Reflexivity and research bias

Qualitative research is vulnerable to bias and therefore critical reflection on knowledge that is generated, and the researcher’s role in the process is an essential component at every stage of the research process (Christensen & James, 2017). It is impossible to remain “outside of” one’s subject matter (Willig, 2001, p.10). Our values, beliefs and life experiences influence the construction of research questions, data collection and interpretation of findings. The subjectivity of the researcher, as well as the study participants, is therefore part of the research process. Researcher impressions, irritations, and feelings become data in their own right, forming part of the interpretation (Flick, 2006). Researcher effects cannot be eliminated, just controlled. These need to be “brought into conscious awareness if they are to facilitate rather than impede critical analysis” (Hewitt, 2007, p.1149). Research with child participants accentuates the researcher’s role in co-construction of knowledge. Children’s narratives don’t emanate in some kind of natural way and cannot be viewed as providing “authentic” insights but rather as “contributing to a more complex and multi-layered picture” (Elden, 2013, p.66). The issues become particularly salient when working with children who have no or little spoken language (Komulainen, 2007). In reporting and interpreting the data generated by the children, the researcher was particularly aware of the influence of the

71

research process on their accounts, and explicitly stated factors that may have shaped their contribution.

Braun & Clarke (2013) distinguish between personal reflexivity and functional reflexivity:

Personal reflexivity involves giving attention to factors about ourselves as researchers such

as our age, gender, culture, appearance, perspective, power balance, and assumptions, any or all of which may influence the researcher-participant relationship and knowledge that is produced (Hewitt, 2007). The researcher’s constructions and experiences were made explicit and these demonstrated the difficulty in remaining neutral. However, acknowledgement of them contributed to the study’s critical analysis, and as referred to by Hewitt above.

Functional reflexivity involves giving consideration to the ways in which research tools and processes influence the research such as the methods that are chosen to construct knowledge, or the way or order in which they are presented. Spyrou (2011) emphasises the importance of critically examining the research process itself and asserts that reflexive researchers accept “the messiness, ambiguity, polyvocality, non-factuality and multi-layered nature of meaning” in the narrative that is produced (p.162).

Reference is made to both personal and functional reflective processes at various points throughout the current study in the researcher’s attempts to understand their impact on research outcomes.

3.11. Bracketing

The researcher considered how her prior experiences, assumptions and beliefs might influence the construction of knowledge during the research process. Strong professional commitment to the topic instigated the study, but there was awareness that this commitment, together with associated knowledge and preconceptions could have a potentially negative effect on the research process, shaping perception and interpretation of data (Drew, 1989; Braun & Clarke, 2013). For example, many years of working with children with severe ABI provided the researcher with an acute awareness and concern for some of the significant ‘hidden’ difficulties that can impact on learning and socialisation and that commonly fail to be identified or provided for following return to home and school. Also, much experience of engaging with local authority service personnel throughout the country

72

may have given the researcher an advantaged position to identify strengths and shortcomings of school and community provision for children with ABI and their families. Appreciation of some of the dilemmas and concerns increased the risk of the study becoming “more a reflection of the worldview of the researcher, rather than that of the participants.” (Sorsa, Kiikkala & Astedt-Kurki, (2015, p. 11).

In qualitative study bracketing (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009) refers to the need of the researcher to temporarily hold ‘in suspension’ prior knowledge, assumptions, values, experience or belief about the phenomenon being studied. This is not to separate the researcher from the research but to enable it to be seen with fresh eyes. Perceiving it with an open mind helps to eliminate bias, to focus on and understand the participants point of view without prejudice, and create new meaning. In order to do this, preconceptions and experiences need to be identified and acknowledged (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009). It can be a multi-layered process to access various levels of consciousness, a process of self- discovery whereby buried emotions and experiences may surface (Tufford & Newman, 2010). This was managed reflectively by the researcher in two ways; in notes made following each interview and during the analysis process, and also by holding discussions during the course of the study with a colleague, a social worker with many years of experience working with parents of children with severe ABI. These processes enabled the researcher to make prior emotions and experiences explicit and ‘off-load’ them to maximise separation from the study data.

