Abstract
This paper presents a methodological dilemma I experienced during my fieldwork at an elementary school characterized by zero-tolerance discipline policies. The methodological literature recommends that researchers avoid interacting with students from positions of authority. Thornberg (2008) refers to this approach as the “least possible adult”, while Mandell (1988) describes it as the “least adult role.” While this approach allowed me to establish good relationships with students, trying to be this “least adult” in the context of zero tolerance discipline, I also often experienced the balance between least-adult researcher and most-adult disciplinarian as a kind of tightrope walk: from students’ point of view, my ideal role was that of the non-seeing adult. From my perspective, I needed and wanted the kids’ rapport but not at the cost of surrendering ethical responsibilities. To further complicate the situation, I had to reconcile these considerations with the rapport I needed from teachers and the administration. After all, my entire fieldwork depended on the principal’s continued willingness to allow me at her school, and the teachers’ willingness to allow me in their classrooms. The ideal “me” would have never enforced any rules from the point of view of the kids, and always enforced all rules from the perspective of the teachers. When fieldwork success depends on the cooperation of the researcher with different groups whose interests and agendas are often contradictory – even irreconcilable at times – we have to be skilled diplomats and negotiators, weighing each group’s interests and carefully balancing them with our own.
Digital Media
This presenter hasn’t added media.
Request media and follow this presentation.
