the mystique, and, perhaps, above a l l , the ambivalence (1990, p. 33). Jackson's c o n c l u s i o n does not l i m i t the d e f i n i t i o n of to  a c e r t a i n form  ( w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l ) , or c o n t e n t .  fieldnotes  I contend  that  much of what i s o r d i n a r i l y w r i t t e n i n i n d i v i d u a l f i e l d n o t e s spoken i n our r e s e a r c h team meetings.  was  What i s a monologue i n  j o u r n a l s becomes c o n v e r s a t i o n s i n the meetings.  25  That  journey  t h a t Jackson r e f e r s t o can be f o l l o w e d i n the r e s e a r c h team meetings.  P r e s e n t i n g whole c o n v e r s a t i o n s as evidence of t h i s  c l a i m would be expanding  e x c e s s i v e l y the l e n g t h of t h i s  thesis,  but the quotes t h a t I have p r e s e n t e d i n the p r e v i o u s chapter, and the ones t h a t I p r e s e n t i n t h i s chapter, g i v e an i d e a of ideas e v o l v e d and got c o n s t r u c t e d d u r i n g the  meetings.  I t i s important t o note t h a t t h i s argument does not t h a t r e s e a r c h team meetings fieldnotes.  In our p r o j e c t ,  how  suggest  can s u b s t i t u t e f o r i n d i v i d u a l individual fieldnotes s t i l l  data and i n d i v i d u a l r e f l e c t i o n s .  yielded  In t h e i r notes f i e l d w o r k e r s  t r i e d t o make sense of t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l e x p e r i e n c e s i n the They may  or may  field.  not have i n c l u d e d more p e r s o n a l r e f l e c t i o n i f the  f i e l d n o t e s had not been shared.  The p r o j e c t l o s t  some of t h a t  T h e r e i s an important d i f f e r e n c e though. Unless research team meetings are taped, t h e r e i s no r e c o r d of the c o n v e r s a t i o n . And even i f they are taped, i f these tapes are not t r a n s c r i b e d , they are v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o i n c l u d e i n a t r a d i t i o n a l e t h n o g r a p h i c a n a l y s i s (see Chapter Two, methodology). 25  97 p r i v a t e r e f l e x i v i t y by h a v i n g the f i e l d n o t e s  shared.  The p r o j e c t a l s o g a i n e d a n o t h e r .kind of r e f l e x i v i t y - the team's r e f l e x i v i t y .  The group produced t h e i r own  collective  understanding  o f the group's e x p e r i e n c e s ; a c o l l e c t i v e  reflexivity.  I n t h a t sense r e s e a r c h team m e e t i n g s can  understood  be  as c o l l e c t i v e f i e l d n o t e s , because t h e y i n c l u d e  o b s e r v a t i o n s and d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the r e s e a r c h process.'  Thus, the  team i s the r e s e a r c h i n s t r u m e n t t h a t i n t e r p r e t s t h e d a t a . T h r e a t s t o r e f l e x i v i t y i n r e s e a r c h team m e e t i n g s I have argued t h a t r e s e a r c h team meetings a r e t h e team's f i e l d n o t e s , and t h a t t h e s e a r e the spaces where t h e group r e f l e c t s on t h e d a t a and t h e p r o c e s s . t h r e a t e n the c o l l e c t i v e space.  Some c o n d i t i o n s can  I n t h i s s e c t i o n I e x p l o r e some  t h r e a t s t h a t arose i n t h i s p r o j e c t . Including l i a i s o n researchers We worked h a r d and c o n s c i o u s l y t o keep the team m e e t i n g s private research places.  Research  team meetings became a p l a c e  where team members would s h a r e problems about t h e f i e l d w o r k , a n a l y z e d a t a , and t a l k about t h e i r c o n c e r n s .  They were  as a space t o t a l k about t h e f i e l d , not as a f i e l d i n  planned  themselves.  Because our team i n c l u d e d l i a i s o n r e s e a r c h e r s , however, we had  to  work out i s s u e s of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and i n some ways behave as i f the f i e l d was  t h e r e because i t was.  In the a n a l y s i s t h a t f o l l o w s , i t becomes c l e a r how purpose o f the s t u d y i n f l u e n c e s the n a t u r e of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between team members.  collaborative  As d e s c r i b e d i n C h a p t e r  d i f f e r e n t r e s e a r c h purposes c a l l f o r d i f f e r e n t The N a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y D e m o n s t r a t i o n  the  P r o j e c t was  Two,  relationships. an e v a l u a t i o n .  Therefore, not  i t was n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a b l i s h r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t would  compromise the team's commitment t o the study.  there was i n f o r m a t i o n  The f a c t  that  t h a t had t o be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l was one  consequence o f the purpose o f the study. Confidentiality Confidentiality  "means t h a t no one has access t o i n d i v i d u a l  data o r the names of the p a r t i c i p a n t s except the r e s e a r c h e r ( s ) , and  t h a t the s u b j e c t s  the data.  know b e f o r e  they p a r t i c i p a t e who w i l l see  C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i s a s s u r e d by making c e r t a i n t h a t the  data cannot be l i n k e d t o i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s by name" Schumacher, 1989, pp. 189-99) . was a p a r t i c u l a r c h a l l e n g e  Maintaining  &  this confidentiality  f o r the team members because we  included l i a i s o n fieldworkers  i n the team.  to keep i d e n t i t i e s from Mark and Deborah.  I t was d i f f i c u l t  26  Different cultural  backgrounds, f a m i l y s i t u a t i o n s , and o p i n i o n s impossible  (McMillan  made i t almost  t o promise p a r t i c i p a n t s complete anonymity.  Deborah knew the l e a r n e r s and t h e i r s t o r i e s and c o u l d  Mark and easily  relate s t o r i e s to p a r t i c u l a r learners or s t a f f i n t h e i r programs.  27  One o f the f i r s t  i s s u e s t h a t we d i s c u s s e d  as a team was how  A l s o , the f i e l d w o r k e r s were not expected t o be p a r t o f the a n a l y s i s . The promise of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y was complex then because the f i e l d w o r k e r s were c o l l e c t i n g data t h a t they were not g o i n g t o analyze. F i e l d w o r k e r s were making promises about b e h a v i o u r t h a t was not t h e i r own. We c o u l d o n l y promise that t h e i n f o r m a t i o n would not be shared w i t h anybody o u t s i d e the r e s e a r c h team, and that i t would not be p u b l i s h e d without the consent o f the participant. 2 6  An example o f how p a r t i c i p a n t s were aware o f t h e i r exposure i s the comment t h a t the s e c r e t a r y o f one o f the programs made t o us. She was the o n l y f u l l time s e c r e t a r y i n the program. Simply r e f e r r i n g t o "a person i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e , " would p o i n t the f i n g e r at h e r . 27  99 to protect  participants' identities  fieldworkers. researchers  Our c h o i c e s  that  understand fair  were e i t h e r t o k e e p t h e l i a i s o n  i n t h e team m e e t i n g s o r , f o r t h e s a k e o f  confidentiality, raised  from t h e l i a i s o n  t o h a v e some o r most m e e t i n g s w i t h o u t  issue  i n the following discussion.  t h e problem and t o f i n d  them.  We  We t r i e d t o  a solution that  would  feel  t o everybody.  P D : A c t u a l l y I was r e a l l y f e e l i n g how i m p o r t a n t i t was t o be a team a n d i f we c a n do i t w i t h o u t w r e c k i n g c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y I w o u l d r a t h e r go t h e team way t h a n n o t d o i n g i t t h a t way. LH:We c o u l d t a l k i n a g e n e r a l i z e d l e v e l w i t h o u t u s i n g names. AT:We c a n h o l d d i s c u s s i o n s i n a g e n e r a l e n o u g h l e v e l s o t h a t we d o n ' t h a v e t o e x c l u d e Mark a n d D e b o r a h . My c o n c e r n i s - t h a t we d o n ' t come up w i t h a s y s t e m t h a t c u t s Mark a n d D e b o r a h o u t w i t h o u t i t b e i n g a t o p i c t h a t we a r e discussing. MM:I was t h i n k i n g t h a t i f t h e y [ t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ] know t h a t we a r e p a r t o f t h i s t h e y may f e e l " W e l l t h e y a r e g o i n g t o f i n d o u t b e c a u s e t h e y a r e p a r t o f t h i s team s o no m a t t e r what L y n s a y s t o me I'm n o t r e a l l y g o n n a t e l l h e r what I want t o t e l l h e r b e c a u s e I know Mark's p a r t o f t h i s . " AT:I c a n ' t t h i n k o f a s o l u t i o n t o t h a t a s i d e f r o m a c t u a l l y k i c k i n g y o u o f f t h e team a n d I am n o t g o i n g t o do t h a t . I mean I t h i n k we j u s t h a v e t o be a s c l e a r a s we c a n when we t a l k t o p e o p l e t h a t i f t h e y t e l l u s [ s o m e t h i n g ] i t w i l l o n l y go t h a t f a r a n d be e x c r u c i a t i n g l y c a r e f u l i n t h e s e m e e t i n g s t o m a i n t a i n t h a t c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y t h a t we p r o m i s e d and t o even c a t c h o u r s e l v e s o r even c a t c h each o t h e r when i t s t a r t s t o g e t t o o c l o s e t o t h a t p o i n t a n d k e e p a n e y e o n i t . L e t ' s s a y t h a t Sam t e l l s me s o m e t h i n g . I may b r i n g what Sam s a y s t o t h e m e e t i n g b u t I won't s a y Sam s a i d i t . I t ' s s o m e t h i n g t h a t n e e d s t o k e e p c o m i n g up. A n d a s i t becomes more c l e a r t h a t Mark a n d D e b o r a h a r e p a r t o f t h e r e s e a r c h e f f o r t we h a v e t o make c l e a r t o p e o p l e t h a t " i f y o u d o n ' t t e l l Mark a n d D e b o r a h t h i s we a r e n o t g o i n g t o t e l l them e i t h e r . " We c h o s e t o i n c l u d e in  Mark a n d D e b o r a h i n e v e r y m e e t i n g  some o f t h e a n a l y s i s m e e t i n g s  (see b e l o w ) .  2 8  except  E s s e n t i a l l y , we  I t i s my f e e l i n g t h a t Mark a n d D e b o r a h seemed t o c a r e l e s s a b o u t h a v i n g t o l e a v e t h e room o r n o t p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n one o r s e v e r a l meetings t h a n t h e r e s t o f us c a r e d about h a v i n g t o e x c l u d e them. T h e y were a s w o r r i e d a s t h e r e s t o f t h e team members a b o u t 2 8  100 chose t o adhere to the p r i n c i p l e of i n c l u s i o n over the for  i n s p i r i n g t o t a l t r u s t from p a r t i c i p a n t s .  