Where do I start with ethics! Sure my research has of course gone through an ethical procedure with Metanoia ethics committee and passed. But this does not really address the whole question of ethics - not for me anyway.
I am asking my participants to tell me their very personal stories, of their experience growing up in the Exclusive Brethren. Then I am taking those stories, transcribing them into written form (thus losing a lot of information) and then analysing them and interpreting the meanings. But it doesn't stop there for I then turn my interpretation of their stories into written (the thesis and published papers) and spoken form (conference presentations). At the end of all this, will they even recognise the stories as theirs. How will they feel when they read my interpretation of what I have heard? Will they feel betrayed, let down by me. Will they feel a sense of intrusion into their private lives. Will the consent they gave me to use their stories, really be informed consent? How could they know what I would do with their tales.
I feel a huge sense of responsibility - what will the repercussions be for my participants on a personal psychological level but also in terms of their relationships with the people they talked about and in terms of any legal activity by the brethren themselves. Which leads me to wonder yet again - why are the brethren so terribly afraid of those of us who write about them. Why should they fear us. They seem to fear us for why else would they spend thousands of pounds on sending lawyer's letters to some of us.
But I was talking about ethics and thinking about the possible consequences of this research on my participants. And who exactly do their stories belong to!
Monday, 16 June 2014
Thursday, 12 June 2014
The dreaded -ologies
I find it strange that I struggle so much to grasp the concepts of ontology and epistemology. Part of this is due to a lack of usage - we learn what words mean by using them. But even when people explain these two words to me I just cannot grasp their meaning. Or can I. With a little help I have put this together for inclusion in the thesis. I hope it works, makes sense and uses those two words correctly. Please note this a draft - it may well change through a number of iterations!
And
we’re the corner-stone of Christianity. We demonstrate it through separation
from the world, and there’s nothing more wonderful, there’s nothing more
beautiful or wonderful or attractive than the truth of separation.
Fellowship Meeting
in Sydney, Bruce Hales. 17 November 2012)
The Hales Exclusive Brethren, like most high
demand groups whether religious or secular, believe that they have The Truth.
This truth is absolute. Doubting or questioning this, considering other
perspectives is frowned on and leads to damnation. There can be no questioning.
A doubt will lead to darkness. If
I have some doubt about where the Lord is in the testimony, some doubt about
the truth of separation, some doubt about the glory of the Lord's Supper and
our assemblings, and our stand by the truth, that doubt could lead to a
darkness, then the darkness overtakes you.
Fellowship Meeting at Barbados. Bruce Hales.
Friday, July 27, 2012
The ontological position of the brethren is
that God exists and God demands separation from evil (as interpreted by them).
This position is based on a fundamental belief in the absolute inerrancy of the
Bible. These ontological and epistemological positions were inculcated into me
during my formative years. It took me many decades to break free from them. My stance
now is that there is no absolute truth, God does not necessarily exist and from
my learning via many sources, modes of thinking and experiencing, ‘He’ certainly does not demand separation from
all non-Brethren - a far cry from what I was taught as a child. I now take a
constructionist-interpretive stance. I am interested in how meaning comes into
existence and believe that experiences are shaped by cultural, historical and
social influences. Retrospective accounts are not absolute facts therefore,
though the individual doing the story telling may see them as real and absolute.
This epistemological stance leads naturally to a qualitative methodology and
combined with the natural tendency for former members to tell stories, also led
me to the narrative approach.
So readers - comments welcome.
Friday, 6 June 2014
The Melbourne experience
I am in Melbourne visiting my daughter. At least twice a week I go in to the office with her and use one of the desks to work. The idea being that doing this will help structure my time and allow me to work on the thesis. It is not so easy to get distracted here by things that 'need to be done'.
However, it is proving difficult.
I have been musing lately on one issue that troubles me. A lot of former members seem to believe that before 1960 everything in the garden was pretty rosy. But this is actually not true and to say such things is to dismiss the experience of those whose childhood was in the 40s and 50s like mine was. Ok so we did not have all the directives - that lost list of rules but actually is it harder or easier to live in a group that has clear explicit rules like that? I suggest it is easier because at least you know what the rules are. When the rules are implicit and often unspoken how does a child know what it is allowed to do or not do - how can it learn to set its own boundaries?
The brethren have been dividing families almost since the groups inception as evidenced by some of the 19th Century writers. So that is not new though it is more frequent and possibly much harsher than back then. Separation has always been a key doctrine and whether or not a child is affected by it during the crucial years of its development depends not just on the brethren era but also on its parents - were they strictly religious or spiritual? If strictly religious this may mean that the child is heavily constrained as to what it can and can't do, think or not think, feel or not feel. I heard only today of another former member of the brethren, who is older than I am, so brought up in the 30s and he told me his mother was strictly religious and he seems to have had similar experiences to me.
I am wondering if I interview someone from that era whether similar themes will emerge in his or her life story. I have already interviewed a man born the same year as I was and his experiences were different in that he was encouraged to think about things as a child. But other things he talked about resonate.
