This article was downloaded by: [81.61.136.18]On: 29 October 2014, At: 10:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Disability & SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20

Disability Studies asEthnographic Research andText: Research strategies androles for promoting socialchange?John M. Davis aa Research Unit in Health and Behavioural Change ,University of Edinburgh, Medical School , Teviot Place,Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UKPublished online: 01 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: John M. Davis (2000) Disability Studies as Ethnographic Researchand Text: Research strategies and roles for promoting social change?, Disability &Society, 15:2, 191-206, DOI: 10.1080/09687590025621

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687590025621

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09687590025621http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687590025621

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Disability & Society, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2000, pp. 191206

Disability Studies as EthnographicResearch and Text: researchstrategies and roles for promotingsocial change?JOHN M. DAVISResearch Unit in Health and Behavioural Change, University of Edinburgh, MedicalSchool, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK

ABSTRACT This paper problematises the notion of research production within disabilitystudies by comparing literature on emancipatory research with concepts of re exivity,authority and empowerment employed within ethnographic research. It critically examinesa number of proposals within disability studies on how researchers can stimulate orcontribute to processes which improve their respondents life conditions. A variety of strategiesfor change are discussed within the context of how ethnographers do eldwork, and write upand disseminate their ndings. This discussion also questions the role of the researcher andrespondent as expert, suggesting that ethnographers should not privilege their own perspec-tives over that of respondents. It is concluded that the variety of research strategies and rolesoutlined in this paper need not be mutually exclusive and therefore, that there are a numberof different yet complementary ways in which researchers can contribute to the conditionswithin which self-emancipation ourishes.

Introduction

This paper critically examines the concept of emancipatory research by comparingit to ethnographic writing on re exivity [1] and cultural exchange (Campbell, 1995).It draws ideas from a form of post-structural ethnography (Denzin, 1997), which isconcerned with issues of authority and empowerment. The call within disabilitystudies for researchers to change the power relationships of the research process isexamined within the context of the role researchers adopt when collecting data inthe eld, and their responsibilities in respect of how they write up and disseminatetheir ndings. [2] This examination is followed by a critical review of a variety ofstrategies which might help researchers to stimulate or contribute to processes ofchange which may enable respondents to improve their life conditions. It is con-cluded that their are number of different yet complementary research strategies and

ISSN 0968-7599 (print)/ISSN 1360-0508(online)/00/020191-16 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

192 J. M. Davis

roles that enable the researcher to support disabled people in their ght againstoppression.

Challenging the Social Relationships of Research Production in the Field

In disability studies it is asserted that disabled people should be considered expertson their own lives, needs and feelings, and therefore, that those who do researchwith disabled people should allow disabled people to play an active part in shapingthe course of research projects (Barnes, 1992; Stone & Priestley, 1996).

These aspirations can be supported by writing in anthropology on ethnography.Some anthropologists argue, in keeping with Barnes (1992) and Oliver (1992), thatparticipatory research does not automatically lead ethnographers to learn aboutpeoples culture. Just being there, observing, is not enough (Okely, 1975). It isbelieved that to learn about another persons culture researchers have to participatein a two-way exchange/clash of beliefs. Even if this process involves disagreement orcon ict, it still enables both parties to understand their similarities and differences(Geertz, 1973; Rabinow, 1977; Rorty, 1980; Marcus & Fisher, 1986; Campbell,1995).

Here, the researchers self contains academic and personal values (Okely, 1975;Giddens, 1976, 1987; Campbell, 1995) and possibly, as is suggested in disabilitystudies, a fusion of personal and academic politics:

I support the cause of disability rights, I support the principle of selforganisation and I support the disability movement. This is an ethical or apolitical position, which informs everything I do, professionally and per-sonally. I think it is clear from my published work that I am not adisinterested observer, but a participant in the process I describe. (Shake-speare, 1996; p. 117.)

The cultural exchange form of ethnography supports the aims of emancipatoryresearch because the researcher is required to be a re exive participant. [3] Thischanges the everyday relationships of research because it provides countless possibil-ities for the ethnographer to provide his/her respondents with the opportunity toquestion his/her analysis. The researchers and the respondents assumptions andinterpretations are subjected to daily review.

This process complements the contention that disabled people should be ableto in uence the direction of a research project (Barnes, 1992; Oliver, 1992; Stone& Priestley, 1996). By exchanging interpretations of the same occurrence, theethnographer enables the respondents ideas to shape the next stages (questions tobe asked, situations to observe/experience, roles to be adopted, etc.) of the ethnog-raphy.

Within this context, Asad (1986) de nes the ethnographers role as that oflearner. This position requires the researcher to be a respectful initiant who analyseshow his/her behaviour ts in with those of his/her teachers and how it does not. Thatis, in ethnography, the process of learning involves constant scrutiny of the ethnog-rapher (Pratt, 1986; Okely, 1994), which allows for the researchers effect on a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ethnographic Research and Text 193

eldwork setting to be examined as a source of cultural understanding (Crapanzano,1986). There has been much criticism of early anthropologists who did not explainhow such things as the exchange of gifts affected their relationship with respondents(Pratt, 1986); did not include their own experiences in their ethnographic writings(Crapanzano, 1986), or failed to explain the power relationships between themselvesand respondents (Asad, 1986; Rabinow, 1986).

It is argued that in the past many ethnographers falsely claimed to be neutralobservers in order to preserve their authority (Crapanzano, 1986). Now, the ethnog-rapher is expected to examine, throughout eldwork, his/her own subjectivities asthe basis from which to understand other peoples cultures. This expectation hasresulted in calls on researchers to explain the research roles they adopt and tore exively analyse their role in actually producing research ndings.

