An intersectional reflexive account on positionality: researching Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim lone motherhood

Abstract

Engaging in ‘reflexive practice’ throughout the research process (Benson and O’Reilly, 2022) and a ‘reflexivity of discomfort’ (Hamdan, 2009) through an intersectional lens, this article presents a reflective account of accessing and conducting observations and interviews at a South Asian women’s organisation, in North England, to explore Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim (PBM) lone motherhood. It critically explores how researchers’ own subjectivities and intersecting identities – in this case, my intersecting identities and positionalities as a young British Pakistani Muslim women, researcher and volunteer – impact interactions in different circumstances with different groups of participants and the importance of having continuous critical self-awareness. Moving beyond simplistic insider–outsider debates, the paper contributes towards further developing reflexivity debates taking an ‘intersectional reflexivity’ approach. It argues for thinking about the research process and engagements in the field as socially constructed, changing, adapting and negotiated overtime and to utilise intersectionality to unpick broader categories. Finally, it encourages researchers to adopt reflexivity in their research practices.

Introduction

‘Reflexive practice’ is key to qualitative and ethnographic research. It involves having ‘a consciousness of our own relationships to the focus of research, to our participants and to the knowledge production we engage in’ (Benson and O’Reilly, 2022: 178). Acting reflexively is about addressing how our identity shapes power relations in the field and engaging actively, critically, ‘carefully’ and ‘thoughtfully’ in continuous reflection throughout the research process (Benson and O’Reilly, 2022). Benson and O’Reilly (2022: 184) argue that ‘the point of reflexive practice is to continually reflect on and adapt to our own positionality as we become aware of it: it is reflexive not reflective’. This is the approach to reflexivity taken in my own practice and research which committed to giving voice and visibility to Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim (PBM) lone mothers (Mcintosh and Wright, 2019; Mirza, 1998) as a political project. It is about moving with the social world in which the researcher finds themselves in (Back, 2012). Hamdan (2009) concept of a ‘reflexivity of discomfort’, when researching one’s own community, is also useful here, as it represents my experiences when conducting fieldwork. A reflexivity of discomfort is about the researcher researching themselves, reflecting on how their personal beliefs and identity impact the research process and ‘deconstructing what could have been taken for granted’ (Hamdan, 2009: 400). The researcher engages in reflections of their identity and positionality as both a researcher and as a member of the research group. Going further, Hamdan states that a reflexivity of discomfort can push researchers beyond their comfort zone; the researcher engages in their own background and personal stories. In sum, it is about researchers acknowledging their discomforts from the onset and reflecting on how they impact their interactions with participants in ‘the field’. It is a reflexivity that challenges the researcher. Overall, researchers must engage actively in critical self-awareness and assess how their personal beliefs, biographies, subjectivities, values, identities and positions shape the research process (Benson and O’Reilly, 2022; Bhopal, 2001, 2010; Britton, 2020; Hamdan, 2009).

A methodological debate which has been given an abundance of attention to in relation to reflexivity within this journal and more widely in the social sciences is the insider-outsider debate. Insider–outside debates have been presented in relation to researchers’ sociodemographic characteristics and doing researching within researchers’ own communities or profession. This debate has evolved over time, with articles describing the pitfalls and advantages of being either an insider or outsider to its further development and rejection of the view that researchers can neatly fit into one positionality (see for example, Phoenix, 1994; Bhopal, 2001, 2009, 2010; Dwyer and Buckle, 2009; Nakata, 2015; Britton, 2020). It is well established that there is no one fixed insider or outsider status a researcher can take in the field (Phoenix, 1994; Tuhiwai-Smith, 1999). Many prominent Black feminist scholars have questioned the idealisation of matching researcher-researched identities by ethnicity and gender. Phoenix (1994) argues that this does not necessarily mean the researcher can blend in ‘better’ or produce ‘better’ data that captures ‘the truth’. Phoenix (1994) advocates for constructionism where the researcher and researched are not always fixed dichotomies. Work by Bhopal (2001, 2009, 2010) has drawn similar conclusions. It is recognised that although shared ethnicity and gender creates commonalities, there are also diverse experiences due to diversity within social categories (Collins, 1991; Bhopal, 2001).

Indeed, this reflects an intersectionality approach taken by key Black feminist scholars (Collins, 1986; Brah, 1996; Anthias, 2012) who argue that although there are commonalities between Black women, there is diversity due to differences such as class, age and diversity in lived experience. There is a wealth of literature on intersectionality. It is now often seen as a buzzword in sociology due to it offering an open-ended approach to analysis. Intersectionality allows for an exploration of the multidimensional aspects and complexities of identity and the broader structures of power and hierarchy these are situated in (Brah, 1996; Anthias, 2012). McCall (2005) explores different methodological approaches to incorporating an intersectional analysis. One of these, which is relevant here, is the traditional ‘intracategorical complexity’ approach. Here, it is argued that researchers should look within broader social categories like ethnicity and explore the diversity of experience and intersectional differences within. Categories are not rejected but rather are presented in detail and complexity (McCall, 2005). This methodological approach is useful when challenging taking for granted shared ethnic or gender statuses. It has aided in breaking down my identity to contextualise my positionality in the field and with participants overtime.

