View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

Chapter Eleven – A Critical Reflection on the Study – Page 321
in these two settings, other than a passing initial self-consciousness. In accordance with
experience over many years in clinical settings, this seemed to resolve rapidly.
Attentiveness to speech and interactional contexts
This is a distinguishing feature and strength of the research method, group-analytic
ethnography, and would almost certainly be rapidly evident to a communication analyst
in a consideration of the manner in which group analytic therapy groups are conducted.
In the case of this project, the design was not such that the researcher ‘interpreted in’,
sharing research observations with the other participants. However, professional
observations (that is, those aimed at the performance of the primary task, the teaching
and learning of psychoanalytic psychotherapy, and made by the researcher in his role as
tutor) were occasionally offered by both staff. These professional observations also have
research value.
Multiple modes of data collection
This project had a lot of experiential richness typical of ethnographic fieldwork. Data
was collected on audiotapes, in written documents, from informal conversations, from
participation in the group with the other participants and outside of the group with the
other tutor, from membership of the professional community and of the wider
community, and from reflection on those experiences in various settings and at
distances in time from the main fieldwork.
It is also important that there are many sources of data which were not considered.
These are considered under ‘Respondent validation’ and ‘Feedback from outsiders’
below, because that is what these sources mainly are. These tactics are relevant to the
objectivity of this study, but not to the veracity.