One of Kuper's questions to ask of qualitative studies is about potential ethical issues, including reflexivity. There are a couple of posts that mention reflexivity, which is about being aware (and reflecting upon) the researcher/s own presence in the research process.
Do you think the Rose et al study addresses this? Is there anything more they might have said or done perhaps?
PS: If you want to read up on this, there's quite a bit in the literature (journal artcles and qualitatve methods textbooks) on reflexivity. You might find it helpful to look at a paper by Christine Barry and colleagues which talks about working in a team when doing qualitative research - like Rose et al - and what 'being reflexive' can add.
Barry C, Britten N, Bradley C and Stevenson F (1999) Using Reflexivity to Optimize Teamwork in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research 9: 26-44.
Thank you for the paper reference; this particular quote helped me understand this whole reflexivity concept:
[[“as researchers, we create worlds through the questions that we ask coupled with what we and others regard as reasonable responses to our questions.We as researchers construct that which we claim to ‘find’”.]]
Perhaps they could have done more to address reflexivity; they have mentioned that the interviewers received 'specialist training' in interviewing this client group; would that have included a mention of awareness of reflexivity? But on the whole, I'm not sure reflexivity is such a bad thing, because surely that is what shapes theory; the researcher's ability to put things into a context they can put a label to, using their own 'bias', and it is up to the (qualified) reader to either accept or dispute the findings in the research.
With this research specifically, 'quality and consistency' (whatever that is supposed to mean) was checked by other individuals, so possibly involvement of other members of the team could address the reflexivity issue.
That's really helpful Yasin, and a good point about how researchers can tell readers about their approach and potential biases. It means that when we're reading this - or any other - paper we can better interpret any findings knowing where the researchers are coming from.
I agree with you that they could have done more to address reflexivity. What does anyone else think?
I think this is an interesting aspect to reflect on further and it's important to address the selection of researchers and their backgrounds.
The paper talks about the different levels of experience of the interviewers ranging from 4 to 20 years of experience this can affect the different perceptions of domestic violence and therefore affect the themes deduced from the discourse.
The paper does not discuss whether the researchers took into account the personal bias of the health professionals in directly conversation and facilitating a discussion about domestic violence
