Three things I learnt at an international qualitative methods conference

I recently attended the IIQM Qualitative Methods conference in my home city of Brisbane. It was the best conference I have ever been to.* And the first methods conference I have been to. Having people from so many disciplines and backgrounds (uncommon at my usual health and medical conferences), I think, cultivated an atmosphere of intellectual curiosity and respectfulness.

I could have written a much longer list of what I learnt at this fantastic conference but for the sake of a concise blog post (I know you are busy!), I’ve narrowed it to three:

1. It’s important to plan how you will end your relationship with participants.

In my research, I have worked hard to form relationships with participants as both a sign of respect for their contribution and to help them feel comfortable to share their stories. But I am embarrassed to say, that I have thought little about what happens after the research is over. (To be fair, I haven’t been involved in a qualitative project that involved ongoing data collection.)  

Dr Katie Brooker shared her experience of ending a research project with adults who have an intellectual disability. She had a coffee-and-cake celebration with each of her participants to mark the end of their working relationship of about 6-9 months, but still found herself in contact with some participants for many months after (which she didn’t seem to mind). PhD candidate, Louisa Choe, spoke about how she had no intention of withdrawing from her participants (teenage girls living with homelessness), stating that these relationships may naturally dissolve over time or not.

(Side note: Louisa made a fantastic comment about the concept of resilience that hit a nerve for several of us in the audience. She is careful to never describe the girls in her study as ‘resilient’ because resilience wasn’t something they have a choice about. I then read this fantastic article about ‘community resilience’ and am now rethinking a lot about the concept of resilience.)

2. Photovoice: A research method to capture what words can’t.

I went to a fantastic session on the use of photos in qualitative research. Tricia King’s PhD research with aged care residents included the use of both personal photos and new photos taken by Tricia as directed by the residents. (I know this my privilege and age speaking, but it had never previously occurred to me how precious a physical photo may be to someone who didn’t grow up with camera phones, cloud storage and instant photo printing). Tricia’s use of photos fostered conversation and relationships between her and the residents, and among the residents as a group (some of whom had not been previously social). Collectively, they then organised a community photo exhibition to share what their lives are like with family and friends, the staff, and community leaders. Thoughtful, creative research having an impact!

I also enjoyed Prof Sylvie Levesque’s presentation on the use of photovoice with women who had experienced reproductive coercion. The women took photos to capture and share some of repercussions they had experienced from men perpetrating this coercion. (Some participants suggested that this was, in a way, re-traumatising for them – an important consideration when thinking of using this method.) Another fascinating presentation was Dr Janelle MacKenzie’s on the use of photos to understand what it is that people like about suburban parks, to inform their design.

3. Research, as we currently do it, is colonising.

This was the biggest take home from the conference for me. The research we practice in universities is almost always colonising, as Dr Lynette Riley and Dr Emma Webster eloquently outlined in their joint micro keynote. Dr Webster summed this up with an epiphany she had when hearing another PhD candidate present on de-colonising research methods: “…the very process of doing research was in itself colonising in that axiology, ontology, epistemology, methodology and methods were at odds with Aboriginal peoples and culture.”

Dr Riley presented the below comparison of the Aboriginal community engagement process and the Western research process:

Two key points I took from this were:  

• Start a project by forming relationships and asking questions rather than assuming to know what the problem is and how to investigate it
• Work as a collective rather than conforming to the Western research ideal of a hierarchy

Another striking point for me was Dr Webster’s observation that, for her Indigenous colleagues, something bad happening at work affected their whole identity and potentially their community. However, this would likely only affect her professional identity.

An interesting side note is that the conference was attended by maybe 90% women, relating to a previous comment I’ve made about the potentially gendered nature of qualitative research. Something to think about!

All in all it was a fantastic conference that I left with several ideas for future research to be done with a difference and to make a difference.

Kate 

* The organisers did a stellar job with a few creative organisational touches I haven’t seen at a conference before. I particularly liked how the poster sessions were run: only about 10 per session—instead of an ocean of posters for the whole conference duration—with 1 minute poster pitches conducted by the authors at the beginning of the day. I also really liked that they had the hotel ballroom open for lunches. The circular tables made it easy to plonk yourself down next to a group of strangers and strike up a conversation. I met some fabulous people this way.

Image: Death to the Stock Photo