Abstract
How does the dynamic of sibling relations affect researching and dissemination of research findings? How can we best capture the unfolding of this dimension in researching? We discuss these questions via the description of a community event where the siblings were directly implicated and an “emotional episode” arose leading to humor in one sense but also stress on the other as the younger sibling struggled to intervene and interrupt his older brother’s presentation. We discuss and analyze this “key emotional episode” by placing it in the cultural upbringing of the siblings involved in the study as well as co-authors’ reactions to the same episode. We conclude by stating the necessity to know your audience and the approach most conducive to fit the culture of community engagement. Further, we argue that in this time when so much emphasis is placed on team research, we know so much about the academic credentials and skills of our project team members, but little about their personal upbringing and how this can influence relationships and interpretations of findings.
Introduction
What is it like to work with a sibling as co-author in an academic research project? How and in which ways do research related activities unfold differently with sibling component? What culture embeddedness in the upbringing and ongoing relationship between siblings is meaningful in the dynamic of researching and disseminating findings? This article discusses this interesting component to research activity as two of the researchers are siblings (Luís and Norberto) and key members in the research team studying the state of Portuguese ethnic media in Montreal (Canada). The sibling experience took place during the delivery of preliminary research findings to the Portuguese community when Norberto presented on the history of the Portuguese media in Montreal. The unfolding of his presentation revealed underlying and unstated sibling relations, inter-mixed with Portuguese cultural traditions that surfaced humoursly in one sense, whilst generating awkwardness and tension between team members, in another.
Luís describes the content of the paper. Other members of the team participate in the discussion and analysis of the sibling research relationship. The description here cannot be strictly autobiographical since other members are implicated in the telling and unfolding of the story below. An autobiographical account of siblings working relationships would limit the analysis by understating the incorporation of broader social and cultural phenomena implicated in the discussion and analysis below. Therefore, we propose the novelist Annie Ernaux’s “autosociobiographie” perspective (Nunez, 2022) since it speaks simultaneously to (auto)biography and the socio-cultural embeddedness of researchers which in this case relate to sibling social ranking within the family in pre-Revolutionary Portugal (Paiva et al., 2018; Wall, 1988; De Matos & Paiva, 2022; Dos Santos, 1969). To us auto.socio.biographie more explicitly links social structures with developments of the self in our interpretation of the event in which we were implicated (Ernaux, 2003). We argue that our sibling research collaboration not only engages with research issues at hand, but takes into account issues arising from the nature of sibling relations at the societal scale conditioning and nurturing such a relationship in the first place (Whiteman et al., 2011). This recognition enriches our research activities in describing the uniqueness of our experience. It is important to acknowledge that each researcher brings their own social and cultural positioning to the study and that while this may be shared amongst researchers through common academic capital, it is nonetheless quite different in the cultural capital - as accumulated knowledge, practices and mores - each brings to the research group from their upbringing and cultural traditions. These researcher characteristics are rarely invoked and discussed, as are the examination of sibling relations research in family focused studies (Wall, 1993; Whiteman et al., 2011, p. 124). In our research, especially pertaining to this article, cultural traditions and practices are key in how a key emotional episode arose in the field giving rise to stress and anxieties among the researchers (Berger, 2010). But such surprises can lead to novel and unexpected discoveries of research related aspects, as they can of researchers themselves beyond their participation in groups requiring their cultural and linguistic skills in studies of cross-sections of a society’s population. Since research with humans and by humans, especially when it comes to cultural groups, cannot ignore social ties (fraternal, friendly, amorous, etc.), research “must” pass through these ties. But we often try to hide them, diminish them, because we’re afraid that colleagues will discredit our method, the path we’ve taken. So, we think the whole community of researchers in the humanities and social sciences (and even in other sciences) should be interested in these aspects of research, not just us!