Although there is an abundance of literature on reflexivity and insider-outsider debates there has been a lack of consideration of the nuanced challenges of navigating across multiple positionalities in the field, how they influence the research process and the intersectional nature of these experiences. What does an intersectional approach bring to reflexivity? Engaging in ‘reflexive practice’ and a ‘reflexivity of discomfort’, this article seeks to address this gap by providing an account of my intersectional identities, situational identity, biography and researcher positionality and how they influence interactions with workers at a South Asian (SA) women’s organisation and PBM lone mothers. Through a thick description (Geertz, 1973) of encounters and reflections of the field the article explores different nuanced advantages, disadvantages and situations being played out amongst different organisation settings, circumstances and groups of research participants. My approach to my positionality, being reflexive and moving beyond the fixed insider–outsider status, are all informed by an intersectional approach. The article will demonstrate the importance of taking a reflexive approach to research and contribute to developing reflexive practices through an intersectional lens or ‘intersectional reflexivity’. Here, methodological reflections will be drawn on in relation to three stages of fieldwork exploring my multiple intersecting identities and diversity of experience within broader categories: (1) gaining access to SAW’s Place, workers and lone mothers, (2) conducting observations at SAW’s Place and (3) interviews with PBM lone mothers. But first, the article begins by providing a background to the study and SAW’s Place.

The study

The reflections presented here are drawn from a study which explored on the lived experiences of PBM lone mothers, the role of SA women’s organisations in supporting them and intersectionality. Despite considerable attention paid to lone motherhood in academic research and the policy domain, PBM lone mothers have often been silenced in research. With the notable exception of Duncan and Edwards (1999) and Sinha’s (1998) studies, research into lone motherhood overwhelmingly focuses on women from White ethnic backgrounds. There is a significant lack of studies focusing specifically on lone motherhood amongst PBM women. Instead, research with PBM women traditionally overfocuses on marriage, migration, integration and employment, although there is emerging literature on divorce by scholars such as Qureshi (2016). PBM women are often constructed as passive individuals, lacking agency and being dependent upon men (Charsley, 2005a; Alexander, 2013). Similarly, although grassroot SA women’s organisation have been documented as a crucial voice for marginalised women (Takhar, 2003), there is little known about the support they provide to marginalised lone mothers. Thus, the research aimed to address these gaps as a sociological priority to bring attention to the phenomena of lone motherhood amongst PBM women. It aimed to explore lone motherhood by prioritising lived experiences and giving voice and visibility to PBM lone mothers as a political project (Mcintosh and Wright, 2019). It was committed to engaging in research which was ‘about the South Asian women, for the South Asian women, and conducted from within the South Asian women’s perspective’, as Mirza (1998: 81) has previously advocated for when conducting research with SA women.

An intersectionality lens was applied exploring how PBM lone mothers’ intersecting racial, ethnic, religious, gendered and class identities, positionalities as migrants and lone mothers, shaped their experiences. It also focused on the everyday barriers, struggles and opportunities they faced, capturing similarities, differences and diversity amongst participants. Their experiences were contrasted to those of White and Black lone mothers and PBM women in previous studies. Taking a true intersectionality approach influenced by the works of key Black feminist and intersectional thinkers (Crenshaw, 1991; Collins, 1986, 2015; Brah, 1996; McCall, 2005) there was a focus on locating subjective lived experiences within the broader structures of power in which participants' lives operated, for example the family, patriarchy and the state. The study found that participants’ positionalities as women were central in shaping their lives, intersecting with their ethnic, cultural, class and religious identities and generational and migration status to create distinctive disadvantages and barriers as lone mothers (Baz, 2021b).

To explore PBM lone mothers’ lives and the role of SA women’s organisations, over 17 months were spent at a SA women’s organisation in the North of England, SAW’s Place (pseudonym). As Crossley (2017: 68) argues ‘detailed ethnographic accounts can help shed to light on the daily lives of different populations’ and the wider structures that shape them. Being situated at SAW’s Place, engaging with PBM lone mothers uncovered their hidden social worlds. Ethical approval for the study was granted by The University of Sheffield ethics committee. The study was also selected for a follow-up ethics review by the ESRC after fieldwork was completed. A mixed-methods approach was taken, consisting of volunteering, participant observations, ethnographic interviewing and semi-structured interviews. The study involved an initial 2 months of volunteering getting to grips with how the main advocacy service worked at the organisation and finding out about the different types of support offered to service users. What followed was 8 months of participant observations with PBM lone mothers and organisation workers. There were two main elements to observations; first, I provided one-to-one advice and support to Pakistani lone mothers in my role as a volunteer and second, I observed a Bangladeshi worker (Halimah, pseudonym) providing advice and support to Bangladeshi lone mothers.

