What happens when research goes wrong, or at least, is perceived to go wrong? How do researchers manage, or indeed fail to manage, the unexpected, and what new intellectual developments might be made possible through engagement with ‘failures’? Jason Hughes, Anna Tarrant, Kahryn Hughes and Grace Sykes discuss these questions, as part of a forthcoming edited collection, called F**k Ups in Social Research: What to do when Research Goes Wrong. Here they explore the value of failure in research and the importance of crafting a critical and reflexive space for learning when social research doesn’t go to plan

Hughes, Jason

Hughes, Kahryn

Sykes, Grace

Tarrant, Anna

English

LSE Research Online

F**k	Ups	in	Social	Research:	Learning	from	what	goes‘wrong’What	happens	when	research	goes	wrong,	or	at	least,	is	perceived	to	go	wrong?	How	do	researchers	manage,	orindeed	fail	to	manage,	the	unexpected,	and	what	new	intellectual	developments	might	be	made	possible	throughengagement	with	‘failures’?	Jason	Hughes,	Anna	Tarrant,	Kahryn	Hughes	and	Grace	Sykes	discuss	thesequestions,	as	part	of	a	forthcoming	edited	collection,	called	F**k	Ups	in	Social	Research:	What	to	do	whenResearch	Goes	Wrong.	Here	they	explore	the	value	of	failure	in	research	and	the	importance	of	crafting	a	criticaland	reflexive	space	for	learning	when	social	research	doesn’t	go	to	plan.Keen	to	use	participatory	methods	as	part	of	the	‘Men,	Poverty	and	Lifetimes	of	Care’	(MPLC)	study,	Anna	wantedto	explore	the	possibilities	of	‘Photovoice’.	Photovoice	consists	of	using	digital	cameras	to	enable	the	mostmarginalised	to	tell	their	stories	their	way.	As	part	of	this	research	methodology	Anna	bought	and	offered	digitalcameras	to	her	participants.	To	her	surprise,	only	5	of	her	24	participants	agreed	to	take	part.	Four	of	the	fiveagreed	to	take	photos	using	the	digital	camera	provided,	which	proved	valuable	in	subsequent	interviews.	However,the	fifth,	a	couple,	did	not.	Not	only	did	they	not	take	photographs	but,	when	Anna	texted	the	couple	to	see	if	shecould	retrieve	the	camera,	the	woman,	Jane,	replied	that	she	had	given	the	camera	to	her	social	workers.	Anna	hadnot	accessed	Jane	through	social	services,	she	had	not	met	Jane’s	social	worker,	and	nor	was	the	social	workerinvolved	in	the	study	in	any	way.	Anna’s	initial	reaction	was,	‘oh	f**k!’	Not	only	was	there	no	data	from	this	part	ofthe	study,	but	a	valuable	resource	had	also	gone	missing.Working	with	Kahryn,	Anna	explored	questions	raised	by	this	unexpected	turn:	Why	did	Jane	give	the	camera	to	asocial	worker	who	was	unknown	and	unconnected	to	her	study?	Why	had	Jane	given	the	camera	away	at	all,	ratherthan	keeping	it	until	Anna	contacted	them?	What	was	so	risky	about	a	camera	that	Jane	had	to	get	rid	of	it?	Andwhy,	after	having	spent	time	explaining	to	Jane	and	her	husband	about	the	purposes	of	photovoice,	had	the	couplenot	taken	any	photos	in	the	first	place?	The	answers	to	these	questions	would	ultimately	lead	to	new	ways	ofthinking	about	public	engagement	and	even	the	research	project	itself.Learning	from	and	critiquing	‘failure’:	a	process	of	‘making	strange’While	good	planning	via	prospective	methodological	design	can	help	minimise	common	pitfalls,	mistakes	can	neverbe	entirely	eradicated.	More	significant,	is	the	converse:	examples	of	well	documented	‘mistakes’	that	were	pivotalto	facilitating	key	innovations	or	generating	unanticipated	insights.	Through	reframing	what	might	initially	seem	likea	‘f*ck	up’,	we	become	better	able	to	engage	empirically	with	the	pragmatics	of	research	processes	and	theirsometimes	profound	epistemic	significance.Research	is	itself	a	form	of	social	participation	involving	varying	degrees	of	‘disruption’	and	an	integralpart	of	the	world	it	seeks	to	apprehend.Such	concerns	have	come	to	the	fore	as	researchers	have	had	to	adapt	their	fieldwork	quickly	to	adhere	to	socialdistancing	measures.	