A further point on the discussion below relates to emerging ethical issues in the unfolding of research activities and our interpretation of these activities. Ellis (2007, p. 5) writes that qualitative researchers “encounter ethical situations that do not fit strictly under the procedures specified by IRBs” (Research Ethics Board in the Canadian case). That is, situations that emerge in the research process falling outside the procedural and practical dimensions of ethical requirements by Research Ethics Boards (Ellis, 2007, p. 4). “Relational ethics” is situational ethics emerging in the field “require[ing] researchers to act from our hearts and minds, to acknowledge our interpersonal bonds to others, and initiate and maintain conversations” (Ellis, 2007, p. 4). She describes examples of relational ethics through discussions of the various past collaborations she has had with researchers. For Ellis researchers “must resolve how and what to tell intimate others about how they have been included in our stories” (Ellis, 2007, p. 17). That is, just because the people we are researching are our intimate partners or family members does not preclude ethical issues from arising and needing a response. In the story below, Norberto is centrally positioned but this is largely done and told from the point of view of the academics and their interpretation of the episode described. Luís, Farrah and Carlos framed the episode and interpretation whilst Norberto was invited to react to it and have us address any concerns he had with our interpretation of his time presenting the history of Portuguese ethnic media in Montreal. The point here is that just because Norberto is a co-author in this article and brother to Luís, doesn’t preclude ethical issues needing attention. In our collaborative and collective work, we have sought to “be on guard continually to process how we were feeling about the project and what we wanted out of it” (Ellis, 2007, p. 20). Norberto’s work was key in delivering the objectives of the study on the Portuguese ethnic media in Montreal and we want to ensure that the sibling relationship is presented in a way that respects Norberto’s integrity especially since he does not read English, and did not frame the discussion or interpretion herein discussed.
Ethnic media is produced by ethnic groups in Canada to be consumed also by ethnic groups in the country (Matsaganis et al., 2011). In our case study the producers and consumers of the ethnic media are Portuguese living in metropolitan Montreal (Aguiar et al., 2024). This project is a good example of a study carried out in partnership with groups and actors outside the scientific community. Increasingly, funding agencies want to support projects of this kind to respond to problems experienced in the field. They want research to be closer to the needs of groups, communities and others. Our project was very much in line with this approach. But how does a researcher go about finding this kind of project? As researchers, we don’t knock on doors and ask “Do you have any research needs?” No. More often than naught we go through our personal networks. This was the case for us. Our article contributes to reflecting on projects carried out in partnership with groups and actors from outside the scientific world, and the links between researchers and partners, as well as researchers themselves!
The paper begins with a review of the literature on academic research partnerships seeking to spotlight their internal functioning. It then moves to a description of the research project in Montreal, followed by a description of the methodology and the research process. We then describe and discuss the dissemination of the research’s preliminary findings and the event that brought sibling relations to a sharp relief. This is set within Portuguese culture and the transmission of values relating to sibling positioning in the pre-revolutionary Portuguese family structure (Dos Santos, 1969; Feijó & Nunes, 1986; Riegelhaupt, 1979; Wall, 1993). In 1974, the Portuguese people overthrow 48 years of fascism, in what became known as the Carnation Revolution (Mailer, 1977; Vieira, 2014).
Sibling Connections in the Literature
In sociology and related disciplines researching with partners (Adler & Adler, 2004; Armstrong & Armstrong, 1978, 1990; Comaroff & Comaroff, 2012; Duncan & Duncan, 2003; Tomic & Trumper, 2016) is not uncommon. In a few cases these “partnerships” were formed long ago and remain in place to this day (Armstrong & Armstrong, 2016; Tomic & Trumper, 2016; Trumper & Tomic, 1999). Little, however, is said about how their working relationships are grounded and evolved organically through the years (Armstrong, 2021). Some of these partnerships, are (were) motivated by a necessity to critique and undermine Fordist practices of individualizing work in academia and the reward system attached to “recognizing” intellectual labour as “individual” pursuits and achievements (Armstrong, 2021, p. 300; on Fordism see Harvey, 1990, pp. 121-200; see also Littler, 2018; Gill, 2016). For example, the Canadian sociologist Pat Armstrong recounts how from the very beginning of her academic career she resisted individualistic work and assessment, arguing, instead, for collective work as that which she sought to practice and contribute to intellectual and political development whilst becoming a sociologist. 1 On her early experience of graduate school and writing, she remarks (2021, p. 300): “Indeed, we [Hugh Armstrong and others] believed in collective work and in recognizing that few, if any, did intellectual work alone.” She further explains that graduate instructors were perplexed by her practice of collective work and often rejected grading papers not submitted as solo-authored. To her credit, Armstrong persisted in collaborative work with Hugh (and others subsequently), whilst building her illustrious academic career (cf. Armstrong, Armstrong, Choiniere, Feldberg and White, 1994; Armstrong & Day, 2017). And yet, for all her collaborative team work, Armstrong says little about the internal dynamics of working in groups except to express how satisfying this experience has been (Armstrong and Lowdnes, 2018). The political scientists Jane Jenson and George Ross (also intimate partners) have written together too (1985). Here again little is said about the internal organization of their working relationship. This is surprising given Ross’ (1995) extensive description of his methodological initiatives and strategies to gain access to Jacques Delors as he sought to install himself in Delors’ office to observe and study the work of the then President of the European Commission (Delors, 1992).