The observations with Pakistani lone mothers typically involved working in a small office space at the organisation. Women were supported on a first come, first served basis. I would often go down to the reception area and invite whoever was waiting to come to the office space. Women would then present the issue they needed support with and I would begin to help them through this. There were different methods of identifying whether service users were lone mothers: often they would tell me during conversations, I would ask them or refer to their records on the system. I would then introduce my study and ask whether they were interested in participating. Although I played a more reserved role when observing the Bangladeshi support sessions, I was still actively involved and participated in the sessions often interacting with lone mothers and Halimah (Adler and Alder, 2011). I attended two advice sessions a week: one with Pakistani women and one with Bangladeshi women. Each session lasted between two to 5 hours, depending on how busy the service was each day. I also supported some Pakistani lone mothers beyond the advice sessions. After attending an advice session if women required further support regarding more complex matters, such as navigating the benefits system or searching for housing, they could book a longer session with volunteers or workers. During my time at SAW’s Place, I often booked these additional appointments with one migrant lone mother, Zahra, who required support in gaining a residency permit, accessing welfare benefits and navigating the city. I also accompanied her to appointments to the job centre and bank. Overall, detailed fieldnotes were taken compromising of approximately 158 h spent at SAW’s Place, interacting with lone mothers and workers.

In addition to observations, 30 interviews were conducted with PBM lone mothers, 8 with SAW’s Place workers, 2 with the organisation’s trustees and 4 with external partners who engaged with the organisation at the time (e.g. an employment adviser and a domestic abuse agency advocate). Interviews with lone mothers, which will be of focus in this article alongside observations, covered topics surrounding lived experiences of marriage and lone motherhood, accessing SAW’s Place services and support networks. More specific topics of exploration included marriage, domestic abuse, the process of separation, financial struggles, cultural perceptions of women, employment and stigma. The below section provides further insight into the research setting. Pseudonyms are used for participants and the organisation.

SAW’s place

SAW’s Place is a small building situated close to the city’s most prominent multicultural area and Highstreet with a variety of small shops, international cuisine, mosques, schools and community centres (Baz, 2021a). On entering the building on a busy day service users are seen sat down waiting for their English class or for advocacy support, chatting amongst themselves or enjoying some tea. There’s often a long wait to see a worker during the busy drop-in sessions. In small, shared offices are workers who are ready to support women through their inquiries. SAW’s Place is a ‘warm, friendly, confidential and safe space’ in which women can gain help in overcoming the everyday issues they are faced with, and ‘in which they can share a small story about their day amongst a sometimes busy and struggling life’ (Baz, 2021a: 16–17).

The organisation has been running for over 25 years and supports SA women from across the city. As a grassroot organisation, it originated from a small group of professional SA women engaged in community settings taking initiative to support the many Pakistani women being referred to them for support. They saw a need for a service which was tailored to supporting SA women. With the support of the city’s council, the centre was later set up. As documented with other prominent SA women’s organisations, initially SAW’s Place encountered resistance from the local SA community, and particularly men (Takhar, 2003). The organisation was seen as a threat, breaking up families and traditional cultural values and norms, and a bad influence on young women. Thus, the organisation had to engage in slow burn activism gaining trust of the community overtime. They demonstrated that they were there to inform and facilitate agency amongst SA women and to also challenge negative practices such as domestic violence and forced marriage in the SA community. Today, continuing to be ran by women for women, it serves both migrant and British born SA women and women living in the 30% and 20% most deprived areas of the city (DCLG, 2019). Most of the service users are Pakistani and Bangladeshi women reflecting the ethnic make-up of the city. The organisation runs an outreach service for Bangladeshi women at a community centre which is situated in a deprived locality where most of the Bangladeshi population resides. Although lone mothers make up a significant proportion of their service users SAW’s Place does not have dedicated services for them (Baz, 2021a).

The organisation is located at the intersection of women and ethnic minority organisations and the wider voluntary sector. Reflecting ‘a climate of pronounced austerity’ (Featherstone et al., 2012: 177) it has faced with cuts to funding and increasing competitiveness to gain funds. As an ethnic minority organisation, it is located within a ‘hostile environment’ and a focus on ‘integration’ where there is a negative political backdrop to racialised minorities and migrants, including Muslim women, with the view that it is wrong to prioritise specific group needs (Goodfellow, 2019; Harries et al., 2020). Yet SAW’s Place continues to offer an advice service and a changing range of courses tailored to women’s needs, including English classes, employment and wellbeing courses. It is in this setting that I met the lone mothers and workers around which the reflections are based. Next, I present the story of accessing SAW’s Place and upon reflecting on this how my multiple intersectional identities played out in the setting and impacted the terms of access.

