P a g e | 1

Research Approach (Report prepared for the purposes of the 2nd Annual Supervisory Review Meeting on the 29th April 2014)

Student: Phedeas Stephanides (4204182)School/ Course: ENV/ PhD researchProject title: Exploring sustainable consumption in an era of economic downturnStart and end dates: May 2014 – November 2014 (data collection)Project supervisors: DR Gill Seyfang (primary); DR Tom Hargreaves (secondary)Contact details: p.stephanides@uea.ac.uk; +44 (0) 7891070350

Report contents:- Project overview- Research (data collection) approach- Research ethics in data collection- Appendices: Consent forms and information sheets, Risk assessment checklist, draft interview and

questionnaire protocols

1) Overview of the project: The current capitalist crisis has revealed much about the vulnerabilities of the economic models pursued around the world; vulnerabilities that have paved the way for the recent sprouting of many community currencies (CCs) in locations that had previously lacked motivation to work outside capitalist institutions. This development echoes the work of leading “crisologists” (e.g. Morin 1984, in Wieviorka 2012, 95-7)) who have long suggested that crises do not only lead to social disorganisation and destruction, but also include dimensions of re-construction and social-political innovation. By implication, it comes as no surprise that many modern scholars have stressed how crises, including the present economic recession, can pave the way for the transition to a different society. Amongst others, proponents of the sustainability agenda have emphasized how the economic crisis provides opportunities for the diffusion and “mainstreaming” of grassroots sustainability initiatives (O’Riordan 2013).

Nevertheless, whilst there is no denying that a number of new systems of provision have emerged since the outbreak of the crisis, the argument that they constitute manifestations of the alternative/ radical cultures associated with a more sustainable society is not entirely convincing. New systems of provision are not the sick pill for our problems; it is the way in which we use these systems that determines their success. What is needed is to promote an alternative culture: A culture of economic activity where humans are placed centre-stage: the “re-socialised” economics of people struggling for cooperation, collective decision-making, consumption on the basis of the common rather than solely the personal good, rebuilding relations with nature, spiritual self-development, etc. (i.e. the culture put forth by the likes of Schumacher (e.g. 1973)). In this sense, my normative standpoint is heavily influenced by the work of Schumacher (e.g. 1973), Holloway (2010) and Gibson-Graham (e.g. 2006) in believing that alternative systems: a) face challenges, and b) they should be critically celebrated by considering whether they bring about new cultures of living. In other words, whilst this research aims to tell a hopeful story of CCs at a time of a crisis-induced pessimism, it takes a pragmatic stance by adopting an evaluation research strategy. In particular, it aims to uncover the activities, socio-cultural characteristics and outcomes of CCs developed in recession-laded Greece in an attempt to improve our understanding of such interventions:

Research aims:

P a g e | 2

A. To support interstitial post-capitalism theorisation and extra-capitalist activities: To help improve the practices of community currency networks through the production of knowledge.

B. To critically assess the extent to which CCs emerging in response to the economic crisis can pave the way to a socially, economically and environmentally sustainable society.

C. To shed light to (and maybe partake in) means of social change which do not alienate the individual from the political process.

Research questions:A. What is the nature of these initiatives?

a. What are the different solutions on offer?b. How do they interpret the crisis?c. What are they doing?

B. How effective are they? a. What do their members and coordinators see as success?b. What are the challenges they face?

C. What kind of future might they build?

1.1) Theoretical context of the research: As outlined above, this research project is largely inspired by the visionary/ alternative culture of a “Schumacherian” utopia (see Text-box 1 below):

ECONOMIC:1. Aims to promote social wellbeing.2. Promoting work that: a) gives people a chance to utilise and develop their faculties, b) enables them to bring forth the

goods/ services needed for a becoming existence.3. Argues in favour of a “meta-economy” which reduces the footloosness of people and re-embeds economic activity in

nature and the social system. 4. Aims for stronger/ more resilient local communities and economies by preventing the leakage of money out of the

community.5. Discourages the use of mainstream economic metrics/ statistics.6. Views economic crises as part of a broader capitalist crisis.

POLITICAL:1. Discourages the use of generalizable blueprints for action by promoting the co-ordinated freedom of autonomous units,

implicating work outside the realms of existing policy cultures (including both socialism and communism).2. Criticizes the cultures of our era (i.e. giantism, individualism, materialism).3. Criticizes the economy-first principle of mainstream politics

INTELLECTUAL:1. Promotes long-term thinking.2. Promotes the development of capacities for critical thinking, enhancing the imaginative capacity, promoting philosophical

thinking: the education of meta-physical reconstruction.3. Promotes deeper spiritual values.

