Advertisement

Self-Reflexivity for Social Change: The Researcher, I, and the Researched, Female Street-Based Commercial Sex Workers,’ Gendered Contexts

  • Iccha Basnyat
Chapter

Abstract

Dominant communication research that valorizes objectivity in order to prescribe top-down measures of social change removes the researcher from the process and erases voices of the communities. In contrast, I argue that positioning the self in relation to those “studied” enables the communication scholar to foster participatory coconstructive spaces for change. Through a case study, I explore gendered context of the participants and my narratives to illustrate the significance of self-reflexivity for social change. Through narratives of lived experiences of female commercial sex workers and my self-reflexivity, I am able to juxtapose our stories and locate both the “researched” and the “researcher” as active participants in the research process. In doing so, we connect our gendered selves to the broader context within which these stories transpire moving toward a change that is embedded in a coconstructive process. In fact, I argue that self-reflexivity moves us toward social change projects aimed to achieve social justice, that is, projects that reflect a culturally meaningful knowledge that is coconstructed by both the researcher and the researched.

Keywords

Self-reflexivity Social change Participatory approaches Co-construction 

References

  1. Basnyat, I. (2017). Theorizing the Relationship between Gender and Health through a Case Study of Nepalese Street-Based Female Sex Workers. Communication Theory. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beattie, T. S., Mohan, H. L., Bhattacharjee, P., Chandrasekar, S., Isac, S., Wheeler, T., … Watts, C. (2014). Community mobilization and empowerment of female sex workers in Karnataka State, South India: Associations with HIV and sexually transmitted infection risk. American Journal of Public Health, 104(8), 1516–1525. doi: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop, E., & Shepherd, M. (2011). Ethical Reflections: Examining Reflexivity through the Narrative Paradigm. Qualitative Health Research, 21(9): 1283–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bott, E. (2010). Favourites and others: reflexivity and the shaping of subjectivities and data in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 10 (2): 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded Theory in the 21st Century: Applications for Advancing Social Justice Studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 507–536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Chase, S.E. (2008). Narrative Inquiry: Multiple Lenses, Approaches, Voices. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (pp. 57–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Colombo, M. (2003). Reflexivity and Narratives in Action Research: A Discursive Approach. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 4, retrieved from: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/718
  8. Daya, S., & Lau, L. (2007). Introduction: Power and Narrative. Narrative Inquiry, 17, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Fina, A. (2009). Narratives in interview – The case of account. For an interactional approach to narrative genres. Narrative Inquiry, 19 (2): 233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dutta-Bergman, M. (2004). The unheard voices of Santalis: Communicating about health from the margins of India. Communication Theory, 14, 237–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dutta, M.J. (2010). The Critical Cultural Turn in Health Communication: Reflexivity, Solidarity, and Praxis, Health Communication, 25, 534–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kerrigan, D., Moreno, L., Rosario, S., Gomez, B., Jerez, H., Barrington, C., … Sweat, M. (2006). Environmental-structural interventions to reduce HIV/STI risk among female sex workers in the Dominican Republic. American Journal of Public Health, 96(1), 120–125. doi: https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2004.042200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: standards, challenges and guidelines. The Lancet, 358, 483–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nagata, A. L. (2004). Promoting self-reflexivity in intercultural education. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 8, 139–167.Google Scholar
  15. Lie, R., & Servaes, J. (2015). Disciplines in the field of communication for development and social change. Communication Theory, 25(2), 244–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Waisbord, S. (2014). The strategic politics of participatory communication: Where strategic communication and communication for social change (should) meet. In R. Obregon, T. Tufte & K. Wilkins (Eds.), Handbook of development communication and social change. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Waisbord, S. (2015). Three challenges for communication and global social change. Communication Theory, 25(2), 144–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iccha Basnyat
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Communication StudiesJames Madison UniversityHarrisonburgUSA

Personalised recommendations