Implications of Power and Power Relation in Research

Mrs. Moore comes from England to see real Indians. The method she wants to apply to know the Indians is an ethnographic one: she wants to know the real Indians from where they live, how they live, what they do, and how they do. However, the way she likes to apply does not satisfy her son Ronny who is an English magistrate in British India. As a mother of a magistrate, Moore cannot mix with the Indians. The rulers cannot mix with the ruled in this way. So, Ronny decides to throw a party designed to facilitate his mother to see the real Indians. However, the party turns to be fiasco. The invited Indian women do not feel free to talk with open heart in the party. They are segregated in a corner of the party. But why is this segregation?

This is because of power and power relation which Foster (1924) highlights in his novel “A Passage to India”. Ronny and Moore belong to the ruling class but the Indian ladies invited to the party are the ruled. The ruled and the rulers cannot get together. The ruled cannot feel free beside the rulers. The positional differences existing between them wedge them not to feel free. 

Many developing countries, if not all, have an experience of a colonial rule. A structural provision of power is unequally distributed among the people of those countries where people’s mind still remains colonized even though their land is decolonized. A researcher intending to conduct research in such countries must take some ethical considerations into account to avoid the risk of life. (Czymoniewcz-Klippel, Brijnath, &Crockett, 2010).

Those countries in most cases cannot ensure equal distribution of power between men and women. Men are more powerful than women in those countries. Social structure accounts for it. The social structure makes some people men and some people women. An apt remark in this regard can be put here:  no one is born woman; she gradually grows woman (Azad, 1992).

The patriarchal society seizes power from women to empower men. As a result, the former become more powerful and the latter less powerful — a social construct that wrecks the balance of power. To address this unequal power relation, Freeman (2002) advocates the feminization of men and virilisation of women. A researcher in such a society is to reflect on the issue of power to succeed in fieldwork.

A researcher has also to reflect on a colonial construct of Self and Other. According to this notion, the colonizers stand for Self and the colonized for Other; the Europeans are masculine and the non-Europeans are feminine (Pennycook, 1998). Colonizers are insiders and others are outsiders. A researcher in the notional realm of dichotomy must show that s/he is one of the participants, and not a threat to them (Dufty, 2010).

The success of a social researcher consists in the elimination of the identity of Self and Other. Buber (2002) argues that the researcher (teacher) and the researched (students) need to merge together to understand each other in order to get an outcome. He gives a formula to eliminate power relation not by eradicating Self and Other but by expanding them to reach each other. A researcher has to take this method into consideration.

     Power relation has not only negative vices but also productive virtues needed to maintain discipline and control (Foucault, 1977), and that is why, it survives with sway in varied institutions: schools, hospitals, and prisons. There is no exception in workplaces or even in families in developing countries, and as such, when a researcher conducts research in such countries, s/he is to think over a lot of issues including gender issues. To exemplify, in some communities in developing countries male foreigners are not allowed to interview women (Binns, 2006) who often refuse to talk to them out of shyness (Momsen, 2006).  

When a researcher conducts research on children of developing countries, s/he has also to reflect on power relation and socio-economic condition of those countries. S/he is to keep in mind that there might be street children abused by adults who hold position in society. The disclosure of the abuse may further endanger the life of the victim, and in such a situation, the researcher has to involve children to devise an alternative channel to avoid risk (Blerk, 2006).

 Unequal power and power relation may engender obstacles to reveal fact, prompt people to tell lies, and endanger life. King Lear of William Shakespeare (1623) is its luminous example. Lear wants to know how much his three daughters love him. His first two daughters flatter him that they love him more than their lives. This is a lie. They do not love him more than their lives. The third daughter, however, does not cajole him. She says she loves him as a daughter loves her father. Lear gets offended at this remark, and banishes her. Here lies power and power relation between King Lear and his daughters. It is like power relation between the ruler and the ruled where the latter often decline to tell the truth. A social researcher must keep in mind this kind of power relation while conducting research in such a society.

Now let me cite an example from my life. It is a narrative of my father who told lies. A terrible fight took place once in 1971 in our locality between some members of the Pakistan Army (PA) and the freedom fighters of Bangladesh. The members of the (PA) captured our village. The villagers were frightened. I was scared. I heard my father telling the PA members that he had voted for the Muslim League—a political party for which the PA was fighting. But my father actually did not vote for the Muslim League; he voted for the Awami League. However, he told lies to save his life.

 The power between my father and the PA was unequal, which prompted my father to tell lies. The PA had absolute power and my father was powerless. My powerless father gave them information which was false. A researcher, therefore, has to reflect on the issue of power and power relation while carrying out research.

References

Azad, H. (1992). Naree. Dhaka: Agamee Prokashani.

Buber, M. (2002). In Between Man and Man. New York: Routledge.

Czymoniewcz-Klippel, M.T., Brijnath, B.,&Crockett, B. (2010). Ethics and promotion of 

inclusiveness within qualitative research: Case examples from Asia and the Pacific.

Qualitative Inquiry, 16(5), 332-341.

Dufty, R. (2010). Reflecting on power relationships in the ‘doing’ of rural cultural research.

Cultural Studies Review, 16 (1), 131-142.

Desai, V. & Potter, R. (eds) (2006), “Chapter 5: Women, Men and Fieldwork: Gender

Relations and Power Structures”, Doing Development Research, Sage Publications, London, pp.44-51.

Desai, V. & Potter, R. (eds) (2006), “Chapter 6: Working with Children in Development”,

Doing Development Research, Sage Publications, London, pp.52-60.

Desai, V. & Potter, R. (eds) (2006), “Chapter 2: Doing Fieldwork in Developing Countries:

Planning and Logistics”, Doing Development Research, Sage Publications, London, pp.13-24. 

Forster, E. (1924). A passage to India. London: Edward Arnold.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Random   

House.

Freeman, J. (2002). Feminism. Open University Press: Buckingham.

Shakespeare, W. (1623). King Lear. London. John Heminge and Henry Condell.