MORAL:1. Promotes economic empowerment: aims to enhance self-realisation and fulfilment whilst promoting economic

responsibility (i.e. the economics of “household management”).2. Promotes a non-violence attitude towards both sentient and non-sentient beings.3. Aims to promote collective well-being via social integration and cooperation in place of a culture of individualism.

Text-box 1: The integral components of a “Schumacherian” (economic) utopia (cf. Schumacher 1973; Schumacher 2011).

P a g e | 3

Nonetheless, the conceptual understanding informing this research also takes into account the single main criticism of this utopia: that “small is not always beautiful”. The “Schumacherian” utopia will always face a number of challenges – both intrinsic and extrinsic. By implication, it has been suggested that it is conceptually best to associate the “Schumacherian” utopia with writings on interstitial non-capitalism, focusing on: the messy process of negating-and-creating this utopia in relation to the capitalist cultures that surround, but also reside within us (cf. Samers 2005; Fullerton 2008). This cautionary reading of the work of Schumacher is conceptually appropriate in dealing with my key research questions. As previously suggested, these research questions aim at uncovering complex forms of contention and resistance to the dominant cultures of our era that are not simply oppositional, but simultaneously interweave ‘anti-’, ‘post-’ and ‘despite-’ capitalisms. By implication, I propose the critical investigation of the nature and effectiveness of crisis CCs in relation to Schumacher’s vision. Accordingly, I have devised a range of indicators and propose a number of data collection methods on the basis of which I will evaluate crisis CCs against the vision of Schumacher.

2) Research approach: While evaluation provides the overarching strategy for this research, within that strategy the research will take a multiple case-study approach. This is because crisis CCs call for an in-depth investigation of the particular circumstances of change (offered by a case-study approach), rather than a ‘breadth’ investigation (likely served by a nation-wide survey approach). Moreover, using multiple case-studies will allow the exploration of a range of differently structured and advertised schemes, and will thus aid in making more generalizable conclusions on the workings of crisis grassroots innovations in enabling individuals to pave the way to a “better” society.

Enquiring the economic/ ecological/ moral/ intellectual/ political/ social stance and impacts of crisis CCs implicates the use of a number of different methods for obtaining the relevant information for each of these areas. An integrated approach to qualitative and quantitative analysis is, therefore, appropriate in ensuring that the most suitable technique is used for capturing the distinct aspects of these networks.Specifically, in so doing, a mixed-method qualitative data collection approach will be adopted. Over a period of 6 months I will live within reach of the (broader) research site and conduct research involving: A. A questionnaire survey designed to give a flavour of the motivations and effects of involvement in

these networks. The survey will be distributed electronically and/ or in hard copies to the participants of the research case-studies;

B. Semi-structured and ad-hoc/ informal interviews with the coordinators and participants of these initiatives designed to offer richer insights to the values and motivations for participations and its effects (maximum duration of approximately 1 hour per interview; to take place at the offices/ meeting places of the community currency schemes of interest);

C. In-situ participant observation designed to: a) reveal the social and cultural context of people’s understandings and beliefs; b) gain insights into actors’ experience; gain insights into practices of the network/ individuals; c) recruit research informants. (At the offices, exchange centres, events and meetings of the community currency schemes of interest);

D. Collection of archival and accounts data in ab attempt to gain further insights on the history, operations and effectiveness of the networks of interest.

Further detailing on the research methods adopted in this study, and specifications of: a) which data sources address which research questions, and b) the association between the data collection approach and the conceptual vision of Schumacher (cf. 1973) are provided in the tables below (Tables 1 – 3):

P a g e | 4

Table 1: Summary of research methods

PROCESS FUNCTION AMOUNT PERIOD1. Initial

communication with coordinators

Gain access to network;Identify documents and background information N/A April – May 2014

2. Collection of movement documents (e.g. minutes; transactions data)

Develop an understanding of nature/ scope of scheme (including data on economic significance);

As a record of how active members are, who interacts with whom, and what kinds of ‘favours’

they carry out for each other

Enough to cover life-span of initiative;

More detailed data (e.g. on transactions)

for past year

May – July 2014

3. In-depth (Senior) Practitioner interviews

Allow scrutiny of meaning: both how coordinators understand their participation and their social world

(Silverman 1985, ch.8);Information on nature/ outcomes of schemes (ibid.;

Blee and Taylor 2002);Gain access to practitioners

~5(per scheme; ~15 in

total)(following: Baker and

Edwards (2012); Mason (2010))

June – August 2014

4. Whole group questionnaire

Inform participant sampling;Gain some information from those members who do

not often drop into the CC offices;Some numerical data aiding in the assessment of CCs

effectiveness;Background information on nature/ outcomes of

schemes

~60 – 80(per scheme) June – August 2014

5. Participant interviewsa) In-depth

interviews

Allow scrutiny of meaning: both how participants understand their participation and their social world

(Silverman 1985; 2010);Gain access to motivations and perspectives of a

broader, more diverse group of participants (ibid.);Information on impact on daily lives;

Rather than assuming a collective identity for schemes, will allow to bring to the surface the

variable identities of participants;Counteracting biased standpoints of coordinators

and biased availability of documentary material (cf. Blee and Taylor 2002).

