Reflecting on Power Relationships in the ‘ Doing ’ of Rural Cultural Research

Foucaultian understandings of power have come to be highly influential in the how we analyse and write up rural cultural research. However, despite the extensive application of his work, Foucault’s retheorisation of power has been less consistently applied to how we ‘do’ rural cultural research. While researchers have sought to recognise and develop appropriate strategies around the role of power in how research is conducted, we have been less specific regarding how we theorise and apply our concepts of power when reflecting on the research process. It is the implications of this lack of theoretical rigour, combined with institutional constructions of research relationships, that this paper seeks to interrogate. Drawing on research conducted as part of doctorate, this article analyses the diverse ways in which participants from four New South Wales rural public housing communities negotiated the research relationship with myself and influenced the way this research was conducted and what became the final research project. Ultimately, this article argues that issues of theoretical consistency are fundamental to the overall integrity of reflexive processes when doing rural cultural research.

encounter I had.As I mull over this situation I realise that all the interview interactionsinthisresearchhavebeensubtlyinfusedwithmyfearoftheinterview falling flat and a desire to 'please' the participant(s).While not disregarding differences, material and otherwise, the exhortations that I have encountered in various critical academic literature to be 'reflexive' and to seek to 'empower' the research participant seem strangely out of place in this situation and I wondered whythatisthecase.
Reflecting on my own experiences of 'doing' rural cultural research, this articlereturnstotheissueof'power'andhowitisapproachedinpoststructuralist and feminist methodological literatures in cultural geography and rural cultural studies. 2 Specifically using a Foucaultian understanding of power, the article interrogates the theoretically inconsistent ways this understanding of power has beenappliedtothe'doing'ofresearch.Ithengoontoinvestigatetheimplicationsof thisregardinghowweunderstand,reflectonandrepresentresearchrelationships.
-MOVING BEYOND THE DICHOTOMY OF THE 'POWERFUL EXPERT' AND THE 'POWERLESS SUBJECT'   In cultural geography and rural cultural studies, the 'doing' of research has been transformed by poststructuralist and feminist critiques of how we produce and understand knowledge. 3This has specifically involved rejection of the positivist understandingofknowledgesasproducedbyobjectiveresearchers,whoseanalyses of the data collected were considered to be impartial and 'true' representations of 'reality'.Alsoofconcernwasthatpositivistapproachessoughttoerasetheresearch relationship, constructing the necessary interactions between the researcher and theresearchedasanirrelevantaspectofthedataproducedfromsuchengagements.
Last, positivist rationalisations of the research relationship often resulted in the valuable and important role participants had in the research process going unacknowledged or being disregarded.These attitudes meant that the researcher andresearchprocessweremorelikelytoexploitparticipantsand/orbeinsensitive to the negative impact of research that could plague participants long after the researcherhadleftthefield.
Poststructuralist and feminist research sought to undermine this understandingofknowledgeproductionbyconstructingknowledgeassituatedand partial.Poststructuralist rethinking of power, in particular Michel Foucault's contributions to these developments, has been influential in informing this methodological shift. 4A central premise of this retheorisation of power was the recognitionthatpowerandknowledgewereinextricablylinked. 5Itwasarguedthat researchers, as producers of 'power/knowledges', should also be aware of and reflect on the role of power in research processes.More specifically, this meant making visible the ways in which the research relationship was mediated and negotiatedthroughthedifferentpositionalitiesofallparticipants.
