How Might a Researcher Position Shape the Processes and Outcomes of Their Research - Essay Example

How might a researcher position shape the processes and outcomes of their research? How might a researcher positionshape the processes and outcomes of their research? Reflexivity refers to the act of one turning back and taking an account of self in relation to the object of study or field (environment). It is the process of examining oneself in the position as a researcher and the relationship with the research. The concept of reflexivity is of good importance to research in that it helps in the choice of what to study plus how to treat specific problems that arise and the expected results. Second, reflexivity is also of importance since it shows how the individual actions of interested researchers contribute to the entire academic work or field. There are two forms of reflexivity, i.e. personal and epistemological reflexivity. Personal reflexivity is in reference to how the beliefs, values, acquaintances and interests of an individual researcher are brought out through their research work. Epistemological reflexivity on the other hand has an attempt of identifying foundations to knowledge and the effects of the research findings. Perspective denotes the context that influences what a person sees and their interpretation of it. Scientific research refers to the process by which researchers attempt to find explanations and solutions to problems or phenomenon through experimentation. It also comes as a process through which the researcher attempts to refute the knowledge which they already possess, or at least give it a challenge. In international relations, social facts such as the values, culture and ethnicity have to be considered during research work. Such facts are external to the individual researcher and are in a position to offer constraints to the researcher (Bazan, 2004). There are scholars who are of the belief that personal views and experience should not in any way influence social research. Judgments based on the differences of the researcher and the research objects such as the scientist’s ethnicity should not be included in the conclusions made from such research. There is no responsibility lain on the researchers, nor do they have the privilege to guide the society through the means of obtaining information plus knowledge. Positionality is when a researcher delineates his/her own stance in relation to the study carried out. The field I choose to relate with Positionality and reflexivity is the field of International Relations (IR). It can be classified according to the researcher’s age, complexion or race and gender. These influence the research outcomes in different ways. i.e. the manner in which the research objects would relate with the researcher (Turner, 2010). The environment for conducting the international relations research is also quite crucial in determining the kind of relationship that the researcher will have between him/her an the research objects. There are many commonalities which determine this kind of relationship, i.e. gender, ethnicity, nationality, ability to be involved in regular conversations and attire are important for a researcher to bridge the gaps that exist during the research work. Another concern that a researcher should bear in mind with regard to Positionality is the class that he/she belongs to (Bondi, 1997). All the forms of critical research have the tendency of taking a political stance. As a result of this, the issue of bias associated with position, perspective and reflexivity are quite necessary to create an understanding and carry out critical research work. Most researchers hold the argument that bias is unacceptable; however, there is not unity when it comes to the understanding of bias. Bias does not refer to one having either ethical or political positions (which is inevitable), but is when one does not acknowledge the positions. Such acknowledgement does not only unmask any form of bias that may be implicit within the researcher’s views, but it provides a platform for the researcher to respond sensitively and critically to the research (Butz, 2004). Influence of Positionality on processes and outcomes of research Ideas borne by researchers, e.g. sociological ideas are resultant from the agents that are historically constituted. The sociological ideas are socially situated. This helps in the explanation of autobiographical reflexivity. This appears to most researchers not as a radical departure but serves as a reaffirmation of the ideas which were already existent within the system and the common attitudes. However, in International Relations, the initial and most basic form of reflexivity opposes this. Reflexivity, contrary to this, entails a researcher examining his own social background. This is classified according to gender, geography or class. It brings in the concept of Positionality, which is not present within the autobiographic reflexivity. Autobiographic reflexivity is invoked in International Relations by the Researchers. This is mostly during the instances when they intend to explain to their audiences the line that their researches take. International Relations look into the foundations that form the various ideas that they put in application, this shows their use of epistemological reflexivity. Most of the views that people within International Relations have of the world are dependent upon the individual ideas and conceptions of the environment. This is a clear evidence of how Positionality influences individual reflexivity. The individual ideas which are resultant from the research conducted is also dependent upon the construction of the field. Every individual researcher should have an open mind (Crossa, 2009). The notion of open mind is in various forms. One of such views is that any research should be started without the influence of the past experience in the field. However, this notion disregards the extent to which individuals are socialized or find themselves institutionalized into given methods of structuring within International Relations. When looking into the environment and the development of problems during research, the world is framed according to pre-conceived ideas (Sundberg, 2003). Within the social field of IR, the world is viewed in dualities. Such include; the poor and the rich, rural and urban, the state and the community, degraded and natural. Such form examples of a powerful notion which, even though we attempt to get rid of, they form the basic means for us to negotiate the world. International Relations take a political perspective. Within the political platform, there are different cultural backgrounds experienced by different individuals. In the research work, one needs to be open minded in an attempt to understand others. A full understanding of other individuals is