Aiming for data saturation;

~10 – 15(per scheme; including

highly active and atypical members and business partners; ~30

– 45 in total)(following: Baker and

Edwards (2012); Mason (2010))

August – November 2014

b) Focus groups (if deemed necessary)

Gain insights into the operation of the group/ social processes in the articulation of knowledge/ opinions;

Helps to identify group norms and culture;Use potential conflicts of opinion to clarify why

people think what they do;Reveal the social and cultural context of people’s

understandings and beliefs (cf. Kitzinger 1994; King and Horrocks 2010; Silverman 2010).

6 – 10 participants (per scheme)

(following Kitzinger 1994)

October – November 2014

6. Participant observation(at events, meetings, exchange centres)

Reveal the social and cultural context of people’s understandings and beliefs;

Gain insights into actors’ experience;Gain insights into practices of network/ individuals

(cf. Cook and Crang 1994);Recruit research informants

Depending on number of events/ meetings held over the data collection period

May – November 2014

7. (Senior) Practitioner verification

Results for all data collected verified N/A November 2014

8. Data transcription To guide analysis;Translation of relevant segments in English N/A May – November

20149. Analysis Mainly thematic analysis;

To guide discussionN/A October 2014 –

January 2015(N.B.: A great deal of

analysis will likely occur in the process

ofcompiling the data

funnelling process

P a g e | 5

informing final analytical themes)

10. Comparative analysis

Between cases and in relation to “Schumacherian” criteria;

To allow for generalisationsN/A November 2014 –

January 2015

P a g e | 6

Table 2: The research protocol: Part A’: Exploring the nature of crisis CCs

Key Research Question: What is the nature of these initiatives?

Are they counter-cultural “Schumacherian” utopias (in both principle and practice)?

ASSESSMENT AREA:

Assessing the degree of fit with theorisation on alternative economies:

INDICATORS:

DATA TYPE:

COMPARE TO:

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION:

Qua

nti-

tativ

e

Qua

li-ta

tive

Oth

er

sche

mes

Mai

nstr

eam

ec

onom

y

Economic Stance:Promotes economic and social wellbeing?

Motivations for creating the network and/ or for participation;

Variety of motivations for involvement

Survey data; Ad-hoc and semi-structured interviews with members and coordinators;

Documentation; Observations

Promotes an alternative conception of work?Promotes eco-localisation?Aims for more resilient local communities?Discourages the use of mainstream economic metrics/ statistics?Views economic crises as part of a broader crisis? Subjective opinions on the nature of the crisis

Survey data; Ad-hoc and semi-structured interviews with members and coordinators;

ObservationsPolitical Stance:

Discourages the use of generalizable blueprints for action: Promotes the co-ordinated freedom of autonomous units?

Subjective opinions and normative standpoints of members/ organisers;

Events and other opportunities for uncovering the malaises of materialism, capitalism, etc.

Survey data; Ad-hoc and semi-structured

interviews with members and coordinators; Documentation; ObservationsCriticizes the cultures of our era?

Criticizes the economy-first principle of politics?

Intellectual Stance:Promotes long-term thinking?

Subjective normative standpoints;Events held and other opportunities for meta-physical reconstruction/ intellectual development, discussions

Survey data; Ad-hoc and semi-structured

interviews with members and coordinators; Documentation; Observations

Promotes the development of capacities for critical thinking?Promotes deeper spiritual values?

Moral Stance:Aims to enhance self-realisation whilst promoting economic responsibility?

Subjective normative standpoints of members and organisers;

Events held and other opportunities for discussions around moral rightness

Survey data; Ad-hoc and semi-structured

interviews with members and coordinators; Documentation; ObservationsPromotes a non-violence attitude towards

both sentient and non-sentient beings?Promotes collective well-being via social Subjective opinions on issues of trust, reciprocity and social Survey data; Ad-hoc and semi-structured

P a g e | 7

integration and cooperation in place of a culture of individualism?

capital;Examples of non-market behaviour;

Social/ group events held and degree of social cohesion in these;

Transaction records indicating extend to which exchanges build reciprocity across the whole network (in place of pre-existing or persisting relations): i.e. enquiring social reach

interviews with members and coordinators; Documentation; Observations; (Focus group(s) – if

necessary)

Table 3: The research protocol: Part B’: Assessing the effectiveness of crisis CCs

Key Research Question(s): How effective are these initiatives? What kind of future might they build?

