Playing the power game for qualitative researchers: the possibility of a post-modern approach

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1998, 27, 790–797

Playing the power game for qualitativeresearchers: the possibility of apost-modern approach

Chris Stevenson PhD BA MSc RMN

Lecturer in Psychiatric Nursing Practice, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne,England

and Ian Beech BA (Hons) RMN RGN PGCE

Senior Lecturer in Mental Health Nursing, University of Glamorgan, Glyntaff,Pontypridd, Wales

Accepted for publication 20 March 1997

STEVENSON C. & BEECH I. (1998) Journal of Advanced Nursing 27, 790–797Playing the power game for qualitative researchers: the possibility of apost-modern approachThe later work of Wittgenstein (1953) takes language and meaning as arising inuse. A local ‘grammar’ is created. Ethical/research awarding committees havedeveloped, and clashing, meanings about what constitutes ‘good’ research. Thefixed rule language game of the committee is implicitly powerful because it ispart of well-rehearsed societal narratives which equate science and knowledge.This creates a force on the qualitative researcher to conform to the authoritativegrammar which it is difficult to counter. In these circumstances, qualitativeresearchers may choose to inhabit two, parallel research universes by ‘storying’their research proposal according to the audience. But a question arises as towhether ethical approval has been gained when a ‘Trojan horse’ approach isused. Moving between worlds involves the researcher living with a dualidentity. The postmodernist movement away from structure, form and singulartruth is seen as setting a context for a new archaeology of knowledge whichtranscends good/bad dichotomies in relation to research. The qualitativeresearcher is encouraged to enter into dialogical communication withcommittees with the hope that a shared grammar may emerge.

Keywords: qualitative research, post-modernism, language, power,Wittgenstein, grammar

The paper is presented as a narrative which helps theINTRODUCTION

authors to account for the differences in meaning aboutresearch held by qualitative researchers (by this we mean

Human beings live ‘in language’ in the same way that fish livethose with non-positivist leanings towards interpretation)

in wateron the one hand and ethical/grant awarding committees

(Anderson & Goolishian 1988 p.56).on the other. We draw on our experiences of the clashesthat result. The paper does not propose simple solutions,but acknowledges the complexity which arises whenconflicting contentions converge.Correspondence: Ian Beech, University of Glamorgan, Glyntaff, Pontypridd

CF37 1DL, Wales. In our exploration, we rely heavily on Wittgenstein’s

790 © 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd

Playing the power game

(1953) later work (Philosophical Investigations), in particu- ‘Don’t get involved in discussing delusions and halluci-nations for fear of reinforcing them’. Alternatively, theylar his ideas about language. These are (necessarily crudely)

summarized in order to provide the uninitiated reader with may ask questions along the lines of ‘What is the mostdifficult thing about being controlled by extra-terrestriala reference point. The summary is, by no means, a definitive

description of Wittgenstein’s work, but our reading of it, rather than terrestrial forces?’ By doing so, there is anopportunity to develop some shared use of the meaning ofsituated in the context of writing the paper.being controlled, rather than entering into a ‘reality dis-agreement’ (Birch 1995, personal communication) about

WORDS, LANGUAGE AND GRAMMARthe feasibility of extra-terrestrial life and its power over‘earthlings’. An opportunity arises to co-create a new storyIn Philosophical Investigations (PI) Wittgenstein (1953)

moved away from his earlier position (Tractatus Logico- or narrative about control, which allows new, previouslyunarticulated, possibilities for action (Anderson &Philosophicus, Wittgenstein 1921) that words and lan-

guage are used to represent some external reality. In PI he Goolishian 1992).believed that we cannot take the position that languagelies on the one hand and the physical reality that it rep- LANGUAGE GAMESresents lies on the other. Wittgenstein took the view that

A language game is used by Wittgenstein (1953) to describelanguage and meaning are: matters of use and doing in conjoint

the rules (grammar) which allow usaction

(Cronen & Lang 1994, p. 6). to engage in patterns of conjoint action in which the word is used

(Cronen & Lang 1994, p. 18).Language is comparable to a set of carpenter’s tools.

