Identifying my RRR Question

Earlier this week, I had a thought-provoking discussion with Robbie aimed at identifying my RRR question. While I have not found the final question just yet, the following entry reflects the finding process.

Reflections on RRR session, 15.09.2021:

I was initially so intent on finding “a pattern” across initiatives addressing violence against health professionals (my main research focus) that I was surprised when I discovered that particular voices were missing in the discussion. In this case, the very fact of my surprise was an important realisation for pushing inquiries in the direction of representation and voice, particularly concerning the experiences of Aboriginal Australians. The case thus indicates that “surprise” itself may be an index (or guide) using the method of progressive contextualisation, a method Robbie briefly introduced me to (thank you, Robbie). An obvious point is that the industry experts attending the conference (see previous blog entry) were likely to be seeking answers to different problems (in my previous blog, I referred to them as “technical problems”) and, as such, had very different notions about what is interesting and significant.

Thus the link between “cultural safety” and “intercultural reconciliation” in the context of violence against health professionals may be an exciting discovery to me but, rightly or wrongly, matters of little concern to the experts attending the conference. In fact, it might be a link too apparent for them to see. To this end, Ashton (1977) argues ‘there is a need for research to be addressed more directly to policy-maker’s concerns’. In other words, it might just need an outsider like me to make visible the policy-irrelevant research which seeks to challenge taken-for-granted knowledge. The rationale for this includes the assumption that a superior understanding of the problem of violence against health professionals can be gained if we use the boundaries of privileged knowledge (-production) as the boundaries in which the complexity of the problem presents itself to us.  

By contrast, in using progressive contextualisation, I can start asking critical questions without the disciplinary obligation those health experts seem to deal with. It provides me with the opportunity to pursue the surprising with an open mind – to do so much more straightforward than would be the case in a project/initiative where researchers are asked to work within carefully formulated margins. To sum up my thoughts in the words of Barton and Lazarsfeld (1955): ‘For myself, I depend very much on my naïve feelings of surprise – holding that the most surprising “events” are most worth pursuit.’