We  concern  never thought  that the i n c l u s i o n of the l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s would not the p r o j e c t . excluded  We  knew t h a t i t was  a trade-off.  affect  Even i f we  had  the l i a i s o n r e s e a r c h e r s from the meetings, p a r t i c i p a n t s  would not n e c e s s a r i l y have known t h a t , and any d i f f e r e n c e f o r them.  We  i t might not have made  j u s t took i t as a f a c t t h a t i t would  have an impact on the r e s e a r c h and t r i e d to r e f l e c t on how a f f e c t the p r o c e s s and product t h a t we  of the r e s e a r c h .  But  the  i t did fact  c o u l d not c o n c e a l the i d e n t i t i e s of the l e a r n e r s may  a f f e c t e d the ideas we brought t o the meetings i n a way  that  have we  were not aware o f . Another c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i s s u e t h a t s u r f a c e d i n the team meetings r e l a t e d t o the i n c l u s i o n of the l i a i s o n was  t h a t we  a l s o had t o d e a l w i t h the i s s u e of  of  Liaison  a double r e s p o n s i b i l i t y : t o t h e i r own  and to the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . t h e i r c h a l l e n g e s was  researchers  liaison  r e s e a r c h e r s as p o t e n t i a l c o n d u i t s to the programs. r e s e a r c h e r s had  research  programs  I t made t h e i r t a s k d i f f i c u l t .  t o be a b l e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the  team meetings and keep the i n f o r m a t i o n , q u e s t i o n s ,  and  One  research  problems  making sure the p a r t i c i p a n t s t a l k e d to the graduate students without f e a r of b e i n g r e c o g n i z e d . On one o c c a s i o n we excluded Deborah from a team meeting, and i t was o n l y f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d . T h i s was needed because A l l i s o n wanted to share some i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h the r e s e a r c h team t h a t i n v o l v e d one l e a r n e r i n the program i n which Deborah works. Even though i t had been agreed t h a t t h i s c o u l d happen, we a l l f e l t awkward. We o f f e r e d Deborah m u f f i n s and c o f f e e and made sure she had a p l a c e t o go. When Deborah r e t u r n e d to the room A l l i s o n " a p o l o g i z e d " and e x p l a i n e d , a g a i n , the reason why she had t o be excused. On another o c c a s i o n Mark o f f e r e d t o l e a v e the room so we c o u l d share the name of the person we were t a l k i n g about. The r e s t of the team thought t h a t was not n e c e s s a r y . The c o n v e r s a t i o n continued without the use of names.  101 we  were f a c i n g to themselves.  T h i s i s s u e was  raised  i n one  team  meeting. AT: We don't want t o t u r n i n t o the way t h a t people t e l l him [Mark] t h i n g s . Because we don't want t o become conduits. Because then people t h i n k 'You are a c o n d u i t f o r this. I see t h i s channel working! How do I know when you c l o s e the door?' I t h i n k t h a t j u s t having Mark and Deborah on the r e s e a r c h team i s a c t i n g i n a way t h a t r a i s e s q u e s t i o n s about t h a t . So we need to make sure t h a t e v e r y t h i n g here, i n t h i s r e s e a r c h team meeting i s kept confidential. I t h i n k t h i s i s going to be hard f o r Deborah and Mark when Lee and Gary [program d i r e c t o r s ] want t o know how i t ' s going. Once t h i s i s s u e was  d i s c u s s e d i n a r e s e a r c h team meeting, Mark  and Deborah watched t h e i r comments to the program d i r e c t o r s .  It  d i d not make t h e i r work e a s i e r . The On  presence of the some o c c a s i o n s ,  field the r e s e a r c h team meetings  s h i f t e d and became a time of data c o l l e c t i o n .  unconsciously  T h i s happened when  the l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s e x p l a i n e d aspects of the programs, or when they e l a b o r a t e d on t h e i r own these  situations  the tape was  some of the o t h e r team members made sure  running  or began t o take notes.  t h e r e were a few q u e s t i o n s p r e c i o u s times.  p h i l o s o p h i e s as t e a c h e r s .  Most of the  asked as i n an i n t e r v i e w .  was  e l a b o r a t i n g and  that times  These were  Nobody wanted t o miss the o p p o r t u n i t y  the thoughts of a teacher who  In  to r e c o r d  reflecting  on  program approaches and t e a c h i n g p h i l o s o p h i e s . On the o t h e r hand, these were times i n which the focus the meeting got b l u r r e d . t h i s process said has  "I'm turned  and  In one  team meeting Hanna was  aware of  c a l l e d the team members' a t t e n t i o n t o i t .  feeling a l i t t l e  uncomfortable.  i n t o a group i n t e r v i e w of Mark."  I'm  f e e l i n g that  The  feeling  Hanna had of b e i n g uncomfortable i n t h a t s i t u a t i o n was  of  She this  that  similar  to  102  a  feeling  She  said  that that  Jane e x p r e s s e d almost she had f e l t  m e e t i n g s were a n o t h e r represented  could  fieldwork  time  that  the research  f o r her.  that  the research  team  Deborah  t h e program t o h e r and because o f t h a t  never f e e l she  a l l along  a t t h e end o f t h e p r o j e c t .  she c o u l d  team m e e t i n g s were a p l a c e  r e l a x and e x p r e s s h e r i d e a s  i n which  freely.  JD:My s e n s e o f b e i n g i n t h e r e s e a r c h m e e t i n g s , b e c a u s e o f t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e l i a i s o n p e o p l e t h e r e , was l i k e I was i n the f i e l d again. I d o n ' t know t h a t i t f e l t u n s a f e a s i n f e e l i n g d a n g e r o u s b u t i t f e l t l i k e t h e r e was a c e r t a i n k i n d o f way t h a t I w a t c h e d my c o n s c i o u s n e s s . A n d t h a t t h e r e were t h i n g s t h a t I d i d n ' t t h i n k , t h e r e were t h i n g s t h a t I d i d n ' t c r i t i q u e , t h e r e were t h i n g s t h a t I d i d n ' t p a y a t t e n t i o n t o b e c a u s e I was s o r t o f b e i n g i n t h e f i e l d b e i n g i n t h e r e s e a r c h meetings. The f i e l d was a l w a y s t h e r e a n d t h e p e r s o n who r e p r e s e n t e d t h e f i e l d was D e b o r a h . During  the data a n a l y s i s  meetings without  the l i a i s o n  stage the research fieldworkers.  was t o keep i n f o r m a t i o n  confidential.  for  having  t h e s e m e e t i n g s was t h a t  we c o u l d  the  impacts  the  research  the i n c l u s i o n  team.  Although  done w i t h t h e l i a i s o n discussed the This  were d i f f e r e n t .  team m e e t i n g s t h a t quote i l l u s t r a t e s  relationships discussion. to r e f l e c t  we h e l d w i t h o u t the care  that  goal  that  T h e s e were n o t g o s s i p on o u r e x p e r i e n c e  step  i s a quote the l i a i s o n  would n o t have had i f t h e l i a i s o n  had on  were  also  the issues  f r o m one o f fieldworkers.  we t o o k i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e we were p u r s u i n g  we c o u l d  i n the reports.  t o produce c e r t a i n  topic  that  conversations,  so t h a t  t o be i n c l u d e d  on t h i s  purpose  o n some o f  researchers  i t was c l e a r  What f o l l o w s  and the f i n a l  recommendations necessary  researchers,  Another  reflect  of the l i a i s o n discussions  held  The m a i n r e a s o n f o r  doing t h i s  that  team  kinds  i n this  the purpose  was  come up w i t h We  saw t h i s  as a  of understandings that  researchers  had been  present.  we  103 H F : I t n e e d s t o be u n d e r s t o o d , i t n e e d s j u s t t o be s a i d t h a t t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n i s t o t a l l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . I t was i m p o r t a n t t o us t o s c h e d u l e a t i m e t o be a b l e t o t a l k a b o u t t h e p r o g r a m s w i t h o u t Mark and D e b o r a h h e r e t o be a b l e t o b e g i n t o put s t u f f out t h e r e w i t h o u t n e e d i n g t o w o r r y a b o u t c o m p r o m i s i n g c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y t h a t has b e e n promised to informants. AT:Or h u r t i n g f e e l i n g s o r any o f t h a t . I mean y o u c a n be b a s h e d o r mad o r d i s l i k i n g p e o p l e o r w h a t e v e r and t h e n w e ' l l work t o f i g u r e o u t what i t means i n t e r m s o f t h e research. HF:And a l s o , I j u s t want t o r e i n f o r c e t h e way A l l i s o n j u s t put i t , t h a t t h i s s t u f f gets turned i n t o q u e s t i o n s . It g e t s t u r n e d i n t o what we want t o i n t e r r o g a t e t h e d a t a for. I n c l u d i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s as which r e s e a r c h e r s role  that  "the  themselves. the  have t r i e d  researched"  It i s clear  investigation;  facilitating benefits. ethical, there  and  their  liaison  atmosphere.  the  i n which r e f l e c t i o n Deciding decision  maintained,  and  their  sites  only  t o be  are  the  feel  confidentiality,  that  i s an  between t h e  field  the  methodological,  In terms o f  there  and  some o f  their  e x t r a burden research i n the  and  that  to r e f l e c t  in a  for  team  and  team  that  their  t h e i r presence shaped the  the presence  relaxed atmosphere  place.  whether o r not  t h a t has  disadvantages.  took  the  about  perspective  some team members f e l t  represented  least,  in  about  knowledge  actual presence  team members' a b i l i t y At  way  insiders'  also raises  become a c o n d u i t  researchers the  the  questions.  In terms of  b e e n one  t h e i r presence b r i n g s b e n e f i t s to  inclusion  I h a v e d e s c r i b e d how  inhibited  i n producing  that p a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l  t o not  the program. meetings  that  theoretical  i s a concern  liaison  play  relationships with  But  has  t o answer m o r a l q u e s t i o n s  i n c o r p o r a t i n g an  a n o n y m i t y c a n n o t be the  researchers  taken  to  include l i a i s o n  carefully,  I f a team i s t o  researchers  weighing advantages  include people  from the  is a and  sites,  104 then some measures to p r o t e c t the c a p a b i l i t y of the team t o r e f l e c t have t o be taken. l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s may i s s u e s about  H o l d i n g some meetings  without  the  be an o p t i o n , a l t h o u g h t h i s might  i n c l u s i v i t y w i t h i n the team.  raise  The main i s s u e here i s  to be aware of the t h r e a t s t h a t i n c l u d i n g l i a i s o n r e s e a r c h e r s i n every a c t i v i t y p r e s e n t s t o the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s . Vulnerability,  comparison,  and  trust  When people work t o g e t h e r i n r e s e a r c h teams they make themselves v u l n e r a b l e t o o t h e r team members.  