Key learning points

My experiences of conducting research with men have highlighted a number of key learning for my own development as a qualitative researcher. These are:

 Be aware of prior-assumptions about working with men and use a bracketing method or discuss with your supervision team about how these assumptions may influence the research process

 Engagement and rapport is important to make the participant comfortable prior to asking the first question of the interview guide. Appropriate use of humour and self- disclosure can facilitate this

 Prepare for the event of requests for personal-disclosure in advance with your research team and discuss what you would/would not be prepared to disclose to participants, and how you would do this

3.6. Conclusion

This reflective account was on my experiences as a Trainee Clinical Psychologist interviewing men as part of my empirical project (unpublished Doctoral dissertation). I described my experiences of interviewing participants and the dilemmas I faced. These dilemmas provided useful learning opportunities to refine and develop my skills as a qualitative researcher. It is important to consider similarities and differences between participant-researcher and how these factors, as well as the social context, can influence the interaction. Bracketing methods and preparing for events such as requests for self-disclosure, are important to consider as novice qualitative researcher.

References

Allen, L. (2005). Managing masculinity: young men's identity work in focus groups. Qualitative Research, 5 (1), 35-57. DOI: 10.1177/1468794105048650

Brannen, J. (1988). Research Note: The Study of Sensitive Subjects. Sociological Review, 36, 552-563. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1988.tb02929.x

Broom, A., Hand, K., & Tovey, P. (2009). The role of gender, environment and individual biography in shaping qualitative interview data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12, 51-67. DOI: 10.1080/13645570701606028

Burman, E. (1994). Interviewing. In P. Banister, E. Burman, I. Parker, M. Taylor & C. Tindall (Eds), Qualitative Methods in Psychology: A Research Guide. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Davies, D. (1992). Women’s Subjectivity and Feminist Stories. In C. Ellis and M.G. Flaherty (eds). Investigating Subjectivity. Newbury Park: Sage.

Hearn, J. (2013). Methods and methodologies in critical studies on men and masculinities. In B. Pini & B. Pease (Eds), Men, masculinities and methodologies, (pp. 26-38).

Gubrium, J. F. & Holstein, J. A. (Eds) (2002). Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Jackson, D. (1990). Unmasking Masculinity. London: Unwin Hyman.

McKee, L., & O’Brien, M. (1983). Interviewing Men. In E. Gamarnikow et al. (eds) The Public and the Private. London: Heinemann.

Poole, J. (2018). Fathers' experiences of their partners' OCD during the perinatal period (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Warwick University.

Poole, J. (2018). Partners' experiences of bariatric surgery: a review of the literature (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Warwick University.

Robertson, S. (2006). Masculinity and Reflexivity in Health Research with Men. Auto/Biography, 14, 302–19. DOI: 10.1191/0967550706ab050oa

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. London: Sage.

Thurnell-Read, T. (2016). Masculinity, age and rapport in qualitative research. Gender identity and research relationships In Gender Identity and Research Relationships. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.

Appendix A: Author guidelines for the submission to the Journal of Obesity Surgery

Full guidelines can be viewed at:

https://www.elsevier.com/journals/surgery-for-obesity-and-related-diseases/1550- 7289/guide-for-authors

Appendix C: Quality Assessment Framework

Quality Assessment Framework for systematic reviews Caldwell, K., Henshaw, L., & Taylor, G. (2011)

Criterion 1 Does the title reflect the content? Criterion 2 Are the authors credible?

Criterion 3 Does the abstract summarise the key components?

Criterion 4 Is the rationale for undertaking the research clearly outlined? Criterion 5 Is the literature review comprehensive and up to date? Criterion 6 Is the aim of the research clearly stated?

Criterion 7 Are all ethical issues identified and addressed? Criterion 8 Is the methodology identified and justified?

Criterion 9a Is the study design clearly identified and is the rationale for the choice of design evident? (for quantitative studies)

Criterion 10a Is there an experimental hypothesis clearly stated? Are the key variables clearly defined? (for quantitative studies)

Criterion 11a Is the population identified? (for quantitative studies)

Criterion 12a Is the sample adequately described and reflective of the population? (for quantitative studies) Criterion 13a Is the method of data analysis valid and reliable? (for quantitative studies)

Criterion 9b Are the philosophical background and study design identified and the rationale for choice of design evident? (for qualitative studies)

Criterion 10b Are the major concepts identified? (for qualitative studies) Criterion 11b Is the context of the study outlined? (for qualitative studies)

Criterion 12b Is the selection of participants described and the sampling method identified? (for qualitative studies)

Criterion 13b Is the method of data collection auditable? (for qualitative studies)

Criterion 14b Is the method of data analysis credible and confirmable? (for qualitative studies) Criterion 15 Are the results presented in a way that is appropriate and clear?

Criterion 16 Is the discussion comprehensive?

Criterion 17a Are the results generalizable? (for quantitative studies) Criterion 17b Are the results transferable? (for qualitative studies) Criterion 18 Is the conclusion comprehensive?

Appendix D: Inter-rater reliability scores for systematic literature review

Author/Date Quality Rating Reliability Test (Kappa rating)

Aarts et al. (2015) 31 0.79

Alegria & Larsen (2017) 35 0.64

Berglind et al. (2014) 30 0.89 Bylund et al. (2017) 31 0.56 Camps et al. (1996) 26 0.80 Hafner (1991) 22 0.67 Madan et al. (2005) 22 0.81 Pories et al. (2015) 36 0.81 Rand et al. (1984) 22 0.81

Romo & Dailey (2014) 35 0.64

Wallwork et al. (2017) 36 0.56

Willmer et al. (2016) 30 0.77

Woodard et al. (2011) 31 0.83

Appendix E: Author guidelines for the Journal of Clinical Psychology

Full guidelines can be viewed at: