The more we get together: The politics of collaborative research between university-based and non university-based researchers

Voice

Researchers make decisions about what codes to settle on and the connections between categories. Researchers also make decisions regarding "which data we include and which we exclude, whose voices we choose to represent and which we do not" (Fontana and Frey, 2000, p.659). In the case of this study, I am aware that I gave the words of one interviewee, Lana, more weight than the words of other participants. There were reasons for this decision. First, Lana was one of the two participants with no academic training and she was clearly presenting a different perspective. I needed to make sure her perspective was represented. Second, I understood her perspective was coming from a place of "less power" in research. She works in a small grassroots organization which does not have core funding, much less ready access to research funds. Indeed, the financial situation of the organization was very precarious during the time of the interview, so much so that her organization closed down a few years later. Furthermore, the mandate of their organization was to work with and for marginalized women. I agreed with Alison Jaggar (1989) in seeing the epistemic privilege of the less powerful and with Sandra Harding (1991) in that the perspective from the less powerful can provide a more critical insight into the status quo than that from the "more powerful". Lana brought to this study the view from the less privileged in research and representing this view required that I allow her more "space" than the other voices were allowed.

Methodological issues

In this section I describe some of the issues that I dealt with in carrying out this project.

Ethical considerations:

Traditionally, discussions about ethical considerations have included three aspects. Informed consent refers to the need to make sure the research participant understands what the project is about and what her role is within that project. Right to privacy refers to the protection of the participant's identity. Protection from harm alludes to the physical and emotional safety of the participant (Fontana and Frey, 2000).