Rupal Patel & Jodie Pennacchia
Silencing emotional responses and neglecting social justice: ethical dilemmas for young female researchers
Undertaking policy-orientated qualitative research that foregrounds questions of social justice can generate data in which emotional responses, political views, and differences of opinion are endemic. This paper explores these issues by drawing on qualitative fieldwork from two PhD studies. We question the extent to which we, as young female researchers, have an ethical duty to challenge views that are inherently sexist as they arise in fieldwork, since they go against our social justice agenda by perpetuating gender-based inequalities. In this self-reflexive paper we challenge ourselves to explore why we chose not to contest instances of sexism as they arose during fieldwork.
We argue that feelings of anxiety and gratitude, alongside the ideals we had acquired through our research training of the ‘professional’ and ‘successful’ PhD researcher, were at the heart of our decision-making. In these fieldwork ‘moments’ we prioritised our research relationships over the confrontation of sexist remarks. However, post-data collection, in a process of shared reflexivity, narratives of fear and guilt emerged. These narratives presented a dilemma between the fear of failure and social discomfort, and feelings of guilt that we had seemingly ignored moments of gender injustice.
We conclude by discussing the particular difficulties that can face novice female researchers as they navigate diverse research contexts. We highlight the importance of allowing time for reflection to work through the emotional impact of fieldwork, to enable a critical perspective of the dominant notions of the ‘professional’ and ‘successful’ PhD researcher, and to revisit the ethical underpinnings of our research.
Elsie Whittington
Enabling revealing research: managing, minimising or masking emotion?
“Asking ourselves and young people what we think consent means is revealing”
Reflecting on the process of planning a participatory action research project with young people on the sensitive topic of sexual consent this paper will consider how group and creative methodologies can recognise and ‘manage’ emotion.
The use of ‘distancing techniques’ is often advised when working in groups or with sensitive and personal issues. Following Frost (2003) I would like to give the potentially emotional nature of my research topic a method that ‘might start a process whereby private, unarticulated feelings which remain concealed in an interview or group discussion.. can find expression’ (126).
By considering and developing visual, creative and embodied group methods for exploring sexual consent I have had to recognise the potential for discomfort, difficult emotions and disclosures. The use of mind mapping, body mapping, and scenario based discussion can give respondents the opportunity to express feelings that may be difficult to verbalise and also provide an important opportunity for distancing.
This paper will question the extent to which these methods manage, minimise or mask emotions, and thus reinforce or disrupt the notion that the topic of sexual consent it too ‘risky’ to discuss publicly.
Joseph De Lappe
“I’m sorry, do you need a counsellor? I’m not that type of researcher…”: Handling unexpected, framed emotional disclosure in online Skype interviews by asexual activists.
This presentation is about how one handles the disclosure of extreme, often rehearsed, emotionally distressing, biographical details by research participants. This is further magnified and emphasised through the methodological lens of a research method such as online Skype interviews.
You know how it is…
Your ethics application has sailed through the University Research & Ethics Committee stage. In particular you feel, I felt, like you’ve fixed/covered all of the issues about researching responsibly with human participants. I’d read all of the key texts, especially Hammersley & Atkinson (2007). Hell, Martyn Hammersley was even part of my supervisorial team. It was he who suggested that I change my research methodology, from face-to-face interviews with mostly British asexual activists recruited through snowballing, to online Skype interviews with asexual activists all over the world who self-selected.
He thought that this would be far more innovative and illustrative of my doctoral project which is to have asexual activists tell asexual stories (Plummer 1995) of why asexual activism has emerged as a sexual and gender social movement at this point in time, and, what relationship it has to the wider Pride/LGBT+ movements. I agreed with Martyn and proceeded with the Skype interviews.
However my research participants, as activists, often framed those stories to include highly charged and emotive biographical details that increasingly left me feeling vulnerable, particularly as these biographical details often felt rehearsed and performed. It increasingly made me consider who was acting responsibly and ethically in the research relationship, especially when research participants, as activists with an agenda, were neither naïve nor concerned with the researcher.