Sharing fieldnotes,  " h a l f baked i d e a s , " f r u s t r a t i o n s , and q u e s t i o n s p u t s people i n a v u l n e r a b l e p o s i t i o n . . ' At the same time, working w i t h o t h e r s a l l o w s f o r people t o compare themselves. be i n t e r p r e t e d i n a judgemental,  Different a b i l i t i e s  e v a l u a t i v e way.  can  These  s i t u a t i o n s can i n h i b i t the c a p a c i t y f o r r e f l e c t i o n i n a team. One  way  comparing  i n which we made o u r s e l v e s v u l n e r a b l e was  o u r s e l v e s t o each o t h e r .  team t h e r e i s a shared t o p i c , sites,  and p a r t i c i p a n t s .  similar sites,  In r e s e a r c h c a r r i e d out by a  approach,  and same o r s i m i l a r  In our case we were a l l working at  a l l the f i e l d w o r k e r s were working  I t was  easy t o compare p e r s o n a l s t y l e s ,  and even the l e n g t h of our f i e l d n o t e s . was  " l e s s t h e o r e t i c a l " than P a t ' s .  because was  two  twelve hours a  week, t a l k i n g t o people i n the same or s i m i l a r s i t e s , fieldnotes.  by  and  writing  approaches,  Anne thought her w r i t i n g  Jane f e l t  she was  a  "failure"  the c o n s u l t i n g groups d i d not work i n the s i t e where she  working  as w e l l as they d i d at the o t h e r s i t e . Lyn and  Marina  d i d not get the same r e a c t i o n from t e a c h e r s and l e a r n e r s as d i d  105 Pat and Anne who Instead  were u s u a l l y asked f o r  of a c c e p t i n g  personalities,  and  help.  29  t h a t these were j u s t d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s ,  contexts,  we  questioned ourselves  and  t r a n s l a t e d those d i f f e r e n c e s i n t o a s c a l e i n which one p e r s o n a l i t y type was i n that s c a l e . how  b e t t e r than the o t h e r .  A l t h o u g h we  t h a t undermined our I t was  ourselves  t a l k e d about how  s e l f esteem, we  We  ranked  c o u l d not  i d e a of competition,  enough to be doing good work, i t has people's work.  Anne and  and  h e l p doing i t .  i s a c u l t u r a l behaviour t h a t we  I t i s i n the b a s i s of the  ourselves  wrong t h a t was  c l e a r f o r most of the team members t h a t  to others  s t y l e or  comparing have  i t i s not  t o be b e t t e r than  learned. good  other  Hanna a r t i c u l a t e d t h i s i n one  meeting.  AM:I  t h i n k i t ' s t h i s n a s t y North American, w e l l Northern European t h i n g , you know, i f somebody's good, then I'm bad. HF:If someone's good and d o i n g something d i f f e r e n t from you then t h a t means t h a t you can't be good, too.  The  academic world i s not  might be one  of the best  an e x c e p t i o n . examples of how  On  the c o n t r a r y , i t  competition  Students are always marked compared to o t h e r s , f o r s c h o l a r s h i p s and  f o r jobs, and  Demonstration P r o j e c t was  administrative researchers  they are  within classes.  l i n k e d i n more than one  U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.  The  institution  The way  We  met  ranked, Literacy  to  the  provided  support f o r the p r o j e c t , and most of  were p a r t of i t .  works.  the  at the u n i v e r s i t y and  used  Not only d i d we compare o u r s e l v e s to each o t h e r as i n d i v i d u a l s , we a l s o d i d so as sub-groups. D u r i n g the a n a l y s i s stage when the team d i v i d e d i n t o two sub-teams t h e r e were comments about one group b e i n g " b e t t e r " than the o t h e r because o f how they were working. B a s i c a l l y t h e r e was a d i f f e r e n t way of p r o c e e d i n g i n w r i t i n g the r e p o r t s . For a more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n see Tom et a l . , 1994, pp. 133-135. 29  106 its  facilities.  setting  T h i s was a n o t h e r  influenced  way i n w h i c h t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l  the r e l a t i o n s h i p s  b e t w e e n team members.  were a l l a f f e c t e d b y t h e u n i v e r s i t y ' s It  was m o s t l y  themselves different  the graduate  t o the others. approach.  differences  between t h e i r  particularly  s t u d e n t s who were  they  professional.  comparing  f i e l d w o r k e r s had a  still  perceived the  work a n d t h e g r a d u a t e  i n terms o f r e s e a r c h s k i l l s ,  being d i f f e r e n t  students,'  3 0  they acknowledged  that  d i d n o t mean b e i n g a b e t t e r r e s e a r c h e r o r T h e y made a n a n a l o g y  s t u d e n t s were f e e l i n g programs  r u l e s and v a l u e s .  The l i a i s o n  Although  We  b e t w e e n what t h e g r a d u a t e  a n d how t h e l e a r n e r s i n t h e l i t e r a c y  felt.  DL:I t h i n k i t ' s h a r d t o compare, b e c a u s e y o u a r e y o u a n d I am I. So i t ' s h a r d t o s e e what y o u w r o t e , I t h i n k i t ' s c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t t o what I w r o t e , b e c a u s e we a r e i n a different position. T h a t ' s how we s e e t h e l e a r n e r s i n our c l a s s [ r e a c t ] . MM:At some p o i n t y o u have t o h a v e f a i t h i n y o u r s e l f , y o u have t o t r u s t y o u r s e l f . You j u s t have t o . You know t h a t a t t h e e n d t h e r e w i l l be s o m e t h i n g , b u t I c a n ' t t e l l y o u what i t ' s g o i n g t o b e . Y o u ' r e g o i n g t o h a v e t o h e l p me t e l l y o u what t h a t ' s g o i n g t o be, a n d I c a n ' t t e l l y o u w i t h o u t y o u , a n d we're n o t g o i n g t o know u n t i l we g e t there. I mean, y o u were c h o s e n f o r some r e a s o n . Another share  drafts  way r e s e a r c h team members a r e e x p o s e d of writing.  criticism,  a c o u r a g e o u s a c t t h a t makes p e o p l e vulnerability,  research The  though,  sharing of these  feel  i s unavoidable  v e r y exposed. in a  issue here  drafts i s This kind  collaborative  team b e c a u s e team members a r e p r o d u c i n g  fundamental  they  I n a n a c a d e m i c w o r l d where t h e r e i s n o t  much p l a c e f o r c o n s t r u c t i v e  of  i s when  ideas together.  i s t o acknowledge t h e s e  feelings.  F o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e graduate s t u d e n t s and t h e l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s ' w r i t i n g s e e Tom e t a l . , 1994, p p . 106-110. 3 0  107 In our  project, research  additional  ways b y  Fieldnotes  are  feelings  sharing f i e l d n o t e s with  highly personal,  that  are  not  vulnerability  was  heightened  Hanna v e r y very  w e l l , she  seldom.  team members were e x p o s e d  they  d i d not  the  live  the c o - i n v e s t i g a t o r s .  include descriptions  u s u a l l y shared. by  in  In our  fact  case  t h a t we  i n Vancouver,  and  the  d i d not and  we  know  saw  her  Hanna t a l k e d a b o u t . t h i s .  HF: 7And b y s e n d i n g y o u r f i e l d n o t e s t o me, y o u do make y o u r s e l v e s v u l n e r a b l e t o me, b o t h t h r o u g h y o u r n o t e s and t h r o u g h t h e r e f l e c t i o n s ' t h a t you w r i t e a t t h e end o f y o u r n o t e s , where y o u r e a l l y o p e n y o u r s e l f up a b o u t what y o u s e e , and t h e k i n d s o f q u e s t i o n s t h a t y o u a s k . And t h i s i s a p r o c e s s t h a t d o e s d e p e n d on t r u s t , and t o h a v e a s l i t t l e e x p e r i e n c e w i t h me a s y o u have, and have t o p u t y o u r s e l v e s i n t h a t k i n d o f v u l n e r a b l e p o s i t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o me, I think i s a d i f f i c u l t thing. Not. o n l y d i d Hanna r e a d of  the  silent  research  thinking, thinking.  felt  and 3 1  an  we  In our  there  for  points  refers  i s general  research.  She  team.  was  was  copy  being  a  I n more t h a n  were d o i n g ,  o f what she  research t o the  agreement  conditions, this  strengthen  team  saying  doing,  and  saying,  research  one  or  team  meetings  difficulties  t h a t as  T h e y e m p h a s i z e how  of view can  week.  received a  vulnerable.  literature  c e r t a i n necessary  the  she  r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Hanna t h e  Protecting  but  of  knew what we  knew n o t h i n g  but  every  observer,  t h a t she  members were v e r y  The  fieldnotes,  team m e e t i n g t a p e s  member, a l m o s t  o c c a s i o n we  the  a whole,  approach has the  inclusion  research.  of  team  and  research,  considering  major b e n e f i t s of  multiple  Crow, L e v i n e ,  and  Nager  0 n one o c c a s i o n we r a i s e d t h i s i s s u e . W i t h an i n t e n t t o o v e r c o m e t h e s e f e e l i n g s o f v u l n e r a b i l i t y , Hanna r e s p o n d e d w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f how she w o r k s . 31  108 (1992) c o n s i d e r the problems they encountered i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y study. difficulties,  t h a t , r e g a r d l e s s o f the  teaming i n q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h enhanced the  q u a l i t y o f t h e i r work. and Schattman  They conclude  w h i l e d o i n g an  L i g g e t t , Glesne,  (1994) agree.  Johnston,  Brody-Hasazi,  They conclude t h a t ,  From f o r m u l a t i o n o f . t h e i n t e r v i e w p r o t o c o l t o data a n a l y s i s , from q u e s t i o n s o f access t o w r i t i n g the p r e s e n t paper, every stage o f our r e s e a r c h was d i f f e r e n t and, we t h i n k , b e t t e r than what any one person c o u l d have done alone (p.87). I t appears  as i f the authors a r e r e f e r r i n g t o the degree o f  r e f l e x i v i t y t h a t i s g a i n e d i n doing team r e s e a r c h .  Lather  (1986)  a l s o r e f e r s t o t h i s aspect o f team r e s e a r c h when she w r i t e s t h a t "this  [research] was a team e f f o r t so one can assume a degree o f  reflexivity"  (p.  75).  I have p r e s e n t e d the t h r e a t s t h a t c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h b r i n g s t o a team's c a p a c i t y t o r e f l e c t .  Some t h r e a t s a r i s e  because t h e r e a r e changes from the t r a d i t i o n a l research. work.  " s o l o " model o f  Others are p a r t o f the team s t r u c t u r e of c o l l a b o r a t i v e  In t h i s s e c t i o n I a n a l y z e the f a c t o r s t h a t  facilitate  r e f l e c t i o n i n a r e s e a r c h team meeting: t r u s t and feedback. Working i n a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team does not prevent people feeling vulnerable.  