Advertisement

Considering CHE (Connectivity, Humanness, and Empathy)—Principles for Sustaining Respectful, Authentic, and Dialogical Research with Young Families

  • Alice BrownEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods book series (PSERM)

Abstract

This book is framed to research with young families within a methodological approach that is respectful, ethical, and dialogical. As such, those who choose to adopt such an approach may need to reframe their methodological techniques, and theoretical orientations, in order to ensure authenticity, relevance, and rigour, and to best afford for these narratives to be privileged and illuminated. Such an approach also calls on researchers to draw on the mechanics of listening, and engage in dialogical relations (also raised in earlier chapters), each of these being essential components for engaging in the process of ethical co-construction of research with family members, and establishing and maintaining trust and effective rapport building with participants.

Particularly germane to the themes addressed in this chapter are considerations regarding going beyond just acknowledging the importance of building rapport, trust, and the relational dimensions in our work, and research with young families, to exploring key strategies and tools for maximising ethical, dialogical, and meaningful research encounters and mutually beneficial outcomes. These practices often require researchers to employ a great deal of ingenuity, plus a good share of emotional intelligence, and interpersonal skills. This is particularly the case in relation to decision-making pertaining to key elements of rapport building, and maximising dialogical opportunities with members of young families, including those who may have been marginalised, disenfranchised, or positioned through a pathologised lens.

This chapter examines a range of these themes and considerations, as well as introducing the CHE principles of Connectivity, Humanness, and Empathy. These principles are considered to contribute to a robust and rigorous framework that can potentially guide researchers in analysing and evaluating the effectiveness of their decision-making, and in facilitating and sustaining humanising spaces and authentic relationships with family members. In sharing these principles, the intent is that these methodological insights might offer researchers an effective reflective device to deploy when planning, and evaluating relational intentions and outcomes of specific research projects.

