According to Johnson and Duberley’s (2003) systematic evaluation on reflexivity in management studies, reflexivity focused at methodological level tends to be driven by an objectivist epistemological and realist ontological stance. Especially but not exclusively for ethnographers, this type of reflexivity is given in the anticipation that by justifying minimised subjective interference from researchers (Van Maanen, 1988) or confessing how researchers themselves and their research interests were created and shaped in the research or fieldwork (Golden-Biddle and Locke, 1993; Van Maanen, 2011), the research and researchers’ knowledge production could be counted as ‘robust’, if not truth-claiming, self-consciously censored, or constructive to potentially advancement from researchers’ side.
With Johnson and Duberley’s (2003) contention in mind, doing methodological reflexivity does not perfectly agree with the ontological underpinning of this study. However, I still believe practising methodological reflexivity on research design and process, as well as theorisation development is still imperative for 1) reflectively recording on the first-time empirical research for my future research career; 2) reflecting on the balance/imbalance between me and my informants (Alvesson et al, 2008b); and 3) deepening the reflexive understanding of my authorial role in the
research process, thus building towards evaluation of my knowledge-producing and - reproducing role in wider contexts, namely identity scholarship community, business, management and organisation sphere and contemporary society.
First, I was involved in the socialising experience from the moment the studied newcomers entered the onboarding scheme. From the first day arrival, as mentioned in data collection section earlier, I intentionally sought for trustful and natural relationship with informants, by explicitly speaking my wish to ‘make friend with everyone’, so that I could relatively easily settle down and integrate into them, and simultaneously make my participation less interfering, which made it possible that more authentic and richer backstage data yielded from the fieldwork and interviews. Paradoxically, however, this could lead informants to pay more attention to their self- presentation, when they believed their behaviours and narratives were received by me as ‘authentic’ presentation of themselves. Following this reasoning, the study might give rise to self-fulfilling identity construction among some individuals, in that they might be pushed to do more self-reflection than they naturally would be when my concern on self-reflection, albeit very implicitly and carefully inserted in interview questions or informal conversations, was seen as a ‘normal’ thing naturally expected from them. One critical incident that pushed me to reflect on this effect was when I invited an informant, who was one of those I hung around and spoke vocally with. The informant asked me, in slightly joking way, if it was okay to bring another informant with her as she always felt awkward in ‘serious things’. This event made me realise that I was trusted as a person but my identity as a researcher still caused problem, especially among people who were inclined to feel being judged.
Second, drawing on Reinharz’s (1997) comment that the way the researcher presents to informants could be constructed and hence transited during fieldwork, I reflexively recognised my own changes in identity position and presentation might partially brought changes in informants’ attitudes towards me over time. It was recognised that my deliberate preparation for the first presentation in field, i.e. finely crafted speech notes, carefully planned body language, and intentionally staged confidence, in addition with my ‘mystified and elite’ background in the eyes of police newcomers, did win me some power in interpersonal relations (French and Raven, 1959). Whereas, as I moved on to more everyday interactions and occasioned some awkward situations, such as missing the points of informants’ narratives, lack of
knowledge on UK culture, education or geography, the power was undermined in their eyes or, more possibly, dwindled in my self-perception. My high level of self- reflexivity, such as the hovering note to myself ‘what a weird Chinese female nerd’, rendered me less ‘compiling’ in later interactions with the informants. Therefore, the ever-increasing assurance and certainty exhibited in informants’ self-narratives, apart from their growth in confidence, might also be partly resulting from my less powerful and authoritative image to pose ‘real’ judgement on them. In other words, familiarity and slight lack of confidence on my part could possibly encourage them to present a more confident, positive, and upright self in front of me.
Third, admittedly, my propensity to recognise people based on their way of relating self to others did slightly channel my understanding of the informants. Specifically, what drew considerable intention from me in the beginning of the fieldwork was the degree and source of self-confidence among informants. A variety of types emerged, including severely less confident and felt inferior to everyone else, trying to be confident by looking on the positive side, confident for self-improvement in the future, and certainly confident for vitally advantages compared with certain people. This did serve as a starting point for me to explore the issue underlying those existential worries from the least confident ones, which slightly shaped my view of and the later conceptualisation of legitimacy seeking orientation. Besides, the recruits who seemed to constantly stay highly confident were investigated from the source of their sense of stability, with subjective authorship in identity construction surfaced to be that anchor. This was the miniature of authenticity seeking orientation. Finally, the recruits who seemed to switch between confident and less confident status were examined for the changes in their situations, and opportunities to enact their skills and knowledge were identified as a key factor, which, after rigorously confirmed from data, was theorised as practitioners.
This starting point overemphasises on the comparative and relational dimension of identity, and particularly at the scope of peer group. Although later gathered data extended to other constituents of identity, such as performances in role- set group, it is believed that without ‘confidence and peer relations’ being so heavily incorporated in the initial observations, the three types might not be created, or constructed in another way. In either scenario, theoretical explanations on newcomers’
identity construction over time would be drastically different from those in the present study.
It is widely acknowledged by all stances that all theories have to start from some incidental, specific, and possibly ‘unscientific’ observation. From a social constructivist perspective, the fact that the starting point of this study was vitally affected by my personal perception on people or worldview is taken as an unavoidable epistemological issue. Moreover, it is conceived that my perception on people is not exactly ‘personal’ but a product of historical and social processes, which is examined below.