Reflexivity and positionality 111 

An important contribution of feminist debates about methodology (although not exclusive to feminism) has been concern with the subjective experiences of the researcher, and a desire to reflect on the research process and the power relations, for example of gender, race, class, inherent in it. The researcher and her personal history becomes part of the process of the research, and is therefore implicated in

interpretations and conclusions reached (Maynard, 1994).

Explicit knowledge about the background and positioning of the author in relation to the research is important for allowing the reader to assess the effect this may have had on the research, according to Holgate et al (2006), who conducted a review of key studies in the field of industrial relations. They had expected the ‘self-reflexive researcher’ to be a common feature of feminist-influenced industrial relations research, but found that most authors had largely left themselves out of the narrative. An exception is Pollert’s (1981) account of researching workers in a tobacco factory:

“Being a woman researcher was vitally important to my study. Not only did it affect my relationships with women but it also coloured my contact with men. Class and gender were both significant here; what men—managers, supervisors, foremen and shop stewards—reported to me about the factory, and the women workers, was an interaction between my questions and their definitions of me as middle-class educated, apparently endowed with the rather threatening X-ray eyes of the

‘professional’ social scientist, but at the same time an academic ignoramus about the ‘real world’.” (Pollert, cited in Holgate et al., 2006: 323)

Such a reflexive account provides an insight into Pollert’s methodological approach that recognises how the processes of gender and class intersect, both in relations within the factory, and in relationships between the researcher and the researched.

In referring to the “rather threatening X-ray eyes” of the researcher, Pollert is

recognising the power relations inherent in the researcher/researched relationship (in this case enhanced by class differences). Some feminist researchers have tried to find ways of minimising this unequal hierarchical relationship by having a more reciprocal exchange within interviews, but this approach is not without its difficulties, as

answering personal questions can detract from the focus on the interviewee (Legard et al., 2003: 160-1).

Debates about the relationship between interviewer and interviewee have also been taken up by those researching lesbian and gay populations (Homfray, 2008; Kong et al.,

112

2002; LaSala, 2003; Meezan and Martin, 2003). Advantages for openly lesbian or gay researchers studying lesbians and gay men relate to access to participants who may not have confidence in a heterosexual researcher, as was discussed above. In addition, there are advantages of an ‘insider’ perspective in terms of familiarity with the lifestyles and experiences of the research subjects (LaSala, 2003). But disadvantages of insider knowledge may arise from a failure to notice the familiar or an uncritical acceptance of certain norms within the community. There may also be concerns about anonymity when the researcher is a member of the same social circle and could potentially pass on ‘gossip’ (LaSala, 2003-21), and it may be the case that, in studies of sensitive issues, people prefer to speak to those outside their own community or population group (Lewis, 2003: 66). There are, then, both advantages and disadvantages to the researcher “matching” the socio-demographic characteristics of the research participants, but I share Jane Lewis’s (2003: 66) view that other elements are equally important in the interview relationship:

“Ultimately, matching is no substitute for developing high quality fieldwork skills, having empathy and respect for participants, being reflective about participants’ social worlds as well as one’s own, and being able to listen and understand.” My own situation in relation to the women that I interviewed reflected a mixture of insider and outsider positions. I shared some commonalities as a woman interviewing other women, but had no experience of working in the transport or construction sectors, although I had some understanding of male-dominated sectors from working in the IT sector. As a white, middle-class woman, I shared this social position with some

interviewees, but not others. As I have had both lesbian and heterosexual relationships I feel that I am familiar with, and sensitive to, many of the issues concerning the

disclosure of minority sexual identity in the workplace. However, as I am currently in a heterosexual relationship, I could not present myself as a lesbian ‘insider’. As I felt that the issue of my sexuality may be important for some lesbians in terms of trust in me and the research process, I included some information about my research background in LGB issues in the publicity material about the research (see Appendix 6). I took the approach that I was willing to answer questions about my sexual orientation if asked by potential interviewees. In the event, interviewees expressed little interest in my personal life or sexuality, which was consistent with my previous experience of research with lesbian and gay interviewees (Colgan et al., 2006; Wright, 2005). This suggests, in line with Lewis (2003), that ‘matching’ was not particularly important for these lesbian

113

participants, although it is possible that some assumed I was a lesbian due to my research interests. I also cannot know whether some lesbians or bisexual women chose not to volunteer for interview because I was not perceived as an ‘insider’. Equally, an ‘insider’ may have had better access to networks that could have been used to recruit participants, overcoming access difficulties.

There also may be a relationship between my position in the research process and the fact that all lesbian participants were open about their sexuality to at least some colleagues, reflecting a group who were confident about their sexuality; lesbians who were not open might have required greater reassurance about my position. Counter to this, though, is the evidence above that most studies of LGB participants attract those who are out at work, indicating that the difficulties of reaching less visible LGB populations go beyond researcher positionality.

A further aspect of my positioning was as someone who had worked for the trade union movement for many years. Where participants were aware of this9, it might have given me a favourable ‘insider’ status for some (as discussed, 4.5.5, a relatively high

proportion of the sample were active in their unions). Again I cannot tell the effect of this on those who did not volunteer to participate.