Uncloaking the Researcher: Boundaries in Qualitative Research

• Authors: Kalyani Thurairajah
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Qualitative researchers are expected to engage in reflexivity, whereby they consider the impact of their own social locations and biases on the research process. Part of this practice involves the consideration of boundaries between the researcher and the participant, including the extent to which the researcher may be considered an insider or an outsider with respect to the area of study. This article explores the three different processes by which boundaries are made and deconstructed, and the ethical complexities of this boundary making/(un)making process. This paper examines the strengths and limitations of three specific scenarios: 1) when the researcher is fully cloaked and hiding their positionalities; 2) when there is strategic undressing to reveal some positionalities; 3) when there is no cloak, and all positionalities are shared or revealed. This paper argues that it is insufficient to be reflexive about boundaries through acknowledgement, and instead advocates reflexivity that directly examines the processes by which social locations are shared and hidden during the research process.

Keywords

EN

Reflexivity; Qualitative Research; Social Locations; Positionalities; Ethics; Insider/Outsider

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Qualitative Sociology Review
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 15
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 132-147

Dates

published

2019-05-24

Contributors

author

Kalyani Thurairajah

• MacEwan University, Canada

References

• Berger, Roni. 2015. “Now I See It, Now I Don’t: Researcher’s Position and Reflexivity in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Research 15(2):219-234.
• Bott, Esther. 2010. “Favorites and Others: Reflexivity and the Shaping of Subjectivities and Data in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Research 10(2):159-173.
• Bridges-Rhoads, Sarah, Jessica Van Cleave, and Hilary E. Hughes. 2016. “Complicating Methodological Transparency.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 29(4):536-552.
• Cataldi, Silvia. 2014. “Public Sociology and Participatory Approaches. Towards a Democratization of Social Research?” Qualitative Sociology Review 10(4):152-172.
• Couture, Amanda L., Arshia U. Zaidi, and Eleanor Maticka-Tyndale. 2012. “Reflexive Accounts: An Intersectional Approach to Exploring the Fluidity of Insider/Outsider Status and the Researcher’s Impact on Culturally Sensitive Post-Positivist Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Sociology Review 8(1):86-105.
• Cutcliffe, John R. 2003. “Reconsidering Reflexivity: Introducing the Case for Intellectual Entrepreneurship.” Qualitative Health Research 13(1):136-148.
• Daly, Kerry. 1992. “Parenthood as Problematic: Insider Interviews with Couples Seeking to Adopt.” Pp. 103-125 in Qualitative Methods in Family Research, edited by J. F. Gilgun, K. Daly, and G. Handel. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Day, Suzanne. 2012. “A Reflexive Lens: Exploring Dilemmas of Qualitative Methodology through the Concept of Reflexivity.” Qualitative Sociology Review 8(1):60-85.
• Dowling, Maura. 2006. “Approaches to Reflexivity in Qualitative Research.” Nurse Researcher 13(3):7-21.
• Drake, Pat. 2010. “Grasping at Methodological Understanding: A Cautionary Tale from Insider Research.” International Journal of Research and Method in Education 33(1):85-99.
• Finlay, Linda. 2002. “‘Outing’ the Researcher: The Provenance, Process, and Practice of Reflexivity.” Qualitative Health Research 12(4):531-545.
• Fuller, Duncan. 1999. “Part of the Action, or ‘Going Native?’ Learning to Cope with the ‘Politics of Integration.’” Area 31(3):221-227.
• Gair, Susan. 2012. “Feeling Their Stories: Contemplating Empathy, Insider/Outsider Positionings, and Enriching Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Health Research 22(1):134-143.
• Harding, Sandra. 1993. “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is ‘Strong Objectivity?’” Pp. 49-82 in Feminist Epistemologies, edited by L. Alcoff, E. Potter. New York: Routledge.
• Hellawell, David. 2006. “Inside-Out: Analysis of the Insider-Outsider Concept as a Heuristic Device to Develop Reflexivity in Students Doing Qualitative Research.” Teaching in Higher Education 11(4):483-494.
• Josselson, Ruthellen. 2007. “The Ethical Attitude in Narrative Research: Principles and Practicalities.” Pp. 537-566 in Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology, edited by D. J. Clandinin. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Kanuha, Valli Kalei. 2000. “‘Being’ Native versus ‘Going Native’: Conducting Social Work Research as an Insider.” Social Work 45(5):439-447.
• Lynch, Michael. 2000. “Against Reflexivity as an Academic Virtue and Source of Privileged Knowledge.” Theory, Culture & Society 17(3):26-54.
• Mauthner, Natasha S. and Andrea Doucet. 2003. “Reflexive Accounts and Accounts of Reflexivity in Qualitative Data Analysis.” Sociology 37(3):413-431.
• Nencel, Lorraine. 2014. “Situating Reflexivity: Voices, Positionalities and Representations in Feminist Ethnographic Texts.” Women’s Studies International Forum 43:75-83.
• Obasi, Chijioke. 2014. “Negotiating the Insider/Outsider Continua: A Black Female Hearing Perspective on Research with Deaf Women and Black Women.” Qualitative Research 14(1):61-78.
• O’Reilly, Karen. 2009. Key Concepts in Ethnography. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
• Patai, Daphne. 1994. “When Method Becomes Power.” Pp. 61-73 in Power and Method, edited by A. Gitlen. New York: Routledge.
• Pillow, Wanda. 2003. “Confession, Catharsis, or Cure? Rethinking the Uses of Reflexivity as Methodological Power in Qualitative Research.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 16(2):175-196.
• Riach, Kathleen. 2009. “Exploring Participant-Centered Reflexivity in the Research Interview.” Sociology 43(2):356-370.
• Sultana, Farhana. 2007. “Reflexivity, Positionality and Participatory Ethics: Negotiating Fieldwork Dilemmas in International Research.” An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 6(3):374-385.
• Whitley, Cameron T. 2015. “Trans*-Subjectivity: Exploring Research Positionality in the Field.” Qualitative Sociology Review 11(4):66-80.

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/1733-8077.15.1.06