Week 8

Lees KOM slides over de onderzoekscyclus en kwalitatieve interviews

Neem slides door

Bestudeer Ritchie & Lewis (2003;, p 114-133 Designing topic guides, Incorporating other research instruments and materials; p 150-168 Content mining questions tot en met Practical considerations; p 176 - 189 The stages of a focus group tot en met Challenging social norms and apparent consensus. Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (2003) Qualitative research practice. A guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage

• In its briefest form, a topic guide simply lists key topics to be covered as a broad agenda for the interview or group discussion. At its most detailed, the topic guide may contain a succession of carefully worded questions
• In general, topic guides work best when items are not worded as actual questions, but instead use single words or phrases to indicate the issues which should be explored, and leave the formulation of the question up to the researchers themselves. This encourages active interviewing, becoming responsive to the situation and most crucially to the terms, concepts and language used by the participants themselves
• The terms 'enabling' and 'projective techniques' refer to a number of techniques described in this section. They generally require preparation of printed material, and careful thought needs to be given to how they should be incorporated in data collection
• Card-sorting, mapping emergent issues, giving information or showing written material, projective techniques (a range of strategies designed to facilitate freer discussion and communication, and to access thinking or beliefs that are less conscious or that may be difficult to speak about)
• Content mining questions are the tools used for exploring what has been raised by the interviewee through different types of content mapping questions - obtaining a full description of phenomena, understanding what underpins the participant's attitude or behaviour and so on
• Voor voorbeeldzinnen probes zie blz 164
• Participants rarely provide the level of depth of articulation that qualitative interviewing requires without further probing, and amplificatory probes are used to encourage them to elaborate further. They are important for obtaining full description and in-depth understanding of the manifestation or experience of a phenomenon
• EXPLORATOR Y PROBE S A key role of qualitative research is to explore the views and feelings that underlie descriptions of behaviour, events or experience, and that help to show the meaning that experiences hold for interviewees
• Explanatory probes: Explanations are repeatedly sought for views, feelings, behaviours, events, decisions and so on.
• CLARIFICATOR Y PROBE S Exploring issues in depth requires a high degree of precision and clarity.
• Probes are not meant to be used in isolation. It is not sufficient to move on to the next point having asked just one probe ('why', for example).
• However, to suggest that in-depth interviewing involves only open questions is to understate the specificity that good interviewing requires. Both content mapping and content mining involve asking questions which vary in terms of how broad or narrow they are.
• refrain from summarising the interviewee’s answer
• Avoid extraneous remarks. Extraneous remarks such as 'Right', 'okay', 'yes' or 'I see' can encourage the participant to close down, to see what they have already said as sufficient.
• More than one additional person would be intrusive to the interviewing relationship.
• KEY POINTS
  
  • There are a number of different theoretical perspectives on in-depth interviewing, and different types of interview. But the features which are broadly consistent across research models are their flexible and interactive nature, their ability to achieve depth, the generative nature of the data and the fact that it is captured in its natural form.
  • In-depth interviewing calls for a diverse and challenging range of qualities in researchers. A key skill is the ability to listen and to hear, but their role as facilitator is an active rather than a passive one.
  • Achieving breadth and depth involves asking a combination of content mapping questions (to map territory and identify the component elements of dimensions) and content mining questions (to explore them in detail). Both types of question, especially the latter, require probing questions of which there are a range of types. Clear, non-leading questions are key. Dichotomous questions are of little value, but to suggest that only open questions have a role is to understate the specificity that good in-depth interviewing achieves.
  • Assumptions, extraneous comments and a temptation to summarise should all be turned into questions. An empathetic but neutral stance is required, and sharing personal information during the interview can hinder the in-depth interview process.
  • Any topic can raise sensitive issues or strong emotions. There are a range of strategies for dealing with these, but recognition and acknowledgement of the participant's reactions are key.
• Probes are responsive questions asked to find out more about what has been raised. Their aim is always to obtain greater clarity, detail or depth of understanding - for example to elicit further description, an example, an explanation, and so on. Their key feature is that they relate directly to what has already been said by the interviewee, often referring to the exact phrase or term that they have used. Probes are a crucial element of any in-depth interview. Prompts are questions which come from the researcher rather than directly from what the interviewee has said. They are used where the researcher wants to ask the interviewee to reflect on something else - perhaps something raised in other interviews, or that the researcher thought might be relevant from their own reading or thinking. half explored, will be a hindrance, and even the finest analysis will not be able to retrieve it. Leading questions are those which could be perceived as indicating a preferred, expected or acceptable response, and should be avoided. Open questions are questions which require more than a single word, or a handful of words to be answered. Closed questions are those which can be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Reciprocity is the idea of researchers giving something back to those they interview by sharing their own views, experiences, or reflections on what has been said. It is a feature of some approaches to feminist research in particular, but carries some cautions with it.
• Stages of a focus group
  
