IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v21y2016i2p1-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transferring from Clinical Pharmacy Practice to Qualitative Research: Questioning Identity, Epistemology and Ethical Frameworks

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Pattison Rathbone
  • Kimberly Jamie

Abstract

Researcher identity can present methodological and practical, as well as epistemological and ethical tensions, in sociological research. Identity management, such as the presentation of the self during a research interview, can have significant effects on the research encounter and data collected. ‘White coat syndrome’, the disjointed interaction between clinicians and patients arising from unequal power and expertise, can occur in research encounters. For clinicians engaged in social science research, identity management can be particularly challenging given the added potential for ‘white coat syndrome’. Drawing on the experiences of a registered pharmacist undertaking qualitative research, we discuss the epistemological transition many clinicians go through when embarking on sociological research. We suggest that identity management is not just a matter of optimising data collection but also has ethical tensions. Drawing on Goffman's social role theory, we discuss the epistemic tensions between researchers’ dual identities through positivist and constructivist frames, discussing the professional and legal implications, as well as the methodological practicalities of identity negotiation. We discuss conflicting professional and regulatory ethical frameworks, and ethics committees’ negotiation of intervention and elicitation during research encounters and the conflict in managing professional, legal and clinical responsibilities whilst adhering to expected social research conventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam Pattison Rathbone & Kimberly Jamie, 2016. "Transferring from Clinical Pharmacy Practice to Qualitative Research: Questioning Identity, Epistemology and Ethical Frameworks," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 21(2), pages 1-9, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:21:y:2016:i:2:p:1-9
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.3888
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.3888
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.3888?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manos Savvakis & Manolis Tzanakis, 2004. "‘The Researcher, the Field and the Issue of Entry: Two Cases of Ethnographic Research concerning Asylums in Greece’," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 9(2), pages 86-97, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nelson Turgo, 2012. "‘I Know Him So Well’: Contracting/tual ‘Insiderness’, and Maintaining Access and Rapport in a Philippine Fishing Community," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 17(3), pages 19-31, August.
    2. Natalie Tyldesley-Marshall & Sheila Greenfield & Susan J. Neilson & Jenny Adamski & Sharon Beardsmore & Martin English & Andrew Peet, 2020. "Exploring the Role of ‘Shadowing’ as a Beneficial Preparatory Step for Sensitive Qualitative Research with Children and Young People with Serious Health Conditions," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, January.
    3. Savvakis Manos & Tzanakis Manolis & Alexias Giorgos, 2015. "Breast Cancer in Contemporary Greece: Economic Dimensions and Socio-Psychological Effects," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 5(3), pages 933-933.
    4. Nicola Illingworth, 2006. "Content, Context, Reflexivity and the Qualitative Research Encounter: Telling Stories in the Virtual Realm," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 11(1), pages 62-73, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:21:y:2016:i:2:p:1-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.