Okely (1994) describes ethnography as a constant re exive process in whichreworking and re-understanding of observations and experiences eventually leads toa story which represents the interaction between the culture of the ethnographer andthe cultures of those he/she has studied. This process is not carried out to obtain avalue free perspective, as is suggested by some phenomenologists (e.g. Phillipson,1972), rather it is used to understand the researcher, and the respondents subjectiv-ities, their beliefs and their ways of looking at the world (Corker, 1999b).

It is suggested that this process works best when researchers avoid getting hungup with existing theories concerning their work. This is not to say that the ethnog-rapher has no theoretical perspectives. Rather, that they should not hang on tosacred cows because this may restrict the ethnographers ability to develop under-standings and meanings, which eventually have a relationship with theory:

The anthropologist despite months of literature reviews, possibly years oftheoretical and comparative reading, will have to eject hypotheses like somuch ballast The ethnographer must, like a surrealist, be disponible (cf.Breton 1937), and open to objets trouves, after arriving in the eld! (Okely,1994; p. 19.)

The ethnographer who begins ethnographic research with the aim to test theory orprivileges one theory over another, makes his/her ability to deal with objets trouvesproblematic. In terms of disability research, this suggests that all models of disability(medical or social) should be re exively challenged by researchers and that the roleof disability researchers should not be to t their ndings to any speci c model.

Indeed, in disability studies, the privileging of the social model by researchershas been criticised on the basis that the theory may not necessarily be part of theresearch participants own understanding of disability (Stone & Priestley, 1996;Priestley, 1997) and on the basis that it may inhibit the work of the researcher(Shakespeare, 1997). By insisting on researchers adopting the social model, emanci-patory research may restrict the intellectual freedom of the researcher, and theircapacity to interpret the worlds and cultures of others. This view is similar to thatof some anthropologists who argue, in support of Foucault, that ideology can be asconstraining an epistemology as positivism (Rabinow, 1986). Indeed, Corker(1999a,b) argues that the social model should be viewed as one strand of an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

194 J. M. Davis

emerging social theory. Corkers views build on Olivers assertion that the socialmodel is but one aspect of a social theory of disability and that the aim of researchshould be to represent disabled peoples lives from their own perspectives (Oliver,1996).

This position complements that of anthropologists who argue that respondentsbeliefs should not be represented as wrong because they differ from those of theanthropologist (Asad, 1986; Rabinow, 1986). That those beliefs should not bepatronised by being revered for their simplicity (Rosaldo, 1986).

In relation to disability studies, this suggests that respondents who do not allythemselves overtly to a social model perspective should not be thought of asexhibiting signs of false consciousness. Their beliefs and practices should be at-tributed as much importance as any other disabled person. Otherwise, we run therisk of replicating within our eld the very systems of exclusion and censorship that,it is claimed, exist within medical model driven research. Indeed, some have raisedconcerns regarding the manner in which disabled accademics presently police thesocial model (Thomas, 1998). This issue also raises speci c problems for those whoargue that researchers should put their research skills at the disposal of disabledpeople (Barnes, 1992). It begs the question, which disabled people? Are we toexclude those disabled people who do not accept a speci c social model of disability?

This same argument can be used in respect to respondent validation. It isargued that disability researchers should feed back research ndings to their respon-dents so that they may guide the researchers end text (Barnes, 1992; Stone &Priestly, 1996). These ideas challenge the assumption that only the researcheranalyses data (Priestley, 1997). It has been suggested that asking respondents tocomment on drafts of a nal text can contribute to emancipatory objectives. [4]Although this is a quite reasonable request, it should be noted the feedback ofresearch ndings does not totally disperse the authority of the researcher where theresearcher writes the nal text (Shakespeare, 1996).

Also, some sociologists employ triangulation or member validation in an at-tempt to validate their ethnographic research (see Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Hammer-sley & Atkinson, 1983). However, these techniques do not act as a means ofvalidation rather, they merely allow researchers more re exive moments:

It is the researchers interests and systems of relevance that will determinethe practical limits of his or her analysis (Schutz 1970). techniques ofvalidation provide valuable additional material for analysis and performfurther useful functions (such as easing research access), but they do notset the bounds of the analytical task. Those bounds are set not by anytechnical tests or procedures, but by a mix of relevances stretching from theresearchers own intellectual curiosity and scrupulousness to external con-straints such as funding limits, supervisory stipulations and (not least)publishing deadlines. (Bloor, 1997, p. 50.)

Even when researchers obtain comments from respondents regarding their text, theystill choose which of the respondents responses in uence the nal story and whichare ignored. Indeed, this process is no different from the earlier process of selecting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ethnographic Research and Text 195

and interpreting data to form a text. Hence, a more achievable objective may be toask researchers to explain their motivations for choosing one data example or typeof explanation, over another (Hammersley, 1990). This approach may help usfollow the re exive process through which the ethnographer learns about anotherculture.Some in disability studies argue against member validation for differentreasons: [5]

I was not, and am not, prepared to let other people control what I write ordictate the appropriate political stance. In this project there was not enoughtime or resources to enable people to check over the text or comment onit. While I would always welcome advice and feedback, Im not sure Idever want to be accountable to anyone other than my publisher and myconscience. (Shakespeare, 1997, p. 186.)