If little is said about researching together between couples – a long tradition in Sociology and Anthropology - even less is said when the relationship is outside this partnership but yet intimately familial. Co-authored academic research and writing between parent and offspring is much less common, but it exists (e.g., Donnelly & Donnelly, 2012; Mitchell-Sparke, Sparke and Mitchell, 2022). Even less common is the practice of siblings investigating and presenting findings together (Brock News, 2022). When these couplings exist, rarely do they divulge the laboring dynamic of working together from the inside of the relationship. What issues arise and how are they negotiated and resolved in the creative process of working together are rarely described in any detail. Is there nothing that emerges unexpectedly? Are there no surprises in working together? In the end, researchers’ “secrets” of backstage work remain guarded in their layering of impression management (Goffman, 1963).
One exception to this practice is the case of the Kitzinger sisters (Kitzinger & Kitzinger, 2019). Celia is at the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff University and Jenny in the School of Law at the same university. How they came to be employed at the same university is a story of institutional posturing and ruthlessness competitive university rankings (Eaton, 2022; Kitzinger & Kitzinger, 2019). Celia and Jenny research the treatment of patients “in prolonged disorders of consciousness” (including coma) and “the experiences of their families” (Kitzinger & Kitzinger, 2019, p. 897). For our purpose the relevant part of their work is the intensities of their activities which are both rewarding and exhausting. To address the latter, they applied different strategies including self-care through professional counselling, and debriefing with each other about their emotionally engaged and draining work as “insider researchers” whose sister suffered a coma inducing permanent brain injury in a car crash in the 2000s. For all their academic and activist efforts, Jenny was rewarded with promotion. But Celia was denied tenure at the University of York on the ground that she had “insufficient citizenship” in the department’s service duties as they engaged in “advocacy work.” This was surprising and disappointing to the sisters who emphasized their ongoing publishing record and acquisition of research grants. Celia resigned from the University of York and then joined her sister as an Honorary Professor in the Law School at Cardiff University in Wales. Thought they don’t say as much as we would have liked about their working relationship, they do say more than most about how the practice of academic work impacts their personal and professional lives. In doing this, they reveal the unevenness by which different academic institutions and disciplines punish and reward research work. In our case, Norberto is not in academic and so consequences or implications of his work in this study has no bearing on him institutionally. We hope, too, that there are no consequences for his ongoing community work, placement and profile.
Our Research Design
The research discussed in this paper focuses on the future of the Portuguese media in Montreal, Quebec. All research participants signed consent forms to part take in this study. The field research was postponed by COVID-19 and only in 2021 did we begin to conduct focus groups discussions in Montreal. Norberto was involved from the beginning in the project. He generated the context that led to this research idea, enabled part of the funding for the study, facilitated data collection by using his network of media personalities in the community for focus group participation, and acted as an intermediary between the researchers and the community in all stages of the research. In these ways Norberto contributes to the reflection on projects carried out in partnership with groups/actors from outside the scientific world, and the links between researchers and partners.
In what follows, we provide three different views and interpretations of the evident in question. The key emotional episode begins with the knowledge café (https://knowledge.cafe/knowledge-cafe-concept/) and cultural celebration we organized in May 2022 to draw the Portuguese community into the event to inform them of the preliminary findings on the state of the Portuguese media. The idea behind the knowledge café was to bring members of the Portuguese community to the event and gain their feedback. Within the format of the knowledge café, we organized four different displays each with its own theme, and then invited the audience to circulate about each display and comment on the themes with sticky notes provided or on the white boards atop the tables displaying each theme. This approach allowed us to consider ideas and opinions from those community members who did not participate in the original focus groups. Our cultural celebration brought to the venue folklore groups who performed traditional dances and songs. This was both to educate and entertain ourselves as well as use – opportunistically – the performers to entice community members to attend our event than might be otherwise the case. Refreshments and snacks were freely available (covered by the grant) to attendees to enjoy and consume.
