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 Licentiate i n Sciences of Education, Universidad de Buenos Aires, 1988 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDENTS (Department of Educational Studies) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required 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 thesis I explore the relationships i n a c o l l a b o r a t i v e research team and how the team approach influenced research tasks and r e s u l t s . To do t h i s analysis I draw from my experience as a team member i n an ethnographic evaluation of two exemplary adult education programs. The research team's meeting tapes were used as the major source of data. Through an analysis of the audio taped conversations and discussions I reconstructed 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 that were established i n the research team. As a r e s u l t of t h i s analysis, I argue that c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s not a given; research teams become more co l l a b o r a t i v e during the shared work. Collaboration i s a v i s i o n , an i d e a l that guides the team i n b u i l d i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s and working together. This i d e a l i s influenced by contextual factors - purpose, settings, s k i l l s , time, and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . To describe the concept of c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n a concrete manner, I present a characterization of roles and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n the team and how those changed at d i f f e r e n t stages i n the research. I conclude that doing team research i s d i f f e r e n t from more t r a d i t i o n a l approaches to research. B a s i c a l l y , r e f l e x i v i t y - a constant and rigorous scrutiny of methodology, researcher, and context - changes when t r a d i t i o n a l l y private spaces, such as fieldnotes, become public. Collaborative team bu i l d i n g can be supported by 1)creating a space fo r each fieldworker to r e f l e c t p r i v a t e l y ; 2)regarding research team meetings as c o l l e c t i v e r e f l e c t i o n s where the team makes sense of the data; 3)making provisions to acknowledge team meetings as data by taping and t r a n s c r i b i n g the meetings, and connecting the I l l t r a n s c r i p t s to other sources of data; 4 ) c r e a t i n g structures that b u i l d on people's strength and trust i n each other, and giving continuous feedback to researchers; and 5)evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of in c l u d i n g l i a i s o n researchers, and making provisions f o r that i n c l u s i o n (or exclusion). My main conclusion i s that deciding to do c o l l a b o r a t i v e team research i s not simply doing research by e x i s t i n g methods with more people. It i s a d i f f e r e n t methodology. Therefore, i f one embarks on a team research project, one needs to acknowledge the p e c u l i a r i t i e s of the approach and take advantage of the benefits of a group working together, otherwise i t i s not collaborative, and i t i s not team research. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS A b s t r a c t i i Table of Contents i v Acknowledgements v i D e d i c a t i o n v i i Chapter One S i t u a t i n g the study 1 Focus of the t h e s i s 3 The eth n o g r a p h i c e v a l u a t i o n 5 C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f t h i s t h e s i s 7 The s t r u c t u r e o f the t h e s i s 9 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 10 Chapter Two L i t e r a t u r e review 14 O b j e c t i v i t y and s u b j e c t i v i t y 15 The r o l e o f r e f l e x i v i t y 17 Researchers p o s i t i o n s themselves 21 Researchers work w i t h o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s 23 C o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h 26 A framework f o r team r e s e a r c h 3 0 Purpose 31 S e t t i n g 31 S k i l l s 35 Time 3 7 C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y 37 Ad u l t e d u c a t i o n and team r e s e a r c h 3 8 Chapter Three Methodology 42 Team members 4 2 The data 47 A n a l y s i s 48 Taped Data 4 9 Researcher and s u b j e c t 52 M u l t i p l e r o l e s 53 C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y 57 Chapter Four The pro c e s s o f becoming a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team 59 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 c o l l a b o r a t i o n 61 The team as i t began 63 F a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the c o n s t i t u t i o n of the team 63 S e t t i n g s 64 Time 6 6 S k i l l s 67 Roles and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 68 The c r i s i s at Isadora's 72 Isadora's 73 V Understanding the c r i s i s 77 New s t r u c t u r e s 81 C o n c l u s i o n s 86 Chapter F i v e P u b l i c and p r i v a t e spaces: Impact of the c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s on the r e s e a r c h 90 Pandora's box 91 Research team meetings 94 T h r e a t s to r e f l e x i v i t y i n r e s e a r c h team meetings 97 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 97 C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y 98 The presence of the f i e l d 101 V u l n e r a b i l i t y , comparison, and t r u s t 104 P r o t e c t i n g r e s e a r c h team meetings 107 C o n c l u s i o n s 111 Chapter S i x C o n c l u s i o n s and recommendations 113 C o l l a b o r a t i o n i s a v i s i o n 113 Working towards the v i s i o n 115 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 119 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 119 P r o t e c t i n g c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y 120 P r o v i d i n g continuous feedback 121 Use of the r e s e a r c h team meetings 121 C o n t r i b u t i o n s to f u t u r e r e s e a r c h 122 The form of the data 122 Team r e s e a r c h c l a i m s 124 E d u c a t i o n a l a s p e c t s i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e team r e s e a r c h 125 B i b l i o g r a p h i c a l References 128 v i Acknowledgements T h i s t h e s i s i s one of many products of y e a r s of study and work. During these y e a r s I have found guidance and support i n t h r e e t e a c h e r s , and I want t o use t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o thank them. Ruth Harf 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 of l e a r n i n g . M a r ia T e r e s a S i r v e n t l e d me i n t o the world of e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . From her I l e a r n e d about r i g o r o u s knowledge and hard work. She a l s o h e l p e d me l i n k my work to i d e o l o g i c a l commitments and to s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l problems. A l l i s o n Tom p l a y e d a major r o l e i n my Canadian e d u c a t i o n and i n the 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 t h e s i s . She i n t r o d u c e d me t o Ethnography, she supported me and my i d e a s even when i t meant q u e s t i o n i n g her own, and she encouraged me when the v i s i o n of b e i n g f i n i s h e d seemed too f a r away. She a l s o gave me the g i f t of an example 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 good s c h o l a r and a good mother. Every student who has gone through the hard p r o c e s s of w r i t i n g a t h e s i s knows t h a t t h i s would be an i m p o s s i b l e t a s k i f i t was not supported by her 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 husband - p a r t n e r , f r i e n d - and my son have been a c o n s t a n t source of support and encouragement. I l o v e them f o r t h a t . My f a m i l y , back i n A r g e n t i n a , has been w a i t i n g l o n g t o see " l a t e s i s . " A l though I doubt t h a t they w i l l ever r e a d i t , I know t h a t they are proud and happy f o r me. T h e i r good wishes always comforted me. My f e l l o w team members have been extremely u n d e r s t a n d i n g . They never complained about 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 - and have responded p a t i e n t l y t o a l l my r e q u e s t s . T h i s t h e s i s c o u l d not have been w r i t t e n i f i t had not been f o r t h e i r thoughts, words, and e x p e r i e n c e s , and I want to thank them f o r t h a t . G r a c i a s ! v i i I dedicate t h i s thes i s to Pat, My academic buddy, My Canadian f r i e n d . I CHAPTER ONE: SITUATING THE STUDY Between 1992 and 1994, I p a r t i c i p a t e d 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 r e s e a r c h , an e v a l u a t i o n of two a d u l t l i t e r a c y programs i n the Vancouver area. T h i s was not my f i r s t e x p e r i e n c e on a r e s e a r c h team. I had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n r e s e a r c h teams b e f o r e , i n my home country, A r g e n t i n a . But t h i s was my f i r s t e xperience w i t h a r e s e a r c h team i n Canada. Being p a r t of t h i s team was a p a r t i c u l a r l y important e x p e r i e n c e f o r me. I had been p a r t of t a l k s and conferences where I c o u l d not f i n d evidence of i n t e r e s t i n team work or r e s e a r c h teams. And I had thought t h a t team work was not going t o be an o p t i o n f o r my academic c a r e e r i n North America. When I was asked to be p a r t of t h i s r e s e a r c h team I was happy I had found a group of people w i t h whom I c o u l d work i n the way I f e e l I work b e s t . D u r i n g the two years we worked t o g e t h e r I had the o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e f l e c t on and q u e s t i o n my own b i a s e s , b e l i e f s , and i d e o l o g y about team work. I l e a r n e d new ways of r e l a t i n g t o o t h e r people i n working r e l a t i o n s . And I a p p r e c i a t e d the importance t h a t b e i n g p a r t of a team has f o r me. B e i n g p a r t of a team f e e l s n a t u r a l t o me, I f e e l c o mfortable working w i t h o t h e r s , i n t e r a c t i n g and d i s c u s s i n g i d e a s . As a consequence of my e x p e r i e n c e on t h i s team, I began to t h i n k of c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n r e s e a r c h teams as an ongoing journey. I became i n t e r e s t e d i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n and teams as i s s u e s i n themselves, whereas i n the p a s t I had taken working i n teams f o r granted. I r e f l e c t e d on the advantages and disadvantages t h a t working on a team o f f e r s . I wondered about the p l a c e f o r i n d i v i d u a l i t y and p r i v a c y i n these teams and about the r o l e t h a t 2 a l e a d e r can p l a y i n f a c i l i t a t i n g the c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s . C o l l a b o r a t i o n and team work are t o p i c s t h a t are g a i n i n g more and more a t t e n t i o 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 was funded p a r t l y because of an i n t e r e s t i n i s s u e s of c o l l a b o r a t i o n . In classrooms, t e a c h e r s r e a l i z e t h a t when l e a r n e r s work t o g e t h e r the e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e becomes an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of l e a r n i n g . The e d u c a t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e has r e f l e c t e d t h a t i n t e r e s t w i t h a v a r i e d and e x t e n s i v e d i s c u s s i o n . In r e s e a r c h , r e s e a r c h e r s have been i n c l u d i n g t e a c h e r s and s tudents i n t h e i r p r o j e c t s , and r e s e a r c h e r s themselves have been working i n teams. T h i s l a s t aspect i s o n l y r e c e n t l y b e g i n n i n g t o appear i n the e d u c a t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e . C o l l a b o r a t i o n i s a complex term used to r e f e r t o d i f f e r e n t concepts. Research i s s a i d t o be c o l l a b o r a t i v e when i t i n c l u d e s "the r e s e a r c h e d . 1 , 1 The term i s a l s o used to r e f e r t o r e s e a r c h done by two o r more r e s e a r c h e r s from d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e s o r i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y s t u d i e s . The same a d j e c t i v e , c o l l a b o r a t i v e , i s used when r e s e a r c h i s done by a team. In g e n e r a l terms, c o l l a b o r a t i o n a l l u d e s t o the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s , i t p o i n t s out t h a t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s done by two o r more people working t o g e t h e r . Who the people are, what k i n d of background o r r o l e s they have, and the r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t they c r e a t e between them are not made e x p l i c i t i n the term " c o l l a b o r a t i v e . " Other q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d t o c o l l a b o r a t i v e teams emerge: How does a group of people become a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team? What does i t x T h i s term i s used here t o r e f e r to the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n or s u b j e c t s of the r e s e a r c h . 3 mean to be c o l l a b o r a t i v e - how i s "working t o g e t h e r " d e f i n e d ? How does i t a f f e c t the r e s e a r c h p r o cess? Are c o l l a b o r a t i o n and r o l e d i s t r i b u t i o n o p p o s i t e terms? What happens w i t h the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ? What i s the impact of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d r u l e s , and those r u l e s once they have been i n t e r n a l i z e d by the r e s e a r c h e r s , on the c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s ? These are some of the q u e s t i o n s t h a t 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 b e g i n n i n g t o address. In t h i s t h e s i s I w i l l focus on some of them. Focus of the t h e s i s T h i s t h e s i s focuses on c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r a c t i c e s w i t h i n one r e s e a r c h team. I t s g o a l i s t o e x p l o r e the i m p l i c a t i o n s of team work i n a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . In p a r t i c u l a r , t h i s study examines the f o l l o w i n g t h i n g s : the i n t e r a c t i o n s between r e s e a r c h team members, team members' s t r u g g l e s t o become a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team, and t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t o , and concerns w i t h the demands of pro d u c i n g r i g o r o u s knowledge. I look 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 and how they are c o n s t r u c t e d . I f o c u s on un d e r s t a n d i n g c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n a r e a l , c o n c r e t e s i t u a t i o n , the o b s t a c l e s t h a t c o l l a b o r a t i n g p r e s e n t s , the impacts on the r e s e a r c h t a s k s , and the s t r a t e g i e s t h a t one p a r t i c u l a r team chose to overcome those problems. I am a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n e n r i c h i n g the p r a c t i c e of c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h . T h e r e f o r e t h i s study p r e s e n t s c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t may h e l p r e s e a r c h e r s i n v o l v e d i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o j e c t s t o p l a n f o r and prevent some problems. A m e t h o d o l o g i c a l commitment shapes t h i s t h e s i s . I b e l i e v e t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t c e r t a i n k i n d s of r e s e a r c h a re improved i f done by a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team. T h i s i s based on my c u l t u r a l 4 background, my own experience, and my i d e o l o g y . I b e l i e v e i n the p o t e n t i a l of s m a l l groups and I t h i n k t h a t we can l e a r n by i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h o t h e r s . In the next chapters I w i l l e x p l o r e how t a l k i n g and r e f l e c t i n g w i t h o t h e r people can f o r t i f y , enhance, and e n r i c h the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s . In t h i s t h e s i s I am f o c u s i n g on r e s e a r c h teams, p a r t i c u l a r l y teams t h a t are formed by academics - p r o f e s s o r s and s t u d e n t s . W i t h i n these teams I have chosen t o look at those teams t h a t s e t out t o work c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y . By t h i s I mean groups of people t h a t work t o g e t h e r i n such a way t h a t the product of the group work i s d i f f e r e n t from what would have r e s u l t e d i f each of the members had worked i n d i v i d u a l l y . Team members understand the power d i f f e r e n t i a l s t h a t i n f l u e n c e t h e i r work and are w i l l i n g t o share c o n t r o l i n an a p p r o p r i a t e form. I p u r p o s e f u l l y d e f i n e c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h teams i n terms of t h e i r i n t e n t (see Tom, 1995b) r a t h e r than t h e i r s t r u c t u r e s because i n p r a c t i c e , r e s e a r c h teams b e g i n t h e i r work w i t h a n o t i o n of how they want to f u n c t i o n and, as they c o n f r o n t everyday work, they a d j u s t t h e i r s t r u c t u r e s t o d e a l w i t h new s i t u a t i o n s and problems. T h i s i s c r u c i a l i n q u a l i t a t i v e approaches where the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n emerges a f t e r much da t a c o l l e c t i o n has been done and where each r e s e a r c h d e c i s i o n depends on the data c o l l e c t e d . The s t r u c t u r e s t h a t were s u i t a b l e i n the b e g i n n i n g of the r e s e a r c h must change as both the r e s e a r c h and the team e v o l v e . In a d d i t i o n , what may be a c o l l a b o r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e f o r one group of people may not be c o l l a b o r a t i v e f o r another. A group of p r o f e s s o r s i n the same d i s c i p l i n e might be d i s t r i b u t i n g the r o l e s 5 and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s e q u a l l y i n a team. The same k i n d of arrangement might be understood as n o n - c o l l a b o r a t i v e i f the team members are students and p r o f e s s o r s . A s k i n g t h a t s t u d e n t s share the same k i n d of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as a p r o f e s s o r i n a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t might not be an " a p p r o p r i a t e " s h a r i n g of power. There are no moulds t o f i t and no r e c i p e s t o f o l l o w . Each r e s e a r c h team i s d i f f e r e n t from o t h e r s . Even more, each group changes through the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s . In sum, I am f o c u s i n g t h i s study on r e s e a r c h teams w i t h i n the academic world, and s p e c i f i c a l l y those i n which team members are aware of power i s s u e s i n c a r r y i n g out the work and are committed t o s h a r i n g t h a t power a p p r o p r i a t e l y . The e t h n o g r a p h i c e v a l u a t i o 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 was an ethnographic e v a l u a t i o n - done over a p e r i o d of t h r e e y e a r s , 1991 to 1994 - of two a d u l t l i t e r a c y programs i n the Vancouver area. The programs b e i n g e v a l u a t e d are c o n s i d e r e d models i n l i t e r a c y work because they o f f e r an a l t e r n a t i v e approach t o the t r a d i t i o n a l school-modeled a d u l t l i t e r a c y p r a c t i c e s . The p r o j e c t had a double g o a l : to study the way the two programs were f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s , and to demonstrate how c o l l a b o r a t i v e ethnography c o u l d be u s e f u l i n p r o v i d i n g t h a t k i n d of i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s t h e s i s i s an a n a l y s i s of the p r o c e s s t h a t 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 r e s e a r c h team went through i n becoming a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team. The p r o j e c t was i n i t i a t e d by the program d i r e c t o r s , who w i t h a p r o p o s a l w r i t t e n by Dr. A l l i s o n Tom ( A l l i s o n ) and Dr. Hanna A r l e n e F i n g e r e t (Hanna), o b t a i n e d f u n d i n g from the N a t i o n a l 6 L i t e r a c y S e c r e t a r i a t . The u n d e r l y i n g g o a l was t h a t t h i s e v a l u a t i o n would g i v e i n f o r m a t i o n about how the two programs were a c h i e v i n g t h e i r g o a l s , and about how e v a l u a t i o n s of e d u c a t i o n a l programs s h o u l d be done. T h i s p r o j e c t was c o n c e i v e d by the two p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s , A l l i s o n and Hanna, as c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h . Although the term was not t h e o r e t i c a l l y d e f i n e d o r d i s c u s s e d at the b e g i n n i n g of the study, the f a c t t h a t the program d i r e c t o r s i n i t i a t e d the i n v e s t i g a t i o n and t h a t the r e s e a r c h p l a n i n c l u d e d the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the s u b j e c t s - t e a c h e r s , l e a r n e r s , and s t a f f - made i t i n t h a t sense c o l l a b o r a t i v e . As the study p r o g r e s s e d , the d e f i n i t i o n of c o l l a b o r a t i o n developed i n t o a more d e f i n e d one: a commitment to the d e l i b e r a t e and a p p r o p r i a t e s h a r i n g of power (Tom et a l . , 1994). The two c o - i n v e s t i g a t o r s were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the p l a n n i n g and the o v e r a l l r u n n i n g of the study. The r e s e a r c h team i n c l u d e d two t e a c h e r s from the l i t e r a c y programs: Mark McCue and Deborah Lee, and s i x graduate s t u d e n t s : C a t h i e Cunningham-Dunlop (who was l a t e r r e p l a c e d by Tom N e s b i t ) , Jane Dawson, P a t r i c i a Dyer, L y n e t t e Harper, Anne Morley, and myself. The r e s e a r c h team was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the f i e l d w o r k . Team members went to the s i t e s , observed c l a s s e s and i n f o r m a l i n t e r a c t i o n s , and wrote e x t e n s i v e f i e l d n o t e s . The t e a c h e r s and students from the programs p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the r e s e a r c h through c o n s u l t i n g groups t h a t met p e r i o d i c a l l y t o g i v e feedback and s u g g e s t i o n s t o the r e s e a r c h team. Research team meetings were h e l d r e g u l a r l y t o share problems and to p l a n the f i e l d w o r k a c t i v i t i e s . These meetings were rec o r d e d on audio tape. The r e s e a r c h team meeting tapes c o n s t i t u t e the core data f o r t h i s t h e s i s . Through an examination of the c o n v e r s a t i o n s , d i s c u s s i o n s , ' and i n t e r a c t i o n s r e c o r d e d i n the tapes I have attempted to r e c o n s t r u c t and u n d e r s t a n d the p r ocess of c o l l a b o r a t i o n . 2 C o n t r i b u t i o n s of t h i s t h e s i s T h i s t h e s i s makes two major c o n t r i b u t i o n s : i t a n a l y s e s matters not y e t d e a l t w i t h w i t h i n the l i t e r a t u r e , and i t e x p l o r e s concerns about the p r a c t i c e of c o l l a b o r a t i v e team r e s e a r c h . Although the p r a c t i c e of c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h i n e d u c a t i o n has i n c r e a s e d i n the past few y e a r s , the l i t e r a t u r e about team r e s e a r c h as a p a r t i c u l a r method of i n v e s t i g a t i o n does not r e f l e c t t h a t growth. C o l l a b o r a t i v e teamwork i s a t o p i c of c u r r e n t i n t e r e s t f o r r e s e a r c h e r s i n at l e a s t two r e s p e c t s . F i r s t , t h e r e i s an i n t e r e s t i n the p r a c t i c e of team r e s e a r c h . Researchers want to know how o t h e r teams c a r r y out r e s e a r c h t a s k s t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l l y have been done i n d i v i d u a l l y . One example of t h a t i n t e r e s t can be found i n e l e c t r o n i c m a i l l i s t s . R e c e n t l y one e l e c t r o n i c m a i l l i s t , Q u a l i t a t i v e Research f o r the Human S c i e n c e s (QUALRS-L), brought up i s s u e s and q u e s t i o n s about doing c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h , and the t o p i c f o c u s e d p a r t i c u l a r l y on r e s e a r c h teams. P a r t i c i p a n t s were eager t o hear from o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s who were doing the same k i n d of work. The q u e s t i o n s ranged from t e c h n i c a l i t i e s t o e t h i c a l i s s u e s . "We are i n t e r e s t e d i n 2 The r e s u l t s of the r e s e a r c h are p u b l i s h e d i n two separate r e p o r t s . I f the readers are i n t e r e s t e d i n l e a r n i n g more about e i t h e r the l i t e r a c y e v a l u a t i o n ( F i n g e r e t et a l . , 1994) or the a n a l y s i s of the methodology (Tom e t a l . , 1994) , they are i n v i t e d t o r e f e r t o the two p u b l i c a t i o n s . 8 c o r r e s p o n d i n g w i t h o t h e r q u a l i t a t i v e teams to share e x p e r i e n c e s and g a i n i n s i g h t " s a i d the f i r s t message (QUALRS-L, March 22, 1994) . Researchers are a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g the t h e o r e t i c a l and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of d o i n g team r e s e a r c h . The l i t e r a t u r e t e l l s us about the importance of acknowledging r e s e a r c h e r s ' b i a s e s because of t h e i r i n f l u e n c e on the i n v e s t i g a t i o n ( E i s n e r , 1986; Heshusius, 1994; Lat h e r , 1986, 1991). But how t h a t changes - or does not change - i n team r e s e a r c h i s s t i l l not e x p l o r e d . T h i s t h e s i s looks i n t o the pr o c e s s of making r e s e a r c h c o l l a b o r a t i v e , i t a n a l y s e s the t e n s i o n s t h a t t h i s k i n d of r e s e a r c h e n t a i l s and the mechanisms t h a t operate w i t h i n a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team. I t d e s c r i b e s the ways i n which the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s i s a f f e c t e d by teamwork. I t o f f e r s a d e s c r i p t i o n of how one p a r t i c u l a r c o l l a b o r a t i v e team d e a l t w i t h and r e f l e c t e d on the problems we encountered. Because I b e l i e v e t h a t r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s s h o u l d b e n e f i t p r a c t i c e , I a l s o p r e s e n t c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t w i l l be u s e f u l f o r r e s e a r c h e r s p l a n n i n g t o do or doing c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h . T h i s t h e s i s w i l l be u s e f u l f o r r e s e a r c h e r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y ethnographers 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 , and a d u l t e d u c a t o r s . Researchers working i n teams w i l l f i n d t h i s t h e s i s u s e f u l because i t a n a l y s e s b e n e f i t s and drawbacks of team r e s e a r c h , and i t s p e c i f i c a l l y p o i n t s at a s p e c t s of r e s e a r c h methodology t h a t have t o be a d j u s t e d or changed when the p r o j e c t i s c a r r i e d out by a team. The L i t e r a c y Demonstration P r o j e c t team, as the o t h e r r e s e a r c h teams expressed i n the QUALRS-L l i s t , c o u l d have made 9 good use of l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d t o the t o p i c . We sometimes wished t h a t o t h e r s had r e c o r d e d t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s so t h a t we c o u l d have l e a r n e d from t h e i r work. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be v a l u a b l e f o r a d u l t e d u c a t o r s because i t opens new t e a c h i n g r o l e s f o r them i n r e s e a r c h . I f t h e r e are s k i l l s t h a t need t o be developed so t h a t people can become e f f e c t i v e team members, then i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t people c o u l d be taught to p a r t i c i p a t e i n r e s e a r c h teams. Team r e s e a r c h a l s o appears as an a l t e r n a t i v e approach to r e s e a r c h i n the f i e l d of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n . I t i s a c h o i c e t h a t g i v e s the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a d u l t l e a r n e r s and t e a c h e r s to work t o g e t h e r i n r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s . The s t r u c t u r e of the t h e s i s T h i s t h e s i s i s d i v i d e d i n t o s i x c h a p t e r s . The r e s t of Chapter One d e s c r i b e s the N a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o j e c t i n more d e t a i l . The second c h a p t e r l o c a t e s t h i s t h e s i s w i t h i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Chapter Three d e l i n e a t e s the methodology used f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h and the c h a l l e n g e s t h a t I c o n f r o n t e d . Chapters Four and F i v e present a d e s c r i p t i o n and a n a l y s i s of the data. Chapter Four f o l l o w s the p r o c e s s t h a t the r e s e a r c h team went through i n becoming a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team. I t l o o k s i n t o d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s of the r e s e a r c h team meetings t h a t changed through the process, and e x p l o r e s the events t h a t t r i g g e r e d - o r marked - 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 the r e s e a r c h team. The main argument i n t h i s chapter i s t h a t teams become c o l l a b o r a t i v e , they are not a u t o m a t i c a l l y c r e a t e d as such. Chapter F i v e analyses the impact t h a t our c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r a c t i c e had on the study. In t h i s c h a p t e r I e x p l o r e the e f f e c t of p u b l i c 10 f i e l d n o t e s on the r e s e a r c h e r s ' r e f l e x i v i t y and argue t h a t r e s e a r c h team meetings are c o l l e c t i v e f i e l d n o t e s . The l a s t c h a pter p r e s e n t s c o n c l u s i o n s and recommendations f o r the p r a c t i c e of team r e s e a r c h . 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 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 was i n i t i a t e d as a n a t i o n wide demonstration of how an e v a l u a t i o n s h o u l d be done. To h e l p monitor the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s the N a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y S e c r e t a r i a t requested t h a t an a d v i s o r y committee be c r e a t e d composed of s c h o l a r s and p r a c t i t i o n e r s expert i n the areas of l i t e r a c y and the methodology the p r o j e c t embraced. During the f i r s t p a r t of the study (October 1991 - March 1992), p r e l i m i n a r y f i e l d w o r k and most of the o r i g i n a l p l a n n i n g were done. Of the two p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s , Hanna l i v e s i n North C a r o l i n a , USA, so she had a d i s t a n t r o l e i n terms of the f i e l d w o r k and the team work. A l l i s o n assumed the r o l e of p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r . To h e l p her i n t h i s stage, one graduate student, L y n e t t e Harper (Lyn) was h i r e d to help w i t h the f i e l d w o r k and the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e aspects of the p r o j e c t . The d i r e c t o r s of the programs b e i n g e v a l u a t e d suggested the p o s s i b i l i t y of i n c l u d i n g t e a c h e r s from the two programs i n the r e s e a r c h team. The co-i n v e s t i g a t o r s welcomed the o p p o r t u n i t y t o expand the c o l l a b o r a t i v e dimension of the r e s e a r c h i n t h a t way. Deborah Lee and Mark McCue became p a r t of the emerging r e s e a r c h team as l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s . They were both suggested as t e a c h e r s who had the most experi e n c e and permanent p o s i t i o n s i n the programs. In A p r i l 1992 the d a t a c o l l e c t i o n phase began. The r e s e a r c h team was formed to perform t h a t t a s k . The team was composed of 11 A l l i s o n , Hanna, Lyn, Mark and Deborah, and f i v e graduate s t u d e n t s from the Department of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e , A d u l t and Higher E d u c a t i o n of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. A l l of the graduate students had been p a r t of a seminar t h a t A l l i s o n teaches on ethnography. During her t e a c h i n g A l l i s o n got t o know the students and was able t o e v a l u a t e them a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r s k i l l s i n doing ethnography, a b i l i t y t o work w i t h o t h e r people, and her t r u s t i n them. Four of the f i v e a d d i t i o n a l graduate s t u d e n t s -Jane Dawson, P a t r i c i a Dyer (Pat), Anne Morley, 3 and myself were h i r e d as f i e l d w o r k e r s . C a t h e r i n e Cunningham-Dunlop (Cathie) worked as the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a s s i s t a n t t o the p r o j e c t u n t i l December of 1992, when her c o n t r a c t ended and she was not a b l e to accept a renewal f o r another term due to the demands of her own r e s e a r c h . She was then r e p l a c e d by Tom N e s b i t . For the f i r s t p a r t of the data c o l l e c t i o n phase, each f i e l d w o r k e r attended o n l y one s i t e . Going t o one program on l y , we argued i n the meetings, would a l l o w every f i e l d w o r k e r t o focus on one program i n s t e a d of two. One of the programs was s m a l l e r than the o t h e r one (approximately. 70 students compared t o 62 0 l e a r n e r s at the time of the s t u d y ) , w i t h o n l y one c l a s s at a time. T h e r e f o r e , o n l y one graduate student - Jane - and one l i a i s o n r e s e a r c h e r - Deborah - were doing f i e l d w o r k i n the s m a l l e r program. The r e s t of us attended the o t h e r program, where c l a s s e s and i n s t r u c t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s are c o n s t a n t l y o c c u r r i n g . L a t e r , i t came t o a p o i n t where the team f e l t i t was 3 0 r i g i n a l l y another student had been h i r e d , but when he l e f t the team i n June 1992, A l l i s o n h i r e d Anne, who worked from September 1992 u n t i l the end of the p r o j e c t . 