The ethics of interpretation: the signifying chain from field to analysis

Abstract

This paper attempts to describe the relationship between the embodied practice of fieldwork and the written articulation of this experience. Starting from Valerie Hey's conceptualization of ‘rapport’ as form of ‘intersubjective synergy’, a moment of recognition of similarity within difference – similar in structure to Laclau and Moufffe's conceptualization of hegemony – the paper explores how we can understand these moments of recognition as positioned within a complex web of signifying chains that interlink social, psychic and linguistic means of representation. Laclau and Mouffe's logics of equivalence and difference and Lacan's account of the production of meaning through metaphor and metonymy provide a theoretical language through which to explore chains of meaning in two fragments of data drawn from a study comparing disciplines and institutions in higher education. My argument is that an awareness of these processes of production of meaning is necessary to the development of an ethical mode of interpretation.

Acknowledgements

Jill Brown, Jenny Parkes and Natasha Whiteman helped me greatly in the writing of this paper, as did Valerie Hey. I would also like to thank reviewers for their very helpful comments.

Notes

1. Not his real name.

2. When I had finished my research I sent a summary to all my participants. For the tutors, I also included a contents list, suggesting that they should ask if they would like me to send them any of the chapters. One of the tutors did not respond, and, when I bumped into her some months later, apologized for not having read what I had sent her. Another tutor e-mailed to suggest we meet to chat about some of the points I had raised, which we did, and had a useful discussion. The third tutor responded very quickly, saying he was disappointed by some of the things I had said about his discipline, and offered to clarify some points with me. He also requested that I send him a chapter, and when I had done so, expressing my interest in his views, did not respond again. Duncan was the most enthusiastic in his initial response to the summary. He e-mailed to say he thought it looked like an excellent thesis, and mentioned several points that he had thought particularly interesting. He also asked me to send him the chapter dealing with the American Literature classes. I was uncomfortable about sending the chapter, because I was aware that it included some interpretations of Duncan's practice that he might perceive as professionally or personally critical. Nevertheless, I sent the chapter, along with a badly worded e-mail that, instead of explaining the possibility that he might not like what I had produced, simply re-asserted my admiration of his teaching. Duncan responded, thanking me for my compliments, and saying he would certainly read the chapter, when he was a little less busy, and that he was sure he would have some comments when he had. He finished by saying he would be happy to help me again at some point in the future. I did not hear from him. The silence from both of the participants who read chapters of the thesis is, in the scariest sense, imponderable. It raises serious ethical questions about the responsibility that we take on when we recontextualize participants’ practice into the framework of our research. Our interpretations set up new chains of signification that have complicated and unpredictable ethical, emotional and political effects.