Thus, a hammer can be used to knock a nail into a piece There are two varieties of language game which areexplored in the following section.of wood, or to assemble a dove-tail joint. Put a different

way, language and meaning are locally agreed. Forexample, like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking

Fixed rule language gamesGlass by Lewis Carroll, when we use a word it meansexactly what we want it to mean. Consider the term ‘sec- Fixed rule language games are those in which an observer

can detect the rules of the game through watching it beingtion’. Its meaning can be taken as an obstetric procedure,a part of a whole, a view of a slice of tissue, or a detention played. The rules are reconstituted by the playing of the

game. Chess is a good example of a fixed rule languageunder the Mental Health Act, according to the context.game. Cultural practices such as the judicial system, forexample, have ‘fixed rule language games’. There is a

CONTEXTstrong sense of prior use by others before we have contactwith the system, there being well-rehearsed stories aboutThe word context derives from the Latin verb meaning ‘to

weave together’. The context interlaces with the word and what constitutes moral and immoral behaviour, and itsconsequences.a meaning emerges as people act and interact together.

Once people begin to use a word meaningfully togetherthey can ‘go on’ with it in their conversations: Emergent rule language games

A writes a series of numbers down; B watches him andtries to find a law for the sequence of numbers. If he suc- Emergent rule language games are those in which the per-

sons’ ideas about how to create meanings, put words, sen-ceeds he exclaims: ‘Now I can go on!’ (Wittgenstein 1953p. 151). tences, gestures, emotions and patterns of behaviour

together, arise through the playing of the game. ForIn the example, both A & B have developed a sharedmeaning around the sequence of numbers. In so doing, example, one of the authors’ children and her friends will

change the rules for playing a ball game according to theirthey open up an opportunity for both to extend thesequence. Wittgenstein calls the rules for weaving together shared perceptions of what is ‘fair’. Having noticed a

younger child struggle with catching they come up withour meanings and actions with those of others a ‘grammar’.the new rule, ‘Although we usually play a no-bounce rulein catching, Josh is younger and so the ball can bounce

A clinical exampleonce before he catches it’. Cronen et al. (1982) and Cronen(1994) use the concept of the co-ordinated management ofSuppose a person brings to a meeting with a health pro-

fessional the idea of being controlled by extra-terrestrial meaning (Cronen et al. 1979) to refer to the emergent qual-ities of conversational rules. They refer to paradoxicalforces. Professionals can take different positions in relation

to the person’s idea. They may follow the grammar implicit loops in statements in order to clarify how emergent rulesare helpful. As an example they take the statement by thewithin professional training which entails the injunction,

791© 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27, 790–797

C. Stevenson and I. Beech

Cretan Epimenedes that all Cretans are liars. The problem The grammar of sciencewith the statement is that there are two implicit levels ofcommunication, and it is unclear which level should be Ethics and grant committees involved in health research

have evolved grammars which are associated with positiv-given priority. Do we accept that Epimenedes is telling thetruth when he says all Cretans are liars? If we do then what ist science. By this we mean that there is a belief inherent

in the committees that there is a reality out there whichposition is Epimenedes left in with regard to his ‘truthstatus’? Conversely, if we accept that all Cretans are liars, can be quantified through objective measurement. The lan-

guage consists in the language of the experiment. In otheras Epimenedes suggests, then the statement about Cretanslying, on which we have based our assessment, is necessar- words, it entails a belief about the nature of the world and

about how changing one variable within that world willily false. In other words competing levels of meaning areset up (see Stevenson & Cooper 1996). When meanings affect another.