  • STAG E ONE ! SCEN E SETTIN G AN D GROUN D RULE S
  • STAG E TWO. ' INDIVIDUA L INTRODUCTION S Switching on the tape recorder, the researcher asks the group to introduce themselves in turn by saying their names and giving other simple background information (items usually specified by the researcher - see Chapter 6). As each individual speaks, the researcher might decide to probe a little, to draw out a fuller response and begin to set the tone of an in-depth discussion.
  • STAG E THREE : TH E OPENIN G TOPI C After the individual introductions, the researcher starts off the general discussion by introducing the opening topic. This may be something fairly neutral, general and easy to talk about, or it may be a more conceptual or definitional issue about which group members' spontaneous thoughts are sought
  • STAG E FOUR ! DISCUSSIO N At this point, following initial discussion, the researcher new to group discussions may feel things are getting out of control. Now what? Their role is one of juggling: balancing the need to promote group interaction against the need for some individual detail, and the value of free-flowing debate against the need for coverage of specified topics.
  • STAG E FIVE : ENDIN G TH E DISCUSSIO N The final topic will have been decided in advance, with an eye to how it fits in with the overall shape of the discussion and group developmental phases. It is advisable to try to finish on a positive and completed note, as with individual interviews - for example covering ideas or suggestions about what might be done to improve a situation, following a discussion about problems (Chapter 5). This is particularly important if emotionally difficult material has been raised during the discussion.
• The role of the researcher in relation to a focus group is therefore something of a hybrid. Partly it involves the role of a moderator with its connotations of restraint, as one who 'restrains or presides over a meeting'; partly it involves the role of a facilitator, as one who 'makes easy' or 'assists the progress of a process
• The way participants introduce topics is itself interesting and revealing - it is more 'grounded', or 'naturally occurring'.
• In practice, if the researcher is able to create an environment in which people feel safe and comfortable with speaking frankly, group-based research can be very effective for discussing topics which involve social norms.

Bestudeer uit het boek Research Methods p 542 -543: Induction, deduction, abduction; p 312-314 Observer roles (beiden in het kwalitatieve deel!)

• Inductive research: research that begins with the data and then generalizes or produces theoretical generalization form the data
• Abductive research: research that attempts to build thoery from ‘surprises’ in empirical data
• Deductive research: research that takes a top-down approach, where the theory or hypotheses drives the datacollection strategy and analysis
• Grounded theory: a systematic, indcutive approach to qualitative  research that suggests that researchers should extrapolate conceptual relationships from data rather than formulate testable hypotheses from existing theory
• Purposive sampling: a sampling strategy in which cases are deliberately selected on the basis of features that distinguish them from other cases
• Saturation: when new materials (interveiws, observations, survey responses) fail to yield new insights and simply reinforce what the researcher already knows
• Complete participant: fieldworkers ‘go undercover’ and immerse themselves in a fieldwork site, keeping their identities as researchers a secret form their subjects
  
  • Going native: the threat that fieldworkers who completely immerse themselves in the world of their subejct will lose their original identity and forget they are researchers
  • Reactivity: when the presence and actions of the researcher change the beahviors and beleif of the research objects
  • Cognitive dissonance: the unpleasant or distressing feling we experience when we hold two discrepant  beliefs, or we engage in a behavior that violates our beliefs
• Participant observer: fieldworkers tell subjects that they are being studied. Researchers participate as fully possible in the field site.
  
  • Infformed consent: the freedom to say yes or no to participating in a research study once all the possible risks and benefits have been properly explained
  • Hawthorne effect: named after a study of factory workers, the phenomenon whereby merely being observed changes subjets’ behavior
• Observer: fieldworkers tell subjects that they are being studied. Researcher do not actually participate in life in the field; rather, they observe and interact as little as possible.
• Covert observer: fieldworker do not tell subjects they are being studied. Researchers do not participate in life in the field; rather, they observe what is going on in a way that does nog let people know they are being observed.
  
  • Systematic observation: a method of obesrvatin in which the reseracher follows a chekclist and timeline for observing phenomena

Lees de KOM slides over observatie en inductief coderen

Neem slides door

Bestudeer Bohm (2004) p 271-274 Open, axial, selective coding Böhm, A. (2004). Theoretical coding: text analysis in grounded theory. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Éds), A companion to qualitative research

Open coding

• In open coding data are ‘broken down’ analytically, and in this the principle of grounded theory shows itself: from the data, that is from the text, a succession of concepts is developed that may ultimately be used as building blocks for the model.
• Theory generating questions are ‘w’ question: what, who, how, when, for what reason, by what means
• The result of the work is an interpretative text which adheres to analytical thinking about the phenomenon and which often contains questions about how the phenomenon might be further investigated
• Theoretical codes in the sense of terms from scientific theories should initially be avoided. More profitable are in-vivo codes, which, as colloquial interpretations of the phenomena, are taken directly from the language of the field of investigation. In-vivo codes are components of ‘theories’ formulated personally by the producers of the text in question. Traditional categories such as age, gender, level, and so on, should only be used after a thorough scrutiny of their relevance.
• Open coding is an expanding procedure in the sense that considerable quantities of interpretative text can be added to a small segment of an original text. To retain an overview, the investigator should continually write memos, and sort and weigh up the results of the work. In ordering the interim results it will become clear what concepts are important for the researcher’s own question and therefore require deeper analysis, and what results should be discarded and not pursued in greater depth.

Axial coding

• This step serves to refine and differentiate concepts that are already available and lends them the status of categories
• This step serves to refine and differentiate concepts that are already available and lends them the status of categories
• In the same way as open coding, axial coding is applied to very short textual segments (in the sense of a detailed analysis), to larger extracts or to the entire tekst
• For theoryformation what is of particular importance is the development of relationships between the axial categories and the concepts that are related to them in terms of their formal and content aspects
• The phenomenon denoted by the axial category is, for example, an event or a fact. Causes are normally only valid in a particular set of conditions, and here what is of particular importance for the formation of an action-related theory are the conditions that promote or restrict the possibilities for action or interaction. Under contextual conditions are included particularly time, place and duration. And among intervening conditions we find the social, political and cultural environment and the individual biography. Actions and interactions have two properties. (1) They are processes and have a sequence, and it is therefore appropriate to ask about sequences and temporal course of action. (2) They are goaloriented and are often performed for particular and specifiable reasons, for which reason one may refer to (interactional) strategies or tactics
• As a further stimulus in axial coding, an overview of theoretical framing concepts may be used, or so-called coding families. The C-family (causes, contexts, consequences, conditions, etc.) corresponds to the coding paradigm described above

