Positionality

Feminist literature has drawn attention to issues of positionality, power relations and reflexivity within research. Haraway (1988) was one of the first to highlight the partial, situated nature of knowledge. This led to calls for reflexivity, involving “self- critical sympathetic introspection and the self-conscious analytical scrutiny of the self as researcher” (England, 1994, p.244). Relatedly, others argued that there was a need to locate the self within structures of power, with researchers often

occupying higher positions of influence than those they research (McDowell, 1992). It is contended that one way to create reciprocal relations is by valuing participant knowledge above our own (England, 1994, Skelton, 2001). Whilst this was at least partially possible in the collection of data, I ultimately had to impose my own interpretations of knowledge in the analysis and presentation of results.

that transparent reflexivity is impossible, as the research interaction can never be fully understood (Rose, 1997, Valentine, 2002). These debates also ignore the power of participants in defining their own agenda within the research and the audience in producing divergent interpretations of results. While it was necessary to consider my own standpoint and how this may have played out within the research, I would suggest that focusing on fixed power relations may be unhelpful. Control is likely to be negotiated within the research process, despite potentially different positions of influence within wider society.

Positionality has become an extensively debated topic within methodological discussions. Some have suggested that research should only be conducted with participants with a similar social position to the researcher (Bourdieu, 1996). England (1994) commented on her ‘failed research’ with lesbians due to concerns over her differential position as a white, heterosexual academic. ‘Insiders’ may be considered less threatening (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). Nonetheless, whilst being an ‘insider’ might encourage sharing personal issues, it may also facilitate withholding of information, or certain knowledge may be taken-for-granted (Mohammad, 2001). It also severely limits what kinds of research can be conducted by whom. As an alternative, some have suggested mechanisms to minimise the intrusion caused by research from ‘outsiders’. This includes cultural sensitivity and inclusiveness, building up relationships and trust and interrogating the role of particular identities (Howitt and Stevens, 2000, Skelton, 2001). However, I believe that the insider/outsider binary is unhelpful, as it suggests static positionalities. Categorising identities ignores heterogeneity and multiple axes of sameness and difference (Valentine, 2002). Whilst I may not have shared the ethnicity of a participant, I often had other identity traits in common. Several participants were of a similar age to me, and a number were also middle-class and university

educated. Occupation was another point of commonality, with some able to relate to me as a student, others by the fact that I had been a care worker in the past. Additionally, although I did not share participants’ international migration

experiences, having migrated internally to Yorkshire I could to some extent relate to not being ‘from here’ in the local sense.

The focus on positionality has also been criticised as it does not allow for understanding across difference (Rose, 1997). Mullings (1999) argues that researchers should seek ‘positional spaces’ from mutual situated knowledges creating trust, which are not necessarily identity based. ‘Insider’ and ‘outsider’ statuses are themselves fluid and negotiated throughout interviews, with the boundary often blurring over time (Mohammad, 2001, Sultana, 2007). Aspects of similarity and difference can be played on within interviews, which may affect research interactions. However, this is also influenced by participant

interpretations. Valentine (2002), for example, found that participants in one project often misread her identity as heterosexual, an assumption she chose not to challenge. In an encounter with a devoutly Christian participant, I chose to

emphasise my upbringing as a Quaker, rather than the fact that I am no longer religious, feeling that this might have damaged the rapport that we had built up. Whilst much has been written about positionality, less has been made of the researcher’s personality. Moser (2008) contends that this interacts with

positionality and can create a bridge across cultures. In my previous research I have often found that appearing attentive and open-minded has been more beneficial to building relationships than the likely impact of sharing characteristics such as gender, age or class, and I maintained this approach throughout my interactions with participants. In informal chats before and after interviews, common interests often emerged, providing an easy way to connect. Where differences were present, I found learning from others a useful way of navigating cross-cultural research. This varied from participants’ educating me about their country or religion, to in one case being shown around a Sikh temple.

Debates around positionality tend to assume that the researcher is in a greater position of power than their participants. Whilst this may have been the case with many of the new citizens, it was not true of state agents. Power relations here were often asymmetrical, with the participant in a position of greater influence than myself (England, 1994). This can create a ‘locus of control’ within interviews, where the discussion is largely driven by the elite being interviewed (Schoenberger, 1991). This was an issue with David Blunkett, who had a limited amount of time

and was keen to stick to his agenda. However, other state agents were more open to questioning, creating a better balance within the interview.

In general, doing multiple stages of research was beneficial, as I was able to build deeper, more meaningful relationships with participants. However, it also blurred the boundaries between researcher and participant, which at times became problematic. Managing participant expectations of the relationship between interviews was particularly challenging. Given that they were inviting me into their homes a number of times, some participants seemed to expect a lasting friendship to be formed. I was unprepared for this, particularly when one participant

withdrew from the study on the basis that I had not contacted her since the last interview. Whilst this was an isolated case, it prompted a great deal of reflection on my part and I subsequently responded to participants as I saw fit, sending some the occasional text or responding to their concerns if they telephoned me. Whilst not wishing to accentuate the academic/public divide, I nonetheless found it difficult to strike a balance between professionalism and personalisation.

