This chapter describes the research
methods I used to source and gather data about Neville’s life work, and the
processes I used in making coherent sense out of the diversity. The chapter
commences with how issues concerning being an insider looking in were resolved.
My data collecting, using a combination of interviewing, archival research,
on-site visits and prolonged action research is discussed. My use of
naturalistic enquiry is outlined. The chapter concludes with a discussion of
the processes I used for data analysis, the steps I took to ensure
trustworthiness, and the theoretical perspectives I used in carrying out
this research.
When I started this thesis I sensed
that I was an insider looking in, and that I had people’s trust. Since the mid
1980’s I had special insider knowledge that an outsider may never be given
clearance to know. I had access to relevant people, and I had had a massive
amount of access to Neville. I sensed that I had a feel for what Neville and
the Laceweb were all about. I knew a lot. When I
started disciplined data gathering towards the PhD in July 1998 I had a concern
that I may be prejudiced, biased and selective in data gathering and analysis,
even with the best will in the world. Any outsiders attempting to do this
research would also bring their biases, presuppositions and prejudgments to the
task. An outsider may never find out about the Laceweb.
People involved are in remote places and go quietly about their work. Laceweb is difficult to recognise even if you are
surrounded by it. Outsiders would have potentially even greater difficulty than
I did in determining Neville’s and Laceweb process.
Outsiders would also have had issues with bias, and what to include and
exclude. It could be said that as an insider, I would be interested in
promoting virtues and downplaying shortcomings. I have a vested interest
because of my close connection to ensure that this research has rigor and
substance. Only a very good thesis would have ‘legitimising’ value. To address
these issues I endeavoured to be simultaneously close and detached. Neville
specifically worked with me on attachment and detachment. Before July 1998 I
was at varying times, by contextual circumstance and intentionally, an insider
and outsider, native and stranger. At times I felt this role fluidity as
emotionally painful, wearing and exhausting (Petford Working Group 1992). After July 1998 this ‘insider looking in’ issue became a
matter of degree and being mindful of the issues. I had a strong drive to have
the thesis methodologically sound; the topic deserved this. It turned
out that I was not the insider I thought I was at the start of this research. I
did not at first realize I had scant knowledge, understanding, or feel of
Neville’s or his father’s way – even though I had been talking and working with
him for twelve years. Neville told me in early 1999 he had felt despair with
some of my pre-thesis writing. He said that my earlier writings outlining Laceweb action did not convey the texture, the feel and the
tentativeness – I was being too definitive. (As examples, Neville’s poem ‘Inma’ starts with ‘There seems to be’ and ends with ‘I
guess’; his poem ‘On Where’ starts with ‘Perhaps’.
For many of the early months of this
thesis I was overwhelmed. There appeared to be a dozen or more possible theses.
Which one was I doing? Focusing on my potential theses, and deciding what I
was, and was not doing, was important.
One of my challenges in this thesis
was how to write so as to not lose or overwhelm the reader or myself. Linked to
this was how I could convey the interconnections – how to weave it all together
meaningfully. The thesis has emerged as something beyond anything I had
contemplated, and it emerged through contemplative action, persistence, and a
lot of challenging work.
I was very aware that everyone I
spoke to who had worked closely with Neville said that his way of working was
incomprehensible. All that they would
say was that he was so fast, that he was way ahead of everybody, and that they
could not fathom how he did it. He would tell me stories about what happened in
the past. However, when I would seek information on how he did things Neville
would not explicate his way. When I would ask him, he would get me to do things
and tell me to read his father’s books.
My challenge was how to explicate
the inexplicable; on this, Martin Heidegger wrote:
To the common
comprehension, the incomprehension is never an occasion to stop and look at its
own powers of comprehension, still less to notice their limitations. To common
comprehension, what is incomprehensible remains merely
offensive – proof enough to such comprehension which is convinced it was born
comprehending everything, that it is now being imposed upon with a sham. The
one thing of which sound common sense is least capable is acknowledgement and
respect (Heidegger 1968, p. 76-77).
I had to move beyond my common sense
and evolve respect for the incomprehensibility I was experiencing in entering
Neville’s strange realities. David Silverman in writing about Castaneda’s
account about entering into a Yaqui Indian, don Juan’s reality, wrote:
Here we have an
account, written in English, which seeks to make a replica of how a Yaqui Indian himself understands his knowledge. Yet the
problematic of the book can in no way express don
Juan’s concerns. For Castaneda must seek to explicate an ‘order of
conceptualisation’ which to don Juan is not at all in need of explication (Silverman 1975, p. 88).
Beyond conceptualising, I was
seeking to understand subject, act and object as a melded phenomenon – Neville
as subject, Neville using his process and the interconnections between all of the vast array of social things he evolved through
action with others. I sense Neville sensed not only that his way was not at all
in need of explication, but also that explication would fail to embrace his
way. His way had to be embodied to be understood and appreciated and once
embodied, would not need explicating. How these challenges were faced unfold in
this research.
I wanted to interact naturally with
informants and not have detailed note taking interfering with my attending.
