Reflexivity

Initially, I designed the project planning for reflexivity in connection with data analysis; however, I soon recognized that reflexivity was critical during the entire process. First, I recognized that the methods that I implemented, to some degree, constitute and shape the reality that I am trying to describe. Therefore, I was

committed to avoiding, as much possible, the “black box” effect in my methodological report – reflexivity is the perfect way to support this process. Kvale and Brinkmann point out the lack of methodological data as a problem for trustworthiness evaluation (2009, 270-271). They recognize the role of improvisation and intuition as well as the absence of clear guidelines to follow when implementing and carrying out qualitative interviews. They highlight the importance of sharing the decisions and reflections during the process and point at the potential role of logbooks and diaries to record that data. Although I did not keep a unique diary for these reflections, such annotations populate my field notes, my transcriptions, and my conference notebooks. For

hermeneutic phenomenological projects, Cohen, Kahn and Steeves (2000) argue for a “reflexive stance” where “the researcher is aware of his or her participation in the narratives that are collected and the scientific accounts that are and will be written” (89). As a result, my aim in this section is to produce a methodological report, “to attend to process,” allowing for the complexity and “messiness” of the process to emerge (Law 2004, 153).

Second, Kvale and Brinkmann also privilege the researcher’s role as an instrument (271). This idea is core to any qualitative project making issues of

trustworthiness especially sensitive (Lincoln and Guba 1985, 101-109). Consequently, reflexivity became the appropriate way to support my own process of discovery,

especially to acknowledge previous knowledge, experiences, and thoughts (Corbin and Strauss 2008, 31-32). Since interviewing is the method I chose to explore the experience of reading comics, as the primary researcher I became the main research instrument, which in turn, increased the importance of my integrity in this process (Kvale and

Brinkmann 2009, 74). A connection can be easily identified between interviewing as a method in phenomenological research, the trustworthiness of data, and the use of reflexivity. Kvale and Brinkmann talk about reflexive objectivity as a process that involves “striving for sensitivity about one’s prejudices, one’s subjectivity” as the researcher’s contribution to the production of knowledge (242). They strive for results that “carry the validation with them” and to achieve this quality “the research

procedures would be transparent and the results evident, and the conclusions of a study intrinsically convincing as true” (260). Reflexivity is a much needed step for a researcher who aspires to construct a research project that shares these important characteristics.

Finlay (2002) deepens the connection between reflexivity and phenomenology, as well as the many instances where this tool is useful. Reflexivity is presented as a required process in phenomenological inquiry since “researchers need to look within to attempt to disentangle perceptions and interpretations from the phenomenon being studied” (Finlay 2002, 534). Understanding is a process that “results from a dialectic between the researcher’s preunderstandings and the research process, between the self-interpreted constructions of the researcher and those of the participant” (Finlay 2002, 534). Therefore, reflexivity ideally should be present from the conception of the process. The researcher’s steps to implement reflexivity at this stage are very similar to the action of “bracketing out” or “reduction” as explained by phenomenologists (Van Manen 1997, 46-51; Cohen, Kahn and Steeves 2000, 87-88). This action is often

connected to the goal of seeking to identify the essence of an experience. Despite the fact that I do not seek that goal, I wholly embrace the role that revealing my own history as a comics reader plays in the co-construction of knowledge and I shared it in the introduction to this thesis.

My hope is that my short reflection helps the reader to understand my

relationship with this project, with its strengths and weaknesses. This reflexive analysis has helped me to delineate “the route to ensuring an adequate balance between purposeful, as opposed to defensive or self-indulgent, personal analysis” (Finlay 2002,

542). I am aware that this stance can be understood as a weakening of my own

research, since I will be indicating the threats that could undermine this project. On the contrary, I agree with Finlay when she points at reflexivity “as one way to begin to unravel the richness, contradictions, and complexities of intersubjective dynamics” and that a reflexive analysis “can only ever be a partial, tentative, provisional account” (542- 43). I see reflexivity as a process that strengthens the trustworthiness of my data and my analysis as well as my contribution to other scholars who might be considering a similar methodological path. Sharing the missed steps, doubts, and small victories during this long process hopefully addresses in advance some potential questions and concerns and also represents my effort to construct a transparent research project, open to scrutiny and questioning.