Berger, "Now I see it, now I don't: researcher's position and reflexivity in qualitative research"
Focusing on reflexivity
This study seeks to understand if reflexivity in qualitative research is affected by whether or not the researcher is part of the research group, sharing their experiences. To me, this just seems like it would be an obvious answer. If you are part of a specific group, you will have a deeper understanding of how things work within that group and will be able to make more meaning from the responses of participants.
"the colonization of knowledge": the systematic subordination and exclusion of non-Western, indigenous, and local knowledge systems by Eurocentric, scientific, and colonial frameworks
Disciplines that incorporate the self as part of the study: autobiography, autoethnography, narrative co-construction, and reflexive ethnography
"Reflexivity": the process of a continual internal dialogue and critical self-evaluation of researcher's positionality as well as active acknowledgement and explicit recognition that this position may affect the research process and outcome
Ways in which positions of the researcher can affect the research:
1. Can affect access to the field because participants know the researcher is sympathetic to them; the researcher is more knowledgeable about helpful and informative resource
I've come across this in my research on oral history projects. Participants are much more willing to be open with those who are part of their group. For instance, in one study about the creation of an African American English corpus, the interviewees spoke much differently when being interviewed by an African American versus a Caucasian. I know that in oral history projects focusing on Appalachians, this phenomenon is also observable.
2. May shape the researcher-researched relationship, which could affect the information collected
This also plays into what I was just discussing.
3. Worldview/background of the researcher affects the way in which s/he constructs meaning
We bring all of our "baggage" with us, and it's important that we recognize that up front.
Goal of reflexivity in qualitative research: increase the accuracy of the research by acknowledging researcher values, beliefs, knowledge, and biases
Reflexivity should be incorporated into every step of the research process.
Ways to maintain reflexivity:
- repeat interviews with the same participants
- prolonged engagement
- members checking
- triangulation
- peer review
- forming of a peer support network and back talk groups
- keeping a diary or research journal
- creating audit trail
We spent a good deal of time discussing these ways of incorporating reflexivity into our autoethnographies with Dr. Hanauer. Since we were subjects in our own study, making sure we positioned ourselves and gave full disclosure was key. We also did several peer reviews to check for bias, as well as kept detailed research notes.
Have been there, have done that: reflexivity when studying the familiar
In this portion of the paper, Berger discusses how being an immigrant and then conducting a study on immigrants created the situation of being both an onlooker and a cast member, so to speak. This reminded me of The Great Gatsby when Nick Carraway repeatedly refers to himself as “within and without,” commenting on his dual role as an active participant in and observer of the events of the novel.
Pros: This duality gives Berger three advantages when conducting this study: “easier entree, a head start in knowing about the topic, and understanding nuanced reactions of participants.”
Cons: blurred boundaries, imposing the researcher’s personal values, beliefs, and perceptions upon the participants, and projection of biases
Interestingly enough, Berger claims that after a while, it began to be difficult to separate her story from theirs, due to the parallels. This required constant re-examination to enforce the separation needed for the study. She also struggled with just how much was appropriate to share and how deeply she wanted to go into her personal experiences.
Discussion Question #1: If we are studying a group of which we are a part, how do we know how much to disclose? Berger is obviously a seasoned researcher, and this balance is clearly something even she struggles with. How do we ensure that we share enough about ourselves for the purposes of reflexivity, but don't share so much that we pull focus from our participants?
All of this is not to say that if you aren't part of a particular group that you can't study that group. However, you need to be very open about NOT being part of the group and what biases/misinterpretations/problems that this entails. Again, this is done through reflexivity. Berger uses an example where a researcher is not part of the group (immigrants) he is studying, and while he acknowledged as much, he also failed to reflect on many of his statements which clearly demonstrated his nonimmigrant perspective. Reflexivity needs to be present at all the steps of a study to avoid this.
"Empathic distance": establish rapport, but do not disclose more than necessary so as to not compromise the research perspective (Valentine)
Here and there, now and then: reflexivity in studying while becoming
In this section, she discusses studying stepfamilies while becoming a member of a stepfamily. This transitional period caused her to reevaluate some commonly held beliefs about the structure and relationships within a stepfamily. This shift in perspective caused her to go back and re-evaluate findings from her stepfamily study; she was able to glean new information simply because she had a new perspective.
Strangers in a strange land: reflexivity in studying the unfamiliar
Random note: I love the use of this Heinlein quote! Not enough people are familiar with his work these days!
Pros: In this study, Berger is not a member of the group being studied, maker her an "outsider." This study focused on abused divorcees and demonstrated that when the participants are the "experts," it can be an empowering experience for them. Additionally, researchers unfamiliar with a particular situation often approaches it with innovative ideas. There is also no role confusion for the researchers, which ensures they can maintain partiality.
Cons: researcher cannot fully comprehend a situation they have not experienced; challenge to create a research question that is relevant to the experience; absence of language sensitivity; difficulty developing question; additional research needed; difficulty in recruiting participants; missing subtle clues expressed via the group's shared language
Reflexivity is essential when studying a group you are not a part of; you have to keep revisiting it in order to make sure that you aren't imposing your own thoughts and ideas upon what the respondents are actually saying.
Berger was very open about her personal biases within this particular study and acknowledged how this could skew her interpretation of the data. She was very deliberate with her reflexivity practices, and used triangulation to ensure accuracy.
Practical measures for maintaining researcher/participant balance: three-part log (what the participant said, what it meant, and the researcher's thoughts and feelings about it), repeated review (with time lapse), and peer consultation.