Selective coding

• In this phase the researcher is particularly active as an author on the basis of the categories, coding notes, memos, networks and diagrams so far developed.
• The main phenomenon is described as the core category and is possibly already present in the formulation of the research question of the particular investigation. Admittedly it must sometimes occur in the research process that a different phenomenon than originally assumed will take on central importance for the issue in question. For this reason grounded theory recommends asking repeatedly, in the course of an investigation, which phenomena are central and formulating appropriate theory-memos.
• If a number of well-worked-out axial categories are available we may assume that the central phenomenon has been captured in its essential aspects – otherwise it is necessary to return to earlier phases in the research process.
• (1) One of the axial categories includes the central phenomenon and is therefore suitable as the core category. The candidate for the Table 5.13.1 Coding families (adapted from Glaser 1978: 75–82) Coding families Concepts Examples The Six Cs Causes, contexts, contingencies, … of pain suffering consequences, conditions Process Stages, phases, phasings, transitions, Career of a patient with chronic pain passages, careers, chains, sequences The Degree Family Extent, level, intensity, range, amount, Extent of pain suffering continuum, statistical average, standard deviation Type Family Types, classes, genres, prototypes, Kinds of pain – sharp, piercing, throbbing, styles, kinds shooting, sting, gnawing, burning The Strategy Family Strategies, tactics, techniques, mechanisms, Coping with pain management Interactive Family Interaction, mutual effects, interdependence, Interaction of pain experience and coping reciprocity, symmetries, rituals Identity-Self Family Identity, self-image, self-concept, self-evaluation, Self-concepts of pain patients social worth, transformations of self Cutting-Point Family Boundary, critical juncture, cutting point, Start of chronification in the medical turning point, tolerance levels, point career of pain patient of no return Cultural Family Social norms, social values, social beliefs Social norms about tolerating pain, ‘feeling rules’ Consensus Family Contracts, agreements, definitions of the Compliance situation, uniformity, conformity, conflict Flick 5.13.qxd 3/19/04 2:39 PM Page 273core category is characterized by its formal relationships with all the other important categories and occupies a central position in the network of terms. (2) It often proves to be sensible to give a central location to a phenomenon to which more than a single axial category relates. In such a case it is necessary to detach oneself from the axial categories, and to formulate a new category which comes about by means of summarizing or reformulating one of the existing categories.

Lees KOM slides over bestaande data

Zie slides

Week 9

Bestudeer Hsieh and Shannon (2005) p 1281-1283 Directed content analysis. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.

• Existing theory or research can help focus the research question. It can provide pre[1]dictions about the variables of interest or about the relationships among variables, thus helping to determine the initial coding scheme or relationships between codes. This has been referred to as deductive category application
• Using existing the[1]ory or prior research, researchers begin by identifying key concepts or variables as initial coding categories (Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999). Next, operational definitions for each category are determined using the theory
• If data are collected primarily through interviews, an open-ended question might be used, followed by targeted questions about the predetermined categories. After an open-ended question, Researcher Y used probes specifically to explore par[1]ticipants’ experiences of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Coding can begin with one of two strategies, depending on the research question
• The second strategy that can be used in directed content analysis is to begin cod[1]ing immediately with the predetermined codes. Data that cannot be coded are iden[1]tified and analyzed later to determine if they represent a new category or a subcate[1]gory of an existing code. The choice of which of these approaches to use depends on the data and the researcher’s goals.
• The findings from a directed content analysis offer supporting and nonsup[1]porting evidence for a theory. This evidence can be presented by showing codes with exemplars and by offering descriptive evidence. Because the study design and analysis are unlikely to result in coded data that can be compared meaningfully using statistical tests of difference, the use of rank order comparisons of frequency of codes can be used
• The theory or prior research used will guide the discussion of findings. Newly identified categories either offer a contradictory view of the phenomenon or might further refine, extend, and enrich the theory
• The main strength of a directed approach to content analysis is that existing theory can be supported and extended. In addition, as research in an area grows, a directed approach makes explicit the reality that researchers are unlikely to be working from the naive perspective that is often viewed as the hallmark of natural[1]istic designs
• The directed approach does present challenges to the naturalistic paradigm. Using theory has some inherent limitations in that researchers approach the data with an informed but, nonetheless, strong bias. Hence, researchers might be more likely to find evidence that is supportive rather than nonsupportive of a theory. Sec[1]ond, in answering the probe questions, some participants might get cues to answer in a certain way or agree with the questions to please researchers. Third, an overemphasis on the theory can blind researchers to contextual aspects of the phenomenon.

