Embedding reflexivity into the research process

It is clear that my life experiences, as well as my upbringing, education and social background shape the way in which I view the world. This gives me a “sphere of

understanding” (Shaw, 2010:235); the basis from which my experiences and interactions are interpreted. Adopting a reflexive approach to this study helped to ensure that these

subjectivities become “thoughtful, self-aware analysis” (Finlay and Gough, 2003:9). As Shaw puts it:

“Through making ourselves aware of our own feelings about and expectations of the research, we can begin to fully appreciate the nature of our investigation, its relationship to us personally and professionally, and our relationship as a researcher and experiencer in the world to those with whom we wish to gather experiential data.” (2010:235)

Finlay (2003:4) suggests that reflexivity also enables the researcher to present a transparent account of the research process; and transparency, Pettigrew (2013) argues, is a key

constituent of exemplary qualitative research. It was important that reflexivity in the present study went beyond the single reflexive position of critical self-reflection. It was a personal experience of trauma that initially led me into the field, therefore finding multiple reflexive positions that would challenge my own subjectivities was important. Having personal lived experience of the topic under investigation can hinder as well as help the research process (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004; Haynes, 2006; Woodthorpe, 2009); meaning that my

relationship with, and emotional reactions to the research, as it evolved, required critical variants of reflexivity.

Of Finlay’s (2003) five variants of reflexivity; (introspection; intersubjective reflection; mutual collaboration; social critique and ironic deconstruction), the present study shifted between three positions; (introspection, intersubjective reflection and mutual collaboration). The variants of social critique and ironic deconstruction were not drawn upon in the present study since its purpose was neither to critique the socio-political context from which the personal experience narratives were told, nor was it to deconstruct the narratives from within particular organizational contexts. By shifting between these three positions in the present study, a more holistic understanding could be built.

Introspection (or critical self-reflection) pervaded all stages of the research from design, to data collection, data analysis and write-up. Intersubjective reflection (i.e. a focus on the situated and negotiated nature of the research) was most prevalent during data collection and analysis and mutual collaboration (i.e. engaging in cycles of mutual reflection with others to bring in multiple voices and conflicting positions) was most apparent during the

interpretative panels at the stage of data analysis. I will now draw on some examples from my research diary to illustrate that by moving between these reflexive positions across the study reflexivity was embedded into the research process.

It was a personal experience of trauma that initially led me into this research. I made an introspective note about this ‘calling’ in my research diary before beginning my doctoral research journey:

“In September 2006, I witnessed the death of my fiancé in a sporting accident. I was six months pregnant with our first child. Since this event and after having given birth to our daughter (now 18 months old), I have begun a personal development journey which has been (and continues to be) traumatic and challenging, but one that I am determined to transform into learning both for myself and in supporting the development of others.”

(Research Diary, 21 July 2008)

In this study, introspection emerged as a self-dialogue within my research diary across all stages of the research, which became a source of personal insight. I tried to remain mindful of the challenge of reflexivity as introspection. As Finlay puts it:

“Use personal revelation not as an end in itself, but as a springboard for interpretations and more general insight.” (2003:8).

By engaging in critical self-reflection, it aided my understanding of the topic and research process as well as helping me to become a more thoughtful researcher. An example of this emerged during the design phase. In this phase, I spent several months deliberating whether I should disclose my own trauma to participants. I believed that this would make me a more empathic researcher given my awareness of the topic. As Rubin and Rubin (1995) suggest:

“People are more willing to talk in depth if they conclude that you are familiar with and sympathetic to their world.” (Rubin and Rubin, 1995:76, cited in Goodrum and Keys, 2007:252)

By disclosing my trauma experience, I felt that it would show participants that this research is deeply motivated. On the other hand, I was aware that this kind of disclosure would affect the interview dynamic, with participants talking more, or less openly because of my own

experience. In a research diary entry I noted:

“This is a real dilemma for me because the study isn’t autobiographical, but at the same time it’s a topic that’s really private and sensitive and emotional, so there’s a thought that my experience will help me to empathise.” (Research Diary, 12 July 2010)

Given that I voiced this dilemma both in my diary and in my conversations with the various constituent groups that supported the research design phase (i.e. cognitive interview participants; supervisory team; university ethics committee; back-up counsellor) this helped me to critique my own assumptions about being able to build a more trusting relationship with participants by disclosing my own trauma experience as the initial motivation for this study.

