IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v22y2017i1p68-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emotional Reflexivity and the Guiding Principle of Objectivity in an Inter-Disciplinary, Multi-Method, Longitudinal Research Project

Author

Listed:
  • John Stephen Mckenzie

Abstract

This paper demonstrates how emotional reflexivity can help researchers aspire to the benchmark of objectivity. It will be argued that emotional exchanges during interviews with research participants can enhance understanding based on the author's research experiences in an inter-disciplinary, multi-method, longitudinal study of low-energy, social housing in Aberdeen, Scotland. It will then be demonstrated that emotional reflexivity allowed the researcher to identify how his feelings of empathy with the household occupants, who had had a negative experience, developed and how he began to share their frustrations and disappointments with the Council. This allowed him to locate himself within the research field, and help him understand how this influenced his representation of this group. This consequently allowed him to moderate his focus on the negative experiences of some occupants and produce a more comprehensive account of the full range of the householders’ perspectives. In conclusion, it will be argued that emotional reflexivity can help researchers maintain the guiding principle of objectivity whilst locating the researcher within the field and therefore can provide an effective means of negotiating the pitfalls of the reflexive turn.

Suggested Citation

  • John Stephen Mckenzie, 2017. "Emotional Reflexivity and the Guiding Principle of Objectivity in an Inter-Disciplinary, Multi-Method, Longitudinal Research Project," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 22(1), pages 68-80, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:22:y:2017:i:1:p:68-80
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.4210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.4210
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.4210?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. Alison Pilnick, 2013. "Sociology without Frontiers? On the Pleasures and Perils of Interdisciplinary Research," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 18(3), pages 97-104, August.
    2. Mike Homfray, 2008. "Standpoint, Objectivity, and Social Construction: Reflections from the Study of Gay and Lesbian Communities," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 13(1), pages 130-145, January.
    3. M. Hammersley & R. Gomm, 1997. "Bias in Social Research," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(1), pages 7-19, March.
    4. Helena Flam & Jochen Kleres, 2016. "Inequality and Prejudice. German Social Scientist as Producers of Feeling Rules," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 21(1), pages 161-175, February.
    5. Oana Romocea, 2014. "Ethics and Emotions: A Migrant Researcher Doing Research among Romanian Migrants," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 19(4), pages 176-189, December.
    6. Swen Seebach & Francesc Núñez-Mosteo, 2016. "Is Romantic Love a Linking Emotion?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 21(1), pages 176-187, February.
    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. M. Hammersley, 1997. "A Reply to Humphries," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 51-54, December.
    2. B. Rappert, 1997. "Users and Social Science Research: Policy, Problems and Possibilities," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(3), pages 69-81, September.
    3. M. Hammersley & R. Gomm, 1997. "A Response to Romm," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 86-88, December.
    4. Robert Hollands & Liz Stanley, 2009. "Rethinking ‘Current Crisis’ Arguments: Gouldner and the Legacy of Critical Sociology," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 14(1), pages 13-25, January.
    5. Key Peggs, 2009. "The Social Constructionist Challenge to Primacy Identity and the Emancipation of Oppressed Groups: Human Primacy Identity Politics and the Human/‘Animal’ Dualism," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 14(1), pages 53-62, January.
    6. N. Romm, 1997. "Becoming More Accountable: A Comment on Hammersley and Gomm," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(3), pages 129-136, September.
    7. B. Temple, 1997. "‘Collegial Accountability’ and Bias: The Solution or the Problem?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(4), pages 8-14, December.
    8. Benet Reid, 2016. "Literary Ethnography of Evidence-Based Healthcare: Accessing the Emotions of Rational-Technical Discourse," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 21(4), pages 95-106, November.
    9. Martyn Hammersley, 1999. "Sociology, What's it for? A Critique of Gouldner," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 4(3), pages 113-121, September.

    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:22:y:2017:i:1:p:68-80. 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.