12 nec e s s a r y f o r more f i e l d w o r k e r s t o work i n the s m a l l e r program. Lyn and I took turns d o i n g f i e l d w o r k t h e r e . Between March and December 1992 4 the team members c o l l e c t e d data f o r the p r o j e c t . Each f i e l d w o r k e r went t o the f i e l d a p p r o x i m a t e l y twice a week and observed c l a s s e s , i n f o r m a l i n t e r a c t i o n s , and s t a f f meetings. We t a l k e d w i t h and i n t e r v i e w e d l e a r n e r s , t e a c h e r s , s t a f f , and f a m i l y members. Each time we went to the f i e l d we wrote f i e l d n o t e s - d e s c r i p t i o n s , r e f l e c t i o n s and emerging a n a l y s i s - of our ex p e r i e n c e s i n the f i e l d . Once a week we c o p i e d our f i e l d n o t e s onto a common d i s k which was then c o p i e d and d e l i v e r e d t o A l l i s o n and t r a n s m i t t e d v i a modem t o Hanna. Once every o t h e r week we met to d i s c u s s the p r o g r e s s o f the f i e l d w o r k . These meetings were re c o r d e d on audio tape and a copy was sent t o Hanna. An e l e c t r o n i c network connected the UBC members of the team ( A l l i s o n and the graduate s t u d e n t s ) . T h i s form of communication was c o n s t a n t l y used t o share i n f o r m a t i o n among the UBC r e s e a r c h team members. A l l i s o n u s u a l l y made sure t h a t Mark, Deborah, and Hanna got the i n f o r m a t i o n as w e l l . We used t h i s form of communication, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t o arrange f o r r i d e s t o the s i t e s , t o update the l i s t o f people we had c o n t a c t e d i n the f i e l d , t o share f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n s about the f i e l d w o r k , and t o do p r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s i s . In an attempt t o i n c l u d e l e a r n e r s and t e a c h e r s from the programs i n the r e s e a r c h , c o n s u l t i n g groups were c r e a t e d . These groups "were intended t o support the r e s e a r c h and t o p r o v i d e the 4 D u r i n g J u l y and August the programs do not f u n c t i o n i n t h e i r u s u a l form so we d i d not c o l l e c t any data. 13 r e s e a r c h team w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n about important i s s u e s . They were int e n d e d to be groups of i n d i v i d u a l s ready to h e l p shape the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s and t o p r o v i d e feedback about the way the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t was r e c e i v e d at the s i t e s " (Tom e t a l . , 1994, p. 11) . F i e l d w o r k e r s ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the p r o j e c t changed over time to accommodate d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s i n t h e i r l i v e s and work. For example, C a t h i e had to l e a v e the p r o j e c t t o do her own r e s e a r c h . I had t o stop doing f i e l d w o r k when my pregnancy was t h r e a t e n e d . L a t e r , I took a p a r e n t a l l e a v e (about two months) and s l o w l y began t o work more and more. In the l a t e r p a r t of the a n a l y s i s stage, Jane and Lyn had to d e d i c a t e more time t o t h e i r own r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s . They were s t i l l i n v o l v e d w i t h the team i n a c o n s u l t i n g r o l e . They came t o the meetings and r e a d what the o t h e r members were w r i t i n g . Then they produced a feedback memo r e f l e c t i n g on the meeting and the o t h e r p i e c e s of w r i t i n g . Anne a l s o had to monitor the time she d e d i c a t e d to the p r o j e c t s i n c e she f i n i s h e d her t h e s i s w h i l e she was s t i l l i n v o l v e d i n the team. The r o l e of the f i e l d w o r k e r s a l s o s h i f t e d because of developments w i t h i n the study. During the a n a l y s i s stage, they became more i n v o l v e d i n the a n a l y s i s and w r i t i n g than o r i g i n a l l y planned. The complexity and s i z e of the p r o j e c t demanded t h a t the data a n a l y s i s and w r i t i n g phase be prolonged. I t took e l e v e n months, more than twice the time t h a t had been a n t i c i p a t e d , t o analyze the data and t o produce the two r e p o r t s t h a t document the r e s e a r c h . P a r t of t h a t p r o c e s s i s a n a l y z e d i n the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r s . 14 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW In t h i s chapter I present the place of t h i s thesis i n the l i t e r a t u r e . I frame the topic of team research i n broader discussions about s u b j e c t i v i t y , r e f l e x i v i t y , and an awareness that the solo lens i n ethnography has been changed to a shared lens. As researchers agree that o b j e c t i v i t y i s an i l l u s o r y i d e a l , they are s t r i v i n g to f i n d new c r i t e r i a to determine the trustworthiness of data and the role of s u b j e c t i v i t y i n research. R e f l e x i v i t y plays a c r u c i a l r o l e i n t h i s discussion as one basic element that distinguishes common sense from science. Although researchers have acknowledged t h e i r own i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t i v i t y through r e f l e x i v e practice, they are only recently beginning to r e f l e c t on the meaning of a shared s u b j e c t i v i t y . The l i t e r a t u r e analyses c o l l a b o r a t i v e research experiences where researchers work with p a r t i c i p a n t s , but so f a r l i t t l e has been written about team research. In the following pages I situate the topic of team research within the l i t e r a t u r e . F i r s t , I analyze the meaning of 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 into the meaning and ro l e of r e f l e x i v i t y i n that context. Then, I examine how researchers, through r e f l e c t i v e thought, have positioned themselves and t h e i r work. I explore the r e f l e c t i o n s of researchers working with other researchers and t h e i r shared s u b j e c t i v i t y . I turn then to 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 for a broader understanding of the aspects that a f f e c t the p r a c t i c e of team research. Within that l i t e r a t u r e , I present a framework f o r the study of team research. F i n a l l y , I look into the place of t h i s topic within the adult education f i e l d . 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 basic ontological assumption of the p o s i t i v i s t i c paradigm i s that 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 realism (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The epistemological argument that follows that premise i s that "the in v e s t i g a t o r and the investigated 'object' are assumed to be independent e n t i t i e s , and the investigator to be capable of studying the object without influencing i t or being influenced by i t " (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 110) . In t h i s view, s c i e n t i f i c knowledge can and should discover and explain universal laws i n an objective and neutral manner. From the p o s i t i v i s t i c stand, a major problem i n research i s the researcher's possible influence on and biases about the methods and r e s u l t s of an in v e s t i g a t i o n . To achieve the necessary distance from the object - o b j e c t i v i t y - researchers need to 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 the research process. By following the s c i e n t i f i c method, the researcher guarantees that o b j e c t i v i t y has been achieved. Following s c i e n t i f i c methods ensures that the r e s u l t i n g knowledge i s unbiased and true. P o s t - p o s i t i v i s t i c thought 5 has questioned the postulates of positivism. The basic o n t o l o g i c a l premise i s challenged, and i t 5Although I acknowledge that 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 & Lincoln, 1994) to r e f e r to neo-p o s i t i v i s t i c thought, I am using the term p o s t - p o s i t i v i s t i c here i n the sense that P a t t i Lather (1986, 1991) uses i t , to denote the d i f f e r e n t o n t o l o g i c a l and epistemological postures that emerged as a c r i t i q u e of positivism. Hence, they are d i f f e r e n t from positivism. 16 i s argued t h a t r e a l i t y cannot be known as i t i s (when i t i s assumed t h a t i t does e x i s t ) . In t h i s view, r e s e a r c h produces knowledge t h a t i s a r e s u l t of an i n t e r a c t i o n between r e s e a r c h e r s and the o b j e c t of study. Research i s thus i n e v i t a b l y i n f l u e n c e d by r e s e a r c h e r s ' e x p e r i e n c e , i d e o l o g y , p e r s o n a l s k i l l s , and p e r s o n a l i t y . In p o s t - p o s i t i v i s t i c thought, o b j e c t i v i t y i s an i l l u s o r y g o a l . Values are embedded i n every a c t i v i t y we do. From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , p o s i t i v i s t i c s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s a l s o b i a s e d ; i t r e f l e c t s a p a r t i c u l a r worldview. Authors who acknowledge the i n f l u e n c e of the r e s e a r c h e r i n s o c i a l i n q u i r y have lo o k e d at the meaning of s u b j e c t i v i t y i n r e s e a r c h . Although they accept t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s b r i n g t h e i r b i a s e s i n t o t h e i r r e s e a r c h t a s k s , they d i f f e r i n how they propose t o "handle" t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p . Some authors l o o k f o r d i f f e r e n t ways of c o n t r o l l i n g the r e s e a r c h e r ' s b i a s e s . For example, M c M i l l a n & Schumacher (1989) r e f e r t o r e s e a r c h e r s ' b i a s e s as "contamination." In t h i s context, r e s e a r c h e r s ' i n f l u e n c e i s accepted, a l t h o u g h i t s t i l l appears as u n f o r t u n a t e . P a t t i L a t h e r understands t h a t r e s e a r c h i s v a l u e l a d e n . She i s concerned w i t h the danger of a "rampant s u b j e c t i v i t y where one f i n d s o n l y what one i s p r e d i s p o s e d to look f o r " (1991, p. 52) . T h e r e f o r e she o f f e r s a r e - c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of v a l i d i t y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r what she c a l l s openly i d e o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h , "to guard a g a i n s t r e s e a r c h e r b i a s e s d i s t o r t i n g the l o g i c of evidence" (p. 67). B a s i c a l l y , she proposes t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s monitor t h e i r own s u b j e c t i v i t y and the ways i t i n f l u e n c e s r e s e a r c h . Other r e s e a r c h e r s ( E i s n e r , 1992, Heshusius, 1994) l o o k at s u b j e c t i v i t y as n e c e s s a r y i n r e s e a r c h . They b e l i e v e t h a t g e n e r a t i n g new g u i d e l i n e s to c o n t r o l , or monitor, the i n f l u e n c e of the r e s e a r c h e r on the data i s a g a i n a r g u i n g t h a t knowledge can be o b j e c t i v e . Lous Heshusius (1994) maintains t h a t " p r o c e d u r a l s u b j e c t i v i t y " ( c o n t r o l l i n g one's s u b j e c t i v i t y ) , i s i d e n t i c a l t o " p r o c e d u r a l o b j e c t i v i t y " because both r e f e r t o an o n t o l o g i c a l d i s t a n c e between the s e l f and the "other" and b o t h terms see the s e l f as b e i n g a p o t e n t i a l m e t h o d o l o g i c a l concern. Don't we reach out (whether we are aware o r not) to what we want to know w i t h a l l of o u r s e l v e s , because we can't do a n y t h i n g e l s e ? 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 t o guide the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s , then, ... n e i t h e r i s t h e r e o n t o l o g i c a l or p r o c e d u r a l s u b j e c t i v i t y t o guide the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s (p. 16). Heshusius admits t h a t i t i s c r u c i a l t o become aware of p e r s o n a l r e a c t i o n s and r e l a t e d v a l u e s . But he " p o i n t s t o the need to observe them co m p l e t e l y and without e v a l u a t i o n , f o r i t i s in the a t t e n t i v e , n o n e v a l u a t i v e movement of c o n s c i o u s n e s s t h a t they can be l e t go o f " (p. 18, emphasis i n the o r i g i n a l ) . In o t h e r words, whether i t i s w i t h an i n t e n t t o c o n t r o l i t or to understand i t s r o l e , many r e s e a r c h e r s now do not deny t h e i r i n f l u e n c e . O b j e c t i v i t y does not appear as the u n i v e r s a l l y d e s i r e d v a l u e i n r e s e a r c h i t used t o . But s i n c e "no l o n g e r does f o l l o w i n g the c o r r e c t method guarantee ' t r u e ' r e s u l t s " (Lather, 1986, p. 65), r e s e a r c h e r s have been l e f t w i t h the problem of e s t a b l i s h i n g the t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of t h e i r data i n new, and s t i l l s y s t e m a t i c ways. The r o l e of r e f l e x i v i t y As e a r l y as i n 1986, P a t t i L a t h e r was t a l k i n g about the " e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l ferment' i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s " (p. 66) as a s t e p p r e c e d i n g the emergence of a new 18 paradigm. She c a l l e d then f o r s u i t a b l e c r i t e r i a f o r data t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s . Almost t e n ye a r s a f t e r t h a t a r t i c l e was p u b l i s h e d , r e s e a r c h e r s are s t i l l s t r u g g l i n g t o agree on common c r i t e r i a t o e v a l u a t e q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h . I f the standards t h a t the p o s i t i v i s t i c paradigm had s e t up are not u s e f u l , i t has to be admitted t h a t there are no o t h e r c r i t e r i a t h a t have been accep t e d as w i d e l y as the p o s i t i v i s t i c ones were. D e s p i t e many areas of disagreement, one common p o i n t of agreement has emerged: the importance of r e f l e x i v i t y . A l though i t i s not u s u a l l y d i s c u s s e d e x t e n s i v e l y (except f o r Hammersley and A t k i n s o n , 1983, and Marcus, 1994, see below), r e f l e x i v i t y -the a b i l i t y t o r e f l e c t and c r i t i q u e - i s i n c l u d e d whenever th e r e i s d i s c u s s i o n about c r i t e r i a t o e v a l u a t e r e s e a r c h . Whether i t i s c a l l e d t h a t o r o t h e r names (to become aware of v a l u e s and emotions, observe the conduct of s e l f ) r e s e a r c h e r s agree t h a t i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o c o n t i n u a l l y s c r u t i n i z e r e s e a r c h procedures and r e f l e c t on them. Martyn Hammersley and Paul A t k i n s o n (1983) d e d i c a t e a whole s e c t i o n i n the f i r s t c h a p t e r of t h e i r book "Ethnography: p r i n c i p l e s i n p r a c t i c e " t o the concept of r e f l e x i v i t y . They f i r s t draw on the b a s i c meaning of the term r e f l e x i v i t y - an a c t i o n by the s u b j e c t upon i t s e l f - and argue t h a t we, as r e s e a r c h e r s , are p a r t of the s o c i a l world t h a t we are s t u d y i n g . T h e r e f o r e , by s t u d y i n g our world we are s t u d y i n g o u r s e l v e s . In ethnography t h i s concept i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important because ethnographers are the fundamental r e s e a r c h t o o l . Ethnographers need t o know themselves t o be a b l e t o "know o t h e r s . " S c i e n c e , argue Hammersley & A t k i n s o n , i s not v e r y d i f f e r e n t 19 from common sense and s c i e n t i f i c and everyday a c t i v i t i e s are s i m i l a r . What d i f f e r e n t i a t e s these k i n d s of knowledge and a c t i v i t i e s i s t h e i r i n t e n t i o n s . S o c i a l i n q u i r y has the d i s t i n c t i v e f u n c t i o n of d e v e l o p i n g and t e s t i n g t h e o r y . And, a c c o r d i n g t o Hammersley and A t k i n s o n , i t i s through r e f l e c t i o n t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s achieve t h i s g o a l . R e f l e c t i n g on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between events and i d e a s , r e s e a r c h e r s b u i l d an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of r e a l i t y . In t h e i r c o n c l u s i o n , Hammersley and A t k i n s o n focus a g a i n on the concept of r e f l e x i v i t y . There they argue: R e f l e x i v i t y i s , i n our view, the key to the development of both t h e o r y and methodology 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 ethnographic 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 upon 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 those of o t h e r s , were produced, and i n p a r t i c u l a r , t o c o n s i d e r how the a c t i v i t i e s of the r e s e a r c h e r may have shaped those f i n d i n g s (p. 236). Researchers' fundamental r o l e i n knowledge b u i l d i n g makes i t i m p e r a t i v e t h a t they analyze and r e f l e c t on t h e i r p r a c t i c e . George Marcus (1994) has a n a l y z e d how r e f l e x i v i t y has been used. He has d i f f e r e n t i a t e d f o u r k i n d s of r e f l e x i v i t y t h a t broaden the scope of the term w i t h i n ethnographic thought. The " b a s e l i n e form of r e f l e x i v i t y " i s i n d i v i d u a l and p e r s o n a l examination. T h i s k i n d of s e l f c r i t i q u e , Marcus c l a i m s , i s most commonly equated w i t h the term r e f l e x i v i t y . Emphasizing t h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of r e f l e x i v i t y has the r i s k of t u r n i n g r e s e a r c h i n t o a s e l f examination p r o c e s s . Understood more p r o f o u n d l y , however, i t c o u l d be used as a means of u n d e r s t a n d i n g the o b j e c t of study, by u s i n g the r e s e a r c h e r ' s r e a c t i o n s , i n t u i t i o n s , and f e e l i n g s as data. 20 The second k i n d of r e f l e x i v i t y i s mostly a r e s e a r c h t o o l , a r i g o r o u s examination of research•methodology. I t i s t i e d t o "the commitment to s u s t a i n o b j e c t i v i t y " (p. 56 9). and has a v e r y l i m i t e d f u n c t i o n i n Marcus' eyes. I t i s t h i s meaning of the concept t h a t some authors emphasize i n t h e i r work. In P a t t i L a t h e r ' s (1986) a n a l y s i s , f o r example, r e f l e x i v i t y comes under e x p l i c i t a t t e n t i o n as p a r t of c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y , which the author d e f i n e s as a " s y s t e m a t i z e d r e f l e x i v i t y " about how the a p r i o r i t h e o r y has changed throughout the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s . Marcus f i n d s the t h i r d type of r e f l e x i v i t y the most i n t e r e s t i n g . I t "emphasizes the i n t e r t e x t u a l o r d i v e r s e f i e l d of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t any contemporary p r o j e c t of ethnography e n t e r s and c r o s s e s i n o r d e r to e s t a b l i s h i t s own s u b j e c t and d e f i n e i t s own v o i c e " (p. 570). T h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of r e f l e x i v i t y r e f e r s to the a n a l y s i s of the h i s t o r i c a l l o c a t i o n of ethnography as a r e s e a r c h approach, i t s r o l e and f u n c t i o n , and to an examination of who the s u b j e c t s are and who the r e s e a r c h e r i s as a means of p o l i t i c a l l o c a t i o n of the methodology. The f o u r t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g of r e f l e x i v i t y denotes the p o s i t i o n of the r e s e a r c h e r w i t h i n the c o n t e x t . Questions of e t h i c s and the "other" are u s u a l l y r e f e r r e d to i n the c o n t e x t of t h i s k i n d of r e f l e x i v i t y . T h i s i s the k i n d of r e f l e x i v i t y , a c c o r d i n g t o Marcus, t h a t f e m i n i s t thought has brought to the foreground, by p o s i t i o n i n g r e s e a r c h e r s and the knowledge they produce i n c o n t e x t . In sum, r e f l e x i v i t y can be d e f i n e d as a b a s i c element i n q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h and s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . I t denotes the i n e v i t a b l y c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the r e s e a r c h e r and the o b j e c t , o r s u b j e c t , of study. I t a l s o r e f e r s t o the r e s e a r c h e r ' s a t t i t u d e of constant and r i g o r o u s s c r u t i n y of the methodology, the methods, the r e s e a r c h e r , and the c o n t e x t . And i t i s t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t marks the d i f f e r e n c e between common sense and s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y . Researchers p o s i t i o n themselves I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o i d e n t i f y the k i n d of r e f l e x i v i t y t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s r e f e r to i n t h e i r a r t i c l e s . I t i s p r o b a b l y t r u e t h a t the f o u r meanings of r e f l e x i v i t y , as d e s c r i b e d by Marcus (1994), do not appear i n "pure" form. In o t h e r words, when r e s e a r c h e r s r e f l e c t on t h e i r p r a c t i c e they engage i n s e l f examination, i n c l u d i n g a s p e c t s of more than one k i n d of r e f l e x i v i t y . For example, Sam F u j i s a k a and John G r a y z e l (1978), i n t h e i r study of p r i s o n c u l t u r e , found t h a t they were drawn to d i f f e r e n t inmates and they a t t r a c t e d d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of inmates. Consequently they came to d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of inmates' l i v e s and p r i s o n c u l t u r e . They e x p l a i n e d these d i f f e r e n c e s by r e l a t i n g them to t h e i r own d i f f e r e n c e s as persons and p r o f e s s i o n a l s . T h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g l e d them to conclude t h a t "each of our p e r s o n a l backgrounds, b i a s e s , and a t t i t u d e s became important f i e l d v a r i a b l e s " (p. 172). As a r e s u l t of t h i s e x p e r i e n c e they c a l l e d f o r r e s e a r c h e r s to " s t r i v e f o r o b j e c t i v e awareness of p e r s o n a l b i a s , and then to work so t h a t such b i a s e s are not o n l y minimized, but t o a degree taken advantage of as w e l l " (p. 179). T h i s i s a c l e a r example of how, w h i l e i n v o l v e d i n r e f l e x i v e r e s e a r c h , r e s e a r c h e r s have p o s i t i o n e d themselves. They have examined how t h e i r own e t h n i c i t y , gender, s o c i a l c l a s s , even p r o f e s s i o n a l background, have i n f l u e n c e d , i f not determined, 22 t h e i r work. In that sense, t h i s kind of analysis r e l a t e s to the f i r s t and second meaning of r e f l e x i v i t y described above, s e l f examination and methodological scrutiny. As part of the r e f l e x i v e exercise, researchers have also questioned t h e i r roles i n society. This l i n e of i n q u i r y refers to the t h i r d and fourth kinds of r e f l e x i v i t y , a p o l i t i c a l examination and p o s i t i o n i n g of ethnography and ethnographers. The t r a d i t i o n a l role of the ethnographer going to remote cultures to study groups of indigenous peoples has been rejected as part of the "recognition that the 'comparative method' and the anthropology of primitivism i s inherently flawed by both i t s Eurocentric bias and i t s methodological inadequacies" (Vidich & Lyman, 1994, p. 38). If researchers are not neutral and objective observers, but subjective p a r t i c i p a n t s , then what i s t h e i r role? From Gramsci's organic i n t e l l e c t u a l to today's r e f l e c t i o n s , ethnographers and other s o c i a l researchers have questioned the usefulness of t h e i r research and t h e i r own role i n the l i v e s of the people they are studying. In 1982, Courtney Cazden delivered an address at the Annual business meeting of the Council on Anthropology and Education i n Washington, D.C, i n which she c a l l e d for more involvement on the part of ethnographers i n designing, and being part of, educational change. She concluded: "at t h i s point, i s n ' t i t true that we - the community of l i n g u i s t s and ethnographers - have explained educational f a i l u r e without showing how i t can be reversed?" (Cazden, 1983, p. 36). Without the assumption that research has to be value free, there i s no t h e o r e t i c a l impediment for research to be 23 i d e o l o g i c a l l y d r i v e n . I n f a c t , as has been n o t e d b e f o r e , 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 i d e a s , o n l y t h e s e have not been acknowledged. P a t t i L a t h e r (1986, 1991) c a l l e d f o r what she o r i g i n a l l y c a l l e d o p e n l y i d e o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h and l a t e r r e s e a r c h f o r p r a x i s , " r e s e a r c h t h a t i s e x p l i c i t l y c ommitted t o c r i t i q u i n g t h e s t a t u s quo and b u i l d i n g a more j u s t s o c i e t y " (1991, 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 have a r o l e t o p l a y i n empowering the p o w e r l e s s and d i s a d v a n t a g e d i n s o c i e t y . Tom (1995c) agree s 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 i n s o c i a l change. She a r g u e s , though, t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s and r e s e a r c h e d engage i n i s not n e c e s s a r i l y one o f immediate p e r s o n a l change. When " s u b j e c t s " agree t o be p a r t o f an i n v e s t i g a t i o n t h e y 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 r e l a t i o n s h i p o f p o s s i b l e i n d i v i d u a l and/or c o l l e c t i v e change. T h e r e f o r e , Tom a l s o l o o k s a t o t h e r a r e a s where r e s e a r c h can a f f e c t t h e s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , n o t n e c e s s a r i l y immediate i n d i v i d u a l s o c i a l change. I n t o d a y ' s l i t e r a t u r e 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 c u l t u r a l b ackground 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 s k i l l s , a u t h o r s b r i n g t o t h e f o r e g r o u n d t h e a s p e c t s o f t h e i r 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 . And t h i s i s b o t h 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 . 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 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t i n t h e p r o c e s s o f a c k n o w l e d g i n g who t h e y a r e , and 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 i d e o l o g y , background, and s k i l l s i n f l u e n c e t h e r e s e a r c h p r a c t i c e , r e s e a r c h e r s have not looked i n t o t h e i r own r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h r e s e a r c h p a r t n e r s . Here I am t a l k i n g about academic r e s e a r c h teams and r e s e a r c h p a r t n e r s h i p s . These groups, a l t h o u g h f r e q u e n t l y r e f e r r e d to, are v e r y r a r e l y a n a l y z e d and d e s c r i b e d . Although c o l l e c t i v e r e s e a r c h "adds new l e v e l s of c o m p l e x i t y to the p r o c e s s of e x p l o r i n g s u b j e c t i v i t y " (Crow, L e v i n e , & Nager, 1992, p. 739), i t i s not r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h a t way. R e s u l t s of team r e s e a r c h are p r e s e n t e d as i f the f a c t t h a t i t was produced i n a group does not bear any i n f l u e n c e on the p r o c e s s or product of the s t u d i e s . Most commonly, the team d i r e c t o r ' s s u b j e c t i v i t y i s acknowledged but t h e r e i s no r e f e r e n c e to the o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s ' i n f l u e n c e s . There are o n l y a few a n a l y s e s t h a t acknowledge the d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t c a r r y i n g out r e s e a r c h c o l l e c t i v e l y , as opposed as i n d i v i d u a l l y , make i n r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s and p r o c e s s e s (Crow, L e v i n e & Nager, 1992; L i g g e t t , Glesne, Johnston, H a s a z i , & Schattman, 1994; Olesen, Droes, Hatton, Chico, & Schatzman, 1994; P o r t e r , 1994; Tom et a l . , 1994) . Gary Crow, Li n d a L e v i n e , and Nancy Nager (19 92) r e p o r t on the i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y study they conducted to l e a r n more about career-change graduate s t u d e n t s . They t r i e d t o b u i l d 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 w i t h i n t h e i r team of t h r e e p r o f e s s i o n a l s from d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e s , and between t h i s team and s t u d e n t s and a d v i s o r s . They a c h i e v e d a g r e a t e r l e v e l of c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h i n the i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y team, what they c a l l " i n t e r n a l c o l l a b o r a t i o n , " than w i t h the o t h e r two groups, " e x t e r n a l c o l l a b o r a t i o n . " They e x p l a i n t h i s i n p a r t as a problem r e l a t e d t o the d i f f i c u l t y of s i m u l t a n e o u s l y e s t a b l i s h i n g 25 " i n t e r n a l i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y c o l l a b o r a t i o n and two a d d i t i o n a l k i n d s of e x t e r n a l c o l l a b o r a t i o n " (p. 753). The authors a l s o r e l a t e these d i f f i c u l t i e s t o the s t a t u s d i f f e r e n t i a l between students and the team members ( a l l p r o f e s s o r s i n the same u n i v e r s i t y ) . 7\nnette L i g g e t t , C o r r i n e Glesne, A. Johnston, Susan Brody Ha s a z i , and R i c h a r d Schattman (1994) a l s o d e s c r i b e t h e i r team r e s e a r c h e x p e r i e n c e i n the study of the implementation of the Ed u c a t i o n f o r A l l Handicapped C h i l d r e n Act of 1975 i n the USA. In t h e i r honest account of t h e i r work as a team, they share t h e i r s t r u g g l e s t o "keep i n d i v i d u a l egos i n check," and t o work to g e t h e r . In p o i n t i n g at the d i f f i c u l t i e s and c h a l l e n g e s of doing team r e s e a r c h , they conclude t h a t team r e s e a r c h r e q u i r e s a s p e c i f i c k i n d of support. In t h e i r words: In another study, we would seek more f u n d i n g t o compensate f o r the teaming e f f o r t . Yes, we would f i n d i t rewarding t o do [ i t ] a g a i n i f the study c a l l e d f o r a need 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 backgrounds, 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 used, and i f t h e r e were adequate support 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 not (p. 87, emphasis i n the o r i g i n a l ) . M a r i l y n P o r t e r (1994) has d e s c r i b e d the c h a l l e n g e s of c a r r y i n g out what she c a l l s "second-hand ethnography" - an a n a l y s i s of f i e l d n o t e s and i n t e r v i e w s done by h i r e d f i e l d w o r k e r s . She undertook a major p r o j e c t i n Newfoundland t o g a t h e r data about women and work i n the p r o v i n c e . She h i r e d t h r e e r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t s t o do the f i e l d w o r k . As the study p r o g r e s s e d she "became a c u t e l y aware of the problems and l i m i t a t i o n s of u s i n g o t h e r people t o 'do' one's own ethnography because of t h e i r d i v e r s e and l e s s than comparable academic backgrounds" (p. 76). T h i s i s a common p r a c t i c e i n North American u n i v e r s i t i e s ; what' i s 26 su r p r i s i n g i s that these kinds of r e f l e c t i o n s are not more abundant. I could not f i n d any study that i n t e n t i o n a l l y set out to analyze the rela t i o n s h i p s within a research team. The previously described a r t i c l e s are r e f l e c t i o n s that researchers do a f t e r t h e i r study has ended. They are reconstructions and attempts to retrace methodological decisions that 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 extensive i n analyzing other kinds of partnerships, p a r t i c u l a r l y those with "the researched," p r a c t i t i o n e r s (especially teachers) and community members. Because the l i t e r a t u r e on team research i s so scarce, I have used the l i t e r a t u r e on co l l a b o r a t i v e research, regardless of the actors i n the relationships, as a framework f o r my analysis. In the next section I turn to t h i s l i t e r a t u r e . Collaborative research In t h i s section 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 describe the reasoning behind including p a r t i c i p a n t s i n research. I then use A l l i s o n Tom's framework of collaborative research to analyze issues i n team research. . -s Collaborative research i s a broad term that r e f e r s to the actors i n shared research. "Collaboration" points at the rela t i o n s h i p s between researchers and other groups who undertake an i n v e s t i g a t i o n together. The l i t e r a t u r e reveals that the actors 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 varied as the f i e l d . Researchers collaborate with community members (see Gibson, 1985; Schensul & Schensul, 1992), with p r a c t i t i o n e r s (see Cole & Knowles, 1993; Florio-Ruane, 1990; Hollingsworth, 27 1992; Huberman, 1990; Johnston, 1990; Kyle & McCutcheon, 1984; McLaren, 1991; Tom et a l . , Tom, 1995a, 1995b; Troyna & F o s t e r , 1988), w i t h l e a r n e r s (see K e l l y , 1993, Tom et a l . 1994, Tom, 1995a, 1995b), and among themselves (see Burgess, Pole, Evans, & P r i e s t l e y , 1994; Crow, L e v i n e & Nager, 1992; L i g g e t t , Glesne, Johnston, H a s a z i , & Schattman, 1994; Olesen, Droes, Hatton, Chico, & Schatzman, 1994; P o r t e r , 1994; Tom et a l . , 1994). As can be deduced from the p r e v i o u s enumeration of authors, the r e l a t i o n s h i p 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 has been the most r e c o r d e d and r e f l e c t e d on i n 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 and p r a c t i c e . Through the a n a l y s i s of p a r t i c u l a r e x p e r i e n c e s , t h i s l i t e r a t u r e e x p l o r e s 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 , i t s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s , the c o n t e x t s w i t h i n which t h i s p a r t i c u l a r k i n d of i n q u i r y i s p r a c t i s e d , and i t s advantages and c h a l l e n g e s . The r a t i o n a l e f o r d o i n g r e s e a r c h w i t h the people t h a t the r e s e a r c h i s about can be t r a c e d a g a i n to the p r a c t i c e of r e f l e x i v e r e s e a r c h . As authors q u e s t i o n 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 , they a l s o look at the r o l e t h a t the r e s e a r c h e d p l a y i n r e s e a r c h . They have at l e a s t t h r e e important reasons f o r a n a l y z i n g t h i s aspect of r e s e a r c h . F i r s t , t h e r e i s an o n t o l o g i c a l reason: the s u b j e c t s ' u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the o b j e c t o f study i s as v a l i d as - a l t h o u g h d i f f e r e n t from - the r e s e a r c h e r ' s understanding. Second t h e r e i s an e t h i c a l q u e s t i o n , i f r e s e a r c h i s about a group of people, s h o u l d n ' t they have a say i n i t ? T h i r d , there i s a p r a c t i c a l reason. Some t r a d i t i o n a l l y r e s e a r c h e d groups have demanded a more a c t i v e r o l e i n r e s e a r c h t h a t i s about them. 28 I f t h e r e are no u n i v e r s a l t r u t h s , then the e s o t e r i c and e x c l u s i v e r o l e of the r e s e a r c h e r may be q u e s t i o n e d . I f making sense i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g r e a l i t y as a t r a n s a c t i o n between o b j e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n s and p e r s o n a l frames ( E i s n e r , 1992), then i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t d i f f e r e n t people w i l l understand a problem o r s i t u a t i o n i n d i f f e r e n t ways. That does not mean t h a t one p e r s p e c t i v e i s r i g h t and the o t h e r i s wrong. There are m u l t i p l e ways of understanding r e a l i t y , which e s s e n t i a l l y means t h a t t h e r e are d i f f e r e n t r e a l i t i e s . Researchers can understand an e d u c a t i o n a l problem i n a c e r t a i n way but t e a c h e r s , f o r example, can understand i t d i f f e r e n t l y . I f academic knowledge s h o u l d r e p r e s e n t not o n l y one u n d e r s t a n d i n g of r e a l i t y but i t s m u l t i p l i c i t i e s , then r e s e a r c h e r s need to look a t the o t h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s and understandings of t h e i r r e a l i t y . One of the b e n e f i t s t h a t t h i s type of r e s e a r c h b r i n g s to the r e s u l t i n g knowledge and p r o c e s s i s a more r i c h and i n t e g r a t e d study w i t h data v a l i d a t e d by the r e s e a r c h e d (Gibson, 1985; Johnston, 1990; Kyle & McCutcheon, 1984; Troyna & F o s t e r , 1988). By i n v o l v i n g "the r e s e a r c h e d " i n design, data c o l l e c t i o n , and a n a l y s i s , 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 needs and i n t e r e s t s . The second reason to q u e s t i o n the r o l e of the r e s e a r c h e d i n r e s e a r c h i s l i n k e d t o the p r e v i o u s one. T r a d i t i o n a l l y r e s e a r c h has been done on a group of people i n the sense t h a t t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e s i g n i n g the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , c o l l e c t i n g data, and/or a n a l y z i n g the r e s u l t s has been minimal o r non e x i s t e n t . I f r e s e a r c h i s about them, then they should be more i n v o l v e d . For many t h i s i s a moral statement. For example, those 29 i n t e r e s t e d i n "empowering" p a r t i c i p a n t s argue t h a t the r e s e a r c h e d have the r i g h t t o be i n v o l v e d i n a s u b s t a n t i v e way i n r e s e a r c h so t h a t they w i l l b e n e f i t d i r e c t l y from the p r o c e s s r a t h e r than b e i n g t r e a t e d as mere o b j e c t s of the study (Lather, 1991; Schensul & Schensul, 1992). In G i t l i n ' s (1990) words, I f r e s e a r c h i s going to h e l p develop p r a c t i t i o n e r s ' v o i c e s , as opposed to 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 the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of f i n d i n g s . . . . The r e s e a r c h e r and the s u b j e c t attempt t o come t o a mutual un d e r s t a n d i n g based 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. 