A reflection on access

Achieving access to SAW’s place

To access SAW’s Place, I made initial contact with the organisation and arranged a meeting with one of the head workers, Khadijah. My identity as a Pakistani Muslim woman was central in gaining access. Access to the organisation would have been denied to men due to the central importance of SAW’s Place being a confidential space for SA women to approach and use its services. Many of these women have experienced domestic abuse, broken down marriages and negative relationships with husbands. This is also coupled with the importance of ‘purdah’ (gender segregation) in SA culture, Islam and particularly amongst older generations (Jeffery, 1976). Thus, being female was advantageous as it provided initial access to the space. My Pakistani ethnic identity and language was also essential in gaining access to SAW’s Place and thus, the lone mothers attending (Bhopal, 2001). Lone mothers attending the organisation predominately have little English language skills and communicate in Urdu, Punjabi or Mirpuri. This language accessibility is one of the main reasons women seek support from SAW’s Place. My linguistic knowledge (although admittedly not fully developed) was therefore also key in gaining access and would later be crucial in communicating, supporting and building a relationship of trust with Pakistani lone mothers. It is evident that negotiating access would have been highly problematic or even impossible if I did not have a shared gendered, ethnic and linguistic identity (Bhopal, 2001; Dwyer and Buckle, 2009).

Another prominent identity in gaining access was that of a researcher, after all I was approaching SAW’s Place to conduct research. Increasingly in research with marginalised and over-researched populations, it is noted that high involvement is required in gaining access to research participants and there is an increasing ethical importance of giving back (Bolognani, 2007). Bolognani (2007) argues researchers who are not able to produce benefit for participants, a community or organisation can struggle. This is coupled with wider concerns of research being ‘extractively orientated’ (Neal et al., 2016); researchers come into people’s lives to do research and then vanish (Gerrard, 1995). Thus, the ‘researcher’ identity can be problematised. Discussing Western knowledge production of Māori people, Tuhiwai-Smith (1999: 170) has stated Māori society ‘provided fertile ground for research’. Early ethnographic work distorted Māori social reality entrapping them in a cultural definition. This can also be applied to research with SA or Muslim communities and women in the UK (Alexander, 2009; Britton, 2019). There are concerns that the researcher will run away with the data, producing no benefit to the community and research participants. The researcher identity certainly came into play when talking to Khadijah. For Khadijah, it was important that I volunteered at the organisation before and during the data collection stage, therein contributing towards the organisation during fieldwork. Khadijah stated that in return the organisation would free up more resources for the project, for instance, providing office space to carry out interviews. Mason (2021a, 2021b) argues researchers’ ‘being there’, engaging, committing resources, time and energy is central to working with communities. Thus, this contests the assumption that gaining access was simple due to shared collective identities (gender, ethnicity and linguistic identity). My identity and positionality as a university researcher and purpose behind approaching SAW’s Place came to the forefront and was prominent in shaping the terms of access to the organisation. This account illustrates the moving and changing nature of positionalities when negotiating access.

Access continued after entering ‘the field’

The initial conversation with Khadijah was central in shaping my activities and time at SAW’s Place and the overall research design. We both agreed that volunteering and participant observation was essential to gaining access to lone mothers and building a relationship of trust. Khadijah emphasised that a one-off interview without getting to know lone mothers beforehand may mean that they only share ‘superficial’ aspects of their lives. Building a relationship of trust overtime with lone mothers would enable them to share experiences in confidence. This reflects feminist approaches to conducting research, emphasising building rapport, reciprocity and empathy between the researcher and the researched allowing participants to share experiences and feelings openly (Dwyer and Buckle, 2009; Karnieli-Miller et al., 2009; Morton, 2020). As a result, I was positioned as both a volunteer and researcher during my time at SAW’s Place. The situational volunteer role was central to observations and in engaging with women.

I began my time at SAW’s Place volunteering for 2 months, to gain more insight into the organisation, complete training and to learn more about supporting service users via shadowing an advocacy worker. Another component to gaining access was attending a staff meeting. I introduced myself and the research project to the core team and the workers provided input. For example, they discussed the importance of volunteering before observations and separating the initial volunteering and observation phase of the research. I was also informed that there was no Bangladeshi worker at the time who could participate in observations of advice sessions with Bangladeshi lone mothers, but someone would fill the role going forward. This approach to observations was required, as I do not have a Bangladeshi ethnic background and do not know the Bengali language at all. Therefore, it would not have been possible to support Bangladeshi lone mothers myself. Access to working with the new Bangladeshi worker, Halimah, developed overtime. By chance, during the volunteering stage, one day, I was sitting near the reception at SAW’s Place and a woman sat down in the chair opposite to me eating her lunch. We began talking to each other, introducing ourselves and our roles in SAW’s Place. I told her about my research and she told me that she was the new Bangladeshi worker at SAW’s Place. She asked further questions about my research. I told her about my plans to observe a worker supporting Bangladeshi lone mothers and asked whether she would potentially be interested. She said she would be happy to take part and I later provided her with the project information sheets to learn more about the process. Two months into fieldwork, I encountered Halimah again, this time in the hallway. Halimah stated she wanted to take part and support the research but needed more time to develop a relationship of trust with service users as she herself was new to SAW’s Place. After a few weeks I encountered Halimah at SAW’s Place again, at this point she was ready for me to come in and observe the Bangladeshi advice sessions. The first observation took place 3 months into fieldwork. Halimah was ‘a bridge to link into a new social world’ (Bhopal, 2010: 190). This account of access illustrates the ongoing process needed to negotiate, set up research and gain access even once entering the field and as an ethnic outsider (Burgess, 1984). Access is not a linear process, occurs overtime and is socially constructed; and off chance encounters can be key to facilitating research. A key advantage of taking an ethnographic approach is that it allows researchers to adapt to the circumstances and situations in the field. Access was further negotiated in the data collection stage and when conducting observations with lone mothers, as detailed in the next section.