The grammar of ethics and grant committees wouldclash, people strive to make sense of the paradox. Onemeans of doing so is to agree that the cultural context seem to depend on the make up of the committees, and

the context in which they work. For example they usuallytakes priority. Hannah (1994 p. 70) describes culture as acontext in which we create ‘rules’ for living in recruit a number of doctors. The language of medicine is

consistent with seeing the person as a bio-psycho-social-co-ordination with others, thereby knowing how to act ingiven situations. spiritual being. Similarly, nurses on these committees have

been socialized into using models of nursing which haveThe agreement constitutes a meta-rule. For example, acultural narrative, describing the fondness Cretans have developed from the positivist paradigm and view people

as bio-psycho-social-spiritual beings in an environmentfor teasing can allow us to conclude that Epimenedes wasonly being playful. Referring back to our example, the chil- which should be manipulated by nurses to maintain a bal-

ance known as health (Parse 1987). Parse calls this thedren draw on the narrative ‘small children have to haveallowances made for them’ and agree that this constitutes totality paradigm. The totality paradigm has a grammar

which has developed in the context of research assessinga meta-rule. The ‘lived experience’ (Cronen & Lang 1994)of the children changes as they cocreate a new story which the effect of changing variables on an external reality.

As a result of their socialization towards positivism,helps them to co-ordinate with each other in playing.there is an expectation held by committee members thatresearch into health-related matters will detect and report

Use of the rulesome reality. Researchers are expected to present to com-mittees a hypothesis with a proposal for scientific testing.A particular participant in a language game may or may

not have grammatical ability in the context of the specific However, in contrast, qualitative researchers often beginwith a general aim and set out to explore that aim. Thelanguage game. For example, with the children playing,

sometimes agreement is reached, and at other times one potential for misunderstanding arises.To explain this further we can return to the example ofchild is unable to put an emergent shared meaning into

practice. For example, this child does not throw the ball the word ‘section’. It has many meanings according to thecontext and grammar within which it is used, as arguedso that a single bounce occurs for the younger friend.

Although the child may know the emergent rule, this is above. In the case of ethics/grants committees and qualitat-ive researchers there is a fixed language game within theinsufficient. It is the ability to use the rule which is crucial

(Wittgenstein 1953). The child has not engaged with the committee concerning the meaning of the word ‘research’.This has the meaning for the committee of finding outgrammar of the game. The reason may be that the child

does not share the cultural narrative about young children. about the nature of some objective reality and being ableto show that this is what has happened. Conversely, forA possible outcome is exclusion from the game.the qualitative researchers, their research means the studyon which they wish to embark.

ETHICS/GRANT AWARDING COMMITTEELANGUAGE GAMES

ValidityEthics and grant committees have developed a set of fixedrule language games in relation to science, validity, The issue of validity is omnipresent within the existing

grammar of research. It is enshrined in the question, ‘Doesreliability, and so on. These games tend to have distinctive,detectable grammars. In contrast, qualitative researchers the researcher/questionnaire/inventory measure what they

intended to measure?’ It is tied into the idea that there ismay have different fixed or emergent rules in relation tothe above. We illustrate the tensions between these gram- some sort of objective reality that can be measured. For

some qualitative researchers, the question of whether anymars in the following three subsections which deal withscience, validity, and an analysis of how power is implicit objective reality exists, and can be measured accurately,

is an open question. It is at this point that the grammar ofto the grammar of committees.

792 © 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27, 790–797


qualitative researchers and ethics and grant committees authority is made in exploring ‘the problematic of a sharedgrammar’ below.)diverge. For example, Munhall (1994) believes that one of

the general suspicions about qualitative interviewing isthat it is seen to be similar to investigative journalism.

ImplicationsAs a result ethics committees are concerned about the

unwarranted intrusion into people’s lives that this can pro- The implications for ethical approval/grant seeking aretwo-fold. Firstly, the committee’s grammar when detectedduce, especially as in their language game the results of

the research have questionable validity. The grammar that by the applicant is likely to structure the nature of theapplication. The result may be discomforting (see below).is being employed by the committee here is one that says

that there is a reality that can be reported by journalism Alternatively, the grammar may not be detected, ordetected and not adhered to, and an ‘honest’ or naive appli-and that this is what the researcher is seeking to achieve.

The researcher on the other hand is employing a grammar cation produced. The conflict between the grammar of the‘official’ forms and the grammar within the applicant’sthat says that reality is by no means fixed and what the

researcher is seeking is an understanding of experience for proposal is likely to be construed as the applicant ‘notproducing a credible proposal’.the person being interviewed.