References

  1. Anandalalakshmy, S., Chaudhary, N., & Sharma, N. (Eds.). (2008). Researching families and children. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice. In L. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators (pp. 135–150). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 13(1), 191–222.Google Scholar
  4. Bermúdez, J. M., Muruthi, B., & Jordan, L. (2016). Decolonizing research methods for family science: Creating space at the centre – Decolonizing research practices. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(2), 192–206.Google Scholar
  5. Bettez, S. C. (2015). Navigating the complexity of qualitative research in postmodern contexts: Assemblage, critical reflexivity, and communion as guides. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(8), 932–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop, R. (2012). Indigenous methods in qualitative educational research. In S. Delamont (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 126–142). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Bratich, J. (2017). Observation in a surveilled world. In N. Denzin & N. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, A. (2012). The new frontier: A social ecological exploration of factors impacting on parental support for the active play of young children within the micro-environment of the family home. PhD, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, A., & Danaher, P. A. (2012, December 2–6). Respectful, responsible and reciprocal ruralities research: Approaching and positioning educational research differently within Australian rural communities. Paper presented at the joint international conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education and the Asia Pacific Educational Research Association (AARE 2012): Regional and Global Cooperation in Educational Research, Sydney, NWS.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, A., & Danaher, P. A. (2017). CHE Principles: Facilitating authentic and dialogical semi-structured interviews in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2017.13799.
  11. Brown, A., & Reushle, S. (2010). People, pedagogy and the power of connection. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 7(3), 37–48.Google Scholar
  12. Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook, T. (2012). Where participatory approaches meet pragmatism in funded (health) research: The challenge of finding meaningful spaces. Paper presented at the Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.Google Scholar
  14. Corden, A., Sainsbury, R., Sloper, P., & Ward, B. (2005). Using a model of group psychotherapy to support social research on sensitive topics. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(2), 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cousin, G. (2009). Strategies for researching learning in higher education: An introduction to contemporary methods and approaches. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Daly, K. J. (2007). Qualitative methods for family studies and human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dickson-Swift, V., James, E., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2006). Blurring boundaries in qualitative health research on sensitive topics. Qualitative Health Research, 16(6), 853–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dickson-Swift, V., James, E., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2007). Doing sensitive research: What challenges do qualitative researchers face? Qualitative Research, 7(3), 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dockett, S., Perry, B., Kearney, E., Hamshire, A., Mason, J., & Schmied, V. (2009). Researching with families: Ethical issues and situations. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10(4), 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Douglas, J. D. (1985). Creative interviewing. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Dreher, T. (2012). A partial promise of voice: Digital storytelling and the limits of listening. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy: Quarterly Journal of Media Research and Resources, 42, 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duncombe, J., & Jessop, J. (2012). Doing rapport’ and the ethics of ‘faking friendship’. In T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner, & J. Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 108–121). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fedesco, H. N. (2015). The impact of (In)effective listening on interpersonal interactions. The International Journal of Listening, 29(2), 103–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fenton, A., Walsh, K., Wong, S., & Cumming, T. (2015). Using strengths-based approaches in early years practice and research. International Journal of Early Childhood, 47(1), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fleer, M., & Ridgway, A. (2013). Visual methodologies and digital tools for researching with young children: Transforming visuality. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  29. Gabb, J. (2009). Researching family relationships: A qualitative mixed methods approach. Methodological Innovations Online, 4(2), 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gabb, J. (2010). Home truths: Ethical issues in family research. Qualitative Research, 10(4), 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication (Qualitative studies in psychology). New York: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Geia, L. K., Hayes, B., & Usher, K. (2013). Yarning/aboriginal storytelling: Towards an understanding of an Indigenous perspective and its implications for research practice. Contemporary Nurse, 46(1), 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gilbert, K. R. (2001). Introduction: Why are we interested in emotions? In K. R. Gilbert (Ed.), The emotional nature of qualitative research. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204(6), 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2006). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Hammersley, M. (2015). On ethical principles for social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 128(4), 433–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hancox, D. (2011). Stories with impact: The potential of storytelling to contribute to cultural research and social inclusion. The Journal of Media and Culture, 14(6).Google Scholar
  38. Harden, J., Backett-Milburn, K., Hill, M., & MacLean, A. (2010). Oh, what a tangled web we weave: Experiences of doing ‘multiple perspectives’ research in families. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(5), 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harding, S. (2006). Science and social inequality: Feminist and postcolonial issues. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  40. Heshusius, L. (1994). Freeing ourselves from objectivity: Managing subjectivity or turning toward a participatory mode of consciousness? Educational Researcher, 23(3), 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Higgs, P., Moore, D., & Aitken, C. (2006). Engagement, reciprocity and advocacy: Ethical harm reduction practice in research with injecting drug users. Drug and Alcohol Review, 25(5), 419–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. hooks, b. (1994). Outlaw culture – Resisting representations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Iacono, V. L., Symonds, P., & Brown, D. H. (2016). Skype as a tool for qualitative research interviews. Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Irvine, A., Drew, P., & Sainsbury, R. (2013). ‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’: Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews. Qualitative Research, 13(1), 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Johnson, N. (2009). The role of self and emotion within qualitative sensitive research: A reflective account. Enquire, 4, 23–50.Google Scholar