Indeed,	as	COVID	disruptions	have	made	many	familiar	flaws	and	injustices	in	societystrange,	in	a	less	dramatic	way	they	have	also	‘made	strange’	the	received	wisdom	of	research	being	ostensibly	aseries	of	planned,	regulated	and	strategic	processes.	Such	missteps	invariably	highlight	the	productive	differencesbetween	understandings	of	how	research	should	proceed	and	the	lived	experiences	of	how	it	actually	does.Impact of Social Sciences Blog: F**k Ups in Social Research: Learning from what goes ‘wrong’ Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-08-02Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/08/02/fk-ups-in-social-research-learning-from-what-goes-wrong/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/That	some	of	the	participants	in	MPLC	did	not	want	to	engage	in	the	photovoice	task	proved	to	be	a	profoundlyimportant	disruption.	Moreover,	engaging	with	such	ostensible	‘failures’	highlights	how	social	research	involvesmore	than	just	methodological	procedure	and	technique.	Research	is	itself	a	form	of	social	participation	involvingvarying	degrees	of	‘disruption’	and	an	integral	part	of	the	world	it	seeks	to	apprehend.	Thus,	rather	than	viewingresearch	as	a	means	by	which	an	aspect	of	the	world	is	‘recorded’,	or	‘captured’,	it	is	arguably	better	understood	asa	kind	of	‘intervention’	with	its	own	standards,	characteristics,	and	cultural	life.	Altered	plans,	reorientations,redirections	arise	from	the	partly	unplanned	character	of	people	doing	things	together	during	research.	By	which	wemean	that	research	inevitably	entails	the	interlacing	of	plans,	intentions,	actions,	and	interactions,	not	just	ofresearchers	and	participants	in	specific	research	encounters,	but	the	full	range	of	people	and	relationships	involved,which	in	turn	gives	rise	to	‘messiness’	and	outcomes	that	no	individual	fully	planned	or	intended.Learning	from	f’Ups	when	publishing	about	f’ups?Prompted	by	our	collaborative	work	and	reflections,	we	developed	a	proposal	to	SAGE	for	an	unconventionalmethods	book	entitled	Fuck	Ups	in	the	Field.	The	prospective	publishers	were	intrigued,	but	were	also	concernedabout	how	the	title	would	land	within	the	scholarly	community.	As	part	of	the	commissioning	process,	SAGEdistributed	a	survey	regarding	the	title	and	proposal	to	academic	reviewers	nationally	and	internationally.	Theresults	were	widely	contrasting.	Some	reviewers	loved	the	idea,	noting	that	they	expected	it	to	be	read	extensivelyby	students	and	colleagues	alike.	Others	expressed	passionate	dislike;	one	proposing	that	the	use	of	a	taboo	wordin	the	title	was	unprofessional,	another	suggesting	that	if	our	aim	was	to	be	funny,	we	needed	to	try	harder.Although,	as	we	have	already	found	in	relation	to	the	approaches	we	have	received	thus	far,	the	informality	of	thetitle	has	engendered	a	kind	of	intellectual	permissiveness	—creating	the	space	for	an	array	of	candid	accounts	ofresearch	‘F*ck	ups’	coupled	with	the	serious	and	sincere	reflections	on	research	processes	that	we	had	intended.When	we	initially	started	to	think	about	contributors	to	the	volume,	we	reluctantly	came	to	acknowledge	a	range	ofissues	beyond	potential	sensitivities	to	our	irreverent	title.	For	us,	the	more	significant	problem	was	our	intention	toask	potential	contributors	to	include	themselves	in	a	volume	that	signalled	their	work	had	gone	wrong	or	had	evenfailed	in	some	way.	This,	we	felt,	might	be	a	particular	problem	for	early	career	scholars	where	the	stakes	of	doingso	might	be	high.	