Observations: getting to know lone mothers

It may be perceived that coming from a Pakistani Muslim ethnic and religious background and being female gave me immediate access and trust amongst Pakistani lone mothers (Ryan et al., 2011). However, I found this did not guarantee access (Bhopal, 2010; Ryan et al., 2011). My positionality as a new volunteer played a central role in this. While conducting participant observations I often found that lone mothers would rather see a worker who they were already familiar with and had been at the organisation for some time. This occurred particularly at the start as I was seen as a new face and inexperienced volunteer in comparison to the workers. An interaction with one lone mother, Maryam, demonstrates this:

Maryam was also waiting near the reception for support. I told her to come up with me … She said that she wanted to go to the other worker, she had a letter from a “vakeel” (solicitor) and the other worker helped her with it before. She asked me if she could go to her because if she came to me then she would have to explain everything again. (Fieldnote 13 February 2019)

It became apparent that it would take time for service users to come and seek support from me and to prove that I had some expertise in supporting them. This was slow burn work that developed overtime. The busy nature of the service sometimes helped. If a worker was busy or not here on the day, and I was free, lone mothers had to come to me for support. This illustrates that there was no straightforward position for me to inhabit (Bhopal, 2010). Instead, my positionality was negotiated overtime. Ethnographic research often proceeds slowly over time and is temporal in nature compared to other qualitative methods like interviewing (Mason, 2021b). Integrating into an organisation and becoming a familiar face amongst its members takes time.

Furthermore, I found lone mothers wanted to know more about me while I was getting to know them. We were engaging in ‘reciprocal exposure’: for someone to open up to the researcher, the researcher has to do the same (Bolognani, 2007). Participants are ‘given agency and more power by allowing that the researcher could be questioned and “scanned”’. (Bolognani, 2007: 283). This reflects feminist methodologies where self-disclosure is advocated for to place the researcher and researched on a more equal footing (Renzetti and Lee, 1993: 178; Bhopal, 2010). This can promote true dialogue and solidarity between women, resulting in openness and empathy (Edwards, 1993; Bhopal, 2009). Thus, I found myself discussing my own personal life:

While filling it out [application form] she asked about me; where am I from, what do I study, when I told her I’m studying a PhD she said I look too young to do that and was happy. She said she was happy to see an Asian girl doing well …. I said I am doing research about Pakistani and Bangladeshi lone mothers ……… [towards the end] I said I live with my mother, she was a lone mother. She asked if I see my father, I told her about this but I didn’t go into too much detail. She is asking personal questions, getting to know me at the same time as I am getting to know her .... She then said that for this reason (that my mum is a lone mother) she wants to help me more.

(First time I met Suwaybah - fieldnote 19 December 2018)

In the above fieldnote extract, it is illustrated that coming from a lone mother headed family and seeing a young woman from the Pakistani community doing well, which the lone mother aspired for her own children, resulted in Suwaybah wanting to take part in the research. However, this engagement in reflexivity and sharing my own biography requires a further level of reflexivity; what Hamdan (2009) terms a ‘reflexivity of discomfort’. As asserted, such reflexivity challenges the researcher taking them beyond their comfort zone (Hamdan, 2009). In the same extract above, the participant asks me about my father. Although I provided some detail, I felt uncomfortable discussing this and did not go into too much detail. Thus, this questions the extent to which I was open about my own personal biography and yet I wanted participants to tell me about their own personal lives. This raises some questions about ethics and power relations in the field, questioning the extent to which there is an equal footing between the researcher and researched (Renzetti and Lee, 1993; Karnieli-Miller et al., 2009; Britton, 2020), something which traditional feminist researchers strive towards. As Britton (2020) notes in her own research with Muslim men, disclosure of my own life varied, depending on how much participants delved into my biography. I also used the fact that I was brought up in a lone mother household to create a sense of shared experience between us, albeit from different viewpoints; myself as a daughter of a lone mother and participants as lone mothers. This was used by both me and Halimah (Bangladeshi worker) to encourage lone mothers to take part in the study. Nevertheless, such conversations provided talking points with participants, resulting in a more informal non-hierarchical atmosphere (Bhopal, 2009; Karnieli-Miller et al., 2009). It is not just a shared gender identity that results in women enjoying talking intimately to other women (Phoenix, 1994) but also other shared positionalities, such as personal biography, lived experience and the ‘lone mother’ identity. In getting to know Bangladeshi lone mothers, a different set of challenges were encountered.