Voicing this dilemma helped me to understand that having had my own personal trauma, this did not give me additional competence in any sense to counsel, help or support the research participants. In fact, by not disclosing my trauma experience, I believe that I was better able to focus on executing my skills and competence as an interviewer. In this regard, some of the participants commented on the duration and the openness of their interview narratives (e.g.

Edgar, sub-session 1, line 818-819; sub-session 2, line 1096).

During the data collection phase, I made notes in my research diary before, during and immediately after each interview. The focus of intersubjective reflection is to explore the self in relation to others; therefore I attempted to make explicit the conscious and unconscious processes that may have been structuring relations between myself and the participant in the interview context. For example, in one entry, I noted:

“I felt a connection with him in the second interview as though I was really getting to know him and even he said “knowing me as you do” or something like that so he must have been telling me the story that was ‘true’ to him at the time.” (Research Diary, 10 November 2010)

Before each interview, I used my research diary to surface my assumptions, concerns and fore-understandings by explicitly noting them down. As the interviews went on, I made intersubjective reflections in the moment concerning the rapport between myself and the participant. For example, during one interview I noted:

“She cried when talking about how he has changed from being such a positive person to now being “weak”. Did I create that by asking her “does it make you sad to see that change?””

(Research Diary, 10 December 2010)

Immediately after each interview, I conducted a self-debrief. This included my reflections on the emotions that the encounter had triggered both for me and for the participant and my initial interpretations of the participant and their story. An excerpt from a self-debrief follows:

“I feel that it was the most difficult one I’ve done so far in terms of feeling emotionally drained” (Research Diary, 3 February 2011)

The interviews became a reflexive process for participants themselves. They talked about

‘remembering’ certain aspects of their experience during the interview encounter (e.g. Edgar, sub-session 2, lines 188-190; Paul, sub-session 3, lines 50-51; Bill, sub-session 1, lines 468-471; Diane, sub-session 3, line 48). As Michael, one of Edgar’s workplace witnesses

comments: “I hadn’t really reflected on until you asked me the question” (lines 860-861). It was the interviews that provided them with this reflexive space.

Reflexivity was also embedded through mutual collaboration. During the panel discussions, for example, I engaged in cycles of reflection with other panel members who could challenge my subjectivities and offer alternative interpretations. As Finlay puts it:

“[Mutual collaboration] offers the opportunity to hear, and take into account multiple voices and conflicting positions.” (2003:12).

Some of the panel members noted how the ‘chunk-by-chunk future blind’ approach to analysis helped to ensure a more critical hermeneutic. As one of the panel members reflected in an email to me following her participation in both Peter and Diane’s panels:

“One thing I found, for both Peter’s and Diane’s interviews, was how often you couldn’t predict what would happen next. Sometimes it would be an event that we hadn’t thought of.”

(Lucy, panel member, 3 July 2013)

Reflexivity as mutual collaboration continued into the write-up phase, particularly with my supervisory team when discussing my approach to writing. Through these discussions, I was able challenge my assumptions about how I should approach the write-up. For example, I noted in my research diary immediately after such a discussion:

“My meeting with Rachel and Michael was really helpful today. They were able to challenge my pre-conception that I needed to find a fixed sense of who Bill is. They suggested that the reason I may be struggling to ‘pin-down’ Bill’s narrative is because it is complex and multi-faceted. It was only through my discussions with Rachel and Michael and by voicing my assumptions and concerns that we could discuss these issues together.” (Research Diary, 4 September 2012)

As these extracts illustrate, reflexivity became embedded throughout the research process from design to write up; by moving between different reflexive positions; through the surfacing of reflexive voices other than my own; and by maintaining a sensitivity to the concept of reflexive time, so that reflections could take place forwards, backwards and in the moment. This ‘multi-dimensional’ approach to reflexivity led to one of the three contributions that emerged in this study and is discussed in detail in chapter 8.