A queer and Filipino social worker-researcher’s reflexive journey in academia

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore the experiences of a queer and Filipino social worker-researcher navigating dual identities, particularly as a clinician and researcher, within Western academic spaces. Drawing on the concept of insider/outsider, I critically reflect on how, in research and clinical spaces historically dominated by White, heterosexual men, my educational and professional credentials grant me legitimacy and partial insider status, while my queer and Filipino identities simultaneously position me at the margins. The paper also reflects on experiences navigating the blurring of boundaries, or role confusions, as a social worker-researcher. The paper then discusses approaches and considerations social worker-researchers, both emerging and established, can employ to navigate these tensions, such as reflexivity, ethnographic refusal, and a Filipino concept called, “kapwa.” The implication of this paper is to expand the scholarship on the reflexivity of social workerresearchers, particularly within the queer Filipino/a/x/diaspora.

Introduction

This article reflects on my experiences as a queer and Filipino social worker and Ph.D. candidate in Public Health, where I explore the explore the association between technology (i.e., dating apps) and health among queer Asian men in Toronto, while also working as a counselor within the Asian and queer community. These reflections are situated within my positionality as a social worker-researcher (clinician-researcher), a role that involves the dual engagement in clinical practice and qualitative research within overlapping fields of concern.

Social worker-researchers are commonly defined by their dual engagement in both clinical and research activities (Landau, 2008; Morris and Borja, 2023). Within the literature, this dual positioning is often framed as a strength, particularly in qualitative research. For example, in a systematic review by Hay-Smith et al. (2016) have noted that clinicians conducting research within their own fields bring insider knowledge, professional credibility, and familiarity with clinical contexts that can enhance rapport-building, participant recruitment, and the depth of data collection. Their insider knowledge through frontline experience with service users, practitioners, and community programs can facilitate and enhance the trust and relational connections (Nelson, 2020; Yanos and Ziedonis, 2006), which are especially valuable in qualitative social work research where knowledge production is dialogical and co-constructed through interviews and focus groups (Milacci et al., 2024). In this sense, clinician-researchers are often described as “bridgers,” linking scientific inquiry with clinical practice and supporting the translation of research findings into applied social service and healthcare settings (Kluijtmans et al., 2017; Larkins, 2000).

Despite these advantages, the dual identity of social worker-researchers introduces ethical challenges, particularly double accountability and conflict of interest, that may compromise ethical research and clinical practice if not recognized or carefully addressed (Navab et al., 2016). For example, social worker-researchers must uphold multiple ethical frameworks simultaneously, often described as a form of “double accountability” (Shearer et al., 2022). In the context for myself as a social worker and researcher in Canada, I adhere to the Canadian Association of Social Work Code of Ethics, Values, and Guiding Principles and the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2), as well as other relevant regulatory bodies governing both practice and research (Canadian Association of Social Workers, 2024; Government of Canada, 2023). Moreover, conflict of interest may occur if the researcher and/or participant approaches the relationship as therapeutic, or if a participants are motivated to participate or share sensitive information for reasons such as feeling a desperate need for support, believing the researcher has the knowledge and skills to engage therapeutically or fearing their current supports may be jeopardized by declining to participate (Landau, 2008; Morris and Borja, 2023).

Another commonly identified challenge for social worker-researchers is the difficulty of navigating dual roles, which the literature variously describes as role confusion, blurring of boundaries, or the experience of being a “double agent” within professional spaces (Yanos and Ziedonis, 2006). This uncertainty around appropriate “ways of being” can lead to boundary slippage, where clinical instincts, such as offering therapeutic interventions during a research interview, emerge during research counters, potentially compromising the integrity of the research process (Yanos and Ziedonis, 2006). Conversely, in clinical settings, the proximity to research may raise questions for service users about whether interactions are therapeutic or investigative in nature, and whose interests are ultimately being served (Landau, 2008). These tensions underscore not only the ethical complexity of clinician-researchers but also highlight the need for ongoing reflexivity when navigating overlapping professional identities.

While existing scholarship has well-documented the benefits and challenges of the clinician-researcher role, there remains a limited body of research examining first-person narratives of social workers engaged in this dual role through a critical lens that attends to power, social location, and intersecting identities (Davis et al., 2002; Hay-Smith et al., 2016; Kraft et al., 2020; Landau, 2008; Mendenhall, 2007; Morris and Borja, 2023). In particular, the experiences of queer, racialized, and more specifically queer and Filipino social worker-researchers remain largely absent within this literature, especially within the Canadian context. This gap reflects a lack of representation but also a limited engagement with how tensions within the clinician role are shaped by whiteness, heteronormativity, and gendered power relations embedded within social worker and research institutions. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore the experiences of a queer and Filipino social worker-researcher navigating dual identities, particularly as a clinician and researcher, within Western academic spaces.

The paper is composed of two parts. The first section reflects on the internal tensions arising from my intersecting identities, drawing on Griffith’s (1998) concept of insider/outsider positionality. Particularly, I will critically reflect on how, in research and clinical spaces historically dominated by White, heterosexual men, my educational and professional credentials grant me legitimacy and partial insider status, while my queer and Filipino identities simultaneously position me at the margins. The first section also reflects on my experiences navigating the blurring of boundaries, or role confusion, as a social worker-researcher. In the second part of the paper, I offer strategies and guiding principles that I employ to navigate these tensions, such as reflexivity, ethnographic refusal, and a Filipino concept called “kapwa.”This paper hopes to contribute a critical, reflexive account that situates dual-role tensions within broader structures of power, rather than treating them solely as individual or professional dilemmas. Moreover, I offer strategies, rooted in Western, Indigenous, and Filipino epistemologies, not as a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather a collection of ideas for present and future queer and Filipino social worker-researchers can employ in their clinical and research practice.

Reflections of a queer and Filipino social worker-researcher

During my clinical work and Ph.D. journey, I engaged in individual self-reflection, journaling, and discussion with other social worker-researchers. A post hoc analysis of these notes highlighted a few recurring dual-role tensions. I explored scholarly literature in this area and consulted with two queer and transgender social worker-researchers to contextualize my experience and refine my thoughts in a way that can contribute to existing knowledge gaps.

The insider/outsider queer and Filipino social worker-researcher

According to Griffith (1998), insider-outsider positioning refers to how a researcher’s social categories shape whether they are perceived as an insider or an outsider within a particular context. Since starting my doctoral training, I often observed that in academic spaces, including classrooms, conferences, and social events, I am frequently one of the few, or the only one, queer and Filipino graduate student. Many times, feeling like an imposter and an outsider was a constant shadow that lingered when I attended research and academic events. Also, I often unconsciously practice self-surveillance to meet the subtle expectations and norms of what constitutes a “proper academic,” such as carefully surveilling myself if whether the tone of my voice, and body and emotional expressions are too queer, or determining how much personal and clinical anecdotes to disclose about how I arrived at my research interest to avoid being perceived as “biased.” Critically reflecting on these experiences, I am more aware of how Foucault’s productive power operates within academic institutions to survey and shape how I think and behave, such as withholding and doubting my lived experiences as real evidence (Gilbert, 2021).

At the same time, my position as a PhD candidate and trained social worker also affords me insider status within academic spaces. My educational credentials as a doctoral candidate grant me institutional legitimacy, including the ability to teach in classrooms, present at academic conferences, and develop scholarly networks that might otherwise be closed to me if I were not a graduate student. In these settings, I am often recognized as an expert-in-training, invited to speak, teach, and contributed to knowledge production in ways that position me as an insider within the academy.

In counselling settings, my queer and Filipino identities provide insider knowledge that supports rapport-building with queer and Asian clients through our shared lived experiences of racism and homophobia. For example, during initial consultations in which clients decide whether to continue working with me as their therapist, I engage in intentional self-disclosure when appropriate, such as sharing my positionality as a queer and Filipino social worker and my commitment to addressing how racism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression influence mental health. This is in line with Sapiro and Matthew’s (2020) assertion that social worker-researchers should recognize the “omnipresence of power dynamics in social interactions,” whether it is in clinical practice or research processes (p. 668). Drawing on my positionality as a queer and racialized therapist, I support clients in naming the often invisible social and structural oppressions shaping their individual distress, while critically resisting assumptions of social workers as neutral or unbiased actors.

