Positionality and ethical considerations

4.4.1 Positionality

Research is subjective not objective, so we must always consider our own

positionality within the research process. Having no previous affiliation to or with any of the stakeholders or organisations involved in the research process was an

advantage. Nevertheless, our own political persuasions undeniably impact the research process and it is important to be aware of those as best can be achieved across the design, implementation and analysis phases. That stated, Rose (1997) reminds us that it is virtually impossible for a researcher to position themselves perfectly within their research.

In these ways, it is crucial to remember that the position of the researcher within the research process can influence the research project itself, being manifested through potential subjective observations and opinions which could convolute the findings. This is conveyed by Mansvelt and Berg (2010:339), who state that:

“it is important to both reflect upon and analyse how one’s position in relation to the processes, people, and phenomena we are researching actually affects both those phenomena and our understanding of them.”

In this way it was important for the researcher to consider their specific positionality within the research process, being a young male from the North West of England, and how this could potentially influence the responses given to the questions put to each interviewee. However, the process of designing the questions was careful to minimise this conflict of interests wherever possible, by remaining objective and not disclosing any information which might have an influence on the response a

participant might provide.

The researcher set about undertaking the interviews with an intentional naivety towards the issues at hand, allowing respondents to express their views freely in

103

order to obtain a greater diversity of information from the interview process. The need to attain a relaxed and informative environment through which an expressive conversation could be had was considered a high priority by the researcher as a way of obtaining as much useful interview material as possible, as advocated by

Longhurst (2004). As a result, the interviews were conducted in the most comfortable and familiar environment for those participating, be that in their place of work, a public meeting place, or perhaps over the phone. An emphasis was therefore inherently placed upon the need for openness, trust and transparency in the conversations taking place. To ensure this level of engagement further, a small amount of time was spent at the beginning of each interview establishing an

amicable rapport, whereby each participant was given the opportunity to explain a bit about themselves, their work, and their experiences of welfare reform and welfare-to- work under Coalition austerity.

It was also essential to acknowledge the potential for researcher bias when

transcribing and analysing the interview data, and not just in the process of actually conducting the interviews. By taking specific care to accurately transcribe and record data, and by paying close attention to nuances in the language used, the researcher was able to minimise subjectivity when data was analysed.

4.4.2 Reflexivity

The final consideration which needed to be made throughout the project was that of reflexivity, whereby the researcher necessarily undertook an ongoing appraisal of their performance holistically from project design, through data collection and to analytical findings, as an ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ within the project (Moss, 1995). Reflexivity is defined by Charmaz (2006:188) as “the researcher’s scrutiny of his or her research experience”, essentially a self-analysis of how the process of

undertaking a research project is addressed. The awareness of the researcher as to their position within the research project, and in turn their ability, proactively or otherwise, to influence it, is an essential part of any research project. However Bourdieu (2003) conveys caution towards too much obsession with objectivity, because it can lead the researcher to neglect the consideration that some

104

stage of the research process in terms of the construction of knowledge, from data collection to the discussion of research findings. The researcher took a great deal of time throughout the research at each stage to reflect on the methods, the processes and the outcomes of the project, enabling them to reflect on what they had done, what worked well and what had not worked so well. This was so that in future methods could be refined in order to continually improve the research process and maintain the objectivity and integrity of the project. The use of coding helps create this opportunity for reflexivity because its contemplation and analytical nature offers a chance for reflective thought (Cope, 2010).

4.4.3 Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was gained through Loughborough University’s ethical practices guidelines. The research project was approved by the Loughborough University Ethics Advisory Committee.

The main ethical issue to be adhered to in this project was that there were no

negative consequences for participants involved in the interview process. In this way, participants were given as much information as possible to ensure they were entirely comfortable with taking part in the interview process and which would not have an effect on the answers which were subsequently given. Participants were provided with a ‘Participant Information Sheet’ prior to the interview taking place, which was important because it gave them the opportunity to ask any questions or raise any concerns prior to partaking. Each individual was also required to fill out an ‘Informed Consent’ form, to confirm that they understood what the interview process would involve and that they were entirely happy to take part (Appendix 4). This was also completed prior to each interview taking place. Participant information sheets were emailed out to participants at least one week in advance of the interview where possible. For phone interviews, the participant consent forms were also emailed out at the same time such that they could be filled out and returned by email or post prior to the interview taking place. For the face-to-face interviews, each interviewee was asked to fill out their consent form on the day immediately prior to the interview taking place. In this way participation was completely voluntary, with nobody forced or coerced into taking part at any point in the process, with the ability to withdraw at

105

any point without any recriminations. In addition, it was made clear that if a

respondent wished not to provide an answer for whatever reason, they were able to do so without having to justify their basis for doing so, and were similarly made aware that they could end the interview at any time, again without having to justify why.

It was also clarified to the interviewees that the digital recordings of the interviews would only be listened to by the researcher, and that nobody else would have access to the recordings. This was also important given the sensitive nature of the

discussions particularly given specific local contexts (Smith, 2004). In addition, participants were assured that all recordings would be anonymous, and that they would be contacted prior to the submission of the thesis if quotes from their

interviews had been used, to reaffirm that they were happy for their comments to be included despite total anonymity. This anonymity was ensured by the use of generic pseudonyms attached to interview quotes in the transcripts, thesis itself and beyond. It was also made clear to those interviewed that confidential information, including the transcripts, recordings and contact details would be stored in password protected files and would not be shared. This is similar to the assertion of Valentine (1997) that confidentiality and anonymity of participants is arguably the most important aspect of any research process. Once the consent of each participant had been obtained, each was required to sign a consent form to establish officially that they were happy to partake in the research project.