*In order to describe the process of observation from the perspective of the researcher, the following section is written in first person.
Reflexivity encourages the development of a deeper sense of self-awareness, reminding researchers that our very presence influences the outcomes of the research, while positionality asks that we consider how we are situated within the context of the research, for instance in considering our background, ethnicity, gender and societal privileges (Hennink, Hutter, & Bailey, 2010; Rose, 1997). This process of self-reflection acts as an acknowledgement that researchers cannot simply observe as impartial outsiders, but must instead embrace the subjectivities that participation necessitates. As Finlay and Gough (2008, p. 1) state:
40
“Reflexivity is a challenge to conventional ideals of science which favour professional distance and objectivity over engagement and subjectivity.”
From the beginning of my fieldwork, I was keen – perhaps naively - to observe in a way that had as little impact on the course of events as possible, while at the same time being aware that my presence would influence the project and its activities regardless of how detached I attempted to remain. While observing at the three different points of focus, it became clear that self-reflection was a necessary part of my field notes and at the end of each entry, I would make space for a passage that discussed my observations in a more personal way and analysed my response, whether verbalised or internalised, within the context of events.
This section attempts to shed light on my considerations of positionality and reflexivity by offering some examples of my experiences from different areas of my fieldwork, beginning with my time at the WCHG office and ending with the urban farm and Macmillan community garden. At the very early stages of my research, I found it necessary to consider my own position and how I was perceived within the RFW team. One morning, just after I had arrived in the office, a member of the team commented that they would have to be “on their best behaviour” because I would be in the office that day. Although the comment was presented in jest, it alerted me to the idea that while I had initially perceived the RFW team as colleagues, they appeared to view me as an outsider, perhaps almost as a consultant who was there to assess the benefits of the project and to report its successes. This gave me cause to reflect on my own behaviour and try to assess whether this “outsider” status was in fact beneficial as it may allow me to view the project in a slightly more detached way than if I were to become heavily involved. On the other hand, I was concerned that if the project staff viewed me as someone who needed to be shielded from any negative impressions of the project, I may not be able to provide a full and fair assessment of its progress. This concern began to evaporate as I attended project events and conversed with the project team more frequently. I considered my position to be an involved outsider who was available for assistance when required and I became familiar with the project through continued engagement but did not become a full team member and was never given a responsible role for the implementation of the project. This balance
41
between distance and engagement suited my research style as it allowed me closeness to the project but enabled a level of detachment.
The relationships with the group members from the two study sites were easier to negotiate from the beginning. The Macmillan community garden participants were mostly retired, white men. They made their feelings regarding my attendance quite clear to begin with and I documented this throughout my time there. When I first arrived at the site, I was met with a mixture of enthusiasm and curiosity. I explained on numerous occasions the reason for my involvement and quickly seemed to be accepted as part of the group. After only a few weeks, I was regularly the butt of jokes (particularly relating to me being a “soft southerner”), and during quieter moments, I had long chats with individuals who continued to surprise me with their capacity for honesty and openness with a relative stranger. By the end of the growing season, I had been invited to barbeques and group meals and had met some members’ spouses and family members. The welcoming nature of the group had led to me develop a fondness for them, which later had the potential to become problematic during conflicts that the group had with the RFW team. Reflexivity became an invaluable tool for acknowledging my position and for considering how to frame my response when met with requests to “take sides”. I became particularly aware of my position and background at the urban farm during the weekly growing sessions, where political discussions were commonplace and a number of members were frank about financial or social difficulties they had experienced or were currently experiencing. These occasions helped me to understand my own societal privilege, frequently in ways that I had not previously considered.