Really interesting discussion on Skype on Sunday. It's great how it refocuses or sheds light on things from different perspectives which really helps in understanding some of the big ideas we are working with.
For example, we talked of positivism and non-positivism again (many books talk also of post-positivism?). Testing views of this approach by looking at any aspect of what we're doing and seeing what information it gives helps to clarify what I think and how I understand non-positivism. The example we discussed was the interview process. We talked about how several of us were unexpectedly nervous in the role of interviewer and that it was a much more complex and changeable process then first thought. I believe that everything about my demeanour, the environment we were in for the interview, the questions I asked and how I worded them, and the practicalities that affected how I could do things that day, all of this will have had an affect on how the interviewee responded to me, how they felt, and how this affected me in turn. If someone else had asked my questions for me I think there would have been different outcomes.
The interview process can also help us reflect on ethics. What position did I put that person in? Were my expectations of them unreasonable? Would they ever want to participate in research again! Maybe I'm being dramatic there, but I can also think back to when I was a subject for someone's PhD research and took part in a one to one interview. Inter-personal relations certainly came into play and I went away feeling that I had shaped my answers in some way to represent myself in a certain light. Not being dishonest but perhaps speaking from a slightly defended position.
That's my take on out chat, there was a lot more besides but that's what remained with me after we hung up.
Good to talk to everyone again
