Advertisement

Ethics and Reflexivity in Researching HIV-Related Infertility

  • Tam Chipawe Cane
Chapter

Abstract

The process of reflection and reflexivity enables researchers to identify emotional involvement during research processes. In HIV related fieldwork, this process may facilitate tensions between the researcher’s professional position, methodological position and personal interests. The use of self-reflexive activities relating to emotions, self-consciousness, awareness and understanding intersubjective context between ethical praxis, participants’ narratives and methodologies, are critical elements of the research dynamic. In the following chapter, I advocate for focused supervision intended to promote the emotional regulation of PhD students during fieldwork. Ethically appropriate methods of supervision will enable researchers to manage emotions that impact on the researcher’s professional, personal and research life.

References

  1. Archer, M. S. (2010). Conversations about reflexivity. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder, P., Holgersen, H., & Moltu, C. (2012). Staying close and reflexive: An explorative and reflexive approach to qualitative research on psychotherapy. Nordic Psychology, 64(2), 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carroll, K. (2012). Infertile? The emotional labour of sensitive and feminist research methodologies. Qualitative Research, 13(5), 546–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crossley, N. (2006). Sociology and social change. Reflexive embodiment in contemporary society. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Davies, C. A. (2008). Reflexive ethnography. A guide to researching selves and others. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2, 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27, 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holmes, M. (2010). The emotionalization of reflexivity. Sociology, 44(1), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Maccarini, A. M., & Prandini, R. (2010). Human reflexivity in social realism. In A. Archer (Ed.), Conversations about reflexivity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Noble, K., & McIlveen, P. (2012). Being, knowing, and doing: A model for reflexivity in social constructionist practices. In P. McIlveen & D. E. Schultheiss (Eds.), Social constructionism in vocational psychology and career development (pp. 105–113). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ruch, G., & Julkunen, I. (2016). Relationship-based research in social work: Understanding practice research. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  13. Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2002). Finding the findings in qualitative studies. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 34(3), 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Savasi, V., Mandia, L., Laoreti, A., & Cetin, I. (2013). Reproductive assistance in HIV serodiscordant couples. Human Reproduction Update, 19(2), 136–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Skovdal, M., & Abebe, T. (2012). Reflexivity and dialogue: Methodological and socio-ethical dilemmas in research with HIV-affected children in East Africa. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 15(1), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Smith, J. A. (2008). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contributions to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1(1), 39–54.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, J. A. (2012). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smythe, E. A., Ironside, P. M., Sims, S. L., Swenson, M. M., & Spence, D. G. (2008). Doing Heideggerian hermeneutic research: A discussion paper. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(9), 1389–1397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Spence, D. G. (2016). Supervising for robust hermeneutic phenomenology: Reflexive engagement with horizons of understanding. Qualitative Health Research, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316637824
  20. Wiley, N. (2010). Inner speech and agency. In A. Archer (Ed.), Conversation about reflexivity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tam Chipawe Cane
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Social Work and CounsellingUniversity of GreenwichLondonUK

Personalised recommendations