A) Are they effective in delivering a “Schumacherian” utopia?

ASSESSMENT AREA:

How effective is the scheme in:INDICATORS:

DATA TYPE:

COMPARE TO:

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION:

Qua

nti-

tativ

e

Qua

li-ta

tive

Oth

er

sche

mes

Mai

nstr

eam

ec

onom

y

Economic Stance:

Promoting economic and social wellbeing?

Economic significance (system and individual level): Volume of trade, % of total expenditure without mainstream money, number of members and trading partners, variety of offers

Survey and accounts data from coordinators; Interviews with members

Other and/or non-tangible benefits: Subjective opinions on how involvement enhances wellbeing and empowers

Interviews with members and coordinators; Survey data

Promoting an alternative conception of work? Trade representing new openings for economic activity Interviews with members and coordinators

Promoting eco-localisation? Local goods production/consumption without mainstream money

Directories and survey data; Interviews with coordinators for empirical data

Promoting more resilient local communities? Account of the scale and flow of the circulation system Survey data; Directories data; Interviews with coordinators for empirical data

Discouraging the use of mainstream economic metrics/ statistics?

% of expenditure in local currency;Total amount spent in last year

Survey and accounts data; Interviews with members

Altruistic, non-competitive behaviour Ad hoc and semi-structured interviews with members; Observations

Viewing economic crises as part of a broader crisis?

Opportunities for uncovering the association between economic, environmental and social crises

Ad hoc and semi-structured interviews with members; Observations

Political Stance:

P a g e | 8

Discouraging the use of generalizable blueprints for action (Promoting the co-ordinated freedom of autonomous units)?

Subjective opinions on the challenges of and/or opportunities for thinking and doing in ways that oppose

capitalism;% of time devoted to the promotion of an alternative

political agenda;% of participants contributing in such discussions

Ad hoc and semi-structured interviews with members; Empirical data from coordinators;

ObservationsCriticizing the cultures of our era?Criticizing the economy-first principle of politics?

Intellectual Stance:Promoting long-term thinking? Subjective opinions on the challenges of and/or

opportunities for thinking and doing in non-capitalist ways;% of time devoted to metaphysical development;

% of participants partaking in such events/ discussions

Ad hoc and semi-structured interviews with members; Empirical data from coordinators;

Observations

Promoting the development of capacities for critical thinking?Promoting deeper spiritual values?

Moral Stance:Enhancing self-realisation whilst promoting economic responsibility?

Subjective opinions on the challenges/ opportunities for thinking and doing in counter-cultural ways;

% of time devoted to such discussions;% of participants partaking in such events/ discussions

Ad hoc and semi-structured interviews with members; Empirical data from coordinators;

ObservationsPromoting a non-violence attitude towards both sentient and non-sentient beings?

Promoting collective well-being via social integration and cooperation in place of a culture of individualism?

Subjective opinions on the capacity of the network to promote collective wellbeing and social integration;

Degree of social cohesion/ trust;% of membership attending meetings and social events;

Transaction records indicating extend to which exchanges build reciprocity across the whole network (in place of pre-existing or persisting relations): i.e. enquiring social reach

Ad hoc and semi-structured interviews with members; Empirical data from coordinators; Observations; (Focus group(s) for structured

interaction – if necessary)

A) What do their participants (i.e. members and coordinators) see as success?

Materialising on the objectives of its members and coordinators?

Subjective assessment of their ability to materialise on their aspirations;

% of time devoted to materialising on aspirations

Survey data; Ad hoc and semi-structured interviews with members and coordinators; Survey

data; Observations

Delivering unforeseen side-effects valued by its participants?

Subjective accounts of unforeseen benefits;Subjective accounts of the importance of these benefits

Survey data; Ad hoc and semi-structured

interviews with members and coordinators; Survey data

P a g e | 9

2.1) Research area and case-studies: This in-depth inquiry will focus on a select number of community currency schemes in recession-laden Greece. This is because Greece not only constitutes the sharp end of the economic crisis, but also because emerging evidence suggests that social innovations are a major component of the response to the financial meltdown (cf. Sotiropoulou 2012).

