The Ways in Which Researcher Positioning Affects Research Activities - Essay Example

Lecturer How might a researcher position shape the processes and outcomes of their research? Introduction This research paper has two major parts. The first part explains the ways in which researcher positioning affects research activities; processes and outcomes. The second part illustrates how reflexivity minimizes effects of researcher positioning. Scientific research refers to the process by which researchers attempt to find explanations and solutions to problems or phenomenon through experimentation. It also refers to a process through which a researcher attempts to refute knowledge which already exists. Researcher positioning involves; the researcher delineating his/her own stance in relation to the study carried out. Positioning can be influenced by the researcher’s age, nationality, ability, complexion, class, race and gender. Researcher’s positioning influence the research outcomes in different ways (Turner, 2010). 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 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. This study is based on the subject of Human Security and Environmental Change. Environmental Change is currently being seen as security problem; this is because environmental change has the capacity of increasing violent conflicts. The subject of environmental change relates to three issues; the vulnerability of local community to climate change; violence and livelihoods; and the role of state in overseeing relationship between human security, environmental change and violent conflict. Environmental change increasingly offers challenges to human security; through minimizing access to the natural resources that are vital in sustaining livelihoods. Environmental change also undermines the states’ capacity in provision of opportunities that assists people in sustaining livelihoods. The direct or indirect impact of environmental change to security increases likelihood of violent conflicts. This paper goes deeper to examine case study on the adverse impact of environmental change on the society, for example the 2012 Nigeria flood disaster. The floods started in early July 2012; and reportedly killed 363 persons, and displaced more than 2,100,000 as at 5th November 2012. The rainy season in Nigeria usually leads to flash floods. The flash floods turn out to be lethal especially in overcrowded slums and rural areas, where drainage is inadequate. Influence of Researcher’s Position on Processes and Outcomes of Research Ideas borne by researchers, for example human conflict ideas; are resultant from the agents that are historically constituted, for example disputes over natural resources like land. 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 Human Security and Social Change, 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 Human Security and Environmental Change, by the Researchers. This is mostly during the instances when they intend to explain to their audiences the line that their researches take; for example natural disaster preparedness of Nigeria. Human Security and Environmental Change looks into the foundations that form the various ideas that they put in application, this shows their use of epistemological reflexivity. Most of the views on Environmental Change are dependent upon the researcher’s ideas and conceptions of the environment, for example floods occurring during rainy weather. 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 Human Security and Environmental Change concepts. 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 scientific field of Environmental Change; climate change causes the displacement of people. This was witnessed in Nigeria during the 2012 floods that displace more than 2,100,000 people. 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. Environmental Change usually takes a violent conflict perspective. Within the conflict platform, there are different causes 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 environmental change 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 Environmental Change 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 Human Security and Social Change, 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 Environmental Change, a researcher is struck by the fact that the field tends to lack its own understanding or facts. This also applies to the participants and the various relations with the existent research forces and the agents (Rose, 1997). Since the research in Environmental Change takes a scientific and 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 Human Security and Environmental Change 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 Human Security, 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 Human Security and Environmental Change. 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 objectivities. 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; for example effects of climate change in Nigeria. 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 Environmental Change, 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 an environmental scientist needs response. The response given to 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 environmental research, for example controlling climate change, 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 environmental sciences, for example climate change. Environmental scientists when carrying out their research, have to acknowledge the extent to which their position, internal structure and their personal views will distort or influence their objectivity. Climate change in environmental 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 scientific research method. The outcomes of research on human conflicts due to environmental change 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 Human Security and Environmental Change. 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