impossible. Every individual has a distinct view of the world different from others. The past experiences and training result in the socialization of the researcher into perception schemes which in the long run become deeply ingrained parts of us. In research, this forms academic bias. They result in features such as theorizing, abstract thinking, analytical categorization and conceptualization. These features play an important role in influencing the researcher’s construction of the International Relations field. They also influence the researcher’s understanding of the events that occur within the field. Even though the notion of open mind is constrained by the academic and the practical background of the researcher, he/she should strain towards that. A better view of the field of International Relations is highly dependent on the relationship with those in the researcher’s environment (Saldaña-Portillo, 2001). Research in the field should be conducted with the researcher being on a position of an outsider, i.e. a different individual, learning the different views of different individuals without criticism. Positionality highly influences an individual researcher’s reflexivity. In International Relations, scholars put reliance on epistemological research. In the attempt to explain their stance to the world or their audience, researchers begin from visions that are already existent. Even though they borrow structured ideas, they are shaped by what the researchers trying to illustrate. There is difficulty in the pursuit for objectivity with the research. This is so because it depends on the researcher and the object of research. One example is that in the study of International Relations, a researcher is struck by the fact that the field tends to lack its own sociology. This also applies to the participants and the various relations with the existent political forces and the agents (Rose, 1997). Since the research in international relations takes a sociological approach, the interrogation approach which was traditionally used faces criticism since it is viewed as a cultural producer. It would be impossibility for a researcher to control the factors within his/her study if he/she is to carry with him/her their experience, knowledge, biases and political inclination. The Positionality of any research being conducted is normally questionable. This is due to the fact that response obtained from the research objects can either be regarded as evidence of their opinion or simply answers due to nature response during a conversation. Is Reflexivity a sufficient protection against Positionality? Reflexivity plays a great role in eliminating the biasness that accompanies a researcher’s objectivity and subjectivity. Subjectivism has the problem of portraying a researcher as a single category of analysis. This happens so at the expense of groups and the general structures of the field (Mullings, 1999). In terms of objectivity, reflexivity offers the opportunity for a researcher to have a strategy based on “participant objectivation.” The variants which exist within reflexivity are quite crucial in proving that it serves as a sufficient protection against the researcher’s Positionality. Reflexivity is constantly involving. In terms of the aims, it is viewed as an account of confession on the methodologies used in the examination of one’s own personal (perhaps unconscious) reactions. It explores the dynamics which exist in the relationship between the researcher and the research object. It can also have its focus on the social situation and construction of the research. Such research can offer critiques or deconstruct meanings that have already been established. Reflexivity can play the role of protection over the researchers Positionality. This is because when looking at Positionality, its main focus is on the ideas or beliefs of a single/individual researcher. On the contrary, reflexivity tends to have the bigger picture, advocating for open mind. Scientists ought to remove the personal influences of their social status from the work which they conduct. There are some extents to which the academic circles which the researchers belong to produce prejudices within the work (Hartsock, 1987). This influences the work and outcomes of research conducted by the scholars. However, reflexivity offers some means for the researcher to overcome this. Academic circles which are reflective help identify the prejudices which come with the individual posture hence influencing the research work. Reflexivity hence helps researchers promote themselves since it helps them overcome their Positionality and to some extent provide measures which help in the correction of the bias which is existent within the research work (Herod, 1999). Scientists performing research work always have the ‘academic point of view’ interfering with the nature and outcomes of their research work. Secretly, the decision of the scientists during research is changed as a result of the long-term academic training. Their systematic analysis of the patterns displayed during research also influences the processes and outcomes of the work. Use of the structure, systems and logic to conduct research work in the International Relations field proves difficult due to its volatile nature. Reflexivity in the social work helps the researcher to turn a blind eye towards any forms of erroneous views developed from the experience and knowledge base already existent in the researcher. Habits generate error during research work. However, reflexivity helps identify and limit such erroneous views in research work. Social life facts prove difficult from the objective or subjective theories. Social life, which is the basis of International Relations, can only be understood from these points of view; the social and cultural structures, that it is fair and physically objective. Fair treatment practice also plays a role in construction and the experience gained by an individual or a group of researchers. Researchers attempt to overcome the oppositions which exist between the two main kinds of knowledge (Moustakas C. , 1990). The first is the external observation or the social knowledge construction theory of the world. The second is the individual researcher’s own particular grasp of people/society using knowledge. Reflexivity provides one means of attempting to overcome such conflicting knowledge bases (Moustakas C. , 1994). It becomes a constant debate when viewing the relationship that exists between an individual researcher and the group of researchers e.g. within the field of International Relations. The general comments from a research work are usually based on individual researchers. This leads to there being difficulty in trying to limit the prejudices which accompany personal experience and Positionality within research. According to some scholars, reflexivity