Put differently, ‘linguistic moves’ will be judged as per-missible or not permissible within the context of the par-

Implicit powerticular, authoritative grammar. For the non-conformingchild referred to in the ball game, exclusion from theSo far, we have argued that ethics committees and grant

awarding bodies have a particular grammar (of positivism/ ‘game’ may follow — for the research applicant, ethicalapproval or funding may be refused. We develop the themescience) and draw on a set of fixed rule language games.

The grammar is detectable within the forms which are of conflicting grammars in the following section.used to seek ethical approval/funding. For example, ‘Howwill the design of the study ensure scientific validity: (a)

WHEN A GRAMMAR MEETS A GRAMMARdefine the quantitative methodology and/or (b) define thestatistical power, e.g. 50% chance of detecting 10% vari- When the sets of grammars/games/rules of committees and

qualitative researchers meet, they clash. There is difficultyation, (c) who have you consulted (about methodology/statistics)? for both the ethical committee members/grant awarders

and the qualitative researcher in knowing how to ‘go on’.Birch (1990) has commented how the video consentform, as an instrument of an agency, impacts on the emerg- There is no existing shared grammar which can be brought

into play. In these circumstances, each camp is likely toing relationship between the client and therapist. Birch(1990) considers that the context setting function of the engage in ‘good guy/bad guy’ discourse (Birch 1995).

Seikkula (1995) describes this kind of discourse as mono-form can be understood by using Bateson’s (1951) ideas of‘report’ and ‘command’ implicit in human communi- logue and a restricted form of dialogue. He points out that

in monological language, one thing is more right thancation. When two people interact, the observer may infersomething about each individual’s wishes or intentions another and the ‘rightness’ is absolute rather than related

to context. In Wittgenstein’s terms, it is indicative of a(the report function). The observer may also notice howeach individual construes relationships with others (the fixed rule language game.

Examples of this discourse are taken from the authors’command function).This distinction is also available to the participants — own experience. ‘The research can proceed on the grounds

it will probably do no harm’ (decision communicated bywithin the limits of self-knowledge (Birch 1990 p. 281).We can refer Birch’s (1990) analysis to the interaction the chair of an ethical committee). ‘What validity is there

in using the responses of people who are diagnosed asbetween an ethical/grant awarding committee and theapplicant to the committee. With respect to the report suffering from schizophrenia as data?’ (question posed by

an ethical committee member). ‘Phenomenology is an out-function, we can infer that both parties wish research totake place in line with their particular research ideology, dated and discredited European philosophy’ (statement

made by an ethical committee member). ‘They [ethicalor particular grammar. With respect to the command func-tion a potential for conflict arises. We can infer that the committees] just don’t understand us’ (summary of a con-

versation between the authors of this paper). A factor miti-relationship between the committee and applicant is notequal in terms of the power relation. Thus, the words gating against finding a shared grammar is the idea that

words are representational.(report) of the committee takes on a new significance asthey dictate rather than recommend the correct way to do This implies that there is a ‘gap’ between the word and

what it signifies. However, Wittgenstein thought this to beresearch. Put slightly differently, the culture of qualitative,non-positivist research has not informed the grammar of naive. When someone says ‘I hope’, no-one can tell

whether this ‘hope’ is similar or different to another hope.committees. (A more detailed analysis of perceived



In order for language to be representational, we would illustrates this point. The researcher is likened to a minerwho digs out raw material and extracts the valuable sub-have to be able to assess whether any two incidences of

usage are the same or different. We can choose to use lan- stance from the ore. In other words there is an objectivereality out there and the researcher is able to mine it inguage in a representational way, for instance in saying,

‘the black cat’, but language does not consist in repres- some way using the tools of method. If familiar with themetaphor, a qualitative researcher can use it to respond toentation. However, if people believe that language is

representation, alternative versions of events, which incor- questions from ethical committees. For example, whenasked to predict how many interviewees will be used in aporate a non-representational grammar, seem alien. For

example, ethical/grant awarding committees who see a study a response might be, ‘It’s a bit like a coal minerknowing when a seam is empty. I will have enough dataproposal as an exact representation of the work that will

be carried out are likely to be unsettled by the qualitative when there is no more to be had’.Indeed, this is a ploy recommended by Munhall (1994)researcher who suggests that the sample size and type will

be determined through the process of the research by the who suggests that the qualitative researcher must play thelanguage game of the committee. For example, she indicatesdegree to which new information can be gathered and by

theoretical sampling based on the emergent theory (Glaser that we should not refer to the ‘lived experience’ of inter-viewees as the term confuses the committee. Rather, we& Strauss 1967).

