‘Collegial Accountability’ and Bias: The Solution or the Problem?

Abstract

In a recent debate about bias in social research, Hammersley and Gomm (1997) discuss error, and bias as a form of error, as ʽa matter of collegial accountabilityʼ. They argue that radical epistemologies are a growing threat to the research community. Only by using such a community to decide what is reasonable can researchers avoid the threatened slip into the abyss. This threat is illustrated for the authors by, for example, the growing emphasis on the role of users of services by funding agencies.For those researchers who have struggled to be heard within academic life, the desire to install a single community as judges of research is a step backwards. The evaluation criteria used for research have been narrowly defined by some researchers within that community. Feminists, amongst others, have been trying to widen the definitions of validity. The desire to return to an authoritative voice, a particular and restricted group of 'colleagues' in Hammersley and Gomm's case, constitutes the threat rather than the solution for those researchers. It assumes that these colleagues speak for everyone and are only accountable to themselves. In this article I examine the way in which Hammersley and Gomm (1997) have set up the debate with feminist researchers. I then go on to discuss the notion of ʽthe research communityʼ and the assumptions the authors make about the criteria for evaluating research. I finish by introducing an alternative way of being accountable which involves opening up dialogue with a wider audience.

‘Claims and Disclaimers: Knowledge, Reflexivity and Representation in Feminist Research’

“…Feminist research has political aims: it aims to effect social change, and my respondents wanted me to tell it 'how it is'. My work represents my interpretation of 'how it is' rather than a matter of simple reportage and I agree with Temple (1997) who argues that:…”

‘The Researcher, the Field and the Issue of Entry: Two Cases of Ethnographic Research concerning Asylums in Greece’

“…This implies that the fact that a person has the right to speak publicly (i.e. in an interview) is not a simple issue of methodological significance but also an issue of structurally conferred authority (Temple, 1997;Collins 1998;Scott, 1998).…”

“…These 'technical difficulties' constitute integral elements of the field. In these methodological fallacies we can detect the grounding of a general exhortation to take advantage of 'bias' (Temple, 1997).…”

“…1.15 This taking advantage of 'bias' should not be overlooked or simply downgraded to the status of 'sampling problem' (Kaufmann, 1996, p. 66;Guibert & Jumel, 1997, pp. 100-124;Temple, 1997). It should not also be posed to a mere unscientific issue that does not concern or does not influence the final research result, for the social world is neither a ready-made entity waiting 'out there' to be discovered; nor a monolithic and static reality that is irrelevant or indifferent to the interpretative schemes or the actions of the agents involved [2] .…”

“…The possible solution to this problem is to declare your stand and strive to be as honest and open as possible while maintaining a very explicit methodological approach that specifies its presuppositions and concessions (Evans, 1993, pp. 5-13;Temple, 1997;Collins, 1998;Scott, 1998).…”