446). A t h i r d important f a c t o r i n i n c l u d i n g the people who are b e i n g s t u d i e d i s t h a t p r a c t i t i o n e r s and community members have become aware of t h e i r p a s s i v e r o l e i n r e s e a r c h . They are i n c r e a s i n g l y v o i c i n g t h e i r r e l u c t a n c e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s way. F u j i s a k a and G r a y z e l (1978), f o r example, r e p o r t t h a t t h e i r s u b j e c t s r e f u s e d to be t r e a t e d as anonymous and impersonal s u b j e c t s of r e s e a r c h and e i t h e r responded i n a s t a n d a r d way to the r e s e a r c h e r ' s q u e s t i o n s , or simply r e f u s e d t o answer them at a l l u n t i l genuine r a p p o r t and agreement was e s t a b l i s h e d . In response to these q u e s t i o n s d i f f e r e n t approaches have emerged: a c t i o n r e s e a r c h , p a r t i c i p a t o r y r e s e a r c h (see Brown & Tandon, 1983) c r i t i c a l ethnography, r e s e a r c h as p r a x i s (see L a t h e r , 1991), e d u c a t i v e r e s e a r c h (see G i t l i n , 1990), and so on. Although these approaches are d i f f e r e n t from one another ( f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n and comparison of these approaches see Brown & Tandon, 1983; Reason, 1994) they a l l share the i d e a of r e s e a r c h e r s and s u b j e c t s working t o g e t h e r . " C o l l a b o r a t i o n " , i s a term t h a t many authors have chosen t o r e f e r t o t h a t a s p e c t of r e s e a r c h . In t h a t sense c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h can be seen as an 30 umbrella term for these research approaches. The degree to 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 research approach, but the fact that there i s work that i s shared makes i t , i n these usages, c o l l a b o r a t i v e . The purposes f o r doing co l l a b o r a t i v e research are diverse. A framework f o r team research 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 research i s based on analyses and accounts of experiences i n the f i e l d . Authors undertake a research project with a c o l l a b o r a t i v e approach and once the study i s f i n i s h e d they reconstruct the c o l l a b o r a t i v e process and r e f l e c t on i t . They emphasize the issues that appeared as most problematic or rewarding and conclude the a r t i c l e s with words of caution and suggestions. Tom (1995a) builds on t h i s l i t e r a t u r e and on her experience i n the L i t e r a c y Demonstration Project (the same project that I study f o r t h i s t h e s i s ) , and presents a frame for analyzing decisions about who i s included 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 i n what kinds of research tasks they are involved. I found t h i s a useful frame to think about the issues that the col l a b o r a t i v e research l i t e r a t u r e shares with the topic of team research. In t h i s section, 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 to team research. Tom (1995a) suggests that there are f i v e aspects of the context i n which co l l a b o r a t i v e research takes place that a f f e c t the decisions that researchers make about who w i l l collaborate and how c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i l l occur. These aspects are: purpose, settings, s k i l l , time, and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . 31 Purpose Different research purposes c a l l for d i f f e r e n 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 . Examples of these differences are the close and t r u s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p that has to be secured between researcher and p a r t i c i p a n t i n a l i f e history, and an evaluation study for which i t i s es s e n t i a l to "demonstrate that [the researchers'] l o y a l t y to the organizations' goals or administrators has not blinded them to what needs to be seen i n the organizations" (Tom, 1995a, p. 6). In research teams that include p a r t i c i p a n t s , the purpose of the study d i r e c t l y influences who w i l l be part of the team and what kinds of a c t i v i t i e s each person w i l l undertake. By a f f e c t i n g the rela t i o n s h i p s with the object of study, the purpose of the in v e s t i g a t i o n also a f f e c t s the re l a t i o n s h i p s inside the research team. Purposes that c a l l for a more distant r e l a t i o n s h i p with 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 include p a r t i c i p a n t s , 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 strategies are r e s t r i c t e d . If the study c a l l s for a set product, then team members are r e s t r i c t e d i n t h e i r tasks to those that b u i l d into that goal. If the funding agency only requires a report of a c t i v i t i e s , team members are more free to 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 also influence decisions i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e research. Tom points at three i n s t i t u t i o n s as part of the s e t t i n g : the funders', the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' , and the researchers'. She 32 d i s c r i m i n a t e s two a s p e c t s i n t h i s i n f l u e n c e . F i r s t , the r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s and r e s e a r c h e r s have i n t h e i r own i n s t i t u t i o n s a f f e c t the k i n d s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t they can b u i l d w i t h each o t h e r . The i n s t i t u t i o n might r e l e a s e a c e r t a i n amount of hours f o r r e s e a r c h time, o r they might r e q u i r e a s p e c i f i c k i n d of product o r performance. Second, w h i l e working to g e t h e r , p a r t i c i p a n t s and r e s e a r c h e r s are a l s o bound by the r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t they s t i l l have o u t s i d e of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Teachers c o l l a b o r a t i n g w i t h l e a r n e r s might f i n d i t hard t o l e t go of t h e i r r o l e as t e a c h e r s , and v i c e - v e r s a . On t h i s t o p i c , Tom r e p o r t s on the d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t the r e s e a r c h team encountered w h i l e t r y i n g to work w i t h c o n s u l t i n g groups t h a t i n c l u d e d both l e a r n e r s and t e a c h e r s (see a l s o Crow et a l . , 1992, and C l i f t et a l . , 1992). In team r e s e a r c h , we can a ssess the i n f l u e n c e of at l e a s t two i n s t i t u t i o n s (funders' and r e s e a r c h e r s ' ) i f the team i s composed o n l y of academics, and a t h i r d one ( p a r t i c i p a n t s ' ) i f any l i a i s o n r e s e a r c h e r s are i n c l u d e d . I suggest t h a t even when a l l team members are a f f i l i a t e d w i t h the same i n s t i t u t i o n , i t a f f e c t s d e c i s i o n s i n the team i n at l e a s t two ways. F i r s t , the r e s e a r c h e r s ' i n s t i t u t i o n - u s u a l l y a u n i v e r s i t y - shapes d e c i s i o n s because i t p l a c e s requirements on the k i n d of r e s e a r c h t h a t i t houses. I f the u n i v e r s i t y p l a y s an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e i n the p r o j e c t , the ways i n which i t a f f e c t s the study are e n l a r g e d . Second, u n i v e r s i t y team members s t i l l c o n t i n u e t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e s . P r o f e s s o r s s t i l l have t o t e a c h c l a s s e s , p a r t i c i p a t e i n committee meetings, and a d v i s e t h e i r s t u d e n t s . Students i n v o l v e d as r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t s have t o take courses, do 33 t h e i r r e s e a r c h , or w r i t e t h e i r t h e s e s . In some u n i v e r s i t i e s students have a l i m i t e d amount of hours t h a t they can d e d i c a t e to a job i f they want to be c o n s i d e r e d f u l l time s t u d e n t s . In sum, the f a c t t h a t a l l team members belong to the same i n s t i t u t i o n does not d i m i n i s h the i n f l u e n c e t h a t the i n s t i t u t i o n has on the d e c i s i o n s about who s h o u l d c o l l a b o r a t e and how. When r e s e a r c h teams are composed of both p r o f e s s o r s and students, t h e i r out-of-the-team r o l e permeates t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n ways t h a t may a f f e c t the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s . As l e a r n e r s and t e a c h e r s c o u l d not i n t e r a c t i n a d i f f e r e n t way i n the L i t e r a c y Demonstration P r o j e c t ' s c o n s u l t i n g groups, team members can f i n d i t hard to r e l a t e t o each o t h e r i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p d i f f e r e n t from t h a t which they h o l d o u t s i d e of the team. Although I am not a d v o c a t i n g t h a t p r o f e s s o r s and s t u d e n t s should have the same k i n d of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n a r e s e a r c h team (see Tom, 1995c), I am a r g u i n g t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t they want to e s t a b l i s h i n the team are d i f f e r e n t from those t h a t they h e l d o u t s i d e of i t , a l t h o u g h s t i l l shaped by them. M a i n t a i n i n g those two d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s may be hard t o accomplish. Needs, rewards, and m o t i v a t i o n s a l s o d i f f e r i n d i f f e r e n t i n s t i t u t i o n s . Tom and Sork (1994) a l s o p o i n t a t t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y as a p o i n t of p o t e n t i a l problems i n a d u l t e d u c a t i o n c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h . They suggest t h a t t o a v o i d i t becoming a problem " c o l l a b o r a t o r s should work t o g e t h e r to make sure t h a t the outcomes of t h e i r work w i l l be viewed p o s i t i v e l y by those t o whom they are a c c o u n t a b l e " (p. 52). D i f f e r e n c e s i n needs and rewards p l a y a key r o l e i n team r e s e a r c h . Even when a l l r e s e a r c h e r s i n the team need t o be 34 recognized i n the same way, the i n s t i t u t i o n inf luences dec i s ions through i t s determination of who should be rewarded and how. As Tom points out, Sharing c r e d i t with 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 or students - as authors,-grant r e c i p i e n t s or a u t h o r i t i e s on the research genera l l y diminishes (and almost never increases) the academic researcher ' s status 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 professor who i s working towards ge t t ing tenure would f i n d i t very hard to share c r e d i t with other team members, because that would mean l e s s recogni t ion of her work i n terms of tenure competi t ion. The funders' i n s t i t u t i o n a f f ec t s dec is ions because i t shapes the bas ic h ierarchy 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 th in the team. Porter (1994) describes i n d e t a i l how SSHRC (Soc ia l Sciences and Humanities Research Council) gu ide l ines for funding inf luenced her dec is ions about what kinds of people to h i r e for her team. She had thought of h i r i n g advanced d o c t o r a l students, with experience with feminism, soc io logy , Marxism, and ethnography (a background l i k e P o r t e r ' s ) . The "low pay rates allowed for research a s s i s tan t s ," among other th ings , however, pushed her to make d i f f e r e n t choices . She d i r e c t l y addresses how those dec i s ions re su l t ed i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l team: The grant was i n my name. I was u l t i m a t e l y respons ib le for the pro jec t and the money; I had considerable power and author i ty over other members of the research ' team.' No matter how we disguised i t , or how far we t r i e d to achieve more equal r e l a t i o n s and more democratic procedures, the inescapable fact was that 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 reputa t ion that was at stake (p. 73). There i s yet another aspect of the s e t t i n g that Tom (1995a) suggests i s an inf luence i n dec i s ions about r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n 35 co l l a b o r a t i v e research. "Researchers have the p o t e n t i a l power to a f f e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s ' l i v e l i h o o d s , careers or s e l f esteem and t h i s power between researchers and p a r t i c i p a n t s influences research" (p. 7 ). I would suggest that p a r t i c i p a n t s also have the power to a f f e c t the researcher. Participants can harm a study or the reputation of a professor by boycotting an i n v e s t i g a t i o n , or leaking information to administrators and funders. When people get involved i n teams, they get involved i n re l a t i o n s h i p s with other people. By doing t h i s , people become more vulnerable to each other. Power.issues between research team members are a complex topic. As researchers can harm pa r t i c i p a n t s i n a study, researchers can harm each other i n a research team. Professors can place a very high demand of time and s k i l l s on students, and can i n that way a f f e c t students' career. Students can a f f e c t professors' reputation by i n i t i a t i n g rumours, or doing poor work, for example. Professors can a f f e c t other professors' careers as well. Other issues bring more complexity to the power r e l a t i o n s i n an academic research team. When a professor hires students, she becomes t h e i r employer and boss. To add more complexity to t h i s issue, often the research d i r e c t o r i s also the students' advisor. Researchers then are connected to each other through many - sometimes c o n f l i c t i n g -r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The m u l t i p l i c i t y of roles and r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the researchers can become a source of problematic s i t u a t i o n s . S k i l l s S k i l l s i s the t h i r d aspect of the context that Tom presents as an influence i n determining col l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . It 3 6 i s important, she explains, to make decisions about t r a i n i n g people i n the s k i l l s "that they need to carry t h e i r roles e f f e c t i v e l y " (p. 9). Tom presents the concept of s k i l l s as "project-relevant s k i l l s . " Although not e x p l i c i t l y r e f e r r e d to by the author, t h i s i s an important point i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e research, because the p o t e n t i a l for discriminating d i f f e r e n t kinds of knowledge for being e i t h e r too t h e o r e t i c a l (the researchers') or too p r a c t i c a l (the pra c t i t i o n e r s ' ) i s great. . Involving p a r t i c i p a n t s i n research assumes that p r a c t i c a l and th e o r e t i c a l knowledge are valuable. Both kinds of knowledge are considered important and necessary i n research, although admittedly d i f f e r e n t (see also Kyle & McCutcheon, 1984; Schensul & Schensul, 1992; Tom and Sork, 1994, Troyna & Foster, 1988). S k i l l i s an important factor i n team research. I already mentioned how Porter (1994) describes the importance that she placed i n the s k i l l s she wanted the research ass i s t a n t s to have. Liggett et a l . (1994) also describe the relevance of s k i l l s i n sel e c t i n g the team members. They stress that one of the s k i l l s that 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 could work together without i n t r u s i v e egos blocking i n t e r a c t i o n , [and] who would enjoy spending time with each other" (p. 78). They admit that they placed as much emphasis on personality as they did on knowledge and experience. Although l i t e r a t u r e on team research does not r e f e r to t r a i n i n g sessions for team members, there are a l l u s i o n s to retreats or time spent together i n which team members became acquainted with each other and a sense of team emerges. 37 Time Time i s one of the most frequently mentioned drawbacks i n coll a b o r a t i v e research. Most authors r e f l e c t on the fact that c o l l a b o r a t i v e research takes more time than non-collaborative research. Because t h i s kind of research involves d i f f e r e n t people working together, the already 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 research design i s exacerbated. It i s not always possible to plan and predict the development of events. This presents a high r i s k f o r overload on ce r t a i n r o l e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the d i r e c t o r ' s . Tom argues that "the challenge f o r dealing with the time pressures i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e work i s to f i n d creative ways to b u i l d and r e t a i n a sense of connection between the members of the c o l l a b o r a t i v e research project i n ways that maximize time use" (p. 12). Time i s also scarce i n team research. Researchers need to negotiate meanings and procedures. Authors (Crow et a l . , 1992, Liggett et a l . , 1994, Porter, 1994) describe the process of making meaning together, disagreeing and compromising that they have had to 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 project than others, time demands may re s u l t i n overload r o l e s . Tom et. a l (1994) report on how team members' roles were overloaded, p a r t i c u l a r l y that of the research d i r e c t o r . Researchers need to engage i n team research acknowledging the e f f e c t s that t h i s approach w i l l have i n the study, time being one of them. C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y The l a s t aspect that Tom re f e r s to i s c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . Collaborative research challenges the t r a d i t i o n a l notions of 38 c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y because these are based on the assumption that researchers are separate from p a r t i c i p a n t s . An a d d i t i o n a l question arises when some p a r t i c i p a n t s want to be named. Tom argues that i t i s necessary to e x p l i c i t l y discuss these issues between the collaborators to make decisions together. In team research, when p a r t i c i p a n t s share information with one researcher, they are sharing i t with the whole team. And keeping c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , even with the use of pseudonyms, becomes a challenge. This challenge i s sharpened when the team includes p a r t i c i p a n t s . With the exception of some (Tom et a l . , 1994, Tom, 1995a), most authors do not mention the problems that a r i s e around c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i n team research. I agree with Tom (1995a) that acknowledging the challenge and working inside and outside the team on issues of 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 to team research. Adult education and team research To r e f e r to the r e l a t i o n s between adult education and team research I am going to look at the two meanings that the word research has i n the discourse of adult education (Blunt, 1994) . Research can be conceived of as a process, "a c a r e f u l and systematic means of study or inquiry conducted with the inte n t i o n to discover new knowledge and understandings" (p. 167), or as a product, the outcomes of such a process that are considered part of the academic f i e l d of adult education. The topic of team research i s connected, through both meanings of research, to the adult education f i e l d . As a process, team research r e f e r s to one p a r t i c u l a r way of doing research that i s growing fas t i n adult education research 39 projects. This i s a consequence of at least two processes. F i r s t , researchers are studying complex phenomena that require more than one researcher to gather data (Burgess et a l . , 1994; Porter, 1994, Tom et a l . , 1994) . Second, working i n groups has been appreciated as a b e n e f i c i a l factor i n other educational enterprises. 6 In the broad educational f i e l d , group work i s an issue that i s gaining more and more attention from educators. The l i t e r a t u r e explores how students work together, i n whatever l e v e l of education we ref e r to, and the impact of that process on the learning experience (Cowie & Rudduck, 1990, Doise, 1990, Ruggles-Gere, 1987). From primary school to u n i v e r s i t y education, and non formal i n s t i t u t i o n s , teachers are using small group techniques to f a c i l i t a t e learning experiences. Cooperative groups appear to f a c i l i t a t e the achievement of i n d i v i d u a l , s o c i a l , and p o l i t i c a l goals. When learners work i n cooperative small groups t h e i r motivation i s increased, 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 are developed, understanding i s enriched and interpersonal s k i l l s are f a c i l i t a t e d (Cowie & Rudduck, 1990) . But even when researchers work j o i n t l y , the l i t e r a t u r e has not r e f l e c t e d that p r a c t i c e . Except for a few recent accounts (Liggett, Glesne, Johnston, Hasazi, Schattman, 1994; Crow, Levine, & Nager, 1992) researchers who work or have worked j o i n t l y have not documented, or at least published, accounts of the processes and problems they went through while t r y i n g to work 6 I consider that research i s i n i t s e l f an educational undertaking where an investigator, or a group, sets out to learn more about a s p e c i f i c process, s i t u a t i o n , or problem. 40 i n a team. The adult education l i t e r a t u r e has almost no reference to the process of c o n s t i t u t i n g a team, or the influence .that t h i s kind of work has on the research or on the researchers. As a product - the knowledge r e s u l t i n g from research -studying team research opens p o t e n t i a l roles f o r adult educators. In other words, the insights that we gain from studying research teams reveal that adult educators may be needed i n the t r a i n i n g of research team members. Although researchers have been working together, there are no models fo r doing research i n teams. Researchers are only beginning to understand the s k i l l s that are needed i n doing t h i s kind of research. The l i t e r a t u r e t e l l s us that researchers have found some s k i l l s to be important i n working as a team. Liggett et a l . (1994) r e f e r to the importance of negotiating meanings among team members, others 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 (Johnston, 1990), yet others look at s h i f t i n g roles (Hollingworth, 1992; Olesen, 1994). Researchers r e f l e c t on t h e i r mistakes, and share t h e i r conclusions i n the hope that other researchers w i l l learn from t h e i r r e f l e c t i o n . I believe that i t i s time t o . f i n d a more systematic way of using researchers' r e f l e c t i o n s . If we can agree on the s k i l l s that are necessary to be e f f e c t i v e members of teams, then we can look at ways of teaching these s k i l l s . Tom and Sork (1994) claim that co l l a b o r a t i v e research - which includes team research -Is not an easy approach to research and i t requires a set of s k i l l s that are r a r e l y part of t r a d i t i o n a l research methods courses taught i n u n i v e r s i t i e s . . . . Academic researchers must learn the s k i l l s that allow them to be e f f e c t i v e , non-offensive 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 t r a i n i n g component as a p a r a l l e l p r o c e s s i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h , one t h a t supports c o l l a b o r a t o r s throughout the course of the r e s e a r c h . A d r i a n B l u n t (1994) has r e c e n t l y p u b l i s h e d an a r t i c l e i n which he e x p l o r e s the f u t u r e of r e s e a r c h i n the f i e l d of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n . He f o r e s e e s more c o l l a b o r a t i v e and i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y work, and more s o c i a l l y and p e d a g o g i c a l l y r e l e v a n t knowledge. I argue t h a t these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are present i n team r e s e a r c h . I f we are t o use t h i s approach, we need to acknowledge i t s p e c u l i a r i t i e s t o take advantage of i t s p o t e n t i a l as a d i f f i c u l t but i n n o v a t i v e and worthwhile approach. In t h i s chapter I have framed the t o p i c of 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 . A l t h o u g h the l i t e r a t u r e e x p l o r e s the i s s u e s 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 and p r a c t i t i o n e r s , i t i s o n l y r e c e n t l y b e g i n n i n g t o address the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among r e s e a r c h e r s . In the next c h a p t e r , I d e s c r i b e the methodology of my r e s e a r c h and e x p l a i n the c h a l l e n g e s t h a t I c o n f r o n t e d i n a n a l y z i n g the d a t a . CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY To a n a l y z e the c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s w i t h i n a r e s e a r c h team I have looked at 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 r e s e a r c h team. In t h i s c h a p t e r I d e s c r i b e how I d i d t h i s study. I b e g i n by d e s c r i b i n g the team members. Next, I d e s c r i b e the data I used and how I a n a l y z e d i t . F o l l o w i n g , I p r e s e n t an a n a l y s i s of the c h a l l e n g e s t h a t I encountered w h i l e d o i n g t h i s r e s e a r c h and how I d e a l t w i t h them. P a r t i c u l a r l y I look i n t o the problems of doing r e s e a r c h about a team i n which my academic a d v i s o r and I were both i n v o l v e d . Team members The r e s e a r c h team was composed of t e n persons: s i x graduate students, two l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s , and two c o - i n v e s t i g a t o r s . The l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s were two te a c h e r s from the programs t h a t were b e i n g s t u d i e d . Mark had been working as a t e a c h e r f o r the program s i n c e 1984. Bef o r e t h i s he had worked as an elementary t e a c h e r f o r f i v e y e ars i n the B.C. p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n system. At the time of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , Mark was f e e l i n g f r u s t r a t e d w i t h the program, and had been t a l k i n g about l e a v i n g i t . Mark's i n c l u s i o n i n the team was c o n s i d e r e d an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r him to have a change and take some time t o t h i n k about the program. He was a g r e a t h e l p i n c r e a t i n g an atmosphere of acceptance at the l i t e r a c y c e n t r e 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 t a s k s as e a s i l y and e f f e c t i v e l y as p o s s i b l e . The f a c t t h a t t e a c h e r s and l e a r n e r s l i k e d Mark, and t h a t they knew he was p a r t of the . r e s e a r c h team f a c i l i t a t e d t h e i r acceptance of our presence i n the s i t e . In the team meetings, 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 to joke and at the same time he brought to the team an in s i d e r ' s c r i t i c a l perspective of the program. Deborah Lee immigrated to Canada from Hong Kong i n 1985, and was hired by the City of Vancouver i n 1988. She had joined the language program as a learner when i t f i r s t started, i n 1990. Because of Deborah's hands-on experience with the program, and her former profession as a teacher (in Hong Kong), she was seconded from her p o s i t i o n with the C i t y of Vancouver to a job with the School Board as a teacher i n the language program where she now works. Although i n the beginning she was not sure about being part of the research team, she quickly came to enjoy t h i s new aspect of her work. She arranged for team members to meet with learners and teachers, and dedicated a l o t of attention to making sure we found people to t a l k to i n the programs. In the team meetings Deborah was usually quiet; she enjoyed l i s t e n i n g to the discussions. She talked whenever she was asked a s p e c i f i c question about the program, her own philosophy, or when she disagreed with what was being said. Deborah i s a firm b e l i e v e r i n the philosophy of her program and, therefore, brought the programs' perspective to the meetings. The graduate students were enroled i n the master's and doctoral programs i n the Department of Administrative, Adult, and Higher Education i n the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Five of the s i x graduate students were hire d as fieldworkers. The other graduate student, Cathie Cunningham-Dunlop, was h i r e d as the administrative assistant. Cathie was working on her doctoral research studying how organizational ideologies and i n d i v i d u a l intentions are translated into planning strategies f o r adult 44 e d u c a t i o n programs. She was not always p r e s e n t a t the team meetings, but she was a c o n s t a n t presence f o r everyone i n the team. She always made sure t h a t the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e work was as l i t t l e of a burden as p o s s i b l e . More than once she overworked s.o t h a t the r e s t of the team members found i t e a s i e r t o d e a l w i t h the t e c h n o l o g i c a l problems. In January 1993 she l e f t the team to d e d i c a t e her a t t e n t i o n f u l l y t o her r e s e a r c h and growing f a m i l y . She was r e p l a c e d by Tom N e s b i t . Tom, o r i g i n a l l y from Northern England, has d e d i c a t e d most of h i s a d u l t l i f e t o workers' e d u c a t i o n . He had been i n v o l v e d i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o j e c t s b e f o r e . He moved t o Canada w i t h h i s w i f e t o do h i s d o c t o r a l work. A f t e r t a k i n g the ethnography course w i t h A l l i s o n , she i n v i t e d him t o a p p l y f o r the p o s i t i o n . Tom was a l r e a d y working on h i s d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n on a d u l t t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g mathematics, as w e l l as b e i n g a student r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . Tom found t h i s an i n t e r e s t i n g o p p o r t u n i t y to be i n v o l v e d i n a c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o j e c t i n what he understood was a s u p p o r t i v e r o l e . He found h i m s e l f wanting to p a r t i c i p a t e more i n the team meetings and a n a l y s i s than he had time f o r . Jane Dawson, one of the f i e l d w o r k e r s , was at the stage of b e g i n n i n g her d o c t o r a l r e s e a r c h about e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s i n the workplace. Jane had been o r i g i n a l l y r e l u c t a n t t o accept the p o s i t i o n i n the team because she was a f r a i d i t would take too much time from her own r e s e a r c h . She came t o the team w i t h an i n t e r e s t i n workers' e d u c a t i o n , which she hoped she would l e a r n about by b e i n g i n v o l v e d i n the l i t e r a c y program t h a t t r a i n e d m u n i c i p a l workers. I t h i n k of Jane as a r e f l e c t i v e , r a t i o n a l , and o r g a n i z e d p a r t i c i p a n t i n the team. Her r e f l e c t i o n s u s u a l l y 45 triggered i n t e r e s t i n g discussions. She writes b e a u t i f u l l y and her quotes have been of great insight i n the reports and i n t h i s thesis as w e l l . Pat Dyer's background i s i n occupational therapy. She found herself f r u s t r a t e d with the h i e r a r c h i c a l medical model and decided to change her career. She had long been inter e s t e d i n feminist issues, and at the time of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n she was student representative i n the Department of Adult Education i n the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, at the same time that she was taking her l a s t two courses f o r the master's program. Pat and I had been taking courses and studying together since we met i n 1991, and were very close. Pat was also involved with a church community agency that worked i n the Downtown East Side with the mentally i l l and, as the project developed, she engaged i n issues of l i t e r a c y and language learning, which she pursued l a t e r by working as a f u l l time English as a second language (ESL) teacher. Pat knew about the project and had hoped to become a member of the team long before i t was formed. She brought to the project her endless energy and commitment to the learners and teachers i n the programs. Lyn Harper became involved with the project s i x months before the team was formed. While working for the project she was also working on her master's thesis which explored the experiences of a Lebanese immigrant to Canada. Lyn's background as an anthropologist emerged i n her l i v e l y comments during the team meetings. Lyn has the a b i l i t y to r e f l e c t and bring up concerns about research tasks and problems i n a p o s i t i v e and constructive way. Her extensive and r i c h f i e l d n o t e s have been a 46 great source of ideas when r e - t h i n k i n g the N a t i o n a l Literacy-E v a l u a t i o n P r o j e c t . Anne Morley, a B r i t i s h immigrant to Canada, came i n t o the team i n September 1992. She was w r i t i n g her master's t h e s i s on mature women students' experiences i n a career p r e p a r a t i o n program. Although Anne kept reminding the team members tha t she "came l a t e , " none of the others f e l t any d i f f e r e n c e . Anne accommodated q u i c k l y to the dynamics of the team. She brought an understanding and compassionate look at 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. Anne t a l k s and w r i t e s as i f she was w r i t i n g poems. Every time I found a quote from her I f e l t compelled to copy i t and i n c l u d e i t i n t h i s t h e s i s . I immigrated to Canada from Argentina f o u r and a h a l f years ago. I have a background i n t e a c h i n g and, when A l l i s o n i n v i t e d me to 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 at the p o i n t of choosing the t o p i c f o r my master's t h e s i s . I chose to take the o p p o r t u n i t y of working i n a team, which I enjoy d e a r l y . I was always more concerned about the research process than I was about the research content, i f they c o u l d be separated i n such a 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 the research d i r e c t o r , came to Canada from the United States eleven years 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 . This was the f i r s t c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o j e c t , or team, th 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 d i r e c t e d . A l l i s o n s t r u g g l e d through the p r o j e c t to achieve 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 and m u l t i p l e r o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . As a research d i r e c t o r she was supportive and understanding, yet demanding. 