Onitsha: sueño africano

In its most simple form reflexivity means thinking about what you are doing and why you are doing it (White, 2009: 162). The meaning that a researcher gives to reflexivity, and the degree of emphasis placed upon it in the research process, is variable (Corbin and Strauss, 2008: 31). However, Corbin and Strauss (2008: 31) suggest each researcher must consider how much reflexivity to engage in, when, how, and what types of reflexivity are relevant. Reflexivity may be realised by different actors in the research process for different purposes. For example, as the researcher I may be reflexive about my emotions in the research experience, and

how the study has informed my world view and my beliefs. The participant may be reflexive about his or her emotions, about their multiple roles as a service user, as a social worker, as a participant, and how they relate to the researcher. Maton (2003: 54) states that whilst there are many different types of reflexivity with differing emphasis and purposes, they share the common outlook that the author should explicitly acknowledge their position relative to the participant. This allows the researcher’s knowledge claims to be assessed in terms of how that knowledge is informed by the researcher’s values, assumptions, and biography which are often undisclosed.

Reflexivity is in keeping with the influence of narrative inquiry and grounded theory upon the study design. It is also in keeping with its role in social work practice (England, 1986: 40; Thompson, 2009: 65). In this way meaning is not fixed, rather it is ambiguous because it is borne out of a process of interaction between people: self, teller, listener and recorder, analyst, and reader (Riessman, 1993: 15). The interview is a conversation in which the participant and the researcher develop meaning together. There were multiple researcher reflexivities in this study: my role as listener, transcribe, analyst and as writer. There were also my various “other” identities which do not explicitly relate to the research process but inform the iterative process between self and the study, including, my identity: as a woman in my early thirties, a social worker, a Christian, and many more. These multiple representations required that I was reflexive throughout the research process. Reflexivity allowed me to critically explore how my thinking about the subject developed through the course of the study across multiple sites: on a personal basis, as a qualified social worker and as an early career researcher.

Reflexivity also involves ‘emotional relations’ as the individual seeks to find their role and identity in relation to those around them (Holmes, 2010: 143). Emotion, according to Burkitt (2012: 459), is central to the way people in all social situations relate to one another, it is embedded into the interactions we have and is therefore foundational to the way we relate to ourselves and to others. Brownlie (2011: 472) uses the researchers’ field notes and follow up telephone interviews with research participants to gain insight to what researchers and participants choose to tell, and the complex emotions present in the interview encounter. Her interview accounts

demonstrated how participants and the researcher are involved in identity work together (Brownlie, 2011: 472). This suggests that the interview is co-constructed and that reflexivity may be described as social and emotional (Holmes, 2010; Burkitt, 2012). Of interest to this study is the manner in which the emotions, identified by researchers and participants post interview, mirrored each other. Furthermore, the idea of negotiating what is appropriate, or inappropriate to discuss, is of interest in this study due to the way religion and or spirituality are contested and complex topics in Northern Ireland (Campbell, 2010). The semi structured telephone interview was conducted with half of the participants from each sample to address reflexivities within the interview experience.

6. Conclusion

In this chapter I have discussed the methodological approach used in this qualitative study. Throughout the study design process I was aware of the need to locate the study within existing methodological approaches, but to do so in a manner that was congruent with the overall epistemological outlook of the study. With this in mind, I explored the suitability of grounded theory and narrative inquiry, whilst also being critically aware of how these approaches sat alongside the literature review and the research question. I turned to narrative inquiry because it enables exploration of the individual’s account within the wider social field. Grounded theory was drawn upon in terms of its approach to analysis and theory development. Within this chapter I have identified the boundaries of how narrative inquiry and grounded theory have been drawn upon. The following chapter will develop some of this exploration further as I discuss how the fieldwork and analysis were carried out.

Chapter six: Methods

1. Introduction

The preceding chapter discussed the methodology informing the study, whilst this chapter focuses on how the study was carried out. When designing the study I was aware of the importance of creating harmony between the methodology and the methods. The aim of this chapter is not only to inform the reader about how I carried out the study, but also to highlight occasions when creating harmony between methodology and method was challenging. It is interesting, I think, to transition from the theory of research to the reality of carrying it out. Whilst text books and commentary about methodology and methods may be drawn upon, it is only by experiencing fieldwork and addressing the challenges that arise, that the practicalities of research are fully apparent. In this chapter I consider the sampling approach used and the importance of being aware of additional factors such as time, ethics and capacity when determining sample size. Although the interviews were a primary source of data these were significantly enriched by the object/ photograph, referred to as the “object”. Whilst the object was incorporated into the study design, its full potential in enabling participants to explore religion and spirituality within their identity was only fully realised within fieldwork. Reflexivities were an important element of this study, thus I discuss how they were examined through both types of interviews and the field work diary. The other sections of the chapter discuss the analytical approach used to make sense of the data generated not only to address the research questions, but also to represent the participants’ diverse voices in an authentic way.

This empirical study was based on one-to-one single interviews with twelve mental health service users, recruited through a voluntary mental health organisation across multiple sites, and twelve mental health social workers, recruited through a local statutory health and social care trust, across multiple sites. All of the participants were invited to bring an object which expressed what religion and / or spirituality meant to them, if anything, to the interview. Half of the participants from each participant group were invited to take part in a follow up telephone interview.