Qualitative research is a process of active engagement with participants. Accordingly, it is a process heavily influenced by the subjective presence of the researcher (Sword 1999). This discussion touches on my considerations of reflexivity and the shaping of the
research process through my active presence as the ‘instrument of the research’
(Liamputtong & Ezzy 2005, p. 43). This level of self-reflection is a fundamental process for enhancing the trustworthiness of my findings and making transparent the ways in which I connected with the participants. By the term trustworthy, I mean a research account that is credible, recognisable and meaningful to the ‘constructers of the original multiple realities’, the participants, as well as appearing as a credible and reasonable narrative to other audiences (Lincoln & Guba 1985, p. 296). I elaborate on procedures for enhancing trustworthiness in the latter half of this discussion.
Fook (1999) defines reflexivity as the capacity for the researcher to locate their presence in the research and to recognize in a transparent manner how they may shape the process of knowledge production:
It is an ability to locate yourself in the picture, to understand, and factor in, how what you see is influenced by your own way of seeing, and how your very presence and act of research influences the situation in which you are researching (p. 12).
A reflexive position shies away from the objectivist stance of seeking to minimise researcher bias or intrusion. Alternatively, the subjective presence of the researcher and shared interactions between the researcher and the participants can enhance the research process by collaboratively generating mutually meaningful data (Fook 1999, p. 14). In this study, I sat in a parallel world to the young people I was ‘researching’: as a young person who self-identifies as ‘queer’, and as a non-heterosexual ‘worker’ who had been employed in several workplaces across my work history. In this sense, I was accredited with what is referred to as ‘category entitlement’, simultaneously identifying with constructs such as ‘queer’ and ‘youth’ and treading a similar life-journey to the young people’s lives I was researching (Abell, Locke, Condor, Gibson & Stevenson 2006). To make this transparent to participants I intentionally signalled to each person that I identified as ‘queer’. I also described how my interest in this topic had arisen from personal experiences. I uploaded this information onto the research website, titled ‘Meet the Researcher’; please see the attached CD-ROM to view this webpage. This level of transparency may have resonated with some participants and assisted with building rapport through a basis of shared understanding. Kong et al (2002, p. 252) argue that it is the responsibility of the ‘ethical researcher’ to ensure that their personal investment in the research is always transparent. This is important for building trust and cooperation in the research relationship.
moments of impromptu self-disclosure whereby I shared dimensions of my work history that resonated with participants’ stories or alternatively, offered my own reflections on similar experiences under discussion. However, I was also cautious in not wanting to break focus from participants’ accounts or interrupt their storytelling; sometimes this was a hard process to gauge but also a forgiving process. My reasoning behind these actions was founded on discussions of self-disclosure in interview settings as an effective way of encouraging mutual reciprocity and trust (Johnson 2002, p. 190). It is argued that self-disclosure can provide a means of addressing inequitable power relations between the researcher and the researched by breaking down hierarchies in research relationships (Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen & Liamputtong 2007).
Postmodern critiques of identity present new challenges to researchers in attempting to use self-disclosure in research interviews. The post-modern subject is non-unitary in identity and conversely fragmented across multiple subjectivities. Each individual is separately located within a limited range of subject positions across social differences such as gender, class, race and sexuality (Kong et al 2002, p. 244). In other words, the different subject positions we are located in determine how we may experience similar contexts or shared settings in variant ways. As a researcher undertaking postgraduate studies within an academic institution, I was situated in a reality far-removed from the lives of many other young queer people working in Australia. Despite points of commonality shared with participants, I was still the researcher positioned in an authoritative role over the research process. Consequently, I had the final say in how participants’ accounts were represented in text, as discussed by Richardson (1990, p. 12). In this sense, I was situated in a more powerful position in a distinctly unequal
relationship. In reflecting on my social background, I was also located within a position of white, middle-class male privilege. These differences imply a vast expanse between my experiences and the experiences of other young people, for example, young queer women, in the workplace. This may have had a determining effect on how I represented, or potentially misrepresented, the accounts of others in my analysis as I interpreted the data through a subjective and situated lens.
Ultimately, these differences in power and roles within research can only be rectified by applying a completely different methodology, such as a collaborative or participatory action framework (see, for example, Lather & Smithies 1997). However, there were
procedural measures I could apply in opening up my findings to multiple viewpoints and to contestation. These were processes for enhancing what Lincoln and Guba (1985) discuss as ‘trustworthiness’ in the research findings. First, I frequently consulted with my three supervisors about my interpretations of the data through discussion and through submitting my findings for their perusal. This panel of academics gave me a soundboard to validate as well as question my interpretations, and they frequently invited me into viewing my data from different angles and standpoints.
Second, I presented my findings to different audiences throughout my candidature. Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 308) argue that presenting one’s findings to a critical audience is a valuable process for enhancing trustworthiness. I followed this process to ensure that any conceptual relationships or tentative conclusions I made appeared feasible to other people outside my point of view. I presented a series of initial findings to four contrasting audiences across various conferences and seminars: an academic audience within my faculty2; local social work practitioners and students3; a national audience of health and human service providers committed to improving queer health and wellbeing4; and, an international audience drawn together under the collective banner of ‘LGBT human rights’5.
Third, I presented my emergent findings to the participants in the research; this was a similar process to what Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 314) describe as ‘member checking’. This was to ensure that my reconstruction of participants’ stories appeared to be a fair representation of their perceptions and descriptions of events. It was also an opportunity to invite alternative interpretations of the findings from the original story-tellers. To achieve this, I shared several papers with participants that I had presented to the audiences discussed above, and invited their feedback. I either sent out papers as email attachments or as URL links to sound recordings and papers uploaded online.
Participants’ responses fell into two categories—by either expressing their appreciation or by not responding at all. Some participants acknowledged my email with a quick ‘hello’ or brief appreciative comments. Several emails bounced back while no reply was
2 School of Sociology and Social Work Seminar Series at UTas, August 2006 3 ‘Welfare to Work’ Tasmanian Social Work Conference, UTas, November 2006 4 6th National Health in Difference Conference, Brisbane Queensland, June 2007
received from others, raising concerns over the sustainability of participant contact through email. However, this was the agreed point of contact and for the majority of online participants it was the only contact information provided. This highlights the inherent difficulties in sustaining research relationships online as ‘participants can disappear without a trace into cyberspace’ (Mann & Stewart 2002, p. 697). The
appreciative responses that were received did give me a sense of confirmation that I was interpreting participants’ stories in a light which was agreeable to and affirming for some of the story-tellers.
Concluding comments to the chapter
This chapter has outlined the methodological and research design framework for this study. A qualitative approach from a constructivist standpoint was considered the most suitable methodological framework for meeting the purpose and aims of the research. A range of purposive sampling and qualitative interviewing methods were applied to seek out potential participants and to generate young people’s accounts of the workplace as queer workers. This included the online methods of web-based surveys and online interviewing, and the off-line method of face-to-face interviewing. At the heart of each of these methods was an ethical commitment to ensuring that principles of
confidentiality, anonymity, informed consent and autonomy were upheld at all times, and that young queer people were supported throughout their participation. Interview accounts were analysed through the complementary methods of thematic analysis and constructivist grounded theory. Throughout the data generation and analysis process, I considered issues of reflexivity and procedural rigour for enhancing the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings.
This concludes the second part of this thesis and leads into the third part, the presentation of research findings. In the following three chapters, I discuss and describe in detail the seven core themes and their related sub-themes generated from this research process.