Bracketing in the study was also guided in part by LeVasseur (2003) and Sorsa et al. ( 2015) who emphasise researcher approaches, behaviours and goals when interviewing to include versatility, sensitivity to nuance, avoiding interpretation, obtaining descriptions of specific situations, being open and naïve, and asking for clarification. LeVasseur (2003) advocates being persistently curious as a way of bracketing prior understanding. “We have to assume that we do not know or understand something in order to attain the philosophical attitude. When we begin to inquire in this way, we no longer assume that we understand fully, and the effect is a questioning of prior knowledge” (LeVasseur, 2003, p.417)

73

3.12. Demonstrating rigour and trustworthiness in research

The ‘methodological trinity’ (Tobin & Begley, 2004) of validity (whether research actually shows what it claims to show), reliability (the extent to which results could be repeated, for example by another researcher, in another context), and generalisability (ability to apply results of a study to a wider population) are important concepts in quantitative research. It has been argued that they are associated with positivism (Sandelowski, 1995), and are not meaningful terminology or goals for qualitative research. The concept of an objective reality to validate knowledge in qualitative research has been discounted (Kvale, 1995) because of the context-bound nature of knowledge and the interest in the detail of the phenomenon being investigated (Braun & Clarke, 2013). However, there has been concern that rejecting these concepts is paramount to rejecting rigour, and this undermines acceptance of qualitative research (Tobin & Begley, 2004).

Rigour and trustworthiness demonstrate integrity and competence in research (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006) and need to be judged by different criteria. Lincoln and Guba (1985) assert that this be done through establishing credibility (the ‘fit’ between the respondents views and the representation of them), transferability (the findings have applicability in other settings), dependability (ensuring the research process is logical, traceable and clearly documented, and confirmability (the extent to which the study findings are shaped by the data) (Nowell, Norris, White & Moules, 2017). Arminio and Hultgren (2002), reported in Tobin and Begley (2004), prefer the criterion of ‘goodness’ for establishing trustworthiness in an interpretative study. They consider a range of elements to demonstrate this, as listed below, should be embedded throughout a study, are essential to communication of the study, and need to be explicitly stated in the written report:

1. Provision of a philosophical stance that gives context to and informs the study 2. Methodology -clarity about approaches used

3. Method - explicitness about data collection and management

4. Representation of voice - reflection on the researchers relationship with participants and the phenomena under investigation

74

5. Meaning-making – the process of presenting new insights through the data and chosen methodology

6. Implication for professional practice – recommendations

Rolfe (2006) challenges the notion that rigour can be assured by any generic set of previously agreed quality criteria which should be abandoned in favour of individual judgements of individual studies. He emphasises the importance of reflexivity, the provision of a ‘super’ audit trail to recount the rationale underpinning the research decisions, and details of “the actual course of the research process, rather than the idealized version that the reader is usually presented with” (p.309).

The current researcher aimed to demonstrate triangulation, goodness, and reflexivity throughout the study, using both Arminio and Hultgren’s (2002), and Rolfe’s (2006) criteria of trustworthiness as described above. Representation of the participants voice was checked by verbally summarising what they said at the end of the interview, or reviewing the placement of the Talking Mat symbols, with opportunity to retract or change anything. Different sources for collecting parent, school staff and child data enabled a richer understanding of participation issues and strengthened the analytic claims (Smith, 1996). The study findings were discussed at two levels with colleagues from a paediatric ABI team, firstly to ascertain that the issues resonated with their own professional experiences. Response was a mixture of confirmatory and comments relating to their appreciation of increased understanding. Secondly, the study data and analysis were discussed with a consultant clinical psychologist, whose specialist knowledge and experience of childhood ABI is extensive, in order to check the credibility of the descriptions and the themes.