47 Hanna was a g e o g r a p h i c a l l y d i s t a n t member of the team, and we a l l f e l t t h a t . With her background i n s o c i o l o g y and w e l l known f o r her work i n l i t e r a c y r e s e a r c h we a l l hoped t h a t we c o u l d spend more time t o g e t h e r and l e a r n more from her. When she came to Vancouver she was busy, and the scheduled time f o r team meetings was always too s h o r t . But she came t o know a l l of us v e r y w e l l by r e a d i n g our f i e l d n o t e s , and l i s t e n i n g t o the team meeting t a p e s . In more than one way we thought of her as "the expert" and the team member who had the "bigger p i c t u r e " of what was going on i n the programs. The data For most of the p r o j e c t ' s data c o l l e c t i o n stage ( A p r i l t o December 1992) the r e s e a r c h team met f o r t h r e e hours e v e r y o t h e r week. During the data a n a l y s i s and w r i t i n g stage (January 1993 to February 1994) the meetings were h e l d weekly, biweekly, o r monthly depending on the need of the team. A l t h o u g h these meetings were taped w i t h the i n t e n t i o n of i n c l u d i n g Hanna and h e l p i n g her f e e l p a r t of the team, a copy of the tapes was kept i n Vancouver. These tapes have not been s y s t e m a t i c a l l y used f o r data a n a l y s i s i n the L i t e r a c y p r o j e c t . I have used the r e s e a r c h team meeting tapes as my main source of d a t a . The team h e l d a t o t a l of twenty t h r e e meetings. I have a n a l y z e d the tapes of twenty r e s e a r c h team meetings. 7 The tapes f o r two meetings are m i s s i n g , so I r e l i e d on the notes t h a t I took (as a team member) and the agenda t o know what were 7The r e c o r d i n g q u a l i t y of the tapes f o r one of the meetings was v e r y bad, so although I have heard them, I have not been a b l e to analyze the data i n depth. 48 the t o p i c s d i s c u s s e d i n them. In a d d i t i o n , I used two more tapes from a p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t the team gave i n the A d u l t E d u c a t i o n program i n the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. O v e r a l l I have worked w i t h f i f t y s i x (56) hours of taped c o n v e r s a t i o n s . I a l s o used e-mail messages, f i e l d n o t e s , f i n a l r e p o r t s , and memos t h a t were d i s t r i b u t e d t o each team member d u r i n g the p r o j e c t as support documents. The d a t a I used was not c o l l e c t e d w i t h the i n t e n t i o n of documenting a p r o c e s s . The i n t e n t i o n behind t a p i n g the meetings was to keep one of the team members, Hanna, as c l o s e as p o s s i b l e t o the team. A c c o r d i n g l y , tapes are a r e c o r d of the meetings, w i t h no i n t e n t i o n a l focus o r g u i d i n g on my p a r t . I have used the tapes as a r e s e a r c h e r would use documents, assuming t h a t they are r e c o r d s of a p r o c e s s . In the same way t h a t h i s t o r i a n s cannot ask q u e s t i o n s of the people who wrote h i s t o r i c documents, I f e l t I c o u l d not ask the team members t o comment about the p r o c e s s as they would have done during the p r o c e s s . I c o u l d ask the team members to r e f l e c t on the p r o c e s s a f t e r the f a c t , and I would get v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n about how they view the p r o c e s s i n r e t r o s p e c t . T h e i r t h i n k i n g today w i l l most p r o b a b l y not be the same as i t was d u r i n g the p r o j e c t . Thus, the data I worked w i t h was a l r e a d y c o l l e c t e d and I d i d not have any c o n t r o l over what was i n i t and what was not. I c o u l d have chosen to i n t e r v i e w each team member and a n a l y z e t h e i r c u r r e n t r e f l e c t i o n on the c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s . That would have been a d i f f e r e n t approach - and a d i f f e r e n t study. I chose to analyze the team meetings t o understand the c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s e s t h a t the team went through. I took f o r g r a n t e d t h a t 49 the f a c t t h a t I could - not shape the data e n t a i l e d some l i m i t a t i o n s t o the k i n d of a n a l y s i s I c o u l d do. I chose to work w i t h the data t h a t was a l r e a d y t h e r e . A n a l y s i s The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s a d e t a i l e d account of how I d e a l t w i t h the a n a l y s i s of the data and the p a r t i c u l a r c h a l l e n g e s t h a t the work pr e s e n t e d . M c M i l l a n and Schumacher (1989) argue t h a t one of the t h i n g s q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h e r s can do to enhance the c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e i r data i s t o make the d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s s t r a t e g i e s they use e x p l i c i t . I found i t e s s e n t i a l t o share the paths t h a t I walked to w r i t e t h i s t h e s i s . Taped data The form of my data, tapes, p r e s e n t e d a c h a l l e n g e t o me. The f i r s t i s s u e I had t o t a c k l e was to d e c i d e whether or not I needed to t r a n s c r i b e a l l , o r at l e a s t the most r e l e v a n t p a r t s of the t a p e s . 8 I s t r u g g l e d w i t h the i d e a of spending time and money t r a n s c r i b i n g the tapes. I had never worked w i t h o r a l data b e f o r e and c o u l d not f i n d u s e f u l r e f e r e n c e s to guide my a n a l y s i s . As I e x p l o r e d the l i t e r a t u r e on ethnographic and q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s I found t h a t t h e r e were no reasons why the data had to be w r i t t e n down and not assume o t h e r forms. A l t h o u g h ethnographers produce most of t h e i r data by w r i t i n g , I c o u l d not f i n d any argument t h a t would c o n t r a d i c t having the data i n another form. 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 are an 8 D e c i d i n g what was r e l e v a n t f o r my t h e s i s was a v e r y d i f f i c u l t t h i n g t o do i n the b e g i n n i n g of the data a n a l y s i s . As i n most of q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s , the themes f o r t h i s t h e s i s emerged throughout the a n a l y s i s p r o c e s s . How c o u l d I d e c i d e what t o t r a n s c r i b e and what not t o t r a n s c r i b e beforehand? 50 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t the r e s e a r c h e r makes of her e x p e r i e n c e s and o b s e r v a t i o n 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 (Ottenberg, 1990). The form 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 a f f e c t s the image of the event t h a t i s presented, and each form of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a f f e c t s t h a t image d i f f e r e n t l y . W r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t s , though, are no c l o s e r t o r e a l i t y than taped c o n v e r s a t i o n s . One form i s not more r e l i a b l e than the o t h e r . Geertz s t r e s s e s the r e l a t i o n between the ethnographer and the w r i t t e n d a t a but he p o i n t s out the need f o r r e f l e c t i o n on what th a t data i s , a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n : What does the ethnographer do?- he [ s i c ] w r i t e s . Or, again, more e x a c t l y , ' i n s c r i b e s . ' Most ethnography i s i n f a c t t o be found i n books and a r t i c l e s , r a t h e r than i n f i l m s , r e c o r d s , museum d i s p l a y s , or whatever. S e l f -c o n s c i o u s n e s s about modes of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n (not t o speak of experiments w i t h them) has been l a c k i n g i n anthropology. (1973, p. 19) Robert Sanjek s y n t h e s i z e d the advantages t h a t some ethnographers found i n u s i n g tape r e c o r d e d t e x t s i n s t e a d of r e c o r d i n g by hand: accounts are r i c h e r i n d e t a i l s and c o n t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n , and they c o n s t i t u t e " i n s t a n t t e x t s " compared t o the hard work of hand r e c o r d i n g f o r hours. Sanjek a l s o p o i n t s out the problems of t r a n s c r i b i n g ; one hour of t a l k can take s i x t o e i g h t hours of t r a n s c r i b i n g and " u n t r a n s c r i b e d tapes s i t i n many o f f i c e s and s t u d i e s " (p. 114). He ends the d i s c u s s i o n on a r e s i g n e d note: "Technology marches on and taped t e x t s are here t o sta y " (1990, p. 115). Whether o r not these t e x t s are t o be t r a n s c r i b e d i s not p a r t of h i s d i s c u s s i o n , i t i s taken f o r granted. My data were c o n v e r s a t i o n s , laughs, d i s c u s s i o n s - sounds! Why would I need, or even want, t o t r a n s l a t e them t o another 51 t form? Hammersley and A t k i n s o n suggest t h a t t r a n s c r i p t i o n i s not e s s e n t i a l , "one can simply t r e a t the tape as a document, in d e x i n g , summarizing, and/or copying s e c t i o n s of i t " (1983, p. 161). Although I o n l y found one b r i e f c o n c r e t e d e s c r i p t i o n of the use of taped i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h no t r a n s c r i p t i o n , 9 I found no t h e o r e t i c a l reasons f o r the need to t r a n s c r i b e . There were p r a c t i c a l consequences of t h i s c h o i c e . I had done t e x t a n a l y s i s b e f o r e but I had never done i t w i t h taped c o n v e r s a t i o n s . I had t o c r e a t e a system t h a t would be r e l i a b l e and p r a c t i c a l . I began by l i s t e n i n g t o a l l the t a p e s . While doing so I kept three d i f f e r e n t r e c o r d s : a l o g of t o p i c s , a l i s t of themes, and a q u a s i j o u r n a l . The f i r s t r e c o r d was a l o g of the 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 the meeting. For t h i s purpose I used the counter on the tape r e c o r d e r . For example, on the page I r e c o r d e d t h a t from 0109 u n t i l 0342 t h e r e was a d i s c u s s i o n about a u t h o r s h i p . T h i s counter l o g was v e r y u s e f u l when needing to quote team members, or when I went back t o l i s t e n to a s p e c i f i c s e c t i o n of the tape. I t served as an index. The second r e c o r d I kept was of themes, a l i s t of i d e a s and i s s u e s t h a t I saw emerging from the data, f o r example c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , i n c l u s i v i t y , and a u t h o r i t y . These were problems t h a t were d i s c u s s e d i n the r e s e a r c h team meetings, o r r e l a t e d p o i n t s t h a t I thought would be i n t e r e s t i n g t o e x p l o r e i n the a n a l y s i s . As I l i s t e n e d t o the tapes the themes began t o take form and I c o u l d see how they emerged agai n and a g a i n i n ensuing 9 Robert Sanjek d e s c r i b e s how Paul Bohannan, the p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r f o r a r e s e a r c h team taped 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 took notes on the tapes (1990, p. 332). 52 meetings. The t h i r d r e c o r d I kept was f o r p e r s o n a l r e f l e c t i o n s . T h i s l i s t i n c l u d e d i s s u e s such as my memories of the meetings; the f e e l i n g s t h a t I had w h i l e l i s t e n i n g t o my son, a two month o l d baby i n the tapes, and suddenly hear him, an e i g h t e e n month o l d boy now, c a l l i n g me; or even p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s of d e a l i n g w i t h the taped data. Once I had l i s t e n e d t o a l l the tapes I put t o g e t h e r the i n f o r m a t i o n I had about each theme and wrote a one o r two page d e s c r i p t i o n f o r each theme. At t h a t p o i n t the themes began t o converge and g a i n complexity. I ended up w i t h e i g h t i n c l u s i v e themes which i n t u r n became p a r t of the c h a p t e r s i n t h i s t h e s i s . I went back to the tapes over and over a g a i n . T h i s time I went to s p e c i f i c segments of the tapes and made sure I l i s t e n e d t o the context of the c o n v e r s a t i o n as w e l l as the c o n t e n t . I looked not 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 my arguments, but a l s o those which seemed to c o n t r a d i c t them. The procedures I used to analyze the taped data were s i m i l a r i n many ways to the t r a d i t i o n a l q u a l i t a t i v e procedures of a n a l y z i n g w r i t t e n data as d e s c r i b e d by Hammersley & A t k i n s o n (1983) . Once I had a complete d r a f t of the t h e s i s I d i s t r i b u t e d c o p i e s t o a l l team members. I got back the c o p i e s f i l l e d w i t h s c r i b b l e s and s u g g e s t i o n s which I i n c o r p o r a t e d t o the subsequent d r a f t s . Researcher and s u b j e c t I have done an a n a l y s i s of a p r o j e c t i n which I worked. In a way I was s t u d y i n g myself; I was r e s e a r c h e r and s u b j e c t . T h i s c a r r i e d b e n e f i t s and drawbacks. On the p o s i t i v e s i d e I had an i n s i d e r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e . I had been p a r t of the p r o j e c t and knew 53 what i t f e l t l i k e to be p a r t of the team. I have ve r y strong memories of the meetings which helped to c o n t e x t u a l i z e some d i s c u s s i o n s . I have i n c l u d e d some d e s c r i p t i o n s based on my memories of the events when there was no r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the events i n the research team meeting tapes. On the other hand I had t o convince myself t h a t I was more than a subject i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . At one po i n t I was confused about where my a n a l y s i s was coming from and f e l t v e r y insecure. I f e l t I had to consult w i t h every team member to make sure that they f e l t the same way I d i d about what I was w r i t i n g . Once I r e a l i z e d that 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 the d i f f e r e n c e s between them, I c o u l d handle the t e n s i o n more e a s i l y . Although I am aware of the f a l l a c y of d i v i d i n g myself i n t o two d i f f e r e n t r o l e s - re s e a r c h e r and subject - I found i t necessary. I t was very u s e f u l to t h i n k of myself as p l a y i n g two d i f f e r e n t r o l e s . The t e n s i o n d i d not cease but I became aware of i t . I found i t u s e f u l t o ask myself on what data I based my a n a l y s i s . Was there anything i n the tapes to s u b s t a n t i a t e my claims? Or was I t a l k i n g from what I remembered I was f e e l i n g at the time? U l t i m a t e l y the way i n which a rese a r c h e r a r r i v e s at a co n c l u s i o n and v a l i d a t e s her analyses d i f f e r s v e r y much from the way a research p a r t i c i p a n t r e f l e c t s on the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . As a subject I d i d not 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 the data, or w i t h the other team members. I could base my statements on how I f e l t . As a researcher, however, I had t o work much harder w i t h i s s u e s of v a l i d a t i o n and r e l i a b i l i t y . M u l t i p l e r o l e s I was not the only person i n v o l v e d i n t h i s study h o l d i n g 54 more than one ro l e . This research i s an analysis of a project for which my academic advisor, 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 anticipated that some complications could a r i s e as a r e s u l t of her double role i n t h i s study. As the project d i r e c t o r she was also one of my research subjects. As my academic advisor she was responsible for supervising my research. How would those two roles interplay? Would the research advisor be able to stop the research subject from d i r e c t i n g the thesis i n a s p e c i f i c direction? How would she be able to d i s t i n g u i s h which voice was talking? On the other hand, how would I be able to write about the project d i r e c t o r ' s role without worrying about my research supervisor's reaction? One of the things we d i d to prepare for future complications was to make sure that I would be able to f i n d someone else to talk to 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 to be someone that both A l l i s o n and I f e l t comfortable t a l k i n g to. For me i t was important to f i n d someone who would be able to understand me should I f i n d I could not t a l k to A l l i s o n . For A l l i s o n , f i nding someone she trusted was e s s e n t i a l because t h i s research was about her and i f I had to share any information I would be exposing her. So t h i s became a c r i t i c a l c r i t e r i o n when we chose the professors f o r my thesis committee. And i t proved to be worthwhile. A l l i s o n and I were able to work together up to the point at which I began to a c t u a l l y write the data analysis chapters, p a r t i c u l a r l y Chapter Three which deals with issues of leadership. In one meeting we became aware that there were "too many people s i t t i n g around the table:" the research supervisor and the 55 researcher; the project d i r e c t o r and the fieldworker; the boss and the employee; and the teacher and the student. Our conversation was a mixture of r e f l e c t i o n s and advice from the advisor to the advisee, new information from an interview of a research subject, and feedback from a researcher to a research p a r t i c i p a n t . We r e a l i z e d t h i s was not working. I was not having the necessary space and freedom to write and A l l i s o n was not having her r i g h t f u l space to react. Researchers do not commonly share t h e i r a n a lysis with research 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 idea to present. Ideas evolve as the w r i t i n g develops, and researchers can and must view things from d i f f e r e n t perspectives i n these early stages. My f i r s t d r a f t s f o r Chapter Three, f o r example, were very c r i t i c a l , and lacked contextual considerations. A l l i s o n pointed to the context by adding more information than what I had on the tapes, and by explaining why she had done what she had as a research d i r e c t o r . A l l i s o n was not able to respond to my analysis s o l e l y as a subject because she was worried, as a research advisor, about leading my research or not g i v i n g me enough space to r e f l e c t . She could not be sure what voice was responding, and she was i n constant tension. I, on the other hand, always struggled with the desire to make A l l i s o n happy with my analyses. In our conversations, we were both pushed to behave i n an unnatural manner. I do not think that we had anticipated, when I decided to write t h i s thesis, that we would not be able to work together. At t h i s point however, we both f e l t that we needed a d i f f e r e n t approach. A l l i s o n talked to one of the professors i n my research 56 committee, Dr. R i c h a r d S u l l i v a n , and we agreed t h a t he would s u p e r v i s e the w r i t i n g of the c h a p t e r s u n t i l he and I f e l t t h a t they were ready f o r A l l i s o n t o read. A l l i s o n would s t i l l s u p e r v i s e the a s p e c t s of the t h e s i s r e l a t e d t o methodology and l i t e r a t u r e reviews. T h i s change was u s e f u l f o r me i n terms of l e t t i n g me develop the a n a l y s i s w i t h l e s s p r e s s u r e from "the f i e l d . " R i c h a r d was extremely h e l p f u l and understanding, and p o i n t e d at d i f f e r e n t areas of a n a l y s i s . H i s e x p e r t i s e came from a d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n than A l l i s o n ' s , however, and he i s not f a m i l i a r w i t h the k i n d of q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s we were attempting. T h e r e f o r e I had t o f i g u r e out what ki n d s of t h i n g s I should share w i t h A l l i s o n s i n c e they were m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i s s u e s , and what ki n d s of t h i n g s I should not share because they were p a r t of the c o n t e n t . T h i s change was d i f f i c u l t f o r both of us because A l l i s o n and I had been working t o g e t h e r f o r two years and had c r e a t e d a t r u s t i n g working r e l a t i o n s h i p . For her i t was hard because she f e l t she was abandoning me. And although we t a l k e d on the phone, A l l i s o n was not m o n i t o r i n g my work as c l o s e l y as we were used t o . Once I had a complete d r a f t of one of the content c h a p t e r s I shared i t w i t h A l l i s o n . As a r e s e a r c h e r , I was anxious to hear her responses, both as an a d v i s o r and as a s u b j e c t . A l l i s o n read the d r a f t and responded to i t , e x p l i c i t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g her two v o i c e s : p u r p l e s c r i b b l e s were her comments as my a d v i s o r , b l u e were the s u b j e c t ' s responses. With the next c h a p t e r I s t i l l worked w i t h R i c h a r d u n t i l I f e l t the chapter d i d not c o n t a i n any m a t e r i a l t h a t would make the r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h A l l i s o n d i f f i c u l t . Then I shared i t w i t h A l l i s o n and we both f e l t i t was time t o 5 7 work t o g e t h e r again. C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y /Another c h a l l e n g e t h a t . I had to face was one r e l a t e d t o the i s s u e s d e s c r i b e d above. 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 o the r e s e a r c h team members was v e r y d i f f i c u l t . I knew I c o u l d not promise the team members t h a t I would d i s g u i s e t h e i r words. There were not many of us, and we know each o t h e r v e r y w e l l . In a d d i t i o n , A l l i s o n i s a l s o the a d v i s o r of most of the r e s t of the students i n the r e s e a r c h team. T h i s might have c r e a t e d d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n s i f a team member wanted t o say something about the l e a d e r s h i p and w o r r i e d about how t h a t comment would a f f e c t her r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h A l l i s o n . A l l i s o n had been r e a d i n g our f i e l d n o t e s f o r almost two ye a r s and i t would be d i f f i c u l t f o r her to not know who had s a i d which words. She i s f a m i l i a r w i t h the ways we t a l k and the k i n d s of t h i n g s we tend t o t h i n k and t a l k about. There was no way t h a t I c o u l d prevent the quotes from b e i n g t r a n s p a r e n t to her without d i s t o r t i n g them. I d e c i d e d t h a t , as i n o t h e r i s s u e s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h , I had to accept the way t h i n g s were. I c o u l d not promise something I c o u l d not d e l i v e r . The consent form t h a t the team members s i g n e d d i d not promise s e c r e c y from A l l i s o n o r from any o t h e r team member. Durin g the time I wrote t h i s t h e s i s I became aware t h a t I was g e t t i n g the chance t o understand s i t u a t i o n s t h a t my f e l l o w r e s e a r c h e r s d i d not. As I a n a l y z e d the data and t a l k e d w i t h A l l i s o n about some of the i s s u e s t h a t I saw i n the c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s , I came to understand them d i f f e r e n t l y . I had the chance to be p a r t o f some of the r e f l e c t i o n s t h a t A l l i s o n had a f t e r the 58 research process was over. With those r e f l e c t i o n s I had new ways of understanding some of the team processes. I see t h i s as a p r i v i l e g e . I always wondered what would have happened with the research team tapes i f I had not analyzed them. I think they would not have been analyzed. I f e e l strongly i t would have been a misfortune. I hope then that my fellow researchers think of t h i s thesis as a present to them. The next chapters explore our experiences and the co l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s that we b u i l t . I am giving my fellow researchers the g i f t of analysis, some explanations, and some (more!) questions. ST CHAPTER FOUR: THE PROCESS OF BECOMING A COLLABORATIVE TEAM 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 was desi g n e d by the p r i n c i p a l 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 . " C o l l a b o r a t i o n " was seen t o happen at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s : between the two c o - i n v e s t i g a t o r s , w i t h i n the r e s e a r c h team, and between the programs and the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . The f i e l d w o r k e r s came t o a p r o j e c t t h a t had a l r e a d y been designed and plan n e d by o t h e r s . That d e s i g n determined the r e s e a r c h team's involvement i n the pr o c e s s . W i t h i n t h a t frame, we worked towards a v i s i o n of c o l l a b o r a t i o n . We s t r u g g l e d t o get as c l o s e as we c o u l d t o t h a t v i s i o n . T h i s c h a p t e r d e s c r i b e s the pro c e s s t h a t 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 went through t o become a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team. The c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s the development of the team's r e l a t i o n s h i p s and the c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s t h a t i n t e r v e n e d i n t h a t development. The b a s i c argument t h a t I make i n t h i s c h apter i s t h a t c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h i n a r e s e a r c h team i s c o n s t r u c t e d through the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s . A r e s e a r c h team does not s t a r t out as a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team, 1 0 i t becomes c o l l a b o r a t i v e . W r i t i n g t h i s c hapter gave me the o p p o r t u n i t y t o q u e s t i o n the assumptions t h a t I brought t o the p r o j e c t as a f i e l d w o r k e r , and to t h i s t h e s i s as a r e s e a r c h e r . In p a r t i c u l a r I had to review my 1 0 U n l e s s the members had worked as such b e f o r e . Even i f they d i d , the 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 c o l l a b o r a t i o n . b e l i e f s and b i a s e s about the d i f f e r e n c e s between t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s . Although i t i s hard f o r me to admit, I came i n t o the p r o j e c t e x p e c t i n g t e a c h e r s , u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s o r s i n t h i s case, to have a l l the answers. I l e a r n e d t h a t a l t h o u g h the r e s e a r c h team was composed of both p r o f e s s o r s and s t u d e n t s 1 1 we were a l l l e a r n i n g t o c r e a t e a d i f f e r e n t way of working t o g e t h e r . C r e a t i n g 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 was a new e x p e r i e n c e f o r most of the r e s e a r c h team members, even f o r those of us who had e x p e r i e n c e w i t h c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h . T h i s p r o j e c t p r e s e n t e d i t s own c h a l l e n g e s . We c r e a t e d 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 had t o c o n t i n u a l l y r e c r e a t e them as the o l d ones gave way to new forms. T r y i n g t o d e s c r i b e such a complex p r o c e s s and s t i l l c a p ture i t s dynamics i s not an easy t a s k . I chose t o c u t the p r o c e s s i n t h r e e , a c c o r d i n g to important events i n the p r o j e c t . I d e s c r i b e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t moments i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n the r e s e a r c h team. The chapter begins w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n of team members' m o t i v a t i o n s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the p r o j e c t . Then I d e s c r i b e the team as i t began, the f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the c o n s t i t u t i o n of the team ( s e t t i n g , time, s k i l l ) , and a d e s c r i p t i o n of the r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . T h i s a n a l y s i s shows the s t r u c t u r e s as they were i n the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t when the team was c r e a t e d . Next, I analyze the " c r i s i s at I s a d o r a ' s , " a p r o b l e m a t i c s i t u a t i o n t h a t arose as a m a n i f e s t a t i o n of what had become u n s u i t a b l e s t r u c t u r e s of work. F o l l o w i n g , I e x p l o r e the new s t r u c t u r e s t h a t were c r e a t e d to t r y to accommodate the new r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and t h e i r i : LThe l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s are d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s paragraph as students because of t h e i r p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e w i t h r e s e a r c h , p a r t i c u l a r l y ethnography, and a l s o because of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h A l l i s o n . 61 m a n i f e s t a t i o n through the i s s u e of ownership i n the team. I then summarize the chapter and p r e s e n t c o n c l u s i o n s f o r the p r a c t i c e of c o l l a b o r a t i v e team r e s e a r c h . M o t i v a t i o n s and d e f i n i t i o n s of c o l l a b o r a t i o n The r e s e a r c h team was formed i n A p r i l 1992. The graduate students who were h i r e d knew each o t h e r but had never worked as a group b e f o r e . Hanna, A l l i s o n , and Lyn, who had been working f o r the p r o j e c t s i n c e November 1991, knew Mark and Deborah. Although t h e r e were some f o r whom the c o l l a b o r a t i v e aspect of the r e s e a r c h was not the reason they j o i n e d the team, we a l l shared an enthusiasm f o r the work. Some of us shared an i n t e r e s t i n the c o l l a b o r a t i v e nature of the p r o j e c t . Some r e s e a r c h team members were i n t e r e s t e d i n the p e r s o n a l b e n e f i t s of c o l l a b o r a t i v e work, o t h e r s had worked i n teams b e f o r e and needed t o work t h a t way. For o t h e r s t h i s was a new way of working t h a t they wanted to e x p l o r e . In one of the f i r s t r e s e a r c h team meetings, we took time to a r t i c u l a t e our e x p e c t a t i o n s . The tapes r e v e a l t h a t A l l i s o n and Mark wanted to e x p l o r 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 because they had read about them or because they f e l t t h a t was a s k i l l they wanted t o improve. For Pat i t was important t o be supported and guided by A l l i s o n and the r e s t of the team. She f e l t t h i s would be u s e f u l i n g e t t i n g her through the master's program. I shared the e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t the c o l l a b o r a t i v e work would h e l p me w i t h my academic work. For Lyn and me the c o l l a b o r a t i v e aspect was something we f e l t we needed: we had worked i n r e s e a r c h teams bef o r e , we knew th a t we l i k e d i t and what we c o u l d get out of i t - guidance and companionship. 62 We expected a l o t from the c o l l a b o r a t i v e a s p e c t of t h i s p r o j e c t . We expected i t t o h e l p us get s t a r t e d on our own theses, t o h e l p us get o r g a n i z e d , t o d i s c i p l i n e and guide us and yet s t i l l l e t us be c r e a t i v e w i t h the r e q u i r e d a s s i s t a n c e , t o tea c h us how t o be c o l l a b o r a t i v e , and f i n a l l y t o improve our s k i l l s . What these h i g h e x p e c t a t i o n s c o n c e a l e d was t h a t , even though we a l l t a l k e d about 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 d i f f e r e n t concepts. We never d e f i n e d the term. We d i d not i d e n t i f y how we would do t h i n g s together, o r what i t meant c o n c r e t e l y t o be p a r t of the team. The shared use of the word c o l l a b o r a t i o n h i d the f a c t t h a t f o r some of us c o l l a b o r a t i o n meant t h a t we expected we would have equal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s e s . I t a l s o h i d c o n f u s i o n about d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Each of us had d i f f e r e n t e x p e r i e n c e s i n r e s e a r c h b e f o r e , some of us had worked i n teams b e f o r e , o t h e r s had not. Those e x p e r i e n c e s and our p h i l o s o p h i e s framed the way we thought of c o l l a b o r a t i n g i n t h i s team. In the b e g i n n i n g t h e r e were jokes i n the meetings about what was c o l l a b o r a t i v e and what was not. The jokes were h i d i n g a sense t h a t c o l l a b o r a t i o n meant doing e v e r y t h i n g t o g e t h e r , and t h a t t h e r e was no d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The next quote i l l u s t r a t e s the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s we f e l t between the need t o have 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 and the way we d e f i n e d c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n a c t i o n , which seemed to be d e f i n e d as doing e v e r y t h i n g t o g e t h e r . AT:I have a gut i n s t i n c t and whoever wants t o say can, 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 t h a t i f you're g o i n g t o do an i n t e r v i e w t h a t I ought t o know ahead of time so t h a t 63 I'm keeping t r a c k of 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 purpose so t h a t we're not g e t t i n g i n t o a problem of spending a l o t of time on one k i n d of p e r s o n o r one k i n d of i n t e r v i e w , or 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 or whatever. I t ' s a r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n t h i n g both i n terms of p e o p l e ' s p a t i e n c e w i t h us and i n terms of our time. A l l i s o n f e l t t h a t she had t o e x p l a i n the reasons why she would have t o s u p e r v i s e and know what the f i e l d w o r k e r s were doing, and t o j u s t i f y her "gut i n s t i n c t s . " A l l i s o n ' s "gut i n s t i n c t s " were much more than t h a t . She was t a l k i n g from her e x p e r i e n c e i n r e s e a r c h , from her knowledge of ethnography, and from her p o s i t i o n as the team d i r e c t o r . Because we never shared more than our e x p e c t a t i o n s , w i t h no d e f i n i t i o n s , i t was d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e the boundaries of our r o l e s , and who was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r what. When t a l k i n g about c o l l a b o r a t i o n , we were u s i n g the same language but o f t e n r e f e r r i n g t o d i f f e r e n t c o ncepts. We were a l s o r e f e r r i n g t o i d e a l s without c o n t r a s t i n g them w i t h r e a l and c o n c r e t e s i t u a t i o n s and e x p r e s s i n g how those i d e a l s would t r a n s l a t e i n t o r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n t h i s r e s e a r c h team. The team as i t began F a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the c o n s t i t u t i o n of the team We never d e f i n e d what each of us meant by c o l l a b o r a t i o n , o r what the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t d e f i n e d as c o l l a b o r a t i o n . There were no job d e s c r i p t i o n s and no e x p l i c i t d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . We d i d not c l a r i f y the s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n which we would be working t o g e t h e r and how the context would i n f l u e n c e our r e l a t i o n s . As the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l r e p o r t d e s c r i b e s , "we s t r u g g l e d w i t h a c e n t r a l t e n s i o n between the need t o adhere t o c e r t a i n norms of r e s e a r c h - of what ' r e s e a r c h r e a l l y i s ' and of e t h i c a l b e h aviour i n r e s e a r c h - and the need t o c r e a t e our 64 r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s as we went al o n g " (Tom et a l . , 1994, p. 3). W i t h i n the r e s e a r c h team, t h a t meant t h a t t h e r e were c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s t h a t we wanted to l i v e up to, p a r t i c u l a r l y "the d e l i b e r a t e and a p p r o p r i a t e s h a r i n g of power, 1 , 1 2 but we had to c r e a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s as we went along. There were no p r e s e t d e f i n i t i o n s o r r o l e d i s t r i b u t i o n s . As the f i e l d w o r k began, the areas of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and d e c i s i o n making developed and became c l e a r e r , a l t h o u g h they were not e x p l i c i t l y d e f i n e d o r d i s c u s s e d . I t became c l e a r e r t h a t t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n the r e s e a r c h team i n terms of o b l i g a t i o n t o the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t , and i n terms of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as w e l l . These d i f f e r e n c e s can be l i n k e d t o the c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s d e l i n e a t e d i n chapter two. In t h i s c h apter I p a r t i c u l a r l y e x p l o r e how s e t t i n g , time, and s k i l l s i n f l u e n c e d the c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f the team. Chapter f i v e examines the e f f e c t of purpose and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . S e t t i n g s In terms of the o b l i g a t i o n t o the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t , "Hanna and A l l i s o n were each r e s p o n s i b l e t o t h e i r (very d i f f e r e n t ) o r g a n i z a t i o n s f o r f u l f i l l i n g a c o n t r a c t . The graduate student and l i a i s o n r e s e a r c h e r s were c o n t r a c t e d t o p r o v i d e t h e i r s e r v i c e s but d i d not e n t e r i n t o the same k i n d of agreement t o produce a product t h a t h e l d Hanna and A l l i s o n " (Tom et a l . , 1994, pp. 45). T h i s t r a n s l a t e d i n t o d i f f e r e n t commitments i n terms of time d e d i c a t i o n and consequent r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . C o l l a b o r a t i o n does not happen i n a vacuum, the r e l a t i o n s h i p s are e s t a b l i s h e d i n a c e r t a i n c o n t e x t . Three i n s t i t u t i o n s 1 2 T h i s n o t i o n of c o l l a b o r a t i o n was a r t i c u l a t e d by A l l i s o n d u r i n g the p r o j e c t . 