What ever the objection, the issue of authorial control, appears to be a red herring.In an ethnography, the researcher may encounter hundreds of respondents, couldthey all be asked to be authors? Someone or a small group would mostly likely actas author. This person or group would be subjected to the same pressures as aresearcher. They would be writing about people who are similar and different tothemselves. They would be open to the same criticisms concerning authority andhow they represented the people in their text. Hence, who ever the author, a moreimportant appraisal may be, how relevant a research project is to disabled people.That is, can it contribute to processes of change which improve peoples lives?

Strategies for Change

Researchers have been encouraged to ask themselves whether their work is relevantto disabled people and their organisations and whether it will improve the lives ofrespondents (Stone & Priestly, 1996, p. 703). The following sections discuss thisissue in relation to three theoretical approaches to doing research. This discussionleads to an examination of the different ways that researchers in uence the worldwithin which they work.

Structural Change

The Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS, 1976) argued,after Paul Hunt (1966) and Vic Finkelstein (1975), that disability should be seen ascaused by a contemporary social organisation. In Britain, this has led to the call forchange in the way society is structured primarily in the area of rights and citizenship.It has been powerfully employed as a banner under which disabled people andothers can unite to ght off their oppressors. Speci cally, in the research arena,Barnes (1996) has employed this perspective as a basis from which to call onacademics to choose which side of the barricade they are on:

If disability research is about researching oppression, and I would arguethat it is, then researchers should not be professing mythical indepen-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

196 J. M. Davis

dence To disabled people but joining with them in their struggles toconfront and overcome this oppression. Researchers should be espousingcommitment not value freedom, engagement not objectivity, and solidaritynot independence. There is no independent haven or middle ground whenresearching oppression: academics and researchers can only be with theoppressors or with the oppressed. (Barnes, 1996, p. 110.)

Whilst calling for, the systematic demysti cation of structures and processes which createdisability, Barnes (1992, p. 122) creates a discourse of them and us, oppressed andoppressors. It cannot be denied that the physical, material and social organisation ofour society promotes inequalities, and withholds rights and resources to somegroups. Nor, can it be disputed that this should be an important topic for re-searchers to investigate. However, this discourse talks of oppressed and oppressorsas if they are homogenous groupings. By creating them and us groups thesewriters reduce the importance of people as social actors, reifying the role of structureand ignoring the diverse ways in which individuals and social groups relate to andresist such structures.

Similarly, in anthropology, Geertz (1973) is criticised for only constructing asingle generalised version of Balinese culture. That is, he is accused of constructinghomogeneity where their may have been diversity (Crapanzano, 1986). Manyanthropologists, represent one voice (their own) or two (their own and the voice ofthe other in their nal text (Clifford, 1986). The cultural diversity of a group/so-ciety is ironed out as the anthropologist illustrates a single generalised version oftheir culture (Crapanzano, 1986). It has been argued that this process is interlinkedwith the tendency of some anthropologist to claim an I was there, This is how theyare authority for their writing (Asad, 1986).

Counter Hegemonic Writing

In opposition to generalised views of culture, a new (or not so new, Campbell, 1996)way of writing has been proposed in anthropology that represents the contrastingand con icting relations between individuals who inhabit a social location (Marcus,1986). It has been referred to as, polyphonic co-operative story telling (Tyler,1986), multi-dimensional textualisation (Fischer, 1986), heteroglossia (Bakhtin,1986; Rabinow, 1986) and multi-verisimilitude (Denzin, 1997). The suggestion isthat anthropology should not only be interested in cross-cultural comparisons ofdifferences between cultures, but should recognise difference and con ict withincultures (Willis, 1977; Fischer, 1986; Marcus, 1986). It is believed that anthropolo-gists can listen to the different voices [6] they encounter in the eld, that the peoplethey encounter may hold con icting perspectives on the same phenomena and thatthere may be multiple competing versions of what constitutes the real or the truth.Here, dispersal of the anthropologists authority is thought to be achieved by offeringreaders a choice of a number of different perspectives, sub-cultural values, or voicesin the nal text.

This process need not involve the authors voice being completely excluded,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ethnographic Research and Text 197

rather the author points to different competing voices which con ict with his/herown (Fisher, 1986). That is, the authority of the writer is dispersed, not by lettingothers actually write the nal text, but by letting their variety of voices have equalauthority. Interestingly, this process may be complimented by research projectswhich are carried out by a team of academics. Here, not only can ethnographic textsinclude the different voices of respondents, but they may include, in the case ofmulti-authored projects, the different voices of researchers (Corker & Davis, 1998).

The strength of this approach is that it can create the space through which avariety of people empower themselves (readers and researched) by legitimising theirdifferent everyday experience. Some in disability studies have written this type oftext from interview data:

We thought of our audience as a broad one: lay readers, academics,professionals, but most of all disabled people. we hoped that disabledpeople would recognise their own experiences and would feel vindicated bythe accounts we published. We placed the research within our broaderunderstanding of empowerment, which for us is as much about personaland emotional developments as it is about political and structural change:in the book, and in our professional work, we balanced a need forbarrier-removal and civil rights, with a need to support individuals todevelop a more positive self-image and sense of pride and self-worth.(Shakespeare, 1997, pp. 184185.)

