Refleksivite ve Etkileşim Açılarından Nitel Araştırmacı Olmanın Fırsatları ve Zorlukları

Öz

Nitel araştırma sürecinde araştırmacının aktif rol oynaması nedeniyle araştırmacı-araştırma etkileşimi önem taşımaktadır. Bu etkileşimin farkındalığı anlamına gelen refleksivite, araştırma sorusunun oluşturulmasıyla başlayıp bulguların paylaşılmasıyla biten araştırma sürecinin tüm aşamalarında geçerlidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı nitel araştırma sürecinde araştırmacı-araştırma etkileşimini inceleyerek kendi süreçlerini paylaşan araştırmacıların deneyimlerini derlemektir. Özellikle başlangıç düzeyinde nitel araştırmacılar için rehberlik etmesi hedeflenen bu derlemede, süreci zorlaştırma riski taşıyan bazı konulara değinilmiş ve olası sorunlara yönelik çözüm önerileri sunulmuştur. Bu bağlamda ele alınan konular katılımcılarla araştırmacının benzerliği, hassas konularla çalışmak, araştırmacının ikincil travmatizasyonu ve rol karmaşasıdır. Katılımcılarla araştırmacının benzerliği, ortak kişisel özelliklere sahip olmak anlamındadır. Hassas konularla çalışmak, travma ve taciz gibi duygusal yoğunluğu yüksek konularda araştırma yapmayı içerir. Araştırmacının ikincil travmatizasyonu, travmaya dolaylı yoldan maruz kalarak travma sonrası stres belirtileri göstermek anlamına gelir. Rol karmaşası ise farklı amaçları olan araştırmacı ve uygulamacı rollerinin çatışmasıdır. Özellikle bu durumlarda araştırmacının bir hazırlık sürecine zaman ayırması, kendi rolünün ve araştırmasıyla etkileşiminin farkında olması, kendi etkisi ile katılımcılardan elde edilen veri arasında denge kurması, süreçte karşılaşacağı riskli durumlarla baş edebilmesi ve araştırmacı öz bakımına önem vermesi, nitel araştırmaların sağlıklı bir şekilde yürütülmesine katkı sağlama konusunda yardımcı olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nitel araştırmacı
• refleksivite
• ikincil travmatizasyon
• rol karmaşası
• araştırmacı özbakımı

Opportunities and Challenges of Being a Qualitative Researcher in terms of Reflexivity and Interaction

Öz

The researcher has an active role in the process of qualitative research; thus, researcher-research interaction is of crucial importance. Reflexivity, which is the awareness of such interaction, is applicable to the process of qualitative research, beginning from the formation of research question to sharing the findings. The aim of this study is to examine the research-researcher interaction, to review the studies of qualitative researchers sharing their experiences and to provide suggestions for possible problems. Moreover, risky issues, namely, similarity of researcher and the participants, focusing on sensitive subjects, secondary traumatization of the researcher, and role conflict are mentioned. Similarity of researcher and the participants’ means shared personal characteristics. Focusing on sensitive subjects includes research on emotionally salient topics, such as trauma or abuse. Secondary traumatization of the researcher means experiencing post-traumatic stress symptoms through indirect exposure. Role conflict is a result of having researcher and practitioner roles, which have different motivations. Awareness of the researcher’s own role and interaction with his/her research, allocating time for preparation, balance between own influence and participants’ reports, dealing with the difficulties and risks during the research process and paying attention to researcher self-care may help a strong qualitative research process.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Qualitative researcher
• reflexivity
• secondary traumatization
• role conflict
• researcher self-care

Kaynakça

1. Baltacı, A. (2019). Nitel araştırma süreci: Nitel bir araştırma nasıl yapılır? Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(2), 368-388.
2. Blackman, S. J. (2007). Hidden ethnography: Crossing emotional borders in qualitative accounts of young people’s lives. Sociology, 41(4), 699-716.
3. Burles, M. C. (2017). Negotiating post-research encounters: reflections on learning of participant deaths following a qualitative study. Mortality, 22(2), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576275.2017.1291605
4. Camacho, D. (2016). Blurring boundaries: An emotionally aware caregiver, social worker, and researcher. Qualitative Social Work, 15(5–6), 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325016652682
5. Charmaz, C. ve Henwood, K. (2008) Grounded theory. In C. Willig & W. Stainton Rogers (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. London: Sage.
6. Chenail, R. J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 16(1), 255–262.
7. Dunn, L. (1991). Research alert! Qualitative research may be hazardous to your health! Qualitative Health Research, 1(3), 388-392.
8. Eatough, V. ve Smith, J. A. (2008) Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In C. Willig & W. Stainton Rogers (eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. London: Sage.