65 i n f l u e n c e d the d e c i s i o n s about who (and how) would p a r t i c i p a t e i n the r e s e a r c h team: funders', p a r t i c i p a n t s ' , and r e s e a r c h e r s ' i n s t i t u t i o n s . The f u n d i n g agency, the N a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y S e c r e t a r i a t , p l a c e d some requirements on the way the funds would be managed and on who would be i n charge of the p r o j e c t . I t r e q u i r e d t h a t a community a s s o c i a t i o n be i n charge of a d m i n i s t e r i n g the funds, and t h a t Hanna and A l l i s o n be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r running the p r o j e c t . T h e i r p h i l o s o p h y i n f l u e n c e d the c h o i c e of a c t o r s i n the team. The p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s a l s o had t o c o n s u l t w i t h t h i s agency about d e c i s i o n s about budget and major changes to the o r i g i n a l r e s e a r c h p l a n . The p a r t i c i p a n t s ' i n s t i t u t i o n s , the l i t e r a c y programs t h a t were e v a l u a t e d , p l a y e d a key r o l e i n p r o p o s i n g the l i a i s o n r o l e and s u g g e s t i n g t e a c h e r s f o r t h a t r o l e . The program d i r e c t o r s a l s o had a v e t o power over who would be h i r e d t o work on the r e s e a r c h team. Thus, once s e l e c t e d by A l l i s o n , a l l the graduate students were i n t e r v i e w e d by the program d i r e c t o r s . In a d d i t i o n , Mark and Deborah c o n t i n u e d working f o r t h e i r programs. These out-of-the-team r o l e s i n t e r p l a y e d w i t h the i n s i d e - t h e team-roles. We r e l a t e d t o each o t h e r as co-team members, and as t e a c h e r t o r e s e a r c h e r (I e x p l o r e these r e l a t i o n s h i p s f u r t h e r i n the next c h a p t e r ) . The r e s e a r c h e r s ' i n s t i t u t i o n , the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, a l s o i n f l u e n c e d the team. The r o l e s t h a t each of the team members had i n r e l a t i o n t o the u n i v e r s i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y the graduate s t u d e n t s and the r e s e a r c h d i r e c t o r , i n f l u e n c e d the way we r e l a t e d t o each o t h e r . A l l the team meetings were h e l d at the u n i v e r s i t y , the p r o j e c t ' s o f f i c e was on campus, and by the end of 66 the i n v e s t i g a t i o n the u n i v e r s i t y was a d m i n i s t e r i n g the r e s e a r c h funds. A l s o , except f o r the l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s and Hanna, the ot h e r team members were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the u n i v e r s i t y . A l l i s o n was t e a c h i n g her courses, p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n departmental meetings, and a d v i s i n g s t u d e n t s . The graduate students were t a k i n g courses and /or were i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r own i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Most of the graduate s t u d e n t s had a l i m i t e d number of hours t h a t they c o u l d d e d i c a t e t o work i n the study. Out-of-the-team r o l e s i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h the team r o l e s . For example, A l l i s o n was the academic a d v i s o r f o r f i v e of the s i x graduate students and she was a l s o the d i r e c t o r of the team (I an a l y z e t h i s aspect l a t e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r ) . The way t h a t these t h r e e i n s t i t u t i o n s a f f e c t e d d e c i s i o n s i n the team i s an example of 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 c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h . The f a c t t h a t we had not e x p l i c i t l y e x p l o r e d these i n f l u e n c e s d u r i n g the p r o j e c t made i t more d i f f i c u l t t o understand the d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n the team. Time In terms of time, no w r i t t e n agreements l i m i t e d the amount of time t h a t Hanna and A l l i s o n had to d e d i c a t e t o the p r o j e c t ; they would work as much as was needed t o get the r e s e a r c h done. In c o n t r a s t , the f i e l d w o r k e r s had an e x p l i c i t amount of time t o d e d i c a t e t o the p r o j e c t . The l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s were seconded from t h e i r f u l l - t i m e employment c o n t r a c t s i n t o h a l f - t i m e p o s i t i o n s w i t h the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . T h i s meant t h a t they had up to 15 hours a week to d e d i c a t e t o the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . The graduate st u d e n t s a l s o were h i r e d f o r l i m i t e d amounts of time, 12 hours of work a week (Cathie was h i r e d f o r s i x t o twelve hours of 67 work a week). And al t h o u g h a l l the team members ended up working more hours, t h a t l i m i t e x p l i c i t l y guided our i d e a s about time. The d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o n t r a c t s i n e v i t a b l y r e s u l t e d i n d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . S k i l l s 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 w i t h i n the r e s e a r c h team: ex p e r i e n c e and knowledge. In t h i s sense, these d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s r e l a t e t o the i n f l u e n c e t h a t s k i l l s have on r e s e a r c h teams. A l l i s o n and Hanna have a broad e x p e r i e n c e i n r e s e a r c h . O v e r a l l , the o t h e r team members' experie n c e and knowledge about r e s e a r c h v a r i e d from member t o member, but i t was l e s s than t h a t of Hanna and A l l i s o n . A l though some of the graduate s t u d e n t s had r e s e a r c h e x p e r i e n c e , the f i e l d w o r k e r s were mostly n o v i c e s i n ethnographic r e s e a r c h . When i t came to the programs, the s i t u a t i o n r e g a r d i n g e x p e r i e n c e and knowledge was d i f f e r e n t . The l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s knew the programs i n a way t h a t none of the o t h e r team members knew them; they had been working as te a c h e r s i n the l i t e r a c y programs f o r a long time. They knew the h i s t o r y and p h i l o s o p h y of the programs. They were a l s o one important c o n n e c t i o n between the programs and the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . Teachers, s t u d e n t s , and even program d i r e c t o r s asked them about the p r o g r e s s of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . They d e s c r i b e d and pr e s e n t e d the study t o the people i n the programs. Research team members asked them about the programs. They a l s o d e s c r i b e d and r e p r e s e n t e d t h e i r programs t o the r e s e a r c h team. In e i t h e r p o s i t i o n they were i n s i d e r s , both i n the program and i n the r e s e a r c h . P a r a d o x i c a l l y , 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 i n e i t h e r p o s i t i o n . By becoming p a r t o f t h e r e s e a r c h team, t h e y s t e p p e d away from t h e i r programs and made t h e m s e l v e s somewhat o u t s i d e r s , t h e y a f f i l i a t e d t h e m s e l v e s w i t h us, t h e o u t s i d e r s . And i n t h e r e s e a r c h team t h e y were o u t s i d e r s because t h e y were not p a r t o f t h e 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 team member t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the same way i n t h e r e s e a r c h team when t h e i r s i t u a t i o n - and t h e p r o j e c t ' s - l i m i t s t h e t i m e and k i n d s o f i n p u t t h e y can b r i n g . A c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h team i s not d e f i n e d by e v e r y team member d o i n g t h e same t h i n g s as e v e r y o t h e r team member. Ot h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n t e r p l a y i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 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 t h e y c annot be o v e r l o o k e d when d e s c r i b i n g a r e s e a r c h team. 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 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 r e s e a r c h 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 A l t h o u g h t h e r e s e a r c h team s e t out t o work w i t h o u t e x p l i c i t l y a c k n o w l e d g i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e members, t h e r e were v e r y d e f i n i t e d i f f e r e n c e s i n terms o f r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Hanna and A l l i s o n were t h e c o - i n v e s t i g a t o r s . They had a more b i n d i n g 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 were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . They had been p a r t o f i t s i n c e i t t o o k shape, and were now r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e o v e r a l l r u n n i n g o f t h e p r o j e c t : managing t h e budget, d e a l i n g w i t h t h e f u n d i n g a g e n c i e s , e s t a b l i s h i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h t h e program d i r e c t o r s , p l a n n i n g , and making s u r e t h a t t h e p r o j e c t 69 was progressing according to the goals. Part of t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was to h i r e and d i r e c t the research team. The research team was designed to be responsible for doing the fieldwork (doing observations, writing f i e l d n o t e s , doing interviews, and case studies). It was a n t i c i p a t e d that the fieldworkers would be part of the i n i t i a l analysis and v a l i d a t i o n of the data, but the research team's main r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was fieldwork. 1 3 The next quote comes from a meeting i n which A l l i s o n explained to the research team the program fo r the advisory committee meeting that would take place the following week. Hanna and A l l i s o n , with Cathie's administrative help, had organized the advisory committee meeting which included v i s i t s to the l i t e r a c y programs; conversations with learners, teachers, and s t a f f ; and a session i n which they shared the progress of the study with the committee members. This quote gives an example of the role the team members played i n t h i s meeting, i n contrast to Hanna and A l l i s o n ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . AT: A l l we need on those days i s for you to show up for dinner at 6:30 and on Wednesday I need one person to pick up two advisory committee members and Hanna and drive them to Invergarry. So that'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 advisory committee meeting. The graduate students' r o l e i n t h i s meeting was circumscribed to 1 3 Among the fieldworkers, the l i a i s o n fieldworkers had a d i f f e r e n t kind of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y both to the research project and to t h e i r programs. They were researching t h e i r own p r a c t i c e and they had a vested i n t e r e s t i n the research i n a way that the graduate students did not. Also, two graduate students, Pat and I, had planned to write our master's theses on topics that we would select from the research project. This proved to be a very d i f f i c u l t task that we could not accomplish during the time we were part of the team. 70 a d i n n e r g a t h e r i n g . We were e x p e c t e d t o be s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n about th e p r o j e c t f o r t h e a d v i s o r y committee. One o f t h e consequences o f not h a v i n g d e f i n e d c o l l a b o r a t i o n and not h a v i n g d e f i n e d t h e d i f f e r e n t r o l e s i n t h e r e s e a r c h 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 e x p e c t a t i o n s about r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . I t was not c l e a r i n what a r e a s t h e r e s e a r c h team s h a r e d d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s e s w i t h o t h e r groups such as t h e a d v i s o r y committee o r t h e program d i r e c t o r s . I t was not c l e a r i n w h i c h a r e a s t h e r e s e a r c h team had o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o change d e c i s i o n s . S p e c i f i c i n t e r a c t i o n 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 show t h a t t h e team members th o u g h t t h e r e s e a r c h team was t h e one making d e c i s i o n s about t h e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t , o r a t l e a s t t h e y d i d not u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e y were n o t . T h i s s i t u a t i o n c r e a t e d moments o f awkwardness and c o n t r a d i c t o r y a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o u r s . AT:We've agreed t h a t anybody t h a t works 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 s t u d e n t . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e y speak E n g l i s h . We c a n ' t open up i n t o S c h o o l B r i d g e i n s t r u c t o r s . We a r e a l r e a d y o v e r o u r heads. MN:Well, we can 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 p e r s o n wasn't a l i t e r a c y s t u d e n t and he had a v i s i o n from 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 i m p o r t a n t . 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 p e o p l e w i t h i n t h e L i t e r a c y Program? Lex:No! We can 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 about 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 about 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 you a p o l o g i z i n g t o me? I l i k e d y o u r answer. I t h o u g h t i t was good. 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 keep m i n u t e s and I am n o t d o i n g a good j o b . AT-.This i s a d i s c u s s i o n about how f a r out we go. PD:0k, but anyone 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 and t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e y work 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 you [Marina] began t o speak was we c a n ' t ask what everybody 71 i n S c h o o l 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 whole 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 have t o p u t t h e most o f our t i m e and a t t e n t i o n i n L i t e r a c y and t h e n we move o u t . I n t h i s quote we can see how Hanna and A l l i s o n n o t i f i e d t h e team o f a d e c i s i o n t h e y had made. They had t a l k e d and 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 team was g o i n g t o use. Two team 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 be seen as an i n t e n t 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 w ould i n c l u d e , o u t s i d e p e r s p e c t i v e s . When one member a p o l o g i z e s f o r c r o s s i n g t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , A l l i s o n s a y s t h e r e a r e no r e a s o n s t o a p o l o g i z e , as i f t h e r e were no b o u n d a r i e s , and as i f 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 , but t h e n she summarizes t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n g o i n g back t o h e r d e c i s i o n . Two i s s u e s a r i s e i n t h e p r e v i o u s quote, d e c i s i o n making power and knowledge d i f f e r e n c e s . Hanna and A l l i s o n were i n a p o s i t i o n t o d e f i n e what t h e p r o j e c t would s t u d y . I n r e t r o s p e c t A l l i s o n e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n was made based on t h e d i s c u s s i o n s t h a t t h e r e s e a r c h team had d u r i n g t h e p r e v i o u s m e e t i n g s . That a s p e c t o f t h e d e c i s i o n was not t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e team, t h e d e c i s i o n was p r e s e n t e d as i f i t had been made by t h e c o - i n v e s t i g a t o r s a l o n e . They chose t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e d i s c u s s i o n t h a t t h e team had b u t t h e y d i d not have t o do t h a t . They were t h e ones d e c i d i n g , and t h e team members d i d not oppose t h a t s i t u a t i o n . A n o t h e r way t h e d e c i s i o n had t o be made was w i t h an 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 an adequate f o c u s f o r t h e s t u d y we were d o i n g . Not i n c l u d i n g o u t s i d e p e r s p e c t i v e s was a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d e c i s i o n . The t i m e t h a t d o i n g t h a t w ould have 72 i n v o l v e d i s not something the r e s e a r c h team members were t a k i n g i n t o account. Hanna and A l l i s o n had to do t h a t k i n d of a n a l y s i s , because of t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e i n ethnographic p r o j e c t s , and because they were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the o v e r a l l d e s i g n of t h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . Although the r e s e a r c h s t r u c t u r e s w i t h which the p r o j e c t began were not e x p l i c i t l y d e f i n e d , we can deduce those from l o o k i n g at the r e l a t i o n s h i p s and r o l e s t h a t the people a c t u a l l y a c t e d on i n the b e g i n n i n g of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I t was expected t h a t each f i e l d w o r k e r would go t o the s i t e s , w r i t e t h e i r f i e l d n o t e s and l o g s , and copy them onto the common d i s k . In the r e s e a r c h team meetings we d i s c u s s e d i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o f i e l d w o r k and d i d the weekly p l a n n i n g . A l l i s o n and Hanna re a d the f i e l d n o t e s and planned f o r the l o n g run. They d e a l t w i t h the program d i r e c t o r s , f u n d i n g agencies, and a d v i s o r y committee. T h i s way of working was u s e f u l i n the f i r s t p a r t of the p r o j e c t but some problems began t o emerge as we moved i n t o the a n a l y s i s stage. The " c r i s i s at Isadora's" As the r e s e a r c h p r o g r e s s e d and we began t o do p r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s i s of the data, the r o l e of the r e s e a r c h team members began t o s h i f t . The r e s e a r c h team meetings changed too. The emphasis was no l o n g e r on p l a n n i n g data c o l l e c t i o n but on b e g i n n i n g t o a n a l y z e the data. We were t r y i n g t o make sense of the d a t a and b e g i n n i n g t o generate themes and e x p l a n a t i o n s . T h i s new r o l e f o r the r e s e a r c h team members c r e a t e d u n d e r l y i n g t e n s i o n s . We were working on data t h a t the f i e l d w o r k e r s had gathered. Research team members were g a i n i n g more knowledge about the t o p i c we were 73 r e s e a r c h i n g . We were p r o p o s i n g themes t o be p r e s e n t e d i n the a d v i s o r y committee meetings and we were w r i t i n g o u t l i n e s f o r the r e p o r t s . T h i s was c o n t r a d i c t e d by our e x c l u s i o n from the meeting w i t h the a d v i s o r y committee, we were not thought of as authors of the r e p o r t s , and we d i d not have the g e n e r a l p e r s p e c t i v e t h a t Hanna and A l l i s o n were g e t t i n g by r e a d i n g a l l of the f i e l d n o t e s We d i d not have what we c a l l e d "the b i g p i c t u r e . " Isadora's These t e n s i o n s s u r f a c e d a f t e r the meeting t h a t A l l i s o n and Hanna had w i t h the a d v i s o r y committee members. The f i e l d w o r k e r s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a d i n n e r at a l o c a l r e s t a u r a n t (Isadora's) . 1 4 There we met the committee members f o r the f i r s t time. We were supposed t o share w i t h them our e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . 1 5 At the end of the g a t h e r i n g , a f t e r the a d v i s o r y committee had l e f t , some f i e l d w o r k e r s s t a y e d l o n g e r and began to t a l k i n a g o s s i p y s t y l e about the d i f f e r e n t people we had met and the c o n v e r s a t i o n s we had w i t h them. At a c e r t a i n p o i n t , the tone s h i f t e d ; our c o n v e r s a t i o n became a complaint. We had two main o b j e c t i o n s , one r e l a t e d t o the a d v i s o r y committee meeting (why were we not i n c l u d e d i n the meetings?), and the o t h e r r e g a r d i n g 1 4 T h i s d e s c r i p t i o n i s based on my memories of the events because t h e r e i s no r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the events i n the r e s e a r c h team meeting tapes. The c o n v e r s a t i o n on the tape r e f e r s t o the events and t o the e-mail message mentioned i n t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n , but I have a l s o added d e s c r i p t i o n from my own memory to f i l l out the s i t u a t i o n here. 1 5 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 found t h a t the a d v i s o r y committee members were r e l u c t a n t t o t a l k about work. They were t i r e d a f t e r a whole day o f work, some were s u f f e r i n g from j e t l a g , and they were more i n t e r e s t e d i n s o c i a l i z i n g . 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 because t h i s was t h e i r chance to share our work. 74 the a n a l y s i s of the data (why d i d we not know what the 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 about? Why were we not g e t t i n g feedback from Hanna and A l l i s o n ? ) . Our concern, f r u s t r a t i o n , and anger grew as we t a l k e d . I t was i n c r e a s e d by the f a c t t h a t the f o l l o w i n g evening we would be g i v i n g a j o i n t p r e s e n t a t i o n about the p r o j e c t i n the a d u l t e d u c a t i o n department at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, emphasizing the c o l l a b o r a t i v e aspect of the r e s e a r c h . We d e c i d e d t h a t we would r a i s e these i s s u e s i n the team meeting scheduled f o r the f o l l o w i n g day. Jane sent an e-mail message t o the l i t e r a c y network e a r l y the f o l l o w i n g day, d e s c r i b i n g her impressions of what had happened i n the impromptu d i s c u s s i o n . That a f t e r n o o n we spent most of the r e s e a r c h team meeting t a l k i n g about the graduate students' f e e l i n g s and t r y i n g t o f i g u r e out what the d i s c o m f o r t was a l l about. In the b e g i n n i n g the tone of the c o n v e r s a t i o n was of complaint t o Hanna and A l l i s o n . The graduate s t u d e n t s expressed t h e i r f r u s t r a t i o n s and expected answers and s o l u t i o n s from the two p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s . Two main sources o f d i s c o m f o r t were i d e n t i f i e d : not having the "whole p i c t u r e , " and not having p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the meeting w i t h the a d v i s o r y committee. A l l of these f e e l i n g s were mixed w i t h a f e e l i n g of a n x i e t y and l o n e l i n e s s f o r the graduate s t u d e n t s . MN:I s t i l l f e e l t h a t I know what I've w r i t t e n about, and I might have some sense o f what o t h e r people have w r i t t e n about, some t h i n g s t h a t we've t a l k e d about. But o t h e r t h i n g s l i k e the whole, l i k e b u i l d i n g up something, 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 not sure what's b e i n g done about i t , and how t h a t p a r t of my p e r s o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e i s making sense of the whole. LH:And I'm m i s s i n g t o n i g h t . And I'm m i s s i n g next week. So I do f e e l a l i t t l e l o s t . Part of i t I t h i n k i s t h a t we're at a p o i n t i n our notes where I'm f e e l i n g l i k e I'm 75 working sort of independently on my own and not knowing how i t relates to other people, sort of the bigger p i c t u r e . /And I don't know what happened to the Advisory Committee, so I don't have any of a l l that reassurance yet. Mark and Deborah, the l i a i s o n fieldworkers, were part of the advisory committee. Mark d i d not share our fe e l i n g s of anxiety but he and Deborah did f e e l f r u s t r a t e d that the rest of the team members were not part of the meetings with the advisory committee. MM:And I agree with Marina, I think that i t would have been nice f o r a l l of us to have been at those meetings. I know the numbers would have been unmanageable, but I think that i t would have been nice, and important I think, for people to be a part of that too, I agree. DL:That's what I was asking Jane. I thought they were included. A l l i s o n agreed that i t would have been good to have a l l of the team members i n the meeting but she explained that they could not make that decision. AT: [It would have been an] i n t e r e s t i n g thing to have attended and that, but there's also no doubt that i t wouldn't have worked, i n the sense of us not having any control over i t . We weren't i n a place to do that. 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 anxiety to a p a r t i c u l a r stage i n the analysis. This i s how we were supposed to f e e l at t h i s stage of a research study, they too were f e e l i n g anxious. Instead of defending themselves against what could have been f e l t as an attack on t h e i r s t y l e of leadership, they validated our feelings by r e l a t i n g them to a c e r t a i n point i n the research process, and by sharing t h e i r own challenges with leading the col l a b o r a t i v e process. HF: There's also that i t ' s very hard a c t u a l l y being part of a q u a l i t a t i v e project where you have a l o t of people generating data because what makes data useful i s that the researcher f e e l s l i k e you're acting autonomously. I mean 76 what makes i t useful i s that you can get excited and you can connect to the things you f e e l passionately about, and you can see something and follow i t through, and f e e l some sense of the a b i l i t y to do that at the same time as f e e l i n g connected to a larger project, and i t ' s a r e a l tension, that 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 sharing each other's data and group thing because the value of Marina's perspective being so d i f f e r e n t from Lyn's perspective, I want to c a p i t a l i z e on i n a project. I want Marina to r e a l l y be immersed i n Marina's perspective and be out there following the things that r e a l l y matter to Marina, and not to be carrying around Lyn's questions, which I want Lyn to be out there following. So i t ' s a r e a l tension. How do you have a coherent project at the same time as people r e a l l y needing to f e e l the autonomy of running a f t e r t h e i r own questions, and how do you f e e l l i k e you're part of a group when what's r e a l l y important i s that you're asking your questions. 1 6 A f t e r t h i s explanation the conversation s h i f t e d , the fieldworkers further understood the rationale f o r not sharing notes. It was necessary for each fieldworker to keep her own perspective so that the research project would benefit from the m u l t i p l i c i t y of ideas and viewpoints. But then a new concern surfaced. The graduate students began to ask f o r more feedback. A l l i s o n l i s t e n e d and responded. AT: Maybe we should stop and say that the notes, the work i s excellent and we are reading i t and i f there was a problem, you would hear. You know, i t ' s not l i k e we're going, "Oh 1 6In a l a t e r conversation, A l l i s o n shared with me her d i f f e r e n t reasons for not having a structure that required f i e l d n o t e s to be shared: I thought the only safe way to write fieldnotes i s f o r them to be separate and private. Therefore I kept them separate and p r i v a t e . . . I have a r e l a t i o n s h i p of trust between me and Marina, between me and Jane. I can maintain that, I can sustain i t , I can promise that that trust 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 higher... For me i t was an i n s t i n c t i v e creating safety kind of a thing. I develop the issue of shared fieldnotes further i n Chapter Five. 77 well, you know, no one's ever going to read i t . " 1 7 A f t e r that, i n an e f f o r t to share as much information as was possible about the meeting with the advisory committee, Hanna and A l l i s o n described 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. This series of events (advisory committee meeting, the dinner at Isadora's, and the team meeting) was one of the most c r i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s for the team. Later we would r e f e r to i t as "Isadora's." Understanding the c r i s i s The s t r a i n s at "Isadora's" were the r e s u l t of tensions that had been b u i l d i n g and combined with other issues i n the team. Being part of the advisory committee meeting, r e c e i v i n g feedback, or having the whole picture were not c r i t i c a l , although they were important issues i n themselves. In t h i s section I explore the d i f f e r e n t currents that crossed each other i n the team to create the c r i s i s . From the perspective of leadership, there were mixed messages sent to the fieldworkers. On one hand we were t o l d that we could make decisions, but then sometimes the decisions were made at another l e v e l . We were t o l d to write o u t l i n e s , and propose themes, but we were not part of t h e i r presentation. The fact that the fieldworkers f e l t they were not formally included i n other aspects of the project, such as the analysis, created tensions as well. Ultimately what these mixed messages concealed 1 7Today, i n a new co l l a b o r a t i v e team that A l l i s o n i s d i r e c t i n g , she writes a memo to every fieldworker about t h e i r fieldwork at least every month. This r e f l e c t s A l l i s o n ' s awareness that fieldworkers d i d have a point and that she acknowledges that more feedback i s necessary. 78 was t h a t t h e r e were t h i n g s happening i n the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t t h a t were not brought to the r e s e a r c h team meetings. A l l i s o n acknowledged t h a t s i t u a t i o n i n a l a t e r meeting: AT: I had to r e a l i z e t h a t a l o t of the s t r u g g l e s t h a t I have gone through, t h a t f e l t so p r e s e n t to me were not p r e s e n t to you guys. Some of t h a t was... a l l the t h i n g s t h a t happened around the a d v i s o r y committee, and why you were not i n v i t e d t o the a d v i s o r y committee meeting. Things t h a t I j u s t never r e a l i z e d needed t o be a r t i c u l a t e d . None of t h a t has come i n t o these meetings. Another area of c o n f l i c t was a l a c k of c o n s i s t e n c y between the f i e l d w o r k e r s ' r o l e i n the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t and the p h i l o s o p h y t h a t dominated the r e s e a r c h team members' t r a i n i n g i n ethnography. In the same way t h a t the team d i d not share d e f i n i t i o n s of c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n the e a r l y meetings, Hanna and A l l i s o n a l s o d i d not share d e f i n i t i o n s of ethnography and c o l l a b o r a t i o n . Hanna has a s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e on ethnography. The s o c i o l o g i c a l u n derstanding of ethnography does not c o n f l i c t w i t h u s i n g o t h e r people's data. I n t e r v i e w s and o b s e r v a t i o n s can be a n a l y z e d without the data c o l l e c t o r having a dominant r o l e . A l l i s o n , on the o t h e r hand has an a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l v i e w p o i n t . From the 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 are the r e s e a r c h i n s t r u m e n t s . Researchers c o l l e c t the data, w r i t e f i e l d n o t e s , a n alyze the i n f o r m a t i o n , and do i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . Moreover, the d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s - data c o l l e c t i o n , r e c o r d i n g , and a n a l y s i s - are v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o s e p a r a t e . I t would be v e r y hard t o s e p a r a t e the p r o c e s s e s t o keep the data c o l l e c t o r away from the a n a l y s i s p r o c e s s . In G e e r t z ' s (1973) words But as the s t a n d a r d answer to our q u e s t i o n has been, "He [ s i c ] observes, 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 of the matter- i t may have more deep-79 g o i ng consequences than 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 knowledge-se e k i n g may not, as a matter of f a c t , n o r m a l l y be p o s s i b l e ; and indeed, as autonomous " o p e r a t i o n s " they may not i n f a c t e x i s t . (Geertz, 1973, p. 20) A l l the r e s e a r c h team members had been t r a i n e d by A l l i s o n . Mark and Deborah were t r a i n e d through a s e r i e s of i n t e r a c t i o n s and d i s c u s s i o n s about r e a d i n g s . The graduate s t u d e n t s had been t r a i n e d i n a graduate seminar on ethnographic methods w i t h a s t r o n g emphasis on the 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 . In a l a t e r c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h me, A l l i s o n r e f l e c t e d on the s t r u c t u r e s t h a t she and Hanna had planned, s p e c i f i c a l l y the r e s e a r c h team's r o l e i n the p r o j e c t . A l l i s o n e x p l a i n e d t h a t she " d i d n ' t know" how a 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 s h o u l d be run, and t h a t she had r e l i e d on the s t r u c t u r e s t h a t Hanna had o r i g i n a l l y proposed without r e f l e c t i n g on how they i n t e g r a t e d w i t h her own p h i l o s o p h y . In r e t r o s p e c t , A l l i s o n says she can see the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and how she was u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y undermining the o r i g i n a l s t r u c t u r e s . She was g u i d i n g the team i n a way t h a t was not c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the designed s t r u c t u r e s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n f o r the team members. Although i t was a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t the f i e l d w o r k e r s would be i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s f o r v a l i d a t i o n checks, i t became c l e a r e r t h a t the a n a l y s i s was an ongoing p r o c e s s t h a t the r e s e a r c h team members were a l r e a d y doing, and was not a separate stage. Another i n g r e d i e n t t h a t h e l p e d t r i g g e r the c r i s i s was the p e r s o n a l i t y and p h i l o s o p h y of the graduate s t u d e n t s . None of us would " j u s t nod" when we had q u e s t i o n s i n our minds, a l l of us would s t a n d up and say what we thought and how we f e l t about 80 things. When i t became c l e a r to us as a group that there were things that d i d not make sense to us, pr made us f e e l uncomfortable, we brought them up i n the meeting. It must also be noted that we were able to do so because we were given the space to complain. "Isadora's" revealed another underlying tension. We were t r y i n g to work c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y as professors and students, bosses and employees, with 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 , d i f f e r e n t time commitments. We had never talked about how those d i s t i n c t i o n s would a f f e c t the j o i n t work. Some authors see c o l l a b o r a t i o n between f a c u l t y and students as a very d i f f i c u l t task to achieve (Crow et a l . , 1992; Liggett et a l . , 1994). It was a challenge to a l l of us to f i n d a way to work together, acknowledging and respecting those differences. This event, "Isadora's," became a reference point f o r the team. It was the f i r s t time that the graduate students were able to 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 with t h e i r r o l e of fieldworkers. We wanted to know more and p a r t i c i p a t e more. From then on there was a d i f f e r e n t sense of what and why we were doing what we were doing i n t h i s s p e c i f i c way. It also revealed that the graduate students, as a group, could get together and t a l k about our feelings, and l e t Hanna and A l l i s o n know how we f e l t . It also showed that Hanna and A l l i s o n did not have a l l the answers and were learning with us. They demonstrated that they were ready to l i s t e n , elaborate, respond, and change t h e i r decisions, even when t h i s challenged 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 created i n the research plan. The next advisory committee meeting included a l l of the team members. 