rich descriptions: evoking informant self-reflexivity in marketing and consumer research

This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 22 October 2014, At: 07:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

Rich descriptions: Evoking informantself-reflexivity in marketing andconsumer researchAmandeep Takhar a & Pepukayi Chitakunye ba University of Bedfordshire , UKb University of KwaZulu-Natal , South AfricaPublished online: 16 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Amandeep Takhar & Pepukayi Chitakunye (2012) Rich descriptions: Evokinginformant self-reflexivity in marketing and consumer research, Journal of Marketing Management,28:7-8, 912-935, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2012.700316

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.700316

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0267257X.2012.700316

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.700316

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Marketing ManagementVol. 28, Nos. 7–8, July 2012, 912–935

Rich descriptions: Evoking informant self-reflexivityin marketing and consumer research

Amandeep Takhar, University of Bedfordshire, UKPepukayi Chitakunye, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Abstract This study seeks to extend knowledge of reflexivity theories by movingbeyond a sole focus on researcher reflexivity (Bettany & Woodruffe-Burton,2009) in considering the significance of informant self-reflexivity. It explores thepromotion of informant self-reflexivity as a means to generating more in-depthinterpretive data. Following the call for a ‘structured, disciplinary impetus tobegin’ (Bettany & Woodruffe-Burton, 2009, p. 675) in relation to reflexivity, thispaper draws on insights from two longitudinal studies, and develops someguidelines that could encourage informants to comprehend fully and realise theirviews and thoughts through the injection of reflexivity into the research design.Three key themes emerged as being significant within the research encounter:(1) stimulate discussion and promote co-research, (2) empower informants bybuilding trust, and (3) ethical and moral dilemmas in reflexivity.

Keywords reflexivity; self-reflexivity; co-research; multiple methods; informantreflexivity

Introduction

Theories relating to reflexivity have been debated across a range of disciplines, suchas philosophy (Foucault, 1970), anthropology (Latour, 1988), history (Heidegger,1966), sociology (Ashmore, 1989; Gouldner, 1970), and psychology (Clifford &Marcus, 1986). Within consumer research, reflexivity has largely been discussed andconceptualised with reference to the researcher maintaining reflexivity (Bettany &Woodruffe-Burton, 2006, 2009) in order to gain an enhanced comprehension of theresearch process, as well as to remain objective. In considering reflexive practice inconsumer research, Bettany and Woodruffe-Burton (2009) recently acknowledgedthe range of variations of reflexivity to be found in the literature, such as objectivist,perspectival, experiential, and multiplex reflexivity. In their review, they focusedpredominantly on the role of the researcher in the research process. However, inthe current study, we wish to explore the additional significance of informant self-reflexivity in consumer research. Understanding consumers through their reflexivepractices may help to ‘reframe the role and identity of the individual consumer within

ISSN 0267-257X print/ISSN 1472-1376 online© 2012 Westburn Publishers Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.700316http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Takhar and Chitakunye Evoking informant self-reflexivity in marketing and consumer research 913

producer–consumer relationships, and transform them from sovereign chooser toactive collaborator or, reflexive consumers’ (Beckett & Nayak, 2008, p. 299). Self-reflexivity departs from traditional practice in qualitative research in its capacity toencourage individuals to question themselves and their behaviour. Self-reflexivityis the ‘conscious act of an existential self, wherein we examine our values andourselves by exercising critical consciousness’ (Cunliffe & Jun, 2005, p. 255). It isa practice that relies on our capacity for self-transformation, acknowledging that wecontinuously change as we interact with different environments.

This current study seeks to explore the significance of evoking informant self-reflexivity within the interpretive research process, arguing that it offers an importantmeans of gaining richer data. By applying reflexive theories to research informants,rather than the researcher, we hope to contribute to current methodologicalknowledge within consumer research. This study has been informed by twolongitudinal studies. The first study focused on how computer culture mediated Sikhcourtship rituals within the British Sikh community in the UK. The second studyfocused on the mealtime practices of young children in everyday life. Throughoutboth these studies, the intention of the researchers was to accumulate a thickdescription (Geertz, 1973) and understanding of their informants through multi-method research design. The two longitudinal studies are used in the current paperto demonstrate how evoking informant self-reflexivity within the research processcontributes to richer, more emotive data. They also highlight how informant self-reflexivity can contribute to data triangulation (Denzin, 1978) when adopting amulti-method research design.

Interpretive consumer research

The notion of privileging the researcher over the respondent is rejected within theinterpretivist paradigm. Instead, it is believed that researchers cannot define onemodel of behaviour for themselves and a different one for their respondents: thesame model must be applied (Heron, 1981). In this respect, Hirschman (1986),one of the leading researchers associated with the interpretive approach, advocatesin-dwelling between the researcher and the phenomenon under investigation. Theresearcher and respondent both bring something distinctive and valuable to theresearch that is being conducted, and this is a significant part of the interpretiveresearch process. Whilst Bettany and Woodruffe-Burton (2009) focus on researcherreflexivity in the research encounter, our paper focuses on informant self-reflexivityas a way of seeking knowledge about consumers. This differs from normal practices ofhigh-quality qualitative research in that informants are: (i) liberated from researcherdomination; (ii) active rather than passive in the research encounter; (iii) providedwith the opportunity to express their innermost thoughts and feelings; (iv) providedwith the opportunity to take a step back and reconsider their consumption actions;and that (v) self-reflexivity has the ability to transform informants’ consumptionbehaviour, as in becoming reflexive consumers (Beckett & Nayak, 2008).