There were further challenges and critical reflections of my positionality throughout conducting observations with Bangladeshi lone mothers. As established, I do not have a Bangladeshi ethnic background and do not know Bengali. Working with Halimah was central as support was linguistically tailored to Bangladeshi women in Bengali (specifically Sylheti dialect) (Baz, 2021b). I began as a non-participant observer, observing Halimah supporting lone mothers. Each time a woman came for support Halimah introduced me as a university student researcher, researching about PBM lone motherhood. Once a lone mother was identified by Halimah, she would provide a brief introduction to the project and then, once lone mothers were happy to participate, we would go through the information and consent forms. I would try and capture the support Bangladeshi lone mothers were provided by noting the English words both participants and the worker used in their discussions, looking at letters women presented and capturing Halimah’s phone conversations with services when trying resolve the issue presented by lone mothers (see Baz, 2021b for an extended discussion). My ethnic identity was quite evident as women would ask the worker or myself that if I was a Pakistani. However, as observations progressed, my positionality shifted. Shifting from my ethnic, cultural and gendered identity again to my situational identity as a volunteer, I noticed that my volunteer identity positioned me more firmly amongst lone mothers. At times, Halimah would ask me about certain information or small queries while supporting lone mothers; for example, checking her response on a school appeal application form, or she would explain how she was supporting lone mothers during the session. Thus, my situational identity allowed me to establish myself in the setting. Finally, although I wasn’t part of the Bangladeshi community, a lone mother who was looking for work asked if I knew of anyone in the Pakistani community who was looking for employees. I had a broader shared identity of coming from a minoritized SA community and possibly being situated in ‘ethnic enclaves’ ¹ (Khattab et al., 2010).

These accounts of getting to know both Pakistani and Bangladeshi lone mothers demonstrate the complexities of conducting research across two different ethnic groups of women and my shifting positionalities. Moving beyond simplistic insider–outsider debates, this illustrates the changing, moving and socially constructed nature of research and researchers embedding themselves in ‘the field’. It illustrates how this is influenced by intersecting identities and changing positionalities. Although I was better placed in gaining access to SAW’s Place and service users, due to my ethnicity, gender and linguistic background, it still took time to establish a relationship of trust and rapport with lone mothers. This was largely due to being a new face at the organisation. Differences played out in the field depending on the circumstances. Engaging in reflexivity as a live practice (Back, 2012; Benson and O’Reilly, 2022) throughout observations helped me understand and reflect on my positionality in relation to participants, its intersectional nature and how it developed and adapted overtime. My intersectional positionality was further broken down in nuanced ways when conducting interviews with lone mothers.

Conducting interviews with lone mothers

Sixteen in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with lone mothers attending the organisation. Semi-structured interviewing has been a traditional approach amongst feminists, who argue it allows for interactive conversations to develop amongst women, facilitating co-constructions of meaning (Bergen, 1993; Phoenix, 1994). Women discuss their understanding of the social world (Bhopal, 2001) and interviewers delve further into their response (May, 1997). Here, shared gender identity is considered central. However, relating back to Phoenix’s (1994) argument and taking an intersectional approach I have found that simply matching broader ethnic and gender categories does not necessarily produce better data. Interviews with Pakistani lone mothers took place at SAW’s Place and interviews with Bangladeshi lone mothers took place at the local community centre where Bangladeshi advice sessions took place, in office spaces that were available at the time. The space in which the interviews took place was of much significance, interacting with my situational positionality as a volunteer. During interviews my situational identity as a volunteer never really left. On a few occasions, before and after interviews, participants would want me to help them with a task which they needed support with, for example interpreting a letter or applying for a provisional driving license. This resulted in difficulties of being able to separate the volunteer and interviewer role. However, it was also a good ethical practice and somewhat rewarding that we were able to mutually help each other; the participant through sharing their lived experiences and myself through providing advice and support.

