Positionality and reflexivity

Following on from this awareness, this section discusses the significance of being aware of researcher positionality. As this research is conducted in the unique circumstances of the Chinese ethnic and rural areas, the methodology must consider positionality and reflexivity. The consideration of positionality and reflexivity concerns the underlying ethical considerations, and the role that a liaison officer plays in facilitating the research and his/her impact on the quality of the research process.

The challenge for the researcher as both an overseas Chinese student in a Western university and a civil servant in a Chinese provincial authority must be acknowledged at the outset in

order to avoid either just “the other” or just “the insider” as positions taken. Two Chinese proverbs illustrate this situation that a researcher may encounter in the field. “The other” is

82

interpreted as “letting things drift if they do not affect one personally” (shibuguanji, gaogaoguaqi; һнޣᐡˈ儈儈ᤲ䎧); and “the insider” is explained as “one who is in the game

is blind, while a bystander sees through everything ˄pangguanzheqi, dangjuzhemi; ᯱ㿲㘵␵ˈ ᖃተ㘵䘧˅.

In addition, the researcher is aware that the views and information that the deputies presented in the interviews may not be necessarily truthful facts. It is a widely-held opinion of the public in China when a researcher interviews officials and/or deputies, their views may primarily reflect what they believe to be the institutional interests of the organisation they represent. So in this research, the responses from the interviewees might be influenced by the positionality of the deputies themselves such as their status of incumbent officials, their Party status, or whether they are seconded or elected. The researcher is aware that there are issues of positionality related to the interviewees, but trying to ascertain the truthfulness of

interviewees’ comments was not possible with the chosen research method and the available time. Instead, the research focused on the examination of the process on how the deputies put up their motions.

In research, it is very crucial to consider various contexts. The researcher needs to understand that the participants are the researched, and that a researcher must have a position and his individuality influences the research process in some way (Murray & Overton, 2003). Stewart-Withers, Banks, Mcgregor and Meo-Sewabu (2014, p. 62) list both demographic

concepts such as “gender and ethnicity” and other attributes such as “age and life history”

which can influence the positionality of the researcher. Taking these aspects into account, the researcher carefully considered his positionality, to know who he is and how the local people might perceive him. In this regard, the related local officials or deputies needed to be informed of the status of the researcher. This positionality may cause bias and reflexivity is crucial to notify potential bias and “potentially facilitating understanding of both the

phenomenon under study and the research process itself” (Watt, 2010, p. 17). Sultana (2007) has discussed the importance of positionality and reflexivity in international research. She thinks that

Recognising and working with multiple positionalities of researchers and research participants that are constantly negotiated is needed in creating ethical relations, which should be encouraged and embraced in undertaking challenging but rewarding field research. Attempts to institutionalise ethical frameworks are

83

not sufficient to address or ensure good practice in the field (Sultana, 2007, p. 383).

The deputies in this study were local elites such as Party secretaries, professional deputies, incumbent officials, educators, directors of village committees and farmers. There exists a huge gap in the literature which investigates the elite and powerful people in developing countries (R. Scheyvens, Scheyvens, & Murray, 2003). Scheyvens et al. (2003) consider that the absence of research of the elite in development studies forms a crucial challenge for this subject. They summarise some practical issues in elite research as the follows: (i) gaining access to the elite, (ii) lack of seriousness in interviews, and (iii) the participants’ requirements for a copy of the final work. Those issues were foreseen before the researcher conducted his field research. Thus, knowing that he was interviewing elites in a development context provided extra challenges for the researcher.

Firstly, for gaining access to the elite, the researcher contacted the elite directly, while maintaining communication with the liaison officer to follow up the reason why a particular person was not accessible; Secondly, the researcher used the strategy of multiple communications with sincerity. For example, the researcher called one deputy for an interview. He said he was busy and could not come to the township. The researcher told the deputy that he could drive to the village where the deputy stayed, even if it took more time than expected to meet the deputy. While talking with the deputies through the phone and on the spot in the interviews, the researcher emphasised the importance of this research for making clear the role of the deputies in representing the interests of the state and/or the community, so their cooperation and care is very important.

The manners of the deputies in focus groups and semi-structured individual interviews proved that this is a workable way to solve the issue of not taking the interview seriously. The researcher didn’t encounter the issue of a requirement for the copy of the final work. Some LCPC deputies who work in development organisations such as agriculture or poverty-relief bureau were interviewed. Various empirical studies show that these elites can “be

frustratingly guarded and reticent about the interview process” and they need to be encouraged to “open up” (Regina Scheyvens, Scheyvens, & Murry, 2014, p. 204).

The researcher had anticipated a high degree of prepared responses by experienced interviewees who are very experienced in answering questions by reciting texts instead of giving their honest and frank opinions. He found that he did not need to worry as the

84

interviewees were open and candid. The style of semi-structured interview made preparation of answers difficult. The attitudes of the interviewees were cooperative, expressive and productive. The flexibility and diversity of their answers made it clear that they were not giving prepared answers.

The researcher’s positionality relates inevitably to the issues of insider-outsider. As an insider, his research may be trusted and the research is easily facilitated. In particular, the researcher himself is a civil servant and who works for the Foreign Affairs Office of Guizhou province. The researcher is familiar with the Miao area because he has been involved in some international development projects as coordinator and interpreter from the Provincial Foreign Affairs Office. This includes an aid project of medical equipment and medicines by the America-based NGO “Heart to Heart International” in 1999 and 2000, and agricultural development projects sponsored by World Bank in 2000 and 2006 in Qiandongnan Miao and Dong Autonomous Prefecture. When he contacted the Prefectural Government to explain his field research, even if this is his personal interest, the PG preferred to consider it as a social investigation and/or research conducted by an official from the higher governmental organisation. So in this way, the Prefectural Government suggested the LCPC facilitate this research and the researcher was introduced to the county government authorities as an official from the Prefectural Government.

In addition, the researcher is studying as PhD student in a Western university and felt that he may be considered as an outsider by the participants. The researcher experienced this hybridity when he was introduced as both an official from the PG and a PhD student from a university in New Zealand in all the focus groups and in some semi-structured individual interviews. This meant that some could see him as having some ulterior intention and block access to resources such as government archives and to local elites. In addition, the researcher has a mixed nationality as Han (his mother is a Han) and Dong (his father is a Dong). He is

not a Miao. He speaks Mandarin and the Guiyang dialect, and he doesn’t speak Miao or Dong.

He lives in Guiyang, the capital city of Guizhou Province, rather than living in the Miao area. All these elements potentially make him liable to be treated as an outsider, rather than an insider.

This binary of being insider or outsider are more adequately seen as appearing on a “sliding scale”, rather than as “binary opposites” (R. Scheyvens, et al., 2003, p. 185). So a useful approach is to make one an insider for the research purposes, while being remaining able to step outside of its boundaries. Scheyvens, Nowak and Scheyvens (2003, p. 186) discuss

85

positionality in elite research and they suggest one strategy: to present yourself as a

“temporary insider”. Some dominant research approaches suggest that “an outside researcher can observe without being part of the research” (L. T. Smith, 1999, p. 137). However, the

reflexivity implies that “the researcher understands that he is part of the social world(s) that he investigates” (Berg & Lune, 2012, p. 205). So the most important aspect is how to present the researcher himself to obtain access and information. Adjusting and maintaining a balance between being an insider and an outsider is necessary in accordance with the situation. In all

cases the researcher needs to “remain flexible and learn to improvise where necessary”

(Regina Scheyvens, et al., 2014, p. 207). He should not underestimate his ability in negotiating with the local elites whom he is planning to interview.