To further complicate the matter of insider-outsider positionality, scholars have argued that its simplicity may not accurately reflect the researcher’s nuanced experience based on other social categories beyond race, gender, or sexuality (Collet, 2008; Dwyer and Buckle, 2009; Levy, 2013; Nelson, 2020). For instance, my experiences cannot be captured fully through dichotomous pairings (e.g., queer–Filipino or social worker–researcher), as it is my intersecting identities, such as race, sexuality, gender, class, and other social categories, that together uniquely shape how I am positioned across various contexts in relation to power. As Dwyer & Buckle state, “holding one membership in a group does not denote complete sameness within that group. Likewise, not being a member of a group does not denote complete difference.” (p. 60). This fluid and relational positioning underscores how my belonging and marginality are continually negotiated at the intersections of identities and institutional and structural contexts.

Blurring of boundaries

Working within my dual position as a social worker-researcher highlights how my researcher responsibilities, clinical instincts, and positionalities converge in ways that unsettle clear boundaries. For instance, during a methodological course in my doctoral program, we were assigned to simulate a semi-structured interview with colleagues to approximate a real-world research encounter. This exercise required us to build rapport while remaining attentive to ethical boundaries and methodological rigour. While interviewing my colleague from a queer theory standpoint on the well-being of queer graduate students, I became acutely aware of the confusions and tensions embedded in my dual identity as a social worker and researcher. Particularly, this internal pull toward therapeutic intervention based on years of experience working with queer individuals to support them in their mental health.

Rather than offering psychoeducational tools or boundary-setting strategies, I paused and reminded myself that the purpose of the exercise was to generate data, not clinical support. Instead of validating her distress through structural interpretations—such as naming racism and homophobia within academic spaces—I redirected the conversation toward exploratory inquiry by asking how these pressures shaped her sense of well-being. These moments of confusion, when I felt most compelled to draw on my social worker role, required me to consciously refrain from offering affirming reflections that resembled clinical intervention.

This blurring of boundaries that had occurred between myself and my colleague is what Yanos and Ziedonis (2006) refer to as internal role confusion, whereby the clinician researcher will “gravitate toward the work role that he or she is most comfortable with and may make it tempting to abandon either clinical or research” (p. 5). Through reflexive practice, I recognized a subtle form of self-regulation and self-censorship that allowed me to pause and refrain from responding therapeutically. This interruption created space for future critical self-examination both in my clinical and research practice to constantly reflect and ask myself: am I posing this question because it serves a therapeutic purpose, or because it meaningfully advances the aims of the research?

Navigating the social worker-researcher role

The recommendations presented in this section for social worker-researchers are not a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather a collection of ideas and practices I have gathered throughout my clinical and research journey that may serve as guiding your praxis.

Reflexivity as a tool to navigate the blurring of the social worker-research identity

Reflexivity is an essential skill for social worker-researchers, enabling them to connect clinical practice with research methodologies (Faisal, 2021; Sapiro and Matthews, 2020; Shearer et al., 2022). Scholars have highlighted that reflexivity can assist social workers and researchers to address ethical and methodological challenges, explore positionality that can impact the research outcomes, and provide clarity and understand of their professional responsibilities (Gorli, et al., 2015; Mattison, 2000). Within my own praxis, I conceptualize and practice reflexivity as an ongoing, critical process of self-awareness that allow of a stronger therapeutic relationship when working with clients in a therapy session or a deeper inquiry into the object of study with research participants. For example, in my Ph.D. dissertation, I explore the lived experience of young Asian men who have sex with men on dating apps. Additionally, I work as a practitioner, providing therapy to queer Asian men. Questions I reflexively engage with when working with a research participant or client include: Am I listening to this as a researcher or as a social worker right now? Is this question I’m asking serving the client therapeutically or the project’s research question? How should I respond as a researcher or social worker? Through this ongoing reflexive engagement during the interview, Pillow (2003) suggests that researchers—and I would add, clinicians—are better positioned to critically examine how knowledge is produced within the research process, as well as to offer more attuned and appropriate therapeutic interventions.

