My Positionality and Reflexivity

In the study of HIV/AIDS, the researcher was to a large extent outside the phenomenon of the people who were either affected or inflicted by the illness. I could not assume what the HIV status or the reality of the phenomenon on the ground was, as that assumption would be heavily laden with prejudices and would only comprise the imagination of the researcher and

87

could introduce bias into the research process. This also meant that the researcher’s knowledge would be dependent upon observation and critical measurement of the phenomenon to give credibility to the research.

Although I come from the study area, I had to depend on the respondents for responses that would constitute the main material for the study and so doing obviate biases in the study. I understood sensitive research of this nature, demanded respect and trust from both the researcher and the objects of the research. The researcher undertook part time work at a Mental Hospital in Norway between 2003-2004, where some patients were alleged to have been suffering from Hepatitis C and HIV. I observed mechanisms put in place to mitigate these ailments from spreading among the population, and also to curb the associated stigma and boost the morale of the people inflicted and affected. As is often said, experience was and still is, the best ‘master’ as it made the researcher understand the answers given by both the respondents and discussions that emanated from the informants. The following section explores the research experience and the process through which data was collected and interpreted.

To a great extent, my background (the researcher’s) in terms of experience, understanding of the nature of the problem, my understanding of the research objects’ meaning, and my values and ability of assessing the phenomena to be researched, determined the paradigm preference, and the associated research methodologies.

My gender, as a male researcher, had a compelling meaning within the study area. The study area was a male dominated society. The social construction of males within the study area is as a ‘powerful’ person who is both a bread winner and provider to his household. Such a male was a success if they had thriving farm(s) and other livelihoods. Such a male should have the wherewithal to support and donate to the needy. The male was observed to traditionally have a lot more power in the decision making process over his female counterparts. Furthermore, certain questions could not be asked by the opposite sex. For example, I could not ask a woman I did not know well the following question ‘Do you have a husband?’, as it might be misconstrued. I solved this problem by asking similar questions towards the end of the interview.

Unfortunately, there were sizable differences in my mental attitude towards gender issues which coincide with what has been described by Cleaver (2002) as “equalizing” mechanisms. As a Ghanaian male who had travelled and stayed a great deal in Europe (over 20 years) my

88

perceptions have undergone dynamic changes from the old ‘stereotyping’ to what Cleaver (2002:2) described as “women can only become empowered by men giving up power”. As a Ghanaian male but as someone who has seen how the institutions in the developed world created power parity between the genders, has believed in the importance and equality of power between the genders without which soliciting across board information can create potential conflict.

As a researcher from the study area, I was influenced by a deep understanding of the cultural values and norms and had to behave as one of the research participants, showing respect to all, especially those older than I am. I could not make certain mistakes that could be made by people not hailing from the sampled region. Behaving in the same manner as one of the research objects or respondents created a lot of goodwill and rapport that was highly important for the research process, as respondents had to spend a significant amount of time answering my questionnaire and interviews. Furthermore, the way I approached a male household member was different from the way I approached the female counterparts, especially females that were younger.

From my earliest research encounters, I realised that people’s oral accounts of their lives and experiences were based on both factual representations and their “construction” of reality (Abu-Lughod, 1993). The way both men and women represented themselves related to expectations they had of me as a development researcher and a man. As a Ghanaian man living in the Diaspora, residents of the study sites assumed that I was well-educated, and, therefore, wealthy and capable of mobilizing resources and institutional support for the villages. I was regarded as someone who could aid education of their children, the youth and who possibly would be taken as a role model. Chiefs and opinion leaders often asked my candid opinion on environmental issues and general development as regards to the situation in the developed world. To members of the four communities, the combined identity of being a “foreigner” and a researcher implied that my work had a “development” agenda. As a result they expected me to obtain some government funding for women to trade and to purchase agricultural inputs for the men. I explained how the research findings will be used and emphasised my position as a student, and not a worker and they understood this explanation.

My exposure to other cultures, especially the western culture that I had lived with, for nearly half of my life, influenced me a great deal with regards to the dynamics of cultures. My

89

timeliness and respect for appointments, a norm in the developed world, was not exhibited by my research objects. This situation affected my initial programmes and appointments with my research subjects. I have been influenced by two worlds and I reacted to some situations with an ambivalent attitude. I sometimes forgot that I was dealing with people in a typical rural setting, whose attitude towards life in general and notion of time in particular, was more flexible. I quickly adjusted to the situation our rapport went on smoothly. Reaction to poverty by the researcher was often with compassion and thorough appreciation of the efforts of the rural poor and concern for the inability of governments of the region studied to deliver on their promises that can ameliorate the wellbeing of the people. The research made the researcher’s own responses and experiences seem extraordinary in everyday normal occurrences.

In spite of this, the researcher could not become self-indulgent as he was aware that the views of the research subjects were the main ideas and the core of the study. Besides, the researcher never had all the experiences of the respondents, such as family members being affected or dying of long term illness/HIV/AIDS. My experiences, however, affected the research in many positive ways, yet the question of how to monitor or account for the ways my values, beliefs, culture and physical limitations could affect the process and quality of the data was always a concern both at the beginning and towards the end of the research. Sometimes my research objects thought I could help influence government policies in their favour. I emphasised that I was only a PhD student studying on the HIV/AIDS impact on their daily activities, and could only highlight their problems further on to policy makers later.