Scene Setting 2
According to Fenstermake and Jones (2011) “physical and emotional intensity” is part of the research process. The experience seems to happen in the early stages of researching as investigators recruit and build trust with potential participants. Peter Berger (2010) concurs adding that fieldwork is emotionally charged with many ups and downs in conducting research in foreign lands and different and uninitiated cultures. But he also writes that “certain situations [in the field] stand out that have a more radical [emotional] impact on the persons involved” (2010, p. 119-120). These situations “may open up a different perspective on the field the research lives in and temporarily provide an interface and meeting point of experiencing ‘self’ and ‘other’” (Berger, 2010: 120). Berger calls these situations “key emotional episodes” which can “exert essential influence on the field situation” including “a change of status, a change of research situation, or a deepening of social ties” (Berger, 2010, p. 120). It is with this in mind that we discuss below an episode that had especially emotional meaning and implications for Luís in our study of Portuguese media. The episode wasn’t anticipated nor recognized by the team until we began to discuss the idea for this article and Luís explained the emotional anxiety he endured during the presentation of the history of Portuguese media in Montreal delivered by his older brother – Norberto. Below, Luís sets the scene of this key emotional episode and then the team partakes in analyzing the meaning of this emotional episode from their own point of view.
In the Casa
At the Casa (https://casasdosacores.org/en/casas-dos-acores/quebeque/), the audience is gathered in different round tables set-up throughout the hall. Many came with family members and they sit together. Norberto is at a table at the front of the room and slightly to the right side of the room. He is there with his wife and some community elites whom he has known for years. You could probably say that his table was the “table of honour.” Other tables are set-up and occupied between ours and his. I and author Carlos and Farrah are at another table further back in the room. I sit next to Amilie (our graduate research assistant), and between Carlos and Farrah as we watch and listen to the songs and dances performed by the two folklore groups invited to our knowledge café and cultural event.
Once the folklore groups are done, I stand, walk to the front of the hall and thank them for their wonderful performances. Then, I remind the room of the program yet to come and introduce Norberto. My brother will speak on the history of the media in the Portuguese community in Montreal. Norberto has been informed (previously when we asked him to do this) that no more than 15 minutes should be spent on this overview of the media in the community. We are eager to listen to him since there is little written on the Portuguese media in Montreal (see Fernandes, 2021 for tidbits on this history) and we need some of this history to contextualize developments in the community examined in our study. He is well placed to do this since he has been involved with the Portuguese media since the late 1970s. We also wanted him to move quickly through this history so that we can get to other items in the afternoon’s program, including inviting people in the room to partake in our knowledge café set-up.
Norberto delves into the history of the local Portuguese media beginning in the late 1950s, along the way summarizing both changing publications and media personalities through the years. His presentation also describes some of the key collaborations in the development of the media. A narrative of collaboration and renewal but also tension, rivalry and jealousy in the history of the Portuguese media in Montreal constitutes part of his story. Still, and despite the rivalries what emerges is a resilient Portuguese media in existence for over 60 years! But Norberto’s account is getting rather long.