is quite crucial in the attempt to objectify the conceptualization of objectification within scientific research (McDowell, 1992). Objectivism and subjectivism are mainly result from the researcher’s status or Positionality. Reflexivity attempts to break away from the biases and dilemmas which come with objectivity and subjectivity during scientific research work. Objectivism has the prejudice of giving outcomes dependent on the rational examination of the problems occurring during research work. In addition to that, subjectivism bears the problem of overemphasizing the individual researcher as part of the whole group of the researchers. On the contrary, reflexivity comes with the solution of participant objectivation. Being reflective requires one to turn back and have an evaluation of self and the individual relationship with other objects or subjects. Reflexivity comes as a crucial part of good research work. It helps the individual researcher choose on the topic to study. It also influences the treatment of certain problems within the research work and the variant conclusions which are expected from them. In international research, such as International Relations, a reflective orientation would go a long way in explaining the positioning of theorists’ actions (Moss, 1995). Problems/crises which occur during research work for a social scientist need response. The response given such crises proves to be the researchers’ attempt to perform legitimization. This is through the means of reflective practice. Reflexivity poses as a solution to the problems which result from relativism and realism. They have discussions on conventions existent within realism and look into the constraints which exist in attempting to explore knowledge and practices which hinder the reflexivity practice development within social sciences (Massey, 1999). In social research, i.e. international relations, there are limitations which come with reflexivity. There is no existing difference between the two forms of reflexivity. The first is endogenous reflexivity. It refers to the manner in which member actions within a given community or group proves to be making efforts towards the construction of social reality (Nast, 1994). It includes both the methods of individuals who are within the life world who come as subjects to the investigations or studies in life and those in communities which are socially scientific, with regard to the manner in which such communities conduct their investigations after they have constructed their topics. The second is referential reflexivity. It denotes the consequences resulting from a meet between reflexivity shown by actors as a life part and the reflexivity shown by the individual researcher, who stands as a part of the socially scientific community. The ignorance given to the research methods which were traditionally used produce a failure in the make effects of giving inward opinions practice to create an understanding of the position and role exhibited by the social science in researching real social life (Rice, 2010). Conclusion Reflexivity is quite crucial in the field of social sciences, i.e. international Relations (IR). Social scientists when carrying out their research, the scientists have to acknowledge the extent to which their position, internal structure and their personal views will distort or influence their objectivity. International Relations in social sciences for this matter, the researchers can easily get engaged in research work. As a result of this, they have to pay great attention towards their personal habits and any level of bias they may possess during the process. Such bias may exist due to the long-term training and the socialization of the researcher, based on the knowledge that they acquire from the structures which they mostly operate within. This proves that reflexivity is one of the phases which exist in the scientific epistemology. There is also the frequent use of reflexivity to criticize the traditional social research method. The outcomes of research on International Relations are greatly influenced by the researchers’ personal experiences and the observations which they make during the research work. Hence, Positionality highly influences research and its outcomes in International Relations. Reflexivity offers a solution to the Positionality of an individual researcher. This is because reflexivity offers participant objectivity strategies to the research work. This results in the researcher avoiding the dilemmas which accompany objectivity and subjectivity during research work. Bibliography Bazan, C. (2004). La ciudad de México vista a través de la presencia indígena. In,. Mexico: Siglo Veintiuno. Bondi, L. (1997). In whose words: on gender identities, knowledge and writing practices. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 22, 245-258. Butz, D. a. (2004). The value of autoethnography for field research in transcultural settings. The Professional Geographer 56, 350-360. Crossa, V. (2009). Resisting the entrepreneurial city: street vendors’ struggle in Mexico City’s Historic Center. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33, 43-63. Hartsock, N. (1987). Rethinking modernism: minority vs. majority theories. Cultural Critique 7, 187-206. Herod, A. (1999). Reflections on interviewing foreign elites: praxis, positionality, validity, and the cult of the insider. Geoforum 30, 313-327. Massey, D. w. (1999). Issues and debates. In, Doreen Massey, John Allen and Paul Sarre (eds.)Human Geography Today. Cambridge: Polity. McDowell, L. (1992). Doing gender: feminism, feminists and research methods in human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17, 399-416. Moss, P. (1995). Embeddedness in practice, numbers in context: the politics of. Professional Geographer 46, 56-66. Moustakas, C. (1990). Heuristic Research: Design, Methodology and Applications.Newbury Park. CA: Sage. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Mullings, B. (1999). Insider or outsider, both or neither: some dilemmas of interviewing in a cross-cultural setting. Geoforum 30, 337-350. Nast, H. (1994). Women in the field: critical feminist methodologies and theoretical perspectives. Professional Geographer 47, 442-449. Rice, G. (2010). Reflections on interviewing elites. Area 42,, 70-75. Rose, G. (1997). Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography 21, 305-320. Saldaña-Portillo, J. (2001). Who’s the Indian in Aztlán? Re-writing mestizaje,. (Ed, Ed.) USA: The Duke University Press. Sundberg, J. (2003). Masculinist Epistemologies and the Politics of Fieldwork inLatin Americanist Geography. The Professional Geographer 55, 180-190. Turner, S. (2010). Challenges and dilemmas: fieldwork with upland minorities in socialist Vietnam, Laos and southwest China. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 51, 121-134. Read More