Negotiating positions through reflexivity in international fieldwork

Introduction

With rising interests and involvement in international social work (Lalayants et al., 2015), the number of social work students conducting their fieldwork and research in an international setting is increasing. Positionality is a significant issue for these social work students. Positionality is basically related to the ‘multiplicities of identity’ (Ruppel et al., 2008) and decided by ‘where one stands in relation to the other’ (Merriam et al., 2001, in Bourke, 2014). The complexities of positionality explored in the literature are mainly twofold: student, practitioner and/or researcher (McGinn and Bosacki, 2004) and insider and/or outsider (Bridges, 2001; Crow et al., 2001; Dwyer and Buckle, 2009). These positions are not static, but are negotiated, shifted or constructed while conducting a research (Fisher, 2015; Milligan, 2016), which could affect data collection and the outcome of research findings.

A researcher’s positionality can be explored through reflexivity. The term ‘reflexivity’ generally means reflective practices to examine the research process. Fook (1999) emphasises that reflexivity should be related to positioning as ‘an ability of locating yourself in a picture’ (p. 11). It provides insights into ‘how what you see is influenced by your own way of seeing, and how your very presence and act of research influences the situation in which you are researching’ (p. 12). Fook (1999) also argues that researchers should incorporate acknowledged influences into their research rather than minimising them.

I became interested in positionality and reflexivity while conducting a doctoral research in Bangladesh. My research aimed to explore how human rights are understood and translated into practice by local non-governmental organisation (NGO) workers in Bangladesh. During the research process, I encountered positionality issues as a new researcher of South Korean background. I was studying in Australia at the time with previous experiences of working at NGOs internationally as well as in Bangladesh. I was in a transformative process from a student and an NGO practitioner to a researcher. Insider/outsider issues were raised in relation to my profession, nationality, ethnic background, language and culture. Applying the theory of reflexivity helped me examine which positions I adopted at different moments and spaces during the field research, how I was perceived by research participants and what were the potential effects of my positionality on the research process and the nature of the findings.

The aim of this article is to examine the role of reflexivity in negotiating the researcher’s positionality and in reflecting its influences on the research process and outcome. This article outlines where this study is located and what is known about positionality and reflexivity. I then present an overview of the research I undertook to situate the key concept of reflexivity and positionality in a research context. Next, I will highlight and discuss how I worked on the issues of positionality through reflexivity.

Positionality and reflexivity in the literature

Emphasis on reflexivity can raise concern about the excessive focus on the researcher’s self and the possibility of using research as self-therapy (Glesne, 1999). However, the significance of reflexivity for qualitative research is widely acknowledged in the literature (e.g. England, 1994; Fisher, 2015; Sultana, 2007). As earlier mentioned, reflexivity is associated with the researcher’s position.

In relation to positionality, research students often face challenges in making the transition from students and/or practitioners to independent researchers. Fieldwork functions as training, accreditation and rite of passage for this transition (Peacock, 2001). Due to the formative process of fieldwork, a key task for research students is developing an identity as a researcher. Undertaking practitioner research as part of a graduate course often involves tensions between professional roles and researcher roles (McGinn and Bosacki, 2004). Despite a strong drive for practitioner research in social work, the research findings were not regarded as purely neutral or very convincing (Gomm, 2008).

When social work research takes place in an international setting, it also poses the issues of positionality between insider and outsider. Outsider status has its limitations in terms of acceptance, openness and depth of data (Dwyer and Buckle, 2009), which results in misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the group studied. Outsider-led qualitative research also has the potential for exploitative and disempowering processes (Bridges, 2001). The reproduction of ‘otherness’ by non-native researchers, mostly from Western societies, is heavily criticised as perpetuating ethnocentric bias (Escobar, 1995). To summarise, issues raised in the existing literature are threefold: an epistemological issue of lacking the ability to understand or present the researched, ethical issues of disrespectful or even contemptuous attitude, and the political issue of disempowering effects (Bridges, 2001).

The insider/outsider debate often concludes that it is important to have a sensitive understanding of historical or culture-specific contexts (Scheyvens and Storey, 2003) as well as openness and honesty in understanding and presenting research experience (Dwyer and Buckle, 2009). Cultivating such capacities is far more important than having an insider status. Furthermore, insiders cannot share commonalities in every way. Even insider researchers encounter challenges due to differences in class, education and social status while conducting a research in their home countries (Galam, 2015; Sultana, 2007). That is why some researchers identify themselves as ‘in-betweeners’ (Milligan, 2016; Sultana, 2007).