81 In terms of the t h e o r e t i c a l framework, the p r e v i o u s a n a l y s i s r a i s e s an i n t e r e s t i n g m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i s s u e . The c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e the c o n s t i t u t i o n and s t r u c t u r e s of a r e s e a r c h team. But teams change and c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s can be c h a l l e n g e d . In our team, as the f i e l d w o r k e r s g a ined more s k i l l s and knowledge they c o u l d c h a l l e n g e the s t r u c t u r e s t h a t had been s e t up i n response t o t h e i r o r i g i n a l s k i l l s . In o t h e r words, the team had to be a d j u s t e d to accommodate i t s development. S t r u c t u r e s t h a t were a p p r o p r i a t e i n the b e g i n n i n g of the p r o j e c t became u n s u i t a b l e once the team had grown i n c o h esion and s k i l l s . T h i s change c a l l s f o r a continuous m o n i t o r i n g of changing r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n r e s e a r c h teams. New s t r u c t u r e s A f t e r "Isadora's" the i n c l u s i o n of the r e s e a r c h team members i n the a n a l y s i s was c l e a r and f o r m a l . The team members were assured t h a t those who had the time would be i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s s t a g e . New s t r a t e g i e s were implemented t o f a c i l i t a t e the c o l l e c t i v e p r o c e s s of a n a l y s i s . 1 8 We t r i e d t o work t o g e t h e r i n s e v e r a l team meetings p u t t i n g t o g e t h e r the codes t h a t each of us had come up w i t h w h i l e a n a l y z i n g our own f i e l d n o t e s . T h i s proved t o be a good s t a r t i n g e x e r c i s e . But we had t o go f u r t h e r i n the a n a l y s i s . A f t e r t r y i n g d i f f e r e n t approaches, " i t seemed to A l l i s o n t h a t the problem at t h i s p o i n t was t h a t we were working w e l l w i t h the i n t u i t i v e l e v e l of a n a l y s i s t h a t i s e s s e n t i a l t o ethnography but i t was d i f f i c u l t , i f not i m p o s s i b l e , 1 8 F o r a complete and d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the 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 f i v e , "Making Meaning Together," i n Tom et a l . , 1994. 82 to work as a group at the second l e v e l of analysis required: checking i n t u i t i o n against the data c o l l e c t e d and r e f i n i n g the i n i t i a l constructs i n l i g h t of patterns i n the data" (Tom et a l . , 1994, p. 126). The research team divided into two sub-teams. Each sub-team was responsible for one of the reports. Hanna, Anne, and Pat worked on the evaluation report. A l l i s o n and I worked together on the methodology report. Jane and Lyn were not able to commit time to t h i s new stage of the research; they were working on t h e i r own investigations. Both of them s t i l l p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the meetings g i v i n g feedback on the reports' d r a f t s . The l i a i s o n fieldworkers were not included 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 data. 1 9 The more included we were i n the analysis and w r i t i n g process, the more we f e l t that we "owned" the research too. Again there was a tension between being part of the analysis, helping to write the reports, and not being authors of the reports, not owning the study. Eventually i n one team meeting A l l i s o n shared with us a new change i n the structure of the proj ect. AT: We [she and Hanna] talked about how what was r e a l l y necessary at t h i s point was to c a r e f u l l y think of the process of analysis and writing, and challenging the assumptions that we'd gone into the project with. Because when we went into the project our assumption was that already at t h i s point we wouldn't have any help, that we would have spent a l l of our budget and i t would be only me and Hanna working. And that the analysis and the w r i t i n g would be something that we would be doing by ourselves. Boy are we glad we were wrong! And as we went along we r e a l i z e d 1 9Later Mark suggested that i t would have been a good idea for each of them to work on the other program's data. We regretted not having thought of that option before. 83 that what makes the most sense i n involving people i n analysis i s a c t u a l l y to acknowledge that as shared authorship. And to work on a t o t a l l y , not t o t a l l y , but a very much changed plan i n terms of how the work goes. And I indicated that i n an e-mail message that what i t seems ri g h t to do at t h i s point both i n terms of getting the work done and i n terms of acknowledging who's done i t , i s for us to move to j o i n t authorship, a l l of us, and probably i n c l u d i n g Deborah and Mark, of the reports. I t r u s t nobody has any trouble with that. I suspect that i f anybody was having trouble... i t was before and not now. This quote from the research team meeting we had on March 31, 1993 explains the decision from d i f f e r e n t angles. A l l i s o n relates the move to shared authorship to p r a c t i c a l matters, such as budget and time. She also alludes to e t h i c a l and research reasons for making t h i s decision. 0 A l l i s o n acknowledges that the issue of ownership had caused some discomfort. This issue had not been discussed i n the meetings before, although there had been some general references i n the forms of questions about who would own the data, or whose names would be on the f i n a l reports. She i s also sharing with us that she and Hanna had challenged t h e i r o r i g i n a l assumptions. This re-accommodation of roles 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 discussions with r e f l e c t i o n s about the project, p a r t i c u l a r l y the co l l a b o r a t i v e processes. These discussions had a d i f f e r e n t sense than the ones before, i n which we asked Hanna and A l l i s o n for answers. In these new discussions we were r e f l e c t i n g c o l l e c t i v e l y . One example of the new way we interacted with each other can be found i n the conversation that took place a f t e r some of the graduate students wrote an a r t i c l e for an adult education conference. When the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult 84 Education (CASAE) placed a c a l l for papers, some of the graduate students i n the team suggested that i t might be a good idea to present a paper about the National Literacy 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 interested, at the time of writing the paper only Jane, Lyn, Pat, and I could f i n d the time to work on i t . We wrote the paper 2 0 and the night before the deadline f o r submitting the a r t i c l e we l e f t a copy f o r A l l i s o n to read. A l l i s o n had concerns about the way the paper portrayed her. During the A p r i l 15th meeting, which only included the UBC members of the team, we talked about the a r t i c l e . The following i s a quote from the meeting that r e f l e c t s the l e v e l of questioning that we achieved with t h i s new set of r e l a t i o n s h i p s . AT:Looking over the draft, my concerns are a learning experience for me i n terms of what i t f e e l s l i k e to be the other.... When I look at the pi 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 look l i k e a very l i m i t e d role and not a person. And that hurt, to come across as the administrator. JD:It was a conscious decision on our part to not specify the kinds of programs and not t a l k too much about the other roles that weren't ours. And there are reasons why that looks l i k e a good decision.... And i n terms of your response too you can see how that creates a perspective, ... your p o s i t i o n was kind of depersonalized, as were the programs.... It i s a question for me, how do they respond to becoming a "they"? AT:The shock of becoming the other. LH:One of the things I f i n d myself thinking a l o t about i s my experience i n CASAE l a s t year.... For me that framed my approach f o r writing t h i s [ a r t i c l e ] . Some people just went out there and bared t h e i r souls. So I 20Dawson, J., Dyer, P., Harper, L., & Niks, M. (1993). Who knows? Who says so? Who decides? Issues on co l l a b o r a t i v e research. In M. Taylor & R. Bedard (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of the Study of Adult Education (pp. 137-142). Ottawa, Ontario: University of Ottawa. 85 found myself w r i t i n g with that sort of [frame].... But of course, the process i s very d i f f i c u l t because writing i s d i f f e r e n t [from presenting]. 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 that hard. I r e a l l y want t h i s to be a verbal i n t e r a c t i v e thing. It's an exploration. So having your response was l i k e wow, A l l i s o n i s looking at t h i s i n a d i f f e r e n t way. Because that's what i t i s ! It i s writing, and i t has a-d i f f e r e n t kind of an 'existence.' It i s s t i l l written and i t gives things a sort of immortality. This quote gives an example of the new kind of r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the team. Instead of expecting A l l i s o n to give guidelines f o r r e f l e c t i o n , team members r e f l e c t together. A l l i s o n p a r t i c i p a t e s as an equal, as one more team member. Research team meetings became less frequent and A l l i s o n and Hanna took over the writing of the reports. They shared t h e i r d r afts with the research team. Both acknowledged the awkward f e e l i n g they had about sharing these early pieces of w r i t i n g with other people, something they had never done before. Once the reports were written we had to make sure that the people quoted i n them f e l t comfortable about how they were portrayed. 2 1 Pat f e l t that each and every p a r t i c i p a n t had to have the opportunity to read, and p o t e n t i a l l y change, the way s/he appeared i n the report. This required a great deal of work and time, and none of the research team members had that time. There were also deadlines to meet with p r i n t i n g , copying and r e l e a s i n g the reports. Pat used the e-mail network to check with other team members about the promises we had made to the p a r t i c i p a n t s . Once she f e l t that we had assured everyone v e r b a l l y that they would get t h i s chance, she went ahead and made sure that every quote 2 1Again t h i s account i s reconstructed from e-mail messages and my memories of the events. 8 6 was copied, put into sealed envelopes, and each quoted p a r t i c i p a n t had a chance to check "t h e i r piece." This process took over 100 hours of fieldwork. The methodology report acknowledges Pat's persistence. This l a s t episode r e f l e c t s the s h i f t i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n the team. 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 her/his own quotes. Hanna and A l l i s o n were reluctant because of the pressures of time, money, and exhaustion. Pat f e l t she was as responsible f o r the research as anybody else and she knew what she had to do. Her decision d i d not depend on being paid and she also had her own very busy l i f e . This episode indicates how the research team members ended up f e e l i n g a greater sense of ownership than they began with. Conclusions The process described above i s one of r e f l e c t i o n , t r u s t , and change. We r e f l e c t e d on the process, we trusted that every person was doing her/his best, and we changed to accommodate new ways of r e l a t i n g to each other and to the research project. In terms of research process, the biggest challenge we faced was understanding the i n d i v i d u a l feelings and t r a n s l a t i n g them into research r e f l e c t i o n s and conclusions that would be useful f o r other people to ref e r to when involved i n s i m i l a r projects. Ultimately t h i s was a research team, our goal was to produce rigorous knowledge and not simply to make each other happy. In terms of the process the hardest challenge was to question our own assumption's as ind i v i d u a l s , team members, and researchers. We pushed the boundaries of our own ideas, and we expanded our understandings. We came to the project with 87 c o n c e p t i o n s about what a team i s and what c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s . We worked t o g e t h e r and found t h a t our d e f i n i t i o n s were not the same and t h a t our d e f i n i t i o n s changed. We a l s o c h a l l e n g e d the i n f l u e n c e of the c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s t h a t shaped the team. We n e g o t i a t e d new r e l a t i o n s h i p s and r e n e g o t i a t e d them a g a i n and again. Hanna d e f i n e d the p r o c e s s of c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n one meeting: HF: I've been t h i n k i n g of 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 sense i n which i t ' s a p r o c e s s , but i t changes a l l the time. For me i t r e a l l y i s about h a v i n g a v i s i o n of what i t means to r e s p e c t o t h e r people's knowledge 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 everybody who's i n v o l v e d i n t r y i n g to 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 of 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 to do w i t h where each of us are as i n d i v i d u a l s and where the systems are 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 another one of those t h i n g s t h a t you're always working towards but i t ' s not something t h a t I t h i n k some day I'm g o ing t o say, "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 d e s c r i b e d the p r o c e s s t h a t the L i t e r a c y Demonstration P r o j e c t team went through t o become c o l l a b o r a t i v e . We began working t o g e t h e r as a group of people who l i k e d each o t h e r but without a c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n of what we expected from the shared work. I p r e s e n t e d the c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e d the c o n s t i t u t i o n of the r e s e a r c h team, and how those t r a n s l a t e d i n t o d i f f e r e n t r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . A l t h o u g h i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t we c o u l d not have a r t i c u l a t e d our b i a s e s and e x p e c t a t i o n s c l e a r l y i n the b e g i n n i n g of the team's work, I b e l i e v e t h a t i t would have been h e l p f u l t o have had a c o n v e r s a t i o n about how the context and our e x p e r i e n c e s shaped the k i n d of work we c o u l d do t o g e t h e r . Research teams c o u l d b e n e f i t from having d i s c u s s i o n s throughout the r e s e a r c h 88 p r o c e s s i n which they r e v i s i t t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n of c o l l a b o r a t i o n and i t s l i m i t a t i o n s . On these o c c a s i o n s , r e l a t i o n s h i p s c o u l d be e x p l o r e d , r e - n e g o t i a t e d and a d j u s t e d to meet c u r r e n t r e a l i t i e s . I e x p l o r e d the c r i s i s t h a t arose i n the team i n the b e g i n n i n g of the a n a l y s i s stage. For our team t o s u r v i v e and l e a r n from t h a t c r i s i s , we were guided by our e x p l i c i t commitment t o an awareness of power and i t s a p p r o p r i a t e s h a r i n g . T h i s would not have been enough without f l e x i b i l i t y and the w i l l t o change. F i n a l l y I d e l i n e a t e d the new r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the team and gave one example of how the r o l e s changed. The g o a l of t h i s c h a p t e r was not to show a t y p i c a l or a f i n i s h e d p r o c e s s , but t o p r e s e n t an example of how c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s b u i l t throughout the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s . Research teams are composed of people w i t h d i f f e r e n t s k i l l s , d i f f e r e n t backgrounds, d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a t u s , and sometimes d i f f e r e n t c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n s . These d i f f e r e n c e s a f f e c t the o p p o r t u n i t i e s team members have t o p a r t i c i p a t e . In our case, the i n s t i t u t i o n a l frame, time l i m i t a t i o n s , and s k i l l s , were f a c t o r s t h a t framed the f i e l d w o r k e r s involvement i n the team. How these d i f f e r e n c e s a f f e c t c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s s t i l l an open q u e s t i o n . Can people w i t h v e r y d i f f e r e n t s k i l l s p a r t i c i p a t e e q u a l l y i n a team? Can s t udents and f a c u l t y members c o l l a b o r a t e ? Acknowledging these d i f f e r e n c e s , though, appears t o be e s s e n t i a l i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o j e c t s . These d i f f e r e n c e s c o u l d be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o 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 a c c o r d i n g t o people's s k i l l s , knowledge, and e x p e r i e n c e . U l t i m a t e l y , people come t o g e t h e r i n a team t o b e n e f i t from everybody's s k i l l s . 89 Thus, c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s not a give n ; research teams become c o l l a b o r a t i v e . They become more or l e s s c o l l a b o r a t i v e , the move to create 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 r e l a t i o n s h i p . As Hanna ex p l a i n e d , c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s a v i s i o n t h a t always leads us, but one that we can never be sure we have achieved. The 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 process as much at i t l i e s i n the product. While i n v o l v e d i n b u i l d i n g 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 , researchers' work i s a f f e c t e d by i t being c a r r i e d out by a team. Chapter Fi v e explores the ways i n which ethnographic research changes when i t i s done by a re s e a r c h team. So CHAPTER FIVE: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SPACES: IMPACT OF THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS ON THE RESEARCH PROJECT Chapter Four d e s c r i b e d the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of 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 w i t h i n the team. Drawing on the t h e o r e t i c a l c h apter I a l s o looked at how s e t t i n g s , time, and s k i l l s i n f l u e n c e d the c o n s t i t u t i o n of the team. In t h i s c h a p t e r I w i l l argue t h a t both data and r e s e a r c h e r s are a f f e c t e d by the c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s . Embarking on a c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s i m p l i e s t h a t the p r i v a t e space t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s need t o do the r e s e a r c h i s m o d i f i e d . F i e l d n o t e s become more p u b l i c - Pandora's box i s opened - and t h i s a f f e c t s the r e s e a r c h e r s ' r e f l e x i v i t y . R e f l e x i v i t y , though, does not d i s a p p e a r . I argue t h a t some of the r e f l e x i v i t y s t i l l happens i n f i e l d n o t e s or i n o t h e r more p r i v a t e spaces, and some occ u r s i n the r e s e a r c h team meetings. I then e x p l o r e the t h r e a t s t o r e s e a r c h team meetings as r e f l e x i v e spaces. S p e c i f i c a l l y , I l o o k at the i n c l u s i o n of l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s and v u l n e r a b i l i t y as two p o s s i b l e problems i n team r e s e a r c h . 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 may t h r e a t e n the sense of p r i v a c y and may t r a n s f o r m the r e s e a r c h team meetings i n t o f i e l d w o r k . I e x p l o r e the consequences of t h i s t h r e a t i n terms of the i s s u e of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . Research team meetings have t o be p r o t e c t e d t o make sure t h a t the team has the freedom t o r e f l e c t . I expand t h i s argument through an a n a l y s i s of p o s s i b l e ways of p r o t e c t i n g r e s e a r c h team meetings. My c o n c l u s i o n i n t h i s c h a p t e r i s t h a t a l l of these i s s u e s a f f e c t t h i s k i n d of r e s e a r c h . Once one i s aware of them, one can p l a n , understand, and support the c o l l a b o r a t i v e process. The analysis that follows i s based on the assumption that r e f l e x i v i t y i s , as described i n Chapter Two, "the key to the development of both theory and methodology i n s o c i a l sciences" (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983, p. 236). P a r t i c u l a r l y i n ethnography, the researcher i s the research instrument. Observations, interviews, and the experiences and ideas triggered by fieldwork constitute the data. Therefore i t i s necessary for the researcher to rigorously examine the generation of ideas 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 researcher's role, ethnographers produce i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . R e f l e c t i n g on the ethnographer's role and on the data have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been private processes. In t h i s chapter I explore the ways a c o l l e c t i v e process of r e f l e x i v i t y converges with the t r a d i t i o n a l i n d i v i d u a l r e f l e x i v i t y , and how both are affected. Pandora's box Even when ethnography i s c a r r i e d out by a team, researchers are s t i l l the basic research instrument. Individuals go to the f i e l d , t a l k to people, p a r t i c i p a t e , and observe. Regardless of t h e i r t r u s t i n the other team members and t h e i r use of the team meetings, researchers have to 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 to make sense of t h e i r experiences. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , these processes take place i n private spaces -usually fieldnotes, journals, and d i a r i e s . In the process of writing t h e i r notes, ethnographers interpret and r e f l e c t on t h e i r fieldwork. Although i t i s impossible to generalize, f i e l d n o t e s often draw on personal experiences and feelings that only l a t e r , i n the analysis stage, can be connected to the data from the 92 s i t e s (Jackson, 1990). I t i s not v e r y o f t e n t h a t ethnographers share, o r even l e t o t h e r ethnographers read, t h e i r notes. George Bond e x p l a i n s : F i e l d n o t e s are an 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 are p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , a p a r t of a world o f p r i v a t e memories and ex p e r i e n c e s , f a i l u r e s and successes, i n s e c u r i t i e s and i n d e c i s i o n . They are u s u a l l y c a r e f u l l y tucked 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 examine them would be t o open a Pandora's box (Bond, 1990, p. 273). In our team, f i e l d w o r k e r s were h i r e d t o do the f i e l d w o r k ; they were not expected t o be p a r t of the a n a l y s i s . So f i e l d w o r k e r s not o n l y shared t h e i r f i e l d n o t e s w i t h Hanna and A l l i s o n , but ' r e l e a s e d ' them t o them. 2 2 Furthermore, once they were w r i t t e n they belonged t o the p r o j e c t and t o the f i e l d w o r k e r . I t d i d not make sense then t o i n c l u d e v e r y p e r s o n a l r e f l e c t i o n s because they would not mean the same t h i n g t o o t h e r r e a d e r s , i t a l s o was something t h a t people chose not t o do i n terms of p r o t e c t i n g t h e i r p r i v a c y . As the r o l e s s h i f t e d i n the a n a l y s i s stage and the graduate students got i n v o l v e d i n a n a l y z i n g and w r i t i n g , team members re a d and coded each o t h e r ' s f i e l d n o t e s . In one p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t the team gave about the c o l l a b o r a t i v e aspect of the p r o j e c t , Jane r e f l e c t e d on the e f f e c t t h a t having shared our f i e l d n o t e s had on the l e v e l of r e f l e x i v i t y i n her notes. 2 2 A l l i s o n a l s o wrote f i e l d n o t e s but hers were shared o n l y w i t h Hanna. Although the o r i g i n a l p l a n d i d not a n t i c i p a t e t h a t f i e l d w o r k e r s would be s h a r i n g f i e l d n o t e s among themselves, t h i s happened i n an i n f o r m a l way. S p e c i f i c a l l y the graduate s t u d e n t s shared t h e i r f i e l d n o t e s w i t h the l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s w i t h 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 used Pat's f i e l d n o t e s as a way t o r e f l e c t on h i s own beh a v i o u r i n some meetings. 93 JD: I think there r e a l l y i s a difference i n not just how much you're w i l l i n g to l e t people read but how much you're even gonna think the things that people might read. I am conscious that what I choose to say because I know that other people are going to read i t , i s d i f f e r e n t . There i s more of a sense of presentation involved. We r e a l i z e d , by the end of the analysis stage, that having -written our fieldnotes with the awareness that they would be shared influenced what and how we wrote them. By that time there was not much we could do about the omissions that may have occurred i n the fieldnotes except r e f l e c t on that. We included that r e f l e c t i o n i n the f i n a l report: Even though the members of the research team produced fieldnotes which were meant to be shared, we were not deliberate i n acknowledging the difference between the norm of 'private' fieldnotes which underlay our t r a i n i n g and the r e a l i t y of 'public' fieldnotes which underlay the experience of the project (Tom et a l . , 1994, p. 99). One way t h i s problem could have been lessened i s by creating a way researchers could have kept private notes. Each team member could have kept a separate set of fieldnotes, or a personal diary where they would have a private space to r e f l e c t . It would then be the researcher's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to analyze these private notes and a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r meaning for the team i n the analysis stage. If researchers admit that they do not write and think i n the same way when t h e i r fieldnotes are to be shared, i t does not necessarily follow that team research loses r e f l e x i v i t y . Even when researchers write more public fieldnotes, they s t i l l include t h e i r thoughts and 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 . In terms of the group's r e f l e x i v i t y , t h i s kind of thinking also happens i n the research team meetings. 9 4 Research team meetings Research team meetings i n the L i t e r a c y Demonstration P r o j e c t were o r i g i n a l l y thought of 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 to support f i e l d w o r k e r s and make sure e v e r y t h i n g was going on as expected. In the l a t e r stages of the research p r o j e c t , the meetings changed and became a p l a c e where we c o l l e c t e d d a t a 2 3 , analyzed i t , and r e f l e c t e d on the r e s e a r c h process. In essence the team meetings were the times when the 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 the team came together as a group. As our meetings began, we sat around the t a b l e and chatted wh i l e members a r r i v e d 2 4 . We t a l k e d about our s t u d i e s , work, and f a m i l i e s . Most of the time we had food t o share. Team members took t u r n s , without any formal p l a n n i n g (with the e x c e p t i o n of two or three times that we planned to have lunch) t o b r i n g something to eat. A l l i s o n prepared an agenda f o r almost every meeting based on the t o p i c s t h a t had emerged i n the f i e l d n o t e s , or on i s s u e s that she and Hanna thought were necessary t o d i s c u s s . U s u a l l y we began w i t h a round of d e s c r i p t i o n s of the a c t i v i t i e s we had done i n the previous two weeks. This was an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r a i s e questions and problems. Then we addressed the p o i n t s on the agenda. Every team member had the chance to 2 3The a l l u s i o n to data c o l l e c t i o n r e f e r s to the times when we "interviewed" Mark and Deborah d u r i n g team meetings. I d e s c r i b e t h i s process f u r t h e r i n the second p a r t of t h i s chapter. 2 4The tapes i n c l u d e t h i s f i r s t chat because Hanna asked that we t u r n the tape recorder on. She f e l t t h i s was a way of being c l o s e r to us by l i s t e n i n g t o comments about our week, our personal l i v e s , and a l s o about the f i e l d w o r k . 95 t a l k . Some p a r t i c i p a t e d more than others, depending on the topic 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 . We had fun and we took care of each other by bringing a cup of hot tea or coffee to another team member, or carrying a baby around. The meetings u s u a l l y ended with another round i n which we shared our plans f o r the following two weeks. There were many reasons why i t was important f o r the content of the research team meetings not to go'beyond the team members. The most important of these was that we were discussing issues that had been t o l d to us i n confidence. We promised p a r t i c i p a n t s that we would not t e l l what we talked about with people outside the research team, or to the l i a i s o n researchers. Second, there was a sense that a l o t of our conversations were f i r s t attempts to understand what was going on i n the s i t e s . Our 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 presentations of information. The meetings instead were r i c h i n hunches and impressions that were l a t e r checked with the data for v a l i d a t i o n . The t h i r d reason for the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of the meetings was to be able to t a l k f r e e l y about our f e e l i n g s , f r u s t r a t i o n s and successes i n the research. I c a l l the meetings the team's " c o l l e c t i v e p r i v a t e " space, the time that the research team had for r e f l e c t i o n . This purpose of the research team meetings i s p a r a l l e l with that of notes f o r an i n d i v i d u a l ethnographer. Research team meetings can be 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 r e f l e c t i o n s , fears, analysis, data, and personal notes are interwoven i n a p a r t i c u l a r pattern that most often can only be understood by those creating i t . Jean Jackson (1990) interviewed anthropologists to f i n d out what they wrote i n t h e i r f ieldnotes and how they f e l t about them. She concluded that If 'the f i e l d ' i s anthropology's version of both the promised land and an ordeal by f i r e , then f i e l d n o t e s symbolize what journeying to and returning from the f i e l d mean to us: the attachment, the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the uncertainty, the mystique, and, perhaps, above a l l , the ambivalence (1990, p. 33). Jackson's conclusion does not l i m i t the d e f i n i t i o n of fieldnotes to a c e r t a i n form (written material), or content. I contend that much of what i s o r d i n a r i l y written i n i n d i v i d u a l f i e l d n o t e s was spoken i n our research team meetings. What i s a monologue i n journals becomes conversations i n the meetings. 2 5 That journey that Jackson refers to can be followed i n the research team meetings. Presenting whole conversations as evidence of t h i s claim would be expanding excessively the length of t h i s thesis, but the quotes that I have presented i n the previous chapter, and the ones that I present i n t h i s chapter, give an idea of how ideas evolved and got constructed during the meetings. It i s important to note that t h i s argument does not suggest that research team meetings can substitute for i n d i v i d u a l f i e l d n o t e s . In our project, i n d i v i d u a l fieldnotes s t i l l y i e l d e d data and i n d i v i d u a l r e f l e c t i o n s . In t h e i r notes fieldworkers t r i e d to make sense of t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l experiences i n the f i e l d . They may or may not have included more personal r e f l e c t i o n i f the fieldnotes had not been shared. The project l o s t some of that 2 5There i s an important difference though. Unless research team meetings are taped, there i s no record of the conversation. And even i f they are taped, i f these tapes are not transcribed, they are very d i f f i c u l t to include i n a t r a d i t i o n a l ethnographic analysis (see Chapter Two, methodology). 97 p r i v a t e r e f l e x i v i t y by having the f i e l d n o t e s shared. The p r o j e c t a l s o gained another .