Researchers acknowledge that there are many ways of seeking knowledge aboutconsumers and that each form of knowledge is valuable (Hudson & Ozanne,1988; O’Shaughnessy & Holbrook, 1988). This means that multiple realities exist,and these realities are changing and interpreted in numerous ways. One way ofunderstanding multiple realities and of actively engaging informants in the research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

914 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 28

is by using multiple methods in the data-collection process. As such, it is crucialthat researchers adopt multiple methods to comprehend multiple realities fully, andevoke informant self-reflexivity. According to Woodside (2005), a multiple-methodsapproach is necessary to surface the substantial amount of relevant thinking processesthat occur both consciously and unconsciously within different phases of consumerdecision making.

Multiple methods are increasingly being recognised for their ability to bringmultiple points of view to a research project, taking advantage of the strengths ofeach of the qualitative components to explain or resolve complex phenomena orresults (Brannen, 2005; Porcino & Verhoef, 2010). In this way, the researcher andthe researched are constructed as multiple, shifting entities (Bettany & Woodruffe-Burton, 2009). We believe that it is from this perspective that informants can alsobe encouraged to start thinking about their thinking (Johnson & Duberley, 2003),therefore encouraging them to question their own consumption experiences, as wellas providing a credible critical approach to the insights obtained from the phenomenaunder investigation.

Self-reflexivity in consumer research

Cunliffe and Jun (2005) note that reflexivity has been debated across a varietyof disciplines, ‘including, the natural sciences, anthropology, history, sociology andpsychology’ (p. 225). In fact, Socrates (in Zannos, 2004) said, ‘the unexamined lifeis not worth living’ (p. 266) and it is important that individuals consistently inspectand scrutinise all aspects of life. Heidegger (1966) suggested that self-reflexivity isconcerned with understanding ‘the grounds of our thinking by opening ourselvesto the hidden nature of truth’ (p. 36). Self-reflexivity is concerned with engagingin the reflexive process of questioning the basis of our thinking and questioningourselves. While reflexivity is an important and integral part of qualitative research(Sherry & Schouten, 2002), in practice ‘few researchers give reflexive accounts ofdata analysis or discuss how reflexivity can be operationalised’ (Mauthner & Doucet,2003, p. 416).

Reflexivity has been defined as a way to address power and control in theresearch encounter (Bettany & Woodruffe-Burton, 2006, p. 703). This encouragesus (as researchers) to attend to the researcher/researched dynamic, and to giveinsightful commentaries into the research process itself (Woodside, 2005). What is ofimportance in this debate is the balance of power and control between the researcherand the researched (Johnson & Duberley, 2003). This perspective, in part, challengesthe tendency to ‘cleanse’ research, which results in it being presented as a linear,unproblematic process. Wallendorf and Brucks (1993) believe that reflexivity willimprove our understanding of the actual research process.

Operating within this paradigm requires researchers to be clear and publicabout their values, assumptions, and histories, as well as the relationship betweenthemselves and their research participants (e.g. Hertz, 1996; Schwandt, 1994).Charmaz (1990) has urged researchers to define publicly their ontological andepistemological persuasions in the process of making visible the location of theresearcher in relation to the research. For instance, factors such as researcherpersonality and background, project expectations, status, and structural factors suchas race, class, and so forth.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


Within marketing and consumer behaviour, there have been attempts to engageresearch participants in ways which encourage them to be active partners in theresearch and to reflect on their own behaviours in quite thoughtful and specificways such as through guided introspection (Wallendorf & Brucks, 1993). Otherscholars have tried to involve participants through storytelling and narrative (Brown& Reid, 1997). In a similar vein, feminist scholarship has focused more on thenotions of power within the researcher–researched relationship (Bristor & Fischer,1993; Woodruffe, 1996). Although this rich history is clearly prevalent withinconsumer research, it focuses on the power of the researcher and the researched.Previous research in this area (see Heron, 1996) is clearly from a slightly differentmethodological and theoretical perspective than that of this paper, that is, they camefrom a feminist perspective. In line with Heron (1996), cooperative enquiry hasbeen applied in real-life research contexts, such as action learning and has beenviewed as a methodology or as a general way of thinking reflected in methods,therefore emphasising practice and action. This gives primacy to practice as a sourceof knowing (Heron, 1996).

