This article explores the impact of the researcher’s reflexivity on the data collection and analysis process in the context of a videographic study of home-based family caregivers of older adults. Going beyond a discussion of the role of the researcher’s subjectivity, the article builds on current literature by exploring how the researcher’s embodied self-reflexivity can be used to enrich video based research. The article addresses the researcher’s personal social location and shifting roles throughout the study and how these impacted on her work with the camera, her moment to moment ethical decisions and her perceptions of the participants’ realities. The author illustrates, through the use of journal and transcript excerpts, how the dynamic relationship between the researcher, the participants and the camera creates overlapping and complementary layers of information that together form a cohesive portrait of the action. Throughout, the article discusses the contribution of reflexivity to both the creation and resolution of ethical tensions in the research space.
BullP (2002) Communication Under the Microscope: The Theory and Practice of Microanalysis, New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
CamposBGraeschARepettiR (2009) Opportunity for interaction? A naturalistic observation study of dual-earner families after work and school. Journal of Family Psychology23(6): 798–807.
3.
Canada Public Works and Government Services (2005) Tri-council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
4.
CreswellJW (2013) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
DeWaltKDeWaltB (2011) Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers, 2nd ed. Plymouth, UK: AltaMira Press.
6.
EnglandKDyckI (2011) Managing the body work of home care. Sociology of Health and Illness33: 206–219.
7.
EricksonF (1996) Ethnographic microanalysis. In: McKaySLHornbergerN (eds) Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
EtheringtonK (2007) Ethical research in reflexive relationships. Qualitative Inquiry13(5): 599–616.
9.
GabbJ (2010) Home truths: Ethical issues in family research. Qualitative Research10(4): 461–478.
10.
GuilleminMGillamL (2004) Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry10(2): 261–280.
11.
GoffmanE (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York, NY: Anchor Books.
12.
HeathCHindmarshJLuffP (2010) Video in Qualitative Research: Analysing Social Interaction in Everyday Life, London: Sage Publications.
13.
HurdleyRDicksB (2011) In-between practice: Working in the ‘third space’ of sensory and multimodal methodology. Qualitative Research11(3): 277–292.
14.
IntrieriRMorseJM (1997) A sequential analysis of verbal and nonverbal interaction of two long-term care residents. Journal of Applied Gerontology16(4): 477–494.
15.
KnoblauchHSchnettlerB (2012) Videography: Analysing video data as a ‘focused' ethnographic and hermeneutical exercise. Qualitative Research12(3): 334–356.
16.
KnoblauchHSchnettlerBRaabJ (2006) Video-analysis – Methodological aspects of interpretative audiovisual analysis in social research. In: KnoblauchHSchnettlerBRaabJ (eds) Video Analysis: Methodology & Methods. Qualitative Audiovisual Data Analysis in Sociology, Frankfort: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, pp. 9–24.
17.
KnoblauchHTumaR (2011) Videography: An interpretative approach to video-recorded micro-social interaction. In: MargolisEPauwelsL (eds) The Sage Handbook of Visual Research Methods, London: Sage, pp. 414–430.
18.
LeBaronC (2008) Microethnography. In: DonsbachW (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Communication, Cambridge: Blackwell.
19.
LiddicoatAJ (2011) An Introduction to Conversation Analysis, New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.
20.
LincolnYGubaE (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
LoflandJLoflandL (1995) Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
22.
LomaxHFinkJSinghN (2011) The politics of performance: Methodological challenges of researching children’s experiences of childhood through the lens of participatory video. International Journal of Social Research Methodology14(3): 231–243.
23.
LuffPHeathC (2012) Some “technical challenges” of video analysis: Social actions, objects, material realities and the problems of perspective. Qualitative Review12: 255–279.
24.
Mannay D and Morgan M (2014) Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique? Reflections from the ‘waiting field’. Qualitative Research. DOI: 10.1177/1468794113517391.
25.
MannayD (2010) Making the familiar strange: Can visual research methods render the familiar setting more perceptible?Qualitative Research10(1): 91–111.
26.
MondadaL (2006) Video recording as the reflexive preservation and configuration of phenomenal features for analysis. In: KnoblauchHSchnettlerBRaabJ (eds) Video Analysis: Methodology & Methods. Qualitative Audiovisual Data Analysis in Sociology, Frankfort: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, pp. 51–67.
27.
Ochs E and Kremier-Sadlick T (eds) (2013) Fast forward family: Home, work and relationships in middle class America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
28.
PadgettD (2008) Qualitative Methods in Social Work Practice, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
PinkS (2011) Multimodality, multisensoriality and ethnographic knowing: Social semiotics and the phenomenology of perception. Qualitative Research11(3): 261–276.
Richardson M (2013) Embodied intergenerationality: Family position, place and masculinity. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography. DOI: 10.1080/0966369X.2013.855710.
34.
RussellACDiazN (2013) Photography in social work research: Using visual image to humanize findings. Qualitative Social Work12(4): 433–453.
35.
SacksHSchegloffEJeffersonG (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50(4): 696–735.
36.
SaxbeDRepettiRL (2008) Taking the temperature of family life: Preliminary results from an observational study. In: Marcus-NewhallAHalpernDTanS (eds) The Changing Realities of Work and Family: A Multidisciplinary Approach, New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 175–193.
37.
SchererKREkmanP (1982) Methodological issues in studying nonverbal behavior. In: SchererKREkmanP (eds) Handbook of Methods in Nonverbal Behavior Research, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
SilvermanM (2015) Observing women caregivers’ everyday experiences: New ways of understanding and intervening. Journal of Gerontological Social Work58(2): 206–222.
39.
SilvermanM (2013) Sighs, smiles, and worried glances: How the body reveals women caregivers’ lived experiences of care to older adults. Journal of Aging Studies27(3): 288–297.
StreeckJGoodwinCLeBaronC (2011) Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In: StreeckJGoodwinCLeBaronC (eds) Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–28.
42.
StreeckJMehusS (2005) Microethnography: The study of practices. In: FitchKSandersR (eds) Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 381–404.
43.
WardRCampbellS (2013) Mixed methods to explore appearance in dementia care. Dementia12(3): 337–347.
44.
WarinJ (2011) Ethical mindfulness and reflexivity: Managing a research relationship with children and young people in a 14-year qualitative longitudinal (QLR) study. Qualitative Inquiry17(9): 805–814.
