Antecedentes de la investigación

Self-reflexivity involves one’s beliefs, experiences and associated worldview. Perhaps more than at any other stage of the research process, these characteristics of self-reflexivity commonly play out in (1) the data collection phase; and, (2) the data interpretation/analysis phase.

The research question was driven by my interest in further exploring prosocial behaviour using a cross-cultural lens. Central to understanding the study is the need to

incorporate associated culturally structural, historical and theoretical foundations. Participants were initially persons targeted from culturally diverse backgrounds. However, sourcing such participants did not lend itself readily to random sampling and consequently this process was replaced by convenience and snowball sampling. As a result, the dynamic between me as the interviewer and the interviewee brought about a different form of rapport building, openness, verbal and non-verbal understanding and trust. Extra effort and time needed to be, and was, devoted to building rapport and having the participant feel comfortable and willing to express personal episodes and events which they seldom shared with others. The approach toward the

94

building of rapport was different when recruiting and interviewing acquaintances. Prior to the interview ‘social talk’ was necessary to accommodate unsettled nerves and alleviate anxiety. The interview was undertaken in the form of a normal everyday interpersonal communication with the delivery and exchange of explicit and implicit messages. However, not all messages were clearly and/or effectively communicated. There is a difference between interviewing a friend and interviewing an acquaintance or stranger. When interviewing acquaintances it was easier to interpret and react to an emotion, hesitance and a pause. This capacity to interpret a response and or interaction was not as readily available in dealing with a stranger’s gestures, facial expressions, paralanguage, posture, eye contact and or vocal tone. The latter involved a greater sensitivity toward misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the response and

behaviour of the interviewee

A good interviewer stimulates respondents to comfortably engage in appropriate and relevant self-disclosure. This engagement is also promoted through appropriate body

language and emotional facial expressions. Reflexivity in this process involves judgements and strategies in terms of verbal responses and physical cues. Understanding the explicit and implicit aspects of the interaction guides responses expressed at times as a paraphrase, searching for explanation in response to the vague comment. The moments of doubt and confusion are seized upon as points of opportunity for further clarification and an avenue toward entering that core of understanding unique to the interviewee.

The path of the interview revolves around an understanding of the assumptions of the research and how these relate and become meaningful within my interpretations of the interviewee’s responses to the conversation points. Social constructionism lends itself to this approach, particularly in open-ended questions and associated conversations which allow for and promote the expression of one’s own understandings and meanings. There is the absence of a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer and or opinion. The interest and curiosity is in their stories and

95

perspectives and not based on a researcher’s personal opinions, social influences, values and beliefs. The reflexivity within the process involves creating a neutral atmosphere in which the interviewee feels comfortable in relating their stories. The interviewer is merely the conduit through which the respondent is directed subtly through the path of the conversation.

While the researcher initiates the study and has associated assumptions constructed within a personal value system, it is not their task to approve or disapprove of the

participants’ expressed beliefs and values. Of course, it is likely if not inevitable that the participant will hold significantly different and varied values in relation to their response to an event. Rather than viewing heterogeneous ideas and thoughts as inconsistent with the core of the study, they may instead constitute potent new knowledge and contribute to the research literature. This study as such is not burdened by the shackles of theory and associated models of human behaviour. Rather, it is an exploratory study investigating first-person ‘life-world’ views embedded within personal experience. This life world experience is secured and intact and rests on a release of the restrictions represented within a predetermined theory and/or associated model of human behaviour. The interviewer therefore subtly directs the conversation in a way in which the interviewee is led to believe they are in control.

Phenomenologists are interested in exploring a person’s subjective experience, and how one makes sense of their life. This life is embedded within the historical, structural, political, emotional, sociological and ideological roots of culture. It lends itself readily and necessarily to the notion of reflexivity. It is difficult if not impossible to interpret an

interviewee’s account of an event without reflecting almost subconsciously on one’s personal ideology and the moral stance. This suggests that while one is able to reflect and interpret from the perspective of the other and embrace another’s worldview, it is nonetheless reflected through a personal lens which is educationally informed and culturally ascribed. The

96

interpretation. In short, the research process in this type of study is not value-free and the good researcher is able to manoeuvre their values and morals within the values and morals of the participant in order to obtain a truthful account of the participant’s view of the world.

97