from  Team members f e e l exposed, but what i s  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a t r u l y c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s i s t h a t they can still  engage i n the group a c t i v i t i e s because they t r u s t the o t h e r  team members.  T r u s t i n g each o t h e r h e l p s members d e a l w i t h the  f e e l i n g s of v u l n e r a b i l i t y .  Although  explicit  references to  i s s u e s o f t r u s t i n the r e s e a r c h team meeting tapes a r e not common, the f e e l i n g o f t r u s t among the team members emerged i n every team meeting as a way o f a l l o w i n g f o r c e r t a i n t o p i c s t o be  109 d i s c u s s e d , o r c e r t a i n words t o be used. From the time the r e s e a r c h team was main r o l e i n the i n t e r a c t i o n s .  formed,  t r u s t played a  A l l i s o n chose the graduate  students from her ethnography c l a s s , based m a i n l y on criteria:  their skills  t r u s t them. retrospect,  i n ethnography and how much she c o u l d  A l t h o u g h i t was I think that  d i f f e r e n t notions.  two  not a r t i c u l a t e d at the time, i n  "trust"  First,  i n c l u d e d at l e a s t  t h e r e was  three  the f e e l i n g t h a t we  could  r e l y on each o t h e r f o r emotional and i n t e l l e c t u a l s u p p o r t . Second,  t h e r e was a s h a r e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f r e s e a r c h , t h a t came  mainly from h a v i n g been t h e r e was  ( p a r t l y ) t r a i n e d by A l l i s o n .  Third,  a common commitment t o working t o g e t h e r and what t h a t  work meant. As the team began working and s e t t i n g up the r o u t i n e s , A l l i s o n brought up the i s s u e of t r u s t when t a l k i n g about the l o g of hours.  "I t r u s t you i n how you spend your time; the i n t e n t i o n  [of keeping a log] i s not t o be sure you work 12 hours but t o have an i d e a of how  l o n g i t takes t o do each a c t i v i t y . "  T h i s a t t i t u d e s t r e s s e d the importance of t r u s t among r e s e a r c h team members.  We were a l l working t o g e t h e r and t h e r e was no need  f o r one of us t o check o r make sure that the o t h e r s were d o i n g t h e i r jobs.  When a group o f people works c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y  there  needs t o be a sense t h a t everyone i s d o i n g what they s h o u l d be doing, what they f e e l i s the best f o r the p r o j e c t .  Mark  commented, I t h i n k t h a t a l o n g w i t h r e s p e c t , comes t r u s t . You have t o t r u s t t h a t the people t h a t you're working w i t h are d o i n g the right thing. You don't have t o t h i n k t h a t you've got something t o p r o t e c t i n t h i s group, and t h a t somebody e l s e might s t e a l a l i t t l e of t h a t o r a l l of i t o r whatever. You  110 have to t r u s t t h a t what t h e y ' r e going to do i s g o i n g to to be t o the best of t h e i r a b i l i t y to meet our common vision. I b e l i e v e that t r u s t c o l l a b o r a t i v e process.  i s the b a s i c net s u p p o r t i n g  Team members need to t r u s t  the  that  q u e s t i o n i n g i s not a c h a l l e n g e but a c o n s t r u c t i v e e x e r c i s e , t h a t they do not have to worry about the words they are u s i n g , t h a t the o t h e r members w i l l not take advantage of v u l n e r a b l e situations.  Even when the t r u s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s ,  are o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s t h a t can a f f e c t the way about t h e i r work, and c o n s e q u e n t l y  researchers  there feel  t h e i r a b i l i t y to r e f l e c t i n  the group. Our  team was  the s i t e s , The  composed of graduate  students, t e a c h e r s  one u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s o r , and one  expert  in literacy.  d i f f e r e n c e s i n r o l e s , knowledge, and experience,  t h a t the f i e l d w o r k e r s were not r e a d i n g each o t h e r s ' s y s t e m a t i c a l l y promoted f e e l i n g s of i n s e c u r i t y , among the graduate t h a t f e e l i n g was  students.  They f e l t  from  and the notes  specifically  t h a t a way  of overcoming  to get feedback from the c o - i n v e s t i g a t o r s .  next quote i l l u s t r a t e s the i n s e c u r i t y of the graduate and t h e i r request f o r  fact  The  students  feedback.  MN:How do I know i f I'm doing the c o r r e c t t h i n g , I don't know. I need t h a t sense of someone s a y i n g you're on t r a c k or something l i k e t h a t . JD.If [the work i s ] good, what's so good about i t ? AT:Each of your notes, each s e t of notes i s d i f f e r e n t but not one b e t t e r than the o t h e r . People are l o o k i n g at v e r y d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s , and doing v e r y d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s , but i t doesn't mean t h a t somebody's got i t and somebody e l s e hasn't. L H . I ' l l speak f o r myself. I won't say "we." I need s t r o k e s . And a c t u a l l y b e i n g t o l d t h e r e are no problems i s n ' t the same as b e i n g t o l d something c o n s t r u c t i v e . I mean I would reduce i t t o a v e r y simple l e v e l . Because I t h i n k we've gone through t h i s s t u f f , I'm competent, I can do a l l t h i s s t u f f , but I s t i l l l i k e s t r o k e s . It's like  Ill  w r i t i n g a d i a l o g u e j o u r n a l , i t ' s f i n e to w r i t e a j o u r n a l , but you need feedback. AM:And a l t h o u g h we're a l l competent p r o f e s s i o n a l s , we s t i l l l i k e s t r o k e s , too. When you're grown up you don't get it. Following  the  e x p e r i e n c e of t h i s team I argue t h a t  important f o r r e s e a r c h work on a c o n t i n u a l  team members to r e c e i v e  basis.  i t is  feedback on  their  T h i s c o u l d h e l p team members d e a l  w i t h t h e i r d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s as such: d i f f e r e n t , not  better  or  worse. Conclusions Collaborative  teams go  through a p r o c e s s of b u i l d i n g t h e i r  working r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t a f f e c t s the researchers. p r o c e s s and  research  O v e r l o o k i n g these p r o c e s s e s can i t s consequent p r o d u c t .  are b u i l t d u r i n g  the  study and  energy so they are b u i l t  that  fieldworker  supported by  1)creating  i s u s e f u l t o the  3)making p r o v i s i o n s  project.  c o l l a b o r a t i v e team  can express more  team makes sense of the  to acknowledge team meetings as d a t a  and' t r a n s c r i b i n g the meetings, and  t h a t b u i l d on people's s t r e n g t h  and  connecting  advantages and  and  making p r o v i s i o n s  f o r that  inclusion  (or  data; by  structures and  5)evaluating  disadvantages of i n c l u d i n g l i a i s o n  as  the  t r u s t i n each o t h e r ,  g i v i n g continuous feedback t o r e s e a r c h e r s ;  intimate  team meetings  t r a n s c r i p t s t o the o t h e r sources of data; 4 ) c r e a t i n g  and  and  a space f o r each  r e f l e c t i o n s ; 2)regarding research  c o l l e c t i v e r e f l e c t i o n s where the  taping  relationships  t o r e f l e c t p r i v a t e l y , such as a p e r s o n a l j o u r n a l or a  separate set of f i e l d n o t e s i n which she f e e l i n g s and  research  time, a t t e n t i o n ,  In t h i s chapter I have suggested t h a t the b u i l d i n g can be  the  h i n d e r the  Collaborative  they r e q u i r e  i n a way  and  the  researchers,  exclusion).  112 When r e s e a r c h i s done b y a c o l l a b o r a t i v e important that  t o acknowledge t h e p a r t i c u l a r  are involved.  distinctive  characteristic  meetings as the time collective  where  chapter  the essence  processes  i tis  and  experiences  m e e t i n g s a p p e a r a s t h e most  o f team r e s e a r c h .  Regarding  the group m a t e r i a l i z e s ;  r e f l e c t i o n occurs,  understanding next  Basically,  team,  i s a necessary  of collaborative  I e l a b o r a t e on t h e i m p o r t a n c e  r e s e a r c h a s a s p e c i f i c and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  the  where  step towards  team r e s e a r c h .  In the  of acknowledging research  approach.  team  I I 5  CHAPTER S I X : CONCLUSIONS AND  In  this thesis  I have a r g u e d t h a t  t h r o u g h common work, a n d t h a t p r o c e s s has consequences chapter  I will  discuss  a more d e t a i l e d collaborative future  the conclusions present  practice,  the previous  chapters  i m p a c t s o f team r e s e a r c h . research  that  at t h i s point  differs  I tried  from o t h e r approaches. implies  Two m a i n f a c t o r s  differences: research,  collaborative  t h e meaning and  t o u n d e r s t a n d how team  approach i s taken.  I concluded that that  sections,  taking  the research  tasks  i f a more t r a d i t i o n a l characterise  relationships  are b u i l t  these during the  a n d t h e team a p p r o a c h a f f e c t s t h e p r o j e c t ' s  the following  I look a t each o f these  results.  statements i n  detail. Collaboration When r e s e a r c h e r s  i s a vision  embark o n a c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o j e c t ,  have i d e a s a b o u t how t h e y want t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s These i d e a s a r e based on assumptions work, a b o u t  respect  sharing  relationships these  deserve  a n d o p e n some q u e s t i o n s f o r  be d i f f e r e n t t h a n  about  In t h i s  some r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r  processes w i l l  more  project.  I have e x p l o r e d  a team a p p r o a c h t o d o i n g r e s e a r c h  In  i s built  embarking on a c o l l a b o r a t i v e  f o r the research  scrutiny,  research  collaboration  research.  In  and  RECOMMENDATIONS  ideals will  t o look.  about t h e v a l u e  o f group  f o r e a c h o t h e r a n d e a c h o t h e r ' s work, a n d  control. that  they  In turn,  these notions  researchers b u i l d during also  change,  influenced  influence the  the research.  by c o n t e x t u a l  But factors  114 and  by the n o t i o n s t h a t o t h e r team members b r i n g i n t o  collaborative relationships.  