Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Jane F. Gilgun
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
• the topics they wish to investigate. This means they account for the personal and
professional meanings their topics have for them;
• the perspectives and experiences of the persons with whom they wish to do the research;
this includes both informants/participants/subjects as well as research partners who have
a stake in the research, such as funders and agencies/settings in which the research takes
place, and
• the audiences to whom the research findings will be directed. This means that researchers
write to specific audiences, presenting ideas and evidence for the ideas in language that
audiences can understand. Furthermore, many audiences want to learn researchers’
thoughts on the meanings of informants’ experiences and actions that may be take in
order to respond to informants.
An Example
My Negro friend brought still another Negro up on the porch to meet me. Should
we shake hands? Would he be insulted if I did not, or would he accept the
situation? I kept my hands in pockets and did not do it, a device that was often
useful in resolving such a situation (p. 7).
This description is a poignant verbal picture of a pivotal moment in Dollard's fieldwork and it is
full of connotations about the racist social practices of the time. This excerpt illustrates a
methodological point Small (1916) made in his essay on the first 50 years of sociological
research in the U.S.: namely, the importance of going beyond "technical treatises" and providing
first-person "frank judgments" that can help future generations interpret sociology. Without such
contexts, "the historical significance of treatises will be misunderstood" (p. 722). Throughout his
essay, Small used the first-person and provided his views--or frank judgments--on the events he
narrated.
We can account for our own reflexivity in a several ways and at different points in the
research process:
I have found both writing relevant thoughts, experiences, emotions, biases, favorite theories, etc.,
reflecting upon these, and talking to others about them engages researchers in processes of
For example, researchers typically work in teams. While engaged in planning the
research, I suggest that researchers begin the reflexivity process, first, by writing down their own
perspectives about the three areas mentioned earlier and then sharing with other members of their
team what they have written. Chances are team sharing will stimulate further thinking and
dialogue that could deepen understanding of the topic area and contribute to a much better
project than would have been possible had not the team engaged in group reflexivity. When such
procedures become routine in team meetings, quality of the research and accountability to
audiences increase.
I do not believe that researchers are obligated to share sensitive personal information in
team meetings, but they can share their own points of view and perspectives and engage in
dialogue about them. They can keep reflective journals for more private considerations and have
private dialogues with significant others if personal issues arise, which happens quite often in
qualitative research. Much of qualitative research involves dealing with the sensitive personal
issues of others.
For instance, I have done for more than 25 years on interpersonal violence. Qualitative
research in this area involves face-to-face contact with perpetrators and/or survivors. Few
researchers have no emotional responses and have no memories or nightmares activated through
contact with the traumas and violence that others experience and perpetrate.
Throughout the research process, researchers would do well to write, reflect upon, and
discuss what is going on for them and how what they are doing may affect their research
informants/participants/subjects, the nature and quality of the data, and how they will present
findings. In these meetings, researchers can share not only their scholarly interpretations of what
they are learning from informants, but also their personal and professional interpretations.
There are many reasons to account for researchers to account for their own responses.
Besides the promise of deepening and broadening understandings of the topical area to be
researched, accounting for reflexivity can add to the integrity of the research. We researchers are
subjective, fallible human beings who are full of biases and favorite theories.
On-going scrutiny of ourselves is a way for us to “come clean” so that we are less likely
to unwittingly impose our perspectives on the accounts and actions of research informants. If we
share our own perspectives, expectations, experiences with others, or simply raise our own
awareness through writing and reflection, we are more like to provide an open venue for the
perspectives of our informants to blossom. Indeed, through engagement in such processes, the
dependability and authenticity of our findings will be greatly enhanced.
An important consideration is how much of our own subjectivity do we put into research
reports. I believe that we as researchers should include only those bits of reflexivity that add to
understanding research processes, findings, and applications—no more and no less. Therefore,
Laura McLeod and I presented extended accounts of our reflexivity in our analysis of
gender and violence in the transcripts of men who had been convicted of violent crimes. The
following excerpts from our article called Gendering Violence (Gilgun & McLeod, 1999)
explains our rationale and provides examples of how we did it.