Here, the researcher is supporting a process of change by challenging stereotypesand legitimising the different life experiences of disabled people. Corker (1999c),drawing upon Bakhtins ideas about heteroglossia and speech genres (1986), talksvery speci cally about the disabled author being reborn as a speaker, in a socialcontext, who produces narratives that embrace both an individual and collectiveperspective. Corker states:

In other words those of us who have an interest in discourse are not wagingwar on the social model. We are encouraging its re exive use, but moreimportantly, we are engaged in a different kind of productionthe liber-ation and acceptance of silent voices, new knowledges, and therefore agreater range of positions from which disabled people can subvert hege-mony and act in social and political arenas. (Corker, 1999a, p. 209.)

Shakespeares and Corkers ideas run parallel with notions concerning empower-ment held by some ethnographers. Fischer (1986) argues that by representing andlegitimising many voices in the same text, anthropological writing holds the potentialfor a powerful counter rhetoric to hegemonic political discourses. In the eld ofdisability research this potential includes legitimising counter rhetoric to oppressivediscourses. These ideas tie into the work of Morris (1992) who attempts toencourage personal liberation by representing different disabled peoples perceptionsand experiences.

However, this approach has its drawbacks. It is problematic where differenceis only understood in terms of macro-social categories such as age, class, gender and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

198 J. M. Davis

race, or medicalised notions of impairment. That is, where writers create homoge-nous groups around these categories. This sort of research only represents thecommon features of same age, gender, etc., people and neglects to account fordifferences within these groups. [7] In doing so, it replicates the error of those whoargue that the social organisation of society creates two groups, oppressed andoppressors, only in this case there are slightly more groups in each camp.

Two further criticisms are raised by Stone & Priestley (1996). First, that byconcentrating on difference, disability research may be con ned to the realms ofculturally relative story telling. Secondly, that notions of diversity may dilute thepolitical strength of the disabled peoples movement and eventually, obstruct theimprovement of disabled peoples lives. Therefore, within disability studies it appearsthat counter hegemonic writing is in polar opposition to structural strategies forchange and that never the twain shall meet. However, a number of anthropologistshave tried to reconcile this con ict.

Multi-level Critical Post-structuralism

The Stone & Priestley (1996) criticisms suggests that there is a con ict betweenrepresenting disabled peoples diverse lived experiences and promoting socialchange. Rabinow (1986) warns ethnographers to be wary of essentialising differenceand seeking universal truths. He suggests we live somewhere between these twopoles which he refers to as cosmopolitanism:

Let us de ne cosmopolitanism as an ethos of macro-interdependence, withan acute consciousness (often forced upon people) of the inescapabilitiesand particularities of places, characters, historical trajectories, and fates.Although we are all cosmopolitans, Homo sapiens has done rather poorly ininterpreting this condition. We seem to have trouble with the balancing act,preferring to reify local identities or construct universal ones. We livein-between. (Rabinow, 1986, p. 258.)

It appears the problems of essentialism and universalism can be overcome bybalancing explanations of peoples everyday experiences with accounts of how thoseexperiences are linked to wider societal in uences. Marcus (1986) argues that bycomparing cultures across or within areas ethnographers can learn about thesystems, which in uence peoples lives at the same time as representing the everydaydifferences of those lives (Marcus & Fischer, 1986).

Similarly, Bourdieu synthesises notions of culture and structure in his conceptof Habitus.

It is in the relationship between the two capacities which de ne the habitus,the capacity to produce classi able practices and words, and the capacityto differentiate and appreciate those practices and products (taste), that therepresented social world i.e., the space of life styles, is constituted. (1986,p. 17.)

He argues that it is possible to identify groups on the basis of their subscription to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ethnographic Research and Text 199

certain behaviour and the relationship between this behaviour and the structureswithin which it is embedded. He suggests that individuals tailor their behaviour tospeci c settings ( elds), that they possess uid identities which they draw upon toguide their actions as they move through different social settings. An excellentexample of this type of text is Alan Campbells (1995) book, Getting to KnowWaiwai. In a beautifully written text, Campbell illustrates the everyday experiencesof Wayapi people of the Brazilian rainforest. He employs stories of everydayinteraction between groups and individuals to explore their reactions to changes intheir local environment, the in ux of incomers to their communities, and themachinations of Brazilian governmental and global politics.

Whilst breaking down uniform concepts of culture this sort of text also unpicksthe concept of identity as a xed uniform entity. In anthropology Asad (1986) hasargued that we have different cultures within. In disability studies Corker points out:disabled identity is embued with multiple and uid meanings which re ect and createcontext (Corker, 1999a, p. 195). In other elds, e.g. Queer theory, writers such asSeidman (1998) resist the notion of unitary sexual identities by questioning thesocial forces that compel selves and social relations to be organised in sexual identity terms(Seidman, 1998, p. 185). The suggestion is that ethnographers should be investigat-ing uniform notions of identity, culture and structure, and that this investigationshould enable the ethnographer to gain insight into how people respond to theindividuals, structures and cultures they encounter on a daily basis. Here, problemsof cultural relativism are overcome by synthesising notions of agency, culture andstructure.

This form of ethnography does not run the risk of weakening feelings ofcollectivity amongst disabled people. It offers us the chance to illustrate differentpeoples concepts of oppression and to gather a variety of de nitions of oppression.By legitimising these different de nitions the movement will increase in number.This type of approach does not assume that providing faithful accounts of individualexperience is enough (Oliver, 1999, p. 186). Rather, it complements Olivers (1999)aim that research should go beyond notions of individual experience to understandcollective experience. However, at the same time it recognises Corkers (1999 ac,p. 207) assertion, that the collective itself must be tolerant of difference if it is not toreproduce this hegemony.