Lees KOM slides over ethiek

Zie slides

Bestudeer Ritchie & Lewis (2003): p 264-270 Definitions of generalization, p 270 -276 Reliability and validity (tot documentation)

Definitions of generalization

• Empirical generalisation concerns the application of findings horn quali[1]tative research studies to populations or settings beyond the particular sample of the study
  • empirical generalisation incorporates two separate constructions of inference that require different conditions - that is, generalising to the population from which the sample is drawn, and gener[1]alising to other settings and contexts.
• The second context within which generalisation is discussed is theory[1]building. This involves the generation of theoretical concepts or propositions which are deemed to be of wider, or even universal, application. Conclusions are drawn from features or constructs developed in a 'local' or single study which are then utilised in developing wider theory.
• To help with clarification, therefore, we suggest that generalisation can be seen as involving three linked but separate concepts:
  
  • first, what we have termed representational generalisation: the question of whether what is found in a research sample can be generalised to, or held to be equally true of, the parent population from which the sample is drawn
    
    • Representational generalisation involves two key issues. First, whether the phenomena found in the research sample (for example, views, experiences, behaviours or outcomes) would similarly be found in the parent population. Second, whether other additional phenomena (or different perspectives on them) would be found in the parent population which are not present in the study sample
  • second, the question of whether the findings from a particular study can be generalised, or inferred, to other settings or contexts beyond the sampled one. We have called this inferential generalisation
  • third, theoretical generalisation which draws theoretical propositions, principles or statements from the findings of a study for more general application.
• Although the scope for generalisation is an important criterion by which the utility or quality of a research study is judged, there may also be value in individual studies which cannot be generalised
• Approaches to generalisation: theoretical generalisation
  
  • Universal application: Generalisations are thus assertions which are context-free, and their value lies in their ability to achieve prediction.
  • many writers have been unhappy with the transposition of concepts from the natural sciences to the social sciences. These lie some[1]where between the law-like universal theories of the natural sciences on the one hand, and the assertion that there can be no meaning outside the individual context on the other.
  • Ultimately, we would argue, like Seale (1999), that the relevance of a new or refined theory needs to be established by further empirical inquiry. Rather than seeing theory as fixed and immutable, it is perhaps better understood as a fluid collection of principles and hypotheses
• Approaches to generalisation: Inferential generalisation
  
  • Lincoln and Guba have been particularly influential in positions on inferen[1]tial generalisation - generalising from the context of the research study itself to other settings or contexts. They talk about 'naturalistic generalisation', a concept introduced by Robert Stake (1978) in his discussion of case study methods. This offers a more intuitive and empirical form of generalisation, based on the researcher's own experience and feelings, rather than one that is rationalistic and law-like. Building on these views, Lincoln and Guba argue that transferability depends on the degree of congruence between the 'sending context' within which research is conducted, and the 'receiving context' to which it is to be applied. The researcher must provide 'thick description', a concept first introduced by Geertz (1993). Thick description has been translated in many ways but essentially requires the researcher to provide sufficient detail of the original observations or commentaries - and the environments in which they occurred - to allow the reader to gauge and assess the meanings attached to them.
  • Inferential generalisation in social research must similarly be a matter of judgement, and the role of the researcher is to provide the 'thick description' of the researched context and the phenomena found (views, processes, expe[1]riences etc.) which will allow others to assess their transferability to another setting. As with theoretical generalisation, the inference must rest as a hypothesis until proved or disproved by further evidence.
• Approaches generelisation: representational generalisation
  
  • Other research evidence can help in assessing how far the findings from a study can be generalised to the parent population, but it is not a requirement for representational generalisation. Assessing representational generalisa[1]tion turns on two broad issues. The first is the accuracy with which the phenomena have been captured and interpreted in the study sample. This will depend on the quality of fieldwork, analysis and interpretation. The second issue is the degree to which the sample is representative of the parent population sampled. Here, as we have argued in Chapter 4, representation is not a question of statistical match but of inclusivity; whether the sample provides 'symbolic representation' by containing the diversity of dimen[1]sions and constituencies that are central to explanation.

Reliability and validity

• But in their broadest conception, reliability meaning 'sustainable' and validity meaning 'well grounded' will have relevance for qualitative research since they help to define the strength of the data.
• Reliability is generally understood to concern the replicability of research findings and whether or not they would be repeated if another study, using the same or similar methods, was undertaken. The extent to which replica[1]tion can occur in qualitative research has been questioned on a number of counts. Because of such concerns, the idea of seeking reliability in qualitative research is often avoided. Instead, writers discuss similar issues using terms and concepts that are felt to have greater resonance with the goals and values of qualitative research
  
  • Confirmability, Trustworthiness, Consistency
  • In other words, there needs to be some certainty that the internal elements, dimensions, factors, sectors and so on, found within the original data, would recur outside of the study population. A secondary consideration is whether the constructions placed on the data by the researcher have been consistently and rigorously derived. Thus the reliability of the findings depends on the likely recurrence of the original data and the way they are interpreted.
  • It is in the latter context that in discussions about reliability or its equiva[1]lents, an important distinction has been drawn between external and internal reliability. The first concerns the level of replication that can be expected if similar studies are undertaken; the second relates to the extent to which assessments, judgements, ratings and so on, internal to the research conduct, are agreed or replicated between researchers, judges etc.
  • Some attention has been paid to how to ensure that qualitative research is reliable, or has one of the qualities associated with potential replication (see for example Kirk and Miller, 1986; Perakyla, 1997). There are two levels on which it is suggested that this should happen. First there is the need to ensure that the research is as robust as it can be by carrying out internal checks on the quality of the data and its interpretation. Second, there is the need to assure the reader/enquirer of the research by providing information about the research process
• The validity of findings or data is traditionally understood to refer to the 'correctness' or 'precision' of a research reading. It is often explained as a concept with two distinct dimensions, the first, known as internal validity, concerned with whether you are 'investigating what you claim to be inves[1]tigating' (Arksey and Knight, 1999); and the second, termed external valid[1]ity concerned with the extent to which 'the abstract constructs or postulates generated, refined or tested' are applicable to other groups within the popu[1]lation (LeCompte and Goetz, 1982) or to other contexts or settings
  
  • Although the validity of 'measurement' is seen as a primary concern of quantitative research, and of positivist research more broadly, it is widely recognised that it is an equally significant issue for qualitative research. But the questions posed are different ones and relate more to the validity of rep[1]resentation, understanding and interpretation
• A number of different ways have been suggested to validate or verify quali[1]tative data. Broadly these fall into two main sets, the first concerned with internal validation and the second concerned with verifying findings exter[1]nally.

Internal validation

• • Constant comparative method (Silverman, 2000b) or checking accuracy of fit (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) which involve deriving hypotheses from one part of the data and testing them on another by constant checking and comparison across different sites, times, cases, individuals, etc.
  • Deviant case analysis to ensure that deviant cases or 'outliers' are not forced into classes or ignored but instead used as an important resource in aiding understanding or theory development. Clayman and Maynard (1994) outline three ways that deviant cases can be used:
    
    • they may show an orientation to the same regularities as other cases but then deviate. This would help to support the claim that the 'regu[1]larities' are normative
    • they may contain specific individual differences which explain why the more normative behaviour is not always found
    • they may mean that a hypothesis needs to be refined or reconceptualised.

