05/06/2010 by lizit.

An issue I have been tussling with for some time in my mind concerns confidentiality in auto/biography. Merrill and West discuss some the extent to which it is possible to disguise the identities of people, especially where sensitive material is being shared and recognise that although a number of identifying factors can be changed, it is not possible to hide identity completely from those who know the participant well.

Chrissie Rogers draws attention to a further issue in discussing her daughter: “there were some occasions where anonymity was impossible: those involving my daughter. I have talked to her about this research and her inclusion (which she agreed to), and I do not apologise for the lack of anonymity here because unlike children in general, many of whom become ‘able’ adults, she, like many of the participants’ children, will never be able to ‘tell’ her story via this particular medium.”

Liz Stanley describes the interaction between constructing one’s own autobiography and constructing the biographies of others. My story is made up of other people’s stories, just as my story is incorporated in the stories of others. The moment I declare myself as the mother of a son with Asperger’s syndrome, our stories interconnect. As I talk about experiences throughout his childhood, he becomes more of a person and more recognisable and identifiable. Unlike Chrissie’s daughter, my son is in the process of becoming an ‘able’ adult.

What are my options?

I can seek his permission for what I am doing? But how free is he to refuse - and if he does, where does that leave me?

I can consider whether I can tell my story in any meaningful way while airbrushing him out.

I can focus on the stories of others and seek to silence myself.

I can disguise my identity so as to disguise his - but how can I do this effectively?

Is even writing this blog post, and no doubt some of my previous ones, already going too far? Indeed, have I already gone too far in the many forum postings I have made over the years?

Merrill, B., & West, L. (2009). Using Biographical Methods in Social Research. London: Sage.
Rogers, C. (2007). Parenting and Inclusive Education: Discovering Difference, Experiencing Difficulty. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Stanley, L. (1992). The Auto/Biographical I. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Posted in biography, ethics | Print | 1 Comment »

03/06/2010 by lizit.

I’m reading Merrill and West’s book on using biographical methods and working through the first set of transcriptions. Perhaps inevitably, there is a lot of stuff going on in my head.

Perhaps one of the key learning points is seeing just how much my own perspective colours how I understand others. I was working on one of the transcriptions yesterday and can see very much the psychodynamics of the interaction and why I found it so difficult. At the same time, I can see how in other interactions, transference was working differently with me feeling far more positive about the exchange.

I am interested by the section on analysis - and the different ways in which Merrill and West approach the task. West’s use of the gestalt - a holistic approach - resonates with me, but I can also see how looking at the parts can be useful, as long as this does not become mechanistic when key ideas and insights can be lost within a category rather than the significance being recognised.

Perhaps because I am reading other people’s stories, I am also returning to my own. Although this stems as well from my attempts at diagramming the autistic spectrum domain, I found myself remembering the nightmare scenario of the only respite that could be offered to a troubled young man was a police cell - and having mental health workers in my house telling me I had no option but to ring the police as they had no appropriate provision (and they were from the tier 4 regional mental health services!). There is something totally wrong about a child acquiring a criminal record - a formal warning - for behaviour within the home stemming directly from a neurological condition.

But that points to the complexity of the domain. It may well be that it is possible to envision the people working as a community of practice, but the people come from different organisations and each organisation has its own procedures, systems and structures and each is involved in making available or rationing scare resources. A person might well see the relevance of making a particular provision, but that person also has a role within a system and…. Maybe it is easier and safer for those employed to care for and support people on the spectrum not to know too much about systems and organisations other than their own. Maybe too, this is when I have to look again at the work of Harry Daniels and Anne Edwards…

Merrill, B., & West, L. (2009). Using Biographical Methods in Social Research. London: Sage.
Edwards, A., Daniels, H., Gallagher, T., Leadbetter, J., & Warmington, P. (2009). Improving Inter-professional Collaborations: Multi-agency working for children’s wellbeing. London: Routledge.
Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (2010). Activity Theory in Practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. London: Routledge.

Posted in biography, systems, community of practice, Aspergers/HFA, narratives, reflections | Print | 1 Comment »