An important aspect of this approach is the study of people in positions ofpower (Rabinow, 1986). That is, researchers can learn much from investigatingthe social practices of those individuals and groups that disabled people encounteron a daily basis (e.g. in the case of disabled children their family, neighbours,other children and professionals in local government, health, social services andeducation) because it is these people, and the groups and organisations theyassociate with, who are most likely to inhibit the self-emancipation of disabledpeople.

Multi-level post-structural approaches to research replace the polarisation be-tween structural and experiential accounts of disabled peoples lives with complexaccounts of peoples lives. They also afford the ethnographer the possibility ofadopting a number of different roles post- eldwork.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

200 J. M. Davis

The Researchers Powers of In uence

In recent work with colleagues (Corker & Davis, 1998; Davis et al., 1999, 2000;Priestley et al., 2000), we have highlighted the bene ts of employing polyphonicethnography to achieve the dual aim of representing the different lives of disabledchildren, and explaining the cultural and structural contexts within which these livesare played out. [8] These works attempt to identify policies which might motivate achange of culture amongst those individuals and groups who presently oppressdisabled children. In support of such authors as Oliver (1992), Swain et al. (1998)and Middleton (1999) they promote a multi-level approach to change.

This approach included the unpacking of moments of cross-cultural con ict:Situations where individuals vie with each other to impose their ideas of whatconstitutes legitimate practice (see also, for examples of this, Bourdieu, 1978; Willis,1977; Davis, 1996, 1999). At rst we perceived con ict between disabled childrenand adults (e.g. teachers) as group versus group con ict. We, at rst, characterisedthe teacherdisabled child relationship as that of oppressor and oppressed. However,children taught us that not all teachers were alike and, therefore, that their oppres-sors could not be neatly packaged into homogenous groups.

We realised we could record disabled childrens views on good practice andgood practitioners and vise versa. However, the work did not stop there. We alsoinvestigated the cultural issues (e.g. personal/group attitudes) and structural issues(e.g. training or policies), which in uenced the way certain professionals treateddisabled children. During this process we worked with disabled children and othersto identify which structures/policies needed changing within speci c settings andalso which individuals/cultural groupings might inhibit innovation.

By differentiating between the individuals that disabled children encountered intheir daily lives, and understanding the structural and cultural pressure which thoseindividuals experienced, we became aware that adults who are complicit in theoppression of disabled children may themselves experience oppression within theirwork places or social and cultural environments. Moreover, we realised that thisexperience may prevent them from changing how they treat disabled children.

This nding suggested that the researchers role should not simply be toconfront oppressive practices (Oliver, 1999), but also to unpick both the pillars uponwhich these practices are built and the vested interests which sustain them. Byvaluing all respondents (disabled and non-disabled) experiences and viewing themas inter-related, this form of research overcomes Olivers (1999, p. 187) concernthat from the outset researchers create a set of social relationships in which wedesignate disabled people as inferior. In this form of ethnography, all respondentsare viewed as possessing the potential to contribute to the improvement of disabledpeoples life experiences.

Corker (2000) links this idea to the writings of Bakhtin and to feminist notionsof inter-dependency. She argues that Bakhtin alerts us to the possibility that,through dialogue, mutual recognition and co-understanding can be achieved in away which enables different people (oppressors and oppressed) to grow throughmutual exchange of view points. This suggests that there may be unseen connections

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ethnographic Research and Text 201

between disabled people and their oppressors, or that the oppressors may haveaspects of their selves which can be appealed to in order to facilitate change.

Hence, the rst sphere of in uence open to the researcher is the very locationswhere they do research. The researcher by practising the non-authoritarian tech-niques identi ed at the beginning of this paper, can set an example to the peoplewho he/she encounters in the eld, he/she can encourage process of dialogue. Onour recent project this meant setting an example to professionals of how they couldbegin to start listening to the views of disabled children. [9] However, as has beendocumented else where (Davis et al., 1999, 2000) this approach was not accepted byeveryone in the research setting, and at times I and my colleagues were put underextreme pressure to change our practices. These experience, though uncomfortable,were bene cial because they provide us with insights concerning the sort of re-sources speci c adults could mobilise when attempting to control people or situa-tions. This was an important learning process because it allowed us to gain anunderstanding of how these individuals would obstruct change. These insights led tothe conclusion that a part of our project should involve feeding back ideas of goodpractice to policy makers and educators of professionals (e.g. teacher trainingcolleges). [10]

That is, the next sphere of in uence of the researcher involves contributing tostructural and cultural change by attempting to in uence the people who hold powerover professionals who work at the local level. Again, it is impossible to guaranteethat this information will be taken on board and mobilised in ways that actuallyimprove disabled childrens lives, as Shakespeare explains: [11]

Post-structural writers have identi ed what they call the death of theauthor. By this is meant the openness of a text to multiple interpretations.While the writers may have speci c ambitions and intentions, once thebook is in the public domain, others are free to read into it their own valuesand feelings, and to use the arguments and evidence it provides to promoteends which may be contrary to the authors intentions. There is no wayround this danger. For example, free market libertarians on the Right haveadopted the anti-institutional emphasis of the disability movement to arguethat day centres and other provisions should be closed down. A progressivedemand for autonomy and integration is converted into cuts in publicservices and rolling back of the state. (Shakespeare, 1997, p. 178.)

The suggestion that the ethnographer cannot control how readers choose to inter-pret their writing is a strong one, however, it maybe overly negative. Okely (1997)points out that another consequences can be that an unintended group mobilisesyour work in a positive fashion, in her case New Age Travellers. The dif culty of thisrole is that there is a tendency for the researcher to be promoted to the position ofexpert by policy makers and academic colleagues, and for researchers to be listenedto before or rather than disabled people.