See I said I was musing.... but that is what this space is for. What it is not for is for anyone to take what I write and use it against me. Thoughts are embryonic often and they go through many iterations. What I write today may be different to what I write tomorrow.
However, it is proving difficult.
I have been musing lately on one issue that troubles me. A lot of former members seem to believe that before 1960 everything in the garden was pretty rosy. But this is actually not true and to say such things is to dismiss the experience of those whose childhood was in the 40s and 50s like mine was. Ok so we did not have all the directives - that lost list of rules but actually is it harder or easier to live in a group that has clear explicit rules like that? I suggest it is easier because at least you know what the rules are. When the rules are implicit and often unspoken how does a child know what it is allowed to do or not do - how can it learn to set its own boundaries?
The brethren have been dividing families almost since the groups inception as evidenced by some of the 19th Century writers. So that is not new though it is more frequent and possibly much harsher than back then. Separation has always been a key doctrine and whether or not a child is affected by it during the crucial years of its development depends not just on the brethren era but also on its parents - were they strictly religious or spiritual? If strictly religious this may mean that the child is heavily constrained as to what it can and can't do, think or not think, feel or not feel. I heard only today of another former member of the brethren, who is older than I am, so brought up in the 30s and he told me his mother was strictly religious and he seems to have had similar experiences to me.
I am wondering if I interview someone from that era whether similar themes will emerge in his or her life story. I have already interviewed a man born the same year as I was and his experiences were different in that he was encouraged to think about things as a child. But other things he talked about resonate.
See I said I was musing.... but that is what this space is for. What it is not for is for anyone to take what I write and use it against me. Thoughts are embryonic often and they go through many iterations. What I write today may be different to what I write tomorrow.
Saturday, 8 February 2014
Career Ex-member
I was at the INFORM conference last weekend. One of the more interesting papers was from two researchers who were considering different categories of members of New Religious Movements and former members of same.
One of these categories was 'Career ex-member'. They used a disparaging tone when they talked about this category which made me feel bothered so I spent some time thinking about this.
At the end therefore I spoke. I said:
"I think you would put me in the category of Career Ex-member though it is not so much my choice but feels like something that has been foisted on me. Be that as it may I was wondering if this category, which you seemed to talk about in negative terms as if it was something bad. needs more clarification and that maybe anyway it is all on a continuum and is not categorical at all. If I reflect on why, at the moment, I seem to fall into this category I had these thoughts:
Am I doing this because I want revenge? Answer: No, not my style
Am I doing this because I want to bring the Exclusive brethren down? Answer: No definitely not
Am I doing this for money? Answer: Fat chance.
Having exhausted all the reasons that people usually throw at me who do not understand why I am doing what I am doing, I asked myself 'so why do you do it' ,
My answer is very simple - it is because I have a strong sense of social justice and there have been so many injustices perpetrated by this particular NRM. Just maybe my research can help put things right.
I then suggested that they might like to reconsider their classifications.
They did not really reply but I could see that they took what I said on board. And afterwards several people came up to me thanking me for my comments.
I am not after revenge - I am not that kind of person. I do not want the brethren to implode because that would be 45000 people who would suffer too much with the change. But I do want social justice and the brethren have conceded that they have made mistakes and will make amends.
It is simply not right, not just, not christian for families to be kept apart, for former members to be prevented from knowing when their relatives die and from attending the funerals, or for children to be denied access to higher education to follow the careers they wish to pursue. That is my opinion.
One of these categories was 'Career ex-member'. They used a disparaging tone when they talked about this category which made me feel bothered so I spent some time thinking about this.
At the end therefore I spoke. I said:
"I think you would put me in the category of Career Ex-member though it is not so much my choice but feels like something that has been foisted on me. Be that as it may I was wondering if this category, which you seemed to talk about in negative terms as if it was something bad. needs more clarification and that maybe anyway it is all on a continuum and is not categorical at all. If I reflect on why, at the moment, I seem to fall into this category I had these thoughts:
Am I doing this because I want revenge? Answer: No, not my style
Am I doing this because I want to bring the Exclusive brethren down? Answer: No definitely not
Am I doing this for money? Answer: Fat chance.
Having exhausted all the reasons that people usually throw at me who do not understand why I am doing what I am doing, I asked myself 'so why do you do it' ,
My answer is very simple - it is because I have a strong sense of social justice and there have been so many injustices perpetrated by this particular NRM. Just maybe my research can help put things right.
I then suggested that they might like to reconsider their classifications.
They did not really reply but I could see that they took what I said on board. And afterwards several people came up to me thanking me for my comments.
I am not after revenge - I am not that kind of person. I do not want the brethren to implode because that would be 45000 people who would suffer too much with the change. But I do want social justice and the brethren have conceded that they have made mistakes and will make amends.
It is simply not right, not just, not christian for families to be kept apart, for former members to be prevented from knowing when their relatives die and from attending the funerals, or for children to be denied access to higher education to follow the careers they wish to pursue. That is my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)