A reflexive approach to conducting research has become an important way oftakingintoaccountandmakingvisibletheeffectofresearchrelationshipsinthe finalknowledgeproduct.Areflexiveapproachattemptstoprovideanunderstanding of the relationship between the researcher and the researched in the research context.A specific outcome of this reflexivity has been a concern with how 'doing' research has the potential to oppress and exploit subjects. 6This awareness and concern about the impact of research is important and has produced innovative ways of 'doing' research; however, it has also produced a problematic dichotomy where the researcher is constructed as the 'powerful expert' and participants are understoodtobe'powerlesssubjects'.Thisaspectofpoststructuralistandfeministmethodologicalapproacheswas identified by Thapar-Björkert and Henry, who problematised the 'dualistic and binary mode of researcher/researched interaction … which suggests that manipulation and exploitation only take place by the researcher'. 7While acknowledging the control we have as researchers over much of the research process and in the final research product, Thapar-Björkert and Henry argued that these approaches had not extended and applied notions of multiplicity to the research participant. 8The way power is exercised in the research relationship is constructed as unidirectional and the participant often becomes the 'oppressed victim' in such understandings.This problematic understanding of the research relationshiphascomeaboutthroughtwofeaturesofcontemporarymethodological practices, one relating to the institutional setting and the other around theoretical rigour.

Protecting participants from the researcher: university ethics procedures
Institutionally, the 'powerful expert'/'powerless subject' dichotomy has arisen throughthevariousuniversityethicsprocessesthathavebeenintroducedoverthe last two decades.Winchester identified a number of important aspects of the researchrelationshipthatuniversityethicsprocedurescover,including: consideration of possible trauma which may be experienced by respondents,andproceduresforobtaininginformedconsent,provisionfor withdrawal without penalty, maintaining confidentiality, data safety and handling,andforreturninginformationtotheparticipants. 9milarly,IsraelandHaynotethatethicsreviewsoffera'significantmechanismfor stimulating ethical reflection' around issues of exploitation, conflicts of interest, controls over publication and researcher safety. 10All these ethical considerations are important and should be taken into account when designing, conducting and reflecting on the 'doing' of research.Indeed, as Israel and Hay point out, ethical reflectionontheresearchprocessanditsoutcomesdoesnotendwiththeapproval number provided by an ethics committee. 11However, what is significant is that many of the aspects of the research process that concern university ethics procedurescaninadvertentlyleadtotheconstructionoftheresearcherassomeone whose power needs to be constrained and regulated so as to not exploit the powerless participant.Rarely do university ethics procedures encourage researchers to think of participants as active shapers of the research nor do these guidelines promote the development of methodological approaches that would manageandenhancesuchengagement.Theproblemwiththissituationisthatwhen constructingresearchparticipantsasindividualsthatneedtobeprotectedfromthe researcher, university ethics procedures also serve to maintain the construction of thepowerful/powerlessdichotomyoftheresearchrelationship.

Theoretical rigour
The second methodological feature that has enabled this construction of the 'powerful expert' and the 'powerless subject' has been a lack of rigour in how researchers have employed Foucaultian understandings of power to the 'doing' of research.While Foucaultian understandings of the power/knowledge nexus have beeninnovativelyapplied,otheraspectsofhisretheorisationofpower-specifically the role of freedom and the rejection of distributional understandings of powerhavenotbeenaswellintegratedintothesemethodologies.
Foucaultprovidedamajorchallengetothewaypowerwasconceptualised, urgingamoveawayfromdistributionalunderstandingsofpowerasa'resource'or 'capacity' to instead understand power as a relationship that only existed when it was exercised.Defining power as a relationship brought to the fore two particular features central to Foucault's understanding of power: knowledge and freedom.
While the methodological literature has extensively applied the changed role of power/knowledge in the 'doing' of research, it has been the second aspectfreedom-thathasnotbeenaswellintegrated.
Inpreviousunderstandingsofpower,freedomwasconceivedassome'thing' that was relinquished when power was exercised.Foucault's notion of power invertedsuchunderstandings. 12Ratherthanbeingoppositionalanddestructive,the relationship between power and liberty was mutually dependent and productive.Thisunderstandingoftheintimaterelationshipbetweenpowerandfreedombegins withthepremisethatpoweroperatesasarelationship:itisnotathingtobeheldby some at the expense of others' freedoms, but only transpires when it is exercised.Developingthisfurther,powerisonlyexercisedwhenbothpartiesinarelationship of power are free to act.As Foucault explained, 'power is exercised only over free subjects … who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving, several reactions and diverse comportments may be realised'. 13Thus, where there is no freedom to (re)act, a relationship of power cannot exist and thereforepowercannotbeexercised.