Recent research has conceptualised reflexivity within a transformative agenda,and identified different forms of reflexivity deployed in the literature (Bettany& Woodruffe-Burton, 2009), namely, objectivist, perspectival, experiential, andmultiplex reflexivity. In objectivist reflexivity, the research is more controlledby the researcher, and the ontological dimension is that there is a singularreality. Similarly, in perspectival reflexivity, the research encounter is more controlledby the researcher, but the ontological dimension is that there is a multiple reality.Bettany and Woodruffe-Burton (2009) go on to suggest that there is yet anotherresearch encounter that is less controlled by the researcher, and within this emergeswhat they call experiential and multiplex reflexivity. The difference between thesetwo (experiential and multiplex) is in the ontological dimension, with experientialreflexivity underpinned by a singular reality, and multiplex reflexivity underpinnedby a multiple reality. These categories of reflexivity encourage reflection on, amongother things, aspects of the research that did not go as well as a researcher mighthope. Whilst researchers have focused more on understanding reflexivity relatingto the researcher during and after the research encounter (Wallendorf & Brucks,1993; Hirschman, 1986), there is a dearth of research that focuses on informantself-reflexivity. This provides our paper with an opening to focus on the overlookedaspects of informant reflexivity. Given this background, our paper focuses more onthe research encounter which evokes informant self-reflexivity as a means to gainingricher data and a thick description (Geertz, 1973). Embedded within this taxonomyare particular methodological approaches that are either more controlled by theresearcher or less controlled by the researcher.

What is informant self-reflexivity?

Given that the interpretive interview process produces multiple realities (Riach,2009) and that this may help to identify the different positions that are upheld bythe participant during the research process (Alvesson, 2003), it is clear that it iscrucial that we adopt a multi-method research design in order to understand clearlyour research informants from all possible perspectives. Modern-day reflectionsof self-reflexivity have connections to critical theory, standpoint theory, textual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


deconstruction, and sociologies and anthropologies of knowledge, power, andagency, as well as feminist methodologies (Macbeth, 2001). Though consumerresearchers have focused on the significance of researcher reflexivity in the researchprocess, it is imperative that consumer researchers are equally aware of thesignificance of evoking informant self-reflexivity. According to Riach (2009), ‘ifthe research interview is to continue being a widely used research tool, wemust acknowledge the value of the participant as a reflexive subject’ (p. 358).As contemporary researchers, it is crucial that we engage in reflexive endeavoursthat can capture in-depth informant data ‘in the moment’.

Self-reflexivity is a source of superior insight and awareness (Lynch, 2000)and exposes hidden alternatives, as well as empowering voices that have beendominated by objective discourse (Lynch, 2000). Weick (2002) refers to informantself-reflexivity as ‘real-time reflexivity’ (p. 897) and suggests that it is important thatwe compare ‘in the moment’ self-reflexivity to those moments after the interviewto analyse how the informants perspectives may have changed, if at all. Moreimportantly, according to Riach (2009), evoking informant self-reflexivity ‘allowsus to consider the ways in which research subjects acknowledge and consider theirown positionality or biographically created knowledge in relation to their dialogueand practice’ (p. 366). Reinharz (1983) posits that ‘feminist research has longcalled for a holistic approach to participant involvement throughout the researchprocess as part of a “new ethic of participation”’ (p. 182). Certainly consideringand evoking informant self-reflexivity within the consumer research process opensup elating possibilities in relation to how we situate the research subject withinthe research process. Informant self-reflexivity requires that informants ‘engage withthemselves through thinking about their own thinking’ (Johnson & Duberley, 2003,p. 1279). Furthermore, Riach (2009) suggests that providing our research subjectswith the freedom to be an integral part of the ‘production and questioning ofknowledge formation in the research process is not only a reflexive considerationbut a key dimension of being an ethical, socially “responsible researcher”’(p. 367).

Producing reflexive informants

To address issues of power and control in the research encounter, and to encourageinformants to understand themselves through thinking about their own thinking(Johnson & Duberley, 2003), the two longitudinal cultural studies that provideinsights for this paper adopted multiple-method approaches, as illustrated in Table 1.Study 1 investigated the use of Internet dating by third-generation individualsfrom the British Sikh community, and study 2 investigated the embedded meaningsthat were experienced by young individuals through everyday food consumptionpractices. As evident within Table 1, though both studies were conducted in differentcontexts, that is, the Sikh culture and family homes, both studies were conductedsimultaneously and intentionally sought to adopt similar methodological objectives asa means to explore how significant informant self-reflexivity is within the interpretiveresearch process. More importantly, the two studies together were conductedin various environments, for example online, religious environments, schools, inthe home, and so on, and this enables one to determine if evoking informantself-reflexivity is more successful in one environment than another. However, as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


previously documented by Kozinets (2002), the processes of reading what was onthe computer screen through the online environment proved to be an environmentwhere self-reflexivity was evoked with more ease than the offline environment.In fact, Kozinets (2002) offers specific guidelines relating to netnography, suggestingit is the most appropriate method of observing and gaining insight into the onlineworld. Netnography is an interpretive method created particularly to investigatethe consumer behaviour of cultures and communities on the Internet. Equallyimportant within both research studies is the work of Elliott and Jankel-Elliott(2003) which offers guidelines relating to ethnography suggesting that it is thestudy of behaviour in natural settings and it is about seeing the world through theinformants’ eyes. The focus of ethnography and netnography is on accumulating datawith depth not breadth (Elliott & Jankel-Elliott, 2003). Therefore using a multiple-methods approach not only provided the researchers with in-depth data from variousenvironments, that is, online and offline, but it also encouraged informants in bothstudies to be active members of the research process, thereby ensuring that theresearch encounter was less controlled by the researchers. This allowed multiplerealities to emerge, and ensured effortless understanding for our audiences. In orderto protect all informants that participated in both research studies, pseudonymousnames have been used.