The ethnographer expert should only be considered to lie within his/her own eld with his/her capacity to create the theoretical basis from which others actuallybring about change. These texts will reach an academic and possibly wider audience

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

202 J. M. Davis

and might also include acting as a policy adviser (Okely, 1997). Here, again, theethnographer is afforded expert status by policy makers, non-governmental organi-sations and fellow academics. Again, this role can be problematic if the ethnographerallows his/her own feelings of self importance to overshadow the fact that disabledpeople are the ultimate experts on their own lives. This role is especially doubtfulwhere the researcher chooses to reinforce academic convention, rather than accountfor data that is theoretically troublesome.

In our recent Life as a Disabled Child project we have worked against themajority of textual representations of disabled childrens lives. This has led us tocounter discourses which characterise disabled children as passive and vulnerable(for an analysis of these discourses see Priestley, 1998; Shakespeare & Watson,1999). We have demonstrated disabled childrens capacity as social agents andillustrated the uid ways in which they negotiate their cultural and structuralexperiences. In this role, ethnographers can write alone or with other members oftheir team to produce publications for a mostly academic audience. This roleinvolves the ethnographer staking their academic integrity on how other academicsrespond to their work.

An alternative approach involves the ethnographer working with their respon-dents. Here, the ethnographer exchanges their knowledge with disabled people inthe hope that it will contribute to their ght against oppression. This approach maymean that the researcher becomes an activist in the foreground of a political struggle(Okely, 1997) or that the researcher works in the background to support/advisedisabled people on where best to target their resources. Recently, this sort of role hasinvolved us working on a voluntary advisory basis with a group of disabled adultsand children at Access-ability Lothian. Here, our ndings have been employed tosupport this organisations aim to improve disabled childrens experiences of main-stream schooling. This organisation does not need a researcher to talk on its behalf,rather it draws together the ideas of a variety of people as the basis from which tosupport a group of disabled children in their aim to improve their own life conditionsthrough, amongst other approaches, peer education. Here, disabled children areactive agents capable of stimulating processes of change and the researcher andother adults are helpful, but discrete allies.

The above roles are not mutually exclusive each is valuable in its own way. Itis up to the ethnographer to decide or justify which they choose to enact. Once thischoice has been made others, e.g. their respondents, can comment on how valuabletheir contribution has been.

Conclusions

This paper draws on literature from within disability studies and anthropology toargue that researchers, when investigating disabled peoples lives with the aim ofpromoting social change, may bene t from:

Being re exive in the eld about how their own perspectives in uence thisprocess.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ethnographic Research and Text 203

Explaining how power relationships are negotiated within the course of their eldwork and what steps are taken to reduce the authority of the researcher Making obvious the process through which they choose to represent peopleslives in text Illustrating the diverse and uid nature of the world they have investigated. Investigating the interplay of agency, culture and structure (material andsocial) with in peoples daily lives.

It has been argued that ethnographers can make an important contribution todisability studies by breaking down the them and us characterisation of oppressorsand oppressed. That by unpacking homogenised views of culture and recognisingthe uid nature of identity, ethnographers can help to stimulate the type of dialogueand mutual recognition between disabled people and others called for by Corker(1999a).

Crucial to this approach is the investigation of the relationship between individ-ual, cultural and structural issues. That is, social scientists may only be able tocontribute to the creation of the cultural and structural conditions within whichself-emancipation ourishes when they recognise that culture and structure areembodied and expressed in everyday social practice.

A variety of theoretical perspectives have been employed as the basis fromwhich to examining how researchers can contribute to social change. Central to thisdiscussion has been the concept that respondents are the experts on their own livesbut that ethnographers possess expertise which can be utilised in a variety of waysto contribute to processes of change. This expertise lies in their ability to producewriting which counters hegemonic discourses and their capacity to represent thecomplexity of peoples lives through recognising the importance of individual experi-ence, culture and structure. By promoting a multi-level approach to disabilitystudies, this paper has argued that there are many ways for researchers to contributeto processes of change and that these approaches are not necessarily mutuallyexclusive.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Mairian Corker, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, Nick Watson andthe anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper

NOTES

[1] For discussion of re exivity see Okely & Calloway (1992) Hertz (1997), Davis et al.,(1999) and Corker & Davis (1998).

[2] This paper does not discuss the question of whether research with disabled people is bettercarried out by researchers who have a medically de ned impaired, because the ideas andsuggestions made here would apply equally to impairment or non-impaired ethnographers.However, the author recognises that academic cultures discriminate against certain groupswithin society (including disabled researchers) and that unacceptable barriers prevent manyof the members of such groups from gaining the opportunity to become researchers withinthe academy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

204 J. M. Davis

[3] See Davis (1998) and Davis et al. (1999a,b) for a discussion of this process in relation toresearch with disabled children.

[4] See Zarb (1992; p. 136) for an outline of the positive aspects of this process.[5] It should be noted that calling for researchers to have intellectual freedom is not the same

as stating their ideas cannot be questioned, or affected by those they study or others.[6] Its should be noted that here the term voices refers to verbal and non-verbal communi-

cation including sign and body language.[7] See Davis (1998) for a discussion of this issue with regards to the new sociology of

childhood[8] Though in this section I sometimes employ the collective we, it should be noted that the

ideas put forward here are my own perceptions and memories of our research experiences.[9] Least this should sound too patronising, it should be understood that many of the adults

we encountered were already capable of doing this and many of the children would notallow their views to be ignored.

