Hi everyone,

I have been reading about reflexivity and bracketing and I have started getting a bit confused. Any of you having the same querries what do you think: In qualitative research is reflexivity and bracketing one and the same?

Furthermore, my biggest dilemma is how we treat our theoretical backgrounds as professionals (personally speech and language therapist doing PhD in education) to our research? How much do we hold back? I suppose it depends on the epistemology we choose (personally phenomenology) but still is there is a right or wrong answer?

Looking forward for your reply!
Butterfly

Hi Butterfly,

Not completely sure but I think the idea of 'bracketing' leans towards a post-positivist epistemology, in that you can 'turn off the tap of ideas' when analysing data. A more constructivist position would be open and reflective about ones influence on the study/data collection. I'm using constructivist grounded theory, and when I mentioned the idea of bracketing, my supervisor almost fell off her chair!

I'd also recommend you check a book called 'insider research' by Jarvis. As an insider (ie a researcher/practitioner) there are pros and cons compared to being an outsider (where there are also pros and cons). I have a section in my thesis termed 'insider research' and discuss these issues openly. I also intend to discuss the impact I may have had on the study in my final chapter...plus a reflexivity section... Not sure if this helps, but good luck! :-)

Hi Phdee!

I havent yet said anything to my supervisor that I have been reading about bracketing. I am not sure how he will react :). Probably in similar way as your supervisor. I will definitely read the book you recommend as I am totally freak out about what the examiners might ask :).

I have personally found useful the articles of Ahern (1999) - 10 tips for reflexive bracketing and Gearing's one (2004) Bracketing - a typology (sth like this). Have you chosen a specific form of bracketing? Gearing (2004) that there are different forms of bracketing that a researcher can choose from. The analytical bracketing usually applies for research is phenomoenlogy, ethnography and grounded one. Reflexive bracketing is applied in qualitative research and it usually related with reflexivity, ethics, validity etc.

Shall I also ask you how you treat the different theoretical frameoworks/theories from your previous studies while you analyse your data? Malterud (2001) writes that a 'positioned researcher' should be aware about the theoretical foundations of their education. I have to be honest that I find it very difficult to put aside my previous knowledge and just entitely focus on the utterances of my participants.

I am glad I have found another person in this earth who shares similar concerns! One of the many many concerns that PhD students have!

Thanks again!

I will be using bracketing but am using a phenomenological 'transcendental or psychological' methodology-after Moustakas-rather than Van Manen (for any one who might be into this). I will be using bracketing as epoche-catching myself, when I know I am being subjective-during data collection-knowing that to some extent this is still going to be a bit messy.

My understanding of the the reflexivity aspect is that the bracketing is for my thoughts, as I either talk to participants, or am transcribing data-so it is actually noting the thoughts, as I have them at the time, whereas, at a later point, I might reflexively develop those thoughts as a separate line of inquiry that sits alongside my participant case study data.

Not sure how niaive this might be though, as have put methodology on hold in order to scratch out a more developed lit review. I might think very differently about it this time next year.

Originally was planning to use constructivist grounded theory, which was supervisor's suggestion, but the more I looked into phenomenology, the more I believed that this approach would be a better fit with my overall topic and research questions. So it might be that epoche bracketing is still okay with phenomenology but not with grounded theory.