In study 1, data collection started with the researcher interacting with informantswithin the Sikh community and networking at the Sikh temple (Gurdwara) tofind users of the case study, Shaadi.com (online dating website). This then led toinsights being explored using multiple methods such as observations, participantobservations, auto-ethnography, offline interviews (15), and online interviews (15),as illustrated in Table 1. In study 2, five data-collection methods emerged out ofthe research process: (1) visual diaries, (2) online depth interviews, (3) school-based depth interviews, (4) school-based mealtime observations, and (5) home-basedmealtime observations. What was common across these two studies is that datacollection using these multiple methods was undertaken in a sequential manner,with the aim of collating in-depth descriptions of informants’ experiences andperspectives. Here, analysis of informants’ self-reflexivity from each data source wasundertaken before developing the next.

The two longitudinal studies adopted a theoretical sampling approach, whichrequires continually comparing and contrasting the data being collected and seekinginformants on the basis of the emergent constructs, in line with Cresswell (2007).For example, having talked online to several young Sikh users, in-depth interviewswere conducted offline with young adults in the British Sikh community to explorein detail their ‘lived’ experience of using the site, their perceptions of its role intheir lives, and their contemporary interpretation of Sikh courtship. Conforming tothe concept of netnography within consumer research, as emphasised by Kozinets(2002), the informants for the online interviews were recruited through the website’sonline community. However, the informants for the offline interviews were recruitedthrough interaction within the Sikh community and networking at the Sikh temple(Gurdwara) to find users of Shaadi.com. Following from this, the data collection,analysis, and interpretation progressed in an iterative and interrelated mannerbetween the online and offline environments, following the principles for the analysisand interpretation of qualitative data as recommended by Spiggle (1994) and others(Arnould & Wallendorf, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


Table 1 Producing reflexive informants.

Multiple data sourcesObjective Study 1 Study 2– To gain entry into theresearch site

– Observations ofShaadi.com

– Sentence completionexercises in schools(180)

– To create rapport – Observation ofcompetitors’ websites

– To build trust betweenthe researcher and theinformants

– Online participantobservation

– Full experience of theonline datingexperience to theoffline experience

– To ensure that theresearch encounter isless controlled by theresearcher

– Online participantobservation

– Visual diaries (23)

– To encourage aco-research process

– Online interviews (15) – Online interviews (7)

– To allow multiplerealities to emerge

– In-depth interviewwith users (15)

– Personal interviews inschools (15)

– Parental interviews(10)

– School mealtimeobservations (42 daysbreakfast; break timeand lunch time)

– Auto-ethnographicaccounts

– Family observations(4 families; 5 visits perfamily – 20 days)

The core research question for this present study is twofold: (i) how can evokinginformant self-reflexivity contribute to rich and in-depth interpretive research whenadopting a multi-method research design, and (ii) how can encouraging co-researchresult in richer interpretive data?

Reflecting on the construction of the research process

Insights that emerged from multiple data sources of the two studies are usedto illustrate how the approaches adopted encouraged co-research and a richerdescription of the lives of the informants. There is a considerable body of workthat has been undertaken to discuss cooperative enquiry or participative enquiryin the social sciences (Heron, 1985; Heron & Reason, 1997; Heron & Reason,2000; Reason & Rowan, 1981). Although co-operative enquiry or participativeenquiry is well established in some social sciences (Reason, 1994; Reason & Rowan,1981), there is a dearth of research in marketing and consumer research that usesthese approaches to investigate consumption practices. Therefore, co-research ispotentially a beneficial line of enquiry in consumer research because it has been

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


shown to work well in other fields over a period of time. Following on from thisis a discussion of how informants were empowered in the research process, andhow this helped to build trust in the research encounter between the researchers andthe researched. The section then considers some of the ethical and moral dilemmasencountered in these longitudinal studies. Three key themes emerged: (1) stimulatediscussion and promote co-research, (2) empower informants by building trust, and(3) ethical and moral dilemmas in reflexivity.

Stimulate discussion through co-research: A ‘richer description’ of the lives ofparticipants

The researcher in study 1 was an active member of the Sikh community and, in linewith Kozinets (2002) guidelines for conducting netnography, joined in discussionsjust like any other member. In addition to informants being surprised, shocked, andgaining deeper insights about their own consumption experiences, the researcherposed questions that helped to tease out the inner feelings of other members on thetopic under discussion, as well as encourage deeper thinking and reflectiveness; thatis, as members answered questions, the researcher posed questions such as ‘whatpersonal emotions do you experience as you think of traditional Sikh marriage in theUK?’, and as they answered this, they reflected more so on what they were saying.As they answered the question, the researcher then posed questions that encouragedfurther thinking in relation to the area, for example ‘so you’re saying that youthink Sikh marriage is an emotional rollercoaster?’. So the researcher was clearlyencouraging them to be self-reflexive and encouraging them to think about whatthey were thinking. Similarly, informants were provided with the freedom to be anintegral part of the production of knowledge about marriage in the Sikh community.This is being reflexive because informants express certain emotions such as, surprise,frustration, and shock when they think more deeply about their experiences. Theidea of informants questioning other informants as well as themselves creates a livelyinteraction process, to the extent that the researcher becomes almost invisible in theonline research encounter.