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 c o l l e c t i v e understanding of the group's experiences; a c o l l e c t i v e r e f l e x i v i t y . In that sense research team meetings can be understood as c o l l e c t i v e f i e l d n o t e s , because they i n c l u d e observations and d e s c r i p t i o n s of the research process.' Thus, the team i s the research instrument that i n t e r p r e t s the data. Threats to r e f l e x i v i t y i n research team meetings I have argued that r e s e a r c h team meetings are the team's f i e l d n o t e s , and that these are the spaces where the group r e f l e c t s on the data and the process. Some c o n d i t i o n s can threaten the c o l l e c t i v e space. In t h i s s e c t i o n I explore 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 . I n c l u d i n g l i a i s o n researchers We worked hard and c o n s c i o u s l y t o keep the team meetings p r i v a t e research p l a c e s . Research team meetings became a place where team members would share problems about the f i e l d w o r k , analyze data, and t a l k about t h e i r concerns. They were planned as a space to t a l k about the f i e l d , not as a f i e l d i n themselves. Because our team i n c l u d e d l i a i s o n r esearchers, however, we had t o 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 there 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 the purpose of the study i n f l u e n c e s the nature of 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 between team members. As d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter Two, 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 r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 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 was an e v a l u a t i o n . Therefore, i t was necessary to e s t a b l i s h r e l a t i o n s h i p s that would not compromise the team's commitment to the study. The fact that there was information that had to be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l was one consequence of the purpose of the study. C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y "means that no one has access to i n d i v i d u a l data or the names of the p a r t i c i p a n t s except the researcher(s), and that the subjects know before they p a r t i c i p a t e who w i l l see the data. C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i s assured by making c e r t a i n that the data cannot be linked to i n d i v i d u a l subjects by name" (McMillan & Schumacher, 1989, pp. 189-99) . Maintaining t h i s c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y was a p a r t i c u l a r challenge f o r the team members because we included l i a i s o n fieldworkers i n the team.26 It was d i f f i c u l t to keep i d e n t i t i e s from Mark and Deborah. D i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l backgrounds, family s i t u a t i o n s , and opinions made i t almost impossible to promise p a r t i c i p a n t s complete anonymity. Mark and Deborah knew the learners and t h e i r s t o r i e s and could e a s i l y r e l a t e 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. 2 7 One of the f i r s t issues that we discussed as a team was how 2 6Also, the fieldworkers were not expected to be part of the analysis. The promise of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y was complex then because the fieldworkers were c o l l e c t i n g data that they were not going to analyze. Fieldworkers were making promises about behaviour that was not t h e i r own. We could only promise that the information would not be shared with anybody outside the research team, and that i t would not be published without the consent of the pa r t i c i p a n t . 2 7An example of how p a r t i c i p a n t s were aware of t h e i r exposure i s the comment that the secretary of one of the programs made to us. She was the only f u l l time secretary i n the program. Simply r e f e r r i n g to "a person i n the administrative r o l e , " would point the finger at her. 99 t o p r o t e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s ' i d e n t i t i e s from the l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s . Our c h o i c e s were e i t h e r t o keep the l i a i s o n r e s e a r c h e r s i n the team meetings or, f o r the sake o f c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , t o have some o r most meetings without them. We r a i s e d t h a t i s s u e i n the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n . We t r i e d t o understand the problem and t o f i n d a s o l u t i o n t h a t would f e e l f a i r 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 important i t was to be a team and i f we can do i t without wrecking c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y I would r a t h e r go the team way than not doi 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 without u s i n g names. AT:We can 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 enough l e v e l so t h a t we don't have t o exclude Mark and Deborah. My concern is- t h a t we don't come up w i t h a system t h a t c u t s Mark and Deborah out without i t be i n g a t o p i c t h a t we are d i s c u s s i n g . MM:I was t h i n k i n g t h a t i f they [the p a r t i c i p a n t s ] know t h a t we are p a r t of t h i s they may f e e l "Well they are going t o f i n d out because they are p a r t of t h i s team so no matter what Lyn says t o me I'm not r e a l l y gonna t e l l her what I want t o t e l l her because I know Mark's p a r t of t h i s . " AT:I can't t h i n k of a s o l u t i o n t o t h a t a s i d e from a c t u a l l y k i c k i n g you o f f the team and I am not 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 have t o be as c l e a r as we can when we t a l k t o people t h a t i f they t e l l us [something] i t w i l l o n l y go t h a t f a r and be e x c r u c i a t i n g l y c a r e f u l i n these meetings 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 promised 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 get too c l o s e t o t h a t p o i n t and keep an eye on i t . L e t ' s say t h a t Sam t e l l s me something. I may b r i n g what Sam says t o the meeting but I won't say Sam s a i d i t . I t ' s something t h a t needs t o keep coming up. And as i t becomes more c l e a r t h a t Mark and Deborah are p a r t of the r e s e a r c h e f f o r t we have t o make c l e a r t o people t h a t " i f you don't t e l l Mark and Deborah t h i s we are not going t o t e l l them e i t h e r . " We chose t o i n c l u d e Mark and Deborah i n eve r y meeting except i n some of the a n a l y s i s meetings (see below). 2 8 E s s e n t i a l l y , we 2 8 I t i s my f e e l i n g t h a t Mark and Deborah seemed t o care l e s s about having t o leave the room o r not 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 than the r e s t of us ca r e d about h a v i n g t o exclude them. They were as w o r r i e d as the r e s t of the team members about 100 chose to adhere to the p r i n c i p l e of i n c l u s i o n over the concern 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 never thought that the i n c l u s i o n of the l i a i s o n fieldworkers would not a f f e c t the project. We knew that i t was a trade-off. Even i f we had excluded the l i a i s o n researchers from the meetings, p a r t i c i p a n t s would not necessarily have known that, and i t might not have made any difference for them. We just took i t as a fact that i t would have an impact on the research and t r i e d to r e f l e c t on how i t did a f f e c t the process and product of the research. But the fact that we could not conceal the i d e n t i t i e s of the learners may have affected the ideas we brought to the meetings i n a way that we were not aware of. Another c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y issue that surfaced i n the research team meetings related to the i n c l u s i o n of the l i a i s o n researchers was that we also had to deal with the issue of l i a i s o n researchers as p o t e n t i a l conduits to the programs. L i a i s o n researchers had a double r e s p o n s i b i l i t y : to t h e i r own programs and to the research project. It made t h e i r task d i f f i c u l t . One of t h e i r challenges was to be able to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the research team meetings and keep the information, questions, and problems making sure the p a r t i c i p a n t s talked to the graduate students without fear of being recognized. On one occasion we excluded Deborah from a team meeting, and i t was only for a short period. This was needed because A l l i s o n wanted to share some information with the research team that involved one learner i n the program i n which Deborah works. Even though i t had been agreed that t h i s could happen, we a l l f e l t awkward. We offered Deborah muffins and coffee and made sure she had a place to go. When Deborah returned to the room A l l i s o n "apologized" and explained, again, the reason why she had to be excused. On another occasion Mark offered to leave the room so we could share the name of the person we were t a l k i n g about. The rest of the team thought that was not necessary. The conversation continued without the use of names. 101 we were facing to themselves. This issue was r a i s e d i n one team meeting. AT: We don't want to turn into the way that people t e l l him [Mark] things. Because we don't want to become conduits. Because then people think 'You are a conduit for t h i s . I see t h i s channel working! How do I know when you -close the door?' I think that just having Mark and Deborah on the research team i s acting i n a way that r a i s e s questions about that. So we need to make sure that everything here, i n t h i s research team meeting i s kept c o n f i d e n t i a l . I think t h i s i s going to be hard for Deborah and Mark when Lee and Gary [program directors] want to know how i t ' s going. Once t h i s issue was discussed i n a research 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 did not make t h e i r work easier. The presence of the f i e l d On some occasions, the research team meetings unconsciously s h i f t e d and became a time of data c o l l e c t i o n . This happened when the l i a i s o n fieldworkers explained aspects of the programs, or when they elaborated on t h e i r own philosophies as teachers. In these s i t u a t i o n s some of the other team members made sure that the tape was running or began to take notes. Most of the times there were a few questions asked as i n an interview. These were precious times. Nobody wanted to miss the opportunity to record the thoughts of a teacher who was elaborating and r e f l e c t i n g on program approaches and teaching philosophies. On the other hand, these were times i n which the focus of the meeting got blurred. In one team meeting Hanna was aware of t h i s process and c a l l e d the team members' attention to i t . She said "I'm f e e l i n g a l i t t l e uncomfortable. I'm f e e l i n g that t h i s has turned into a group interview of Mark." The f e e l i n g that Hanna had of being uncomfortable i n that s i t u a t i o n was s i m i l a r to 1 0 2 a f e e l i n g t h a t Jane expressed almost at the end of the p r o j e c t . She s a i d t h a t she had f e l t a l l a l o n g t h a t the r e s e a r c h team meetings were another f i e l d w o r k time f o r her. Deborah r e p r e s e n t e d the program t o her and because of t h a t she c o u l d never f e e l t h a t the r e s e a r c h team meetings were a p l a c e i n which she c o u l d r e l a x and express her id e a s f r e e l y . JD:My sense of b e i n g i n the r e s e a r c h meetings, because of the presence of the l i a i s o n people th e r e , was l i k e I was i n the f i e l d a gain. I don't know t h a t i t f e l t u nsafe as i n f e e l i n g dangerous but i t f e l t l i k e t here was a c e r t a i n k i n d of way t h a t I watched my c o n s c i o u s n e s s . And 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 , there were t h i n g s t h a t I d i d n ' t pay a t t e n t i o n t o because I was s o r t o f b e i n g i n the f i e l d b e i n g i n the r e s e a r c h meetings. The f i e l d was always t h e r e and the person who r e p r e s e n t e d the f i e l d was Deborah. During the data a n a l y s i s stage the r e s e a r c h team h e l d meetings without the l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s . The main reason f o r doing t h i s was to keep i n f o r m a t i o n c o n f i d e n t i a l . Another purpose f o r h a v i ng these meetings was t h a t we c o u l d r e f l e c t on some of the impacts t h a t the i n c l u s i o n of the l i a i s o n r e s e a r c h e r s had on the r e s e a r c h team. Although d i s c u s s i o n s on t h i s t o p i c were a l s o done w i t h the l i a i s o n r e s e a r c h e r s , i t was c l e a r t h a t the i s s u e s d i s c u s s e d were d i f f e r e n t . What f o l l o w s i s a quote from one of the team meetings t h a t we h e l d without the l i a i s o n f i e l d w o r k e r s . T h i s quote i l l u s t r a t e s the care t h a t we took i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s and the f i n a l g o a l t h a t we were p u r s u i n g i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . These were not g o s s i p c o n v e r s a t i o n s , the purpose was to r e f l e c t on our experi e n c e so t h a t we c o u l d come up w i t h recommendations t o be i n c l u d e d i n the r e p o r t s . We saw t h i s as a nec e s s a r y s t e p t o produce c e r t a i n k i n d s of un d e r s t a n d i n g s t h a t we would not have had i f the l i a i s o n r e s e a r c h e r s had been p r e s e n t . 103 HF:It needs to be understood, i t needs j u s t t o be s a i d t h a t the 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 important to us t o schedule a time to be a b l e to t a l k about the programs without Mark and Deborah here to be a b l e to begin t o put s t u f f out t h e r e without needing to worry about compromising c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y t h a t has been promised to i n f o r m a n t s . AT:Or h u r t i n g f e e l i n g s o r any of t h a t . I mean you can be -bashed or mad o r d i s l i k i n g people or whatever and then w e ' l l work to f i g u r e out what i t means i n terms of the r e s e a r c h . HF:And a l s o , I j u s t want t o r e i n f o r c e the 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 t u r n e d i n t o q u e s t i o n s . I t g e t s t u r n e d i n t o what we want to i n t e r r o g a t e the data f o r . I n c l u d i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s as r e s e a r c h e r s has been one way i n which r e s e a r c h e r s have t r i e d t o answer moral q u e s t i o n s about the r o l e t h a t "the r e s e a r c h e d " p l a y i n p r o d u c i n g knowledge about themselves. I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e i r presence b r i n g s b e n e f i t s to the i n v e s t i g a t i o n ; i n c o r p o r a t i n g an i n s i d e r s ' p e r s p e c t i v e and f a c i l i t a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h the s i t e s are o n l y some of the b e n e f i t s . But t h e i r i n c l u s i o n a l s o r a i s e s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l , e t h i c a l , and t h e o r e t i c a l q u e s t i o n s . In terms of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , t h e r e i s a concern t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l f e e l t h a t t h e i r anonymity cannot be maintained, and there i s an e x t r a burden f o r the l i a i s o n t o not become a c o n d u i t between the r e s e a r c h team and the program. In terms of t h e i r a c t u a l presence i n the team meetings I have d e s c r i b e d how some team members f e l t t h a t the l i a i s o n r e s e a r c h e r s r e p r e s e n t e d the f i e l d and t h a t t h e i r presence i n h i b i t e d the team members' a b i l i t y t o r e f l e c t i n a r e l a x e d atmosphere. At the l e a s t , t h e i r presence shaped the atmosphere i n which r e f l e c t i o n took p l a c e . D e c i d i n g whether o r not t o i n c l u d e l i a i s o n r e s e a r c h e r s i s a d e c i s i o n t h a t has to be taken c a r e f u l l y , weighing advantages and d i s a d v a n t a g e s . I f a team i s t o i n c l u d e people from the s i t e s , 104 then some measures to protect the c a p a b i l i t y of the team to r e f l e c t have to be taken. Holding some meetings without the l i a i s o n fieldworkers may be an option, although t h i s might r a i s e issues about i n c l u s i v i t y within the team. The main issue here i s to be aware of the threats that including l i a i s o n researchers i n every a c t i v i t y presents to the research process. V u l n e r a b i l i t y , comparison, and trust When people work together i n research teams they make themselves vulnerable to other team members. Sharing fieldnotes, "half baked ideas," f r u s t r a t i o n s , and questions puts people i n a vulnerable position..' At the same time, working with others allows f o r people to compare themselves. D i f f e r e n t a b i l i t i e s can be interpreted i n a judgemental, evaluative way. These situ a t i o n s can i n h i b i t the capacity for r e f l e c t i o n i n a team. One way i n which we made ourselves vulnerable was by comparing ourselves to each other. In research c a r r i e d out by a team there i s a shared topic, approach, and same or s i m i l a r s i t e s , and p a r t i c i p a n t s . In our case we were a l l working at two s i m i l a r s i t e s , a l l the fieldworkers were working twelve hours a week, t a l k i n g to people i n the same or s i m i l a r s i t e s , and writing f i e l d n o t e s . It was easy to compare personal s t y l e s , approaches, and even the length of our f i e l d n o t e s . Anne thought her wr i t i n g was "less t h e o r e t i c a l " than Pat's. Jane f e l t she was a " f a i l u r e " because the consulting groups d i d not work i n the s i t e where she was working as well as they d i d at the other s i t e . Lyn and Marina did not get the same reaction from teachers and learners as d i d 105 Pat and Anne who were usually asked for help. 2 9 Instead of accepting that these were just d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s , p e r s o n a l i t i e s , and contexts, we questioned ourselves and translated those differences into a scale i n which one s t y l e or personality type was better than the other. We ranked ourselves i n that scale. Although we talked about how wrong that was and how that undermined our s e l f esteem, we could not help doing i t . It was c l e a r for most of the team members that comparing ourselves to others i s a c u l t u r a l behaviour that we have learned. It i s i n the basis of the idea of competition, i t i s not good enough to be doing good work, i t has to be better than other people's work. Anne and Hanna a r t i c u l a t e d t h i s i n one meeting. AM:I think i t ' s t h i s nasty North American, well Northern European thing, you know, i f somebody's good, then I'm bad. HF:If someone's good and doing something d i f f e r e n t from you then that means that you can't be good, too. The academic world i s not an exception. On the contrary, i t might be one of the best examples of how competition works. Students are always marked compared to others, they are ranked, for scholarships and f o r jobs, and within classes. The L i t e r a c y Demonstration Project was linked i n more than one way to the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The i n s t i t u t i o n provided administrative support f o r the project, and most of the researchers were part of i t . We met at the u n i v e r s i t y and used 2 9Not only d i d we compare ourselves to each other as i n d i v i d u a l s , we also did so as sub-groups. During the analysis stage when the team divided into two sub-teams there were comments about one group being "better" than the other because of how they were working. B a s i c a l l y there was a d i f f e r e n t way of proceeding i n writing the reports. 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. 106 i t s f a c i l i t i e s . T h i s was another way i n which the i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g i n f l u e n c e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between team members. We were a l l a f f e c t e d by the u n i v e r s i t y ' s r u l e s and v a l u e s . I t was mostly the graduate students who were comparing themselves t o the o t h 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 approach. A l t h o u g h they s t i l l p e r c e i v e d the d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e i r work and the graduate s t u d e n t s , ' 3 0 p a r t i c u l a r l y i n terms o f r e s e a r c h s k i l l s , t hey acknowledged t h a t b e i n g d i f f e r e n t d i d not 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 p r o f e s s i o n a l . They made an analogy between what the graduate students were f e e l i n g and how the l e a r n e r s i n the l i t e r a c y programs f e l t . DL:I t h i n k i t ' s hard t o compare, because you are you and I am I. So i t ' s hard t o see what you wrote, 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 wrote, because we are i n a d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n . That's how we see the 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 you have t o have f a i t h i n y o u r s e l f , you 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 at the end t h e r e w i l l be something, but I can't t e l l you what i t ' s going t o be. You're going t o have t o h e l p me t e l l you what t h a t ' s g o i n g t o be, and I can't t e l l you without you, and we're not going t o know u n t i l we get t h e r e . I mean, you were chosen f o r some reason. Another way r e s e a r c h team members are exposed i s when they share d r a f t s of w r i t i n g . In an academic world where t h e r e i s not much p l a c e f o r c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m , s h a r i n g of these d r a f t s i s a courageous a c t t h a t makes people f e e l v e r y exposed. T h i s k i n d of v u l n e r a b i l i t y , though, i s unavoidable i n a c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h team because team members are p r o d u c i n g i d e a s t o g e t h e r . The fundamental i s s u e here i s t o acknowledge these f e e l i n g s . 3 0 F o r the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the graduate students and the 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 see Tom et a l . , 1994, pp. 106-110. 107 In our p r o j e c t , r e s e a r c h team members were exposed i n a d d i t i o n a l ways by s h a r i n g f i e l d n o t e s w i t h the c o - i n v e s t i g a t o r s . F i e l d n o t e s are h i g h l y p e r s o n a l , they i n c l u d e d e s c r i p t i o n s and f e e l i n g s t h a t are not u s u a l l y shared. In our case the v u l n e r a b i l i t y was h e i g h t e n e d by the f a c t t h a t we d i d not know Hanna v e r y w e l l , she d i d not l i v e i n Vancouver, and we saw her v e r y seldom. Hanna t a l k e d a b o u t . t h i s . HF: 7And by sending your f i e l d n o t e s t o me, you 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, both through your notes and through the r e f l e c t i o n s ' t h a t you w r i t e a t the end o f your notes, where you r e a l l y open y o u r s e l f up about what you see, and the kinds of q u e s t i o n s t h a t you ask. And t h i s i s a p r o c e s s t h a t does depend on t r u s t , and t o have as l i t t l e e x p e r i e n c e w i t h me as you have, and have t o put y o u r s e l v e s i n t h a t k i n d of 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 t h i n k i s a d i f f i c u l t t h i n g . Not. o n l y d i d Hanna re a d the f i e l d n o t e s , but she r e c e i v e d a copy of the r e s e a r c h team meeting tapes every week. She was b e i n g a s i l e n t member, almost an observer, of the team. In more than one o c c a s i o n we f e l t t h a t she knew what we were doing, s a y i n g and t h i n k i n g , and we knew n o t h i n g of what she was doing, s a y i n g , or t h i n k i n g . 3 1 In our r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Hanna the r e s e a r c h team members were v e r y v u l n e r a b l e . P r o t e c t i n g r e s e a r c h team meetings The l i t e r a t u r e r e f e r s t o the d i f f i c u l t i e s o f team r e s e a r c h , but t h e r e i s g e n e r a l agreement t h a t as a whole, and c o n s i d e r i n g c e r t a i n n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n s , t h i s approach has major b e n e f i t s f o r r e s e a r c h . They emphasize how the i n c l u s i o n of m u l t i p l e p o i n t s of view can s t r e n g t h e n r e s e a r c h . Crow, Le v i n e , and Nager 3 10n 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 . With an i n t e n t t o overcome these f e e l i n g s of v u l n e r a b i l i t y , Hanna responded w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n of how she works. 108 (1992) consider the problems they encountered while doing an i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y study. They conclude that, regardless of the d i f f i c u l t i e s , teaming i n q u a l i t a t i v e research enhanced the qu a l i t y of t h e i r work. Liggett, Glesne, Johnston, Brody-Hasazi, and Schattman (1994) agree. They conclude that, From formulation of.the interview protocol to data analysis, from questions of access to writing the present paper, every stage of our research was d i f f e r e n t and, we think, better than what any one person could have done alone (p.87). It appears as i f the authors are r e f e r r i n g to the degree of r e f l e x i v i t y that i s gained i n doing team research. Lather (1986) also r e f e r s to t h i s aspect of team research when she writes that "this [research] was a team e f f o r t so one can assume a degree of r e f l e x i v i t y " (p. 75). I have presented the threats that c o l l a b o r a t i v e research brings to a team's capacity to r e f l e c t . Some threats a r i s e because there are changes from the t r a d i t i o n a l "solo" model of research. Others are part of the team structure of co l l a b o r a t i v e work. In t h i s section I analyze the factors that f a c i l i t a t e r e f l e c t i o n i n a research team meeting: t r u s t and feedback. Working i n a co l l a b o r a t i v e team does not prevent people from f e e l i n g vulnerable. 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 process i s that they can s t i l l engage i n the group a c t i v i t i e s because they t r u s t the other team members. Trusting each other helps members deal with the feelings of v u l n e r a b i l i t y . Although e x p l i c i t references to issues of t r u s t i n the research team meeting tapes are not common, the f e e l i n g of tr u s t among the team members emerged i n every team meeting as a way of allowing for c e r t a i n topics to be 109 discussed, or c e r t a i n words to be used. From the time the research team was formed, t r u s t played a main role i n the i n t e r a c t i o n s . A l l i s o n chose the graduate students from her ethnography class, based mainly on two c r i t e r i a : t h e i r s k i l l s i n ethnography and how much she could t r u s t them. Although i t was not a r t i c u l a t e d at the time, i n retrospect, I think that " t r u s t " included at le a s t three d i f f e r e n t notions. F i r s t , there was the f e e l i n g that we could r e l y on each other for emotional and i n t e l l e c t u a l support. Second, there was a shared understanding of research, that came mainly from having been (partly) trained by A l l i s o n . Third, there was a common commitment to working together and what that work meant. As the team began working and s e t t i n g up the routines, A l l i s o n brought up the issue of trust when t a l k i n g about the log of hours. "I trust you i n how you spend your time; the inte n t i o n [of keeping a log] i s not to be sure you work 12 hours but to have an idea of how long i t takes to do each a c t i v i t y . " This attitude stressed the importance of t r u s t among research team members. We were a l l working together and there was no need for one of us to check or make sure that the others were doing t h e i r jobs. When a group of people works c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y there needs to be a sense that everyone i s doing what they should be doing, what they f e e l i s the best for the project. Mark commented, I think that along with respect, comes t r u s t . You have to tr u s t that the people that you're working with are doing the ri g h t thing. You don't have to think that you've got something to protect i n t h i s group, and that somebody else might s t e a l a l i t t l e of that or a l l of i t or whatever. You 110 have to trust that what they're going to do i s going to to be to the best of t h e i r a b i l i t y to meet our common v i s i o n . I believe that trust i s the basic net supporting the co l l a b o r a t i v e process. Team members need to t r u s t that questioning i s not a challenge but a constructive exercise, that they do not have to worry about the words they are using, that the other members w i l l not take advantage of vulnerable s i t u a t i o n s . 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 , there are other conditions that can a f f e c t the way researchers f e e l about t h e i r work, and consequently 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 composed of graduate students, teachers from the s i t e s , one u n i v e r s i t y professor, and one expert i n l i t e r a c y . The differences i n roles, knowledge, and experience, and the fact that the fieldworkers were not reading each others' notes systematically promoted fe e l i n g s of insecurity, s p e c i f i c a l l y among the graduate students. They f e l t that a way of overcoming that f e e l i n g was to get feedback from the co-investigators. The 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 students and t h e i r request for feedback. MN:How do I know i f I'm doing the correct thing, I don't know. I need that sense of someone saying you're on track or something l i k e that. JD.If [the work is] good, what's so good about i t ? AT:Each of your notes, each set of notes i s d i f f e r e n t but not one better than the other. People are looking at very d i f f e r e n t things, and doing very d i f f e r e n t things, but i t doesn't mean that somebody's got i t and somebody else hasn't. L H . I ' l l speak for myself. I won't say "we." I need strokes. And a c t u a l l y being t o l d there are no problems i s n ' t the same as being t o l d something constructive. I mean I would reduce i t to a very simple l e v e l . Because I think 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 strokes. I t ' s l i k e I l l w r i t i n g a dialogue journal, i t ' s fine to write a journal, but you need feedback. AM:And although we're a l l competent professionals, we s t i l l l i k e strokes, too. When you're grown up you don't get i t . Following the experience of t h i s team I argue that i t i s important f o r research team members to receive feedback on t h e i r work on a continual basis. This could help team members deal with 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 process of b u i l d i n g t h e i r working re l a t i o n s h i p s that a f f e c t s the research and the researchers. Overlooking these processes can hinder the research process and i t s consequent product. Collaborative r e l a t i o n s h i p s are b u i l t during the study and they require time, attention, and energy so they are b u i l t i n a way that i s useful to the project. In t h i s chapter I have suggested that the c o l l a b o r a t i v e team bu i l d i n g can be supported by 1)creating a space fo r each fieldworker to r e f l e c t p r i v a t e l y , such as a personal journal or a separate set of fieldnotes i n which she can express more intimate feelings and r e f l e c t i o n s ; 2)regarding research team meetings as c o l l e c t i v e r e f l e c t i o n s where the team makes sense of the data; 3)making provisions to acknowledge team meetings as data by taping and' t r a n s c r i b i n g the meetings, and connecting the t r a n s c r i p t s to the other sources of data; 4)creating structures that b u i l d on people's strength and t r u s t i n each other, and giving continuous feedback to researchers; and 5)evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of including l i a i s o n researchers, and making provisions f o r that i n c l u s i o n (or exclusion). 