“Where the dialogue is fulfilled… there is brought into being a memorable common fruitfulness which is to be found nowhere else…The world arises in a substantial way between men [sic] who have been seized in their depths and opened out by the dynamic of an elemental togetherness. The interhuman opens out what otherwise remains unopened.” (Buber,1965, p.86).

Relational approaches to research are discovery-orientated and emphasise how data emerges out of co-created, embodied, dialogical encounters between researchers and co-researchers (participants). The researcher’s attention slides between the phenomenon being researched and the research relationship; between focusing on the co-researcher’s talk/thoughts/feelings and exploring the relationship between researcher and co-researcher as it unfolds in a particular context.

One notable example of relational research is the dialogal approach adopted by Halling and colleagues (Halling, Leifer and Rowe, 2006). Here, a group of phenomenologists investigate a phenomenon through dialogue which takes place both among researchers and between researchers and the phenomenon studied (Halling, 2008). Individuals share their experiences of the phenomenon, perhaps interview others, and then negotiate layered meanings collaboratively in the group until some consensus is reached.

Another way of working relationally is the co-operative inquiry approach of Heron (1996), stemming from the earlier New Paradigm Research (Reason and Rowan 1981). This approach draws on some phenomenological ideas but also casts its net farther. Non-phenomenological methods of collaborative, participatory action research also embrace relational principles; examples include the work of Reason (1994) and Arvay (2003). Morrow (Morrow and Smith, 1995) offers an account of using grounded theory while working relationally with her participants.

The version of relational research which I’d like to advance here has emerged out of a special collaboration between Ken Evans (a gestalt and integrative psychotherapist) and myself (Finlay and Evans, 2009 Forthcoming). Our relational approach, which we are continuing to develop, employs theoretical concepts from existential phenomenological philosophy (e.g. Merleau-Ponty, 1962, 1968) as well as gestalt theory (e.g. Hycner and Jacobs, 195), relational psychoanalysis (e.g. Mitchell and Aron, 1999) and intersubjectivity theory (e.g. Stolorow and Atwood, 1992). The work of the Jewish-German philosopher, theologian and educator Martin Buber (Buber, 1923/1996) has been a particular significant influence on our emerging approach. Buber believed that students grow through the direct encounter with the person of the educator who in turn, enters the phenomenological world of the student to experience and feel it. In this way we are challenged to grow through our relationships.

In our relational approach (as opposed to ‘method’), relational dynamics (both conscious and unconscious) between researcher and co-researchers are taken seriously and explored reflexively. This needs to be done without the researcher becoming excessively preoccupied with their own experience of the encounter (Finlay, 2002a; Finlay, 2002b). Not every researcher, however, will be motivated to engage in the sustained reflexivity required and not every research relationship and project will demand it. For this reason, relational research should be applied selectively according to what the research demands.

The following word document papers outline different aspects of our relational research approach including theoretical, ethical and practical dimensions.

Arvay, M. (2003). Doing reflexivity: a collaborative, narrative approach. In L.Finlay & B.Gough (Eds.). Reflexivity: a practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou. (R.G.Smith, Trans.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.(Original work published 1937).
Buber, M. (1965). The knowledge of Man. New York: Harper and Row.
Finlay, L. (2002a). “Outing” the researcher : the provenance, principles and practice of reflexivity, Qualitative Health Research, 12(3), 531-545.
Finlay, L. (2002b). Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice, Qualitative Research, 2, 209-230.
Halling, S. (2008). Intimacy, transcendence, and psychology: closeness and openness in everyday life. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Halling, S., Leifer, M. & Rowe, J.O. (2006). Emergence of the dialogal approach: forgiving another. In C.T.Fischer (Ed.). Qualitative research methods for psychologists: introduction through empirical studies. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: research into the human condition. London: Sage.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1945).
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible (A. Lingis, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. (Original work published 1964).
Mitchell, S.A.& Aron, L. (Eds.). (1999). Relational psychoanalysis. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.
Morrow, S. & Smith, M. (1995). A grounded theory study: Constructions of survival and coping by women who have survived childhood sexual abuse. In John Cresswell (Ed.), Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (pp. 297-321). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reason, P. (1994). Participation in human inquiry. London: Sage.
Reason, P. & Rowan, J. (Eds.).(1981). Human Inquiry: a sourcebook of new paradigm research. Chichester: Wiley.
Stolorow, R.D. & Atwood, G.E. (1992). Contexts of being. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.