“But our worlds are different!”: reflexivity as a tool to negotiate insider–outsider dilemmas

IF 0.8 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Deepika Sharma
{"title":"“But our worlds are different!”: reflexivity as a tool to negotiate insider–outsider dilemmas","authors":"Deepika Sharma","doi":"10.1108/qrj-08-2023-0129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>In ethnographic research, negotiating insider–outsider perspectives is essential in order to get closer to the participants’ lives. By highlighting the importance of empathy and reflexivity, the paper attempts to trace my reflexive navigation as a novice researcher as I enter the field as an outsider. The process of co-creation between the researcher and the participant is mediated by the nuances of the researcher’s identity, thereby shaping the researcher–participant relationship.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The current study elaborates my journey as a Ph.D. scholar in an ethnographic study of persons with spinal cord injury or amputation. The different themes organised around my personal reflections discuss the various challenges I faced and how I navigated through them.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The paper reflects on how different aspects of my identity, such as being non-disabled, a female and differences in socioeconomic status shaped the researcher–participant relationship. Additionally, it highlights how I traverse through the blurred worlds of insider–outsider and explore the role of reflexivity and empathy in creating a horizontal researcher–participant relationship.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This reflexive journey offers potential insights into budding researchers who often face dilemmas whether or not it is necessary for qualitative researchers to be members of the population they are studying. The paper also contributes to an understanding around practising reflexivity while working with a sensitive population. It argues researchers to look beyond the insider–outsider debate and utilise reflexivity as a tool for a nonhierarchical researcher–participant relationship.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":47040,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-08-2023-0129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

In ethnographic research, negotiating insider–outsider perspectives is essential in order to get closer to the participants’ lives. By highlighting the importance of empathy and reflexivity, the paper attempts to trace my reflexive navigation as a novice researcher as I enter the field as an outsider. The process of co-creation between the researcher and the participant is mediated by the nuances of the researcher’s identity, thereby shaping the researcher–participant relationship.

Design/methodology/approach

The current study elaborates my journey as a Ph.D. scholar in an ethnographic study of persons with spinal cord injury or amputation. The different themes organised around my personal reflections discuss the various challenges I faced and how I navigated through them.

Findings

The paper reflects on how different aspects of my identity, such as being non-disabled, a female and differences in socioeconomic status shaped the researcher–participant relationship. Additionally, it highlights how I traverse through the blurred worlds of insider–outsider and explore the role of reflexivity and empathy in creating a horizontal researcher–participant relationship.

Originality/value

This reflexive journey offers potential insights into budding researchers who often face dilemmas whether or not it is necessary for qualitative researchers to be members of the population they are studying. The paper also contributes to an understanding around practising reflexivity while working with a sensitive population. It argues researchers to look beyond the insider–outsider debate and utilise reflexivity as a tool for a nonhierarchical researcher–participant relationship.

"但我们的世界是不同的!":以反身性为工具,谈判局内局外的困境
目的 在人种学研究中,要想更贴近参与者的生活,就必须对局内人和局外人的观点进行协商。通过强调同理心和反思性的重要性,本文试图追溯我作为一名新手研究者,在以局外人身份进入研究领域时的反思性导航。研究者与参与者之间的共同创造过程以研究者身份的细微差别为中介,从而塑造了研究者与参与者之间的关系。围绕我个人反思的不同主题讨论了我所面临的各种挑战以及我是如何克服这些挑战的。研究结果本文反思了我身份的不同方面,如非残疾人、女性和社会经济地位的差异是如何影响研究者与参与者之间的关系的。此外,论文还强调了我是如何穿越局内局外的模糊世界,并探讨了反思性和移情在建立研究者与参与者的横向关系中的作用。原创性/价值这一反思性历程为那些经常面临定性研究者是否有必要成为所研究人群成员这一两难问题的新晋研究者提供了潜在的见解。本文还有助于理解在与敏感人群合作时如何实践反身性。论文认为,研究人员应超越 "局内人-局外人 "的争论,将反思性作为研究人员与参与者之间非等级关系的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Qualitative Research Journal
Qualitative Research Journal SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Qualitative Research Journal (QRJ) is an international journal devoted to the communication of the theory and practice of qualitative research in the human sciences. It is interdisciplinary and eclectic, covering all methodologies that can be described as qualitative. It offers an international forum for researchers and practitioners to advance knowledge and promote good qualitative research practices. QRJ deals comprehensively with the collection, analysis and presentation of qualitative data in the human sciences as well as theoretical and conceptual inquiry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信