Multiple Researcher Identities: Highlighting Tensions and Implications for Ethical Practice in Qualitative Interviewing

Abstract

Drawing on Coffey's (1991) notion of fieldwork as ‘identity work,’ this article explores the implications of constructing and performing multiple ‘researcher identities’ within qualitative research interviewing. In doing so it utilises three examples taken from social psychological research which employed a discursive approach, informed by feminist research principles, to explore issues of power, knowledge, and language on the interaction between primary health care services and women experiencing domestic violence. These examples illustrate how within qualitative in-depth interviews identities can be both constructed by (Wolf 1996) and required of the researcher by their participants (Thapar-Björkert & Henry 2004). While such researcher identities can be viewed, particularly within research informed by feminist ethics, as a form of ‘integrity’; being responsive to the individual needs of specific participants, they also can leave the researcher with the experience of feeling disingenous. The article explores some of the tensions inherent within these two vantage-points and calls for a wider engagement and discussion of these issues in order to enable researchers to better negotiate such tensions.

Keywords:

• ethics
• feminism
• interviewing
• performing identities
• qualitative
• required identities
• researcher identity

Notes

¹The UK has a publicly funded health care system whose governance is divided across 29 Strategic Health Authorities across the United Kingdom. Each authority oversees a number of smaller Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) which have responsibility for controlling and organising health services at a district level, improving health and tackling deprivation and health inequality in their district. The research explored the response of one PCT in the North of England to women experiencing domestic violence.

²The content of the research paper arises from the separate experiences of the two researchers on different pieces of research with Indian women. Tharpar-Björkert makes reference to her experiences of researching the political involvement of women in the anti-colonial struggles between 1930 and 1945, and Henry illustrates examples from her research exploring the attitude of Indian mothers to their children's reproductive decision making.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Victoria Lavis

Victoria Lavis, PhD, is a lecturer in the Centre for Psychology Studies at the University of Bradford, United Kingdom. Her research interests stem from her previous work in the forensic psychology team of a maximum security male prison in the UK and include qualitative and mixed methods research, the ethics of research, prisons and prisoners, and identities and diversities. She has published in journals including Feminism and Psychology, British Journal of Community Justice, and The British Medical Journal.