Turtles all the way down?

1. Turtles all the way down? Reflexivity in interpretive research Jenny Duxbury, April 2019

2. Outline

3. Origins of reflexivity • Interpretivist research (making meaning or sense of the world) v positivist (realist ontology) • Relates to trust-worthiness of research not truth • Interpretivist approach : assumes the researcher is present and influences research rather than positivist idea that research is generated from point external to subject-matter of research i.e. researcher has “distance” and “objectivity” • Acknowledges that the presence of the researcher is important in shaping research process and analysis but also that the researcher’s presence may alter events in the “field” and writing up of results (Schwartz-Shea and Yannow, 2012) • Allows for the researcher’s presence to be both a negative because their lense is “cloudy” or flawed and a positive e.g. because of life experiences such as “insider” status.

4. Meaning of reflexivity • “Involves interpreting the interpretation and the launching of a critical self exploration of one’s own interpretations …a consideration of the perceptual, cognitive, theoretical, linguistic (inter)textual, political and cultural circumstances that form the backdrop to – as well as impregnate- the interpretations” (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2009) • Encompasses “reflection, self-questioning and self understanding”(Schwandt, 2007) • Ongoing examination of what I know and why I know it (Hertz, 1997) • Inward mindfulness and owning your perspective (Quinn Patton,2015)

5. Reflexivity in research design and approach • Ongoing mental discipline from inception of research to the end • Not tied to stages of research (recognising that activity of research is more complex than a step by step process of 1.collecting data, 2. analysing data; and 3. writing up research) • Asking : how is my world view affecting the ultimate written form of my research and how will this affect my readers’ interpretation? • Involves consideration of: • Your relationship to research choices e.g. to questions posed by the research and to access to people, documents, site of field work etc. • Influence of factors such as researcher’s life experience and research community, gender, race, professional background, years of Iyengar yoga practice etc. etc.……) • Your degree of participation in research (e.g. exposing your presence in shaping responses to questions in interviews or in events you are observing) • Field work practices e.g. taking and reviewing analytic notes • Should I make these transparent and if so how detailed should I be?

6. Some caution about reflexivity • All research requires evaluative choices at every step of the way, whether you use qualitative or quantitative methods or if you are a positivist or interpretivist: we all have to sift through literature and data, simplify our findings and communicate “new” knowledge • Human cognitive capacity is limited and these limitations have multiple dimensions e.g. individual experience, institutional and cultural context, time pressures(Herbert Simon, 1957) • There are “turtles all the way down” (Botterill, Hindmoor, 2012) : the idea of infinite regress in epistemology • You must make evaluative judgment about what you will be reflexive about • Much of field work practice is “common sense” (esp. to a litigation lawyer!) • Can argue pursuit of ‘reflexivity’ is a never ending and un-productive quest and time better spent on getting very clear about the research: literature review, methods, limitations of your findings in terms of analysis and theory

7. To what extent should you discuss reflexivity in your research? • Suggest you ask: • Who is your reader (in the context of a PhD that will be your examiners) and what might they expect to see discussed? • What are expectations of discipline in which research situated e.g. feminist , anthropology v policy studies, law? • Do you think the research will be reliable and trustworthy to your reader without a discussion of certain issues? • Ask your supervisors!

8. Approach in my research • Issue : Am interpreting my own interpretation of records I created in past (not for purpose of research). Also an insider vis a vis interviews • Documenting: • How I came to be interested in the research project and how this shaped my research questions • Access to records and interview participants • Research practices I used to identify pre-existing assumptions about the events which were aimed at detoxing my faulty memory ( e.g. lots of analytical notes documenting encounters with archive) • My presence in records of events I refer to • My presence in interviews especially as conscious of effect of my position in professional hierarchy • Encounters with content about my position in events which was difficult, especially because findings contrary to idealised profession paradigm of what “good” lawyers “should do” which led to re-location of thesis in discipline of politics/policy studies