As Norberto approached 25 and then 30 minutes of presentation, all three of us begin looking at each other realizing that he is going on for too long. And we cannot detect in his delivery an endpoint to the flow of his narrative. Plus, only now has he entered the new millennium in describing Portuguese media. So, a lot of material in this history remains to be covered. At this point, Farrah looks at me and head-motions me to intervene and tell him to wrap it up. I grin and pretend to not notice or understand what she implies by her gestures. I hope we can give Norberto a few more minutes for surely he will then end his talk. I secretly wish he ends it soon as I begin to stress that I may be put on the spot to stand up and intervene and tell my older brother to end his presentation. I remain seated and give Farrah no indication of being ready and willing to move towards the front of the hall and interrupt him. Farrah now seems annoyed not only with Norberto for going on but with me too for doing nothing about it. At this point, I look to Carlos to see if he can intervene. Carlos is closer to my brother’s age and they have a long relationship of working together on community issues. Besides, they also have a friendship outside official community issues – in their common love for Portuguese futebol – and which has been ongoing for years. So, I assume Carlos is more comfortable in this situation and will intervene on behalf of the team. Secretly, I want to defer intervention to Carlos and hope he subconsciously understand my dilemma given his upbringing, too, in the Azores. Carlos grew up 10 km from our town in Sāo Miguel – we in Cabouco and he in Ribeira Grande. I have no such luck. Carlos looks at me and grins indicating that while he sees Norberto going on in his presentation, he will not interrupt him either. And so we turn to each other with a resigned grin that Norberto will continue and that neither one of us will intervene to end his presentation. 3
At some point (my memory is fuzzy here), from our table at the back of the room, I sheepishly and tentatively raise two fingers indicating to Norberto that he has 2 minutes to wrap up. He says something like: “I see that they want me to end” but continues laying out the evolution of the Portuguese ethnic media in Montreal. As he continues and time presses, Farrah is incredulous. She body gestures to me with more instructions. I understand. But I do not act upon them. Her frustration shows as she narrows her eyes my way whenever I inadvertently look in her direction. Still, I do not move. And I stress. How am I to do anything given my under-sibling status to Norberto and the cultural upbringing that has reinforced this social ranking all my life. To upstage my brother would contravene my upbringing, not to mention risk “showing him up” vis-a-vis the community elite present and people who respect him and he they. I sit. I do not move. And, I avoid Farrah. I steer my looks elsewhere. Meanwhile Norberto rolls on.
While I am experiencing my own internal torment, Carlos is enthralled with the presentation. He is not surprised by the lengthened delivery. Carlos begins to explain his inaction by providing important background information. In an email to me, he
4
wrote: I know your brother Norberto since I arrived first in Montreal 1978 up to 1986 (when I moved to Toronto). I also saw your brother involve[ed] with the Portuguese media – first with the Voz de Portugal (working there + writing first “cronicas de jogos de futebol em Montreal, etc.”- soccer) [and then] he became co-owner of LusoPresse, which I [have been] receiving online for the last two decades or so.
Carlos points out that my brother is well placed to deliver an oral history of the Portuguese ethnic media in Montreal.
Carlos again: In sum, I know your brother’s passion...a LOT of passion for his newspaper, the Portuguese media and his goal of informing (and well) the community. TV came lat[er]...Your brother now is a “mini-encyclopedia” of who is who in Montreal... and did what in the Portuguese media/community in Montreal. He has the experience/knowledge[,] and as I mentioned before [,] a lot of passion for what he does + built/newspaper/TV, etc.
While I was relying on Carlos’ relationship of equals with my brother over the years to intervene, he remarks that it was precisely this long relationship that held him back from reacting.
Carlos: This being said, I was NOT surprised with his presentation ([t]ime spent) about the role of the Portuguese media in Montreal (an in-depth + detailed presentation). He felt at home with all of us there....[B]ut I agree with you - too long! I would say ‘Norberto’s style!’ As his friend[,] I would not to anything to stop him. I was enjoying his presentation. If you and/or one of us (and knowing Norberto well)....he would not stop talking! He was at home at CAQ [Casa dos Açores – venue of event].
Like me, Carlos felt that Norberto was in his element, and being his friend and in the midst of the Portuguese elite, he simply could not stand up and tell Norberto to end his presentation. For Carlos do to so would have been to betray his friend’s trust, confidence and stature in the eyes of the Portuguese present. He wanted to support Norberto and felt uncomfortable risking his friend “perder cara” in such a unique event at the Casa dos Açores. 5
Farrah had no idea of the self-tormenting I was experiencing. And while she knows Carlos and Norberto are long-time friends, she did not expect this to stand in the way of Carlos intervening. Plus, wasn’t Carlos (and me) thinking of the program and what still remained to be done! To Farrah we are two impossible and uncooperating team members sitting across from her doing nothing to act upon her motions, body gestures, and frustrated looks with what’s going on. It was left to her to intervene and put an end Norberto’s soliloquy. At first, she says that her initiative had to do with her reading of the room.
