The movie Kitchen Stories and discussions around it were thought provoking and makes me think about the evolution of research methods and the sensitivity and ethics required to conduct a study. The movie, which is based on real life social experiments conducted in Sweden during the 1950’s follows a research institute which sets out to modernize the home kitchen. The research study collects information by making observations of Norwegian bachelors.

We looked at connections made between the moments of the movie that made us laugh and how research methodology looks drastically different today.

One particular example of a humorous part of the movie occurs when the telephone is ringing, however the participant (Isaac) never picks it up. The participant often just stares at the phone, watching it ring.  Later on when the observer asks the participant why he never picks up the phone, he learns it is because it is too costly. The fact that all the observer had to do was ask, lends itself to question why the research methods need to be so rigid? (expecting that the observer sit in the umpire chair and not communicate with the participants). A great deal of time could have passed in this research study, and the observer may never have come to gain the information as to why the participant never answered the phone. Engaging in communication is vital in research and this scene in the movie shows us how quickly the observer could have acquired the information.

There are a number of things we can question with regards to the methods employed in this research study.

  • How difficult is it to be objective when there are cameras placed everywhere?
  • Whose shape of reality is this study supposed to represent? The fact that they are not able to communicate with one another seems very obscure.
  • How long would it have taken researchers to reflect back and consider how unnatural and unrealistic the methods are?
  • Would this clinical research data be considered accurate and valid? There is a part in the movie where the participant becomes the observer.

There were some good connections between the movie and our discussion with the guest speaker, Shauneen Pete this week. In the movie, the observer (Isaac) mentions that he is not comfortable with being observed. He speaks to the fact that he was observed during the war. Knowing about the historical background lends itself to varying responses. This concept of allusion is clear. Those from Sweden and Norway would have a different response as opposed to those not from Europe who may miss the context. These deep relationships could affect the interactions needed for the research study.

When we look at research groups who want to observe various cultures, we have to take into consideration how they are going to feel about it, especially if the intention is to come in and simply observe as demonstrated in the movie.  Research groups may have backlash from their participants as they may be viewed as culturally insensitive.  These research methods can be easily viewed through a colonial lens, where they are not looking to engage in dialogue and meaningful relationships to establish a base line, rather impose themselves on the participants. This research approach need to be weary of the potential for harm and think about the ethical dilemmas they may incur if not coming from a more naturalistic approach.

In Shauneen Pete’s article, Idle No More: Radical Indigeneity in Teacher Education, she speaks to the concept of critical multiculturalism, which is used to help understand the structural inequalities. This concept allows us to look closely at unequal power relationships and analyze the role of institutional inequalities. Shauneen spoke about how indigenous peoples often feel like outliers in their own communities. While she was talking about indigenous people in education, if researchers are taking a similar colonial approach, they may feel like foreigners in their own community. The potential for harm is overwhelming, especially when we look at western society and its research methods, which in the video clearly did not see the importance of dialogue between the observer and the participant. This also speaks to the importance of reciprocity of information sharing. If cultural communities are not made to feel worthy of their contributions to research studies or feel that there is a lack of information sharing, the results of the study may lead to a negative response. This response may further exacerbate the structural inequalities that continue to exist between indigenous communities and the western world.