Taylor and Bogdan estimate that one hour of
interviewing generates around forty pages of typed data (Taylor and Bogdan 1984). Most of the time Neville and I talked very fast. At the
time I tested my speed of thought (timing the internal recall of piece of
writing of known length) at around 650 words a minute without any sense of
rush, and Neville was way faster than me. My guess is that our discussion would
have generated far more than forty pages per hour. Given that I had well in
excess of 150 hours of discussions with Neville, and many hours with other
interviewees, the most appropriate method was note taking rather than tape
recording. As my method, I followed Minichiello, Aroni,
Timewell & Alexander (1995) in relying on memory aided by the briefest note taking. These notes were
also what Burgess calls an ‘aide memoire’ for the
next interview (Burgess 1984).
While speaking by phone I would type
in key words and phrases into my computer in my own shorthand, and type up my
notes more fully directly the call was finished. In face-to-face interviewing,
I made brief notes throughout, concentrating my attention on themes, key words,
incidents, names, and ideas. I jotted these down as they emerged in
conversation.
Typically, I jotted down or recalled
the meanings of remarks rather than verbatim statements. Succinct important
comments were recorded verbatim. I used my own shorthand in note taking. I
always wrote up my notes on a computer within an hour of an
interview/discussion as Minichiello et al recommend (1995). They quote Bogdan and Biklen,
‘Researchers who have mastered the above process can conduct up to two hours of
interview without the use of a tape recorder (Bogdan and Biklen
1982).’ I found I could do this.
During face-to-face interviews with
Neville between 1986 and 1998 I would also take cryptic shorthand. We would
speak for about 40 minutes before a break. I would then download my notes and
recall onto my computer. I would print these notes as my guide for the next 40
minutes. I found that my note taking enabled recording, coding, analysis,
interpretation and emergent design of my research on the run, and gave scope
for analysis and interpretation to be discussed as it emerged with informants.
This allowed commentaries about the mode of discussion, analysis and
interpretation to be exchanged then and there. Links between things were being
discussed as they arose. In using Minichiello et al’s
benchmarks for this note taking mode (1995). It was ‘fair’ to me and interviewees, the data gathering was valid and
effective, and it did aid in analysing the data.
My interviewees were telling
absorbing stories, and describing structure and process that were very
memorable. Listening for key themes and ideas encouraged my attending. With
counselling skills training I had received from Terry O’Neil and Neville’s mentoring,
I had well-developed interviewing and attending competencies. I had been
trained to para-professional status in counselling
and interviewing skills by O’Neil at the La Trobe University Student
Counselling Unit, and had completed 18 months of work as a para-professional
student counsellor at that unit. Terry had modelled his counselling and group
work on his experiences with Neville in Fraser House. Once avid discussion with
my interviewees was in flow, I would use ‘reflecting back comment’, ‘paraphrasing’,
‘summarizing’, ‘para-linguistics’ and ‘minimal
encouragers’ in supporting their flow of consciousness.
As well, Neville and others had
enabled me to be firstly, proficient in information gathering using the NLP
language metamodel (Minichiello, Aroni
et al. 1995) developed by Bandler and Grinder (Bandler and Grinder 1975), and secondly, competent in using Ericksonian
language patterns (Bandler, Grinder et al. 1975;
Grinder, De Lozier et al. 1977; Grinder, Bandler et al. 1981; Hanlon 1987) and patterns evolved by Virginia
Satir (Satir 1967; Satir
1972; Bandler, Grinder et al. 1976; Satir 1983; Satir 1988). I used these competencies in my exchanges with Neville and
my other interviewees to support recall and aid thick description (Geertz 1973). Often Neville and I would be so attuned that we would have
things flow without complete sentences, and we would finish each other’s
sentences as confirmation of empathetic shared understanding. This
notwithstanding, some things I took a long time to comprehend, namely -
community being the therapy, Cultural Keyline, and
that Neville was involved in evolving global epochal transition.
Neville and I had many overlapping
interests. He had competencies I sought to acquire. During the ten years I knew
Neville before commencing this thesis in July 1998, I had many hours of
‘discussions’ with Neville that were informal, prolonged, in-depth research
interviews/dialogues. This was a mutually desired and supported process. We did
little by way of social talk unless it was networking related. In fact for
social exchange, Neville preferred the company of others, not me.
Minichiello et al (1995, p. 81) define in-depth interviewing as:
….conversation with a purpose – a conversation between researcher and
informant focusing on the informant’s perception of self, life and experience,
and expressed in his or her own words. It is the means by which the researcher can gain access to and
subsequently understand the private interpretations of social reality that
individuals hold.
My use of in-depth interviewing is
consistent with my naturalistic inquiry frame and use of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967).