Furthermore, the researcher utilised certain words to encourage further reflexivity,such as ‘your view’, ‘perspective’, ‘personal emotions experienced’, and ‘personalopinion’. This may give rise to the question of what may be considered goodqualitative research practice in terms of adopting appropriate techniques; forexample, prompting and probing to achieve ‘rich and deep’ data elicitation (duringthe questioning process) and how this is distinguishable from questions evokingself-reflexivity and introspection. We argue, just like Beckett and Nayak (2008)that self-reflexivity liberates informants from researcher domination in the researchencounter, and offers a form of freedom where informants can express theirinnermost thoughts. In the process of reflexivity, the individual creates a dividebetween their thoughts and actions (Beckett & Nayak, 2008), and in creating thatdivide, steps back from action and reconsiders their behaviour (Foucault, 1970).Within this process, informants are transformed from a mental state of passiveparticipation to active participation, and they become reflexive informants. So, self-reflexivity and introspection is not just about engaging in good qualitative researchpractice, but rather, it is a central mechanism in locating informants in relation toauthority and power in the research process. More importantly, it is about accessingtheir inner thoughts and feelings about consumption.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


Other members also posed similar questions, and probed into the deeper feelingsof other community members (including the researcher) on the consumption topicunder discussion. In this sense, informants were encouraged to act as co-researchers.This is illustrated by the following excerpts from the online interactions:

I’m used to it [pressure] and have grown up with it. It’s always been myenvironment so I just naturally adopted all these different behaviours and ofcourse!! We can’t ever behave normally or be our real selves can we?!! Oh mygod!! I’m just thinking it’s so unfair in so many ways being a girl!! (Jas, Sikhfemale, online)

Here, Jas opens up to talk more about her personal experiences. She feels empoweredand starts thinking about her behaviour more deeply. Shocks and surprises emerge inthis thinking process when Jas realises that she has been subjected to unfair practicesin the past. This emerges as a surprise, emphasised by the use of the term ‘Oh mygod!! I’m just thinking’. Here, Jas shares her deeper insights as she reflects on theexperience. This in-the-moment or real-time reflexivity (Weick, 2002) allows us tosee deeper into the real-life experiences of Jas and many other informants like her.In fact, the sarcasm in Jas’s tone is apparent as she says, ‘we can’t ever be our realselves can we?!!’

These deeper penetrations have been facilitated by the environment in which Jas(and many other informants) were being interviewed (online), and by the fact that theresearcher has become an active member of this online community (Kozinets, 2002).It can be said that this approach provides us, as researchers, with the opportunityto penetrate deeper into those personal and individual practices that are often takenfor granted, and often go unreported in most accounts of consumption. In a similarvein, informants acknowledge and consider their own positionality or biographicallycreated knowledge in relation to their dialogue and practice (Riach, 2009).

Similarly, Saira had this to say:

In terms of my personality, my culture affects who I am as a person; I have mywhite personality and my Indian personality. I’m one person in Indian societyand something else in Western society. I feel like I’m on edge all the time, tobe honest, ’cause I have to think about it all the time. (Saira, Sikh female, offline)

Here, Saira articulates her different multiple identities and expresses her frustrationsbecause she is ‘on edge all the time’. The key point here is that Saira is activelyengaged in sharing her inner feelings, thoughts, and experiences. Again, we see thateven in the offline environment, Saira, and many other informants, engage withthemselves through thinking about their own thinking (Johnson & Duberley, 2003,p. 1279). By interrogating herself in this way, and feeling that she is ‘on edge’, andemphasising that she is being ‘honest’ about it, as well as having ‘to think about itall the time’, Saira clearly shows how informant reflexive practices can illuminateimportant information about consumers.

The co-research process in study 2 was highly influenced by encouraging childrento produce and maintain their own visual diaries. This stage of the co-research processwas centred on a two-week informant-generated visual diary. Here, each informantwas issued a 24-exposure disposable camera to generate pictures (hereby termedvisual diaries) of their everyday experiences with food in both the home and schoolenvironments. This was followed up by a discussion of the pictures generated byeach informant on a one-to-one basis. Interview questions were formulated as eachinformant described their set of pictures. This method allowed the researcher to gain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


deeper insights into practices that are difficult to articulate verbally. Additionally,it generated informant interest, triggered responses, and provided photographicmemories during depth interviewing.

The study found that informants were able to discuss with the researcher theirencounters with food in private locations such as their bedrooms and very late atnight. For example, Chelsea (female, 16), and many other informants like her, led usto a discussion of their food encounters in private spaces such as bedrooms. And yet,such informal eating locations are privy to parental expectations. Unlike Carter andMankoff (2005), photographs were not used just as prompts for retrospective dataelicitation purposes during the subsequent interview stages. Rather, the delineation ofparticipating children as co-researchers is a statement of empowerment; it positionsthem as expert in their own everyday food experiences and capable of collecting thoseimages they believe are more meaningful to their consumption experiences. In thisway, children are empowered to take the lead in discussing these images. As such, co-research is an approach to research with children, as opposed to research on children.This was adopted as a means of listening to children’s voices. By doing this, we gavethem the opportunity to demonstrate their perspectives in a variety of ways (Reason& Heron, 1995). Images of children sneaking out from the canteen environmentwith food hidden under their uniforms to eat ‘up the field’ also emerged.

