This research study has at its heart, a
fundamental interest in men, as they exist in their 'worlds', and as they have
experienced 'being' men. It aims to tell their stories, but in a way which helps
us to understand our commonalties, our ' ... most taken-for-granted ... [and]
what concerns us most ordinarily and directly' (Van Manen 1991, p. 19). It is a
study which 'allows' the subject to 'talk', to use their ability to symbolise
their experiences as a means of conveying what it is to 'be' a man.
Because of the 'shortcomings' of the
narrated, or indirect experience, for the reader, and in order to attempt some
compensation for this ineffability between direct and indirect experience, I
have tried to establish a spirit of openness in my presentation of research
method, analysis, and conclusions. Constas asks that the researcher try to focus
their descriptive and narrative skills on themselves as well as their
researching activities, and to present the story of their method of
'construction' in their research presentations (1992, pp. 253-66).
Chenail also stresses the importance of
'openness', particularly between the researcher and reader, arguing that it is a
factor of significant importance in both the value and quality of the study
(1995, pp. 2-5). One way to achieve this 'objective' is to always consider 'the
other' in this process and to present as much of the '... "back stage"
information of your research as possible ... ' (Chenail 1995, p. 3). If the
researcher is successful,
... other
researchers should be able to come along after you, and be able to step into
your shoes. This is very important for two reasons: One, this will allow your
readers to judge the validity of your efforts. After having been presented both
the process and the results of the analysis, readers are in a much better
position to see if they can see what you were seeing or at least accept that
your take on the data was a valid one. Two, by re-presenting plenty of the data,
you will also allow the reader to see what they can see in the data. It is a way
to "share the wealth" and to invite another to continue the inquiry
and conversation (Chenail 1994, p. 4, cited in Chenail 1995).
I have set out, in this research, to present
my experiences, the experiences of my participants and our interactions, in as
much as it is possible to do so, within the given confines of this academic
treatise.