EXTERNA L VALIDATION

• • Triangulation assumes that the use of different sources of information will help both to confirm and to improve the clarity or precision, of a research finding.
    • Methods triangulation: comparing data generated by different methods (e.g. qualitative and quantitative)
    • Triangulation of sources: comparing data from different qualitative methods (e.g. observations, interviews, documented accounts)
    • Triangulation through multiple analysis: using different observers, interviewers, analysts to compare and check data collection and interpretation
    • Theory triangulation: looking at data from different theoretical perspectives
  • Member or respondent validation: which involves taking research evidence back to the research participants (or to a group with the same experience or characteristics) to see if the meaning or interpretation assigned is con[1]firmed by those who contributed to it in the first place.

Bestudeer Probst (2015) p 42- 45 Benefits and challenges to reflexivity

Benefits of reflexivity

• Benefits of reflexivity included accountability, trustworthiness, richness, clarity, ethics, support, and personal growth—beneficial for the integrity of the research process, the quality of the knowledge gen[1]erated, the ethical treatment of those being studied, and the researcher’s own well-being and personal growth.
• For the Research Project
  
  • Participants considered reflexivity essential for rigor because it made posi[1]tionality, subjectivity, and reactivity more transpar[1]ent.
  • In particular, reflexivity was seen as important for epistemological rigor.
  • Closely related were the benefits of reflexivity for ethics.
  • Many also considered reflexivity helpful for the development of professional knowledge
• For the researcher
  
  • Self-awareness was also seen as beneficial for the researcher. It provided a frame[1]work for processing, sustaining, renewing, and gaining insight both into the research and oneself. As a tool for managing the research experience, it could serve as a way to discharge and work through intense, surprising, or upsetting issues and thus avoid becoming sidetracked or emotionally de[1]pleted.
• By type of reflexive activity
  
  • Returning to the raw data “helps the researcher to keep from falling in love with a particular inter[1]pretation or path.
  • It also provided a tangible way to recall what might otherwise be forgotten or altered in memory, a record of observations and ideas that could be pondered at future intervals
  • Returning reflexivelytothe literature “can affirm or challengeyourmaterial andmakeyou examineitmore critically.”
  • Reflexivity could be especially important when working as part of an interdisciplinary research team where members approach knowledge differently

Challenges to reflexivity

• Personal challenges
  • Personal challenges for the researcher centered on managing emotional re[1]sponses to the material or people studied (overporos[1]ity, emotional flooding, feeling overwhelmed or triggered) that reflexivity might uncover, or the self-doubt and anxiety evoked by questioning one’s assumptions and beliefs
• Project-related challenges
  
  • Time constraints were the most frequently cited obstacle. Reflexivity took time and self-discipline, participants agreed, espe[1]cially after long days of field observation, and was not always feasible because of pressure to move at a rapid pace or attend to other commitments
  • Many also noted the potential for narcissistic dis[1]tortion or inappropriate emphasis on the researcher’s experience, leading to deflection from the research focus by making the researcher more important than the researched
• External of systemic challenges
  
  • A lack of val[1]uation by colleagues, administrators, funders, and journals was a major concern. Many participants felt that explicit endorsement of reflexivity could threaten their credibility with tenure committees operating from a quantitative model
  • In addition, the pressure to publish made it tempting to move projects forward quickly or to jettison reflexive activities that were unlikely to be included in the final report
  • Isolation from supportive peers engaged in simi[1]lar reflexive research was a related concern
  • Other participants cited a lack of training, prep[1]aration, or the availability of clear or consistent guidelines for assessing whether one has been ade[1]quately reflexive. Knowing when to disclose per[1]sonal reflections was a related concern.