Clasificación de salarios

How  the  researcher  shapes  the  research  process  can  be  considered  in  two  ways,   firstly  how  the  researcher’s  behaviour  impacts  on  their  research  practice,  for   example  choice  of  research  methods  and  consequences  in  fieldwork,  which  has   in  part  been  addressed  within  the  earlier  explanations  of  negotiations  for   research  access.  Secondly,  reflexivity  is  concerned  with  a  consideration  of  the   researcher’s  own  beliefs  and  lived  experience,  or  what  Johnson  and  Duberley   (2000)  identified  as  ‘epistemic  reflexivity’  (p.  178);  views,  values  as  well  as   knowledge  which  the  researcher  holds  about  themselves,  and  at  times  others,   and  brings  into  their  research  practice  and  the  fieldwork  setting.  Whilst  the   researcher  cannot,  in  reality,  leave  their  life  experience  behind  or  exclude  this   from  fieldwork,  reflexivity  is  concerned  with  declaring  and  discussing  what,  as   well  as  how,  the  life  experience  of  the  researcher  may  impact  and  influence   their  practice.  In  this  study  an  example  of  epistemic  reflexivity  and  a  major   personal  challenge  was  to  set  aside  my  own  preconceived  ideas  and  experience   of  the  practice  of  marketing.  Having  previously  employed  some  knowledge   about  marketing  practice  to  help  smooth  negotiations  with  Kirsten  and  to  gain   the  access  to  St  Angela’s,  as  fieldwork  began  it  was  important  to  try  to  regain  a   more  partial  position  once  situated  within  the  marketing  team  (Coffey,  1999).  

Interestingly,  in  contrast  to  the  marketing  knowledge,  little  was  known  about   hospices  or  EOLC,  and  I  had  only  visited  a  hospice  retail  shop.  Indeed,  in  many   ways  in  this  aspect  my  experience  was  very  like  that  of  the  marketing  team,   further  complicating  my  position  as  researcher.  

During  fieldwork,  epistemic  reflexivity  surfaced  within  the  relationships  with   respondents;  how  I  engaged  with  those  with  whom  I  was  in  the  closest  

proximity,  what  ‘came  out’  during  our  frequent  discussions  in  the  office  as  well   as  in  more  private  conversations  in  and  around  the  one-­‐to-­‐one  interviews.  This   was  initially  explored  in  work  by  Fine  (1994)  in  which  she  examined  the  

‘hyphen’  which  she  saw  as  representing  space  wherein  the  distance  as  well  as   relationship  between  research  and  research  participants  should  be  considered.  

It  was  more  recently  described  as  ‘hyphen-­‐spaces’  (Cunliffe  and  Karunanayake,   2013,  p.  367)  and  conceptualised  as  the  ‘fluid  relational  spaces’  (ibid,  p.  368)   between  oneself  as  the  researcher  and  the  respondents,  and  here  the  

relationships  held  between  the  researcher  and  researched  are  proposed  as   changing  or  fluctuating  raising  the  need  for  constant  attention  to  how  the   researcher  is  perceived  and  what  they  may  impart  or  bring  into  fieldwork.  For   example,  in  this  study  my  relationship  was  always  changing.  In  one-­‐to-­‐one   interviews  I  could  either  be  the  ‘honorary  friend’  (Coffey,  1999,  p.  37)  or   confidant.  When  the  marketing  team  asked  for  advice,  I  could  become  ‘a   superior  authority  or  expert…bring[ing]  attributes  and  possessions  useful  to   [marketing]’  (Emerson  and  Pollner,  2001,  p.  244)  and  when  people  asked  about   the  PhD  thesis  it  seemed  I  became  a  representative  of  the  academic  field  of   marketing  or  the  ‘alien  planet’  (Wacquant,  2005,  p.  449)  of  the  academic   marketing  world.  So  here  rather  than  occupying  one  position  with  associated   values  and  understanding  there  was  a  need  for  continually  reassembling,   deploying  and  subsequently  reflecting  on  a  shifting  position.  

A  further  important  aspect  of  reflexivity  which  characterises  ethnographies   relates  to  the  involvement  in  the  research  setting  by  the  researcher,  a  

consequence  of  the,  at  times,  lengthy  duration  of  fieldwork.  The  consequences   of  participating  in  the  life  of  marketing  in  the  marketing  office,  being  together   with  the  team  for  eight  hours  a  day  made  it  hard  to  achieve  distance  or  move   away  to  get  detachment.    In  this  study  once  fieldwork  began  it  became  difficult   not  to  become  involved  and  drawn  into  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  work  of  the  team.  

Despite  at  times  having  to  refrain  from  intervening  to  help  the  team  over  time,   as  work  progressed  from  undertaking  menial  tasks  to  becoming  engaged  in   more  strategic  and  long-­‐term  projects,  such  as  considering  how  to  publicise   education  and  training  events  within  the  local  NHS  hospital  or  how  best  to   engage  with  GPs;  thus  I  became  involved  in  contributing  to  the  marketing   work  of  the  team  (Maginn,  2007).    

Retaining  objectivity  was  important  not  just  to  be  able  to  reflect  after  fieldwork   but  whilst  it  was  taking  place  and  was  discussed  by  Weick  (2002)  in  his  

consideration  of  real  time  reflexivity.  Concerned  with  a  lack  of  distance,  solo   lunchtime  walks  around  the  business  park  were  engineered,  as  well  as  frequent   trips  to  wash  up  mugs  and  make  the  team  cups  of  tea  in  the  small  galley  

kitchen  away  from  the  marketing  office.  These  provided  a  brief  respite,  a  time   to  make  fieldwork  journal  entries  but  also  a  time  of  some  reflection  amidst   fieldwork.  This  physical  removal  and  resulting  detachment,  even  if  only  

temporary,  proved  to  be  an  important  time  and  place  in  which  to  reflect  on  the   experience  as  well  as  reconstruct  my  relationship  paying  attention  to  

maintaining  objectivity  and  subjectivity  with  participants  in  the  research   setting.  

4.7 Ethical procedures and limitations of the study  

Following  established  and  recognised  ethical  principles  that  exemplified  good   as  well  as  correct  practice  in  research,  a  series  of  procedures  were  undertaken   before  the  study  began  (Hammersley  and  Traianou,  2012;  Bryman  and  Bell,   2015).  Consent  to  undertake  research  was  required  from  both  the  University  of   Essex  and  St  Angela’s  hospice.  St  Angela’s  ethical  committee  required  a  

detailed  proposal  (Appendix  H),  as  well  as  submission  of  several  supporting   documents  (Appendix  C,  D),  a  process  which  was  overseen  by  Sue  in  Education   and  Research  who  was  the  ethical  officer  for  the  hospice.  In  addition,  

attendance  was  required  at  an  ethical  approval  meeting  with  a  supervisor  in   March  2015  to  explain  the  proposal  and  answer  questions  from  members  of  the   hospice’s  ethics  committee.  This  took  place  concurrently  with  fulfilling  

requirements  to  comply  with  the  ethical  approval  process  of  the  University  of   Essex  (Appendix  I).  At  the  end  of  this  process  approval  was  given  by  both  the   university  and  the  hospice  for  fieldwork  to  be  undertaken  (Appendix  J).    

Once  research  had  begun  some  of  the  more  complex  and  less  obvious  aspects   of  conducting  research  ethically  emerged.  Firstly,  as  I  began  to  travel  outside   the  office,  attending  events  and  meetings,  many  people,  who,  unlike  the