  46. Jordan, J. (1986). The meaning of mutuality: Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies. Wellsley, MA: Wellesley College Wellesley.Google Scholar
  47. Keaton, S. A., & Bodie, G. D. (2011). Explaining social constructivism. Communication Teacher, 25(4), 192–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kellett, M. (2010). Rethinking children and research: Attitudes in contemporary society. London: Continuum International Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research (1st ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Kontos, P., & Naglie, G. (2006). Expressions of personhood in Alzheimer’s: Moving from ethnographic text to performing ethnography. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Liamputtong, P. (2007). Researching the vulnerable. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mack, N., Woodson, C., Macqueen, K., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. Research Triangle Park, NC: Family Health International.Google Scholar
  53. Macnamara, J. (2015). Creating an ‘architecture of listening’ in organizations: The basis of engagement, trust, healthy democracy, social equity, and business sustainability. Retrieved from Sydney, NSW. https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/fass-organizational-listening-report.pdf
  54. Manning, K. (1997). Authenticity in constructivist inquiry: Methodological considerations without prescription. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(1), 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mannion, G. (2007). Going spatial, going relational: Why “listening to children” and children’s participation needs reframing. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3), 405–420.Google Scholar
  56. Mazzei, L. (2013). A voice without organs: Interviewing in posthumanist research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 732–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McNeil, T. (2010). Family as a social determinant of health: Implications for governments and institutions to promote the health and well-being of families. Healthcare Quarterly, 14(Special Issue, Child Health Canada), 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Palaiologou, I. (2014). ‘Do we hear what children want to say?’ Ethical praxis when choosing research tools with children under five. Early Child Development and Care, 184(5), 689–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Palmer, V. (1928). Field studies in sociology: A student’s manual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  60. Paris, D. (2011). ‘A friend who understand fully’: Notes on humanizing research in a multiethnic youth community. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(2), 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Paris, D., & Winn, M. (Eds.). (2014). Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Pitts, M., & Miller-Day, M. (2007). Upward turning points and positive rapport-development across time in researcher—Participant relationships. Qualitative Research, 7(2), 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). Introduction. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research. Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed., pp. 1–10). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. Reushle, S. (2005). Inquiry into a transformative approach to professional development for online educators. PhD/Research, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD.Google Scholar
  65. Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching, and learning. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  66. Rizvi, S. (2017). Treading on eggshells: ‘Doing’ feminism in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 1–13.Google Scholar
  67. Roelvink, G., & Zolkos, M. (2015). Affective ontologies: Post-humanist perspectives on the self, feeling and intersubjectivity. Emotion, Space and Society, 14, 47–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Roulston, K. (2014). Interactional problems in research interviews. Qualitative Research, 14(3), 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. San Pedro, T., & Kinloch, V. (2017). Toward projects in humanization: Research on co-creating and sustaining dialogic relationships. American educational research journal, 54(1_suppl), 373S–394S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sanjek, R. (Ed.). (2015). Mutuality: Anthropology’s changing terms of engagement. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  72. Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  73. Springwood, C., & King, C. (2001). Unsettling engagements: On the ends of rapport in critical ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(4), 403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  75. Stewart, V. C. (2016). More than words in a text: Learning to conduct qualitative research in the midst of a major life event. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(4), 573–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thiele, K. (2014). Ethos of diffraction: New paradigms for a (post) humanist ethics. Parallax, 20(3), 202–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thomas, R. (2014). Honouring the oral traditions of my ancestors through storytelling. In S. Strega & L. Brown (Eds.), Research as resistance: Revisiting critical, Indigenous and anti-oppressive approaches to research (2nd ed., pp. 177–198). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars Press.Google Scholar
  78. Thomas, U., Tiplady, L., & Wall, K. (2014). Stories of practitioner enquiry: Using narrative interviews to explore teachers’ perspectives of learning to learn. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(3), 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Trainor, A., & Bouchard, K. (2013). Exploring and developing reciprocity in research design. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(8), 986–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Uttal, L. (2009). (Re)visioning family ties to communities and contexts. In S. A. Lloyd, A. L. Few, & K. R. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of feminist studies (pp. 134–146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vähäsantanen, K., & Saarinen, J. (2013). The power dance in the research interview: Manifesting power and powerlessness. Qualitative Researcher, 13(5), 493–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Von Unger, H. (2012). Participatory health research: Who participates in what? Paper presented at the Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.Google Scholar
  83. Warr, D. (2004). Stories in the flesh and voices in the head: Reflections on the context and impact of research with disadvantaged populations. Qualitative Health Research, 14(4), 578–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Watts, J. H. (2008). Emotion, empathy and exit: Reflections on doing ethnographic qualitative research on sensitive topics. Medical Sociology Online, 3(2), 3–14.Google Scholar
  85. Wong, S. M., & Cumming, T. (2008). Practice grounded in theory: The theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of SDN’s Child, Family and Children’s Services Programs. The second of eight reports investigating SDN’s Child, Family and Children’s Services Program. Retrieved from Sydney, NSW. https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/fass-organizational-listening-report.pdf
  86. Yee, W. C., & Andrews, J. (2006). Professional researcher or a ‘good guest’? Ethical dilemmas involved in researching children and families in the home setting. Educational Review, 58(4), 397–413.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910600971859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business, Education, Law and ArtsUniversity of Southern QueenslandSpringfield CentralAustralia

Personalised recommendations