As a clinician-researcher, I view reflexivity as integral not only to methodological rigour but also to ethical clinical practice. It compels me to confront potential ethical tensions, identity boundary blurring, and conflicts of interest that may arise from occupying dual roles. This process includes the willingness to pose what Shearer et al. (2022) refer to as “uncomfortable questions” about the integrity, quality, and ethicality of the research or clinical practice, and to remain responsive to the need for change when appropriate (p. 355). For example, depending on the role I’m positioned within, I regularly reflect on whether my responses during interviews are guided by my clinical impulse to provide emotional support or by my responsibility as a researcher to further facilitate in-depth responses from participants. Through this reflection, I adjust my stance accordingly when I notice myself moving further into one role.

I also recognize that the responsibility for maintaining ethical standards, both in clinical and research, cannot rest solely on the social worker-researcher. In doing so, I engage in regular consultation with trusted colleagues and professionals, drawing on their insights as a form of external oversight and procedural ethical guidance (Holloway and Wheeler, 1995). For instance, when interviewing research participants about their experiences of sexual racism on dating apps, I notice moments of emotional responses, such as noticing the resemblance of the research participants with the clients I work with in therapy. Rather than interpreting these reactions as purely individual, I treated them as reflexive data, prompting me to seek clinical supervision to process and examine how my affective responses might be shaping my interviewing style, emotional availability, and interpretive decisions. Thus, supervision functions as both an ethical safeguard and a methodological tool, enabling me to maintain role boundaries while remaining critically attentive to how my subjectivity enters the research process (Hiller and Vears, 2016; Russo et al., 2008).

Ethnographic refusal

Ethnographic refusal, as discussed by Tuck and Yang (2014), is the “researchers taking up a stance of objection, one that will interrogate power and privilege, and trace the legacies and enactments of settler colonialism in everyday life” (p. 814). It is a re-imagination of doing research that emphasizes the agency of research subjects to resist participation or to redefine the terms of engagement. Furthermore, it distances itself from the onto-epistemology that research is neutral or apolitical. Social worker-researchers can employ Tuck and Yang’s (2014) ethnographic refusal in several ways. Siriwardane-de Zoysa and colleagues (2023) argue that refusal can be perceived not merely as an act of withholding collaboration but also as manifestations of silence, play, and humour. The following examples below from my social work and research practice illustrate how these forms of refusal, particularly silence, can emerge in therapeutic and research encounters. Furthermore, these aspects of refusal can unearth power dynamics and promote generative outcomes in research, and I argue that they can also be applied meaningfully in therapeutic contexts.

In my social work practice, I encourage all the clients I work with to know that it is my responsibility as their social worker to earn their trust and that I will continually check in for ongoing feedback or suggestions on how I can improve in our sessions. For example, I once worked with one Indigenous youth who responded to my invitations to reflect on therapy goals with repeated “I don’t know” and long silences. Rather than interpreting this as a “resistant client,” I understood these silences as a possible manifestation of refusal, reflecting the youth’s choice not to engage with systems that have historically and continue to harm Indigenous communities (Siriwardane-de Zoysa et al., 2023; Blue et al., 2015). Further, I recognize these silences as what Blue et al. (2015) describes as forms of resistance and reclamation of autonomy by Indigenous clients against the therapeutic systems that often fail to recognize or respect their cultural contexts. Silences can also be way for Indigenous clients to resist the imposition of external narratives and maintain over their personal stories and identities, especially in settings where they have been historically misunderstood or marginalized (Blue et al., 2015). In addition to acknowledging their silence as a form of resistance to colonialism, their silence is also a signal for the necessity for fostering safety, employing cultural sensitivity, and beginning where the client is at (Kennedy-Kish et al., 2017).