Collaborative  r e s u l t of continuous n e g o t i a t i o n s i n d i v i d u a l ideas,  and  p o s s i b i l i t i e s and  T h e r e f o r e , i t can be  s a i d that  r e l a t i o n s h i p s are  renegotiations  contextual  sure t h a t we  the  between  influences.  c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s both a v i s i o n  the p r o c e s s of t r y i n g to a c h i e v e t h a t v i s i o n . never be  the  And  and  because we  have a c h i e v e d the v i s i o n , we  keep  can  on  working towards i t . Collaborative research.  r e l a t i o n s h i p s are c o n s t r u c t e d  Each r e s e a r c h  collaborative structure  team needs t o work out t o f i n d the one  their  and  the  contextual  constraints.  Once  c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s are  context, one  acknowledge t h a t  its  context, and  the  and  understands t h a t can  the  own  that best s u i t s  shared v i s i o n of c o l l a b o r a t i o n , members' s k i l l s possibilities,  through  one  constructed  be p r e p a r e d  in a for  influence. Tom  (1995a) p o i n t s  influence  collaborative relationships.  team r e s e a r c h skills,  at f i v e elements of the  and  Settings  through i n s t i t u t i o n a l v a l u e s and the members and  on the  team.  the  ultimate  by c o n t r a c t  can  in  settings, relationships  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s imposed  The  t o put  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the  r e s t r i c t i o n s that a contract  influence  -  Contract s i t u a t i o n s also l i m i t  ways team members can p a r t i c i p a t e . member i s r e q u i r e d  that  T h i s t h e s i s shows t h a t  t h r e e elements are most important  confidentiality.  context  amount of time t h a t  i n t o the work, and  f i n a l product, are impose on  on the  each  the  some of  the  collaborative  r e l a t i o n s i n a team. Skill  i s another aspect of the  context t h a t  a f f e c t s the  way  115 r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l be c o n s t r u c t e d .  Each member b r i n g s her own  philosophy,  d e f i n i t i o n s , biases, expectations,  experiences  t o the team.  and p r e v i o u s  T h i s background frames members'  o p p o r t u n i t i e s and preparedness f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . p r o j e c t - s p e c i f i c knowledge and experience,  In terms of  most o f t h e time, a  p r o f e s s o r can b r i n g a r i c h e r background o f e x p e r i e n c e than a student,  f o r example.  Likewise,  i n research  a community member who  has been i n v o l v e d i n s e v e r a l s i m i l a r p r o j e c t s can b r i n g the v o i c e of experience The with,  t o a group o f graduate  students.  n o t i o n of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y t h a t team members a r e f a m i l i a r  and the g u i d e l i n e s t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n s r e q u i r e , i n f l u e n c e the  r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t u n i v e r s i t y members b u i l t w i t h researchers.  liaison  Because t r a d i t i o n a l understandings o f  c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y are d i f f i c u l t  t o s u s t a i n , team members c o n f r o n t  the c h a l l e n g e o f f i n d i n g a p p r o p r i a t e ways of d e a l i n g w i t h  ethical  g u i d e l i n e s from the academic i n s t i t u t i o n and w i t h p a r t i c i p a n t s preferences  and needs.  In team r e s e a r c h ,  the purpose o f the r e s e a r c h and the time  frame a f f e c t c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . aspects o f the context  d e s c r i b e d by Tom  But the o t h e r  three  (1995a), p l a y a more  s i g n i f i c a n t and d i r e c t r o l e i n i n f l u e n c i n g how team members w i l l r e l a t e t o each o t h e r . Working towards the v i s i o n I t has t o be noted t h a t what can be a p p r o p r i a t e  a t one p o i n t  i n the r e s e a r c h may prove t o be i n a p p r o p r i a t e a t a n o t h e r p o i n t . In the N a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y Demonstration P r o j e c t team, we began the r e s e a r c h w i t h one s e t o f r o l e s which proved t o be u n s u i t a b l e when we moved t o the a n a l y s i s stage.  Researchers must p l a n t o  116 accommodate changing r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w i t h i n the team. F l e x i b i l i t y has t o be planned i n t o the s t r u c t u r e s . flexibility  i s not a new  requirement  This  f o r ethnographic  projects.  As Hammersley and A t k i n s o n note, i n ethnographic d e s i g n s  "the  s t r a t e g y and even d i r e c t i o n of the r e s e a r c h can be changed relatively easily,  i n l i n e w i t h changing assessments  of what i s  r e q u i r e d by the p r o c e s s of t h e o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n " (1983, p. A s s e s s i n g the team's r e l a t i o n s c o u l d be understood aspect of the g e n e r a l assessment. r e s e a r c h p l a n and the way the r e s e a r c h p l a n are  as  24).  another  F l e x i b i l i t y t o change both the  team members work t o g e t h e r t o a c h i e v e  fundamental  to c o l l a b o r a t i v e  ethnographic  work. Some r e s e a r c h e r s ( L i g g e t t et a l . , 1994)  have not found i t  n e c e s s a r y t o d i s c u s s " c o l l a b o r a t i o n " t o be a b l e t o c o l l a b o r a t e w i t h each o t h e r .  I argue,  though, t h a t i t i s u s e f u l t o arrange  to have t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n s y s t e m a t i c a l l y through a continuous,  or  at l e a s t p e r i o d i c , r e f l e c t i o n on the team's c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and how situation.  the designed s t r u c t u r e s f i t the c u r r e n t  By making e x p e c t a t i o n s e x p l i c i t ,  n e g o t i a t e and d e s i g n new, d i s t r i b u t i o n of  team members can  more a p p r o p r i a t e , o r g a n i z a t i o n s and  responsibilities.  C e r t a i n p o i n t s i n the development of the r e s e a r c h are p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t times t o address the s t r u c t u r e s of collaborative relationships. seems t o be  At the b e g i n n i n g of the p r o j e c t i t  n e c e s s a r y t o acknowledge the c o n s t r a i n t s  and  freedoms t h a t the team as a whole has, and t o name the r o l e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r each team member.  Another  and  c r u c i a l time i n  r e s e a r c h , i s when most of the data c o l l e c t i o n i s done and  117 researchers  move i n t o a n i n t e n s i v e  team members s h o u l d have a b e t t e r and  o f t h e i r commitment  that  by t h i s p o i n t  a n a l y s i s phase. idea  At t h i s  of t h e i r object  t o the research.  Also,  i t may  team members' o u t - o f - t h e - t e a m d u t i e s  o f study, happen have  c h a n g e d a n d team members c o n s e q u e n t l y want t o c h a n g e t h e i r in  the project.  suitable  Writing  time t o r e v i s i t  b e e n done b e f o r e ,  among team members. results  i n journals  practical The of  the previous  structures  at t h i s point,  It  p a r t i c u l a r l y i f i t has  t o address d i f f e r e n c e s Academic r e s e a r c h e r s  o f t h e team.  i n needs and rewards  may n e e d t o p u b l i s h t h e  w h i l e p r a c t i t i o n e r s may n e e d a n o t h e r k i n d o f  resource. previous  research  events c a l l  suggestion of c r u c i a l  projects  discussion.  are  roles  up t h e r e s u l t s seems t o b e a n o t h e r  may a l s o p r o v e t o be u s e f u l not  time,  does n o t e l i m i n a t e  points other  i n t h e development times of  Teams go t h r o u g h d i f f e r e n t p h a s e s , f o r an honest  dialogue  and p a r t i c u l a r  a b o u t how t h e t e a m  structures  accommodating c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t h e p r o j e c t ' s  demands, a n d i n d i v i d u a l n e e d s . As  much a s c o l l a b o r a t i v e teams c a n accommodate d i f f e r e n t  perspectives, Otherwise,  team members h a v e t o a g r e e on some b a s i c  c o m p e t i n g a g e n d a s may become a m a j o r o b s t a c l e i n  collaborative  relationships.  Members who have more  than o t h e r s need t o r e a l i z e t h a t may mean t h a t  t h e y may h a v e t o l e t go o f some o f t h e i r  some p o i n t .  to  share r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and a u t h o r i t y  decision  authority  w o r k i n g on a c o l l a b o r a t i v e  at  group.  ideas.  There w i l l  almost  The p e r s o n w i t h g r e a t e r alone;  team  authority  c e r t a i n l y be a n i n c r e a s i n g  need  with the r e s t of the  authority  d o e s n o t make t h i s  a s t h e team m a t u r e s a n d c h a n g e s ,  t h e whole  team  monitors It  the process n e e d s t o be  collaborative  restricted  but by  institutional type  makes d e c i s i o n s  said,  a team c a n  work t o g e t h e r , is  and  the  too,  that contextual  become.  they  t h a t e a c h member c a n  the  differences, informal traditions,  and  higher  education  important  c a n n o t be referred She  denied. to t h i s  e x p l a i n e d how  I n one  an  team m e e t i n g ,  o b s t a c l e when t a l k i n g she  struggled with  build  by  amount  other and  have i n the p r o j e c t .  Status  present  how  can  can  b e t w e e n them a n d  Research contracts l i m i t  institutions  limit  students  relationship  t h e power d i f f e r e n t i a l  of p a r t i c i p a t i o n  factors  P r o f e s s o r s and  collaborative  factors.  together.  explicit  of  obstacle that  f o r example, about  policies  shared  Allison authorship.  that issue.  AT: And a c t u a l l y when y o u l o o k a t s h a r i n g a u t h o r s h i p on t h e r e p o r t s , I t h i n k t h e r e i s a d i s t o r t i o n i n my own t h i n k i n g which i s the f e a r about g e t t i n g t e n u r e . And t h e f a c t t h a t , oh! t h i s i s h o r r i b l e , t h i s r e p o r t i s n ' t g o i n g t o c o u n t a l l t h a t much on my t e n u r e d e c i s i o n anyway. Because i t ' s not r e f e r e e d and so i t comes i n as a l i t t l e c a t e g o r y t h a t i s v e r y low s t a t u s . But t h e n , t o c u t i t s s t a t u s a g a i n b y somebody s a y i n g , " W e l l she j u s t d i d t h i s w i t h a b u n c h o f s t u d e n t s , " i t ' s l i k e "When am I e v e r g o i n g t o g e t any o f t h e things that they count"! T h i s i s an i s s u e a b o u t t h e s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n w h i c h we do t h e k i n d o f work. Allison  was  d e s c r i b i n g how  collaborative Despite  relationships,  limits  constraints t h e way  institutions  puts  on  affect  collaborative  t o remember t h a t t h e r e  relationships limits,"  I am  t h a t teams and  people  i s always  C o l l a b o r a t i o n i s about p u s h i n g  t o make a s much s p a c e as p o s s i b l e f o r  collaborative the  that context  i t i s important  some s p a c e t o c h a n g e .  "pushing  of  work. the  restrictions  the v a l u e s  p e r c e i v e the  to develop not  and  succeed.  only referring  people  encounter.  space a v a i l a b l e  to  those  the When I  say  concrete  There are f o r change.  limits In  the  in  119  N a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y Demonstration P r o j e c t we had t o push the boundaries  of both the c o n t e x t s and our own c o n c e p t i o n s .  and A l l i s o n had t o make a c h o i c e between p r o d u c i n g  a r e p o r t with  t h e i r names, o r t o i n c l u d e the team members' names.  I, f o r  example, had t o change the way I p e r c e i v e d f a c u l t y ' s i n a r e s e a r c h team and understand  Hanna  involvement  t h a t they were l e a r n i n g w i t h  us. Doing r e s e a r c h i n a team a f f e c t s the p r o j e c t ' s r e s u l t s Doing team r e s e a r c h a f f e c t s the r e s e a r c h . p r i v a t e ' spaces,  Traditionally  such as f i e l d n o t e s , are shared and  the r e f l e x i v i t y i n f i e l d n o t e s changes.  consequently  Research team meetings,  though, a r e h i g h i n a c o l l e c t i v e k i n d of r e f l e x i v i t y .  This  r e f l e x i v i t y happens i n the i n t e r a c t i o n s among team members where ideas b u i l d on one another.  Therefore  i t i s c r u c i a l to regard  r e s e a r c h team meetings as fundamental elements of team r e s e a r c h . Research team meetings - the p l a c e where the team works together  - s h o u l d be acknowledged and p r o t e c t e d .  D i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s can be implemented t o acknowledge the team's space: a ) a l l o c a t i n g enough r e s o u r c e s t o the meetings, b) p r o t e c t i n g the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of c o n v e r s a t i o n s , c) p r o v i d i n g continuous  feedback, and d ) u s i n g r e s e a r c h team  meetings as data by t a p i n g and t r a n s c r i b i n g the t a p e s . A l l o c a t i n g enough r e s o u r c e s  f o r the meetings  In r e s e a r c h , time and money a r e s c a r c e and e a r l y p l a n n i n g and budgeting meetings.  a r e important  times  to protect resources f o r  In the data c o l l e c t i o n phase of the N a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y  Demonstration P r o j e c t , team meetings were p e r c e i v e d as an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e event.  From t h a t p e r s p e c t i v e , the d e s i g n d i d not  120 a n t i c i p a t e the need f o r the team t o meet more o f t e n than once or twice a month.  Once i t became e v i d e n t t h a t the r e s e a r c h team  meetings were the times when a l l of the r e s e a r c h o c c u r r e d i n a condensed form - data c o l l e c t i o n , reflection, were one  and  s y n t h e s i s - i t was  processes data a n a l y s i s ,  c l e a r t h a t the team meetings  of the p r o j e c t ' s p r i o r i t i e s .  It a l s o became c l e a r by then t h a t the team needed t o meet, not o n l y f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e purposes but f o r team b u i l d i n g purposes as w e l l .  I f c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s are  built  through the r e s e a r c h , then t h e r e have to be o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o build i t .  Research team meetings o f f e r one  central  opportunity  f o r team b u i l d i n g . Protecting  confidentiality  Research team meetings should be times where r e s e a r c h e r s f e e l f r e e t o comment on any event i d e a s without understand  concerns about how  these thoughts.  t r u s t i n g and  i n the f i e l d , people  s u p p o r t i v e environment.  and t o e l a b o r a t e  i n the f i e l d  T h i s c l i m a t e has  can  will  t o be p r o t e c t e d as a  Conversation,  discussions,  and o p i n i o n s should be kept w i t h i n the r e s e a r c h team members and not f i l t e r t o p a r t i c i p a n t s o r the s i t e i n any  way.  M a i n t a i n i n g t h i s k i n d of environment can be a problem when the team i n c l u d e s p a r t i c i p a n t s from the f i e l d .  The  presence of  l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s i n the N a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y Demonstration P r o j e c t made some of the o t h e r f i e l d w o r k e r s f e e l t h a t t h e r e  was  no c l e a r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between b e i n g i n the f i e l d and b e i n g i n the r e s e a r c h team meetings. reflect  i n the meetings.  The  T h i s i n t u r n a f f e c t e d the freedom t o b e n e f i t s and drawbacks of i n c l u d i n g  p a r t i c i p a n t s must be c a r e f u l l y weighed.  121 P r o v i d i n g continuous  feedback  When people work t o g e t h e r they tend t o compare t h e i r work. T h i s may  g i v e r i s e t o f e e l i n g s of i n s e c u r i t y .  p a r t i c u l a r l y important faculty.  when the team i s formed by s t u d e n t s  i t i s understood  t h a t she i s more knowledgeable  e x p e r i e n c e d than the s t u d e n t s . f a c u l t y member who  and  Most of the time i t i s the  p r o v i d e s the s t a n d a r d of what i s good work.  these cases s y s t e m a t i c and continuous  f a c u l t y member may  be a way  the q u a l i t y of t h e i r work. ongoing  and  The p r o f e s s o r h o l d s a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the s t u d e n t s '  l e a r n i n g and  In  This i s  feedback  from  the  of r e a s s u r i n g student r e s e a r c h e r s of It also provides opportunities f o r  d i s c u s s i o n s of r e s e a r c h methodology and the c o n t i n u a l  improvement of a l l team members' r e s e a r c h s k i l l s . Use  of the r e s e a r c h team meetings I have argued  t h a t r e s e a r c h team meetings are the  f i e l d n o t e s of the team. these spaces  collective  U s i n g r e s e a r c h team meetings means t h a t  are acknowledged as team b u i l d i n g times.  But,  as i n  any o t h e r f i e l d n o t e s , the content of the meetings i s p a r t of the data and a n a l y s i s t h a t the p r o j e c t uses.  These  though, are i n the form of c o n v e r s a t i o n s .  fieldnotes,  Therefore, i t i s  n e c e s s a r y t o f i n d a p p r o p r i a t e ways of r e c o r d i n g them t o make sure t h a t they are used. experience was  Taking minutes might be an o p t i o n .  t h a t t h i s was  difficult.  Unless the minute t a k e r  i s e x p e r i e n c e d i n t h a t task, a l o t of d i s c u s s i o n s can be It  i s also d i f f i c u l t  what i s important to  Our  lost.  t o make d e c i s i o n s d u r i n g the meeting about  and what i s not.  p a r t i c i p a t e and take minutes,  In a d d i t i o n ,  i t is difficult  so the minute t a k e r ' s  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the meeting i s d i m i n i s h e d .  Taping the meetings  122 a p p e a r s t o be,  at t h i s  point,  t h e most e f f i c i e n t  way  of  recording  the d i s c u s s i o n s . The  literature  on  collaborative research  c o l l a b o r a t i o n between academic r e s e a r c h e r s community members m o s t l y (Gitlin, include  1990,  Lather,  those  t o be  1986,  1991)  i t i s about.  rigorous  analyzed  But  i n terms of  research.  Not  c o l l a b o r a t i o n presents addressing this the  and  the  Project  research  present  other  that  explored  call  s e c t i o n I look of  Second,  I open q u e s t i o n s  potential  individual  The  research  form of the  that  itself  and  that By  can  strengthen  f o r more  next  some o f  paragraph  I  need t o  be  research. research still  problem of d e a l i n g w i t h  about  the  i n the  First,  taped  d i f f e r e n c e s between  t o knowledge.  Finally  I  I  data.  team describe  educational processes  that  teams i n v o l v e .  data  g a i n most b e n e f i t f r o m t h e  suggested  In the  some t o p i c s t h a t  I have a r g u e d t h a t r e s e a r c h order  challenges  t h e s i s I have a d d r e s s e d  to future  at  claims  future research  collaborative  should  thinking  c o l l a b o r a t i v e team r e s e a r c h .  the methodological  and  the  researchers  to deal with.  present  claims  of  authors  the N a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y Demonstration  team had  area  nature  make them d i s a p p e a r .  In t h i s  problems t h a t  i n the  These  or  therefore collaboration also  problems,  Contributions In t h i s  practitioners  i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n to meaningful  does not  r e s e a r c h approach.  f o r more  argue t h a t r e s e a r c h  acknowledging the  naming t h e  complications  and  from a moral p e r s p e c t i v e .  c h a n g e s i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e work, and has  argues  t a p i n g the  team m e e t i n g s h a v e t o be team a p p r o a c h .  m e e t i n g s seems t o be  I have the  most  used  also  in  123 a p p r o p r i a t e way  of c a p t u r i n g these i n t e r a c t i o n s .  not recommended any p a r t i c u l a r way data.  So f a r , I have  of d e a l i n g w i t h the  taped  I do not t h i n k t h i s i s a q u e s t i o n t h a t has been  fully  addressed  i n terms of advantages and disadvantages.  I d i d not  use t r a n s c r i p t i o n s t o a n a l y z e the data f o r t h i s t h e s i s , support t h a t d e c i s i o n I have argued  and  to  t h a t t h e r e i s no reason t o  b e l i e v e t h a t e i t h e r t r a n s c r i p t s o r tapes are "more r e a l " than other.  They are both forms of r e p r e s e n t i n g the d a t a .  U s i n g taped data opened new how  the  t o a n a l y z e data.  c h a l l e n g e s and q u e s t i o n s about  By keeping the data i n i t s " o r i g i n a l "  form,  I gained the r i c h n e s s of the c o n v e r s a t i o n s , tones, i n t o n a t i o n s , accents, and even t e n s i o n s t h a t o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the For example, when a c o n v e r s a t i o n stopped  meetings.  