Reflexivity and Positionality

Two  key  concepts  of  any  qualitative  research  are  attention  to  positionality   and  reflexivity.    According  to  Carpenter  and  Suto  (2008:93),  “This  role  brings   with  it  the  responsibility  of  fully  locating  ourselves  in  the  research  

(positionality)  and  engaging  in  disciplined  self-­reflection  (reflexivity)”.    Given   that  notions  of  reflexivity  and  positionality  permeate  all  stages  of  the  research   process,  for  ease  of  reading  I  have  straddled  this  section  between  the  

sections  entitled  data  collection  and  data  analysis.  

Carpenter  and  Suto  (2008)  emphasise  the  notion  of  reflexivity  where  

embracing  this  as  a  researcher  will  contribute  to  the  quality  of  the  research  in   that  potential  bias  is  acknowledged  and  facilitates  a  state  of  transparency.     Memoing  can  be  used  as  form  of  engaging  in  reflexive  practice  (Dunne,   2011).    Memoing,  according  to  Lempert  (2007:249),  is  the  “fundamental  link   between  data  and  emergent  theory”.    Guest,  MacQueen  and  Namey  

(2012:123)  define  memos  as  “short  narratives”  supplementing  raw  data.     Memoing  as  a  technique  was  used  throughout  the  entire  research  process,   including  data  analysis;;  the  added  value  of  memoing  means  thoughts   captured  form  part  of  the  writing  up  of  the  thesis.    Analytic  memos  are  a   useful  adjunct  to  the  iterative  process  of  data  collection  and  analysis  (Dey,   1993;;  Saldana,  2009)  and  afford  the  opportunity  to  engage  reflexively  with   the  development  of  issues  emerging  from  the  data.    Saldana  (2009)  asserts   that  analytic  memos  can  be  used  as  part  of  the  data  corpus,  they  can  form   part  of  the  data  set  to  be  analysed  as  they  may  in  themselves  generate   codes  and  categories.    This  did  occur  in  several  instances  within  my  own   analytical  memoing  and  data  analysis  activity.    An  example  of  an  analytic  

memo  within  a  reflective  journal  extract  highlighting  the  need  to  revise  the   interview  guide  follows:  

27.1.16: It’s been a while since I have added to this. I am 3.5 days into a 4-day study leave. This period has been truly gruelling…I have had to review my methodological approach and am using thematic analysis. I started all over again with the analysis:

-  _{looking at each set of interview notes independently;} -  _{combining interview notes by sample groups.}

I think what has been beneficial is that these few precious days have enabled me to become familiar with the data, repeated reading of the interview notes and thinking about the data all the while.

I now need to consider, what are the emerging themes? It appears to be support. Support manifests itself in many formats and if this is not tapped into nor delivered effectively then it can have consequences for all concerned with practice education. Let’s explore some examples….

SUPPORT…

Enablers to support mechanisms:

Disclosure; facilitating positive learning environment; culture of placement (positive); support for practice educator.

Barriers to support mechanisms:

Time pressures; staffing pressures; acute setting - fast and busy.

Need for self-management on student’s part - insight, awareness of impact of how they present.

Starting to re-read the literature on critical disability studies, one paper refers to the capability approach, have I come full circle?! Perhaps all my prior reading on capability theory is not to be wasted after all.

Braun  and  Clarke  (2013:9)  highlight  the  importance  of  what  they  term   “qualitative  sensibility”  and  define  this  collectively  as  attributes  that  a  