Burns (1989) considers that people can learn more about should simply refer to ‘their experience’. Munhall (1994)does not see the difference as a compromise, but as a recog-qualitative research by making a critique of it. Can

ethical/grant awarding committees learn the grammar of nition that it can take many years to reach a full understand-ing of these concepts. With the limits of time and spacequalitative research in this way, and so avert the potential

clashes with non-positivist researchers? We are doubtful implicit within a research proposal, Munhall (1994) claimsher approach as a pragmatic way of gaining approval.for several reasons. Firstly, in order to learn the new gram-

mar adequately, people have to be thoroughly exposed to However, Munhall’s (1994) pragmatism is problematicfor two reasons. Firstly, if we use metaphors or signifi-it. But the exposure which would arise from perusing the

results of qualitative research does not occur because the cantly alter our language for the committee, if we have asense of dis-ease about whether the committee has under-research is not sanctioned by the committees in the first

place. Secondly the grammar of much qualitative research stood us in our terms, a question arises concerningwhether we have actually gained ethical approval.is emergent not fixed. As such it is often the case that even

the researcher is learning the grammar. It is difficult to see Secondly, there is the question of how subjugating ourgrammar may affect our identity as researchers. Self-how the committee can learn this grammar as it is in a

state of flux. Finally, even if the committee know the gram- consciousness and constructing identity can be taken torefer to the ability to tell a story about aspects of livingmar they may choose not to engage with it, as the child in

the ball game may or may not agree to practice the which are important for ourselves (Cronen & Lang 1994).In the case of seeking ethical approval/funding, the story‘no-bounce’ rule.told in order to gain approval/funding is incongruent withthe story we have hitherto lived as qualitative researchers.

Different storiesWe are left with questions about ourselves as researchersand how to go on with our work.Acknowledging the futility of purveying a qualitative

grammar, researchers may tell different stories accordingto the perceived context. Within the community of quali-

Opportunities within clinical practicetative researchers, the researcher might be seen as a travel-ler who meets people from strange lands and influences So far we have indicated the difficulties inherent in clash-

ing grammars and a proposed solution. Yet, we have alsoand is influenced by them. In other words, whenever theresearcher is in contact with another person the interaction argued above that, within clinical practice, there is the

opportunity for co-creating meanings about delusionalbetween them helps to shape ‘reality’ (Kvale 1996). Thetraveller may use the route map of a methodology or may ideas. However, in some respects, this involves the pro-

fessional relinquishing power in response to the person’swander freely and, in a sense, draw a new methodologicalmap. According to Clarke (1995), qualitative research is challenge (implicit within the delusion) regarding the

nature of reality. However, few analyses of the misunder-more akin to the creation of a piece of art like a novel thanit is to science. standings in attempts to expand the meanings of words

outside their use within a particular language game existA different story is plied when submitting to anethical/grant awarding committee. For example, we may where power is exercised by one party over the other, for

example, when the rules of science, validity, reliability,‘tell a story’ about research as positivist science, and soattempt to engage with the grammar of the ethical/grant etc. are applied by a ethical/research committee to the

different language game of qualitative research.awarding committee. Kvale (1996) uses a metaphor which



A claim to objective knowledge is an absolute demand As Harding (1986) and Lather (1991) point out post-modernism is not a successor to modernism but a seriesfor obedience (Mendez et al. 1988 p. 170).