Researchers bring their own life experiences and biographies to their research (Britton, 2020; Hamdan, 2009). Coming from a Pakistani Muslim community, I had my own critical and positive perceptions of culture, community and cultural takes on religion. I was interested in bringing forward the differences between culture and Islam, specifically regarding women’s rights in Islam. Thus, if this was mentioned in interviews, I followed up. I was critically conscious of regenerating stereotypical images of culture and Islam (Hamdan, 2009). However, I acknowledged these subjectivities from the onset. I made sure I was not prescribing my own prejudgements and allowed participants to express their views guided by their own terms and their own lives of managing and/or contesting cultural norms (Bhopal, 2010). It is acknowledged that there are differing views on how participants present themselves when being interviewed by a researcher of the same ethnicity. Ryan et al. (2011) argue that participants may want to present their cultures and communities in a positive way to ethnic outsiders and may be more critical to insiders. Whereas, Britton (2020: 234) argues participants can be ‘less willing to disclose’ information that is frowned upon by ethnic insiders. In this study, lone mothers presented both negative and positive views of community, culture and practices based on their own lived experiences, embedded in and shaped by cultural norms and practices. My presumed knowledge of culture and the fact that I was coming to them to explore a stigmatised topic may have allowed them to openly discuss this. For example, one lone mother Nafeesah, discussed in detail about her married life and relationships within the household, such as the fraught mother-in-law daughter-in-law relationship where the mother seeks the loyalty of the son often creating conflict in relationships (Mirza, 2017; Qureshi, 2016).

In contrast, when conducting interviews with Bangladeshi lone mothers my position changed as I did not know much about Bangladeshi culture (although I was aware that it had similar overlaps to Pakistani culture and shared histories). In the interviews, I asked participants to tell me about Bangladeshi culture and the impact it had on them as lone mothers. As Ryan et al. (2011) point out in relation to ethnic outsiders’ positionalities researching Muslim communities, rather than assuming shared understanding, Bangladeshi lone mothers explained their culture and experiences of living within a Bangladeshi community. This turned out to be similar to Pakistani culture, in relation to family kinship relationships, marriage, separation and stigma. Some Pakistani lone mothers may not have given much depth assuming I had a shared understanding of culture and kinship ties. However, lone mothers brought up in Pakistan or from older generations may have also felt that I had different values and perceptions of cultural practices being from a younger generation. Therefore, they further justified their views, for example views on traditional gender roles. Age added more nuanced complexity.

Further breaking down my intersectional positionality, age intersected with gender and ethnicity to shape interview discussions. As I was considerably younger than lone mothers and unmarried, predominately participants did not discuss experiences of intimacy within marriage during interviews. In Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Muslim cultures and practices, this is an extremely personal aspect of life and is especially not discussed with a young unmarried woman. Particularly amongst older generations, there is a cultural importance of young people being respectful to elders. Again, engaging with a ‘reflexivity of discomfort’ (Hamdan, 2009), this is something I did not feel comfortable about inquiring into and thus, did not ask questions about myself. Although, bringing attention to this, Asma (a lone mother) did briefly bring up this topic herself in relation to the loss of the intimate husband-wife relationship because of separation and the importance of overcoming the taboo of discussing this topic openly. This challenges standpoint feminist assertations that female interviewers have a ‘special...non-hierarchical woman-to-woman link with their female interview subjects’ (Edwards, 1993: 184; Phoenix, 1994) that allow for personal experiences to be openly shared. Instead, this account illustrates how an intersection of age, gender and ethnicity can create more complexity and the importance of considering research experiences at the intersection of such identities (Bhopal, 2010).

The nature of the topic of exploration was also significant. The topic of lone motherhood, divorce, and issues such as domestic abuse are stigmatising topics and seldom talked about within the SA community. In fact, Qureshi (2016) has found that women may conceal marriage breakdown. They can face stigma living without men and separation can lead to family conflict. Again, there were advantages and disadvantages associated with this. Some women were enthusiastic to get a chance to share their stories of family breakdown and divorce, contributing towards research which could provide more recognition of lone mothers’ experiences. On the other hand, some lone mothers did not provide in-depth details of their marriage or family breakdown experiences, even where I had built up a relationship of trust with them throughout my time at SAW’s Place. For example, Fatimah did not reveal in detail how her relationship with her in-laws deteriorated. When I further probed into why she felt their behaviour towards her was ‘bad’, she said ‘don’t have a clue, I do not understand’. Fatimah did not want to discuss this for the research project, although she was happy to share this with me ‘personally’ after the interview. This illustrates PBM women’s agency in choosing what to disclose and when. Due to my positionality amongst the wider Pakistani community level, she feared that someone may find out she had told me when the study was in the public domain, despite confidentiality being promised and my unfamiliarity on a personal level with the local Pakistani community. In speaking to a researcher that was not from a Pakistani ethnic background, perhaps more detail may have been given regarding these family experiences.

Finally, during one interview with a lone mother, Zainab, she stated that she was previously interviewed by a researcher while she was at a refuge; however, she never saw the researcher again. I informed her that I would still be present at SAW’s Place after the interview and later engaged with her on a few occasions. This signified my positionality as a researcher from a university institution as shaping my interaction with this participant. It illustrates the importance of researchers continuing to engage with participants or organisations fieldwork takes place in rather than leaving with the data and not returning as good ethical practice (Bolognani, 2007). The researcher identity was just as prominent throughout fieldwork as my ethnicity, gender and age, and shaped the terms of engagement with participants. This encounter again illustrates PBM women’s agency, in questioning the researcher and their engagement with research participants. Overall, such encounters in interviews add a further dimension to my adapting positionality in the field and show nuanced complexities when interviewing a diverse group of PBM lone mothers associated with my multiple intersecting identities. These intersecting identities brought different dimensions, encounters and situations to fieldwork.