In preparing to write this paper, our emotions were deeply stirred as we struggled
to understand the accounts of men who had committed violent acts. As women and
members of a class oppressed by male violence, we often identified with the victims of
these men, and we may even have been victimized at times by their words. Jane, the first
author, experienced feelings of fear and vulnerability that she slowly learned to manage
over the course of more than ten years of conducting research on violent men. To this
day, she occasionally walks into her home wondering if a violent man has broken in and
will be sitting in her living room waiting for her.
The second author, Laura, was part of the project for almost two years. In a paper
for one of her graduate classes, she wrote, "My readings of the transcripts about rapes and
murders of women and girls brought out my vulnerabilities in very unexpected ways,
making me feel permeable, without boundaries" (McLeod, 1995). Both of us developed
deep insight into the phenomenology of victimization.
Rather than acting as if we were kin to the Wizard of Oz, presenting our results in
a disembodied, detached, and seamless voice, we chose to present "close ups" of some of
our emotional reactions to the acts that we struggled to understand, along with our
representations of our informants and our more "detached" analyses. As Bruner (1986)
pointed out more than a decade ago, fieldwork involves "at least two double
experiences:" researchers experiencing themselves, researchers experiencing informants,
informants experiencing themselves, and informants experiencing researchers (p. 14). In
our work, we are attempting to report on the first half of this double consciousness. We
consciously, to use Fine’s (1994) words, were "unpacking the hyphen" of the self-other
dichotomy; that is, challenging notions of "scientific neutrality, universal truths, and
researcher dispassion" (p. 70).
The following excerpt shows how we handled our subjectivity/reflexivity in our article. We are
quoting Don, one of two men who provided the material that we analyzed. I did the interview.
Both informants constructed themselves as entitled to having sex with others without
including others in their decisions. For instance, Don said about his rapes, "if I can't get
them this way [through mutual consent] then the other way to get them is, you know, to
just grab them." Drawing from cultural images of "loose" women for whom rape
supposedly has no meaning, his narrative is permeated with an "ideology of supremacy"
(Connell, 1995, p. 83) and constructions of women as sexual objects for men (Donaldson,
1993). The following shows Don defining who the women were and what rape meant to
them. He is imposing ideologies about women who are "loose sexually." This is
hegemonic masculinity in action.
Um, and if I take the right person, you know, it's not going to make a difference
anyway. You know, because, like I said before, you know, the women I was, was
raping were, you know, they'd been in that bar looking for guys anyway....You
know, all my victims were, you know, they, my set up was that they'd been out in
bars or loose sexually, kinds of people. So they had it coming, or they, you know,
it didn't matter to them. So, so, you know, this wouldn't be a big, big thing to
happen to them.
After Don's statement that rape would not be "a big, big thing" to the women, I (Jane)
was speechless for 20 seconds. When I finally was able to speak, I asked Don how he
knew the women were loose. His answer revealed more of his hegemonic thinking:
J: (10 sec) Yeah. (10 sec) Well, how did you know that they were at bars and
were loose? What...[interrupted].
J: Oh.
D:I, I knew, I knew that because that's the kind of people that were out at that
time of night.
D: Yeah.
J: Oh.
D: But,
J: (Laugh)
D: Um, (5 sec) generally it would be late, like you know, midnight, one
o'clock, two o'clock in the morning, that kind of thing. But you know I
was out in, in the winter time sometimes after it got dark, you know, or
not right after it got dark but maybe at seven-thirty or eight o'clock,
or something.
Jane: My laugh was inappropriate but it arose out of an enormous sense of incongruity
and perhaps hysteria. Here is this guy who looked so small to me sitting here making
one-sided, hegemonic constructions of women who deserve to be raped and this same guy
and guys like him terrorize women routinely. In some instances, they ruin the lives of
women. He seems unable to understand the significance of what he did, what meanings
his words and behaviors might have for women in general and his victims in particular.
Based on our extensive conversations, I think he was so focused on himself that he was
not able to step outside of his own frame of reference. In fact, he had a frame of reference
that was outside of mine: the frame of reference of hegemonic masculinity. As we spoke,
he seemed to hunched over, forehead wrinkled, working very hard to explain to me how
he thought about his rapes. I was working hard to understand him.
Laura: They had it coming. They deserved to be raped because he decided who they
were, what they were doing. I'll punish them for not doing what they're supposed to be
doing as women.
