P ROCESS AND METHODOLOGICAL REFLEXIVITY

In this section, I shall reflect on my personal experience of the research process and my own interaction with the research findings. This is in line with the transparent approach that I have endeavoured to adopt throughout the process in order to increase the quality of the research (Yardley, 2000).

121

The research as a whole has evolved from how I envisaged this work when I started, as have my views and understanding of the topic. I recognised early in the process that I was driven by largely unconscious needs to process my own experience of working with prisoners and specifically one particular experience with a prisoner-client which was frightening and disturbing. Subsequently, I was acutely aware of the potential for my personal experiences to influence the process and took steps to limit this. For example, during the interviews, I was careful to avoid depicting an assumption that there are significant challenges inherent in the work. I sought, with the help of my supervisor to ensure that my questions were designed to enquire about the positives as much as the challenges. It was important to make room in the interviews for participants to tell me how they see their world, rather than me seeing their experiences through my lens (Willig, 2012a), and I believe this was achieved.

My emotional and psychological experience was similar to that reported by Maria and it was therefore emotionally uncomfortable and methodologically challenging to analyse her transcript. I was acutely aware of the need to separate my own experiences from hers and stay embedded within her perspective; to facilitate this, I took frequent breaks and used my research diary to reflect on my emotional and cognitive responses. Whilst this delayed the process, it enabled me to bracket off (Smith et al., 2009) my experiences from the analytic process. In the methodology chapter I explained that I was aware that I had started the research process feeling a victim of my experience and believing that working

the apeuti all ith p iso e s pote tiall poses g eat isk to the apists ell-being. I came to understand that I was perhaps driven to document, warn and protect other therapists. The slow, methodical process of research itself in addition to research supervision and personal therapy, has helped me to move from feeling a victim to feeling more like an objective researcher and resilient survivor.

I have been delighted to have been put back in touch with what inspired and motivated me to do the work in the first place; this was an unexpected gain from the research process. I was particularly i te ested to ealise f o efle ti g o the pa ti ipa ts a ou ts that I too, felt an increased sense of my own strength and confidence as a result of working with prisoners. I have also developed, as a result of the research process, a greater

understanding of the theory of psychodynamic/analytic psychotherapy and organisational dynamics from a psychoanalytical perspective (and conversely am more aware of how little I know). The latter was a complete revelation to me, not previously having encountered it

122

and the former has resulted in a deep appreciation for psychodynamic theory and its applicability in modern therapeutic activity.

I have found it particularly interesting to engage in a deep reflection on the methodological process of interpretation. Analysing the transcripts and exploring the different levels of interpretation caused me to consider how interpretation within research is different to interpretations made in the context of therapy. Early on, I struggled to understand what phenomenological interpretation within research looked like and found myself straying towards more psychoanalytically informed interpretations that considered causality and latent meaning. I initially understood this to be the product of my therapeutic training, however was fu the e lighte ed upo eadi g Willig s disti tio et ee

suspi ious a d e pathi i te p etatio . Willig like ed suspi ious i te p etatio to the deductions made by Sherlock Holmes, who takes a suspicious approach to a hat in order to unco e the o e s ide tit . Additio all , this app oa h is like ed to the p a ti e of psychoanalysis, which seeks to uncover the latent meaning of that which is manifest. Having realised this was precisely, but quite unintentionally my approach to research interpretation, I considered how my suspicious approach became so ingrained and realised it is the product of my experience working within prisons. I had been trained by prison staff to e suspi ious of othe s oti es a d this i d-set had become ingrained without my full awareness. I was trained to assess risk by drawing conclusions from past events and

current situations; I make interpretations about the possible latent meaning behind

peoples a tio s a d o u i atio s i o de to p ote t self. This ind-set is associated with safety. The realisation was extremely important to my understanding of my approach to interpretation within research; as a result, I endeavoured to direct my suspicious approach towards my acts of interpretation in order to ensure my interpretations were e pathi a d est i ted to the phe o e o of pa ti ipa ts e pe ie e Willig, . This learning has reinforced my appreciation of the centrality of the researcher and the hermeneutic circle within IPA research (Smith et al., 2009). In order to understand the parts of myself that were engaged in research analysis, it was necessary to understand the whole of my personal experience; just as I impact the research process, the research process impacts on me. I observe that my suspicious mind-set and concern with threat is similar to that conveyed by some of the participants. This causes me to reflect on the curious process of research which creates complex relationships between the data and parts of myself. As a researcher I seek obje ti el as possi le, to u de sta d a d i te p et the pa ti ipa ts

123

e pe ie es, the data . As a fello hu a ei g, I e og ise si ila ities i e pe ie e a d so in effect, I am also understanding myself.