Qualitative researchers are subject to the authority of the of dialogues about many truths. The qualitative researchermay become embroiled in the idea that qualitative researchcommittees whose attitudes they seek to change. What

would be the motivation needed for those who wield is an improvement upon traditional scientific research.Such ‘good/bad’ dichotomies have prospered during dif-power to modify or reject the knowledges to which they

refer for authority? What would encourage them to engage ferent decades: natural science vs the humanities in the1960s, quantitative vs qualitative research in the 1970s,in dialogue with the potential of engaging in an emergent

rule language game? According to Burr’s (1995) reading, objective vs subjective in the 1980s and universal vs localknowledge in the 1990s (Kvale 1996). At this point weFoucault argues that marginalized voices, e.g. of the mad

or delinquent, can be important sources of resistance in want to explore post-modernism, as a way to move out ofthis antagonistic stance and to allow more creative explo-challenging the prevailing knowledges which are used in

understanding ourselves and our lives. ration of the possibility of a shared grammar. Bauman(1991) considers that post-modernity is a new opportunitygenerating meaning within an irreducibly pluralisticAbsolute powerhuman world.

We take as our starting point Cronen & Lang’s (1994)There is no such thing as absolute power. If we canuncover the conditions which allowed a certain archae- view that the grammatical abilities of a person are

informed by multiple stories and we learn to tell stories.ology of knowledge to emerge we can more easily rejectknowledges as necessary accounts without rejecting them Consequently, stories are not to be treated as ‘truths’.

Cronen & Lang (1994) suggest that some stories are notas possible accounts. Once knowledges are exposed as dis-courses, ways of talking about our lives, alternative dis- naturally more powerful than others. However, despite the

difficulty in asserting a truth claim, we often behave as ifcourses might more easily come into play. The discourseof science is losing its power in some debates. For example some stories are better than others At particular moments

within interaction some stories seem to carry morethe nuclear and environmental debates show that sciencedoes not always supply the answers sought, and so these authority or conviction.

Researchers and members of ethical committees are notdebates have undermined the power of science in generaldiscourse. At the same time the increase in the use and exceptions to this ‘rule’. For example, witness our feelings

that we are disadvantaged in our dealings withpower of complementary types of therapy which have lessempirical support for their acceptance than traditional sci- ethical/grant awarding committees. The source of such

authority is not some objective, absolute truth, but theence have shown that alternatives to the western conceptof the scientific paradigm may have a story to contribute. level to which a particular story has become formalized

and ritualized in a particular society. For example, theThe discourse of science as the best (natural) way to under-stand the world allows the exercise of power in resource science and technology narratives which are valued in

western societies. Stories which claim to objectively reflectallocation to researchers. But ‘unnatural’ research, e.g.qualitative interviewing, can provide an alternative dis- the ‘world out there’ are often seen to have utility, for

example in making decisions about priorities (Stevensoncourse (or many alternative discourses). It values rich textwhich can move emotions and in so doing make its worth 1996).

The rules for the ‘science=truth’ story are available todifficult to deny.Such ambivalence towards, and tension between, narra- most members of that society. Sometimes the authority is

given the status of tradition. The rules are influentialtives has been described as the ‘postmodernism of resist-ance’ (Huyssen 1987 p. xvi). We view it as a necessary and in the way that episodes of interaction develop.

Consequently, we can notice that some episodes seem topositive precursor to the development of a new sharedgrammar. have similar formats. For example, both the authors,

although geographically distant, report similar inter-actions with committees. However, it is important to recog-

THE PROBLEMATIC OF A SHAREDnize that the similarities are not reflective of a shared

GRAMMARessence. Wittgenstein (1953) accepted that there is somesense of stability in how we make sense of our world. WeUnderstandably, qualitative researchers have been defensive

about their research position. Parallels can be drawn between do not recreate it totally within each interaction but lookfor family resemblances.modernism and post-modernism. Modernism can be taken,

in the context of this paper, as the position that objective Consistency with past use can be labelled the ‘centre’.The possibilities for elaboration in future use can be lab-and neutral science is the major means to knowledge about

our world. Lather (1991 p. 154) points out that the post of elled the ‘variation’. For example, we meet many peoplecharacterized as mentally ill who tell a story of beingpost-modern carries with it ‘progressivist overtones’.