Similarly, in my research practice, this approach acknowledges and addresses the power imbalance between myself and the client and places the onus back on me as their therapist to create safety, choice, and empowerment. In a research environment, silence can act as a significant form of resistance, an option that participants may deliberately choose to refrain from sharing information (Siriwardane-de Zoysa et al. 2023). For example, when a research participant decides to bypass a question in the interview to evade distressing memories of exclusion and instead emphasizes moments of strength, community, or resilience, I interpret this as an act of ethnographic refusal, such as valuing how they want their narrative to be portrayed, and I choose to follow their direction instead of steering the conversation back to trauma. Conversely, playfulness and humor can function as understated, but powerful means to undermine the authority and question the researcher’s role (Siriwardane-de Zoysa et al. 2023).

“Kapwa” as a form of inspiration, creativity, and resistance

The Indigenous Filipino concept of kapwa refers to the profound sense of interconnectedness and shared identity. While often translated as “fellow being” or “other person,” kapwa also reflects the idea of unity between the self and others (Macaraan, 2022; Matienzo, 2022; Solitario, 2022). In contrast to the individualistic ideologies dominant in many Western societies, kapwa assumes an ethical framework grounded in empathy, reciprocity, mutual respect, community, and relationality. As a first-generation scholar, navigating the academic landscape was daunting as I navigated through applying to various scholarships and grants, identifying my research interests, seeking mentorship and publication opportunities, and other activities that come with being a PhD student. Moreover, as one of the few queer Filipino graduate students in my department, I find myself constantly reflecting on the privilege to be in a space where I can pursue my academic aspirations and the barriers and loneliness that often accompany such a unique positionality.

Within this emptiness and absence of community and relationality, I began to center and create supportive relationships where, in collectivity, we can further foster connections and uplift those who share similar experiences. These connections were cultivated not only within my department but also across universities in Canada and the United States, and through community-based national networks of Filipino and queer social workers. I intentionally build relationships that extend beyond the walls of academia and recognize the importance of community relationships both in my social work and research practice. Through connecting with kapwa queer Filipino scholars, I found that our “difference is that raw and powerful connection from which our personal power is forged” (Lorde, 1984, p.112). From this difference, I learned to value the unique positionalities I inhabit. From this difference, I found a community of kapwa Filipino queer scholars and social workers where I can draw a source of creativity, inspiration, and relationality in moments of doubt.

In academic spaces, I demonstrate kapwa by mobilizing with other queer, Filipino social worker-researchers to critically discuss how racism and heteronormativity shape our scholarship and practice, as well as share resources and offer mentorship opportunities with other queer and Filipino scholars. Rather than treating academia as an individual pursuit, I approach it as relational labour, where we think together about how to navigate predominantly White institutions while remaining accountable to our communities. In clinical spaces, I enact kapwa by engaging in dialogue with Filipino and queer social workers about culturally grounded practice, critically examining how Western therapeutic models may conflict with communal Filipino values, and collaboratively developing approaches that honour relationality, family systems, and shared humanity. These practices of mobilizing, thinking, and critically discussing our navigation of academic and clinical institutions embody kapwa not merely as theory, but as lived relational praxis. From this collective engagement, I found my inner raw power that catalyzes transformation—propelling me to unapologetically take up space and zealously challenge the embedded racism, homophobia, and transphobia within our academic and social institutions.

Conclusion

This paper aims to address a gap in the literature by offering a first-person critical reflection on the experiences of a queer and Filipino social worker–researcher navigating dual identities as both clinician and researcher within Western academic spaces. Through these reflections, I examined how insider–outsider positionality can produce a simultaneous sense of legitimacy and marginalization, where institutional recognition as a doctoral candidate and social worker exists alongside the marginal positioning of my queer and Filipino identities. I also explored how the intersection of clinical instincts and research responsibilities can blur professional boundaries, creating moments of internal role confusion that require careful ethical and reflexive consideration. To navigate these tensions, I discussed strategies, including reflexivity, ethnographic refusal, and the Filipino concept of kapwa, as guiding practices that can support critical awareness of power, recognize the agency of clients and research participants, and employ Filipino epistemologies and relational ways of knowing within Western academic and therapeutic spaces. By foregrounding these reflections, this paper contributes to broader conversations about how queer and Filipino social worker–researchers can navigate academic and clinical institutions with greater reflexivity, relational accountability, and a commitment to challenging the colonial forces that continue to shape our work.