Presenting research reflexivity in your PhD thesis
Intended for healthcare professionals
Evidence and practice    

Presenting research reflexivity in your PhD thesis

Dilla Davis Nurse lecturer, School of Health, University of Salford, Manchester, England

Why you should read this article:
  • To understand the concept of reflexivity and its role in research

  • To appreciate how researcher reflexivity adds to the value of research

  • To recognise how PhD candidates can evidence reflexivity in their theses

Background It is important for researchers to be open and transparent about the relationship between themselves and the subjects of their enquiry. Reflexivity enables them to do this, but although there is much guidance in the literature about reflexivity in general, there is little guidance for PhD candidates on including it in their theses.

Aim To provide a practical illustration of how researchers can evidence reflexivity in their theses.

Discussion The author presents the reflexive stance and journey she made when completing a PhD study that used constructivist grounded theory. It predominantly depicts the influences on the choices and decisions she made, so the reader can make sense of the journey she undertook. The author depicts how she began her journey as a novice nurse researcher and concluded it as a fully fledged researcher.

Conclusion There has been much debate about how to integrate reflexivity in the context of a particular study. This article highlights the importance of reflexivity in research and uses excerpts from the author’s thesis to illustrate how it can be presented in a thesis.

Implications for practice The article provides a guide and questions for PhD candidates to consider so they can present and think more deeply about reflexivity in their theses.

Nurse Researcher. 28, 3, 37-43. doi: 10.7748/nr.2020.e1644

Correspondence

d.davis4@salford.ac.uk

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and has been checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict of interest

None declared

Permission

To reuse this article or for information about reprints and permissions, please contact permissions@rcni.com

Write for us

For information about writing for RCNi journals, contact writeforus@rcni.com

For author guidelines, go to rcni.com/write-for-nurse-researcher

Published: 16 September 2020

Introduction

There is an increasing tendency in published articles for researchers to narrate accounts of their research. This involves certain sociocultural constraints and a paradox – building scientific ideas out of something that is integrally biographical, when scientific pursuits tend to require subjectivity to be put aside.

I position myself with those who situate all discourse and narrative at the intersection of history, society and biography. I also believe it is essential for us to be open about how we are situated relative to the subjects of our enquiries, as well as transparent about our relationships to them. It is imperative as a reflexive researcher to understand how to situate your biography in relation to the context of your research.

The main aim of this article is to provide a practical illustration of how PhD candidates can evidence reflexivity in their theses. It presents the reflexive stance I took when undertaking a PhD study using constructivist grounded theory and shows how I started as a novice nurse researcher, navigating the ‘swamps’ of research, before I finally had the epistemological courage to declare myself a fully fledged researcher. I hope that by explaining how reflexivity shaped my research, I can illuminate the way for others to present reflexivity in their theses.

Background

Traditional science privileges objectivity over subjectivity and engagement (Freshwater 2016). However, reflexivity explains, elaborates and deliberates the way research is theoretically contextualised (Engward and Davis 2015). Findings do not emerge naturally from data collection and data analysis, but are shaped by the choices researchers make during their research. Reflexivity makes the research process – as well as the research decisions – transparent and rigorous (Palaganas 2017), by critically discussing the methods used to collect and analyse data (Brunero et al 2015).

Reflexivity is generically, albeit minimally, construed as being formed of awareness of one’s own scholarly proclivities. It helps researchers to uncover the influences that shape the decisions and choices they make in their research and contextualise them. It is different to reflection in that reflection is intended to provide insight by looking an action before, during or after it took place, while reflexivity explains, elaborates and deliberates the way new knowledge is constructed.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) originally defined grounded theory as the discovery of a theory that conceptually explains a phenomenon of interest from systematically obtained and analysed data (Holloway and Galvin 2016). However, unlike in original grounded theory, researcher reflexivity is central in constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz 2006).

My PhD study (Davis et al 2020) used Charmaz’s (2006) constructivist grounded theory to explore how South Asians navigate lifestyle changes after experiencing a heart attack. The reflexivity I detail here as cogitating accounts explored how my historical, biographical and societal perspectives might have influenced how I conducted and presented my research. I kept a research journal as part of the reflexive process and spent substantial time during my research noting in it my thoughts, actions, interpretations and responses. I will use excerpts from the journal in this article to signpost my journey.

Reflexion in the introduction

Charmaz (2006) proposed that under the mantle of constructivism, grounded theorists position themselves in a reflexive framework. This makes transparent their philosophical stance about reality and how they position themselves within it.