Furthermore, the selection of specific research case-studies has been carried out on the basis of purposive/ theoretical sampling (cf. Silverman 2010, ch.9):

Criterion 1: Choosing cases in terms of the conceptual research model: Schemes publically promoted with some degree of fit with the vision of a “Schumacherian” utopia; Particular setting: Greece; schemes within same city/ county (facilitating research logistics and

simultaneous data collection); Research focus: CCs because: a) they can – in principle – deliver a “Schumacherian” utopia, as they

do not only criticize mainstream cultures, but they also constitute milieus where new cultures are nurtured via novel practices, and b) as I am focusing on schemes emerging in response to the monetary crisis, they are, perhaps, the most relevant of the responses.

Criterion 2: Choosing cases which need not support my argument: Including schemes that appear to be working towards a “Schumacherian” utopia, but also those which fall short in many ways of Schumacher’s vision ( 3 case-studies representing schemes of no/ limited, considerable and extensive fit with Schumacher’s vision)

2.1.1) Case-study selection: The first step in selecting representative case-studies for the research purposes was a “mapping” exercise of the publicised nature of crisis CCs in Greece. Particularly, I developed a typological score-sheet systematically assessing CCs in terms of their fit with the vision for a “Schumacherian” utopia. Schemes with a higher degree of fit with Schumacher’s vision were awarded a higher score. Conversely, schemes with a lower degree of fit were awarded the lowest possible score. Particularly, for each of the components of a “Schumacherian” utopia (see Text Box 1), a score between 0 – 2 was given. A score of 0 indicated a lack of evidence that the respective consideration informed the culture of the scheme, a score of 1 indicated limited evidence that the specific issue formed part of the agendas of the respective scheme and, finally, a score of 2 indicated that there is considerable evidence suggesting that the scheme aims to achieve the specific element of a “Schumacherian” utopia (see Figure 1 below).

P a g e | 10

Figure 1: Mapping the nature of CCs introduced in Greece since 2008-9

P a g e | 11

Bearing in mind the above presented “mapping” of CCs in Greece, the research will focus on 2 – 3 of the following schemes identified as part of the theoretical (purposive) research sampling strategy:a. The “Votsalo” network in Korydallos (Piraeus municipality, Athens);b. The time bank of Exarchia (Athens municipality);c. The Athenian time bank (Athens municipality).d. The Heraklion bartering network (Heraklion municipality, Crete); e. The time bank of Heraklion (Heraklion municipality, Crete);f. The Heraklion local exchange and trading network (Heraklion municipality, Crete).

Given the Greek background of the researcher, no interpreters/ translators will be required. All consent forms and information (See Appendix 1) regarding the research will be communicated to the potential research participants in Greek. Similarly, all recordings/ notes will be made in Greek and then translated in English for the purposes of the final thesis.

3) Research ethics and participant recruitment procedure: As Atkinson et al. (2003) highlight, sociological research is generally portrayed as the “holy grail” of research in that it humanises people, it gives “voice” to humane values, and it makes a commitment to naturalism by capturing aspects of everyday lives. Indeed, this research makes this very commitment by trying to bring to the fore the “voices” of people who, at the grassroots level, practically demonstrate that the economic crisis may well be an opportunity. The “voices” of people that have not been previously heard and that have largely been marginalised by the mass media that only report on the malaises of the economic crisis.

Nonetheless, bearing in mind this strong moral hypostasis of the research, it is more than necessary to ensure that such research is also ethically correct in the way it is carried-out in practice. Otherwise, I would not only be betraying my research subjects, but also the science of sociology itself. As such, an extensive ethics protocol has been developed for the data collection stage of this research project.

Under normal circumstances, research that will take place in another country and will involve human participants from that country would require ethics approval via an appropriate ethics review procedure in that country. Nonetheless, Greece constitutes a peculiar case in that it remains amongst the few European countries without an agreed (or even a proposed) code of ethics or code of conduct for social science research (cf. http://www.eurecnet.org/background). Indeed: a) sociological and economic research ethics are at best dealt with at the discretion of the researcher (cf. Sotiropoulou 2012), and b) the only (national) ethics committee in Greece is the National Bioethics Commission of the Hellenic Republic; a commission which only deals with (bio-)medical research. By implication, this research will accord with the University of East Anglia Research Ethics Policy and the British Sociological Association’s (ESRC 2012) ethical code.

Specifically, the research protocol will comply with the general standards of ethical research (cf. ESRC 2012; Silverman 2010) by ensuring that research subjects are fully informed about: the research aims, methods, potential uses of the collected data, and potential risks of participation. In particular:A. Participants will be enabled to make an informed decision regarding their possible involvement in the

research project. This will initially involve email correspondence with the coordinators (i.e. the gatekeepers) of the networks informing them about the research and inviting them to participate. Given the nature and organisational structures of community currency schemes, the coordinators are

P a g e | 12

expected to discuss their possible participation in the research at their general assemblies which involve both the steering groups and the participants of the networks.