Jane: Yes, for not being "virtuous" women. He has no idea who they were. He told me he
wouldn't recognize any of his victims if they walked into the room. Yet, he's taking on a
God-like function of naming them. He's constructing these women, creating them in
images he chooses, independent of them. This is hegemony.
Ironically, Don could not see the holes in his own thinking. He had no basis
except ideological for concluding that the women he raped were loose, and he never
arrived at the conclusion that no one "deserves" to be raped, no matter what. To serve his
own agenda, he chose a hegemonic ideology from a grab bag of possible ways of
constructing women who drive their cars after dark.
Don's views, however, may not be as extreme as we would like to believe. Many
of the rapists in Scully's (1990) research also invoked negative cultural stereotypes and
thus constructed the women in ways that may have helped them to rape: the women were
seductresses, really wanted sex, and were not nice girls anyway. Although feminists have
long challenged myths that portray rape victims as deserving of rape, as for example,
Articles about researchers’ experiences of research, however, can enlighten others about
the nature of such research and help them to prepare for and grapple with their own responses to
their own fieldwork. I have written two recent articles about my subjective reactions to research
with men who have committed violent acts. One shows my growing awareness of the violence
within me: at one point I envisioned a bullet hole between the eyes of a man telling me about a
rape and murder he had committed.
That image arose without my conscious awareness or will. I remember wondering how
that bullet hole got there. Then I realized that I had shot him—not in actuality but in my
imagination, which at that point had a will of its own. See Gilgun (2008) for more about these
experiences. The other article describes 25 years of doing research on violence (Gilgun, in
press).
Write in the First Person
Finally, though I am unsure that reflexivity has anything to do with writing in the first
person in research reports, I do think that good science leads us to this practice (Gilgun, 2005).
Haraway (1988) terms third-person reports as pulling the “God trick” that represents authors as
disembodied voices of all-knowing beings who exist in some exalted realm and not the fallible,
fleshy human beings whom they are.
First person writing has a long history, originating at least in the first part of the
nineteenth century when Albion Small, the founder of the first department of sociology in the
United States at the University of Chicago, recommended it as means of providing contexts in
terms of which future scholars may understand historically-situated research (Gilgun, 1999).
Conclusion
In conclusion, accounts of reflexivity enhance the quality of our processes and outcomes
and increases our sensitivity to informants’ concerns, whether our not we include these accounts
in the products of our research, although I can think of no reason not to include some in all
reports. Reflexivity, then, is also an ethical issue in regard to clients and an accountability issue
in terms of quality.
One final note: we often are unaware of what we think and believe and the implications
of our interactions until we write about them and discuss them with others. Thus, survey
researchers and others who are more quantitatively oriented would enhance their work by
engaging in these processes as well.
Dollard, John (1937). Caste and class in a southern town. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Gilgun, Jane F. (in press). Qualitative family research: Enduring themes and
contemporary variations. To appear in Handbook of Marriage and the Family (3rd ed.). Gary F.
Peterson & Kevin Bush (Eds.), New York: Plenum.
Gilgun, Jane F. (in press). Reflections on 25 years of research on violence. Reflections:
Narratives of Professional Helping.
Gilgun, Jane F. (2008). Lived experience, reflexivity, and research on perpetrators of
interpersonal violence. Qualitative Social Work, 7(2), 181-197.
Gilgun, Jane F. (2005). “Grab” and good science: Writing up the results of qualitative
research. Qualitative Health Research, 15(2), 256-262.
Gilgun, Jane F. (1999). Methodological pluralism and qualitative family research. In
Suzanne K. Steinmetz, Marvin B. Sussman, and Gary W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of Marriage
and the Family (2nd ed.) (pp. 219-261). New York: Plenum.
Gilgun, Jane F., & Laura McLeod (1999). Gendering violence. Studies in Symbolic
Interactionism, 22, 167-193
Haraway, Donna (1988). Situated knowledge. Feminist Studies, 14, 575-599.
Small, Albion W. (1916). Fifty years of sociology in the United States, 1865-1915.
American Journal of Sociology, 21, 712-864.
Note
This is a revised version of Gilgun, Jane F. (2006). Commentary: On Susan Smith: Encouraging the
use of reflexivity in the writing up of qualitative research. International Journal of Therapy and
Rehabilitation, 13(5), p. 215.