3
Introduction
Researchers interested in family life, family communication and family environments
have sometimes used qualitative, naturalistic and ethnographic research methods to
understand how family processes unfold and develop in the temporal and spatial setting
of the home (Warren, 1987; El-Or, 1992; Lindlof & Meyer, 1987; Lull, 1980; Morley,
1986; Palmer, 1986). This scholarship offers a window into the rich meaning of what
external observers may perceive as the mundane activity of the family (DeCerteau, 1984).
Television is often a backdrop to much of family life and its use may be unconscious and
taken-for-granted (Lull, 1980). Thus, it is productive to explore the meaning of the
medium to the family’s system of relationships by situating the research where TV use
most often occurs: the home. The home, however, is an intimate setting – one that is
laden with expectations and surrounded by physical and psychological boundaries. This
paper examines how the research process is negotiated and defined by research
participants when the study is carried out within the home environment. To this end, I
describe my experiences in two separate home-based studies and frame these experiences
through the prism of a social constructionist perspective. Such a perspective argues that
meaning is “constructed” by those engaged in interaction – meaning that is shaped by the
frames participants bring to their encounters (Goffman, 1959; Gergen, 1997). By
presenting these research encounters from a self-reflexive stance, I grapple with the ways
in which researchers are understood and labeled as family members who attempt to
construct a role for the researcher and define the situation according to their needs,
understandings and experiences.
Convention