controlled by some external force (a centre). However, the answer, I would be interested to hear your thoughts onwhat you mean by validity and why it is a particularlydescriptions of that control can vary, e.g. being controlled

by the radio, by alien beings, by another family member, important issue for you’.We think that dialogical responses might open the wayby the ‘illness itself’, by medication (the variation) accord-

ing to the audience. Committees will be both similar and for a new language game to emerge as the knowledgesunderpinning fixed rule language games, are exposed.different. The possibility of difference encourages the

qualitative researcher to engage in discourse.Thus far, we have suggested that pluralism in the stories

THE ANSWER?constructed about research by different parties is poten-tially helpful. In considering shared grammar, it is import- Perhaps we have given the reader the impression that post-

modernism is the answer to all our concerns about legi-ant to examine the way the grammatical relationshipbetween stories... the way the grammatical features of one timating qualitative research. That is not our intention and

would indeed be contradictory, for post-modernism itselfstory may be embedded or interwoven in another (Cronen& Lang 1994 p. 33). celebrates multiplicity of ‘truths’, ambiguity and paradox.

We think it useful to introduce Derrida’s (1967) idea ofWe have sympathy with Lather (1991 pp. 153–154)when she states: deconstruction. The term is used to refer to those circum-

stances where some posited underlying structure, pos-My struggle is to find a way of communicating these deconstruc-

ition, or idea in human affairs is found to break down iftive ideas so as to interrupt hegemonic relations and received

applied to itself. For example, scientists cannot objectivelynotions of what our work is to be and to do.

study their own work. This is evinced by the subjectiveinterpretations of their findings within discussion sectionsWe consider Lather’s ‘deconstructive ideas’ to be

comparable to qualitative research. of reports. Deconstruction happens. Deconstruction is nota tool applied towards resolving a problem. The point isnot to uncover errors within a position, or create a dialecti-

A way forwardcal resolution. Rather, the goal is to keep things in process,to disrupt, to continuously demystify the realities weA possible ‘way forward’ is to construct a third story which

‘connects’ the stories of ethical/grant awarding committees create (Caputo 1987 p. 236).We take the view that what we say is only one possiblewith those of qualitative researchers. In order for a shared

story, or new grammar, to emerge, it will be necessary to story of many about ethical/research committees, qualitat-ive researchers, and the relationships between them. Allfind ways to construct the interaction differently. There

may be some responses and questions which qualitative we hope to have achieved is an enrichment of the dis-course available, to have created a space in which dialogueresearchers can use which open up rather than close down

the conversation about doing research. Seikkula (1995 can begin/continue. We would like to invite others to con-struct a story about the relationship of our paper to thep. 22) advises that:issues we have discussed and to their own world views,

In monological dialogue, the utterances are closed circuits whichand in so doing help us to problematize the position we

do not open a new flow of questions... the monological utterancehave taken here.

begins to influence the interaction in a dialogical way if the

linguistic or other answer to it is given in a dialogical way.

AcknowledgementFor example, suppose a committee member asks, ‘What

strategies have you incorporated into your project proposal An earlier version of this paper was given at the Networkfor Psychiatric Nursing Research Conference at Stto ensure that you will produce valid data in relation to

your question?’ One (monological) response would be, Catherine’s College, Oxford in September 1996.‘Qualitative researchers do not have preconceptions aboutwhat valid data consists in’. In Foucauldian terms, such Referencesmonologues are part of the exercise of power as they are

Anderson H. & Goolishian H.A. (1988) Human systems as linguis-based upon beliefs about the correctness of a particulartic systems: preliminary and evolving ideas about thebody of knowledge. When dialogue is precluded qualitat-implications for clinical theory. Family Process 27, 371–393.ive researchers may simply become victims of committee

Anderson H. & Goolishian H.A. (1992) The client is the expert: asurveillance and eventually internalize the prevailing ‘nor-

non knowing approach to therapy. In Therapy as Socialmality’ of scientific based research in a display of self- Construction (McNamee S. & Gergen K.J. eds), Sage, London,discipline (Foucault 1979). The qualitative researcher pp. 25–39.loses her/his sense of identity as argued above. A different Bateson G. (1951) Information and codification. In(dialogical) response might be to inquire about the back- Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry (Bateson G. &

Ruesch J. eds), Norton, New York, pp. 168–207.ground to the committee member’s concerns, ‘Before I



Bauman Z. (1991) Intimations of Postmodernity. Routledge, Hannah C. (1994) The context of culture in systemic therapy: anapplication of CMM. Human Systems 5, 69–81.London.

