In Sociological Imagination, C. Wright Mills argues for a sociology that underscores the intricate links between the minute and the grand; as “neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both” (1959, p.3).
Coining the notion of ‘sociological imagination’ – i.e. understanding the links and relationship between history and biography – Mills considers it the “task” of social scientists to “translate personal troubles into public issues, and public issues into terms of their human meaning for a variety of individuals” (Mills 1959, p. 187).
Mills asserts that “no social study that does not come back to the problems of biography, of history and their intersections within a society has completed its intellectual journey” (Mills 1959, p. 6). In this regard, it is important to consider that this study is conducted by an individual with specific life experiences, socio-economic position(s) and alignments. As such, the topic of choice in this study is not a mere coincidence, but refers to a conscious interest of the researcher in a theme that is connected to her “biography.” Presenting a qualitative research, it is critical for the researcher to avoid presenting herself as a scientist in a white lab coat, displaying “[…]
a view from nowhere” (McCarthy 1994, p.15).
On the other hand, in When Method Becomes Power, Patai criticizes the “[…] excess of rhetoric and methodolatry” in research (1994, p. 61), and questions whether
self-reflexivity directly results in a better research (ibid.). Although Patai’s wariness towards the misuse of self-reflexivity is important, this study agrees with Pillow’s view that the solution to such misuse is not “[…] to stop talking about our positions” altogether (2003, p. 177). Nevertheless, a considerable amount of caution and awareness should be employed when discussing the researcher’s position, in order to avoid presenting a ‘me-search’ or “navel-gaze” (Pillow 2003).
Becoming increasingly popular after the interpretive turn, reflexivity and self-reflexivity have come to be understood in substantially differing approaches; so much so that it is
84 not a feasible task to provide a single, all-encompassing definition of reflexivity and the ways it is utilized in qualitative studies (Pillow 2003). Consequently, it is of
considerable importance to distinguish how reflexivity is understood and utilized specifically within this research. The study at hand makes a conscious effort distance itself from “comfortable reflexivity”, which can be understood as “taking comfort in common usages of reflexivity” (Pillow 2003, p. 187). The previously mentioned approach of simply listing the researcher’s decisions and positions is an appropriate example of “comfortable reflexivity”. In other words, providing a facile list of the numerous positions the researcher occupies is avoided throughout this study. Instead, the preferred strategy aims to discuss what kind of a role such real (or perceived)
positions play in the data elicitation and analysis processes. This is done by adopting the concept of “uncomfortable reflexivity.”
“Uncomfortable reflexivity” constitutes “a reflexivity that seeks to know while at the same time situates this knowing as tenuous” (Pillow 2003, p. 188). As such, the focus is not on creating a storyline of the researcher’s various decisions or positions during research, but on a self-critiquing look at the research process. Uncomfortable reflexivity
“calls for a positioning of reflexivity not as clarity, honesty, or humility, but as practices of confounding disruptions” (Pillow 2003, p.192). Furthermore, according to Pillow (2003), self-critiquing should not be understood merely as constantly criticizing one’s own research, but as a general recognition that no research is absolutely “innocent” or
“successful”. Nonetheless, uncomfortable reflexivity necessitates that even in the presence of such “impossibilities”, the researcher stays aware and receptive to the challenges.
In the study at hand, one instance in which the inherent tenuity of “knowing”, as Pillow (2003) describes it, is emphasized relates to the researcher’s perceived position in the field. The researcher of this study comes from a Kurdish background. Living in Turkey for the most of her life, she occupied a minority position that is somewhat similar to her Kurdish research participants, immigrating from Kurdish-minority countries. This
“shared” position allowed the researcher to build rapport with the participants, but also led to her being perceived in a specific fashion in the field. In the excerpts below, it can be observed how the researcher’s perceived in-group identity influenced her interactions with research participants during the data elicitation process.
[…]
85 Interviewee 3: I am [working] in an integration project. I am a teacher [there]. I have currently have a course for Finns who would like to learn Kurdish.
Interviewer: Oh, that’s interesting.
Interviewee 3: You too– You should come. You should also learn Finnish because it is your father’s language.
Interviewer: Yes.
Interviewee 3: [Laughs] It’s good for you and… The life here, how do I say…
[Sighs] It’s different. Different weather, different culture. Because in our land, it is, it always is– the weather is different. For example, we have spring, winter, everything. But here, they do not– they have a dark and cold winter.
Interviewer: Yeah, the days are getting shorter again this time of the year.
Interviewee 3: Yes. It is hard for us and we are also very social [people].
[…]
Excerpt 14 (Interview 3)
[…]
- After visiting the museum, we came to a Kurdish restaurant to eat.
- Because we were a group of 12-15 people, it made more sense to write down everybody’s dish of choice first, and place the order at the cashier after that.
- I noticed that the person writing down our orders wrote my name as “Hêlin”, specifically with the Kurdish accent mark, although this is not how my name is
“officially” spelled out, as using Kurdish accent marks and letters (such as the letter X) was forbidden in Turkey at the time of my birth.
[…]
- When it was time to leave, the participants of the excursion made sure to show their appreciation; they thanked us so many times at the end. We shaked hands and said goodbye.
- Some of the participants referred to me as "Kurdityttö" [“Kurdish girl” in English] at the end when they were leaving.
[…]
Excerpt 15 (Observation from the second “Learn Finnish while Walking” excursion)
As can be seen in Excerpt 14, Interviewee 3 perceives the researcher/interviewer as a member of the in-group (as a Kurdish person), and suggests her to join Kurdish language classes, because it is her “father’s language.” This perspective is further supported by interviewee’s utilization of homeland making deixis, through using of words such as “our land”, “the weather” “we are”, “they [Finns] do not” etc. In this case, homeland making deixis not only works to reify Kurdish nation-ness and its national homeland, it also works to demarcate certain subjects (i.e. the researcher) as a part of this nation-ness. In this sense, it can be observed that the interview is not only an exchange of information for scientific means, but also an area where social proximity is negotiated.
86 A similar phenomenon is observed also in Except 15, where the participants of the excursion refer to the researcher as “Kurdish girl”. In addition, it can also be argued that the Kurdish accent mark one research participant uses when writing the researcher’s name is another form of homeland making deixis, as it flags Kurdish nation-ness through this specific accent mark which is found in Kurdish alphabet. One can claim that such analysis becomes too linguistically specific or detailed oriented for the study at hand, but as Billig contends, in order to explore how the (inter)national world institutionalizes “us” and “them”, “it is necessary to examine familiar habits of
language”, even if it “means becoming linguistically microscopic” (Billig 1995, p.94).
Nevertheless, as mentioned, the excerpts displayed above not only showcase the use of homeland making deixis, but also communicates that the research participants’
perception of the researcher, influences the nature and the content of the elicitated data.
This is not a “limitation” in itself, but instead can be considered a part of this research.
As such, the analysis presented in this study ought to be dissimilar, even contrasting, to others presented by researchers with different subject positions and interactions with research participants. This should be kept in mind when interpreting the analysis and theorization provided in the study at hand.