What is interesting is that informants find this amusing and feel free to talk aboutit. This, in part, is because they get involved in generating the visual diaries, and aremore aware about their own consumption practices than the researchers. Informantslaugh on a number of occasions when sharing their insights. One explanation for thisbehaviour is that the thoughts of informants are moving beyond just the pictures,but are beginning to question the idea of eating in locations that are not allowed atschool or at home, as illustrated in the following extract by Kelly:

Kelly: I also do not like the fact that we are not allowed to eat outside. They alwaystry to get you to eat inside. But I think I’ve had enough of it; it’s just silly to belimited where you eating, and they always around when you eating [laughter].

Interviewer: Not allowed to eat outside?

Kelly: From what I can think of, yeah. I think so . . . Oh we have, yet we are notmeant to [laughter].

Here, we see Kelly engaging in a thinking process as she points out that ‘I think I’vehad enough of it’. She comes to the open and shares her feelings and thoughts abouteating in a specified location.

Similarly, Tasha (female, 15), and many other informants, were free to talk abouttheir food encounters late at night, in their pyjamas, and eating well reclined inthe couch, watching television at the same time. This is illustrated by the followingextract from Tasha’s visual diary. Here, we acknowledge the value of the participantas a reflexive subject. These children think through and make decisions on what theywould like to explore in their food environments. On many occasions, informants arediscouraged by their parents from eating in these locations, but they do it anyway.This offers us superior insight into the everyday food practices of children.

I also have this other one of my sister again [laughter]. That’s that one on there.This is in the living room . . . It’s about eight o’clock. She is eating whilst watchingtelly.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


Figure

1Eatinglateatnight(Tasha’ssister).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


Tasha laughs because she is surprised that this actually happens. The laughterestablishes a pause in the conversation. This mental process encourages the informantto continue sharing their deeper thoughts. What is interesting to note from theseaccounts is that these images capture consumption actions in informal environmentsthat are often outside of parental control. This implies that when parents areasked to share their views about their children’s consumption, there is a greaterchance that the informality shared by these informants is often ignored and takenfor granted. And yet, when children acted as co-researchers, consumption actionsin these informal eating locations were brought to light and discussed in moredetail.

At times, they questioned some of their own behaviours, thereby becoming moreaware of food experiences that they often take for granted. This is illustrated bythe extract below between Rachel (13-year-old girl) and Sam (her mother), capturedduring our family visits.

Sam: Uhhh, cooking . . . Rachel likes cooking actually. She likes baking.

Rachel: I like baking.

Sam: It is good because she makes nice cookies and things [laughter].

Rachel: Yeah, last time I cooked them they were all gone so [laughter] . . . Yeah,I cooked, like, eight and they were all gone [laughter] . . . Yeah, whenever I havetime or not busy, got nothing to do.

Sam: I do it every day you know. Tea, breakfast . . . I just do it.

Rachel: She never asks us to do it [laughter] . . . If she asks me, if she asks me inthe morning to say would you cook this today, I will do it, because she doesn’t askme, you see.

Here, the mother (Sam) had the opportunity to think through her own behaviouras she is challenged by her daughter (Rachel). This helped to produce reflexiveinformants in that informants were interrogating each other, and challenging eachother’s behaviours and their own. For Rachel, the mother does not ask her to cook.By repeating the words ‘if she asks me, if she asks me’, Rachel is drawing ourattention to an important aspect in her consumption relationship with her mother.After making the point, she points out that ‘she doesn’t ask me, you see’. Rachel isasking us to take note of certain behaviours in the domestic context of consumptionthat are often ignored.

Rachel: I would be able to cook . . . I can make rice . . . You just put in thesaucepan, boiling water, open the packet, then you put it in and then take it outagain . . . I could cook whatever I could cook.

Sam: I should make you cook from now on [laughter]. Well, umnn, kids don’tcook; they don’t cook a proper dinner. Would they just cook something that wasconvenient? That’s why I wouldn’t let them do it . . . Yeah, so I have to make sureyou have proper things so . . . I suppose it’s all my fault isn’t it, it’s my fault I won’tlet you just do it. It depends where you brought up.

Here, both Sam and Rachel engage in reflexive practice as they think through theirown behaviour. By allowing this continued discussion between Sam and Rachel, we

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


were able to get deeper insights into the data. Through these reflexive practices, Samrealises that she is at fault and says, ‘I suppose it’s my fault isn’t it, it’s my fault’.

On reflection, visual diaries provided helpful insights that only a householdmember could capture. The researcher would not have been granted access to observeyoung people eating late at night, eating in their pyjamas and in some of theirprivate spaces such as bedrooms. These insights would have been inaccessible to adultresearchers even through family and school mealtime observations. But the researchermanaged to overcome these barriers by empowering the children to take the lead andgenerate their own visual diaries. In this way, children became more active in theresearch process. So, visual diaries were very instrumental in penetrating such privatespaces (Harper, 1998; Prosser, 1998) where food consumption may take place, andencouraged the children to think through some of their mealtime behaviour.