In addressing issues related to positionality, reflexivity has been simply referred to as ‘reflecting action on research practice’, which should be distinguished as ‘reflectivity’ (Malthouse et al., 2014). As mentioned earlier, this article analyses reflexivity with a focus on positioning issues as suggested by Fook (1999). Among different types of reflexivity (Fook, 1999; Rowe et al., 2015; Townley, 2009), the positionality can be examined using ‘endogenous reflexivity’ and ‘referential reflexivity’. The former means the ways the researcher’s experience and preconceptions influence the research practices, and the latter draws attention to the mutual influence between the researcher and the environment (May and Perry, 2011).

The ideas of endogenous and referential reflexivity derive from the insights of Giddens and Bourdieu (Myers, 2010). Giddens (1984) suggests the interplay between social structure and human agency: the structure enables and restricts agents, and human agency is situated but at the same time is capable of making a difference to the system. Bourdieu seeks to explain the relations between fields and habitus, meaning structured spaces by positions and the internal system of structures, respectively (Bourdieu, 1993, in May and Ferry, 2011). Following Giddens and Bourdieu, positionality can be conceptualised as the fit between self and environment (social, political and cultural milieu), and between habitus and field (May and Perry, 2011). The notion of the duality also accounts for the necessity of endogenous and referential reflexivity. Endogenous reflexivity is required to understand how a researcher’s self – habitus in Bourdieu’s terminology – is constructed and positioned. Referential reflexivity asks how the self is viewed by others, why some actions or dispositions are encouraged or restrained in a certain environment, and how the environment is shaped by actions (May and Perry, 2011; Myers, 2010). In this article, the implication of endogenous and referential reflexivity is to investigate the researcher’s positionality – where I am located and how I am viewed by research participants within the context – and its effects on research practice.

Research context and methodology

This article is generated from my PhD research which focuses on NGO workers’ understanding and practices of a human rights-based approach (HRBA). ActionAid Bangladesh (AAB), an international development NGO working in Bangladesh, was a research site for this qualitative case study. AAB was selected because it has worked in the framework of an HRBA since 1998, and because it operates in a country characterised as challenging due to its hostility to human rights advocacy. The field research was undertaken in 2012 based on 28 interviews with AAB staff members.

This article drew on a subset of data from the bigger study but used additional sources of data and methodology for its own purpose. I employed life history to explore the influence of my life events, experience and thinking when positioning myself in the research context and the complexities of negotiating positions. Life story is in line with my epistemological and theoretical orientations in which personal accounts are understood as interwoven with social reality (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). I have repeatedly visited my field notes and diary to reflect on my thoughts and feelings encountered during the field research and to trace how I incorporated them into research practice. The process of collecting and analysing data reflects the international and formative nature of the research conducted by a Korean researcher, who was undertaking a research course at an Australian university and carrying out fieldwork in Bangladesh.

Reflexivity throughout my fieldwork

Discussion and conclusion

This article argues the importance of reflexivity for fieldwork, particularly in an international setting. International fieldwork often raises concerns in relation to differences in language, culture and power between a researcher and research participants. My fieldwork in Bangladesh also involved these concerns but in a more complex way. As a young Korean female student doing a PhD in Australia with an NGO background, I had to work in three different languages (English, Bengali and Korean), navigate between multiple cultures (of Bangladesh, Korea and Australia, and of development NGOs and academic institutions) and power relations (in terms of age, gender and social status). This complexity was dealt with via endogenous reflexivity, which examines the influences of the researcher’s self, and referential reflexivity, which refers to the mutual effects between the researcher and the constructing research context.

Both endogenous and referential reflexivity required me to consider my position and its influence on the process and findings of this research. I could revise my conceptualisation of an HRBA and interview participants. This research aimed to explore how an HRBA is understood and practised in a challenging context, based on the assumption that an HRBA comprises Western philosophies which are alien to non-Western countries. However, the research findings suggest that participants widely accept the universality of human rights on the basis of its conformity with their traditional and religious values (Noh, 2016). This view is different from some literature (Donnelly, 1984; Nyamu-Musembi and Musyoki, 2004; Offenheiser and Holcombe, 2003) which draws attention to innate conflicts between two different worlds. In addition, participants’ positioning shows both continuity and discontinuity of this binary worldview. Participants described themselves as ‘non-Western’, but also as ‘non-local’ – as being shaped by Westernised education systems and international work experiences. My position was also reconstructed by some participants as an Asian, which indicates a kind of insider position as a non-Westerner. What this research suggests is that the reality is more complicated than the binary divide. This realisation led me to change the focus of the research to the contextualisation process of an HRBA and to reject the simple dichotomy when interpreting and reporting research results.

To summarise, this article suggests that endogenous and referential reflexivity to improve understanding of the researcher’s self and the research environment can help the positioning between a researcher and a student and/or practitioner, and an insider and an outsider. Researcher positionality in turn can enhance the trustworthiness of constructed knowledge.