It was with a degree of trepidation that I presented at the BERA ECR Network symposium in April 2023. Initially I thought this would be a great event just to attend and listen to the experiences of other early career researchers (ECRs); but what is a doctoral journey if it isn’t about expanding comfort zones, right? In this blog post I discuss a key theme that I shared at the conference: how my positionality has shaped my methodological decision-making.

Through a process of critical subjectivity, I have been interrogating my positionality to understand how this will inevitably shape every aspect of my study. My EdD focuses on exploring the views of staff and students regarding trauma-informed practice within an English, mainstream general further education college. It is relevant to know that I have worked at this setting for a considerable number of years and, as such, I recognise the degree of insiderness this affords me and the unique positioning of me as a practitioner, line manager, colleague, friend and researcher. Insider positionality refers to ‘the aspects of an insider researcher’s self or identity which is aligned or shared with participants’ (Chavez, 2008, p. 475). In addition to working at the same setting where the research will be conducted, I’m acutely aware that I both live and work in the same community as many of the students, further increasing my insiderness.

Consideration of my positionality really was my starting point when thinking about how to mitigate the specific ethical challenges of insider research. The importance of actively engaging in reflexive practices became overwhelming apparent to me. It was by acknowledging the facets of what makes me me, that led me to what seemed like a natural choice for my methodology.

As a disability practitioner, advocating for marginalised groups who have limited access to power, challenging oppression and inequalities are values that underpin not just my professional practice but also my personal beliefs. My choice of methodology has been an attempt to empower those whose lived experience may not traditionally have been valued by objectivist, deductive approaches to research. Participatory action research (PAR) gives primacy to research practices that look to redress structures of social inequalities by promoting the health of a community, empowering diverse perspectives and shifting hierarchical power structures (Lake & Wendland, 2018). Using a structured ethical reflection (Brydon-Miller & Coghlan, 2019) I reflected on the values I consider the most important to me and concluded PAR would be a good fit for my research.

‘Participatory action research is more than just a collection of techniques or methods but can be understood as a commitment to co-production and partnership working … It represents more of an epistemology than a methodology.’

PAR is more than just a collection of techniques or methods but can be understood as a commitment to co-production and partnership working; from the initial problem-posing stage, knowledge creation to the action-taking cycle of research. It represents more of an epistemology than a methodology. PAR is context specific and as such it will be for the staff and students (who will be co-researchers rather than participants), to determine the qualitative, quantitative or creative methods to generate their/our democratic knowledge production. Co-researchers prioritise what they consider to be important and choose the methods they collectively decide will likely yield the most impactful, real-world findings (Vaughn & Jacquez, 2020).

Which brings me back to being outside of my comfort zone. As someone who is accustomed to exerting a high degree of autonomy and control in all aspects of their life, my choice of research methodology is still surprising to me. Although sole decision-making about my research is appealing, what I have accepted is that this research and its outcomes will not be mine. It will see staff and students have their lived experiences valued and for them to be recognised as equitable partners in knowledge production. As such I feel daunted and excited in equal measure at the prospect of so much uncertainty. I thoroughly appreciated the encouragement from sharing my thinking with fellow ECRs at the symposium; their feedback offered both reassurances and food for thought.

References

Brydon-Miller, M., & Coghlan, D. (2019). First-, second- and third-person values-based ethics in educational action research: Personal resonance, mutual regard and social responsibility. Educational Action Research, 27(2), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2018.1445539

Chavez, C. (2008). Conceptualizing from the inside: Advantages, complications, and demands on insider positionality. The Qualitative Report, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1589  

Lake, D., & Wendland, J. (2018). Practical, epistemological, and ethical challenges of participatory action research: A cross-disciplinary review of the literature. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22(3), 11–42. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1193476.pdf

Vaughn, L. M., & Jacquez, F. (2020). Participatory research methods: Choice points in the research process. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.13244