Discussion and conclusion

This paper has presented reflections of my multiple positionalities and how they have shaped the research process through presenting reflections on access to the organisation and participants, conducting participant observations and interviewing. The intersectional approach embedded in the wider project, resulted in my approach to reflexivity, my positionality overtime and status being informed by an intersectional lens. I adopted ‘reflexivity in practice’ (Benson and O’Reilly, 2022) and a ‘reflexivity of discomfort’ (Hamdan, 2009) and continuously reflected on my positionality throughout each stage of fieldwork as a live practice embedded in an intersectional approach. This allowed for an understanding of researcher positionality in relation to the researched to be viewed as an ever moving, changing, adapting, nuanced, negotiated and socially constructed way of doing research. This approach moves beyond the static fixed insider–outsider approaches to reflexivity which are now widely contested in methodological literature. My account problematises placing researchers in broader categories, often termed as ‘essentialism’ (McCall, 2005), and is critical of simply matching the researcher and researched, particularly in relation to shared gender and ethnicity. Instead, researchers should critically reflect on how nuanced differences in identity (such as age), their biographies and coming from university institutions shape the research process and interactions with participants. Thus, there is an importance of acknowledging our subjectivities and how they can shape the research process (Bhopal, 2010), even if this involves self-awareness and a ‘reflexivity of discomfort’ (Hamdan, 2009). As Hamdan (2009) argues, I have found these discomforts shape interactions with participants, challenge the researcher, create tensions and power imbalances and reflect the ‘uncomfortable realities of doing engaged qualitative research’ (Pillow, 2003: 193, Hamdan, 2009). In doing reflexive research there is always a sense of discomfort which creates ‘a layer of complexity’ (Hamdan, 2009: 399).

The paper makes several significant contributions towards methodological literature on reflexivity debates. Firstly, it further critically extends reflexive practice and contributes towards debates about how to do reflexivity. As argued by Benson and O’Reilly (2022), reflexivity is a research tool which should be embedded in research practice throughout (not after) fieldwork as it can help researchers understand their influence on the research process and how positionalities change overtime (eg. from an outsider in the organisation to being fully embedded). It illustrates that engagement with participants is about researchers adapting, learning and changing to the situations they find themselves in, negotiating relationships and trust with participants over time and moving between positionalities depending on different circumstances and participants they engage with. This is very much in line with what Back (2012) terms ‘live sociology’ and Benson and O’Reilly (2022) term reflexive practice. The researcher moves with the social world and acknowledges that encounters are complex, moving and require adaptation and tactic from the researcher. The flexibility of an ethnographic approach enables the researcher to do this. There is no fixed way of doing research.

Secondly, the paper makes a significant contribution towards doing reflexivity via an intersectional lens or ‘intersectional reflexivity’. Reflexivity has rarely been viewed through an intersectional lens. For example, Benson and O’Reilly (2022) reflect on gender and how this shaped interactions with their participants; however, there is a lack of analysis on an intersectional level. Our multiple identities intersect to shape the research process. There has also been little discussion of intersectionality from a methodological and knowledge production perspective (McCall, 2005). The approach taken to reflexivity here is intersectional in nature and adds to understandings of how different aspects of the researchers’ identity play out differently in diverse settings, circumstances, with different groups of participants and in relation to the topics of exploration. Throughout my time supporting lone mothers at SAW’s Place, I managed and switched between my multiple intersectional positionalities; as a researcher, volunteer (my situational identity), a young Pakistani British Muslim woman coming from a lone mother family and switching between engaging with Pakistani and Bangladeshi lone mothers. Further reflecting an intersectional approach where structures and institutions of power are accounted for alongside identity (Anthias, 2012), I also present my identity as a researcher affiliated with a university institution and how this shaped interactions and negotiations with participants. This paper adds significantly to this underexplored approach of ‘intersectional reflexivity’.

These reflections also provide significant lessons for academic researchers, teachers and students conducting qualitative ethnographic research in the social sciences, some of which I share here. The researcher should continuously question, at the intersection, the ways in which their identities, subjectivities, discomforts, life experiences and biographies influence the research process. Practically writing and reading autoethnographic fieldnotes during fieldwork can help researchers make sense of how their positionalities and identities influence the research process. We must also acknowledge our subjectivities from the onset. Reflective notes during fieldwork provided the foundations for this paper. Finally engaging in standpoint feminist debates, methods and ethics of care is useful as a tool to do meaningful, sensitive, engaging and reflective research.