As part of the reflexive process, I have spent some time considering how the knowledge I accumulated may have been affected by my subject position (England, 1994). In particular, I felt that my status as a white, British national may have influenced some of the responses I received from participants. Narratives of the citizenship process were generally positive, with the most open criticism of aspects of it coming from highly skilled and educated migrants. Whilst it is possible that they were genuinely more disenchanted by the process, given that they were not the intended targets, it may also be the case that in sharing my privileged position, they felt able to speak more critically of it. Low skilled migrant workers and

refugees are more likely to have had negative experiences with the authorities, and although I made it clear that I was not connected to them, may still have felt under pressure to tell me what they thought I wanted to hear. This seemed particularly salient in the case of refugees, who unanimously had the best opinion of acquiring British citizenship. Nonetheless, they were more forthright about the negative aspects of the asylum system. Having had particularly difficult immigration

experiences, it is perhaps unsurprising that refugees appeared most overtly grateful for receiving British citizenship.

3.5 Conclusion

This chapter has examined my methodology, considering both my research design and the fieldwork process. In this concluding section, I revisit and further discuss the lessons learnt from challenges I was presented with during my data collection phase. It is hoped that some of these insights can be used to contribute towards improved research practice.

I began this chapter by outlining an approach to research based on emotional geographies and a performative approach to citizenship, which informed my use of mixed methods. However, in practice I was unable to successfully engage

participants using visual elicitation methods, with my research instead relying on interviews and participant observation. Literature tends to suggest that visual methods can increase participant control of the research process, providing them with an engaging and enjoyable experience (Markwell, 2000, Radley et al., 2005). However, I would argue that these positive features may be overemphasised. In my experience, many participants were confused by the request to bring photographs to interviews, considering it unconventional and impractical. In this case, I

responded to the wishes of participants to engage in verbal communication, abandoning methodology that I had originally considered to be more inclusive.

I designed my research aiming for the widest possible sample of new citizens. However, as outlined above, accessing them was extremely difficult. Whilst ‘hard to reach’ groups tend to be defined by their vulnerability (Atkinson and Flint, 2001, Benoit et al., 2005), citizenship applicants were rather ‘hidden’ in the sense that they form a disparate group, who were extremely difficult to locate. Gatekeepers are often considered stakeholders in the phenomenon being researched (Sixsmith et al., 2003), but I had to adopt a wider definition, identifying them by considering the contexts in which individuals lead their everyday lives. After using multiple

avenues of recruitment, persistence paid off, and I eventually reached the desired number of participants.

Repeat interviewing was crucial to my methodology, and brought with it many benefits. These included a chance to examine changes over time, build up trust, and probe into issues more deeply. Previous studies of citizenship ceremonies have relied on a single interview to determine participants’ opinions of the events (MacGregor and Bailey, 2012, Andreouli and Howarth, 2013, Byrne, 2014). Whilst this may capture the emotions of ‘the moment’, it fails to consider the longer-term effects of national rituals. If the citizenship process is to contribute towards

integration and belonging, it must have a lasting impact. I would therefore argue that a study design with multiple stages is essential when conducting this kind of research.

Nonetheless, like visual methods, researchers tend to have focused on the positive aspects of repeat interviewing, regarding developing rapport with participants as an essential part of good qualitative research. Less acknowledged is the degree of complication this adds to the researcher-participant relationship. Having visited participants multiple times, we inevitably began to build a relationship, and this was strengthened in cases when I also attended their citizenship ceremony, which for some was a highly significant event. Whilst academics have identified the dilemmas associated with becoming a ‘researcher-friend’ (Watson et al., 1991, Dickson-Swift et al., 2006), there is little written on the potential challenges this presents for the research process as a whole. As I have highlighted,

misunderstandings of the nature of the research relationship can have highly negative consequences, leading to a termination of the research contract.

The latter part of this chapter considered the ethical implications of positionality. This feminist approach has brought clear benefits in terms of recognising the subjectivity of research and the partial nature of knowledge. However, although it is necessary to recognise the position of privilege a researcher may have over their participants, and the power that is invested in them to speak for others, I would

argue that there has been too much emphasis on difference. This is often based on static characteristics such as gender and ethnicity, not recognising the

intersubjectivity of identities that is also championed by feminism. Despite having a very different background from many of my participants, I was able to connect through both shared interests and dialogue about our differences. I would therefore suggest that the concepts of ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ need to be

revaluated, as this false dichotomy may act as a hindrance to building productive research relationships. The next three chapters present an analysis of my research findings from interviews and participant observations.