Efectos sobre la salud de las incineradoras de RSU posteriores a la

The role of the researcher in relation to the research process is a central consideration (Woodruffe, 1996; Mauthner and Doucet, 1998; Bettany and Woodruffe-Burton, 2009; Denzin and Lincoln, 2013). Finlay (2002, p.212) states that qualitative ‘…researchers no longer question the need for reflexivity: the question is how to do it’. In addition to the participant’s voice, my voice is also important (Mauthner and Doucet, 1998). Silverman (2011b, p.55) stresses: ‘…No data are untouched by the researcher’s hands’.

Ely et al. (1991, p.179) argue that qualitative research ‘…is by nature a reflective and recursive process’. The act of being reflexive develops the notion of reflectivity; from considering what has occurred and how to do things differently as a result, to considering oneself in the process, and being critical of our own practices and reference points (Hardy et al., 2001; Finlay, 2002; Braun and Clarke, 2013a). Gadamer (1975, p.33) emphasises the

153

importance of being able to look deeper than face value: ‘…A person who seeks to understand must question what lies behind what is being said [because] then we invariable ask questions beyond what is said’.

Reflexively questioning and reflecting on the research experience and data is a dialogic process of learning; encouraging sense-making and understandings (Corlett, 2012). Corlett (2012, p.456) discusses how this process can result in the ‘…emotional, physiological or cognitive sensation’ of being ‘struck’. A striking moment is when we experience ‘…something important we cannot quite grasp in the moment’ (Cunliffe, 2002, p.42). Reflexivity is important in being ‘struck’, whereby the researcher learns and personally decides on what strikes them as important within the data. There are several instances in the findings where the notion of being ‘struck’ is identified.

In qualitative research, the process of research and the researcher cannot be divorced (May, 2002). I cannot remove myself from this project, or be invisible in the research (Braun and Clarke, 2013a; 2013b). Therefore, embracing the role of reflexivity in qualitative research is an integral issue researchers must address, particularly around topics concerning the understanding of others (Woodruffe, 1996; Woodruffe-Burton, 2006).

Cresswell (2013) suggests that reflexivity should be executed in two stages; in the introduction where the researcher discloses information about themselves, drawing attention to aspects like their background and values (see Chapter 1 through the motivations, voice and researcher-as-bricoleur sections) and then the discussion of how these experiences shape the research and its ultimate outcomes. Braun and Clarke (2013a, p.303) advocate weaving reflexivity into the text, rather than having a separate chapter for reflexive discussion, due to its permeating nature. Accordingly, I have laced aspects of reflexivity throughout the structure of the thesis.

Wilkinson (1988) identifies two types of reflexivity; functional and personal. Functional considers how the research processes and techniques influence the research. This is discussed throughout the methodology chapter, where

154

appropriate. Personal is where the researcher becomes visible in the research, by acknowledging who we are as researchers. This includes my perspectives, history, and values, as these will invariably influence my interpretation of the data (Denzin and Lincoln, 2013). One area that concerned me was embodiment; in terms of myself physically and how I presented myself. An account of this can be found in Appendix I: Section C, alongside other additional reflexive commentary from both methods chapters.

In further considering personal reflexivity, Gallais (2008) suggests that at any one time, you assume the role of an outsider, an insider, or both. This will depend on the context, or the individual I am speaking to. Within this project, in some respects I identified as an outsider – as someone who has never used a payday loan product, had serious debt, or as someone without a mortgage, or children. Sometimes I was an outsider by being female, white, and middle-class; this can also place me as an insider with some of the participants. However, sometimes I was an insider – as someone who has some debt, lives in the North of England, speaks with a mild Geordie accent, makes car payments, or sometimes runs out of money the week before payday. This is something I tried to consider; to be aware of my position in relation to my participants.

The extent of researcher involvement is debated. For example, regarding interviews, prominent consumer researchers Belk et al. (2013, p.33), take a traditional approach:

“Never lose sight of the fact, though, that the interview is not about you. It is about the informant. Therefore interjecting your

own experiences or feelings is not only inappropriate, but can spoil an interview by disclosing your viewpoints and knowledge. It is better to appear to know too little than too

much.”

Similarly, Carson et al. (2001, p.73) express concerns around the researcher ‘…imposing his or her own perspective on the respondent, even though the researcher comments and contributions, based on prior experiential knowledge and learning, will undoubtedly enhance the overall data

155

collection’. However, it is acknowledged that remaining completely impartial is impractical and unrealistic (Oakley, 1981; Finlay, 2002; Bettany and Woodruffe-Burton, 2009).

I took a practical approach to the interviews; although being cold and detached was never an option. Having not used payday loans or had significant debt, the power balance ought to be in favour of the experiencer, with myself as the learner. If an opinion was requested, I made sure it was fair but would not alienate the individual. My lack of experience in using payday loans was sometimes useful in this instance, as I had no prior positive or negative experiences of the product. I intentionally disclosed my lack of knowledge of the actual process to the participants, so they knew they were in the position of power. This was intended to encourage them to be receptive to questions of more mundane details around the actual application process and subsequent communications with lenders. I believe this disclosure helped my position within the research.

4.3. Chapter summary

This chapter has described the approach to the research, starting with epistemological consideration of social constructionism, then the theoretical perspectives and methodology which indicates an interpretive, qualitative approach, utilising phenomenology with underpinning ideas from feminist scholarship and reflexive notions.

The next chapter reflexively considers the selected data generation and analysis methods, in line with the perspectives identified in this chapter.

156 Chapter 5

157 Chapter 5

Research Design and Process

"The traditional scholar cannot avoid the task of judging whether a piece of evidence is important or not. Moreover, the scholar cannot avoid responsibility for making judgements which can be criticized by other scholars with different views about the essential features of the issue in question.... The traditional scholar [must not] shirk the possibility of receiving and administering criticism. There are no

neutral methodological procedures to hide behind. …Moreover,

each scholar exposes himself or herself to the danger of criticism, especially to that most damaging accusation of being unscholarly."

- Billig, M., 1988, p.214-215

This is a reflexive account of the research design and process involved. As previously discussed, this chapter derives from Crotty’s (2007) ‘methods’ section. This has been separated into two areas for readability purposes; data generation methods and data analysis methods. In the writing process, some sections garnered extra discussion that has been removed from the chapter to improve the flow of reading, but has been included in Appendix I as additional personal reflexive commentary. Sections where commentary is available have titles marked with an asterix (*).