|
Article Excerpt
A heated debate ensued on the pages of this journal regarding the "fit" of qualitative research and social work practice in response to Gilgun's (1994) famous "hand-in-glove" analogy (Bein & Allen, 1999; Padgett, 1998a, 1999; Pieper & Tyson, 1999). In a "reflexive spirit," Padgett (1998a) offered a caution that social work researchers should not confuse the roles or the goals of research with those of social work practice, even if the processes that they use might be a good fit. However, in a desire to avoid ethical impropriety that harms the research subject and the research (Padgett, 1999), many have apparently taken Padgett's cautionary words too far. Bein and Allen noted that "the qualitative researcher enters a human relationship that can be empowering to the interviewee" (p. 276). Refusing to acknowledge this process does not make it go away. It merely walls off an understanding of what may actually happen in the researcher-participant relationship and thus precludes reflection and the possibility of understanding the benefits and risks that may be a by-product of this relationship, particularly for participants. Confronting this possibility can enhance the benefits and mitigate the risks.
The NASW Code of Ethics requires all social workers to "critically examine and keep current with emerging knowledge relevant to social work and fully use evaluation and research evidence in their professional practice" (NASW, 2000, 5.02 [c]). This article contributes to the social work literature by examining whether qualitative interviews provide research participants with any benefits beyond the intended academic and practice use of such research. Drawing from our research findings, we argue that qualitative interviews have personal and political implications (both positive and negative) for research participants. As social work professionals, we must pay attention to these research dynamics (see NASW, 2000, 5.02 [j]) and disseminate knowledge about them (NASW, 2000, 5.02 [p]).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Social work literature about participation in qualitative research focuses on the difficulty of finding study participants, convincing them to speak with researchers, and understanding how to work with participants sensitively so as not to offend them (Fine, Weis, Weseen, & Wong, 2000; Lofland & Lofland, 1995; Padgett, 1998b, 2004). The primary discussion of the relationship in the literature revolves around the assertion that qualitative research is a good fit (Gilgun, 1994) because of the clinical social work skills that social workers bring to their research, coupled with a warning (Padgett, 1998a) not to confuse practice with research.
Concerns about conflating therapeutic efforts and research have long troubled both practitioners and researchers. The Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1978) specifies that research-related informed consent procedures must include a statement that the activity is for purposes of research. The identification of any incidental benefits (and potential harms) that may accrue must be delineated with the stipulation that the primary activity is research. With the dawning of the practitioner-researcher movement (Bisman & Hardcastle, 1998; Bloom, 1997; Dangel, 1994; Raw, 1998; Thyer & Myers, 1998; Wakefield & Kirk, 1996, 1997a), more therapy was conducted in a manner that was intended to be both therapeutic and research oriented as the efficacy and effectiveness of various treatments were explored. Wakefield and Kirk (1997b) expressed concerns about this in connection with single-subject design in which the issue of informed consent about the A-B-A design may bias the outcome of the research and where conflicts among therapeutic goals, research goals, and ethical imperatives may occur. Padgett (1998a) explicated the differences between clinical practice and qualitative research in terms of paradigm, goals, education and training, relationship, and criteria for success.
A small but growing literature has begun to explore the relationship between the researchers and study participants, with a call for heightened reflexivity about the impact of the research on participants (Lofland & Lofland, 1995; Newman, Willard, Sinclair, & Kaloupek, 2001; Padgett, 1998b). That this discussion emerged from qualitative research is not surprising. Qualitative researchers "invite intimacy" (Birch & Miller, 2000). Furthermore, they provide a complex and attuned (if not broadly generalizable) understanding of the people and the phenomena they describe (Johnson & Waterfield, 2004; Lofland & Lofland, 1995; Padgett, 1998b). Ethical dilemmas may thus be more readily apparent in qualitative research because of the more intimate nature of the relationship between the researcher and the study participants. These include the effect of the research process on the participants, the impact of the research product on these same participants and others who are similarly situated, and the nature of power in the relationship itself (Fine et al., 2000). These potential dilemmas take on urgency in the qualitative research literature across a variety of disciplines (see, for example, Geertz, 1983; Padgett, 1998a; Punch, 1994). In disciplines that have linked professional cachet to the pursuit of evidence-based practice grounded largely in quantitative research, this discussion has not been as robust (Johnson & Waterfield, 2004).
Some effects of the research process related to interviewing have been documented in other contexts. Ortiz (1995) suggested that positive mental health consequences occur as a result of using a Life History Method due to beneficial effects of validation and catharsis. He acknowledged the negative effects such as fear reactions and reliving trauma. Others confirm these findings for other narrative methods such as qualitative intensive interviewing. Pennebaker (2000) has found that the process of fully revealing a story of loss, even in written form, has positive effects on the immune system of the research participant. Furthermore, best practices literature regarding psychological processing after traumatic events identifies critical factors for healthy processing (Deahl et al., 2000; Everly & Mitchell, 1999; Parad, 1965; Sheehan, Everly, & Langlieb, 2004), which include an opportunity to tell the whole story to another human being who listens with unconditional positive regard--the stance ideally adopted by any qualitative researcher.
Some effects of the research process likely flow from the social context of the population that the researcher chooses to study. Punch (1986) referred to the populations typically studied by ethnography and participant observation as the "nuts and sluts," identifying the tendency of social scientists who study the "sociology of deviance" to focus on experiences that are outside the norm and thus "discreditable" and potentially stigmatizing (Goffman, 1959, 1963). This tendency to study people who are disenfranchised and stigmatized may yield different effects than the study of people who are accustomed to having greater societal power and "voice" (Kirby & Corzine, 1981). Even if stigmatized people do not accept the stigma, they are usually aware that others view them in this way, which can make open...
|