Farrah (also in an email): I [had] noticed that Norberto was ambitious on the time he was given. I also noticed that for you, Luís, this overflow [of time] was becoming annoying. As I don't speak Portuguese[,] I didn't understand everything Norberto was presenting[.] [B]ut I started to feel a certain uneasiness in the room. I'm not sure if it was a discomfort, something cultural (for example, for the French it's normal to openly criticize others) or personal. (Norberto has naturally been very involved for years with his community, which is very important to him... we could feel the emotion in his presentation).
As I have now described - what she read as “annoyance” in my face and fretting on the chair - was my misgiving and self-doubt about stopping my brother from continuing to summarize the history of Portuguese media in Montreal before a gathering the community members. According to Farrah, being outside the Portuguese community and culture, gave her a certain license to intervene and at the same time respect the program’s agenda and timeline. In this way, claiming integrity to the program and possessing academic authority, she could interrupt without social or symbolic risks or indeed embarrassment to Norberto.
Farrah: Being outside the Portuguese community, being an organizer of the activity[,] and above all not having any fraternal link with him, unlike you [Luís], I chose to stand up and, with my best smile, to approach Norberto at the front [of the hall] to indicate to him that time was running out. I also chose to stand up because clearly Luís you were telling me that the presentation of your brother was taking too much time, and that he wouldn’t like it if you [were to] cut him off.
At no time did I speak to Farrah about what was going on as everything was head bobbing and body gestures. So Farrah is quite perceptive in recognizing that ‘clearly Luís you were telling me that the presentation of your brother was taking too much time and that he wouldn't like it if you cut him off.’
She continues: As I approached the front of the room, Norberto got the message and was trying his best to get to the end of his presentation, but as Carlos said, it's hard for a person talkative as Norberto to keep it short.
Even so, Farrah describes her approach to the front of the room and Norberto’s presentation: So, 2-3 times I had to gently insist to conclude his presentation out loud, which he finally managed to do. I was afraid that Norberto would take it the wrong way, but he didn't seem to be offended that I asked him to wrap it up for the sake of continuing our program. We even laughed a little as things went on. I was happy with the outcome.
One Interpretation over Another
Some of the above might be attributed to a clash of cultures – academic and community. Academics are accustomed to short and concise presentations often overseen by a chair keeping them on track to the time dedicated to their conference contributions. This strict and adhered to practisce does not apply to community gathering where guests speak from personal experience detailing their pursuits and contributions to community development. On the basis of this practice it is no surprise that Norberto exceeded his time since it was the story he was telling that governed his contribution and not restricting the history of such an important community organization to an objective time limit. We, as academics, brought to the community a dissemination process that was participatory and interactive. But along the way we imposed an academic culture of dissemination that undermined the very nature of our knowledge café initiatives. With good intentions, we sought to follow well-established practices of disseminating research findings to communities with whom researchers collaborate (Allemann & Dudeck, 2019; Cooper, 2008; López et al., 2005; McDavitt et al., 2016). But instead of letting the dissemination flow from within the community environment and practices, ironically, we kept dissemination in tune with academic practice.
The above is certainly part of the explanation for what transpired during Norberto’s presentation. But it does not tell the full story of fieldwork and emotional episodes spontaneously arise in research (Berger, 2010). Therefore, Luís’ inaction in the scenario reconstructed above needs to be placed in the auto.socio.biographique perspective of Ernaux’s thinking.
Annie Ernaux (2003), the recipient of the Nobel prize in Literature in 2022, in correspondence with the writer Frédéric-Yves Jeannet, wrote that autobiographical account in literature – and social science too - seeks to shine a light on the hidden corners of one’s life through auto-biographical accounts of one’s coming into being (Ernaux, 2003, p. 60). Ernaux says she has no particular interest in practising this approach since she doesn’t consider herself particularly unique. Instead, her writing takes form through her understanding and incorporation of the sum of social, historical and sexual experiences in a dialogue with the past and present of her place in the world. It is in this way that she says her subjectivity is unique (Ernaux, 2003, p. 43). To further illustrate her point, she acknowledges that psychoanalysis has a lot to contribute and continues to do so to our understanding of biographical identities. However, she isn’t particularly interested in evoking it in her writing since she doesn’t think finding solutions to personal (what are in fact social) problems is an act of solo introspective exploration. What is rewarding and important to her is diving into the world by moving beyond appearances using all her energy and understanding, knowledge, memory and culture too, in excavating social life (Ernaux, 2003, p. 60). It is this sense of auto.socio.biographique we employ here in explaining the event in Montreal. That is, Luís’ reaction, err non-reaction, to the event in Montreal, must be conceived and understood in the total experience of his upbringing including cultural practices in the Azores but with parallels elsewhere. It is this that we want to suggest makes even more sense in interpreting the unfolding of the event in Casa dos Açores where Norberto delivered a history of the Portuguese media in Montreal and Luís listened unable to approach his brother and tell him “time is up.”