Empowering informants by building trust

In study 1, the fact that the researcher was an active member of the online communityhelped to build trust in the research encounter. The researcher immersed herself inone of the largest and leading ethnic online dating websites of its kind, Shaadi.com,because it is widely known within the Indian (Sikh) community. In fact, Shaadi.comsuggest that ‘hundreds of thousands of people have met their life partner throughour revolutionary matchmaking service and countless others have made some veryspecial friends’. And so, too, the researcher was from the Sikh community, and hada clear understanding of this community’s social, moral, and cultural values. Moreimportantly, the informants were well acquainted with the discussions that took placein this community. This provided informants with an opportunity to think throughtheir consumption experiences and challenge some of their own thinking.

Importantly, the researcher within this study was a British-born Sikh herself. Shewas in a similar predicament to the individuals that she studied and could thereforerelate, understand, and interpret their views more so as they experienced thetransitional rite of passage of marriage. Intentionally naming herself ‘Miss PHD’, theresearcher announced her presence on the research site from the outset, maintaininga consistent policy of honesty with all her online and offline peers. She announced hersincere intentions of research and searching for a prospective marital partner, similarto her online community. The approach of honesty online appeared to initiate trustwith other members of the website, therefore allowing her to become an acceptedmember of this customary community as the following excerpt demonstrates:

It’s quite interesting that you are studying Shaadi.com and trying to find someoneat the same time lol. It must be quite cool in a way ’cause you get to spend loadsmore time on here and you can probably learn to filter what you really are lookingfor. (Pritam, Sikh male, online)

In study 2, online interviews were used. This emerged out of those informantswho requested to take this discussion to the online environment. So, the researchertook a step back, and empowered the informants to decide where and when tomeet in the online environment. It is important to note that these interviews werein line with the themes that had emerged from informant-generated visual diaries.In a way, informants were empowered because the discussion focused more onthe food practices that they were more aware of than the researcher. This enabled

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


informants to take the lead during interviewing, and discussed what they felt wasimportant for the adult researcher to understand. Because the informants had alreadymet the researcher when discussing visual diaries, they were more relaxed in onlineconversations.

Whilst analysing the data after the fieldwork, the researcher found that thismethod produced a transcript at the same time, and all verbatim interactions werecaptured. However, there was a lot of short hand and jargon which was used byinformants. This is illustrated by the following extract from a conversation with Jade(female, 16) in study 2:

Well . . . u try gettin 4 kids 2 sit n eat around a table . . . its nt important.. not rli. . . we all eat wen we want 2 eat, where we want 2 eat n wat we want 2 eat.

This is an example of informant reflexive practice because Jade interrogates herselfand convinces herself that eating sitting at the table is ‘nt important’ (not important).In this self-interrogation, she pauses and then continues, ‘not rli’ (not really). Thesilent pause is used to deepen her thinking, question herself, and then produce aresponse. Similarly, in an online interview with Lin (female, 17), the same style ofwriting is used. This is illustrated by the extract below:

We do jus sit in d sittin room . . . nd also we get in a different times . . . cozsumtimes i wud b ou wit my m8s nt, nt cum in til l8 nd evry1 is hungry wen deyget in so we al hav our dinner at different times.

At times, the researcher had to seek clarification from the informants on the meaningsof symbols or signs that they used in the interaction process. Here, the informantsfelt empowered and were transferring online communication skills to the researcher.With time, the researcher started interacting with informants using their ownsymbols, short hand, and the like. This generated more interest and enthusiasm fromboth informants and the researchers. Interacting with informants online would nothave been achieved without immersion into the online jargon of the informants. Thisencouraged informants to share their views and build trust between the researcherand the researched.

Ethical and moral dilemmas in informant reflexivity

In study 1, the researcher experienced difficulties and dilemmas in maintainingreflexivity when faced with numerous members of the community. The researcherovercame one major hurdle, as one of her primary online acquaintances that she hadnever even met decided he had fallen for her, although she clarified that nothingcould happen as they were too different. He decided that he could no longerbear to have contact with her. This proved quite difficult on multiple levels, as hewas a source of some very deep and emotive information in terms of dating andSikh marriage. After some negotiations and encouraging the informant to reflecton his behaviour, the researcher was able to sway him into maintaining contact,therefore enabling the continuation of the daily rapport and interaction that theyhad. Nevertheless, maintaining researcher reflexivity proved difficult with referenceto this one individual, as he had clearly fallen for the researcher:

I’ve made a decision; I don’t think we should chat anymore. I think you’re a greatgirl. Too good to be true. I really like you and that’s the problem. You’re like the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


female version of me (how can I not love you). You are the kind of girl I would liketo marry. You’ve made it clear you’re not interested and I respect that. The moreI talk to you the more I like you. I kind of think I’ve fallen for you. This is why Ihave to say bye. This is difficult for me to say but I think this is the final bye bye.I always thought that when I fell for someone it would be like in the Hindi filmsand live happily ever after. But you don’t always get what you want do you. I’velearnt that the hard way. (Pritam, Sikh male, online)

Pritam reviews his circumstances and confesses that ‘I’ve made a decision’. Thisis reflexive practice because his decision has been thought through. However, thismental process of thinking through draws the interaction between the researcher andthe informant to a close, as Pritam says, ‘I don’t think we should chat anymore’.Again, the use of the phrase ‘I always thought that’ implies Pritam has actuallyreviewed his thoughts, and realises that he was only living like someone ‘in the Hindifilms’.

