Week 3

I had a little bit of difficulty sitting down to write my entry for this week, not because I dislike the material we read – in fact, I find it really helpful – but because I have a hard time not thinking to myself, “Well, that's kind of a no-brainer.” I know that it *isn't* a no-brainer, because there are researchers who do not identify as feminist researchers and who don't employ feminist methods, but I think that practices such as reflexivity, reciprocity, and accountability are so vital to human subject research practice that I have a difficult time imagining any competent research taking place without those measures. Nevertheless, because “traditional research has silenced members of oppressed and marginalized groups,” our readings for this week, starting with Marshall and Rossman, share how various progressive research methods challenge the counter-productive and sometimes even harmful ways previous research was structured and conducted (pp 22-23). Even though steps have been taken toward a more inclusive and thorough research future, there is still a lot of work to be done (or undone). That said, Halse and Honey's “Unraveling Ethics” does an interesting job detailing how sometimes being an ethical feminist researcher is difficult. It's necessary, of course, but certain compromises have to be made to ensure that research maintains its integrity and respects its participants.

According to Halse and Honey, feminist methods allow for reflexivity and awareness of culture-based influences and factors on research, as shown with their example of previous studies invoking stigma and blame re: young women suffering from anorexia (pp 2145). When the focus shifts from individuals onto factors that influence those individuals, in this case those suffering from an eating disorder, real compassionate work can take place. Part of the crux of Halse and Honey's argument is that, in order to be fair and just toward people, researchers must decide to examine not just the effects but the societal, economical, political, and other conditional/environmental situations that cause problems worth our investigation.

The desire to be thorough while gathering data to answer a research question sometimes runs contrary to a researcher's desire to be ethical and compassionate; in those instances, it's important to weigh and consider what options are available (pp 2147): “Confronted with either abandoning our anxiety or our study, we opted for a compromise by adopting the broadest, most inclusive categor[ies] available.” So, transparency about the process and goals has to go hand-in-hand with putting the participants first, the latter of which sometimes involves compromise. If any part of the study involves putting participants' agency on the line, either the study needs to be deconstructed and assessed or, if the study depends on even a slight dismissal of agency, then the study needs to be abandoned. These standards are taking the aim of “doing no harm” to another level through checks and balances.

Hesse-Biber and Piatelli's “Holistic Reflexivity” further demonstrates the need for researchers to hold themselves accountable beyond IRB approval. Valuing process and product simultaneously, there's potential for compassionate research (pp 503-504). While reading, I appreciated the authors' candor and humility, qualities which aid in the ability to be empathetic to participants' needs. From the opening line after the introductory vignettes from each author, it's clear that reflexivity plays likely the most important role in research practice: “Reflexivity exposes the exercise of power throughout the *entire* research process” (pp 495). Thus, throughout the article, it's made plain how an acknowledgment of power dynamics coincides with developing sound methods, first by articulating and legitimizing one's conceptual framework to make it more aligned with objectivity. This revealing is achieved through self criticism and discovering whether the researcher exists as an insider or outsider in relation to participants. Traditional methods are, more often than not, “detached” when it comes to the researcher's role in participants' lives; he/she only served to observe and record and not identify with participants (pp 498). Moving away from that role and acknowledging that our presence in itself is affecting their lives in some way is already a step in a more progressive direction. I'm hopeful that by employing a lot of the reflexive measures discussed in the readings for class thus far, I can become a competent and compassionate researcher. While I do think that these practices should speak for themselves, their application is sometimes difficult. I hope I don't encounter too much difficulty as I enter this new (to me) space.