There are three siblings 6 in the family. Norberto is the eldest with Mariana in the middle. In the traditional Portuguese (Azorean) culture they grew up in, there was a discernable social ranking within the family whereby the oldest child took on responsibilities beyond his years and capabilities. This was particularly the case for the male offspring. As soon as he was able to, he became the second family wage-earner in the miserable economy of the Azores. 7 As the eldest son, he was in many instances a quasi-second father to his siblings. (It isn’t by coincidence that so often in the past the first-born male child was given the father first name; [Drimonis, 2022]). In this set-up siblings were socialized to recognize the eldest male sibling’s standing and respect and obey him to the point of allowing him to exercise the authority bestowed on him within the traditional family make-up. This included keeping siblings in line as a second (to the father) order disciplinarian. To be clear, Luís cannot remember his brother (or sister for that matter) ever smacking or verbally abusing to him. Norberto’s social authority was recognized and reproduced in many forms. For example, he always got the best and largest part of a meal – meals that were meagre in a poor family. Or, the largest and best piece of the meal was left for him to eat when he got home from work or training with the regional futebol team. This practice was never questioned as Norberto was the oldest male and a wage earner. 8 He needed his strength to continue contributing to the reproduction of the family unit. And for a family deep in poverty, his meagre wages were a matter of life and death. Luís remembers too, that if he ever wanted to smoke in front of his father, he would first have to ask permission from his brother to smoke in front of him before having the nerve to then ask his father to smoke. In the Azores at that time, unfiltered cigarettes were devoured by boys as young as 8 or 9. Luís’ father became a regular smoker at the age of seven. To smoke was a show of manliness and grown up status in a world where school ended at grade four and books were replaced by a hoe over the shoulder on the way to selling child labourers in the day labour market of Cabouco (Pais, 1990; Ravara et al., 2014). Norberto became a day labourer at the age of eleven (Ordóñez, 2015).
None of this respect and deference to the older brother seems recorded in accounts of the Portuguese family. 9 It has been difficult to find evidence of this practice and tradition of Portuguese sibling social ranking. Research in the sociology of the family in Portugal over the decades show divergencies and flexibilities in adapting traditional norms to evolving circumstances (Dos Santos, 1969; Wall, 1988). This literature has been gathered from empirical work on the family in mainland Portugal. Findings and discussions in this literature cannot be wholly transposed to families and their children growing up in the economy and social structures of the Azorean islands. The specifics of island life matter (Island Studies Journal, 2006), as does the Azores’ historical experience of neglect, marginalization and intra colonialization to mainland Portugal (Barbosa, 1978).
More broadly speaking, there is a literature that speaks to the ranking of siblings and their prospect on life changes, or on how decisions on who emigrated were determined by factors such as gender and age (Hidalgo, 2010; Paiva et al., 2018). However, little exists on the account of the intra-sibling relations, their origins, rationale and development. This is to say that one will not find a source describing the experience Luís had in his upbringing in the Azores. But this practice of sibling social ranking with the male taking on an added responsibility in the household isn’t unique to him. He also witnessed this operating in his extended family of uncles, aunts and cousins. Carlos says that in his household in the Azores, no one sat at the dinner table before his father did. 10 While we don’t think this practice of deference and respect to the older brother exists in such a (in)formal matter in the Azores anymore, it is with that upbringing, nonetheless, that the above emotional episode needs to be understood. In other words, Luís froze unable to intervene as a result of the weight of socialization in the Azores, respect and deference it bestowed on his older brother, and which continues to govern – to some extent - their relationship to this day.