9. Figley, C. R. (Ed.) (1995). Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
10. Figley, C. R. (1999). Compassion fatigue: Toward a new understanding of the costs of caring. In B. H. Stamm (Ed.), Secondary Traumatic Stress: Self-Care Issues for Clinicians, Researchers, & Educators (pp. 3-28). Lutherville, MD: Sidran.
11. Finlay, L. (2002). Outing the researcher: The provenance, process and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12 (4), 531-545.
12. Frost, N., Nolas, S. M., Brooks-Gordon, B., Esin, C., Holt, A., Mehdizadeh, L. ve Shinebourne, P. (2010). Pluralism in qualitative research: The impact of different researchers and qualitative approaches on the analysis of qualitative data. Qualitative research, 10(4), 441-460.
13. Goldstein, S. E. (2017). Reflexivity in narrative research: Accessing meaning through the participant- researcher relationship. Qualitative Psychology, 4(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000035
14. Hubbard, G., Backett-Milburn, K. ve Kemmer, D. (2001). Working with emotion: Issues for the researcher in fieldwork and teamwork. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(2), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570116992
15. Jackson, S., Backett-Milburn, K. ve Newall, E. (2013). Researching distressing topics: Emotional reflexivity and emotional labor in the secondary analysis of children and young people’s narratives of abuse. SAGE Open, 3(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013490705
16. Johnson, B. ve Clarke, J. M. (2003). Collecting sensitive data: The impact on researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 13(3), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732302250340
17. Johnson, N. (2009). The role of self and emotion within qualitative sensitive research : A reflective account. Enquire, 2(4), 23–50.
18. Kiyimba, N. ve O’Reilly, M. (2016). The risk of secondary traumatic stress in the qualitative transcription process: A research note. Qualitative Research, 16(4), 468–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115577013
19. Knight, C. (2013). Indirect trauma: Implications for self-care, supervision, the organization, and the academic institution. The Clinical Supervisor, 32(2), 224–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2013.850139
20. Knight, Z. G. (2019). The researcher’s transference in psychoanalytically informed qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 16(4), 602–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2019.1577520
21. Kumar, S. ve Cavallaro, L. (2018). Researcher Self-Care in Emotionally Demanding Research: A Proposed Conceptual Framework. Qualitative Health Research, 28(4), 648–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317746377
22. Lazard, L. ve McAvoy, J. (2020). Doing reflexivity in psychological research: What’s the point? What’s the practice? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2017.1400144
23. Merriam, S. B., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M.-Y., Kee, Y., Ntseane, G. ve Muhamad, M. (2001). Power and positionality: Negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(5), 405–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370120490
24. Raheim, M., Magnussen, L. H., Sekse, R. J. T., Lunde, Å., Jacobsen, T. ve Blystad, A. (2016). Researcher- researched relationship in qualitative research: Shifts in positions and researcher vulnerability. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 11(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v11.30996
25. Ross, L. E. (2017). An account from the inside: Examining the emotional impact of qualitative research through the lens of “insider” research. Qualitative Psychology, 4(3), 326–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000064
26. Sampson, H., Bloor, M. ve Fincham, B. (2008). A price worth paying?: Considering the “cost” of reflexive research methods and the influence of feminist ways of “doing”. Sociology, 42(5), 919-933.
27. Sarı, S. (2019). Psikoterapide süreç analizi: Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinin psikoterapi araştırmalarına uygulanışı. AYNA Klinik Psikoloji Dergisi, 6(1), 1-17.
28. Sherry, E. (2013). The vulnerable researcher: Facing the challenges of sensitive research. Qualitative Research Journal, 13(3), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-10-2012-0007
29. Symon G. ve Cassell C. (Ed.) (2012). Qualitative organizational research: core methods and current challenges. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.
30. Thompson, A. R. ve Russo, K. (2012). Ethical dilemmas for clinical psychologists in conducting qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 9(1), 32-46.
31. van der Merwe, A. ve Hunt, X. (2019). Secondary trauma among trauma researchers: Lessons from the field. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 11(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000414
32. Wetherell M., Taylor S. ve Yates S. J. (Ed.) (2001). Discourse theory and practice: A reader. London: Sage.
33. Wetherell, M. (2014). Trends in the turn to affect: A social psychological critique. Body and Society, 21(2), 139–66.