researcher  must  possess  including  “the  ability  to  reflect  on,  and  step  outside,   your  cultural  membership,  to  become  a  cultural  commentator  -­  so  that  you   can  see,  and  question,  the  shared  values  and  assumptions  that  make  up   being  a  member  of  a  particular  society”.    These  authors  also  comment  on  the   importance  of  ensuring  that  assumptions  do  not  interfere  with  the  research   process.    Being  a  cultural  commentator  is  an  interesting  notion  and  for  me   represents  a  means  of  mitigating  the  influence  of  potential  bias  and  has   personal  resonance  due  to  my  close  working  relationships  and  connections   with  all  interviewees.    Interestingly,  there  were  times  during  my  research   journey  when  I  had  indeed  made  assumptions  and  wrongly  so,  I  had  to  learn   to  put  these  to  one  side  and  to  listen  to  what  the  interviewee  /  data  was   saying.    An  example  was  during  data  analysis:  after  two  colleagues   independently  looked  at  a  set  of  interview  notes  I  realised  that,  by  

comparison,  I  had  not  achieved  the  depth  of  analysis  in  parts  of  the  interview   notes  required  at  doctoral  level  due  to  making  assumptions  about  what  I   thought  the  data  was  saying.    I  had  to  work  hard  during  the  interviews  too  -­   particularly  with  students  to  ensure  that  I  remained  objective,  in  the  sense  of   being  open-­minded,  and  to  not  interfere  or  infer  more  than  what  was  being   offered  in  the  interview.    Braun  and  Clarke  (2013)  state  that  in  qualitative   research  you  cannot  hope  to  eliminate  all  possible  sources  of  bias,  in  other   words,  an  element  of  subjectivity  creeps  in.    The  manner  in  which  I  carried   out  all  stages  of  the  research  process  -­  recruitment,  collection  of  data  and   subsequent  analysis  -­  was  therefore,  inevitably  influenced  by  my  existing   knowledge  of  disability  and  practice  education,  in  addition  to  my  personal   beliefs  and  values.        Braun  and  Clarke  (2013:21)  state  that  “qualitative   research  does  not  treat  this  subjectivity  as  bias  [authors’  emphasis]  to  be   eliminated  from  research,  but  tends  to  involve  contextualised  analysis,  which   takes  this  into  account”.    The  insider  /  outsider  status  in  terms  of  identity  with   a  particular  group  is  also  alluded  to  and  therefore  another  critical  reason  for   engagement  in  reflexivity  (Braun  and  Clarke,  2013).        

In  section  3.3  regarding  my  axiological  stance,  I  described  my  tripartite  roles   within  higher  education  comprising  Disability  Liaison  Officer,  Visiting  Tutor   and  Practice  Education  Coordinator.    There  is  a  need  to  acknowledge   another  important  characteristic,  the  very  embodiment  for  me  of  being   disabled  and  being  a  researcher  on  disability.    I  offer  some  reflections  here   by  way  of  acknowledging  the  potential  impact  and  influences  of  these   overlapping  roles  and  relationships  with  students  and  staff.      

These  roles  and  relationships  may  have  affected  the  nature  of  the  data  that   was  generated,  in  both  good  and  more  problematic  ways.    For  example  it  is   possible  that  the  research  participants  (in  particular,  the  students  with  a   disability)  spent  more  time  talking  about  the  ‘problems’  they  faced  on   placement  because  I  am  disabled.    They  may  have  felt  that  the  ‘right   answers’  were  about  issues/problems  that  my  research  may  then  ‘solve’.     Getting  around  such  expectations  is  a  thorny  issue  in  qualitative  research   and  upon  reflection,  I  would  have  tried  to  ‘set  the  scene’  in  a  more  

exploratory  way,  that  allowed  students  to  talk  about  experiences,  good  or   bad,  and  making  it  explicit  that  I  was  there  to  hear  these  in  an  unconditional   way.    This  is  perhaps  what  Tregaskis  recommends  as  the  “non-­threatening,   equalizing  ways  of  talking”  (2001:351).    In  some  ways,  this  is  hard  to  do   because  research  information  packs  designed  to  show  adherence  to  ethical   research  practices  may  inadvertently  signal  that  the  research  seeks  specific   kinds  of  information  over  more  exploratory  conversations.    Using  ice-­

breaking  activities  that  allow  participants  some  room  to  relax  into  the  

