The ways our physicality matters as we move through the world in our own bodies of research is often veiled in the body of qualitative research. In this article, we lift the veil, striving to flesh out the body of research on reflexivity by examining how our own researcher bodies have figured into our work. Specifically, we narrate and reflect on ways we have experienced our bodies as (presumed) impetus for, instrument of, and impediment to qualitative research concerning birthing, breastfeeding, and transgender identities. We explore how our insider/outsider bodies made for particularized yet parallel experiences, which together illustrate the complexity of the relationships between researcher, participant, and the creation of knowledge. From this, we suggest that qualitative researchers examine how their bodies/selves might muddy traditional research roles and rules. Finally, we propose Mixed bodies triangulation, as a way to bring together different ways of knowing in embodied, reflexive research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlvessonM.HardyC.HarleyB. (2008). Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual practices in organization and management theory. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 480-501.
2.
AsselinM. E. (2003). Insider research: Issues to consider when doing qualitative research in your own setting. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, 19, 99-103.
3.
BargeJ. K. (2004). Reflexivity and managerial practice. Communication Monographs, 71, 70-96.
4.
BestA. (2003). Doing race in the context of feminist interviewing: Constructing Whiteness through talk. Qualitative Inquiry, 9, 895-914.
5.
BhopalK. (2001). Researching South Asian women: Issues of sameness and difference in the research process. Journal of Gender Studies, 10, 279-286.
6.
BrayboyB. M.DeyhleD. (2000). Insider–outsider: Researchers in American Indian communities. Theory Into Practice, 39, 163-169.
7.
BridgesD. (2001). The ethics of doing outsider research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35, 371-386.
8.
CharltonJ. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us: Disability, power, and oppression. Berkeley: University of California Press.
9.
Chiseri-StraterE. (1996). Turning in upon ourselves: Positionality, subjectivity and reflexivity. In MortensonP.KirschG. (Eds.), Ethics and representation in qualitative studies (pp. 115-132). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
10.
CunliffeA. L. (2003). Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and possibilities. Human Relations, 56, 983-1003.
11.
DavisK. (1997). Embody-ing theory: Beyond modernist and postmodernist readings of the body. In DavisK. (Ed.), Embodied practices: Feminist perspectives on the body (pp. 1-23). London, England: SAGE.
12.
DenzinN. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. London, England: SAGE.
13.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.). (2000). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-33).Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
EisnerE. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York, NY: Macmillan.
16.
EllingsonL. L. (2006). Embodied knowledge: Writing researchers’ bodies into qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 16, 298-310.
17.
EngelsrudG. (2005). The lived body as experience and perspective: Methodological challenges. Qualitative Research, 5, 267-284.
18.
EnglandK. V. L. (1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional Geographer, 46, 80-89.
19.
FewA. L.StephensD. P.Rouse-ArnettM. (2003). Sister-to-sister talk: Transcending boundaries and challenges in qualitative research with Black women. Family Relations, 52, 205-215.
20.
FineM. (1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 70-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
21.
GemignaniM. (2011). Between researcher and researched: An introduction to countertransference in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 701-708.
22.
HammersleyM.AtkinsonP. (1996). Ethnography: Principles in practice. New York, NY: Tavistock.
23.
HaysS. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
HumphreyC. (2007). Insider–outsider: Activating the hyphen. Action Research, 5(1), 11-26.
JohnsonM. (1991). Knowing through the body. Philosophical Psychology, 4, 3-18.
27.
JohnsonM. (2007). The meaning of the body. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
28.
JorgensonJ. (2011). Reflexivity in feminist research practice: Hearing the unsaid. Women & Language, 34, 115-120.
29.
KanuhaV. K. (2000). “Being” native versus “going native”: Conducting social work research as an insider. Social Work, 45, 439-447.
30.
KusowA. M. (2003). Beyond indigenous authenticity: Reflections on the insider/outsider debate. Symbolic Interaction, 26, 591-599.
31.
LederD. (1990). The absent body. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
32.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
33.
MacbethD. (2001). On “reflexivity” in qualitative research: Two readings, and a third. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 35-68.
34.
MedvedC. E.TurnerL. H. (2011). Qualitative research: Practices and practicing reflexivity. Women & Language, 34, 109-114.
35.
NaplesN. A. (1996). A feminist revisiting of the insider/outsider debate: The “outsider phenomenon” in rural Iowa. Qualitative Sociology, 19, 83-106.
36.
ParameswaranR. (2001). Feminist media ethnography in India: Exploring power, gender, and culture in the field. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 69-104.
37.
PillowW. S. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 175-196.
38.
RobbinsJ.BamfordS. (1997). Fieldwork revisited: Changing contexts of ethnographic practice in the era of globalization. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
39.
SandelowskiM. (2002). Re-embodying qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 104-115.
40.
SharmaS.Reimer-KirkhamS.CochraneM. (2009). Practicing the awareness of embodiment in qualitative health research: Methodological reflections. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 1642-1650.
41.
SherifB. (2001). The ambiguity of boundaries in the fieldwork experience: Establishing rapport and negotiating insider/outsider status. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 436-447.
42.
TinkerC.ArmstrongN. (2008). From the outside looking in: How an awareness of difference can benefit the qualitative research process. The Qualitative Report, 13, 53-60.
43.
TurnerP. K. (2002). Is childbirth with midwives natural? The gaze of the feminine and the pull of the masculine. Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 652-669.
44.
TurnerP. K. (2011). You are doing it wrong: Voicing child/research birthing choices. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 763-768.
45.
WagleT.CantaffaD. T. (2008). Working our hyphens: Exploring identity relations in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 14, 135-159.
46.
Weiner-LevyN. (2009). When the hegemony studies the minority—An Israeli Jewish researcher studies Druze women: Transformations of power, alienation, and affinity in the field. Qualitative Inquiry, 15, 721-739.
47.
WilliamsonG. R.ProsserS. (2002). Action research: Politics, ethics and participation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40, 587-593.
