By Yunshan Li

Our group was assigned to study the organization and function of Student Engagement which is responsible for the support of clubs and leadership development. During our fieldwork, we planned to conduct participant observation on Student Engagement workshops. The staff in Student Engagement welcomed us at the beginning and seemed enthusiastic to help with our research. However, after knowing that we plan to observe workshops which are student-facing, they hesitated. After a series of negotiations, the result was we could only do participant observation in internal meetings which happened between staff members and work-study students, and a few in-person events which only contained very few students, but were restricted from most student-facing events both in-person and online.

This barrier in research made me reflect on why Student Life staff members are sensitive about the privacy of students. I explain this phenomenon for two reasons. Firstly, these workshops not only aim to convey knowledge to students but also provide a space for students to communicate and reflect on their own experiences. A typical workshop starts with an ice-breaking activity to help participants get familiar with each other, and at the beginning or the end, there is usually a discussion about the workshop topic. For example, one workshop on event planning (I did not attend this one but read the slides) started with a discussion of “think of a successful event you attended. What made it go well? (Student Life 2024)” These workshops are not a unidirectional process, but an engaging space that encourages students to actively participate, which makes Student Engagement Staff worried that we may record students’ opinions. More importantly, in the beginning, there is usually an introduction of the “group guideline”, which states that this is a judgement-free and confidential space, and these workshops are not recorded. Therefore, allowing us to take notes on what happened in the meeting risks breaking these principles.

Secondly, it is challenging to get true consent from participants in a relatively large meeting, especially online. Because we cannot contact participants beforehand, the most likely scenario is the facilitator announcing our research before the workshop starts, sending a copy of the information form in the chatbox, and asking if anyone does not want to participate in our research. Of course, we would leave the meeting if even one single person refused, but it is difficult for participants to say no in front of so many people. According to Erving Goffman’s impression management theory, people strive to maintain a favourable public image in social interactions (Goffman 1959). Rejecting another individual in front of others may put both the rejected and the rejector in an uncomfortable position because it impacts how others view them. Because our research may seem reasonable and does not directly harm participants, it is difficult to say “no” to the researcher due to the concern of maintaining the “face” of both the participants themselves and the researchers. It is even harder online because online communication forms a stronger sense of distance, people may tend to be more polite when facing strangers online. Student Engagement is responsible for protecting students in their programs. This is why the staff members considered it relatively acceptable for us to attend these in-person events with fewer people because everyone actually has a chance to read the information sheet and talk to us if they have any questions. 

References:

Goffman, Erving, and Marshall McLuhan. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor books edition. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday Anchor Books.

Student Life. 2024. “Event Planning for Clubs and Groups.”