Silencing emotional responses and neglecting social justice: ethical dilemmas for young female researchers
Undertaking policy-orientated qualitative research that foregrounds questions of social justice can generate data in which emotional responses, political views, and differences of opinion are endemic. This paper explores these issues by drawing on qualitative fieldwork from two PhD studies. We question the extent to which we, as young female researchers, have an ethical duty to challenge views that are inherently sexist as they arise in fieldwork, since they go against our social justice agenda by perpetuating gender-based inequalities. In this self-reflexive paper we challenge ourselves to explore why we chose not to contest instances of sexism as they arose during fieldwork.
We argue that feelings of anxiety and gratitude, alongside the ideals we had acquired through our research training of the ‘professional’ and ‘successful’ PhD researcher, were at the heart of our decision-making. In these fieldwork ‘moments’ we prioritised our research relationships over the confrontation of sexist remarks. However, post-data collection, in a process of shared reflexivity, narratives of fear and guilt emerged. These narratives presented a dilemma between the fear of failure and social discomfort, and feelings of guilt that we had seemingly ignored moments of gender injustice.
We conclude by discussing the particular difficulties that can face novice female researchers as they navigate diverse research contexts. We highlight the importance of allowing time for reflection to work through the emotional impact of fieldwork, to enable a critical perspective of the dominant notions of the ‘professional’ and ‘successful’ PhD researcher, and to revisit the ethical underpinnings of our research.
Elsie Whittington
Enabling revealing research: managing, minimising or masking emotion?
“Asking ourselves and young people what we think consent means is revealing”
Reflecting on the process of planning a participatory action research project with young people on the sensitive topic of sexual consent this paper will consider how group and creative methodologies can recognise and ‘manage’ emotion.
The use of ‘distancing techniques’ is often advised when working in groups or with sensitive and personal issues. Following Frost (2003) I would like to give the potentially emotional nature of my research topic a method that ‘might start a process whereby private, unarticulated feelings which remain concealed in an interview or group discussion.. can find expression’ (126).
By considering and developing visual, creative and embodied group methods for exploring sexual consent I have had to recognise the potential for discomfort, difficult emotions and disclosures. The use of mind mapping, body mapping, and scenario based discussion can give respondents the opportunity to express feelings that may be difficult to verbalise and also provide an important opportunity for distancing.
This paper will question the extent to which these methods manage, minimise or mask emotions, and thus reinforce or disrupt the notion that the topic of sexual consent it too ‘risky’ to discuss publicly.
Joseph De Lappe
“I’m sorry, do you need a counsellor? I’m not that type of researcher…”: Handling unexpected, framed emotional disclosure in online Skype interviews by asexual activists.
This presentation is about how one handles the disclosure of extreme, often rehearsed, emotionally distressing, biographical details by research participants. This is further magnified and emphasised through the methodological lens of a research method such as online Skype interviews.
You know how it is…
Your ethics application has sailed through the University Research & Ethics Committee stage. In particular you feel, I felt, like you’ve fixed/covered all of the issues about researching responsibly with human participants. I’d read all of the key texts, especially Hammersley & Atkinson (2007). Hell, Martyn Hammersley was even part of my supervisorial team. It was he who suggested that I change my research methodology, from face-to-face interviews with mostly British asexual activists recruited through snowballing, to online Skype interviews with asexual activists all over the world who self-selected.
He thought that this would be far more innovative and illustrative of my doctoral project which is to have asexual activists tell asexual stories (Plummer 1995) of why asexual activism has emerged as a sexual and gender social movement at this point in time, and, what relationship it has to the wider Pride/LGBT+ movements. I agreed with Martyn and proceeded with the Skype interviews.
However my research participants, as activists, often framed those stories to include highly charged and emotive biographical details that increasingly left me feeling vulnerable, particularly as these biographical details often felt rehearsed and performed. It increasingly made me consider who was acting responsibly and ethically in the research relationship, especially when research participants, as activists with an agenda, were neither naïve nor concerned with the researcher.