B. Whilst initial consent will be obtained via email correspondence, the decisions of the general assemblies of the networks will not bind the whole network in participating. Individual research participants will remain free from any coercion and their informed consent will be sought for each data collection element (namely in interviews, observations and questionnaires). Bearing in mind the provisional data collection schedule developed, individuals will: a) initially be invited to give their informed consent for participation in the observational element of the research, b) then have the freedom to choose whether they want to participate in the questionnaire survey, c) indicate in the final part of the survey whether they would like to provide further insights to their answers by being interviewed (i.e. by providing contact details), and c) choose whether or not to sign a consent form at the start of a planned interview.

C. Moreover, they will maintain the right to withdraw from the investigation whenever, and for whatever reason they wish. Such consent will be sought in writing (in Greek) by providing the participants with relevant information sheets and consent forms (See Appendix 1).

D. As Murphy and Dingwall (2001) highlight, it is a convention that anonymity and confidentiality should be respected. The participants will be protected via an agreement of confidentiality (unless consent for disclosure is obtained) and the research subjects will be anonymised by using numerical codes in both documenting and communicating the research findings. All documentation and recordings will be given a unique code according to the following: responder number and date of data collection. Should extracts get taken directly from narratives as part of writing up the thesis or other publications, or anecdotes get used for the purposes of private or academic discussion or presentation, then pseudonyms will be used. All written notes, questionnaires, electronic recordings and interview and other transcripts will be securely stored in password protected equipment or secure locations (e.g. hand baggage with combination locks).

E. The potential harms to participants in qualitative social research are often quite subtle and stem from the nature of the interaction between researcher and participant. As such, they are hard to specify, predict, and describe in ways that ethics application forms ask for and likewise, strategies for minimizing risk are hard to spell out (Guillemin and Gillam 2004). Nonetheless, a basic protocol to minimize the potential of harm to research informants has been devised:

a. No information that could place the research informants at risk will be disclosed to third parties. Moreover, data collection will comply with the risk assessment protocol (See Appendix 2) developed for the purposes of this research. This protocol protects participants from the low possibility of psychological stress (as research questions are highly unlikely to result in such unfortunate situations) and uneven power relations.

b. The issue of power relations is of particular importance in the interview process. Conventionally, the interview encounter is seen as involving a set of hierarchical power relationships, with the power-dominating academic probing, on one hand, the lives of research subjects and extracting information, or with research informants (mainly officials) maintaining the upper-hand (cf. Valentine 1997, 114). In this study I will attempt to equalise these potentially uneven power relations by adopting an informal conversational style in the interviews. As the former type of uneven power relations is more likely in the specific research, I will be allowing participants to choose a convenient and comfortable location for the interviews, and reminding them that they could stop the interview at any time without negative consequences.

c. Not only will harm be avoided, but the principle of beneficence will also be reflected in the obligation I will take as the researcher to act in ways that will benefit the participants. Particularly,

P a g e | 13

not only will I be actively involved in these networks (e.g. in aiding to organise events), but the research findings will also be of importance beyond academia. Conclusions regarding: a) the main challenges and weaknesses of schemes, and b) the main needs, aims and normative standpoints of the participants, will be communicated to the members and coordinators, providing them in this way with useful advice on how future activities should be designed. By implication, the research will largely align with the Kantian maxim that people should never be used merely as a means to someone else’s end (cf. Guillemin and Gillam 2004).

F. The research will be designed so as to ensure design, data collection and analysis integrity. Most importantly, perhaps, given the open-ended nature of the research questions and the post-Marxist non-capitalist normative stance underlying the conceptual research understanding, the true opinions of the research informants will be respected and brought to light. In other words, there will largely be no bias in the collection and reporting of data in that all sorts of information and standpoints are equally valued for the purposes of this research.

Moreover, in line with a general shift away from thinking of study participants as subjects and toward considering them as partners or collaborators in the research process (cf. Angrosino 2007, 89), the research will incorporate an element of informant review as part of the data analysis. As such, the proposed approach will follow that outlined by Holstein and Gubrium (2003) in which both interviewer and interviewee are active participants in the collaborative construction of data. In particular, research informants will be asked to validate and comment upon the collected data (e.g. transcripts and draft data analyses electronically (via email, and via a private online forum that will be hosted on my academic website).

3.1) Further details on each data collection method: Clearly, general procedural ethical considerations like the ones outlined in the first part of this section do not adequately cover all ethical issues arising. As such, the following sections (2.1. and 2.2.) offer greater detailing on the ethical provisions of the proposed research.