[10] This has involved speaking at teacher training colleges and conference such as the SpecialCitizens conference held by Children in Scotland last year.

[11] See also in anthropology Clifford (1986).

REFERENCES

ASAD, T. (1986) The concept of cultural translation in British Social Anthropology, in: G.MARCUS & J. CLIFFORD (Eds) Writing Culture, pp. 141164 (Berkley, University of Califor-nia Press).

BARNES, C. (1992) Qualitative research: valuable or irrelevant? Disability, Handicap & Society, 7,pp. 115124.

BARNES, C. (1996) Disability and the myth of the independent researcher, Disability & Society, 11,pp. 107110.

BAKHTIN, M.M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, Trans. V. W. McGee (Austin,University of Texas Press).

BLOOR, M. (1997) Techniques of validation in qualitative research: a critical commentary, in: G.MILLER & R. DINGWALL (Eds) Context and Method in Qualitative Research, pp. 3750(London, Sage).

BORDIEU, P. (1978) Sport and Social Class, Social Science Information, 17, 819840.BOURDIEU, P. (1986) Distinction (London, Routledge).BRETON, A. (1937) Armour Fou (Paris, Gallimard).CAMPBELL, A.T. (1995)Getting to Know Waiwai: an Amazonian ethnography (London, Routledge).CAMPBELL, A. (1996) Tricky tropes; styles of the popular and pompous, in: J. MACCLANCY & C.

MCDONAUGH (Eds) Popularising Anthropology, pp. 5882 (London, Routledge).CLIFFORD, J. (1983) On ethnographic authority, Representations, 1, pp. 118146.CLIFFORD, J. (1986) On ethnographic allegory, in: G.E. MARCUS & J. CLIFFORD (Eds) Writing

Culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography, pp. 98121 (Berkeley, University of CaliforniaPress).

CORKER,M. (1999a) New disability discourse, the principle of optimisation and social change, inM. CORKER & S. FRENCH (Eds) Disability Discourse, pp. 192209 (Buckingham, OpenUniversity Press).

CORKER, M. (1999b) Differences, con ations and foundations: the limits to the accuratetheoretical representation of disabled peoples experience, Disability & Society, 14, pp.627642.

CORKER, M. (1999c) Deaf authors and readers: death, rebirth and Bakhtins dialogics, in: S.SNYDER, B.J. BRUEGGEMANN & R.G. THOMSON (Eds) Enabling the Humanities: a sourcebookfor Disability Studies in Language and Literature (New York, MLA Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ethnographic Research and Text 205

CORKER, M. (2000) The UK Disability Descrimination Actdisabling language, justifyinginequitable social participation, in: A. SILVERS & F. LESLIE Americans with Disabilities:Implications of the law for individuals and institutions (New York, Routledge).

CORKER, M. & DAVIS, J.M. (1998) Shifting selves, shifting meanings, learning culturedeaf andhearing researchers working with disabled children, paper presented at University Birming-ham, Deaf Education Seminar, 15 October 1998.

CRAPANZANO, V. (1986) Hermes dilemma: the masking of subversion in ethnographic description,in: G.E. MARCUS & J. CLIFFORD (Eds) Writing Culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography,pp. 5176 (Berkeley, University of California Press).

DAVIS, J.M. (1996) Sport for All? PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh.DAVIS, J.M. (1998) Understanding the meanings of children: a re exive process, Children &

Society, 12, pp. 325335.DAVIS, J.M. (1999) Culture, structure and agency in Lothian PE settings, Scottish Centre Research

Papers in Sport, Leisure and Society. Scottish Centre For Physical Education & Sport, Edinburgh,3, pp. 114.

DAVIS, J.M., WATSON, N. & CUNNINGHAM-BURLEY, S. (2000) Learning the lives of disabledchildren: developing a re exive approach, in P. CHRISTENSEN & A. JAMES (Eds) ConductingResearch With Children, pp. 201224 (London, Falmer).

DAVIS, J.M., WATSON, N. & PRIESTLEY, M. (1999) Dilemmas of the eld: what can the study ofdisabled childhoods tell us about contemporary sociology? paper presented at the BSAConference For Sociology, University of Glasgow, 69 April 1999.

DENZIN, N. (1997) Interpretative Ethnography: ethnographic practices for the 21st Century (London,Sage).

FINKELSTEIN, V. (1975) To deny or not deny disability, Magic Carpet, 28, pp. 3138.FISCHER, M.J. (1986) Ethnicity and the post-modern arts of memory, in: G.E. MARCUS & J.

CLIFFORD (Eds) Writing Culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography, pp. 194232 (Berke-ley, University of California Press).

GEERTZ, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures (New York, Basic Books).GIDDENS, A. (1976) New Rules of Sociological Methods (London, Hutchinson).GIDDENS, A. (1987) Social Theory and Modern Sociology (Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press).GLASER, G. & STRAUSS, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Aldine, Chicago).HAMMERSLEY, M. (1990) Classroom Ethnography (Buckingham, Open University Press).HAMMERSLEY,M. & ATKINSON, P. (1983) Ethnography: principles in practice (London, Routledge).HERTZ, R. (1997) Introduction, in: R. HERTZ (Ed.) Re exivity and Voice, pp. viixviii (London,

Sage).HUNT, P. (Ed.) (1966) Stigma (London, Chapman).MARCUS, G. (1986) Contemporary problems of ethnography in a world system, in: G.E.MARCUS

& J. CLIFFORD (Eds) Writing Culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography, pp. 165193(Berkeley, University of California Press).

