Reflexivity as a discursive concern

The role of the researcher

Clearly, research that fits within a social constructionist paradigm, can only, through its own ontological position, claim to produce one version of the truth. My analysis of the talk of these particular groups of parents is just one ‘reading’ of what is being performed (see Willig, 2013; Potter, 2004; Horton-Salway, 2001; Silverman, 2001a; Wetherell, 2000c). In this sense, a discursive analysis of a text can never be completed. As Willig states (2013), ‘‘the truth’ is itself not recovered

from but rather constructed through’ the research and analytic process.

This raises axiological concerns about the role of the researcher. Willig (2013) identifies two interpretative research approaches to data produced within qualitative research; an empathic approach and a suspicious approach. The ‘suspicious’ approach, such as the one undertaken in this study, interrogates the phenomenon under investigation (talk in this study) to uncover the processes and

meanings which generate them. Unlike the ‘empathic’ approach, phenomena are not taken at face value. This approach, therefore, necessitates a theoretical framework with which to interrogate the topic of study and this, in turn, confers the status of expert on the researcher. It also raises ethical considerations regarding the imposition of meaning upon the data by the researcher; as Willig (2013) asks, ‘who owns the interpretation?’

It is probable that the theoretical concepts and terminology employed in the analysis of the talk of this group of parents might be unfamiliar to them, and, consequently, the parents might not conceptualise their talk in the same way that I have. However, a synthetic approach to talk-in-interaction necessitates close observation of local orientations and meaning making; a significant analytic concern is how participants draw on shared knowledge to mutually construct meaning. Therefore, analysis is, partially, validated by participants’ orientations, across the data set (Jones, 2003; Potter, 2002; Potter and Wetherell, 1987). I found Jones’ discussion (2003) of her attempts to reconcile participants’ rights with her own rights as a researcher instructive. In particular, she addresses the issue of ‘who owns the interpretation?’ By emphasising the joint construction of accounts produced within the research context, she queries whether such accounts actually belong to the participants any more than they belong to the researcher. In theorising participants as speakers in an interaction rather than

informants who have privileged access to a pre-existing reality, then their

interpretation of what goes on within the research process, although clearly significant through their capacity to provide an alternative version, has no more validity than the researcher’s.

Analysis and transcription

As a researcher, there is a responsibility towards analysis of data as well as towards engagement with participants. In considering my responsibility as a researcher, I found articles by Yardley (2000) and Antaki, Billig, Edwards and Potter (2003) particularly useful. Yardley argues (2000) that for qualitative research to be considered meaningful, it is essential for researchers to be

transparent and coherent in formulating their versions of reality. Transparency and coherence, Yardley argues, are dependent on the quality of the research, and this is informed by the rigour of analysis. This resonates with the discussion by Antaki

et al. (2003) of common weaknesses in ‘so-called’ discursive analysis. In

particular, they identify under-analysis to be a common failing, suggesting that unskilled analysts tend to summarise ‘what is being said’ or get carried away with ‘spotting’ discursive techniques, rather than showing what the discursive feature is accomplishing. This certainly chimes with my initial attempts at analysis, and earlier versions of data analysis chapters were very much focused on what was being said, rather than its performative function. This was largely overcome through increased familiarity with a range of discursive techniques, and through guidance provided within the supervision process.

As the interviews and focus groups were unstructured, there was no expectation of what participants would say. An initial transcription of the contents of all the discussions served as the basis for a preliminary analysis. Following a suggested analytic approach set out by Potter and Wetherell (1987), the identification of broad patterns and themes informed the exploratory focus of the discussions. This initial exploratory focus was followed up by detailed transcription of sections of the recording relevant to the research questions. A discursive psychological approach does not require full and detailed transcripts of entire recordings,

instead, data is selected, and justified, by the patterns revealed within it and the relevance the researcher attaches to it (Taylor, 2001a; Yardley, 2000). Working within a discursive psychological framework, the selection of material was informed by those parts which were considered analytically relevant to the research question.

Transcription

The transcription approach adopted is one already used and advocated in the field (Holt, 2010; Gray, 2008; Smith, 2005; Holloway, 2005). It is a simplified version of the transcription conventions developed by Jefferson (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984). A full Jeffersonian style transcription is extremely useful for a fine-grained analysis of the interactional features of talk (Potter and Hepburn, 2005). Such detailed transcription as advocated by Jefferson (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984) and Potter and Hepburn (2005) can privilege interactional features over the ‘substantive topic’ (Smith, 2005:310). However, as this is not the focus of this study, such a detailed transcription is not necessary. As argued by Gray (2008), Smith (2005) and Holloway (2005), a ‘one size fits all’ transcription approach is not appropriate; a useful transcription is one that fits the analytic approach of the study. In this case, the aim is to identify the use of linguistic patterns drawn from the broader context and oriented to within the immediate interaction of a particular group of parents. The transcription approach adopted facilitates the reader in identifying such features considered relevant to this aim (see Smith, 2005:310). All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim by the researcher. Features of talk represented in the transcription included pauses (untimed),

overlapping turns, quotation marks to indicate participants’ use of reported speech, and the occasional use of punctuation to aid the reading of particularly long

unpunctuated. Following similar approaches in the field (for example, Gray, 2008), and in keeping with ethical considerations, the anonymity of participants was protected during the transcription process; participants were given pseudonyms, and geographical reference points were also only indicated by their initial letter. Clearly, decisions around transcription again lead to a consideration of reflexivity, as, obviously, selective transcription is not a neutral process, but one that reflects the researcher’s interest and bias, including the focus of their research question. As Taylor indicates ‘a transcript constructs a certain version of the talk or

interaction which is to be analysed’ (2001a:28). For this reason, it is essential that the researcher adopts a reflexive position in the analysis of the data. There is, potentially, an inherent paradox to claiming the necessity for a reflexive approach. A reflective stance necessitates considering ‘ the way a text such as this is a version, selectively working up coherence and incoherence, telling historical stories, presenting and, indeed, constituting an objective, out there reality’ (Potter, 2004). This level of reflexivity might risk undermining the version of reality that the analyst has constructed as it would inevitably involve interrogating all the

assumptions upon which the research is based, and render it, potentially, meaningless. Arguably, acknowledging the need to be reflexive serves its own rhetorical purposes. As Billig (1996) suggests, aligning oneself with a potentially critical audience can work to deflect criticisms and, in fact, work to protect the identity and integrity of the speaker (in this case, the writer of the text). In this case, an audience might critique such an analysis for demonstrating bias or a lack of validity; in reflexively acknowledging that my version is just one version of the truth, I am inoculating myself against such a criticism.

The somewhat circuitous argument around reflexivity highlights the concerns about validity that a discursive approach raises. Challenges to the adequacy of

explanations offered by a discursive approach can be met by ensuring that research demonstrates the levels of transparency and coherence advocated by Yardley (2000). In terms of transparency, I acknowledge the cautionary reminder by Antaki et al. (2003) that such small scale research, as the one undertaken here, does not permit the generalisations of findings to a wider population, in this case to all parents of children with an ADHD diagnosis. With regard to coherence, I have aimed to locate my work within, and build on insights of earlier discursive work relating to ADHD (see Jones, 2003; Potter, 2002; Potter and Wetherell, 1987). By ensuring transparency and coherence, the audience is enabled to decide if the research is meaningful or useful. Readers’ evaluation of research as meaningful and useful, arguably, serves as a form of validity (Potter, 2002; Potter and Wetherell, 1987).