What	might	be	the	reputational	implications	for	scholars	not	yet	fully	established	and	‘proven’	intheir	field?	How	might	we	address	these?Impact of Social Sciences Blog: F**k Ups in Social Research: Learning from what goes ‘wrong’ Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-08-02Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/08/02/fk-ups-in-social-research-learning-from-what-goes-wrong/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/Underlying	such	concerns	is	a	set	of	unspoken	principles	regarding	research	standards,	and	a	kind	of	imaginary	ofhow	social	research	proceeds.	That	imaginary	is	perpetuated	through	a	multitude	of	means:	endlessmethodological	treatises	on	the	shoulds	and	ought	tos	of	research;	sanitised	and	polished	narrations	of	theresearch	process	written	into	methods	sections	in	journal	articles;	the	very	structure	of	chapters	expected	from	aPhD	thesis.	And	yet,	as	anyone	who	has	done	research	will	know	only	too	well,	research	always	goes	wrong.	Frominception,	to	design,	to	planning	to	execution,	to	analysis,	to	publication,	and	every	other	phase.	Part	of	thisunspoken	imaginary	is	the	idea	that	good,	well-established,	experienced	researchers	do	not	make	these	kinds	ofmistakes:	they	get	it	right	first	time.	Or,	relatedly,	the	idea	is	that	mistakes	in	research	are	a	sign	of	failure	inthemselves:	of	having	not	planned	properly,	of	not	having	sufficiently	thought	through	a	study.as	anyone	who	has	done	research	will	know	only	too	well,	research	always	goes	wrong.	From	inception,to	design,	to	planning	to	execution,	to	analysis,	to	publication,	and	every	other	phase.We	suggest	at	play	here	are	several	approaches	to	research	‘management’.	The	first	involves	the	practicalmanagement	of	situations	‘in	the	field’,	that	is,	during	active	research,	whereby	researchers	seek	to	mitigate	againstnegative	effects	or	impacts	of	research	processes	on	individuals,	groups	or	institutions.	Second,	and	intimatelyrelated,	are	the	lesser	reported	processes	of	intellectual	and	emotional	management,	which	more	properly	translateinto	questions	of	how	we	might	learn	from	the	unexpected.	These	are	the	core	focus	of	our	project.	We	suggest	thatit	is	this	capacity	to	learn	from	the	unexpected	that,	if	anything,	constitutes	a	hallmark	of	‘good	research’	andscholarly	professionalism.	In	social	research,	as	in	so	many	other	arenas,	there	are	perhaps	few	things	aspotentially	valuable	and	productive	to	new	knowledge	as	‘f*cking	up’.Confounding	our	assumptions	and	initial	concerns,	our	call	for	chapters	for	the	volume	has	at	the	time	of	writingattracted	more	interest	from	early	career	scholars	and	doctoral	students	and	rather	less	from	senior	and	establishedscholars.	Perhaps,	once	again,	we	have	been	mistaken,	and	we	will	need	to	revisit	some	of	the	assumptions	fromwhich	we	commenced	the	project.	Note:	This	article	gives	the	views	of	the	authors,	and	not	the	position	of	the	LSE	Impact	Blog,	nor	of	the	LondonSchool	of	Economics.	Please	review	our	comments	policy	if	you	have	any	concerns	on	posting	a	comment	belowImage	Credit:	Adapted	from	Bruno	Pires	via	Pexels.	Impact of Social Sciences Blog: F**k Ups in Social Research: Learning from what goes ‘wrong’ Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-08-02Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/08/02/fk-ups-in-social-research-learning-from-what-goes-wrong/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/

F**k ups in social research: learning from what goes ‘wrong’

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/112057/1/impactofsocialsciences_2021_08_02_fk_ups_in_social_research_learning.pdf

F**k ups in social research: learning from what goes ‘wrong’

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online