La escritura del Barbeiro: una labor artesanal

How then do I go about claiming that this work is a quality study, that it has value and that I have accomplished what I set out to do. For this endeavor to be more than a scholarly exercise, it must have interpretive authority, to be true to the voices of those whom I am representing. The issue of credibility is addressed in this section and begins with a discussion of reflexivity and the issues surrounding familiarity.

Reflexivity

Conducting research from the inside, I am a native of this culture (Kanuha, 2000) and I acknowledge my personal affiliation. It has been posited that the qualitative researcher goes beyond observation to be an active participant in the research (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994, p. 7). By immersing into that data, coming to recognize the fluidity of patterns, I began the process of becoming acquainted with the knowledge, a step removed from my own experience, with the awareness that as a researcher I had opened a unique window into this culture. Being reflexive was woven into the process of becoming acquainted with the stories and it impacted my writing, because of the unique position I found myself in as both researcher and insider. This approach has been described as a ‘bricolage, with the

researcher being termed a bricoleur’, someone who can do all of this using reflexivity (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994, p. 2). The acknowledgment of my own position as an instrument of my research allowed me to face the tension of familiarity and address it transparently. I am uniquely qualified to tell the story of these participants. However, there are challenges and benefits associated with familiarity that I will proceed to discuss. I discuss the problem of familiarity here and address what I perceive to be the strengths. I will address the potential risks in the Discussion Chapter, within a section on Limitations.

The Problem of Familiarity

From a position of familiarity, I set out to interpret the stories of my peers, all the while being reflective and acknowledging my position as their colleague and as an insider to the group being investigated

(Atkinson, 1990, p.7). In my dual role as an insider and as the investigator, I acknowledge myself within the process of qualitative interpretative analysis and how I am a part of their social world (Pellatt, 2003). The study of that social world, marginally positioned, becomes a collaboration of their voices and my selected observations, my interpretation and perspective, along a continuum of familiarity (Atkinson, 1990, p. 19). The issue of familiarity is a complex one and I am in a unique position, being native with the participants along that continuum (Kanuha, 2000, p. 440); highly intimate as opposed to being strange, which adds to the complexity of the text (Atkinson, 1990, p. 93). I use the term “native” to mean the experience of being a researcher who is a member of the group that I am interviewing, as designated by Kanuha (2000, p. 440).

To engage authentically for me, means being open to considering how to best represent others ethically while simultaneously leveraging their voice. What I found myself doing at various points in time, during the immersive process, was stopping to ask myself whether what I was hearing was the words of my participants or my own self-imposed voice, or even a mix of both (Srivastava and

Hopwood, 2009). Continually questioning myself began to be more progressively natural to me when I was working with the data (Srivastava and Hopwood, 2009, 78). Being reflexive means being able to engage with the data in a way that penetrates the chaos and allows me to get to the true meaning of what the participants are telling me. I had no idea of what that chaos feels like, until I experienced it, and only then could I begin to feel comfortable with that chaos. Being true to the overarching need for openness, to reflect and to recategorize data is inherent in the process. Raising awareness and facilitating recognition of the voice of this culture, is one way of mobilizing the culture to an increasingly more inclusive position within the larger society of nursing.

Strengths Associated with Familiarity

One way to view such a complex issue of familiarity may be to consider my intimacy with my participants as a strength, several benefits exist (Bonner and Tolhurst, 2002). I am both a peer and a colleague with years of professional relationships. I was in a perfect position to select a purposive sample. My professional networking over the years has me engaged with a wide range of individuals from whom I was able to make informed choices of participants.

I am well known and a trusted member of the group with the support of the members and indeed as time passed, a sense of enthusiasm among my colleagues was generated and expressed by

keep going. My passion for the study served to instill a sense of urgency and offered me resilience to move on as the study progressed. As time passed I felt critically responsible to represent them as they are. By recognizing the tension, being transparent and constructing a strategy I have placed myself as an investigator in a space that balances familiarity and strangeness, facilitating a genuine interpretation (Atkinson et al., p. 31). The risks associated with the problem of familiarity will be addressed within the limitations section of the Discussion chapter.

Strategy for Coming to Terms with Familiarity

It becomes imperative to build a strategy to fight the problems associated with familiarity. Constant vigilance about the issue of familiarity and intimacy was part of my approach to the data (Roberts, 2007, p. 17). Not taking events, observations, comments and stories at face value, but questioning each one was a routine that I practiced. I found that I began to become attuned each time there was a tendency to think of ‘us’ rather than ‘them’, and this required vigilance. I found myself pausing to ask myself if my response was my own or theirs and in some instances, I acknowledged them to be the same.

While reviewing ethnographic literature, I found it helpful to read the early work and the themes and to consider the past. Atkinson and Delmont (1995, p. 5) caution against writing in a vacuum. The works of the Chicago School pioneered urban ethnography and the practice of studying culture within our present-day society as opposed to seeking out native populations. Contemplating tradition becomes part of the strategy to make the familiar strange (Faris, 1967).

‘Staying in your own nest’ can be challenging but simultaneously rewarding (Roberts, 2007, p. 15). Being intimately aware of a culture can facilitate trust and sharing among participants and investigator if the role of the researcher is clearly identified and established. I found that by keeping my two roles separate, it helped me to retain the distance I felt was necessary to not confuse them. In social situations, I was the colleague, while during the data collection and any follow up that ensued, I was the researcher.

Although sometimes challenging, it is essential that there is transparency of the process. This allows the reader to be informed about the process, how I resolved issues of familiarity and how I impacted the research in my role as an insider (Carolan, 2003). It also enables repeatability of the study. Since this is exploratory research, it is important that other researchers can either replicate the study or build upon my initial findings; therefore, clarity concerning methodology is important for the purpose of

replicating the study. Thorough description of the entire qualitative research process permits the reader to gain a sense of understanding regarding the strengths and weaknesses and indeed the findings of the study (Elo and Kyngas, 2008).