Discussion for SRQR item: Researcher characteristics and reflexivity

Researcher characteristics and reflexivity

Describe how roles and identities of research team members influence choice of research approach, data collection, and data analysis.1

“Coming from quantitative research it felt strange to include such personal descriptions of the team. But I came to realise why it was useful to others, and that peer reviewers would expect it.” Tim Westland - Researcher

Describe the perspectives, assumptions, prior knowledge, preliminary hypotheses, and/or motives (the “stance”) of the members of the research team.

Describe the researchers’ relationships to participants in the study and what decisions were made in light of these relationships.2

If your research was observational (e.g., ethnography), describe the role of the researcher along a spectrum from passive observer (no involvement in the activity studied) to participant-observer (ranging from some limited involvement in the activity to full involvement).

There is no expectation that the study could be precisely replicated; these characteristics and perspectives of the researcher should not be mentioned in the limitation section. (See also Item 14: Data Analysis)

Jump to:

Why readers need this information

In positivist and post-positivist paradigms, personal characteristics and perspectives of researchers might be viewed as biases that limit the credibility of study findings, while in constructivist or interpretivist paradigms the characteristics and perspectives of the researchers are important contextual factors that are an accepted part of the study design, data collection, and data analysis. These characteristics and perspectives may explain how the researcher(s) obtained access to the site or participants included in the study or may add valuable insight during data analysis.

Examples

Reflexivity was maintained by the research team through the analysis and writing by recording, discussing and challenging established assumptions. In addition both EH and SV kept reflexive diaries.

The first author conducted all interviews and discussion groups. Her own medical undergraduate training took place between 1995 and 2000. She was not known to the participants of this research prior to undertaking the study and deliberately did not undertake any clinical or teaching activities locally alongside this research. Whilst it was useful to ‘know’ (from her own background) what the students were talking about medically (and in terms of detecting items of significance), as a researcher she made conscious efforts not to accept potentially common assumptions at face value.

Back to top

Footnotes

  1. Relevant personal characteristics might include cultural background, occupation, experience, training, position/ power dynamics, gender, race/ethnicity, and sponsoring institution.↩︎

  2. For example, were any members of the research team part of the sample of potential participants in the study? Do any members of the team teach, supervise, or have any authority over participants in the study? If so, how do these characteristics influence choices about their roles in data collection and analysis?↩︎