Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 1996,3, 26

Research in brief Editors: Steve Tilley’ & Mary Chambers

Problems of the researching person: doing insider research with your peer group

Background

As part of an MA degree in systemic practice I carried out a study to explore the implications of organizational change for a community mental health team, using a narrative framework (MacKenzie 1995). The site of the research was within my own agency, and data were collected through conversa- tion and dialogue with colleagues in the community mental health team. This approach raised many issues of insider practitioner research (Reed & Procter 1995) which others undertaking similar studies would do well to be aware of. This short report provides a summary of the dynamics of this type of research as I experienced them.

Reflections of a practitioner researcher

Conducting the study in this way made some issues more apparent than would have been the case if I had used a more ‘objective’ approach. The research endeavour facilitated a process of self-reflection which created a change in my view of my own posi- tion within the team, and also my assumptions and beliefs. There were three areas in which the com- plexities and dynamics of the research relationship became apparent:

I found that being too closely involved in the team’s evolution and development worked against my attempt to gain sufficient distance to see more clearly. As Reed & Procter (1995, p. 54) suggest, insider research is made difficult if the research setting is ‘too familiar’. The story of my team was also my story. As a member of the team, I found that the col- leagues that I interviewed responded to me in this familiar role. This suggests that their accounts may well have been shaped by their expectations of this position.

6 Submissions ‘University of address: Edinburgh, Adam Ferguson Building,

George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LL. Scotland

I found that the research process changed prac- tice in a number of ways. The process of telling stories about change, in particular stories cap- turing the ‘golden era’ of the team, seemed to allow the team to ‘move on’ from this narrative to explore new possibilities for development. Furthermore, my practice also changed as I became more aware of my role in shaping the values and culture of the team.

Conclusion

Insider practitioner research as outlined in the liter- ature can be helpful and important for the develop- ment of clinical practice. Researching one’s own peer group, however, is fraught with many poten- tial pitfalls which researchers must be aware of: research is not simply elicitative, but is also an intervention into the organization. This suggests that when undertaking this type of research it is important to deconstruct the assumptions and values of the researcher and to adopt a position of ‘critical suspicion’ advocated by Lawson (1985).

References

Lawson H. (1985) Reflexivity, the Postmodern Predicament. Hutchinson.

MacKenzie J.E. (1995) The notion of narratives as u social construction as a tool for understanding organi- sationul evolr*tion. MA dissertation, University of Northumbria, Newcastle.

Reed I. & Procter S . (1995) Practitioner Research in Health Cure: the Inside Story. Chapman & Hall.

JULIE E. MACKENZIE

Using a reflexive diary in social constructionist research into clinical practice

The study here reported is being conducted with a multidisciplinary family team who share an interest in social constructionist ideas about reality and postmodern thinking. The study explores the

0 1996 Blackwell Science Ltd

rch in brief

processes of family therapy, and data are collected from videos of family therapy sessions and audio tapes of conversations with family members and the team. Borrowing Steier’s (1991, p. 1) comment that ‘what I describe in my research is in no way existent apart from my involvement in it’, I have kept a reflexive diary, in which I record my thoughts and feelings about the research. In making sense of these data, I have found the reflexive diary a useful means to explore the ways in which my ideas and thoughts have developed over the course of the study. It has been a major contribution to the process of analysis.

Data were transcribed from the video and audio tapes, and analysed using a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss 1967). Strauss & Corbin (1994, p. 279) consider theory as ‘interpre- tations made from given perspectives as adopted or researched by researchers’ and ‘not a formulation of some discovered aspect of a pre-existing reality “out there”’. Even so, from a social constructionist stance, the idea of a theory emerging from the data seemed problematic. Rather, I preferred to think in terms of a grounded ‘story’ which would be co-con- structed between the participants through the gen- eration, and ongoing examination, of the data.

During the analysis, I constantly return to the data transcripts and to the participants, to assess whether the developing ‘story’ fits. Extracts from the transcripts are included in a thesis based on the research to illustrate how an experiential account of family therapy meetings was developed, linked with the data, and checked with participants.

Parts of the reflexive diary will also be included in the thesis, thus exposing for scrutiny an exami- nation of my prejudices, assumptions, and values

which may have influenced and informed the process of the research. It also provides an account of how these changed through the research process, as I was influenced and informed by other partici- pants. In this way, no attempt is made to establish validity in the ‘positivist’ sense; rather an evalua- tion can be made regarding the credibility and ‘trustworthiness’ of the written account.

This account of the use of a reflexive diary is not intended to provide a blueprint for other researchers - this would not be in the spirit of postmodernism! It is offered to invite further reflexive debate on the different and creative ways in which we try to make sense of the worlds we construct and inhabit, and ways in which we can explore these processes of making sense.

References

Glaser B. & Strauss A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qtralitative Research. Grune and Stratton, Chicago.

Steier F. (199 1) Research as self-reflexivity, self-reflexivity as social process. In: Reseurch and Ref7exivity (ed. F. Steier). Sage, London.

Strauss A. & Corbin J. (1994) Grounded theory method- ology: an overview. In: Handbook of Qualitative Research (eds N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln). Sage, London.

JANE ANDREWS Research Student

University of Sunderland Sunderland, UK.

Correspondence JANE ANDRE WS 10 Prior Street Darlington Co. Durbum, DL3 9EN.

0 1996 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 3,267-268