3.1.1) Ethics in Participant Observation Of all the methods usually applied in the social sciences, participant observation raises the greatest number of ethical questions; questions and difficulties which are additional to the aforementioned issues. Indeed, as Punch (1994) points out, it may well be that participant observation is inevitably unethical by being ‘interactionally deceitful’. However, and irrespective of this assertion, as well as the fact that ethnographic research ethics are barely mentioned in ethical guidelines (such as those provided by the ESRC), certain ethical guidelines can still inform this research. These are outlined in turn in the paragraphs below.

The primary ethical debate in regard to participant observation is whether to conduct research in a covert or overt manner (Silverman 2010). This is not a particularly difficult issue in this research project: as outlined above, to gain access to the community currency movements of interest, I will need to be overt about my role as a researcher and my research purposes, rather than applying for involvement in the networks. Nonetheless, this does not imply that consent will only be obtained via initial contacts with the coordinators of these networks. On the one hand, with the help of the coordinating teams, I will introduce myself and my research openly and honestly on numerous occasions, including sending an email which will describe my research, presenting my research aims at a public meeting of the group, seeking consent for participation in the research, and explicitly inviting any questions and comments. Moreover, participants will be asked to sign a relevant consent form (See Appendix 1). However, as the nature of participant

P a g e | 14

observation is to be flexible and also to last a long time, it is possible that the nature of the consent granted could have been forgotten or changed over time. To try and overcome this issue, I propose regular discussions regarding my developing research project with the participants of the network, discussing emerging ideas and themes and thus keeping them informed and verbally gaining their consent for continued participation (cf. Parker 2007).

Of course, I acknowledge that in certain instances there may be practical difficulties in achieving this informed consent with every individual who is encountered in the research setting, and repeated requests for consent may be unduly disruptive of the activities being observed. When informed consent cannot practically be obtained, it will be up to the researcher to conduct the participant observation in a way that still protects the rights of those being observed. Particularly, I understand that: a) It is my responsibility to recognize and respect the boundary between public and private behaviour and

speech – even in a public setting – and to adjust my informed consent procedures to get permission if data collection and/or analysis shifts toward the privacy realm.

b) Data without formal informed consent will be collected and analysed at a general level, if at all. Most participants are expected to have few (if any) privacy concerns, and an ethical violation is unlikely.

c) If I make my role as a researcher clear to others in the participant observation venue, their observable behaviour and interactions with me can be considered to fall into the implied consent arena. Specifically, and in largely following the guidelines of DeWalt and DeWalt (2010), I argue that note taking in public will further reinforce the ethical correctness of the research in that it will reinforce for participants that what is being done is research.

Additionally, in accordance with the provisions of the UEA Research Ethics Policy regarding participant observation (see Section 2.2.9), the researcher will ensure that: a) such research is only carried out in public events and meetings of the movements; b) where possible approval will be sought from the coordinators; c) no details that could identify specific individuals will be given in any reports on the research; d) particular sensitivity will be paid to local cultural values and to the possibility of being perceived as invading the privacy of people.

Secondly, as Silverman (2010) highlights, the demands of morally-sound participant observation implicate gaining the on-going approval and trust of the persons being studied. In other words, this component of my data collection will involve messy and ongoing interactions that are not reducible to simply obtaining signed consent at the beginning of the research (ibid.). Accordingly, trust will be established through self-presentation and demeanour. In particular, the principle of reciprocity (cf. Fetterman 1998, 501) will guide my participant observation; I will be giving something back to these movements by becoming an active participant and aiding in the coordination of their events and activities. Arguably, this ethical consideration will actually benefit my research as from being an outsider/ observer I will gradually become more immersed in the movements, gaining more data on naturally occurring interactions.

3.1.2) Asking questions: further ethical considerations regarding the interviews and questionnaires:This sub-section provides further detailing regarding the questionnaire survey and the interviews. Principally, the following guidelines (cf. Israel and Hay 2006) will be adopted:

A) Additional questionnaire survey guidelines: 1. The first section of the questionnaire will provide some background information on the research and

the researcher.

P a g e | 15

2. This section will also indicate how long it is expected that the participants spend completing the questionnaire.

3. Questions will be worded in simple, non-technical language, and in Greek, so that the questionnaire is accessible to people with low levels of literacy.

4. No questions that might offend or upset people will be asked as the nature of the research does not relate to sensitive issues. Participants will essentially be asked about their motivations for joining these networks and to provide an overview of their involvement and the extent to which their needs are met through this involvement.

5. Participants will be allowed to give additional information on their questionnaire responses by either: a) giving consent to be interviewed, b) filling in a comments box at the end of the questionnaire inviting them to provide any details they thing are necessary, c) contacting the researcher directly (contact details will be provided).

6. Questionnaires can either be answered as hard-copies (distributed in person at the network centres or distributed electronically via the mailing lists of the networks and stored online (on a secure electronic server (e.g. “Qualtrics”) that password-protects all surveys).

7. If, and when, questionnaires are distributed in a group setting (e.g. over a meeting), it will be made very clear that individuals can hand in a blank questionnaire if they want to.

B) Additional interview guidelines: Given the friendly, relatively unstructured nature of the interviews, no further major ethical concerns arise. However, some further ethical provisions will include:

1. People will be asked for consent to be voice-recorded.2. If they choose not to be voice recorded, they will be asked whether they are happy for notes to be

taken.3. Interviews will be held at a familiar place for the respondents (mainly at the offices/ social spaces

of the networks). These places offer enough privacy and are quiet, but are also public enough to minimize risks for the researcher.

4. As the researcher is a native Greek speaker, no interpreters are required. As such, he will be the only one that needs to be aware of the ethical code of the research.

5. Respondents will be sent a transcription or note of their interview for checking. 6. Participants will also be given the opportunity to comment on or change their interview transcripts

if they feel that a transcript misrepresents their ideas or words.

References:Atkinson, P., Coffey, A. and Delamont, S. (2003). Key themes in qualitative research: Continuities and

change. California: AltaMira Press.Baker, S. E. and Edwards, R. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough.

(<http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf>).Blee, K. M and Taylor, V. (2002). Semi-structured interviewing in social movement research. In

Klandermansm B. and Staggenborg, S. (eds.), Methods of social movement research. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cook, I. and Crang, M. (1995). Doing Ethnographies. Concepts and Techniques in Modern Geography No. 58. London: Institute of British Geographers.

DeWalt, K. M., and DeWalt, B. R. (2010). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Rowman: Altamira.

P a g e | 16

ESRC (2012). Framework for Research Ethics (FRE) 2010: Updated September 2012. Online: <http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/framework-for-research-ethics-09-12_tcm8-4586.pdf>.

Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography. In Bickaman, L. and Rog, D. J. (eds.), Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. London: Sage Publications, pp.473-504.

Fullerton, J. (2008). The Relevance of EF Schumacher in the 21st Century.Gubrium, J. F. and Holstein, J. A. (eds.). (2003). Postmodern interviewing. London: Sage.Guillemin, M. and Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research.

Qualitative inquiry, Vol.10(2), pp.261-80.Holstein, J.A. and Gubrium, J.F. (eds.) (2003). Postmodern Interviewing. London: Sage Publications.Israel, M., and Hay, I. (2006). Research Ethics for Social Scientists. London: Sage.King, N. and Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. London: Sage.Kitzinger, J. (1994). The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Interaction Between Research

Participants, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol.16(1), pp.103-21.Mason, M. (2010, September). Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews. In

Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 11(3). (<http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3027.%20%20%20%20%5BAccessed>).

Murphy, E., and Dingwall, R. (2007). Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Social Science & Medicine, Vol.65(11), pp.2223-34.

O’Riordan, T. (2013). Sustainability for wellbeing. Environmental Innovation & Societal Transitions, Vol.6, pp.24-34.

Parker, M. (2007). Ethnography/ethics. Social Science & Medicine, Vol.65(11), pp.2248-59.Punch, M. (1994). Politics and ethics in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.),

Handbook of qualitative research. Newbery Park, CA: Sage.Samers, M. (2005). The myopia of “diverse economies”, or a critique of the “informal economy”. Antipode,

Vol.37(5), pp.875-86.Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered. London: Vintage.Schumacher, D. (2011). Small is beautiful in the 21st century: The legacy of E.F. Schumacher. Devon: Green

Books.Silverman, D. (1985). Qualitative methodology and sociology. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Company.Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook: Third edition. London: Sage.Sotiropoulou, I. C. (2012). Exchange networks and parallel currencies: Theoretical approaches and the case

of Greece. Unpublished PhD thesis. Crete: Department of Economics, School of Social Sciences, University of Crete.

Valentine, G. (1997). ‘“Tell Me About. . .” Using Interviews as a Research methodology. In Flowerdew, R. and Martin, D. (eds.), Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project. Harlow: Longman, pp.110-26.

Wieviorka, M. (2012). Financial Crisis or Societal Mutation? In Castells, M., Caraca, J. and Cardoso, G. (eds.), Aftermath: The Culture of the Economic Crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.82-104.