Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Respectful Research With and About Young Families

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods ((PSERM))

  • 300 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anandalalakshmy, S., Chaudhary, N., & Sharma, N. (Eds.). (2008). Researching families and children. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 13(1), 191–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cousin, G. (2009). Strategies for researching learning in higher education: An introduction to contemporary methods and approaches. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K. J. (2007). Qualitative methods for family studies and human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, J. D. (1985). Creative interviewing. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fedesco, H. N. (2015). The impact of (In)effective listening on interpersonal interactions. The International Journal of Listening, 29(2), 103–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleer, M., & Ridgway, A. (2013). Visual methodologies and digital tools for researching with young children: Transforming visuality. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabb, J. (2009). Researching family relationships: A qualitative mixed methods approach. Methodological Innovations Online, 4(2), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabb, J. (2010). Home truths: Ethical issues in family research. Qualitative Research, 10(4), 461–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2006). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (2015). On ethical principles for social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 128(4), 433–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (2006). Science and social inequality: Feminist and postcolonial issues. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heshusius, L. (1994). Freeing ourselves from objectivity: Managing subjectivity or turning toward a participatory mode of consciousness? Educational Researcher, 23(3), 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • hooks, b. (1994). Outlaw culture – Resisting representations. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacono, V. L., Symonds, P., & Brown, D. H. (2016). Skype as a tool for qualitative research interviews. Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N. (2009). The role of self and emotion within qualitative sensitive research: A reflective account. Enquire, 4, 23–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J. (1986). The meaning of mutuality: Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies. Wellsley, MA: Wellesley College Wellesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keaton, S. A., & Bodie, G. D. (2011). Explaining social constructivism. Communication Teacher, 25(4), 192–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellett, M. (2010). Rethinking children and research: Attitudes in contemporary society. London: Continuum International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research (1st ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kontos, P., & Naglie, G. (2006). Expressions of personhood in Alzheimer’s: Moving from ethnographic text to performing ethnography. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liamputtong, P. (2007). Researching the vulnerable. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • Manning, K. (1997). Authenticity in constructivist inquiry: Methodological considerations without prescription. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(1), 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mazzei, L. (2013). A voice without organs: Interviewing in posthumanist research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 732–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, V. (1928). Field studies in sociology: A student’s manual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, D., & Winn, M. (Eds.). (2014). Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Reushle, S. (2005). Inquiry into a transformative approach to professional development for online educators. PhD/Research, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching, and learning. London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizvi, S. (2017). Treading on eggshells: ‘Doing’ feminism in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roelvink, G., & Zolkos, M. (2015). Affective ontologies: Post-humanist perspectives on the self, feeling and intersubjectivity. Emotion, Space and Society, 14, 47–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roulston, K. (2014). Interactional problems in research interviews. Qualitative Research, 14(3), 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanjek, R. (Ed.). (2015). Mutuality: Anthropology’s changing terms of engagement. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Springwood, C., & King, C. (2001). Unsettling engagements: On the ends of rapport in critical ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(4), 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiele, K. (2014). Ethos of diffraction: New paradigms for a (post) humanist ethics. Parallax, 20(3), 202–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trainor, A., & Bouchard, K. (2013). Exploring and developing reciprocity in research design. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(8), 986–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vähäsantanen, K., & Saarinen, J. (2013). The power dance in the research interview: Manifesting power and powerlessness. Qualitative Researcher, 13(5), 493–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Unger, H. (2012). Participatory health research: Who participates in what? Paper presented at the Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central, QLD, Australia

    Alice Brown

Authors
  1. Alice Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice Brown .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brown, A. (2019). Considering CHE (Connectivity, Humanness, and Empathy)—Principles for Sustaining Respectful, Authentic, and Dialogical Research with Young Families. In: Respectful Research With and About Young Families. Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02716-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02716-2_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02715-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02716-2

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation