Approaching responsibility

A sensory approach to reflexivity on researcher-participant relations

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7146/kkf.v34i1.132334

Keywords:

responsibility, reflexivity, sensory ethnography, recognition, emplacement, researcher-participant relationship

Abstract

Feminist researchers have long argued that refl exivity is key to a responsible research practice. As a method, reflexivity has the capacity to reveal power relations and highlight situated perspectives. Consequently, it has become a mainstream tool in qualitative research. Yet it has also been criticised for producing tick-the-box reflections and promoting a researcher-centric narrative that undermines participants’ contributions to knowledge production. This article takes a sensory approach to reflexivity and considers its methodological implications. Borrowing our interpretation of recognisability from Skeggs (1997), and that of emplacement from Pink’s (2015) conceptualisation of sensory ethnography, we use the compound concept of ‘recognisable emplacement’ as a reflexive theoretical lens with which to analyse the researcher-participant relationship. We are furthermore methodologically inspired by duo-ethnography in that we as co-authors create a collective and reflexive space for analysis. The analysis therefore enables us to illustrate the dynamic negotiations between participants, environment, and researcher, and to shed light on the sensory cues that form these negotiations. Based on an understanding of responsibility as a multifaceted and situated practice we suggest that a sensory approach to reflexivity increases the researcher’s capacity to take responsibility by foregrounding the intersubjectivity of researcher-participant relations.

References

Aiello, J. and Nero S. J. 2019. Discursive Dances: Narratives of Insider/Outsider Researcher Tensions. Journal of Language, Identity & Education. 18(4). doi:10.1080/15348458.2019.1623035

Alderson, P. and Morrow, V. 2011. Designing research: selection and participation. In􀉸The ethics of research with children and young people: A practical handbook. London: Sage, 49-63. doi:10.4135/9781446268377

Anteby, M. 2013. PERSPECTIVE – Relaxing the taboo on telling our own stories: Upholding professional distance and personal involvement. Organization Science. 24(4), 1277-1290. doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0777

Berger, R. 2015. Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research. 15(2), 219-234. doi:10.1177/1468794112468475

Bodén, L. 2021: On, to, with, for, by: ethics and children in research. Children’s Geographies. [Online]. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2021.1891405

Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. J. D. 1992. An invitation to Refl exive Sociology. Oxford: Polity Press

Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London, New York: Routledge

Cunliffe, A. L. and Karunanayake, G. 2013. Working Within Hyphen-Spaces in Ethnographic Research: Implication for Research Identities and Practice. Organizational Research Methods. 16(3), 364-392. doi: 10.1177/1094428113489353

Davies, B., and Harré, R. 1990. Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves.􀉸Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 20(1), 43–63.􀉸doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.

Davis, K. 2014. Intersectionality as Critical Methodology. In Lykke, N. (Ed.). Writing Academic Texts Differently: Intersectional Feminist Methodologies and the Playful Art of Writing. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315818566

Davids, T. 2014. Trying to be a vulnerable observer: Matters of agency, solNilssonrity and hospitality in feminist ethnography. Women’s Studies International Forum. 43(1), 50-58. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2014.02.006

Davids, T. and Willemse, K. 2014. Embodied engagements: Feminist ethnography at the crossing of knowledge production and representation — An introduction. Women’s Studies International Forum. 43(1), 1-4. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2014.02.001

Delgado, R. 2011. Rodrigo’s reconsideration: Intersectionality and the future of critical race theory. Iowa Law Review. 96(1), 1247-1288.

Dwyer, S. C., and Buckle, J. L. 2009. The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research.􀉸International Journal of Qualitative Methods.􀉸8(1), 54-63. doi:10.1177/160940690900800105

Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Graham, A., Powell, M. A., and Taylor, N. 2015. Ethical Research Involving Children: Encouraging Reflexive Engagement in Research with Children and Young People.􀉸Children & Society.􀉸29(5), 331–343. doi:10.1111/chso.12089

Haraway, D. 1988. Situated knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies. 14(3), 575-599. doi:10.2307/3178066

Haraway, D. J. 1991.􀉸Simians, cyborgs, and women : the reinvention of nature. [Online]. New York: Routledge.

