Personal Reflexivity

Personal reflexivity implies a thoughtful awareness on the active role of the researcher in shaping the different aspects of the research process (Finlay and Gough 2003; Willig 2008). Coffey challenges social researchers to acknowledge and critically reflect on the ‘full range of chosen and imposed identities, assumed during and beyond the field’ (Coffey 1999 p.36). To attend to these issues examples of how the ‘selves’ or ‘identities’ of the researcher figured in design, data collection and analysis are given.

Firstly, the researcher’s active role was apparent in (a) assembling the concourse, (b) selecting the Q-set statements and (c) interpreting the weighted average Q-sort for each factor. Although a systematic attempt has been implemented to produce a set of statements that is balanced and representative of the volume of discussion, Q methodologists recognise that the construction of a Q-set from a concourse is ‘more of an art than a science’ (Brown 1980 p.186). Again, whilst the Q-set was ‘researcher- made’ and dependent on the researcher’s skills this tool and its content do not predetermine what viewpoints will emerge. How the statements are arranged on the response board remain to be the sole responsibility of the participant – sorting the cards according to their own point-of-view.

One of the common criticisms of qualitative coding is that the breaking of interview transcripts into fragments results in the loss of context and reduces textual data to anecdotal evidence (Bryman 2012). De-contextualised quotes are less likely in a Q-study because the patterns of meanings contained in interview extracts are interpreted according to the point of view of a specific group of individuals (e.g. Good-fit vs Ambivalent). The combination of interview data and the idealised Q-sorts provide a more holistic, contextualised and sociological interpretation than starting from fragmented, de- contextualised, individualistic quotes. Here the interview quotes make sense only if they are situated within a discursive frame or social representation that has emerged by comparing the holistic patterns of Q-sorts. How the researcher interprets the qualitative data is always moderated by the shared subjectivity that emerged through the by-person factor analysis and vice versa. The starting point has always been the participants’ subjectivity rather than the researcher’s own.

Secondly, the researcher’s chosen and imposed identities (Coffey 1999) were very much evident in accessing the field and during the interviews with participants. Interactions between the researcher and gatekeepers/linking contacts, ‘members’ of the institutions and communities, and every participant demonstrate the ‘complicated layering and interweaving of power relations’ (England 1994 p.84) associated with social identities and embodiment. This implies that being a researcher (chosen identity) was never a neutral position from the perspective of the participants or the

agencies/offices visited. For example, whilst I did not encounter any problems with the office staff of agencies where I interviewed participants, I was aware that not everyone welcomed the presence of a ‘researcher’ who was ‘a friend/colleague of their superior’. This response is not surprising because every study can be seen as an intervention in itself to the day-to-day life of an office and may be potentially disruptive (Wolff 2004; Flick 2009). The researcher may be known to their superior but to the staff the researcher visiting for a few days is a ‘stranger’.

Meanwhile, introductions and post-sorting interviews with participants facilitated the production of a ‘conversational space’ (Pezalla et al. 2012) for participation and sharing of information-rich stories. In these interviews, the researcher is indeed the instrument (Atkinson and Hammersley 2007) who needs to be calibrated based on the contingencies of interaction. For example, I usually introduced myself to the participants in this way:

My name is Mark Llangco. I am currently studying at Cardiff University in United Kingdom and my research is about working lives of seafarers on-board cruise ship…Can I ask you for some help by being one of the participants?

Although I was speaking Tagalog and ‘visibly’ Filipino, I felt that it was necessary to state that I am student at a university overseas. By specifying ‘United Kingdom’ and not ‘UK’ addresses the possible unfamiliarity of the participant as to where Cardiff is. More importantly this information establishes the status of a ‘proper researcher’ which in a way is a privilege because not very many can afford to study overseas. The mention of an institutional affiliation tries to legitimise the ensuing research relationship and to potentially increase their likelihood to participate. When asked, I told them I am studying sociology and avoided disclosing that I am studying for a PhD so as not to portray myself as more knowledgeable than them. Moreover, in verbalising the question: ‘Can I ask some help from you to be one of the participants?’ I am emphasising that in this relationship, they are the ‘knowledgeable expert’ who can help a ‘student’.

Finally, the very method of Q-sorting has been an effective tool for personal reflexivity in that it helped me to be aware of my own values, dispositions and point-of-view that may colour how data are interpreted (Roper et al. 2015). For example, to explore which work-view I am aligned with I completed a Q-sort as ‘Participant-100’. I sorted the cards based on how I thought a ‘typical’ participant would respond to the statements. Statistical analysis revealed that my Q-sort had significant correlations with the Good- fit (r = 0.48) and the Troubled (r = 0.66) work-views. On reflection, the ‘confounded’ loading of my Q-sort was not surprising. The ‘Good-fit’ and the ‘Troubled’ work-views broadly reflect the circulating discourses of ‘the perfect workers in a dream job’ and ‘the exploited workers on sweatships’. The interesting and unanticipated parts are the uncovering of a ‘Professional’ and ‘Ambivalent’ work-views. This practical exercise in reflexivity exposes the researcher’s viewpoint and guards against potential sources of bias in the interpretation and representation of results.