I therefore opened my thesis with a prelude to familiarise the reader with my thoughts concerning the critical debate about the nature and existence of truth and reality and the representation of knowledge: ‘I do not assume there is a reality awaiting discovery which can be excavated, nor that I have finally arrived at the truth. Nonetheless, what I would like to emphasise is that between reality and its representation is a process of knowledge construction, which is cultural, partial, complex and positioned within a social and historical context.’

Further on in the prelude, I explain my history and background – essentially my biography: ‘As Bourdieu’s (2017) notion of “habitus” dictates, some of my ideas, expressions and actions may be partly shaped by my exposure to a western frame of reference, schooled in western theory and research methods; others from my South Indian middle-class upbringing, parental values, peer influences and life experiences.’

I also include an explanation of the political and economic climate impinged on my research: ‘The historical space within which this knowledge is co-constructed is singularly poignant with welfare weariness, fiscal restraints, devolutions and integrations of health care along with King’s Fund review of the NHS… reminiscent of the statistics of a bygone era. Overhanging everything else is the anxiety and uncertainty of Brexit. Thus, the underlying philosophy, politics, history and related power interests form a subtle but tangible link between our actions, the research and the pursuit for evidence.’

Reflexion on methodology

One of the critical elements of undertaking a PhD is defending your chosen methodology. It is vital to match the philosophy of the method and the philosophy of the research with the world view of the researcher. I explored in critical depth the different approaches to grounded theory, to ensure I made an informed choice about which was best suited to my research. I make it clear in my thesis that my underpinning philosophical thoughts assumed the need to address that health professional advice of lifestyle changes ss contextual and subjective.

My research journal shows how my research philosophy resonated with the research approach: ‘In my choice of what is important to study, the methods and the emergent analysis, I draw upon almost 20 years of experience working as a nurse in a multicultural mainstream health service. Perhaps I have always been subtly enticed by the narrations of the underprivileged, the minority.

Perhaps this is why, though I have been “pushed and pulled” around the differing ontological and epistemological turns of grounded theory, my research finally rested on a methodology that offered inroads to hear the stories and invoke the voices of participants, thus embracing subjectivity. For as a health care professional, it is imperative that I know how and why South Asians choose as they do so as to enter into a meaningful dialogue with them.’

I alluded to the attributes of the constructivist approach: ‘I believe I will be a “catalyst” co-constructing knowledge with my participants and this embracing of “subjectivity” keeps with my value system. Charmaz’s argument of multiple realities strikes a familiar chord… and I am definitely drawn towards the situating of my participants under the banner of constructivism.’

A pivotal point in choosing your research approach is coming to terms with your own research philosophy. I made mine clear in the prelude when I highlighted my position regarding ‘reality and truth’.

It was vital to me to use an approach that resonated with my world view and cognitive style and matched my research goal. Once I had done this, everything else fell into place: ‘When we undertake a research project, we approach the world with preconceptions about the relationship between mind and external reality; such will affect the methodological approach, research programme and methods of data collection’ (Howell 2013).

Reflexion on data collection

I used interviews to collect data. Commonalities between the interviewees and me enabled an easy familiarity and rapport, thereby yielding rich data.

In this account of my first interview, I highlight how being of South Asian origin and privileging an ‘inside knowledge’, such as trading stories about the parts of India we were from, enabled me to feel part of the milieu: ‘I knock on the door and wait patiently. I am wearing a contemporary-styled cotton salwar and I check the dupatta is properly draped across the shoulders. The door opens. I smile and say: “Hello”… With a beaming smile, the gentleman leads me to the lounge… I remove my shoes, walk across as a lady enters, wiping her hands on her dupatta, and she embraces me and calls: “Beti.” We sit down and then the lady asks: ‘Chai?’ I say: “No, thank you.” “Coffee?” I refuse, as it was Ramadan fasting time for them, and I wait. We sit and smile at each other… and I begin’ (Davis et al 2020).

My presence as a researcher was felt when I asked questions and probed; on the other hand, I was also South Asian – one of them. At first, I reflected that the similarities in our ethnic identities created this sense of belonging, building a spontaneous relationship with the people I was interviewing. Nevertheless, I had to acknowledge on further pondering that interviewees might find it easier to work with researchers from other ethnic backgrounds, as ‘insider knowledge’ can be a double-edged sword. Being an insider can enable the researcher to build an easy and immediate familiarity with interviewees, but they may also be reluctant to share information they perceive as potentially harmful to this new relationship. Interviewees may also assume that researchers from other ethnic backgrounds will not have a detailed awareness of South Asian norms, so will neither question nor challenge whatever they say.

I concluded that no matter who is conducting research and with whom, researchers probe others’ lives to explore phenomena. Consequently, the qualities of a good interviewer – for example, listening and being sensitive and compassionate to the information shared – may help to form the foundations of any relationship. This, in turn, would demand honesty, reciprocity and trust, which are integral to qualitative data collection. As a nurse, I have incorporated these qualities and attributes into my clinical practice, as required by my professional code (Nursing & Midwifery Council 2018). Therefore, I believe that when interviewing, it would be wise to privilege them above any ethnic matching.

Reflexion in data analysis

Analysis in constructivist grounded theory begins with the transcription of the interviews. The researcher then ‘codes’ the transcripts, naming and labelling segments of data (Charmaz 2006). As coding progresses, it moves through increasing levels of abstraction: the concepts identified early in the analysis are still closely tied to the data (Charmaz 2006) while the higher level concepts developed later on explain and provide theoretical insights into increasingly large slices of the data (Charmaz 2006).

As a reflexive researcher, I have the onus to make explicit how I interpreted the data. I used two types of coding – line-by-line and focused coding – as deemed appropriate by Charmaz (2006) to analyse the data to form theoretical categories and formulate the substantive theory.

I think of the reflexivity in data analysis as ‘leaving my footprints in the coding journey’. The relationships I established with participants when collecting data were emphasised by the analysis. A tripartite relationship between the data, the participants and me emerged and influenced the analysis – I used the lens of my personal philosophy to filter the transcriptions, which were generated from data provided by the participants, making the process uniquely co-constructive and not merely interpretive.

Constructivist grounded theorists can never be neutral in their exploration and interpretation of phenomena – meaning is constructed through experiences, disciplinary proclivities and perceptions (Charmaz 2006). Therefore, it was important for me to acknowledge how I brought in my knowledge of nursing and experience when co-constructing the coding categories.

The prelude to my thesis indicated what these disciplinary proclivities and perceptions are: ‘My exposure to a western frame of reference, schooled in western theory and research methods, my South Indian middle-class upbringing, almost 20 years of experience of being an NHS nurse in a multicultural society, parental values, peer influences and life experiences.’

Throughout the coding, from the preliminary line-by-line coding to the formation of a substantive theory, I ensured there was an unambiguous level of reflexivity to enrich my analysis’ theoretical sensitivity. For example, I wrote in my research journal: ‘I felt I needed someone to verify that these “codes” are indeed correct! However, as I continued further into my coding journey, I become more conversant with the perspective of there being no “right” interpretation, that is no “right code” – and this is rightly aligned to the “multiple realities” perspective. With my nurse hat on, I expected the coding and analysis to follow a neat pattern, moving from one distinct stage to another. However, I find that it was not so and the analysis progressed in a much less “neat” fashion.’

Reflexivity in the discussion

My thesis’ discussion starts with a reflection on how laborious the writing was, which stemmed from ‘imposter syndrome’ – the feeling that one is a fraud in one’s chosen profession and will consequently be ‘found out’. But this reflexivity enabled me to clarify how the discussion would unfold and incorporate the literature review, data analysis and findings.

‘I gaze catatonically at the title I have just typed in and the empty space below… Am I surprised at my findings? What is new here? Is there anything here that makes it different from the known literature? I turn the pages for my research questions, using these as a frame for my discussion. Then I go back into my literature chapter and pull out the sensitising concepts related to those research questions, then I re-read the narratives of my participants, then I pull out the synthesis and interpretation paragraphs of my findings chapter and I bring all three into the blank page in front of me. And I start my weaving, pulling the threads of literature and my data… How many mornings more?’

Reflexivity in the conclusion

I conclude my thesis with an epilogue in which I concede that the knowledge the participants and I have co-constructed is inherently partial and acknowledge that the analysis is spatially and temporally located: ‘Alluding to the substance of everyday experience – where and when; here and now; or a there and then, I believe it would be wise not to judge the story based on the chapter you walked into.’ Nonetheless, even with those constraints, I can still essentialise the experience of the participants in the context in which they inhabit.