MARCUS, G. & FISHER,M. (1986) Anthropology as a Cultural Critique (Chicago, Chicago UniversityPress).

MIDDLETON, L. (1999) Disabled Children: challenging social exclusion (London, Blackwell Science).MORRIS, J. (1992) Personal and political: a feminist perspective on researching physical disability,

Disability, Handicap & Society, 7, pp. 157166.OKELY, J. (1975) The self and scientism, Journal of the Anthropology Society of Oxford, 6, pp.

171189.OKELY, J. (1992) Anthropology and autobiography: participatory experience and embodied

knowledge, in: H. CALLAWAY & J. OKELY (Eds) Anthropology and Autobiography, pp. 128(London, Routledge).

OKELY, J. (1994) Thinking Through Fieldwork, in: A. BRYMAN & R.G. BURGESS (Eds) AnalysingQualitative Data, pp. 1836 (London, Routledge).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

206 J. M. Davis

OKELY, J. (1997) Some political consequences of theories of gypsy ethnicity: the place of theintellectual, in: A. JAMES, A.HOCKEY & A. DAWSON (Eds) After Writing Culture, pp. 223243(Routledge, London).

OKELY, J. & CALLAWAY, H. (Eds) (1992) Anthropology and Autobiography (London, Routledge).OLIVER, M. (1992) Changing the social relations of research production, Disability Handicap &

Society, 7, pp. 101114.OLIVER, M. (1996) Understanding Disability: from theory to practice (Basingstoke, MacMillan).OLIVER, M. (1999) Final accounts and the Parasite People, in M. CORKER & S. FRENCH (Eds)

Disability Discourse, pp. 183191 (Buckingham, Open University Press).PHILLIPSON, M. (1972) Phenomenological philosophy and sociology, in: P. FILMER (Ed.) New

Directions In Social Theory, pp. 119131 (London, Collier & McMillan).PRATT, M. (1986) Fieldwork in Common Places, in: G.E. MARCUS & J. CLIFFORD (Eds) Writing

Culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography (Berkeley, University of California Press).PRIESTLEY,M. (1997) Whos research? a personal audit, in: C. BARNES & G.MERCER (Eds) Doing

Disability Research, pp. 89106 (Leeds, Disability Press).PRIESTLEY, M. (1998) Childhood disability and disabled childhoods: agendas for research,

Childhood, 5, pp. 207233.PRIESTLEY, M., CORKER, M. & WATSON, N. (2000) Un nished business: disabled children and

disability identities, Disability Studies Quarterly, 19, (forthcoming).RABINOW, P. (1977) Re ections on Fieldwork in Morocco (Berkeley, University of California Press).RABINOW, P. (1986) Respresentations as social facts: modernity & post-modernity in anthro-

pology, in: G.E. MARCUS & I. CLIFFORD (Eds) Writing Culture: the poetics and politics ofethnography, pp. 234261 (Berkeley, University of California Press).

RORTY, R. (1980) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton, Princeton University Press).ROSALDO, R. (1986) From the door of his tent: the eldworker and the inquisitor, in: MARCUS,

G.E. & CLIFFORD, J. (Eds) Writing Culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography, pp. 7797(Berkeley, University of California Press).

SCHUTZ, A. (1970) On Phenomenology and Social Relations (Chicago, IL, University of ChicagoPress.

SEIDMAN, S. (1998) Are we all in the closet? Notes towards a sociological and cultural turn inqueer theory, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 1, pp. 177192.

SHAKESPEARE, T. (1996) Rules of engagement: doing disability research, Disability & Society, 11,pp. 115119.

SHAKESPEARE, T. (1997) Researching disabled sexuality, in: C. BARNES & G.MERCER (Eds) DoingDisability Research, pp. 177189 (Leeds, Disability Press).

SHAKESPEARE, T. & WATSON, N. (1999) Theoretical perspectives on research with disabledchildren, in: C. ROBINSON & K. STALKER (Eds) Growing Up With Disability, pp. 1328(London, Jessica Kingsley).

SMITH, D.E. (1990) The Conceptual Practices of Power: a feminist Sociology of knowledge (Toronto,Toronto University Press).

STONE, E. & PRIESTLEY,M. (1996) Parasites, pawns and partners: disability research and the roleof non-disabled researchers, British Journal of Sociology, 47, pp. 699716.

SWAIN, J., FRENCH, S. & GILLMAN, M. (1998) Confronting Disabling Barriers: towards makingorganisations accessable (Birmingham, Venture Press).

THOMAS, C. (1998) The body and society: impairment and disability, paper presented at the BSAConference Making Sense of the Body, University of Edinburgh, 7 April 1998.

TYLER, S.A. (1986) Post-modern ethnography: from document of the occult to occult document,in: G.E. MARCUS & I. CLIFFORD (Eds) Writing Culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography,pp. 122140 (Berkeley, University of California Press).

UNION OF THE PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED AGAINST SEGREGATION (UPAIS)/ DISABILITY ALLIANCE(1976) Fundamental Principles of Disability (London, Methuen).

WILLIS, P. (1977) Learning to Labour (Aldershot, Gower).ZARB, G. (1992) On the road to Damascus: rst steps towards changing the relations of disability

research production, Disability, Handicap & Society, 7, pp. 125138.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

81.6

1.13

6.18

] at

10:

46 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014