The absence of an account of both knowledge and freedom in the reflexive analysis of research power relationships in the aforementioned methodological literatures results in such relationships being constructed as hierarchical and unidirectional, with power continuing to be constructed as a resource instead of relationship. 14For example, England referred to the research relationship as 'inherently hierarchical' and asserted that power relations in fieldwork were 'inevitably…unequal'. 15 Similarly,Rosepresentedpowerassomethingwecouldnot 'fully … control or redistribute'. 16By treating power as a resource, where researchershave'more'powerandparticipantshave'less',reflexiveresponseshave eitherinvolvedresearcherstryingto'empower'respondentsthroughtheirresearch practicesordiscontentedlyadmittingtheimpossibilityoftheirpursuitto'equalise' thedistributionofpower. 17 Smith has also critiqued these literatures for their 'rather simplistic assumptionsaboutpower',whileThapar-BjörkertandHenryhaveargued'thereisa needwithinmethodologicaldebatestocomplicatetheissuesofagency,powerand resistance in which the research participant could be similarly implicated as the researcher'. 18One way of achieving this is through greater theoretical rigour and consistency in how power is understood.For poststructuralist methodological approaches this would involve rejecting the distributional understanding of power that does not take into account the freedom and ability of participants to influence and impact on the research relationship and the knowledge product that results fromit.Bydoingthis,researchersshouldalsorethinkthegoalof'empowerment'as an outcome of 'doing' research.This should be done for two reasons.First, as it stands, such an aspiration is theoretically inconsistent with poststructuralist understandings of power that have been so influential in reflexivity becoming an indispensable aspect of how we 'do' research.Second, when we seek to 'empower' However, what I did not anticipate was the way that the responses from these questionnaires would influence my own behaviours and attitudes during the interview process.Specifically, a number of responses to the questionnaire demonstrated to me the high value participants placed on rurality.Usually the benefits of the rural were placed in direct juxtaposition to the negative aspects associated with metropolitan spaces and persons.For example, one respondent explained: 'I like the country it is small, not like the cities'.Similarly, another participanttoldmethatshehad'Noproblems[withpublichousing]exceptforcity guyscomingtothecountryandtryingtorunitlikethecity-itdoesnotwork'.After receivingandanalysingsuchresponsestothequestionnaireIwasacutelyawareof the value many participants placed on their rural location.It was important to me that participants did not view me as just another 'city' person who did not appreciate the value of the rural.As a consequence, during the conduct of these interviewsIsoughttoemphasismyownruralness,makingsureItoldparticipants of my own rural background and association with the case study region.Through their questionnaire responses, the participants in the research were active in informinghowIconstructedmyownpositionalitywithintheinterviewcontext.
Participants also brought to this research project their considerable experience of participating in research projects.In particular, tenants were extremely au fait with the interview process.This familiarity can in part be explained by the fact that public housing tenants are regularly the focus of university, government and departmental research.As a New South Wales Department of Housing manager explained: 'There's always someone studying them.' 19 Whilenotdenyingtheproblematicaspectsofpublichousingtenantsbeing thefocusofsomuchresearch, 20  was not so much 'forced' as 'seduced' to include these narratives in the final researchproduct. 22heseresearchrelationshipsspeakmorebroadlytoconcernsraisedby'new workingclassstudies'thatarguetheimportanceofnotpresentingtheworkingclass asan'entirelypassivevictim'inprocessesofsocial,politicalandeconomicchange. 23thiscase,'workingclassness'canbeseenasanimportantelementthatinformed how participants engaged in the research.For tenants, their working classness emergedthroughthefactthatitwascertaineconomicmeasuresestablishedbythe NSW Department of Housing (such as income and employment status) that meant they were eligible for and allocated public housing and therefore invited to participate in the research.These economic measures of 'class' can also be seen to -NOTES researchparticipantswefailtobeopentorecognisingthattheseactorsarealready highlypowerfulshapersoftheresearchprojectstheyarepartof.Inthenextsection of this article I incorporate these additional aspects of research power relations to reflect on how the participants in my doctoral research on rural public housing in NewSouthWaleswereinfluentialcollaboratorsinhowthisresearchwasconducted andhowitdeveloped.-THE MESSY ACTUALITIES OF RESEARCH RELATIONSHIPS Reflecting on my own 'doing' of rural research, there were a number of instances whereparticipantsinfluencedbothhowIactedduringtheresearchprocessandmy perceptionsoftheresearchitself.Indoingso,theseruralparticipantswereintegral tohowtheresearchwasconductedandinfluentialinhowIsoughttorepresentthe dataIcollected.The first way that participants in this research project informed and influencedmyownperformanceswithintheresearchwasthroughtheirresponses tothequestionnaire.Thequestionnairewasinitiallydesignedtoaskpublichousing tenantsfromthecasestudyareastovolunteertobepartoftheinterviewprocess.