112 When r e s e a r c h i s done by a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team, i t i s important t o acknowledge the p a r t i c u l a r p r o c e s s e s and e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t are i n v o l v e d . B a s i c a l l y , meetings appear as the most d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of team r e s e a r c h . Regarding the meetings as the time where the group m a t e r i a l i z e s ; where c o l l e c t i v e r e f l e c t i o n o c c u r s , i s a nec e s s a r y s t e p towards un d e r s t a n d i n g the essence of c o l l a b o r a t i v e team r e s e a r c h . In the next c h a p t e r I e l a b o r a t e on the importance of acknowledging team r e s e a r c h as a s p e c i f i c and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d r e s e a r c h approach. I I 5 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In t h i s t h e s i s I have argued t h a t c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s b u i l t through common work, and t h a t embarking on a c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e s s has consequences f o r the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . In t h i s c h apter I w i l l d i s c u s s the c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t at t h i s p o i n t deserve a more d e t a i l e d s c r u t i n y , p r e s e n t some recommendations f o r c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h p r a c t i c e , and open some q u e s t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . In the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r s I have e x p l o r e d the meaning and impacts of team r e s e a r c h . I t r i e d t o understand how team r e s e a r c h d i f f e r s from o t h e r approaches. I concl u d e d t h a t t a k i n g a team approach t o doing r e s e a r c h i m p l i e s t h a t the r e s e a r c h t a s k s and p r o c e s s e s w i l l be d i f f e r e n t than i f a more t r a d i t i o n a l approach i s taken. Two main f a c t o r s c h a r a c t e r i s e these d i f f e r e n c e 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 are b u i l t d u r i n g the re s e a r c h , and the team approach a f f e c t s the p r o j e c t ' s r e s u l t s . In the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s , I look at each of these statements i n more d e t a i l . C o l l a b o r a t i o n i s a v i s i o n When r e s e a r c h e r s embark on a c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o j e c t , they have idea s about how they want t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o lo o k . These i d e a s are based on assumptions about the v a l u e of group work, about r e s p e c t f o r each o t h e r and each o t h e r ' s work, and about s h a r i n g c o n t r o l . In t u r n , these n o t i o n s 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 r e s e a r c h e r s b u i l d d u r i n g the r e s e a r c h . But these i d e a l s w i l l a l s o change, 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 114 and by the notions that other team members bring into 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 . Collaborative r e l a t i o n s h i p s are the r e s u l t of continuous negotiations and renegotiations between in d i v i d u a l ideas, p o s s i b i l i t i e s and contextual influences. Therefore, i t can be said that c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s both a v i s i o n and the process of t r y i n g to achieve that v i s i o n . And because we can never be sure that we have achieved the v i s i o n , we keep on working towards i t . Collaborative r e l a t i o n s h i p s are constructed through the research. Each research team needs to work out t h e i r own c o l l a b o r a t i v e structure to f i n d the one that best s u i t s the shared v i s i o n of collaboration, members' s k i l l s and p o s s i b i l i t i e s , and the contextual constraints. Once one understands that 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 constructed i n a context, one can acknowledge that context, and be prepared for i t s influence. Tom (1995a) points at f i v e elements of the context that influence 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 . This thesis shows that i n team research three elements are most important - settings, s k i l l s , and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . Settings influence r e l a t i o n s h i p s through i n s t i t u t i o n a l values and the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s imposed on the members and on the team. Contract s i t u a t i o n s also l i m i t the ways team members can p a r t i c i p a t e . The amount of time that each member i s required by contract to put into the work, and the ultimate r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the f i n a l product, are some of the r e s t r i c t i o n s that a contract can impose on c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s i n a team. S k i l l i s another aspect of the context that 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 constructed. Each member brings her own philosophy, d e f i n i t i o n s , biases, expectations, and previous experiences to the team. This background frames members' opportunities and preparedness f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . In terms of p r o j e c t - s p e c i f i c knowledge and experience, most of the time, a professor can bring a r i c h e r background of experience i n research than a student, for example. Likewise, a community member who has been involved i n several s i m i l a r projects can bring the voice of experience to a group of graduate students. The notion of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y that team members are f a m i l i a r with, and the guidelines that i n s t i t u t i o n s require, influence the rela t i o n s h i p s that u n i v e r s i t y members b u i l t with l i a i s o n researchers. Because t r a d i t i o n a l understandings of 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 to sustain, team members confront the challenge of finding appropriate ways of dealing with e t h i c a l guidelines from the academic i n s t i t u t i o n and with p a r t i c i p a n t s preferences and needs. In team research, the purpose of the research 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 . But the other three aspects of the context described by Tom (1995a), play 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 influencing how team members w i l l r e l a t e to each other. Working towards the v i s i o n It has to be noted that what can be appropriate at one point i n the research may prove to be inappropriate at another point. In the National L i t e r a c y Demonstration Project team, we began the research with one set of roles which proved to be unsuitable when we moved to the analysis stage. Researchers must plan to 116 accommodate changing roles and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s within the team. F l e x i b i l i t y has to be planned into the structures. This f l e x i b i l i t y i s not a new requirement for ethnographic projects. As Hammersley and Atkinson note, i n ethnographic designs "the strategy and even d i r e c t i o n of the research can be changed r e l a t i v e l y e a s i l y , i n l i n e with changing assessments of what i s required by the process of theory construction" (1983, p. 24). Assessing the team's r e l a t i o n s could be understood as another aspect of the general assessment. F l e x i b i l i t y to change both the research plan and the way team members work together to achieve the research plan are fundamental to c o l l a b o r a t i v e ethnographic work. Some researchers (Liggett et a l . , 1994) have not found i t necessary to discuss "collaboration" to be able to collaborate with each other. I argue, though, that i t i s useful to arrange to have t h i s conversation systematically through a continuous, or at least p e riodic, 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 the designed structures f i t the current s i t u a t i o n . By making expectations e x p l i c i t , team members can negotiate and design new, more appropriate, organizations and d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Certain points i n the development of the research are p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant times to address the structures of co l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . At the beginning of the project i t seems to be necessary to acknowledge the constraints and freedoms that the team as a whole has, and to name the roles and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for each team member. Another c r u c i a l time i n research, i s when most of the data c o l l e c t i o n i s done and 117 r e s e a r c h e r s move i n t o an i n t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s phase. At t h i s time, team members should have a b e t t e r i d e a of t h e i r o b j e c t of study, and of t h e i r commitment t o the r e s e a r c h . A l s o , i t may happen t h a t by t h i s p o i n t team members' out-of-the-team d u t i e s have changed and team members cons e q u e n t l y want to change t h e i r r o l e s i n the p r o j e c t . W r i t i n g up the r e s u l t s seems t o be another s u i t a b l e time t o r e v i s i t the p r e v i o u s s t r u c t u r e s o f the team. I t may a l s o prove t o be u s e f u l at t h i s p o i n t , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f i t has not been done be f o r e , t o address d i f f e r e n c e s i n needs and rewards among team members. Academic r e s e a r c h e r s may need t o p u b l i s h the r e s u l t s i n j o u r n a l s w h i l e p r a c t i t i o n e r s may need another k i n d of p r a c t i c a l r e s o u r c e . The p r e v i o u s s u g g e s t i o n of c r u c i a l p o i n t s i n the development of r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s does not e l i m i n a t e o t h e r times of d i s c u s s i o n . Teams go through d i f f e r e n t phases, and p a r t i c u l a r events c a l l f o r an honest d i a l o g u e about how the team s t r u c t u r e s are 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 , the p r o j e c t ' s demands, and i n d i v i d u a l needs. As much as c o l l a b o r a t i v e teams can accommodate d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s , team members have t o agree on some b a s i c i d e a s . Otherwise, competing agendas may become a major o b s t a c l e 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 . Members who have more a u t h o r i t y than o t h e r s need t o r e a l i z e t h a t working on a c o l l a b o r a t i v e team may mean t h a t they may have t o l e t go of some of t h e i r a u t h o r i t y at some p o i n t . There w i l l almost c e r t a i n l y be an i n c r e a s i n g need 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 w i t h the r e s t o f the group. The person w i t h g r e a t e r a u t h o r i t y does not make t h i s d e c i s i o n alone; as the team matures and changes, the whole team monitors the p r o c e s s and makes d e c i s i o n s t o g e t h e r . I t needs to be s a i d , too, t h a t c o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s l i m i t how c o l l a b o r a t i v e a team can become. P r o f e s s o r s and s t u d e n t s can work tog e t h e r , but 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 they can b u i l d i s r e s t r i c t e d by the power d i f f e r e n t i a l between them and by o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t o r s . Research c o n t r a c t s l i m i t the amount and type of p a r t i c i p a t i o n t h a t each member can have i n the p r o j e c t . S t a t u s d i f f e r e n c e s , i n f o r m a l t r a d i t i o n s , and e x p l i c i t p o l i c i e s of h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s p r e s e n t an important o b s t a c l e t h a t cannot be denied. In one team meeting, f o r example, A l l i s o n r e f e r r e d t o t h i s o b s t a c l e when t a l k i n g about shared a u t h o r s h i p . She e x p l a i n e d how she s t r u g g l e d w i t h t h a t i s s u e . AT: And a c t u a l l y when you look at s h a r i n g a u t h o r s h i p on the 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 tenure. And the 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 count a l l t h a t much on my tenure 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 then, t o cut i t s s t a t u s a g a i n by somebody sa y i n g , "Well she j u s t d i d t h i s w i t h a bunch of s t u d e n t s , " i t ' s l i k e "When am I ever g o i n g t o get any of the t h i n g s t h a t they count"! T h i s i s an i s s u e about the s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n which we do the k i n d of work. A l l i s o n was d e s c r i b i n g how the v a l u e s of i n s t i t u t i o n s a f f e c t c o l l a b o r a t i v e work. D e s p i t e the l i m i t s t h a t context puts on 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 t i s important t o remember t h a t t h e r e i s always some space t o change. C o l l a b o r a t i o n i s about pushi n g those r e s t r i c t i o n s t o make as much space as p o s s i b l e f o r 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 o develop and succeed. When I say "pushing the l i m i t s , " I am not o n l y r e f e r r i n g t o c o n c r e t e c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t teams and people encounter. There are l i m i t s i n the way people p e r c e i v e the space a v a i l a b l e f o r change. In the 1 1 9 National L i t e r a c y Demonstration Project we had to push the boundaries of both the contexts and our own conceptions. Hanna and A l l i s o n had to make a choice between producing a report with t h e i r names, or to include the team members' names. I, f o r example, had to change the way I perceived f a c u l t y ' s involvement i n a research team and understand that they were learning with us. Doing research i n a team a f f e c t s the project's r e s u l t s Doing team research a f f e c t s the research. T r a d i t i o n a l l y private' spaces, such as fi e l d n o t e s , are shared and consequently the r e f l e x i v i t y i n fieldnotes changes. Research team meetings, though, are high i n a c o l l e c t i v e kind 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 int 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 research team meetings as fundamental elements of team research. Research team meetings - the place where the team works together - should be acknowledged and protected. D i f f e r e n t strategies can be implemented to acknowledge the team's space: a ) a l l o c a t i n g enough resources to the meetings, b) protecting the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of conversations, c) providing continuous feedback, and d)using research team meetings as data by taping and tr a n s c r i b i n g the tapes. A l l o c a t i n g enough resources f o r the meetings In research, time and money are scarce and e a r l y planning and budgeting are important times to protect resources f o r meetings. In the data c o l l e c t i o n phase of the National L i t e r a c y Demonstration Project, team meetings were perceived as an administrative event. From that perspective, the design d i d not 120 anticipate the need for the team to meet more often than once or twice a month. Once i t became evident that the research team meetings were the times when a l l of the research processes occurred i n a condensed form - data c o l l e c t i o n , data analysis, r e f l e c t i o n , and synthesis - i t was c l e a r that the team meetings were one of the project's p r i o r i t i e s . It also became cl e a r by then that the team needed to meet, not only for administrative purposes but for team b u i l d i n g purposes as well. If 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 b u i l t through the research, then there have to be opportunities to b u i l d i t . Research team meetings o f f e r one c e n t r a l opportunity fo r team b u i l d i n g . Protecting c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y Research team meetings should be times where researchers can f e e l free to comment on any event i n the f i e l d , and to elaborate ideas without concerns about how people i n the f i e l d w i l l understand these thoughts. This climate has to be protected as a t r u s t i n g and supportive environment. Conversation, discussions, and opinions should be kept within the research team members and not f i l t e r to p a r t i c i p a n t s or the s i t e i n any way. Maintaining t h i s kind of environment can be a problem when the team includes 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 fieldworkers i n the National L i t e r a c y Demonstration Project made some of the other fieldworkers f e e l that there was no c l e a r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between being i n the f i e l d and being i n the research team meetings. This i n turn affected the freedom to r e f l e c t i n the meetings. The benefits and drawbacks of including 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 Providing continuous feedback When people work together they tend to compare t h e i r work. This may give r i s e to fe e l i n g s of i n s e c u r i t y . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important when the team i s formed by students and faculty. The professor holds a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the students' learning and i t i s understood that she i s more knowledgeable and experienced than the students. Most of the time i t i s the f a c u l t y member who provides the standard of what i s good work. In these cases systematic and continuous feedback from the f a c u l t y member may be a way of reassuring student researchers of the q u a l i t y of t h e i r work. It also provides opportunities f o r ongoing discussions of research methodology and the continual improvement of a l l team members' research s k i l l s . Use of the research team meetings I have argued that research team meetings are the c o l l e c t i v e fieldnotes of the team. Using research team meetings means that these spaces are acknowledged as team bu i l d i n g times. But, as i n any other fieldnotes, the content of the meetings i s part of the data and analysis that the project uses. These f i e l d n o t e s , though, are i n the form of conversations. Therefore, i t i s necessary to f i n d appropriate ways of recording them to make sure that they are used. Taking minutes might be an option. Our experience was that t h i s was d i f f i c u l t . Unless the minute taker i s experienced i n that task, a l o t of discussions can be l o s t . It i s also d i f f i c u l t to make decisions during the meeting about what i s important and what i s not. In addition, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to p a r t i c i p a t e and take minutes, so the minute taker's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the meeting i s diminished. Taping the meetings 122 appears t o be, at t h i s p o i n t , the most e f f i c i e n t way of r e c o r d i n g the d i s c u s s i o n s . 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 argues f o r more 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 and p r a c t i t i o n e r s or community members mostly from a moral p e r s p e c t i v e . These authors ( G i t l i n , 1990, Lather, 1986, 1991) argue t h a t r e s e a r c h s h o u l d i n c l u d e those i t i s about. But the nature of the t h i n k i n g i t s e l f changes i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e work, and t h e r e f o r e c o l l a b o r a t i o n a l s o has t o be a n a l y z e d i n terms of i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o meaningful and r i g o r o u s r e s e a r c h . Not acknowledging the c h a l l e n g e s t h a t c o l l a b o r a t i o n p r e s e n t s does not make them d i s a p p e a r . By a d d r e s s i n g and naming the problems, r e s e a r c h e r s can s t r e n g t h e n t h i s r e s e a r c h approach. In t h i s t h e s i s I have addressed some of the c o m p l i c a t i o n s t h a t 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 r e s e a r c h team had t o d e a l w i t h . In the next paragraph I p r e s e n t o t h e r problems t h a t c a l l f o r more r e s e a r c h . C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o f u t u r e r e s e a r c h In t h i s s e c t i o n I l o o k at some t o p i c s t h a t s t i l l need t o be e x p l o r e d i n the area of c o l l a b o r a t i v e team r e s e a r c h . F i r s t , I p r e s e n t the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l problem of d e a l i n g w i t h taped data. Second, I open q u e s t i o n s about the d i f f e r e n c e s between team c l a i m s and i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m s t o knowledge. F i n a l l y I d e s c r i b e p o t e n t i a l f u t u r e r e s e a r c h i n the e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s e 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 teams i n v o l v e . The form of the data I have argued t h a t r e s e a r c h team meetings have t o be used i n o r d e r g a i n most b e n e f i t from the team approach. I have a l s o suggested t h a t t a p i n g the meetings seems to be the most 123 appropriate way of capturing these i n t e r a c t i o n s . So far, I have not recommended any p a r t i c u l a r way of dealing with the taped data. I do not think t h i s i s a question that has been f u l l y 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 to analyze the data for t h i s thesis, and to support that decision I have argued that there i s no reason to believe that eit h e r t r a n s c r i p t s or tapes are "more r e a l " than the other. They are both forms of representing the data. Using taped data opened new challenges and questions about how to analyze data. By keeping the data i n i t s " o r i g i n a l " form, I gained the richness of the conversations, tones, intonations, accents, and even tensions that occurred during the meetings. For example, when a conversation stopped for a few minutes, I could in t e r p r e t that silence according to the tones and topics that were being discussed. I could not have done that with 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 , silences are not usually e f f e c t i v e l y represented. I " f e l t the meeting" when l i s t e n i n g to the tapes and heard i t s sounds, noises and rhythms. I also faced some r e a l challenges. Handling taped data i s very complicated. 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 easier than f i n d i n g a s p e c i f i c portion of a tape, e s p e c i a l l y i f the technology one uses i s p r i m i t i v e . I spent endless hours going through the tapes t r y i n g to f i n d p a r t i c u l a r discussions, sentences, or i n t e r a c t i o n s . In addition, because I have been trained i n the t r a d i t i o n of written ethnography I was insecure about analyzing taped data. Ethnography i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y a methodology that uses w r i t i n g and written notes as i t s main source of data. I found myself 124 t r a n s c r i b i n g p a r t s of i n t e r a c t i o n s t o make sure I was do i n g an ac c u r a t e a n a l y s i s . The q u e s t i o n of how t o an a l y z e taped data i s p a r t of a l a r g e r d i s c u s s i o n about what i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be d a t a . I have b r i e f l y e x p l o r e d t h i s d i s c u s s i o n i n Chapter Two. At t h i s p o i n t i t i s r e l e v a n t t o presen t some q u e s t i o n s and s u g g e s t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . I b e l i e v e the b a s i c q u e s t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g t h i s examination are "what i s data? Is i t the tapes? Is i t the t r a n s c r i p t s ? Would we have 'more a c c u r a t e ' data had I v i d e o taped the meetings?" The c h a l l e n g e of i n t e r p r e t i n g t h a t data s t i l l remains. U l t i m a t e l y , the data i s our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of events, words, and i n t e r a c t i o n s . But how to i n t e r p r e t data t h a t i s i n d i f f e r e n t forms i s s t i l l an open q u e s t i o n . How do we capture and i n t e r p r e t tones? What do we l o s e when we t r a n s c r i b e tapes? What do we gain? These are a l l i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n s t h a t p o i n t t o areas not y e t e x p l o r e d . Team r e s e a r c h c l a i m s How are team r e s e a r c h c l a i m s t o knowledge d i f f e r e n t from i n d i v i d u a l r e s e a r c h c o n c l u s i o n s ? What do teams b r i n g t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and an a l y s e s ? One c r i t i c a l response t o these q u e s t i o n s l i e s i n the i n c l u s i o n o f m u l t i p l e p e r s p e c t i v e s . In a r e s e a r c h team where a l l the team members are l o o k i n g at the same problem, un d e r s t a n d i n g 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 of view. But t h e r e are s t i l l q u e s t i o n s about how those p e r s p e c t i v e s converge i n t o whole r e s e a r c h c o n c l u s i o n s , and how those c l a i m s are d i f f e r e n t from an enumeration of the c l a i m s o f each i n d i v i d u a l team member. With the emergence of postmodern thought and i t s emphasis on m u l t i p l e r e a l i t i e s and 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 part of the paradigm, a fundamental research approach. Educational aspects i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e team research This thesis also reveals another area for future research -the educational processes within c o l l a b o r a t i v e research. I believe that we need to regard col l a b o r a t i v e research as a form of educational p r a c t i c e . Relationships between people are consequences of shared processes where learning opportunities e x i s t . The more use we make of these opportunities, the better chance the c o l l a b o r a t i v e process has to succeed. The c o n s t i t u t i o n of a working group, the involvement of graduate students, and the i n c l u s i o n of the researched i n a research team are a l l p o t e n t i a l educational processes that have to be planned c a r e f u l l y and given thoughtful attention. How do 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 ? What are the s k i l l s that people need to be part of a team? Can we teach people to be e f f e c t i v e team members? What do researchers trained to do research on t h e i r own need to learn to work together c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y ? By 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 team members, i t may be possible to i d e n t i f y s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s necessary i n team research. Researchers could then be trained i n these tasks to become more e f f e c t i v e team members. These questions point at another educational aspect of c o l l a b o r a t i v e research: how do we teach research? The project described i n t h i s thesis could be studied as a model of t r a i n i n g graduate students i n research. What are the s k i l l s that fieldworkers learn i n t h i s environment? Is t h i s an appropriate way of learning them? What are the advantages of learning to do 126 r e s e a r c h i n a r e a l 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 courses on r e s e a r c h methodology? And y e t , what i s the e f f e c t of i n c l u d i n g graduate s t u d e n t s i n r e s e a r c h teams? Being 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 a f f e c t e d the graduate s t u d e n t s ' performance as s t u d e n t s . The most apparent consequence was t h a t i t delayed, f o r most of us, our degree completion. But we a l s o had an i n v a l u a b l e e x p e r i e n c e ; we l e a r n e d r e s e a r c h s k i l l s i n a c o n c r e t e and a u t h e n t i c r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . A l l i s o n a l s o s t r u g g l e d as she t r i e d to support those p r o c e s s e s from two d i f f e r e n t r o l e s : a d v i s o r and employer. The p r o j e c t was a l s o a f f e c t e d by h a v i n g graduate students on the team. Graduate students c o u l d work l i m i t e d hours f o r the p r o j e c t , and the f i e l d w o r k e r s had to s p l i t t h e i r energy between t h e i r academic t a s k s and the r e s e a r c h . So what are the consequences of i n c l u d i n g graduate students i n r e s e a r c h teams? What do s t u d e n t s gain? What do they l o s e ? What are the r e p e r c u s s i o n s on t h e i r out-of-the-team r o l e s ? Research i s a l s o a powerful t o o l . I t can h e l p " r e s e a r c h s u b j e c t s " understand how something works, what f o r c e s i n f l u e n c e and d i r e c t t h e i r context and t h e i r own behaviour, and f i n d ways to change t h e i r s i t u a t i o n . But i n c l u d i n g the r e s e a r c h e d i n teams means t h a t they w i l l have t o be t r a i n e d i n r e s e a r c h s k i l l s . How do we do t h a t w h i l e at the same time acknowledging t h a t t h e i r way of knowing i s d i f f e r e n t from, but as v a l i d as the academic way of knowing? From my p e r s p e c t i v e , the involvement of the r e s e a r c h e d i n r e s e a r c h t h a t i s about them i s a c r u c i a l i s s u e i n any i n v e s t i g a t i o n . But what form does t h a t involvement assume? What are the consequences of i n v o l v i n g the researched? Can we i n c l u d e 127 them as team members w i t h o u t a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e s ? How do we ensure t h a t t h e y p a r t i c i p a t e f u l l y i n t h e d i f f e r e n t r e s e a r c h t a s k s ? 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 ? These a r e a l l e x c i t i n g q u e s t i o n s t h a t I i n t e n d t o e x p l o r e i n t h e f u t u r e . 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 not s i m p l y d o i n g r e s e a r c h by e x i s t i n g methods w i t h more p e o p l e . I t i s a d i f f e r e n t methodology. R e s e a r c h done by a team i s d i f f e r e n t from " s o l o " r e s e a r c h . 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 o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . P e o p l e need t i m e and o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o c r e a t e w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Teams need t i m e t o emerge and work as teams. I t i s c l e a r t h e n , t h a t i f one embarks on a team r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t , one needs t o acknowledge t h e p e c u l i a r i t i e s o f th e methodology and t a k e 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 w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r , o t h e r w i s e i t i s not c o l l a b o r a t i v e , and i t i s not team r e s e a r c h . 128 B i b l i o g r a p h i c a l References Blunt, A. (1994). The f u t u r e of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n r e s e a r c h . In Randy G a r r i s o n (Ed.) Research 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. 167-209). F l o r i d a : K r i e g e r . Bond, G. (1990). F i e l d n o t e s : Research i n past o c c u r r e n c e s . In R. Sanjek (Ed.) F i e l d n o t e s , (pp. 273-289). New York: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y . Brown, L. D. & Tandon, R. (1983) . Ideology 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 of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l Science, 19, 277-294. Burgess, R., Pole, C , Evans, K. & P r i e s t l e y , C. (1994). Four s t u d i e s from one or one study from four? M u l t i - s i t e case study r e s e a r c h . 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. 12 8-145). London: Routledge. Cazden, C. B. (1983): Can ethnography go beyond the s t a t u s quo? Anthropology and E d u c a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 14 (1), 33-41. C l i f t , R., Johnson, M., H o l l a n d , P., V e a l , M.L. (1992). De v e l o p i n g 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 . American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , 29 (4), 877-908. Cole, A. & Knowles, G. (1993). Teacher development p a r t n e r s h i p r e s e a r c h : A focus on methods and i s s u e s . American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , 30 (3), 473-495. Cowie, H. & Rudduck, J . (1990). L e a r n i n g from one another: The c h a l l e n g e . In H.C. Foot, M. J . Morgan, & R. H. Shute (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. 235-255). New York: John Wile y & Sons. Crow, G,M., L e v i n e , L., & Nager, N. (1992). Are t h r e e heads b e t t e r than one? R e f l e c t i o n s on doing 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 r e s e a r c h . American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , 29(4) Doise, W. (1990) . The development of i n d i v i d u a l competencies . through s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . In H. C. Foot, M. J . Morgan, & R. H. Shute (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. 43-64). New York: John Wiley & Sons Dudley, N. (1992). 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 study of the paradigm s h i f t e x p e r i e n c e . 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. (1992). O b j e c t i v i t y i n e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . C u r r i c u l u m I n q u i r y , 22 (1), 9-15. 129 F i n g e r e t , H., Tom, A., Dyer, P., Morley, A., Dawson, J . , Harper, L., Lee, D., Mc.Cue, M. & N i k s , M. (1994). L i v e s o f Change: An ethnographic e v a l u a t i o n of 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. Flo r i o - R u a n e , S. (1990). The w r i t t e n l i t e r a c y forum: 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 . (1978). P a r t n e r s h i p r e s e a r c h : A case of d i v e r g e n t ethnographic s t y l e s i n p r i s o n f i e l d w o r k . Human O r g a n i z a t i o n , 37, 173-179. Geertz, C. (1973). T h i c k d e s c r i p t i o n : Toward an i n t e r p r e t i v e t h e o r y of c u l t u r e . In Gee 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 of c u l t u r e s (pp. 3-32) . New York: B a s i c Books. Gibson, M. (1985). C o l l a b o r a t i v e E d u c a t i o n a l Ethnography. Problems and p r o f i t s . Anthropology 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. Harvard 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. (1994). Competing paradigms i n q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h . 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. 105-117). C a l i f o r n i a : Sage. Hammersley, M. & A t k i n s o n , P. (1983) . Ethnography: P r i n c i p l e s i n p r a c t i c e . Routledge: New York. Heshusius, L. (1994). 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 : Managing s u b j e c t i v i t y o r t u r n i n g toward a p a r t i c i p a t o r y mode of c o n s c i o u s n e s s . E d u c a t i o n a l Researcher, 23 (3), 15-22. H o l l i n g s w o r t h , S. (1992). L e a r n i n g t o teach through c o l l a b o r a t i v e c o n v e r s a t i o n : A f e m i n i s t approach. American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , 29 (2), 373-404. Huberman, M. (1990). Linkage 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 Research J o u r n a l , 27 (2), 363-392. Jackson, J . (1990). "I am a f i e l d n o t e " : F i e l d n o t e s as a symbol of p r o f e s s i o n a l i d e n t i t y . In R. Sanjek (Ed.), F i e l d n o t e s , (pp. 3-33) . New York: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y . Johnston, M. (1990). 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 r e s e a r c h . 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 Educ a t i o n , 3 (2), 173-183. 130 Kelly, D. M. (1993). Secondary power source: High school students as p a r t i c i p a t o r y researchers. The American Soc i o l o g i s t , Spring 1993, 8-25. Kyle, D. & McCutcheon, G. (1984). Collaborative research: Development and issues. Interchange, 1JL(4) , 26-49. Marcus, G. (1994). What comes (just) a f t e r "post"? In Norman -Denzin and Yvonna Li n c o l n (Eds.) Handbook of q u a l i t a t i v e research, (pp. 563-574). C a l i f o r n i a : Sage. McLaren, P. (1991). F i e l d r e l a t i o n s and the discourse of the other: Collaboration i n our own ruin. In William Shaffer & Robert Stebbins (Eds.) Experiencing Fieldwork, (pp. 149-163). California:. Sage. McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S., 1989. Research i n Education. A conceptual introduction. USA: Harper C o l l i n s Lather, P. (1986). Issues of v a l i d i t y i n openly i d e o l o g i c a l research: Between a rock and soft place. Interchange, 17, 63-84. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge Liggett, A. M., Glesne, C. E., Johnston, A. P., Brody Hasazi, S., & Schattman, R. (1994). Teaming i n q u a l i t a t i v e research: Lessons learned. International Journal of Q u a l i t a t i v e Studies i n Education, 7, 77-88. Olesen, V., Droes, N., Hatton, D., Chico. N., & Schatzman, L. (1994). Analyzing together: r e c o l l e c t i o n of a team approach. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing Q u a l i t a t i v e Data (pp. 111-128). London: Routledge. Ottenberg, S. (1990). T h i r t y years of f i e l d n o t e s : Changing rel a t i o n s h i p s to the text. In R. Sanjek (Ed.), Fieldnotes (pp. 139-160). New York: Cornell University. •Porter, M. (1994). 'Second-hand ethnography': Some problems i n analyzing a feminist project. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing Q u a l i t a t i v e Data (pp. 67-88). London: Routledge. Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to p a r t i c i p a t i v e inquiry. In Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of q u a l i t a t i v e research, (pp. 324-339). C a l i f o r n i a : Sage. Sanjek, R. (1990). A vocabulary for f i e l d n o t e s . In R. Sanjek (Ed.) Fieldnotes (pp. 92-121). New York: Cornell University. Sanjek, R. (1990). Fieldnotes and others. In R. Sanjek (Ed.) Fieldnotes (pp. 324-340) . New York: Cornell U n i v e r s i t y . 131 Schensul, J . J . & Schensul, S.L. (1992). C o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h : Methods of i n q u i r y f o r s o c i a l change. In 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. 161-200). New York: Academic Press Inc. Harcourt Brace J a r a n o v i c h . Tom, A. (1995a). P l a n n i n g f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h . Manuscript submitted f o r p u b l i c a t i o n . Tom, A. (1995b). C o l l a b o r a t i v e i n t e n t i n e t h n o g r a p h i c r e s e a r c h . Unpublished manuscript. Tom, A. (1995c). The d e l i b e r a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p : A frame f o r t a l k i n g about f a c u l t y - s t u d e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . U n p u b l i s h e d manuscript. Tom, A., F i n g e r e t , H., Niks, M., Dawson, J . , Dyer, P., Harper, L., Lee, D., McCue, M. & Morley, A. (1994). Suspended i n a web of 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. & Sork, T. (1994). Issues i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h . In Randy G a r r i s o n (Ed.) Research 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. 39-56). F l o r i d a : K r i e g e r . Troyna, B. & F o s t e r , P. (1988) . Conceptual and e t h i c a l dilemmas of 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 case study. E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 40(3), 289-299. V i d i c h , A. J . , & Lyman, S. M. (1994). Q u a l i t a t i v e methods: T h e i r h i s t o r y i n s o c i o l o g y and anthropology. 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 . C a l i f o r n i a : Sage. 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098941/manifest

Comment

Related Items