I also mark my signature in the field – the end result of the PhD candidature: ‘As a sign of epistemic humility and honesty, I pay homage to the Aristotelian conception of “phronesis” – practical, limited wisdom – which leaves you with just one facet of the reality, a truth as I see it with the participants, tailor made for this context, for this community, a story we tell together… me as the researcher and the participants… therein, by claiming my findings as original contribution and marking my imprint in the field, I sign off as a researcher.’

Reflexivity – a perilous activity

I regard reflexivity as a ‘perilous activity’, as it becomes quite challenging – balancing self-analysis and confessing to methodological inadequacies without jeopardising the outcome. To what extent and in how much detail can I provide an accurate account of my methodological experience without compromising my research?

It was difficult not to fall into a swamp of unwarranted self-analysis – the more insight I gained, the more I ran the risk of doubt myself. For example, when being reflexive, I asked myself: ‘Who am I, by the simple of virtue of my training, to be so confident while interpreting and assigning meaning to another’s experience?’ However, threading my self-analysis throughout my thesis, while navigating this complex path, enabled me to develop insight.

The insider/outsider and the trinity concept

I felt I often embodied the ‘trinity concept’ – the researcher, the South Asian and the nurse, each of which was an entity in itself.

‘As a South Asian myself, each home I visited, I felt a part of me visiting my home in India. They (the participants) received me with such warmth and generosity – I was often welcomed into the kitchen. It shames me to acknowledge such a welcome which they tendered; I might not have proffered to any researcher at my doorstep.’

This trinity concept was not without its dangers.

‘As a Malayali South Asian, I acknowledge and am aware of the entrenching rituals and different practices across the groups in my multi-faith, diverse community. I could empathise with migration and integration strains they encountered, and the cultural demands placed on them. Nevertheless, my role as a researcher also raises some methodological dilemmas such as the manner in which to address elders as well as I, as a South Asian woman addressing “men”.’

In particular, I needed to watch for the pitfalls of misinterpreting the nuances and cues in which I am well versed as a South Asian. For example, I needed to countercheck that I interpreted the nodding of the head or the periodic ‘Hey na?’ (‘Is not it so?), through which they might seek validation from me as a South Asian or nurse, but which as a researcher I could not give.

Empathic distance and emotional trigger

There is usually a struggle when interviewing to maintain an empathic distance and not disclose personal material, which would risk involvement and compromise the researcher perspective (Berger 2015). This happened during my research.

My father had suffered a heart attack and when one of the participants in the study said during an interview, ‘I am very, very tired; I have no energy to do anything,’ it acted as an emotional trigger, as I had heard my father says something similar a week into his recovery journey. I shared the story of my father’s heart attack and observed a distinct change when the participant realised I knew from personal experience what I was asking about and was not ‘an outsider looking in’.

Coupled with this was the cathartic benefit apparent to me towards the end of data collection of having shared the story. This also enabled deeper reflection on the similarities and differences between my father’s and the participants’ experiences.

The philosophy

In setting out in my thesis the links between my ontology, epistemology and methodology, I envisage that the reader is effortlessly guided to the philosophical and theoretical rendering and to the choices I have made. This open and reflective approach was intentional, as it leaves an auditable trail of the credible decisions I made in the study. However, reflexivity should be used not simply to legitimise the researcher’s philosophy but to embed the research in an epistemological context (Berger 2015, Dodgson 2019).

Presenting the world of the participants through their narrative excerpts and quotes is another way I demonstrated the epistemological context of my research. It also ensured that the participants’ voices were heard and not muffled by the potentially authoritarian nature of a thesis. However, I do not abdicate any intellectual responsibility, by making known the epistemological context and the origins of any of the metatheoretical advancements from my research (Johnson and Duberley 2003).

Therefore, in the prelude to the thesis and by interlacing the narration through journal excerpts, I sought to retain the conviction that my research was pragmatically driven – and that the ‘practical wisdom’ gained from it can advance progress and promote improvements in our society.

Epistemological maturity and humility

I do not claim either unlimited wisdom or epistemological perfection. Instead, reflexivity has enabled me to circumvent the arrogance of epistemic certainty and self-sufficient knowledge.

This appreciation of convictions and distinctions comes with a risk of incompleteness – research is incomplete if no further questions arise from it. Consequently, I do not in any way claim I have achieved closure for my research, as it has revealed only a facet of the truth. I pay homage to the complexity of reality in my thesis, with the words of Kalleberg (2007) echoing relentlessly in it: ‘How little the single scientist knows in relation to the total community of inquirers’, which enabled me to leave the reader with ‘just one facet of the reality, the truth as I see it with the participants’.