me when they thought a question was redundant.For example, when asked about thegenderedaspectsofruralpublichousingmanytenantssoughttobrushoveror simplytellmehowunnecessarysuchaquestionwas.Similarly,tenantswerequite strategic with the interview.Many used it as an opportunity to tell me what was wrongwithpublichousing(forexample,thelackofhousing,whothehousingwas allocated to and so on) and what policy measures were needed to address their issues (such as the need to build more housing or the need for the department to regulate problematic tenant behaviours).As a result, I came away from the field with very little data on the gendered experiences of rural public housing but a plethoraofinterviewmaterialonhowtenantsunderstoodthe'governance'ofpublic housingatavarietyofscales.Theimpactofthetenantparticipants'strategicusesof the interview process forced a re-evaluation of the research questions and the eventual decision to abandon the original research focus on the role of gender in ruralpublichousingcommunities,refocusingtheworkonthedecliningprovisionof publichousinginNewSouthWalesandtheimpactofthisonruraltenants.TheNewSouthWalesDepartmentofHousingstaffwhoparticipatedinthis research also used the interview as a strategic opportunity.At the time of the interviews, staff were facing another series of departmental reforms.Within this context,manyofthestaffusedtheresearchasaninformalopportunitytoventtheir fears and frustrations with a reform process they felt little control over.Initially, I had sought interviews with Department of Housing staff to simply obtain another perspectiveontheexperiencesofruralpublichousingtenants.However,afterthis group of research participants communicated their fears of the impact of these reforms-includingtheclosureoftheiroffices,thepotentiallossofjobsandlossof colleagues,andtheimplicationsthesechangeshadontheirabilitytoremainintheir rural locations-I felt that these were issues I could not ignore when it came to 'writingup'theresearch.Eventually,awholechapterwasdevotedtotheissuesstaff hadwiththereformprocess.However,ifstaffhadnotsoughttostrategicallyusethe interview in this way the research would never have examined this aspect of the delivery of rural public housing.The research experience with Department of HousingstaffdifferedfromtheinterviewexperiencesIencounteredwiththepublic housingtenants.Thiswasbecauseadifferent'modality'ofpowercouldbeseento beexercisedinthisresearchrelationship. 21WiththetenantinterviewsIwas'forced' to change the research project as I had very little data to use if I did not make the change.Inthecaseoftheinterviewswithstaff,becauseIhadtheabilityto'optout',I inform how tenant participants understood public housing more widely, their positionwithinpublichousingcommunities,andhowtheybelievedpublichousing could be improved.Department of Housing staff also employed their 'classness' throughthefactthatitwastheir'job'anditssecuritythatinformedasignificantpart of their interactions with me.In both instances, the 'classness' of public housing tenants and staff informed a radical shift in my own research objectives and conclusions, away from a concern with gender and towards a more traditional concernofpolitical-economicrestructuring,socialjusticeandredistribution.Inthe'doing'ofthisruralresearchparticipantsradicallychangedthefocus of the research through the various ways they responded to the questions being asked of them, negotiated the research relationship and made their own strategic usesoftheinterviewprocess.Becauseoftheirinfluenceandimpactontheresearch, it is hardly representative to speak of the research as having 'empowered' these participantswhen,inmanycases,theseindividualswerealreadycapableandactive in negotiating, reforming and strategically using the research process.The additional elements of Foucault's understanding of power-freedom and a nondistributionalapproachtopower-broughtanewperspectivetothe'doing'ofthis rural cultural research.In particular, it showed how significant the participants in this work were to how the research developed and to the final outcomes and conclusions.