f o r a few minutes,  c o u l d i n t e r p r e t t h a t s i l e n c e a c c o r d i n g t o the tones and t h a t were b e i n g d i s c u s s e d .  I "felt  s i l e n c e s are not  usually  the meeting" when l i s t e n i n g t o  the tapes and heard i t s sounds, n o i s e s and I a l s o f a c e d some r e a l c h a l l e n g e s . very complicated.  topics  I c o u l d not have done t h a t w i t h  t r a n s c r i p t i o n s because i n t r a n s c r i p t s , e f f e c t i v e l y represented.  I  rhythms.  H a n d l i n g taped data i s  In p r a c t i c a l terms, r e t r i e v i n g a  paragraph  from a t r a n s c r i p t i o n can be much e a s i e r than f i n d i n g a s p e c i f i c p o r t i o n of a tape, e s p e c i a l l y i f the technology one uses i s primitive.  I spent e n d l e s s hours g o i n g through the tapes  to f i n d p a r t i c u l a r d i s c u s s i o n s , sentences,  or  trying  interactions.  In a d d i t i o n , because I have been t r a i n e d i n the t r a d i t i o n of w r i t t e n ethnography I was  i n s e c u r e about a n a l y z i n g taped  data.  Ethnography i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y a methodology t h a t uses w r i t i n g w r i t t e n notes as i t s main source of d a t a .  I found  myself  and  124 transcribing accurate  parts of interactions  t o make s u r e  q u e s t i o n o f how t o a n a l y z e  taped  data  l a r g e r d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t what i s c o n s i d e r e d  it  explored  this  research.  examination  Would we h a v e  the meetings?"  still  remains.  forms i s s t i l l  and i n t e r p r e t  tapes?  What do we g a i n ?  that p o i n t t o areas  tones?  Is i t the had I v i d e o that  data  i s our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  an open q u e s t i o n .  How  data  that  do we  What do we l o s e when we t r a n s c r i b e  These a r e a l l i n t e r e s t i n g  questions  not y e t explored.  research conclusions?  lies  data  this  claims  interpretations questions  point  underlying  B u t how t o i n t e r p r e t  How a r e team r e s e a r c h c l a i m s individual  At t h i s  The c h a l l e n g e o f i n t e r p r e t i n g  capture  Team r e s e a r c h  Two.  I have  and s u g g e s t i o n s f o r  'more a c c u r a t e '  and i n t e r a c t i o n s .  i n different  t o be d a t a .  Is i t the tapes?  Ultimately, the data  words,  i s part of a  I believe the basic questions  taped  events,  some q u e s t i o n s  a r e "what i s d a t a ?  transcripts?  is  d i s c u s s i o n i n Chapter  i s relevant t o present  future  an  analysis.  The  briefly  I was d o i n g  and a n a l y s e s ? i n the i n c l u s i o n  t o knowledge d i f f e r e n t  from  What do teams b r i n g t o  One c r i t i c a l  response  t o these  of multiple perspectives.  In a  r e s e a r c h team where a l l t h e team members a r e l o o k i n g a t t h e same problem, understanding view.  i s e n r i c h e d by the m u l t i p l e p o i n t s o f  But t h e r e a r e s t i l l  questions  a b o u t how t h o s e  perspectives  c o n v e r g e i n t o w h o l e r e s e a r c h c o n c l u s i o n s , a n d how t h o s e are d i f f e r e n t individual and  claims  f r o m an e n u m e r a t i o n o f t h e c l a i m s o f e a c h  team member.  W i t h t h e emergence o f p o s t m o d e r n  i t s e m p h a s i s on m u l t i p l e r e a l i t i e s  thought  a n d p e r s p e c t i v e s , team  125 research  may  become a i n t e g r a l p a r t of the paradigm, a  fundamental r e s e a r c h Educational  approach.  a s p e c t s i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e team  This t h e s i s also reveals  research  another area f o r f u t u r e  the e d u c a t i o n a l  processes within  believe  need t o r e g a r d c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h  t h a t we  of e d u c a t i o n a l  practice.  c o l l a b o r a t i v e research.  Relationships  The  more use  chance the  we  c o n s t i t u t i o n of a working group, the students, and  the  i n c l u s i o n of the  are a l l p o t e n t i a l e d u c a t i o n a l c a r e f u l l y and How  do  to succeed.  By  team members, i t may  team  planned  What are  Can  What do  we  the  teach  researchers  trained  need t o l e a r n to work t o g e t h e r  looking  at c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among  be p o s s i b l e  n e c e s s a r y i n team r e s e a r c h .  graduate  attention.  e f f e c t i v e team members?  collaboratively?  better  researched i n a research  c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s get b u i l t ?  on t h e i r own  the  p r o c e s s e s t h a t have t o be  given thoughtful  t o do r e s e a r c h  are  The  involvement of  s k i l l s t h a t people need t o be p a r t of a team? people to be  I  opportunities  make of these o p p o r t u n i t i e s ,  c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s has  -  as a form  between people  consequences of shared p r o c e s s e s where l e a r n i n g exist.  research  to i d e n t i f y s k i l l s  Researchers c o u l d  and  then be  abilities trained in  these t a s k s t o become more e f f e c t i v e team members. These q u e s t i o n s p o i n t c o l l a b o r a t i v e research: described  how  at another e d u c a t i o n a l do we  i n t h i s t h e s i s c o u l d be  graduate s t u d e n t s i n r e s e a r c h . fieldworkers way  teach research? studied  What are the  The  of  project  as a model of t r a i n i n g  What are the  l e a r n i n t h i s environment?  of l e a r n i n g them?  aspect  skills  Is t h i s an  that appropriate  advantages of l e a r n i n g t o  do  126 research  i n a real  r e s e a r c h team i n c o n t r a s t t o t a k i n g c o u r s e s  r e s e a r c h methodology? graduate  students  Being Project  affected  us,  our  authentic  The on  processes  project  the  team.  the p r o j e c t ,  between t h e i r  and  to  their  of  do  in  From my  are the  the  and  But  h a v e t o be at the  from,  their  So  What a r e  help  the  the  teams?  the  "research  and  find  researched  ways  i n teams  in research s k i l l s .  acknowledging  as v a l i d  as  involvement  the  way  a c a d e m i c way  of  of the  issue i n  researched?  How  that t h e i r  does t h a t involvement the  hours  forces influence  behaviour,  them i s a c r u c i a l  involving  and  energy  what a r e  i n research  I t can  trained  but  advisor  roles?  own  same t i m e  what f o r m  consequences of  lose?  including  p e r s p e c t i v e , the  But  research.  tool.  their  tried  graduate  to s p l i t  students  they  roles:  she  c o u l d work l i m i t e d  s o m e t h i n g works, what  r e s e a r c h t h a t i s about  investigation.  a f f e c t e d by h a v i n g  out-of-the-team  how  knowing i s d i f f e r e n t  knowing?  also  What do  situation.  that while  different  students  of  and  s t r u g g l e d as  f i e l d w o r k e r s had  context  means t h a t t h e y w i l l  also  students.  f o r most  i n a concrete  two  i s also a powerful  change t h e i r  do we  the  as  an i n v a l u a b l e  from  Graduate  their  understand  direct  a l s o had  Allison  i n c l u d i n g graduate  r e p e r c u s s i o n s on  and  was  students gain?  subjects"  we  academic t a s k s and  consequences of  Research  that i t delayed,  learned research s k i l l s  those  employer.  What do  But  research project.  support  students  we  including  Demonstration  students' performance  c o n s e q u e n c e was  degree completion.  experience;  of  i n r e s e a r c h teams?  the graduate  most a p p a r e n t  for  y e t , what i s t h e e f f e c t  f i e l d w o r k e r s i n the N a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y  The  to  And  on  researched any  assume? Can  we  What  include  127 them a s t e a m members w i t h o u t  acknowledging the d i f f e r e n c e s ?  do we e n s u r e t h a t t h e y p a r t i c i p a t e research tasks?  fully  i n the different  What a r e t h e l e a r n i n g t a s k s i n v o l v e d i n w o r k i n g  a c r o s s u n i v e r s i t y / community - p a r t i c i p a n t c u l t u r e s ? all  How  e x c i t i n g questions  that I intend to explore  These a r e  i n the future.  D e c i d i n g t o do c o l l a b o r a t i v e team r e s e a r c h i s n o t s i m p l y doing  r e s e a r c h b y e x i s t i n g m e t h o d s w i t h more p e o p l e .  d i f f e r e n t methodology. "solo"  research.  of these  as teams.  R e s e a r c h done b y a t e a m i s d i f f e r e n t  from  I n t h i s t h e s i s I have a t t e m p t e d t o e x p l o r e  some  characteristics.  create working  It i sa  People  relationships.  I t i s c l e a r then,  need time  and o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o  Teams n e e d t i m e  t o emerge a n d w o r k  t h a t i f one e m b a r k s o n a t e a m  r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t , one n e e d s t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e p e c u l i a r i t i e s o f the methodology and take advantage o f t h e d i s t i n c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f ' a group working  together,  collaborative,  research.  and i t i s n o t team  otherwise  i t i s not  128  Bibliographical  References  B l u n t , A. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . The f u t u r e o f a d u l t e d u c a t i o n r e s e a r c h . Randy G a r r i s o n (Ed.) R e s e a r c h P e r s p e c t i v e s i n A d u l t Education, (pp. 1 6 7 - 2 0 9 ) . Florida: Krieger. Bond, G. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . F i e l d n o t e s : Research i n past R. S a n j e k (Ed.) F i e l d n o t e s , (pp. 2 7 3 - 2 8 9 ) . University.  In  occurrences. In New Y o r k : C o r n e l l  Brown, L. D. & Tandon, R. (1983) . I d e o l o g y and p o l i t i c a l economy i n i n q u i r y : A c t i o n r e s e a r c h and p a r t i c i p a t o r y r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e , 19, 277-294. B u r g e s s , R., P o l e , C , E v a n s , K. & P r i e s t l e y , C. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . Four s t u d i e s f r o m one o r one s t u d y f r o m f o u r ? M u l t i - s i t e case study research. I n A. Bryman & R. G. B u r g e s s ( E d s . ) , A n a l y z i n g Q u a l i t a t i v e D a t a (pp. 12 8-145). London: Routledge. Cazden, C. B. ( 1 9 8 3 ) : Can e t h n o g r a p h y go b e y o n d t h e s t a t u s A n t h r o p o l o g y and E d u c a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 14 ( 1 ) , 33-41.  quo?  