Harrington, B. 2003. The Social Psychology of Access in Ethnographic Research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 32(5), 592-625. doi:10.1177/0891241603255677

Langley, A. and Klag, M. 2017. Being Where? Navigating the Involvement Paradox in Qualitative Research Accounts. Organizational Research Methods. 22(4), 1-24. doi:10.1177/1094428117741967

Lather, P., 2006. Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35-57, doi: 10.1080/09518390500450144

Li, J. H. 2018. Shaping ideals of future citizenry in transnational higher education – An analysis of the formation of student subjectivities in a new transnational institutional environment. PhD dissertation, Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.

Merriam, S. B., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M., Kee, Y., Ntseane, G. and Muhamad, M. 2001. Power and positionality: negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures. International Journal of Lifelong Education. 20(5), 405-416. doi:10.1080/02601370120490

Mies, M. 1993. Feminist Research: Science, Violence and Responsibility. In: Mies, M. and Shiva V. eds. Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books Ltd. doi:10.5040/9781350219786.ch-003

Nencel, L. 2014. Situating refl exivity: Voices, positionalities and representations in feminist ethnographic texts. Women’s Studies International Forum. 43(1), 75-83. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2013.07.018

O’Boyle, A. 2018. Encounters with identity: refl exivity and positioning in an interdisciplinary research project. International Journal of Research & Method in Education. 41(3), 353-366. doi:10.1080/1743727X.2017.1310835

Pedersen, C. H. and Gunnarsson, E. 2004. Hovedbrud – mens vi gør feministiske forskningsstrategier i organisationer. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning. 4(1), 26-45. doi:10.7146/kkf.v0i4.28208

Phoenix, A. 2006. Interrogating intersectionality: Productive ways of theorizing multiple positioning. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning. 2-3(1), 21-30. doi:10.7146/kkf.v0i2-3.28082

Pillow, W. S. 2003. Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of refl exivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. 16(2), 175-196. doi:10.1080/0951839032000060635

Pink, S. 2015. Doing Sensory Ethnography. 2nd edn. London: Sage.

Qvotrup, S. J. 2012. “So, it is about how negative it is?!” Understanding researcher/researched interactions as relations between intersectional social positions. Qualitative Studies. 3(2), 115-132. doi:10.7146/qs.v3i2.7304

Riach, K. 2009. Exploring Participant-centred Refl exivity in the Research Interview. Sociology. 43(2), 356-370. doi:10.1177/0038038508101170

Ringer, A. 2013. Researcher-participant positioning and the discursive work of categories: Experiences from fi eldwork in the mental health service. Qualitative Studies. 4(1), 1-20. doi:10.7146/qs.v4i1.8126

Rose, G. 1997. Situating knowledges: positionality, refl exivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography. 21(3), 305-320. doi:10.1191/030913297673302122

Sawyer, R. D. and Norris, J. 2009. Duoethnography: Articulations/(Re)Creation of Meaning in the making. In Gershon, W. S. The Collaborative Turn: Working Together in Qualitative Research. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers

Skeggs, B. 1997. Formations of Class and Gender: Becoming Respectable. London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446217597

Skeggs,􀉸B.􀉸2002. Techniques for Telling the Refl exive Self. In􀉸May, T. ed. Qualitative Research in Action. 349–375.

Spanger, M. 2012. “You see how good-looking Lee Ann is!” Establishing fi eld relations through gendered and racialised body practices. Qualitative studies. 3(2), 150-162.

Van Stapele, N. 2014. Intersubjectivity, self-refl ectivity and agency: Narrating about ‘self’ and ‘other’ in feminist reseach. Women’s Studies International Forum. 43(1), 13-21. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2013.06.010

Willis, A. and Siltanen, J. 2009. Restorying Work Inside and Outside the Academy: Practices of Reflexive Team Research. In Gershon, W. S. The Collaborative Turn: Working Together in Qualitative Research. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers

Yang, A. 2022.􀉸Child-Friendly Racism? An ethnographical study on children’s racialized becoming in a raceblind context. PhD dissertation, Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.

Downloads

Published

2023-02-15

How to Cite

Justenborg, K. V., & Nilsson, I. A. (2023). Approaching responsibility: A sensory approach to reflexivity on researcher-participant relations. Women, Gender & Research, 34(2), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.7146/kkf.v34i1.132334

Issue

Section

Articles