Reflexivity and positionality

Although it is idealistic to be fully reflexive and conscious of all potential impacts of the self, social situations and dynamics (Rose 1997), it is good

working practice in research to carry out critical reflexivity. That is, to constantly scrutinise both oneself, and the process, particularly analysing the social

relations being acted out and whether they influence the data in any way (Dowling 2010). A helpful way to do this is by keeping a research diary alongside the fieldwork diary. A checklist of questions that aid critical reflexivity in

research was also helpful e.g. “what are some of the power dynamics of the social situation I am exploring and what sort of power dynamics do I expect between myself and my informants?” and “In what ways am I an insider and/or outsider in respect of this research topic?” (Dowling 2010, p.38).

The researcher’s social characteristics as a white, middle-class woman were positioned slightly differently in the different groups as some were with mainly participants who were unemployed or on very low incomes while others were with people who shared similar characteristics. Despite initial concerns that this might influence recruitment such e.g. drawing more women participants to the group, this was not the case. Additionally, it was fortunate that the

gatekeepers, even those with no direct connection, were very helpful in recruitment, so people with different socio-demographics were attracted to participate. The nature of the research topic – diet and who is responsible what for people eat – is such that the researcher was, in one sense, neither an

outsider nor an insider in relation to the informants (Dowling 2010) and

therefore, probably seen with relative neutrality given that we all buy and eat food.

Some focus groups consisted of people with whom the researcher had a reciprocal relationship, in terms of power balance (i.e. similar income, housing and education) while, with others, it could be seen to be asymmetrical because of being “differently situated” socially (Dowling 2010). But the subject matter, deliberately not actively participating in the group discussions other than to steer them using a few questions, and the liveliness of the groups suggested that the researcher’s demographic characteristics would not create any

exploitative dynamic nor influence the responses. The nature of the questions, they way they were introduced and the structure of the discussions was such that informants did not feel any less an expert on the topic than they were – after all, the questions were seeking their views on a subject on which they were the experts i.e. their diets and their thoughts on who was responsible for them. It may be that the nature of the discussion about responsibility may have led informants to believe that the project sympathised with a potentially overwhelming food environment and its characteristics such as cost, taste and convenience that easily led to unhealthy choices. For example, the researcher said the following during one focus group:

You then said people needed to be discriminating and that, I suppose that's one of the things I'd like us to think about. How easy is it to discriminate? To really enact those conscious decisions given the environments that we do live in?

It is therefore likely that knowledge of previous research, assumptions and political inclinations did indeed “inhibit or enhance” (Dowling 2010, p.37) the information gathered. The researcher did not refer at all to her background of working in nutrition, in case participants thought the research was based on healthy eating ideals, or they became self-conscious about their eating habits. It is not, however possible, to be entirely reflexive and transparent to the degree of ‘knowing’ precisely how recruitment and data generation were influenced. It

is also not possible for a researcher to be fully conscious of the nature and role of power in a research situation, particularly in relation to gender (Rose 1997) and it is quite likely that informants’ comments were coloured by their desire (albeit subconscious) to manage the impression they gave of themselves.

3.5 Interviews

The next stage of the data collection was one-on-one interviews with ‘decision makers’ in the food system – architects of the food system itself, as well as experts on the food system-health interface. Focus groups were, as described, an ideal way of gathering views from members of the public, on actors in the food system and responsibility for healthy eating. Although focus groups may also have been a good forum for exploring the subject with the ‘decision makers’ – to allow for interaction, disagreement etc. – interviews offer an ideal way of gathering detailed opinions. In a one-on-one interview, the informant is given full attention; there is the time and the scope to fully mine that person’s experience and opinions; the discussion is confidential. It was also much more practical than trying to arrange focus groups with such people. Interviews therefore formed stage 3 of data collection.

Semi-structured interviews take an informal and conversational tone, with just a broad topic guide to steer the conversation towards answering relatively open-ended questions. They help to gain “access to interviewees’ views, interpretations of events, understandings, experiences and opinions” (Byrne 2004, p.182) especially in contrast with questionnaires or structured, rigid questioning which have been described as data “collection” (ibid.). Semi-structured interviews concern data “generation” which later allows for the exploration of discursive formations. The flexibility of interviews is particularly useful for investigating complex issues about which little is known, such as the construction of responsibility in the food system. It allows informants to express their own views using their language and, if they want, to raise other issues related to the questions that the researcher may not have thought of.