Birch J. (1990) The context setting function of the video ‘consent’ Harding S. (1986) The Science Question in Feminism. CornellUniversity Press, Ithaca, New York.form. Journal of Family Therapy 12, 281–286.

Birch J. (1995) Chasing the rainbow’s end and why it matters: a Huyssen A. (1987) Foreword: The return of Diogenes as postmod-ern intellectual. In Critique of Cynical Reason (Sloterdijk P. ed),coda to Pocock, Frosh and Larner. Journal of Family Therapy

17, 219–228. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,pp. ix-xxv.Burns N. (1989) Standards for qualitative research. Nursing

Science Quarterly 2, 44–52. Kvale (1996) Inter Views: An Introduction To Qualitative ResearchInterviewing. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Burr V. (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism.

Routledge, London. Lather P. (1991) Deconstructing/deconstructive inquiry: the poli-tics of knowing and being known. Educational Theory 41,Caputo J. (1987) Radical Hermeneutics: Repetition,

Deconstruction and the Hermeneutic Project. University Of 153–173.Mendez C., Coddou F. & Maturana H.R. (1988) Bringing forth ofIndiana Press, Bloomington.

Clarke L. (1995) Nursing research: science, visions and telling pathology. The Irish Journal of Psychology 9, 144–172.Munhall P. (1994) Revisioning Phenomenology: Nursing Andstories. Journal of Advanced Nursing 21, 584–593.

Cronen V. (1994) Co-ordinated management of meaning: practical Health Science Research. National League for Nursing, NewYork.theory for the complexities and contradictions of everyday life.

In The Status of Common Sense in Psychology (Siegried J. ed.), Parse R. (1987) Nursing Science: Major paradigms, theories andcritiques. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.Ablex, Norwood, NewJersey, pp. 183–207.

Cronen V.E., Johnson K.M. & Lannaman J.W. (1982) Paradoxes, Seikkula J. (1995) From monologue to dialogue in consultationwith larger systems. Human Systems 6, 21–42.double binds and reflexive loops: an alternative perspective.

Family Process 21, 91–112. Stevenson C. (1996) Taking the pith out of reality: a reflexivemethodology for psychiatric nursing research. Journal ofCronen V. & Lang P. (1994) Language and action: Wittgenstein

and Dewey in the practice of therapy and consultation. Human Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 3, 103–110.Stevenson C. & Cooper N. (1996) Health research. In IntegratingSystems 5, 5–43.

Cronen V.E., Pearce W.B. & Harris L.M. (1979) The co-ordinated Perspectives on Health (Cooper N., Stevenson C. & Hale G. eds),Open University Press, Milton Keynes, pp. 123–134.management of meaning: a rules-based approach to the first

course in interpersonal communication. Communication Strong T. (1995) Clinical languages/clinical realities. HumanSystems 6, 53–64.Education 28, 22–38.

Derrida J. (1967) L’Ecriture et la Difference. Edns du Seuille, Paris. Wittgenstein L. (1921) (reissued 1961) Tractatus Logicus-Philosophicus. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Foucault M. (1979) Discipline and Punish. Penguin,

Harmondsworth. Wittgenstein L. (1953) Philosophical Investigations (trans.Anscombe G.E.M). Blackwell Science, Oxford.Glaser B.G. & Strauss A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded

Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Grune andStratton, Chicago.


Playing the power game for qualitative researchers: the possibility of a post-modern approach

Documents

Transcript of Playing the power game for qualitative researchers: the possibility of a post-modern approach