Conclusion

Reflexivity is not just a cursory explanation, but an in-depth scrutiny of the researcher’s role in the construction of new knowledge, how the researcher arrives at conclusions and how the resulting knowledge can shape the world. As such, it is not a destination, but a pursuit.

Much has been written about reflexivity in general, but the literature rarely explains how to present it in a PhD thesis. One of the challenges is operationalising the conceptual understanding of reflexivity. How to integrate reflexivity in the context of a particular study has been the source of much debate (Patnaik 2013) and a final intellectual tension is the writing approach, which requires practice and experience.

This article has highlighted for novice PhD candidates the importance of reflexivity in research and shown how they can present it when writing their theses. Acknowledging the researcher’s voice and threading the researcher’s positionality throughout the thesis endorses the intersubjective paradigm of qualitative research. Some questions I attempted to address to include reflexivity (Patnaik 2013) at various stages of my research and which PhD candidates should consider as well include:

  • » How has my personal or professional history influenced my choice of topic?

  • » How do my gender, culture and professional and personal background influence my positioning in the research process when choosing a methodology and collecting and analysing data?

  • » How has my background – ethnic and professional – influenced my relationship with the participants?

  • » What are the roles I was called on to enact while interacting with participants?

  • » What are my possible advantages and disadvantages in terms of personal history and professional competence?

  • » What might be the emotional triggers that my personal or professional history influenced during the research?

Implications for practice

  • Reflexivity is formed from awareness of one’s own scholarly proclivities

  • It helps researchers to uncover the influences that shape the decisions and choices they make in their research and to contextualise them

  • PhD researchers may find it challenging to balance self-analysis and presenting methodological inadequacies, without jeopardising the research outcome

References

  1. Berger R (2015) Now I see, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research. 15, 2, 219-234. doi: 10.1080/10428232.2010.523678
  2. Bourdieu P (2017) Habitus. In Hillier J, Rooksby E (Ed) Habitus: A Sense of Place. Second edition. Routledge, Abingdon, 43-52.
  3. Brunero SJ, Jeon YH, Foster K (2015) The journey of positioning self as both mental health nurse and qualitative researcher: a critical reflection. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 22, 7, 543-548. doi: 10.1007/s11213-005-4155-8
  4. Charmaz (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Sage Publications, London.
  5. Davis D, Jones I, Johnson M et al (2020) ‘I don’t do it for myself, I do it for them’. A grounded theory study of South Asians’ experiences of making lifestyle change after myocardial infarction. Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15395
  6. Dodgson JE (2019) Reflexivity in qualitative research. Journal of Human Lactation. 35, 2, 220-222. doi: 10.1111/1467-6427.12205
  7. Engward H, Davis G (2015) Being reflexive in qualitative grounded theory: discussion and application of a model of reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 71, 7, 1530-1538. doi: 10.1177/160940690300200105
  8. Freshwater D (2005) Writing, rigour and reflexivity in nursing research. Journal of Research in Nursing. 10, 3, 311-315. doi: 10.1177/1049732304267062
  9. Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) Grounded theory: the discovery of grounded theory. Sociology. 12, 27-49.
  10. Holloway I, Galvin K (2016) Qualitative Research in Nursing and Healthcare. Fourth edition. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
  11. Howell KE (2013) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology. Sage Publications, London.
  12. Johnson P, Duberley J (2003) Reflexivity in management research. Journal of Management Studies. 40, 5, 1279-1303. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00380
  13. Kalleberg R (2007) A reconstruction of the ethos of science. Journal of Classical Sociology. 7, 2, 137-160. doi: 10.1017/S026988970000079X
  14. Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) (2018) Professional Standards of Practice and Behaviour for Nurses, Midwives and Nursing Associates. NMC, London.
  15. Palaganas EC, Sanchez MC, Molintas MP et al (2017) Reflexivity in qualitative research: a journey of learning. The Qualitative Report. 22, 2, 426-438.
  16. Patnaik E (2013) Reflexivity: situating the researcher in qualitative research. Humanities and Social Science Studies. 2, 2, 98-106.

Share this page

Related articles

Improving nurses’ skills through e-learning
This article examines the development of an interactive...

Giving staff confidence to discuss sexual concerns with patients
This article describes a countywide event to raise awareness...

Services for women with metastatic breast cancer in the US
This article describes the experience of a nurse on an...

The biology of cancer
Cancer research is moving fast. Understanding of the biology...

Award-winning project raises care standards and patient satisfaction
A project involving the introduction of a new discharge...