This has been by far the most elusive aspect of my research design. Perhaps it’s because I was expecting that someone had ‘been there’ and ‘done that’ and there would be books and articles packed full of suggestions as to how to integrate the impact of me as a person and fellow human being into the research – where this would appear, what it would look like, how it would be assimilated or separated from the interpretive write-up.
I am still wary – that may be I still haven’t found some seminal work I would have known about if I had done psychology and sociology when I was doing my A levels – so it may still be that i am overlooking something crucial but I am just in the process of re-reading an article at home which is a response to Wilkinson & Kitzinger’s 1996 book: Representing the Other.
One of my supervisors suggested it to me as a place to really examine some of the useful theory about self/participants and power in my research . It is enormously useful, there’s no doubt but what is clear from the review I found in Feminism & Psychology (it’s not lost on me that I am turning to feminism to find methodologies to examine all things masculine!) is that similar issues come into play again. Namely, that the researcher gives what appeasr to be a cold, detached listing of all the social groups and experiences that they embody, lay this to one side and then carry on with their research write up as if this were enough.
I still don’t have the solution to this…