C l i f t , R., J o h n s o n , M., H o l l a n d , P., V e a l , M.L. (1992). Developing the p o t e n t i a l f o r c o l l a b o r a t i v e s c h o o l l e a d e r s h i p . A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l , 29 ( 4 ) , 877-908. C o l e , A. & K n o w l e s , G. ( 1 9 9 3 ) . Teacher development p a r t n e r s h i p r e s e a r c h : A f o c u s on methods and i s s u e s . American Educational R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l , 30 ( 3 ) , 473-495. Cowie, H. & Rudduck, J . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . L e a r n i n g f r o m one a n o t h e r : The challenge. I n H.C. F o o t , M. J . Morgan, & R. H. S h u t e (Eds.) C h i l d r e n h e l p i n g c h i l d r e n , (pp. 2 3 5 - 2 5 5 ) . New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y & Sons. Crow, G,M., L e v i n e , L., & N a g e r , N. ( 1 9 9 2 ) . Are t h r e e heads b e t t e r t h a n one? R e f l e c t i o n s on d o i n g c o l l a b o r a t i v e i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y research. American E d u c a t i o n a l Research Journal, 29(4) D o i s e , W. (1990) . The d e v e l o p m e n t o f i n d i v i d u a l c o m p e t e n c i e s . through s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . I n H. C. F o o t , M. J . Morgan, & R. H. S h u t e (Eds.) C h i l d r e n h e l p i n g c h i l d r e n , (pp. 4 3 - 6 4 ) . New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y & Sons D u d l e y , N. ( 1 9 9 2 ) . P a r t i c i p a t o r y p r i n c i p l e s i n human i n q u i r y : e t h i c s and methods i n a s t u d y o f t h e p a r a d i g m s h i f t experience. Q u a l i t a t i v e S t u d i e s i n E d u c a t i o n , 5 ( 4 ) , 325-344. E i s n e r , E. ( 1 9 9 2 ) . O b j e c t i v i t y i n educational C u r r i c u l u m I n q u i r y , 22 ( 1 ) , 9-15.  research.  129 F i n g e r e t , H., Tom, A., D y e r , P., M o r l e y , A., Dawson, J . , H a r p e r , L., L e e , D., Mc.Cue, M. & N i k s , M. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . L i v e s o f Change: An e t h n o g r a p h i c e v a l u a t i o n o f two l e a r n e r - c e n t r e d a d u l t l i t e r a c y programs. F l o r i o - R u a n e , S. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . The w r i t t e n l i t e r a c y f o r u m : An a n a l y s i s of t e a c h e r / r e s e a r c h e r c o l l a b o r a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f C u r r i c u l u m S t u d i e s . 22 ( 4 ) , 313-328. F u j i s a k a , S. & G r a y z e l , J . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . of divergent ethnographic s t y l e s O r g a n i z a t i o n , 37, 173-179.  Partnership research: i n prison fieldwork.  A case Human  G e e r t z , C. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . T h i c k d e s c r i p t i o n : Toward a n i n t e r p r e t i v e theory of culture. I n G e e r t z , C l i f f o r d , The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f c u l t u r e s (pp. 3-32) . New Y o r k : B a s i c B o o k s . G i b s o n , M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . C o l l a b o r a t i v e Educational Ethnography. Problems and p r o f i t s . A n t h r o p o l o g y and E d u c a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 16., 124-148. G i t l i n , A. D. (1990). E d u c a t i v e r e s e a r c h , v o i c e , and s c h o o l change. H a r v a r d E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 60 ( 4 ) , 443-466. Guba, E . G., & L i n c o l n , Y. S. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . Competing paradigms i n q u a l i t a t i v e research. I n Norman D e n z i n a n d Y v o n n a L i n c o l n (Eds.) Handbook o f q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h , (pp. 1 0 5 - 1 1 7 ) . C a l i f o r n i a : Sage. Hammersley, M. & A t k i n s o n , P. (1983) . i n p r a c t i c e . R o u t l e d g e : New Y o r k .  Ethnography:  Principles  H e s h u s i u s , L. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . F r e e i n g o u r s e l v e s from o b j e c t i v i t y : M a n a g i n g s u b j e c t i v i t y o r t u r n i n g t o w a r d a p a r t i c i p a t o r y mode of consciousness. E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h e r , 23 ( 3 ) , 15-22. H o l l i n g s w o r t h , S. ( 1 9 9 2 ) . Learning t o teach through c o l l a b o r a t i v e conversation: A f e m i n i s t approach. American E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l , 29 ( 2 ) , 373-404. Huberman, M. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . L i n k a g e between r e s e a r c h e r s and p r a c t i t i o n e r s : A q u a l i t a t i v e study. American E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l , 27 ( 2 ) , 363-392. J a c k s o n , J . (1990). " I am a f i e l d n o t e " : F i e l d n o t e s a s a symbol of p r o f e s s i o n a l i d e n t i t y . I n R. S a n j e k ( E d . ) , F i e l d n o t e s , (pp. 3-33) . New Y o r k : C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y . J o h n s t o n , M. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . E x p e r i e n c e and r e f l e c t i o n s on c o l l a b o r a t i v e research. International Journal of Q u a l i t a t i v e studies i n E d u c a t i o n , 3 ( 2 ) , 173-183.  130 K e l l y , D. M. ( 1 9 9 3 ) . Secondary power source: High s c h o o l students as p a r t i c i p a t o r y r e s e a r c h e r s . The American S o c i o l o g i s t , S p r i n g 1993, 8-25. Kyle, D. & McCutcheon, G. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . C o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h : Development and i s s u e s . Interchange, 1JL(4) , 2 6 - 4 9 . Marcus, G. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . What comes (just) a f t e r "post"? In Norman Denzin and Yvonna L i n c o l n (Eds.) Handbook of q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h , (pp. 5 6 3 - 5 7 4 ) . C a l i f o r n i a : Sage.  -  McLaren, P. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . F i e l d r e l a t i o n s and the d i s c o u r s e of the o t h e r : C o l l a b o r a t i o n i n our own r u i n . In W i l l i a m S h a f f e r & Robert S t e b b i n s (Eds.) E x p e r i e n c i n g Fieldwork, (pp. 1 4 9 - 1 6 3 ) . C a l i f o r n i a : . Sage. McMillan, J . H. & Schumacher, S., 1989. Research i n E d u c a t i o n . A conceptual i n t r o d u c t i o n . USA: Harper C o l l i n s Lather, P. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Issues of v a l i d i t y i n openly i d e o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h : Between a rock and s o f t p l a c e . Interchange, 17, 63-84. Lather, P. with/in  ( 1 9 9 1 ) . G e t t i n g smart: Feminist r e s e a r c h the postmodern. New York: Routledge  and  pedagogy  L i g g e t t , A. M., Glesne, C. E., Johnston, A. P., Brody H a s a z i , & Schattman, R. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . Teaming i n q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h : Lessons l e a r n e d . I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Q u a l i t a t i v e S t u d i e s i n Education, 7, 7 7 - 8 8 .  S.,  Olesen, V., Droes, N., Hatton, D., Chico. N., & Schatzman, L. (1994). A n a l y z i n g t o g e t h e r : r e c o l l e c t i o n of a team approach. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), A n a l y z i n g Q u a l i t a t i v e Data (pp. 1 1 1 - 1 2 8 ) . London: Routledge. Ottenberg, S. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . T h i r t y y e a r s of f i e l d n o t e s : r e l a t i o n s h i p s to the t e x t . In R. Sanjek (Ed.), (pp. 1 3 9 - 1 6 0 ) . New York: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y .  Changing Fieldnotes  •Porter, M. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . 'Second-hand ethnography': Some problems i n analyzing a feminist project. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), A n a l y z i n g Q u a l i t a t i v e Data (pp. 6 7 - 8 8 ) . London: Routledge. Reason, P. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . Three approaches to p a r t i c i p a t i v e i n q u i r y . In Norman Denzin and Yvonna L i n c o l n (Eds.) Handbook of q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h , (pp. 3 2 4 - 3 3 9 ) . C a l i f o r n i a : Sage. Sanjek, R. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . A v o c a b u l a r y f o r f i e l d n o t e s . In R. Sanjek (Ed.) F i e l d n o t e s (pp. 9 2 - 1 2 1 ) . New York: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y . Sanjek, R. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . F i e l d n o t e s and o t h e r s . In R. Sanjek (Ed.) F i e l d n o t e s (pp. 324-340) . New York: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y .  131 S c h e n s u l , J . J . & S c h e n s u l , S.L. (1992). Collaborative research: Methods o f i n q u i r y f o r s o c i a l change. I n M. D. Le Compte, W.L. M i l l r o , & J . P r e i s s l e (Eds.) Q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h i n e d u c a t i o n (pp. 1 6 1 - 2 0 0 ) . New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s I n c . Harcourt Brace J a r a n o v i c h . Tom,  A. ( 1 9 9 5 a ) . Planning f o r collaboration i n q u a l i t a t i v e research. Manuscript submitted f o r p u b l i c a t i o n .  Tom, A. ( 1 9 9 5 b ) . Collaborative Unpublished manuscript. Tom,  A. ( 1 9 9 5 c ) . t a l k i n g about manuscript.  The d e l i b e r a t e faculty-student  intent  i n ethnographic research.  relationship: A relationships.  frame f o r Unpublished  Tom, A., F i n g e r e t , H., N i k s , M., Dawson, J . , D y e r , P., Harper, L., L e e , D., McCue, M. & M o r l e y , A. (1994). Suspended i n a web o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s : C o l l a b o r a t i v e e t h n o g r a p h i c e v a l u a t i o n . Tom, A. & S o r k , T. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . Issues i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e research. In Randy G a r r i s o n (Ed.) R e s e a r c h P e r s p e c t i v e s i n A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , (pp. 3 9 - 5 6 ) . Florida: Krieger. T r o y n a , B. & F o s t e r , P. (1988) . C o n c e p t u a l and e t h i c a l d i l e m m a s o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h : R e f l e c t i o n s on a c a s e s t u d y . E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 4 0 ( 3 ) , 289-299. V i d i c h , A. J . , & Lyman, S. M. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . Q u a l i t a t i v e methods: h i s t o r y i n s o c i o l o g y and a n t h r o p o l o g y . I n Norman D e n z i n Y v o n n a L i n c o l n (Eds.) Handbook o f q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h . C a l i f o r n i a : Sage.  Their and  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098941/manifest

Comment

Related Items