Reflexivity

The current study is informed by the concept of ‘reflexivity’, a term which can have several meanings in social science. It is possible to distinguish between three different aspects of reflexivity in Bourdieu’s theory: ordinary, social, and scientific (Wacquant, 1992). The ‘ordinary reflexivity’ of human subjects signifies an act of self-reference where any action affects the agent instigating the action. ‘Societal reflexivity’ refers to the capacity of an agent to recognize forces of socialization, and act to alter their own place in the social structure. For example the agency exhibited by participants in this study who took the initiative in terms of the medical treatment they required. A low level of social reflexivity would designate an individual who is highly determined by social structures; a high level of social reflexivity would conversely designate a lower degree of structural determination and higher degree of autonomous self-determination (Wacquant 1992:37).

The third aspect of reflexivity defined by Bourdieu is applicable to the position of the researcher. This is ‘epistemic’ or ‘scientific reflexivity’, including the exposure of ‘the social and intellectual unconscious embedded in analytic tools and operations’ (italics in original, Wacquant, 1992:36). Scientific reflexivity implies researcher awareness of their effect on the process and outcomes of the research, and how any examination or action refers to, and affects the instigator. It is the process of reflecting, reviewing, evaluating researcher subjectivity and biases, and how these might be shaping each aspect of the research, how the very act of observation is affecting that which is being observed. Reflexive sociology acknowledges the fact that the researcher-observer is not a neutral presence but also a social actor, and reflexive research takes account of this researcher involvement. Scientific reflexivity should take place at every level when designing, conducting, and writing up research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Denzin, 2009).

In keeping with Bourdieu’s suggestions for scientific reflexivity: while designing the study I examined and reflected upon the assumptions I was making; while conducting the study I kept an awareness of the emotions occurring during the process, and what influence these may have had on the research process; during the writing phase, I reflected on how many of my assumptions had been undercut by the actuality of the

Constructing identities, reclaiming subjectivities, reconstructing selves: an interpretative study of transgender practices Scotland

101 empirical evidence, and how I was intellectually changed by the intersubjective interaction of the research process. I also kept an awareness of how my own presence may have influenced the interview process.

Of interest re the reflexive researcher is that Hines (2007) identified herself to her interview participants as non-transgender, but Meek (2015) chose not to disclose his own homosexual identity to his interview participants. In the current study, for reasons of not wishing to divert from the focus of the research by intruding my own autobiography, I chose not to disclose my own gender identification in the Statement of Research, other than to state the following credentials: ‘I have been active for 30 years in LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) networks and organisations in both South Africa and Scotland, this has led to my interest in how transgender identities are formed’. I indicated a disposition to answer any questions from research participants, only two of whom actually inquired as to my gender identity during the interviews. In response, I described myself as a-gender/ non-binary and my interest in the question of transgender identity as an attempt to understand gender categories and binaries to which I myself do not subscribe.

My own subject position and familiarity with the transgender field provided entrée into and knowledge of the main transgender organisations and their agents, and enabled an early definition of the questions. However I decided not to use known personal connections in favour of attempting to gather the sample through more diverse recruiting methods. Prior knowledge of the field removed any possible sense of anthropological strangeness towards research participants, and allowed perhaps for greater researcher access, and hopefully fewer researcher stereotypical presuppositions, although there were still some that slipped in that became evident and were debunked by the empirical research - discussed reflexively throughout this research report.

All social science research is about interpretation, and this is particularly so with qualitative research. One aspect of reflexivity is the double hermeneutic identified by Giddens (1976) as being one of the fundamental issues of social theory and method. It is the way in which sociological concepts are reflected back to researchers through their interviewees’ engagement with social research. The implications are that social science

Constructing identities, reclaiming subjectivities, reconstructing selves: an interpretative study of transgender practices Scotland

102 inquiry can actually alter the way society behaves: unlike the natural sciences, the social sciences research phenomena already constituted as meaningful, and findings:

‘often enter constitutively into the world they describe’, because human concepts of their action help constitute those actions and what they mean (Giddens 1984: 20). Thus the first task of the sociologist is to understand the concepts of the research participants being studied, to get to know their world and what they know. The double hermeneutic is linked to the idea of reflexive modernity, that society is becoming increasingly more self-aware, reflective, and social scientific concepts have a reflexive, reciprocal, two-way causal relationship with concepts in the wider society (Giddens, 1976). This is particularly the case in interpretive research dealing with the intersubjectivity of practical social life, and more so when researching the field of transgender, where it has been widely documented that trans people are acutely aware of and well-read in the previous research (Ekins and King 2006, Hines, 2007).

The double hermeneutic is acknowledged by both Weeks (2001) and Hines (2007) as affecting their research. Hines mentions in relation to her own research on transgender identities how: ‘many participants had a deep knowledge of theoretical debates around transgender’ (Hines, 2007:198). This reflexive awareness participants have of the field operates across all levels of education and social class, and is what makes research into transgender phenomena more interesting and potentially more demanding. Most participants in the current study were well informed about transgender theory and issues and medical practices that concerned their own lives, and some contribute regularly to the public transgender discourse and changes to the laws in Scotland from an activist position. In terms of their own reflexivity, all research participants were eager to have their private testimony heard in the public sphere, and this was their most frequently cited reason for participation: the hope that they may help others like themselves to express and fulfil their gender identities.

Constructing identities, reclaiming subjectivities, reconstructing selves: an interpretative study of transgender practices Scotland

103