Hi
there! I had some trouble posting to the blog for the deadline on Monday, so
left my submissions as comments here. I thought I'd add them again as posts so
that everyone could access links, etc.
Online Submission 1 - Reflexivity in Research with Children & Young People
The
following study demonstrates the importance of reflexivity in the methodology
of research and consultation with children:
The above study uses a qualitative methodology –
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) – to explore perceptions of the imaginary
companions of eight school age UK children. The study uses a semi-structured
interview technique typical of IPA to explore individual and cross-case themes,
relying on the researcher’s analytic interpretation. The analytic process
arrived at several main themes presented within the study.
It is important to note that IPA provides both an
analytic process (Smith & Osborne, 2003) to explore themes within and
across interview transcripts, and outlines a reflexive attitude (Finlay, 2009).
This latter aspect emphasises that the subjectivity and context of the
researcher is inseparably linked to the research itself (Finlay, 2009).
However, in the study under discussion, Majors (2013)
has used the analytic process provided by IPA with little consideration to
reflexivity and the impact of researcher preconceptions. This is problematic
for the methodology of this study.
According to Punch (2002), ‘the researcher’s own
assumptions about the position of children in society affects the methods
chosen as well as the interpretation of the data generated’ (Punch, 2002: 324).
However, Majors (2013) does not address the
difficulty for an adult researcher ‘to understand the world from a child’s
point of view’ (Punch, 2002: 325) or demonstrate an appreciation of the ‘operationalization
of power relations in most research settings which enables adults to have much
more freedom to direct the process than children do’ (Holland et al., 2010:
363).
The lack of reflexivity also has implications for the
ethics of the study, where ethical concerns are focused on obtaining informed
consent and child protection (Majors, 2013). However, ethical consideration
should also be given to the potential to misrepresent child participants by not
attending to the impact of adult perspectives and power contexts:
‘If one acknowledges the inseparability of researcher
and participant…, the issue of voice (and whose voice) is further complicated.
There is no simple resolution to this, except exploration through reflexive
techniques which attend to power relations and ethics, reciprocity and
responsibility.’ (Holland et al., 2010: 371)
In conclusion, a critical assessment of Majors (2013)
highlights the importance of reflexive practice in research with children and
young people. The methodology in Majors (2013) does not explore researcher
reflexivity or examine preconceptions, weakening the analytic process and
raising questions about ethical considerations.
Although reflexivity should also apply to qualitative
research with adults, there are specific preconceptions that can impact research
and consultation with children and young people and researchers therefore have
a responsibility to address these through reflexive practice.
REFERENCES
Finlay, L. (2009) Debating phenomenological research methods. Phenomenology & Practice 3 (1) 6–25.
Holland, S., Renold, E., Ross, N.J., & Hillman, A. (2010)
Power, agency and participatory agendas: A critical exploration of young
people’s engagement in participative qualitative research. Childhood 17(3) Sept 360–375.
Majors,
K. (2013) Children’s perceptions of their imaginary companions and the purposes
they serve: An exploratory study in the United Kingdom. Childhood 20(4) Feb 550–565.
Punch,
S. (2002) Research with Children: The Same or Different from Research with
Adults? Childhood 9(3) Aug 321–341.
Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003) Interpretative
phenomenological analysis. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to
research methods, 51–80.
No comments:
Post a Comment