Siegel Finer, "'I had NO idea': Rhetorics of Choice and the Effects of Surgical Menopause"
Focusing on positionality
From the very beginning of this article, Siegel Finer clearly demonstrates her positionality within this study. She is clearly on the “inside” of the group being studied, knowing first-hand the effects of surgical menopause. The study began with a series of questions expressed in a blog post which indicated self-blame; the study’s findings indicated that she was not alone in these feelings.
This is a really good example of sharing personal information and then relating it to the overall findings of the study, as in “I experienced [phenomenon under study], and the data which was collected indicates that [phenomenon under study] is not an isolated experience.” Later on, in the discussion of the findings, we also see the data being presented first and then linked to more personal information. The researcher is connected with this study on a personal level at every step of the process, but does her best to guard against bias and be as transparent as possible.
“In no analysis or age group was oophorectomy associated with increased survival.” This shook me to my core!!!
Positionality came into play with the analysis as well; using grounded theory to let the data emerge organically and delaying writing the lit review to guard against biases seem like very good decisions given the researcher’s close connection to this study.
Personal note: Dr. Siegel Finer, thank you for writing this piece! I would have never considered this a topic for a rhetorical analysis, but you make it seem so natural. Honestly, I stopped taking my “steam of consciousness” notes because I became so locked in on the study. As someone who has suffered from reproductive health issues since high school, this article made me feel seen in a way that the doctors have never seen me. While I have not gone through the same procedure, I’ve had multiple surgical procedures for which I received little to no information, except for being told they were “necessary.” This is an important study, and I can see why you picked this to demonstrate the concept of positionality; I really don’t think that someone who hasn’t gone through this experience would have been able to pick up on the nuances of the participants’ responses. As a matter of fact, I’m not sure someone who hadn’t experienced this phenomenon would have even thought to do this study in the first place. Thank you for sharing this with us!
Discussion Question #2: Is there ever a time when our positionality would conflict with us doing a particular study? The article by Dr. Siegel Finer is based on something intensely personal, and yet she manages to create a study which actively combats personal biases every step of the way. I’m just wondering if there might be an instance when we’re “too close” to really pull ourselves back and view a topic objectively.
Atkins, Mackenzie, and Jones, "Ethical practice in participant-centred linguistic research"
Focusing on ethics
PCLR: participant-centered linguistic research; goes beyond collecting data “by” and “about” the participants; includes linguistic ethnography and anthropology, interviews, and participant-observer approaches to language research
Four key ethical principles:
- Informed consent and ethics protocols are dialogic processes
- Expectations around confidentiality and anonymity can shift during a project
- The researcher-participant relationship is complex and variable
- Close attention must be paid to power dynamics within the research setting
I really think that PCLR approaches would yield better results in studies involving Appalachians than traditional studies. The focus on the reciprocity between the researcher and the participants would be much more well received. The more traditional study where the researcher has all the authority would offend a lot of Appalachians. For years, people from “outside” have come here and tried to assert their authority over us. This has created a barrier between Appalachians and the “outside” world. However, researchers who “underlin[e] the importance of listening to participants on their own terms, valu[e] their experience and expertise, and relat[e] to them as equals” would be more likely to be accepted by Appalachians and therefore would garner better results in collecting data.
Until now, I’ve never really considered that there are macro (procedural ethics) and micro (ethics in practice; day-to-day ethical decisions) levels of ethical discrepancies exist. I’ve only ever really considered the “big picture” when it comes to ethics.
Keeping with the themes of this week’s readings, it seems that reflexivity plays a key role in the ethical aspects of a study. And just as reflexivity is ongoing, so to must the ethical considerations be revisited throughout the length of the study since linguistic studies which are participant centered are fluid and unpredictable. Expect the unexpected!
The case studies being focused on in the article really paint a good picture of the vast array of ethical dilemmas which can emerge during a PCLR study. While I immediately knew that Lucy was going to have some issues with the participant ages, the other studies did not strike me as having the potential for ethical discrepancies. I’m glad this article pointed out these possible pitfalls so I can take steps to safeguard against such instances within the research I will be conducting one day. For instance, I didn’t realize that informed consent is fluid. I work with oral histories, and in those cases, there is a form that is signed giving the interviewee’s consent for the interview to be shared with the archive and used for educational purposes. This is a standard form, and does not change. However, this type of agreement does not provide for the freedom to withdraw a particular interview or really to alter confidentiality in any way. Once the agreement is signed, that’s it; anyone who gains permission to use the archives for their research can use any interview with a signed form. However, after reading this article, this practice doesn’t seem as ethical as I first believed.
One thing that really stuck out from Jai’s MFO project was the idea of shifting parameters for anonymity, particularly in instances where consent from friends might be needed to share particular posts; this was altered due to this concern to the researcher only using posts generated by the participant. Again, I see this in my own work with oral histories because there are many occasions in which an interview contains comments from a third party who is not explicitly part of the interview. While the whole tape is listed as belonging to the interviewee and a consent form is on file, what right do researchers have to the comments made by the third party participant who just happened to be around when the tape was being made and offered some commentary? If they’ve not given their consent, would/should that be included under the umbrella of the main interviewee’s consent form?
Discussion Question #3: I’ve always thought that “conflict of interest” is a no-go for research. However, this article states that navigating multiple roles and interests (which may be seen as conflicts of interest) are central to participatory models. Does that mean that conflicts of interest don’t come into play anymore? Do we just acknowledge these conflicts and proceed with the study anyway?
Comments
Post a Comment