This article explores what motivated participants to volunteer for a qualitative social work research project as well as the co-construction of the researcher-participant relationship. In social work research methodology literature, much attention has been given to the importance of engaging participants in democratized research relationships, but less attention has been given to the process from participants’ perspectives. Often, little is known about the meanings attributed by participants to the process. Based on information from participants in a doctoral research project on psychosocial support needs in relation to assisted reproductive service use, this article considers participants’ motivations to volunteer for research. Twenty-eight women were interviewed and all were asked about their motivations to volunteer; their responses highlight the mutuality of exchange and the complexity of the researcher-participant relationship. The need for social work researchers to carefully negotiate this relationship and to acknowledge and actively respond to participants’ motivations is reinforced.
DavidM (2002) Problems of participation: The limits of action research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 5(1): 11–17.
10.
DenzinNLincolnY (2000) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oak, CA: SAGE.
11.
DominelliL(2002) ‘Glassed-in’: Problematising women’s reproductive rights under the new reproductive technologies. In: AdamsRDominelliLPayneM (eds) Critical Practice in Social Work. London: Macmillan.
12.
DominelliLHollowayM (2008) Ethics and governance in social work research in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Social Work. 38(5): 1009–1024.
13.
Glaser B (2002) Conceptualisation: On theory and theorising using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(2): Article 3. Available at: http://www.ualberta.ca/∼ijqm/.
14.
GrayMWebbS (2010) Ethics and Values Perspectives in Social Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
GuptaJRichtersA (2008) Embodied subjects and fragmented objects: Women’s bodies, assisted reproduction technologies and the right to self determination. Bioethical Inquiry. 5: 239–249.
16.
HeideggerM (1975) The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
17.
HollandSRenoldERossNHillmanA (2010) Power, agency and participatory agendas: A critical exploration of young people’s engagement in participative qualitative research. Childhood. 17(3): 360–375.
18.
HugmanR (2003) Professional values and ethics in social work: Reconsidering post modernism. British Journal of Social Work. 33(8): 1025–1041.
19.
HusserlE (1999) Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology. Dordrecht: Klewer Academic Publishers.
20.
InhornMBirenbaum-CamreliD (2008) Assisted reproductive technologies and cultural change. Annual Review of Anthropology. 37: 177–196.
21.
KleinR (2008) From test tube women to bodies without women. Women’s Studies International Forum. 31(3): 157–175.
22.
McCormickM (2011) The lived body: The essential dimension in social work. Qualitative Social Work. 10(1): 66–85.
23.
McNamaraP (2009) Feminist ethnography: Storytelling that makes a difference. Qualitative Social Work. 8(2): 161–177.
24.
MertensDGinsbergP (2008) Deep in ethical waters: Transformative perspectives for qualitative social work research. Qualitative Social Work. 7(4): 484–503.
25.
PeledE (2010) Doing good in social work research: With or for participants? A commentary on ‘The obligation to bring about good in social work research: A new perspective’. Qualitative Social Work. 9(1): 21–26.
26.
PittawayEBartolomeiLHugmanR (2010) Stop stealing our stories: The ethics of research with vulnerable groups. Journal of Human Rights Practice. 2(2): 229–251.
27.
PonicPReidCFrisbyW (2010) Cultivating the power of partnerships in feminist participatory action research in women’s health. Nursing Inquiry. 17(4): 324–335.
28.
RichardsL (2005) Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide. London: SAGE.
29.
ShawI (2008) Ethics and the practice of qualitative social work. Qualitative Social Work. 7(4): 400–414.
StrierR (2007) Anti-oppressive research in social work: A preliminary definition. British Journal of Social Work. 37(5): 857–871.
32.
ThompsonC (2005) Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge: MIT Press.
33.
ThorneSReimer KirkhamSO’Flynn-MageeK (2004) The analytic challenge in interpretive description. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 3(1): 1–11.
34.
Wendt S and Boylan J (2008) Feminist social work research engaging with poststructural ideas. International Social Work 51(5): 599–609. Retrieved 19 August 2008 from http://www.isw.sagepub.com.
35.
YegidisBWeinbachR (2002) Research Methods for Social Workers. Boston: Allen & Bacon.
