We mainly discussed my experiences during the pilot study. I brought up a point that recurred a few times. After a couple of the interviews with staff, I wondered if I should correct misconceptions in a tactful way during the interview, or let them go?
I initially found it difficult to make a distinction between me as the researcher, and me as the teacher. I chose to clarify an Article, later on in on of the interviews, and slipped in a comment on the difference between rights, wants and needs, at another point, but felt unsure if I should have done this. Was it my place as the interviewer to also respond to 'teachable moments'?
Chris helped me understand my position by talking about the distinction between Action Research where you set out to change something from within, and as such would involve an aspect of teaching and learning in a study. Having to date only ever carried out research in my own settings, this is where I was struggling to detach myself from my role as a teacher and take on a role as a researcher only.
Therefore, as my study is not Action Research and not about change per se, then there is not a teaching element to it. A way to try to bring attention to a misconception for further elaboration could however be by saying “that’s interesting” and repeat back what the participant has said to make sure I have understood it right and as a way of getting the participant to elaborate a bit more about the issue. In other words, I am trying to clarify the misconception but I am not there to correct the participant(s) as such and ‘teach’ about rights.
I did rework the A4 Articles Summary sheet to be a bit more informative after one of the participants felt it was a great resource, but the initial one was not detailed enough, as the misinterpretation of one of the Articles indicated.
Other interesting experiences were discussed too and we also briefly discussed my EECERA presentation and how to approach it.
