Who am I as a researcher?
My answer to this question is just as fluid as my researcher identity is. I say “it depends” because I discovered that each new interview project added something new to my understanding of why I want to do research. The phenomenological interview project sent me to the philosophers’ corner as I wrestled with my epistemological beliefs and the construct of motherhood; the ethnographic interview made me aware of my membership in a world that is greater than my cozy little oyster shell. The feminist interview caused me to interrogate my womanhood just as I learned more about the woman I interviewed; the oral history project took me back to my Soviet roots and reminded me that history is subjective. I once again concluded that research questions are everywhere and that as long as I remain curious, I will never want for interesting topics to study.
What are my assumptions concerning knowledge production?
My entire life I thought that knowledge is something that is. Like the knowledge of “good and evil” in the first chapter of the Bible, it exists independent of us humans. I imagined that research is just one of the ways to tap into it, which is why methodology is so important: the more sound the research design, the more knowledge you get. In the past few weeks, I realized that knowledge may actually be something that we humans create, so I busied myself with figuring out how method fits in this epistemological view. Interviews helped me understand how subjective the term “quality” can be, and that I need to view such subjectivity as an asset rather than a limitation. I concluded that rigor is more important than any attempt at validity, so if I create knowledge, I better make sure I did my absolute best–no shortcuts, no compromise.
How do I ask interview questions?
By listening to my recordings, I found that my questions need a lot of practice: I mumble, ask convoluted questions, and even talk to myself now and then. However, I must consider how this blends in with my subjectivity as a researcher: I am still learning, and I wonder if my lack of experience actually helps establish rapport with participants.
When roles are reversed, I always find myself most frank in conversations with peers, not officials; I am also more open to being vulnerable if my conversation partner is not afraid of being vulnerable as well. Therefore, by coming across as naturally imperfect interviewer, I may be inviting a more genuine exchange.
What are the implications of my interview practice for the data generated?
I need to prepare better. I need to experiment more. This semester, the majority of my participants were family and friends, and our learning environment was low risk and fun. However, as I look ahead to my future research ideas, I realize that my experiences will eventually include uncomfortable silences, lack of connection with the interviewee, misunderstandings, cultural mismatches, emotionally sensitive topics, and other unpredictable elements discussed by Roulston in chapter 9. I believe that more experience may translate into more rich data, but I think the trick will be in designing studies that utilize my strengths and allow room for error.
What are the implications of my theoretical assumptions concerning research for how data might be analyzed, interpreted and represented?
I am still trying to learn the answer to this question. My goal is to become familiar with as many theoretical angles as I can because I believe that for the purpose of analysis, theoretical assumptions are tools; therefore, the bigger my toolbox, the more I can do with my data, the more rigorous my research process.
As I reflect on the past few weeks, I am grateful for this opportunity to think, learn, and grow in this semester. Thank you.
References
Tong, A., & Dew, M. A. (2016). Qualitative research in transplantation: Ensuring relevance and rigor. Transplantation, (4), 710.