Reflexivity, Positionality and Personal Insights

Stanley and Wise (1993) note that feminist epistemology identifies key concerns with regards to research methodologies which require integration into the research process. These concerns include recognising emotion as an aspect of the research process, which impacts upon the ways in which conclusions are reached, the management of conflicting realities between the researcher and the researched and the existence of power relations within research. These concerns, noted by Stanley and Wise (1993), are underpinned by the idea of reflexivity. Feminist research requires a commitment to reflexivity, therefore acknowledging the impact of reflexivity is integral when utilising feminist methodologies (Ackerly and True, 2010; Skinner et al., 2005).

Reflexivity refers to the ability of the researcher to critically examine, explore and reflect upon their research by recognising ‘personal accountability . . . an awareness of the complex role of power in research practice’ as well as how personal attitudes, behaviours and positionality shape the research experience (Leavy and Harris, 2018: 104). Being reflexive is beneficial to undertaking qualitative research as it allows the researcher to identify how their own subjectivity and social and cultural positions transfer into the research process, thus enabling research to negotiate changes in their positionality (Hesse-Biber and Piatelli, 2012). By understanding, (re)negotiating and acknowledging their own

147 positionality, the researcher is able to engage in knowledge building that is relational between the researcher and the participant (Harding, 1987).

As a researcher, I was aware of my own personal standpoints and subjectivities and what role they may have played in the interview process and the nature of the relationships I developed with the girls I interviewed. I was also aware of the considerations this positionality represented in terms of my role as a researcher and the dynamics of the power relations in operation during the interview process. Due to my own personal and research standpoints I acknowledge that I occupied a role as both an insider and an outsider. My gender dictated to me my position as an insider, allowing me a personal understanding and ability to relate to the shared group experiences of girls and women (Hesse-Biber, 2012). I also recognised my role as an outsider, as a researcher with a research agenda (ibid.). Occupying this dual status, as an insider and an outsider, ‘requires building genuine and reciprocal relationships’ (Leavy and Harris, 2018: 163).

My reflections, with regards to interviewing the girls, relate to concerns regarding my role as an outsider and the extent to which this inhibited girls’ willingness and ability to share with me experiences, which truly reflected their lived realities.

These concerns were predominantly because, for all but two of the girls, I was unable to establish a relationship or rapport prior to their interviews. Developing a relationship and establishing rapport is an essential part of the research process, as this enables the interviewee to be comfortable in sharing their personal experiences (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006). Furthermore, establishing a rapport is integral in order to be able to understand and convey girls’

subjective realties of the social world (ibid).

Oakley (1981) promotes a participatory model of feminist research which emphasises the importance of the researcher

148 sharing their identity with the participants. Despite the lack of pre-existing relationship with the girls I interviewed, I was able to establish a meaningful rapport based upon my willingness, throughout the interview process, to engage in a relational dialogue, which gave the girls an insight into my own identity.

Furthermore, as I began to undertake more interviews, I came to understand that my own gender identity, age and ethnicity had a positive influence on the relationships I formed with the girls I interviewed.

Additionally, the effects and the dynamics of power relations present throughout the research process were also a fundamental point of deliberation. This initially began with regards to how I would manage and negotiate my identity as a researcher when interviewing girls who are structurally marginalised and whose voices have been institutionally and epistemologically neglected in relation to RJ discourse. As a feminist researcher, I was cognisant of my role in the hierarchies of power and control that my position represented, the impact this may have had upon the girls I interviewed and the knowledge generated from the interviews (Hesse-Biber and Piatelli, 2012; Ackerly and True, 2010). Utilising a feminist research ethic allowed me to address these points of contention by ensuring the power or girls’ knowledge was prioritised by providing them with the opportunity to share their own subjectivities during the interview process. Such a research ethic also enabled me to reflect upon my own positionality as a researcher and the ways in which this could influence the construction of knowledge formed from the interpretation of the data I collected (Harding, 1987; Miers, 1993).

Furthermore, the power relations present between the practitioners and myself had clear distinctions and these distinctions need addressing reflexively. My reflections when interviewing practitioners did not reflect the same concerns I had with regards to the girls’ interviews. I feel practitioners

149 were able to be open with me, which is evidenced in the data generated from their interviews. However, prior to undertaking any interviews, as key focus of my consideration was placed upon achieving, to the best of my ability, equal power relations for the participants, I failed to recognise the potential for unequal power relations in which I was in a subjugated position as a researcher. Certain practitioners indicated that my questions were ‘hard to answer’ and I distinctively recall a number of practitioners becoming defensive when asked certain questions. Predominantly, a defensive stance was adopted when practitioners were asked about girls’ differential experiences within the youth justice service and the possibility for gender-specific implications arising for girls who participate in RJ conferencing.

Given that the practitioners I was interviewing had extensive professional experience of working in the YJS this, in a sense, created an unequal power dynamic. I felt that certain practitioners, with their wealth of experience, tended to reorganise the structure of the interview to focus on what they believe to be key considerations in RJ practice. However, this did not necessarily incorporate any element of gendered