-CONCLUSIONSThis article has sought to consider how theoretical understandings of 'power' are important to how we reflect on and construct the research relationship in 'doing' rural cultural research.In undertaking these reflections, however, I do not wish to shift research participants from one homogenised category to another; from 'powerless' to 'all powerful'.Nor do I wish to disregard the material and socioculturaldifferencesthatimpactonhowresearchrelationshipsarenegotiated.My argument is that by being more explicit in what we mean by power, by abandoning the theoretical ambiguities of power that are currently present in the methodological literatures referred to in this paper, we are in a better position to reflectonthevariouspowerrelationshipsthatexistwithinthedoingofresearch.As researchers reflecting on the 'doing' of rural cultural research we need to be as aware of how participants exercise power in the research relationship as much as we do as researchers.The 'doing' of research is not the exclusive domain of the researcher.As this article has outlined, the rural public housing tenants and Department of Housing staff I interviewed brought to the research their own subjective understandings of what the research should be, how the interviews shouldbeconducted,andhowtheirownpoliticalagendascouldbeservedthrough theirparticipation.Thereareanumberofimplicationsfor'doing'researchwhenwechooseto explicitly understand power as a relationship-not a resource-that is exercised betweentwoindividualsthatare'free'.First,webecomemoreattunedtothewayin whichtheresearchrelationshipisnegotiatedbyallparties.Forexample,Ibecame aware of the ways that subjects saw me as an opportunity to generate a specific political agenda, or the ways they redirected the concerns of my research.Such actionswerenotthoseofpeoplewithoutpower,buttheoutcomesofarelationship of power being exercised.Second, we become aware of the way in which other powerrelationshipsandgovernmentalprocessesinformhowrespondentsnegotiate the research situation-for example, the ways rural public housing tenants respondedtotheinterviewbasedontheirotherexperiencesofresearchconducted by the New South Wales Department of Housing.Finally, the notion of 'empowerment'asagoalofresearchandallitsdistributionalimplicationsshouldbe critically re-evaluated.Such an approach makes space for researchers to acknowledgethatourownexperiencesofuncertaintyanddiscomfortinthefieldare inevitable outcomes of relationships of power where we are not simply the 'powerful experts'.These experiences place us in a research/power relationship wherewearenotincontrolbutarefreetoactandreacttothe(re)actionsofthose weengagewithinthefield.Whileattemptsto'empower'researchparticipantsare pursuedwiththebestintentions,theyremainproblematicbecausetheycontinueto constructparticipantsas'powerless'inourresearch.Forthisresearcher,therewas something more representative of my own rural research experiences in understanding participants as active shapers of the research process and the end product.-Rae Dufty is a lecturer in the Department of Geography and Planning at the University of New England.She completed her doctoral work on the distributional politicsofruralpublichousinginAustraliain2008.<rdufty@une.edu.au>-ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Iamdeeplygratefultothoserespondentswhoansweredthequestionnaireandvolunteeredtobe interviewedaspartofthisresearch.Iwouldalsoliketothanktheparticipantsofthe'DoingRural CulturalStudies'workshop,membersoftheUniversityofNewcastle'sGeographyDepartment, AssociateProfessorNeilArgentandtwoanonymousreviewerswhoprovidedinvaluablefeedbackand encouragementonearlierdraftsofthispaper.