interview  would  have  been  another  option  –  for  instance,  asking  students  to   take  a  moment  to  draw  a  timeline  of  their  time  on  the  course,  to  pick  ‘high’   points  and  ‘low’  points  on  this  timeline,  or  to  draw  a  visual  representation  of   their  placement  site  as  a  way  of  educating  me  about  its  contours,  and  then   moving  into  talking  about  particular  spaces  and  experiences  within  it  may   have  all  led  to  different  kinds  of  conversations.    While  none  of  these  are   guaranteed  to  overcome  the  problem  identified,  they  may  have  alleviated  it   or  at  least  signaled  my  desire  to  hear  about  a  range  of  matters  rather  than   just  ‘problems’  that  need  solutions.      

On  the  other  hand,  some  participants  may  have  felt  ‘liberated’  by  this  overlap   in  experience  with  a  disabled  researcher  and  found  it  easier  to  talk  to  me   than  they  might  to  a  non-­disabled  interviewer,  because  of  a  sense  of   commonality  between  us.    This  too  holds  dangers  as  experiences  of   disability  are  diverse,  subjective  and  quite  personal  to  each  body,  each   impairment  and  each  context  that  this  may  simply  engender  a  false  sense  of   commonality  that  can  lead  to  misunderstandings  or  missed  understandings.     This  is  another  ‘obstacle’  to  hearing  the  uniqueness  of  different  experiences.     One  possible  solution  may  be  to  be  attentive  to  moments  of  dissonance   (where  the  assumed  commonality  is  broken)  and  to  focus  the  conversation   on  dissimilarities  in  experiences  such  that  a  wider  range  of  experience  may   be  able  to  be  communicated.      

Another  perspective  to  consider  is  that  the  research  participants  may  have   simply  seen  me  as  ‘staff’  (not  researcher)  and  felt  compelled  or  inclined  to   stress  how  they  have  to  “get  on  with  it”  or  “just  have  to  work  harder”,  as  they   felt  they  needed  to  impress  upon  me  that  they  were  coping,  and  should  be   given  credit  for  that.    Because  interviews  are  also  social  situations,  

respondents  may  try  to  adhere  to  what  is  socially  desirable  or  sanctioned   (Polkinghorne,  2007)  and  this  is  particularly  so  in  the  case  of  students  being   interviewed  by  lecturers/teachers.    For  students  I  interviewed,  there  may   have  been  a  sense  of  being  ‘assessed’  or  ‘appraised’  by  me  in  connection  to   my  role  as  placement  coordinator.    While  I  made  an  effort  to  distance  myself   from  my  other  roles  and  stressed  the  research  as  a  distinct  process,  I  cannot   be  sure  that  this  was  fully  accepted  and  that  this  did  not  colour  the  nature  of   the  conversations.    These  matters  also  pose  dilemmas  for  data  analysis,   discussed  in  subsequent  sections  of  this  chapter.    

An  example  of  outsider  status  illustrated  in  the  following  reflective  journal   extract  led  to  a  pivotal  moment  which  gave  cause  for  reflection  and  

emphasised  the  frustration  of  knowing  that  I  cannot  always  be  fully  cognisant   of  the  practice  education  experience  from  both  practice  educator  and  student   perspective.      

As  this  section  has  emphasised,  engaging  in  reflexive  practice  through  the   use  of  a  reflective  journal  and  analytic  memoing  goes  some  way  in  exposing   and  situating  the  position  of  the  researcher  and  the  context  within  which   decisions  may  have  to  be  taken.    To  conclude,  an  important  consideration  is   the  researcher  /  participant  relationship.    Carpenter  and  Suto  (2008)  state   that  this  is  open  to  influence  dependent  upon  interviewee  expectations  of  the   research  and  the  researcher.    To  combat  this,  the  researcher  should  aim  for   a  position  of  transparency  (Carpenter  and  Suto,  2008:126)  -­  which  can  be   achieved  through  a  reflexive  attitude  and  cultivating  “a  genuine  presence”  

24.10.15 Reflecting on the interviews, I realised I had