In this article, the authors explore the relationships between trustworthiness and reciprocity in qualitative research: What new questions about trustworthiness arise when we view qualitative research through the lens of reciprocity? Every stage of the research process relies on our negotiating complex social situations. Participants are active in this process, and reciprocity occurs at many different levels. In this article, the authors problematize the relationship between trustworthiness and reciprocity in relation to the researcher, the research process, and the write-up. The authors consider the possibilities and the demands and obligations of reciprocity as they explore framing questions, access and rapport, insider-outsider status, passionate participation, data production, data analysis, and authorizing accounts. The authors’ experiences and interpretations and tales from and of the field shape and are shaped by our understandings of reciprocity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Becker, H. (1967). Whose side are we on?Social Problems, 14, 239-247.
2.
Bloom, L. R. (1997). Locked in uneasy sisterhood: Reflections on feminist methodology and research relations. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 28(1), 111-122.
3.
Bloom, L. R. (1998). Under the sign of hope: Feminist methodology and narrative interpretation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
4.
Bogdan, R. C. (1980). What does it mean when a person says, “I am not retarded”?Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 15, 74-79.
5.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research in education (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. (1982). Inside out: The social meaning of mental retardation. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
7.
Bulkin, E., Pratt, M. B., & Smith, B. (1984). Yours in struggle: Three feminist perspectives on anti-semitism and racism. Ithaca, NY: Firebrand Books.
8.
Busier, H., Clark, K., Esch, R., Glesne, C., Pigeon, Y., & Tarule, J. (1997). Intimacy in research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(2), 165-170.
9.
Coffey, A. (1996). The power of accounts: Authority and authorship in ethnography. Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(1), 61-74.
10.
Cotterill, P. (1992). Interviewing women: Issues of friendship, vulnerability, and power. Women’s Studies International Forum, 15(5-6), 593-606.
11.
Court, M., & Court, H. (1998). Positioning, subjectivity, and stories: Feminist post-structuralist research narratives. In R. Du Plessis & L. Alice (Eds.), Feminist thought in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Connections and differences. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.
12.
Davies, B. (1994). Poststructuralist theory and classroom practice. Victoria, Canada: Deakin University Press.
13.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
DeVault, M. (1990). Talking and listening from women’s standpoint: Feminist strategies for interviewing and analysis. Social Problems, 37(1), 97-116.
15.
Edgerton, R. B. (1967). The cloak of competence. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
Ellingson, L. (1998). “Then you know how I feel”—Empathy, identification, and reflexivity in fieldwork. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(4), 492-514.
17.
Ellis, C., Kiesinger, C., & Tillmann-Healy, L. (1997). Interactive interviewing: Talking about emotional experience. In R. Hertz, (Ed.), Reflexivity and voice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A. M. (1991). Doing qualitative research: Circles within circles. London: Falmer Press.
19.
Ferguson, P. M., Ferguson, D. L., & Taylor, S. J. (1992). Conclusion: The future of interpretivism in disability studies. In P. M. Ferguson, D. L. Ferguson, & S. J. Taylor (Eds.), Interpreting disability: A qualitative reader. New York: Teachers College Press.
20.
Fine, M. (1992). Passions, politics and power: Feminist research possibilities. In M. Fine (Ed.), Disruptive voices: The possibilities of feminist research. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
21.
Fine, M. (1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1985). Disabled women: Sexism without the pedestal. In M. J. Deegan & N. J. Brooks (Eds.), Women and disability: The double handicap. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
23.
Harding, S. (Ed.). (1987). Feminism and methodology: Social science issues. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
24.
hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory from margin to center. Boston: South End Press.
25.
Kirsch, G. E. (1999). Ethical dilemmas in feminist research: The politics of location, interpretation, and publication. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
26.
Kondo, D. K. (1990). Crafting selves: Power, gender, and discourses of identity in a Japanese workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Larson, C. (1997). Re-presenting the subject: Problems in personal narrative inquiry. Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(4), 455-470.
28.
Lather, P. (1988). Feminist perspectives on empowering research methodologies. Women’s Studies International Forum, 11(6), 569-581.
29.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.
30.
Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 673-693.
31.
Lather, P. (1997). Drawing the line at angels: Working the ruins of feminist ethnography. Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(3), 285-304.
32.
Limerick, B., Burgess-Limerick, T., & Grace, M. (1996). The politics of interviewing: Power relations and accepting the gift. Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 449-460.
33.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275-289.
34.
Morton, M. (2000). Unhappy families: Violence in the lives of girls and women. In R. Traustidóttir & K. Johnson (Eds.), Finding a place in the world: Women with intellectual disabilities talking about their lives. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
35.
Morton, M., & Munford, R. (1998). Re/presenting difference: Women and intellectual disability. In R. DuPlessis & L. Alice (Eds.), Feminist thought in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.
36.
Nespor, J., & Barber, L. (1995). Audience and the politics of narrative. Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 49-62.
37.
Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms? In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research. London: Routledge.
38.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
Reinharz, S. (1997). Who am I? The need for a variety of selves in the field. In R. Hertz (Ed.), Reflexivity & voice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
Ribbens, J. (1989). Interviewing—An “unnatural situation”?Women’s Studies International Forum, 12(6), 579-592.
41.
Ropers-Huilman, B. (1999). Witnessing: Critical inquiry in a poststructural world. Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(1), 21-35.
42.
Scott, J. W. (1988). Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the uses of post-structuralist theory for feminism. Feminist Studies, 14(1), 33-50.
43.
Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1993). Breaking out again: Feminist ontology and epistemology. London: Routledge.
44.
St Pierre, E. (1997). Methodology in the fold and the irruption of transgressive data. Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(2), 175-189.
45.
Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
