66
5 Methodology
The fifth phase is entitled ‘practice’. This stage focuses on the relationship between
discourse and practice. One example of the fifth phase can be seen when I analyse
experts’ recommendations. In Chapter 8, I unpack the different ways participants’
recommendations shaped different practices of social investment.
The sixth phase, called ‘subjectivity’, refers to the analysis of the relationship
between discourse and subjectivity. This stage traces the effects of the different
and multiple subject positions that emerge in participants’ accounts and whether
these subject positions open up or close down opportunities for action (Willig,
2001). I engage in Phase six where I consider how participants discussed alternative
constructions of social investment (in Chapter 6–8).
The guidelines and interviews were also investigated via a process of crystallisation. Crystallisation is a technique that provided me with a more holistic view of
the research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Flick, 2009; Hemming, 2008). According to
Denzin and Lincoln (2011), the metaphor of qualitative research is the crystal—and
not the triangle. This is because the crystal reflects multiple dimensions of reality,
while the triangle represents only three dimensions. It is, therefore, through the
process of crystallisation that I explored the multiple dimensions that emerged from
the analysis of the relationship between different discursive understandings and practices of social investment. In this research, crystallisation occurred through the analysis of contextual data (Government experts’ interviews and the selected guideline
documents), which were filtered through knowledge gleaned from social investment
experts’ interviews (Mathison, 1988).
5.4 The Research Field—Reflexive Accounts
From a poststructuralist perspective, people are embedded in discourses; these people
include the researcher and the research participants (Grant & Giddings, 2002). I
adopted practices of reflexivity in order “to better represent, legitimize, or call into
question [my] data” (Pillow, 2003, p. 297). Reflexivity signposts the researcher’s
‘bias’ in relation to the object of research as a result of their individual subjectivity and
life experience (Haraway, 1988). Ideally, reflexivity focuses on the researcher’s epistemological and ontological viewpoints and the research outcomes (Pillow, 2010).
Although reflexivity permeates all phases of the research (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004)
it is not a process adopted by all qualitative researchers (D’Cruz, Gillingham, &
Melendez, 2007).
According to Pillow (2010, p. 271; also see Pillow, 2003) reflexivity should entail
the process of uncovering and challenging researchers’ taken-for-granted viewpoints.
In Pillow’s (2003, 2010) terms, researchers should ‘map’ their understandings and
attitudes throughout the research process. By doing so, a resource that researchers
can reflexively draw on is created. There are three main practices of reflexivity that
researchers can adopt, which are (1) keeping a research log, (2) writing field notes,
and (3) journaling (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011; Miles & Huberman, 1984;
Miles et al., 2013; Pillow, 2010).
5 Methodology
The fifth phase is entitled ‘practice’. This stage focuses on the relationship between
discourse and practice. One example of the fifth phase can be seen when I analyse
experts’ recommendations. In Chapter 8, I unpack the different ways participants’
recommendations shaped different practices of social investment.
The sixth phase, called ‘subjectivity’, refers to the analysis of the relationship
between discourse and subjectivity. This stage traces the effects of the different
and multiple subject positions that emerge in participants’ accounts and whether
these subject positions open up or close down opportunities for action (Willig,
2001). I engage in Phase six where I consider how participants discussed alternative
constructions of social investment (in Chapter 6–8).
The guidelines and interviews were also investigated via a process of crystallisation. Crystallisation is a technique that provided me with a more holistic view of
the research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Flick, 2009; Hemming, 2008). According to
Denzin and Lincoln (2011), the metaphor of qualitative research is the crystal—and
not the triangle. This is because the crystal reflects multiple dimensions of reality,
while the triangle represents only three dimensions. It is, therefore, through the
process of crystallisation that I explored the multiple dimensions that emerged from
the analysis of the relationship between different discursive understandings and practices of social investment. In this research, crystallisation occurred through the analysis of contextual data (Government experts’ interviews and the selected guideline
documents), which were filtered through knowledge gleaned from social investment
experts’ interviews (Mathison, 1988).
5.4 The Research Field—Reflexive Accounts
From a poststructuralist perspective, people are embedded in discourses; these people
include the researcher and the research participants (Grant & Giddings, 2002). I
adopted practices of reflexivity in order “to better represent, legitimize, or call into
question [my] data” (Pillow, 2003, p. 297). Reflexivity signposts the researcher’s
‘bias’ in relation to the object of research as a result of their individual subjectivity and
life experience (Haraway, 1988). Ideally, reflexivity focuses on the researcher’s epistemological and ontological viewpoints and the research outcomes (Pillow, 2010).
Although reflexivity permeates all phases of the research (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004)
it is not a process adopted by all qualitative researchers (D’Cruz, Gillingham, &
Melendez, 2007).
According to Pillow (2010, p. 271; also see Pillow, 2003) reflexivity should entail
the process of uncovering and challenging researchers’ taken-for-granted viewpoints.
In Pillow’s (2003, 2010) terms, researchers should ‘map’ their understandings and
attitudes throughout the research process. By doing so, a resource that researchers
can reflexively draw on is created. There are three main practices of reflexivity that
researchers can adopt, which are (1) keeping a research log, (2) writing field notes,
and (3) journaling (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011; Miles & Huberman, 1984;
Miles et al., 2013; Pillow, 2010).