Before I began the research, prolonged interviews were held face-to-face
with Neville when I stayed with him firstly, in Bondi
Junction, New South Wales (1988-89), secondly in Yungaburra,
Queensland (Dec in 1991, 1992 and 1993, and July, 1994) and thirdly, in Rapid
Creek, Darwin (Feb, 1993). These face-to-face interviews were daily and
sustained, often lasting all day and well into the night. A couple of times in Yungaburra I stayed for a fortnight. I stayed a week in
When I commenced the thesis in July
1998, Neville and I agreed that interviews would be by phone and typically four
times a week. By common agreement we worked better on the phone. Phone calls
were typically around two hours or longer. In 1999, the holding of interviews
was dependent on Neville’s pain levels from his bladder cancer, and during this
period, we generally had discussions one or two nights a week. During 1999
discussion length was generally between thirty to sixty minutes. During the
phone interviews I typed on the computer as we talked. The bulk of the time we
would have unstructured discussion and storytelling themes, rather than
question and answer. It emerged that thematic discussion was a fundamental
aspect of Fraser House change process (Yeomans, N. 1965a, Vol
. 4, p. 50 - 54). My notes referred mainly to discussion themes rather than
specific questions and answers.
Most of these in-depth interviews
were recording Neville’s life history, with storytelling a large part (Minichiello, Aroni
et al. 1995, Chap. 7). These stories related to Fraser House, Fraser House
Outreach, and the Laceweb. We constantly jumped
around in time. Neville very much saw his life action as emergent,
interdependent and inter-related (Minichiello, Aroni
et al. 1995, p. 152).
I was endeavouring to enter
Neville’s socially constituted world’s through his ‘precariously negotiated
subjective views of it’ (Minichiello, Aroni
et al. 1995, p. 152), the stuff of Poole’s ‘intersubjectivity’
– my experiencing of Neville’s experiencing of my experiencing of him (Poole 1972). These discussions did involve a mutual inter-subjective
exchange of information (Minichiello, Aroni
et al. 1995, p. 179) - what Neville called co-learning. This in turn has
resonance with Gergen’s writing about meaning being
jointly negotiated. ‘Its meaning and implications are open to continuous
reshaping as relationships proceed (Gergen 2005).’ This is the way Neville and I related, and it was also a
frame I used throughout the research.
Often Neville would initiate a new
theme. During a December 1991 Yungaburra
conversation, Neville mentioned that he had adapted his father’s Keyline in evolving Fraser House and extending Fraser House
ways into the wider community. During that conversation Neville referred to his
Keyline adaptation as ‘Cultural Keyline’.
In December 1992, Neville told me
the story of his being lost as a three year old and his near death experience.
The conversation flowed to his second near death with the grass fire. This led
to a discussion about the evolving of his life quest. I had not heard of these
aspects being related to Neville’s psychiatric work before. Even then, from
December 1993, with so much storytelling and discussion going on, I did not realize
till around mid 1999 that up till that time I had so filtered my hearing
through my prejudices and preconceptions that I had understood little of what
Neville was saying. During 1998 and early 1999 I was still seeking to
find out the ‘change process’ that was used in Fraser House. I was still
thinking in terms of, ‘an expert using therapy techniques on the mentally ill’
frame. Neville had told me time and again that the change process was
‘self-help’ and ‘mutual help’ and that ‘community’ was the therapy. For
all this telling, I was still thinking – ‘Yes! But what was the real change
process? I was a slow learner.
Neville never spoon-fed me with him
telling me, as ‘fount of all wisdom’ what to do. He would set me challenges and
tasks.[1]
When Neville and I were together in Laceweb contexts
he would never do something if I could do it myself. I now know he was creating
contexts for me to embody learning. By the time I started my thesis,
Neville was in his Seventies and said his memory was failing. However, I
suspect that often he followed his Fraser House protocol, ‘give the tasks to
those who have no experience, so they learn by doing with support’.
Sometimes he could have told me things. Instead he let me find things out from
my interviewees and then he would respond to my crosschecking with him about
what I had found out from others.
Apart from Neville, my first thesis interviewees were ex-Fraser House
staffers Warwick Bruen and Phil Chilmaid.
I had an interview with Bruen and Chilmaid
in October 1998, and further interviews with each of them in March, June and
July in 1999. Chilmaid was a Fraser House head
charge-nurse who continued at
I commenced my first two interviews
with both Bruen and Chilmaid
with a series of questions that focused on the specifics of the structure and
process of Fraser House. As the interviews progressed, discussion became more
unstructured. I realized some time after the second interview I had with each
of them that many of my questions were based on incorrect or naive assumptions.
For example, I had asked a lot of questions relating to the ‘change process’ at Fraser House. I was continually returning to
asking about the kinds of therapy and change processes that were used. ‘Was it
Gestalt? Was it Behaviour Modification? The response I kept getting was, ‘It
was not like that’. After the first two interviews with both of them, I was
still confused about the nature of the change process. Neville had already told
me the changes processes many times in many ways. Therapeutic community was
the process. I had not heard! He said to read his father’s books on sustainable
agriculture and read his archival material.
The first reading of the books and
archives left me none the wiser. That ‘experiencing and reconnecting in new
ways with a peculiarly ‘total’ community’ was the reconstituting process was
not initially conveyed by my reading of Neville and Alf Clark’s book. At this
time I had not read the