But this phenomenon of social ranking within the family and how this translates into practice exists in different ways in different cultures. For instance, Luís’ colleague Agnieszka Doll describes her experience of growing up in Poland and the privileged position of the male sibling in the Polish household:
Agnieszka in an email wrote: When I was a girl and lived in southeastern Poland, in a town of about 20 000 people, there was this Christmas tradition/prejudice that if, on the Day of Christmas Eve, a girl is the first person who enters a dwelling, she brings bad luck to this household for the whole year (actually, I am not sure if it was for a year or generally, but if a boy enters then the home will attract luck.
This practice of male privilege meant some extra work for her and which she disliked intensely: Because my grandma with whom I lived and my close aunt's families were only female, I needed to search for distant cousins to come to visit my dear aunt first before I could do it. It was very offensive. Even as a small girl, I felt violated by this gender rule. I felt so unwelcomed as a girl that day.
11
Conclusion
How does this case inform larger research issues? How can we connect the specific to the general in remainder of this paper? Most social science research is designed and organized to control the research process so that research population conforms to researcher’s objectives and invites the former to participate under specific conditions and stipulations (Esterberg, 2002; van den Hoonaardrrd, 2018). Sometimes these procedures are said to be necessary in order to be consistent in the research project so that one interview isn’t drastically different from another thereby questioning the validity of the data collected. At other times, the research design is put together so that procedures are predictable and measured so that surprises are anticipated and quickly addressed. Qualitative research, especially that associated with fieldwork, rarely conforms to the schema we have previously designed to regulate our undertaking of a project. As much as we try to eliminate surprise and spontaneity in our research endeavours, it seems the more we encounter unpredictably in the field. This can arise from different sources and avenues. And we are so much the better researchers once spontaneity and the unexpected reveal themselves as we conduct research. For example, Tomic and Trumper (2016) in their study of farmworkers in the Okanagan Valley were forced to response to allegations of bias and unprofessionalism after a reporter quoted from a presentation by Trumper where he argued that temporary migrant farmworkers in the Okanagan were treated like slaves. A well-guarded research project on housing of temporary migrant agricultural workers was almost derailed as this reporter sought upon herself to accuse the researchers of biases without interviewing Trumper about his statement. The upshot of this “controversy” was that Tomic and Trumper discovered that the local media was tied to Okanagan farmers and often the former represented and protected the interests of the latter.
In our case, a seemingly innocuous presentation on the history of the Portuguese ethnic media in Montréal touched off long ago memories of childhood, upbringing and tradition to surface unpredictably at a community event set up to engage Portuguese community members with their media. While the community event was a success, the lengthy presentation by Norberto was informative and important contribution to our understanding of the history of the media and the personalities that owned it from the beginning of the first wave of significant Portuguese immigration to Montreal and Canada in the mid 1950s. Norberto’s overtime on delivery his lecture gave rise to humourous and tense moments between the research team members listening to him. And as described above, Luís’ passivity in particular regarding the flow of his brother’s presentation was tied to the social ranking of sibling within the Portuguese family in pre-revolutionary Portugal.
A further point we seek to make in this paper is that as much as our research design is articulated and organized to make the potential field of study predictable, controllable, often issues arise and surprise us in the field itself. In these situations, we need to think on our feet on how to address these developments. We also need to understand that we – even as participants in research teams – don’t have the same cultural upbringing and that we bring so much more to research engagement than that which we write and describe in our final product. This article, then, is a contribution to thinking about partnership research and the links that exist between researchers and partners, and too also think about the social links that exist (between researchers, partners, participants, etc.) while we’re doing research. It is also a contribution to sibling relations in research and the contextualization of that relationship not only in the academic setting but in cultural terms too. As research continued to develop in group gathering of experts on social problems, perhaps we need to be more aware of which other’s background than simply identifying what academic capital skills we bring to the group.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all research participants for their time and participation in this study. Without them, there would be no study. In addition, we thank our research assistant, Amilie Chalifoux, for their excellent research work, transcription and otherwise engagement in all aspects of the study. The Casa dos Açores provided space for our focus groups and subsequent presentation of findings to the Portuguese community. We thank Paula Ferreira for accommodating our needs at the Casa. Luís wishes to thank his colleague Dr. Agnieszka Doll for the numerous discussions around the central focus of this paper – sibling relations in family structures and cultures.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada grant in their Partnership Engagement Grant Competition. Our grant number is 892-2018-3024.
