Supervision with Heather

Yesterday I had a zoom meeting with Heather. Here are my notes of what we discussed.

Heather indicated that Caroline in the Science, Ethics Committee can help look over my ethical review.

I will need to detail how I intend to remove / redact data if a participant doesn’t want to be part of the project anymore.

We discussed that there is a recommendation in that stringent supervision is an important part of keeping the researcher on track and questioning potential bias in the research.

How to do this became our next topic of conversation. We discussed putting together a small panel that I can ask for feedback on a regular basis. Heather mentioned a method called nominal group theory.

What we are looking for is a mechanism to critique the developing theory (add nuance) as it progresses. Though I question if this process should happen nearer the end? How to make sure this action doesn’t undermine the development of theory?

I showed heather the progress I made with mapping the snowball sampling as it evolves. We discussed that I might be able to show which people were most influencial (in how many leads they contributed).

Heather say in the Paul Bavister example that there was a spirulina project in there – and we talked about Neutriceuticals. This made me realise I should add this as a category / group.

Heather suggested I add this image to the ethics form to clarify how this works.

We turned back to this idea of how to get reflection into the process to avoid bias. We talked about – inviting the participants themselves into the process – and their positionality – to add nuance. I would then reflect on their positionality.

I talked about thoughts that came from the south west agritech meeting I attended the day before this supervision.

About where the money flows from in agritech – that HGS introduced to me. About the question – does it make sense for the UK to invest in urban agritech. I suggested that the investments make sense when they are targeting export – hardware, software etc that the UK can make money from, by selling it outwards.

Heather suggested I note this. I feel resistant as I want to give this the opportunity to surface from the data… perhaps noting it here is enough to give it a little life.

Going back to the ethical review, Heather suggests I make sure it’s clear I am not operating covertly.

And that making it clear that even if I don’t use participants contributions directly – that i’m not wasting their time, because their contribution helps me in developing the theory.

Heather explains that I should submit the ethics form asap to get feedback as I will likely need to reflect then resubmit.

Finally we discussed building reflection into my methodology. I showed Heather the introspection cycle I use – but that I don’t know where it came from or how to reference it. That it is part of my life and has been for several years is important though – as this is how I systematise my ‘phases’ of work.