Oh, what a tangled web we weave: experiences of doing ‘multiple perspectives’ research in families

Abstract

It is not uncommon to explore the views of parents and children in qualitative research with families. Yet the implications and challenges of a multiple perspective approach often remain at a relatively taken‐for‐granted level. In this article we draw on our experience across a range of qualitative interview‐based projects, focusing in particular on two case studies, to illustrate the practical working out of the challenges posed by multiple perspective research in families. The implications of research with parents and children are discussed in relation to two themes – power and truth. This discussion reflects on the challenges and benefits of multiple perspective research at different points in the research process. It is not the intention of this article to try to provide definitive ‘answers’ to some of the challenges posed. Rather we aim to open up discussion by reflecting on a range of scenarios, offering suggestions based on our experience, and so, allow the reader to reflect on the particularities of their own research.

Keywords:

• multiple perspectives
• family research
• qualitative

Notes

1. For interesting discussions of multiple perspectives within individual accounts, see Power (2004) and Watson (2006).

2. In the research we refer to, the families were all situated within households.

3. CARA was the acronym for the Children and Risk Anxiety project ‘The Impact of Risk and Parental Risk Anxiety on the Everyday Worlds of Children,’ ESRC 1997–1999 (S. Scott, S. Jackson, K. Milburn and J. Harden).

4. WFL is the acronym for the ‘Work and Family Lives: The Changing Experience of “Young” Families,’ part of the ESRC funded Timescapes study, a qualitative longitudinal research consortium bringing together seven projects exploring family life at across time (K. Backett‐Milburn, S. Cunningham Burley, J. Harden, L. Jamieson, and A. MacLean). http://www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk

5. In cases where a different space in the house was suggested, the researcher did not probe the reason for the choice of room. Interviewing children in their bedrooms does raise ethical concerns and can also be considered as posing potential risks for the researcher. The space where interviews are conducted should be one in which everyone feels at ease, including the researcher.

6. Some of these are concerned with ways that could be helpful to researchers, e.g., designed to facilitate communication, reflection on emergent themes, and so on. Other methods would be less appropriate in research, such as the use of confrontation and paradoxical instructions (Dallos & Draper, 2005). Moreover, some of the assumptions common in family therapy, such as regarding the family in systemic terms, may be closely aligned to certain family research but stand in tension with other approaches that emphasize individual standpoints or voices.