Another hurdle was what is known as a disjuncture. This refers to the differencesbetween the perspectives provided by various ethnographic sources (Arnould &Wallendorf, 1994). Alternatively, it could be a case of the researcher encountering adifferent interpretation of the experience compared to what the researcher expectedto hear, so a disjuncture does not always conform to the opinions of the majority.One individual emotively accused the researcher of attacking the Sikh religion andidentity; he highly valued the traditional Indian values and customs:

By doing this research you’re doing a disservice to Sikh society, you’re selling outon your religion and not valuing just how great your religion is, why didn’t youchoose to focus on Hindus or Muslims instead?! You just seem to be picking atfaults rather than pointing out all the great things about it. Why couldn’t you do iton anything else instead? I think your research is flawed. I think you should thinkof the implications on your religion!! (Seymour, Sikh male, online)

Despite the researcher explaining that this was not the case, he continued to attackthe researcher. Nevertheless, these data are just as valuable, as ethnographic researchdevelops an interpretation, combining observational and verbal data in a way thataccommodates or accounts for variation between them (Arnould & Wallendorf,1994). What we learn from Seymour’s account is that informant reflexivity can causeanger as informants challenge the thinking of other informants, the researchers, andtheir own thinking.

Study 2 focused on informants aged between 13 and 17 years. This age categoryis regarded as a vulnerable group, and consent was sought from a responsible adultsuch as a parent or teacher. The purpose of the investigation was explained to theschool authorities, parents, and the informants. Further to that, informants weretold in writing that participation was voluntary, and that they could withdrawfrom participation at any point. A major challenge faced by the multiple data-collection processes of this study was that each emergent data source requiredparental, teacher, or informant consent and approval. This was often tedious andtime consuming. Parental and teacher consent had to be obtained for childrento generate visual diaries. As fresh insights emerged, the researcher had to seekteacher consent to interview children in the online environment and in a protectedenvironment such as the school premises. Parental and head teacher permission wassought before interacting with their children in these environments. Whilst a number

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


of resources were available to provide the researcher with ethical guidance, these didnot necessarily address all the ethical questions that arose. This is part of informantreflexive practice because informants, whether adults or children, were first debriefedabout the research project and had to think through the implications of participatingin the study. Some questioned the researcher on their right to safety, and were assuredof anonymity.

After gathering all the required data for this study, the researcher felt obliged togive something as a token of appreciation to informants who had invested so muchtime in this co-research process. Here, the researcher was faced with a dilemma.Although some researchers tend to recognise contributions of informants by givingthem some financial incentives (see O’Kane, 2000), informants in this study wereissued with certificates of participation that had the university logo on them. Thecertificates were individualised, with each informant’s name appearing on it. Butinformants were not made aware of any form of reward until after the project hadbeen completed. What was interesting is that informants were thrilled and excitedabout holding a certificate bearing a university logo on it. Surprisingly, it was noteasy to get consent from the relevant department (at university) to use the universitylogo on these certificates. Future research may even consider other forms of incentivessuch as involving some of the co-researchers in the presentation and dissemination ofthe research results, thereby providing them with the opportunity to engage directlywith interested stakeholders, particularly policymakers.

Discussion

Thus far, this paper has focused our attention on discussing how the researchencounter can be less controlled by the researchers, so that informants can thinkabout and express their views in matters affecting their consumption experiences.In this process, informants continuously question their thoughts as they engage inreal-time reflexivity (Riach, 2009). By interacting with informants through multiplemethods, we encouraged them to engage in the process of self-reflexivity. This,we argue, helped us to gain superior insights about informants’ consumptionexperiences, and exposed their hidden feelings and thoughts.

The findings show clearly the role of multiple-methods approaches as middleground where informant and researcher self-reflexivity are negotiated. Thisintersection provides opposing worlds in which informants and researchers findthemselves. What emerges out of this intersection is that we obtain richer data andtap into the hidden truths provided by informants. Given this background, we arguethat informant self- reflexivity is not a given or fixed ‘thing’, but a construction ofinformants’ consumption experiences from their own perspectives. In this way, we areable to examine not only how informant self-reflexivity can contribute to research,but also the ways in which it emerges out of multiple-methods approaches.

In line with Lynch (2000), informants in these two longitudinal studies wereempowered by the researcher and research environment to articulate their voices,thereby offering the research process superior insight, and making informants moreaware of their consumption experiences. This helped us to obtain richer data inthe research process. For example, in study 2, the use of visual diaries helpedto penetrate informants’ private food spaces which could not be made availableeven through family visits. These hidden alternatives could only be captured by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


informants. From visual diaries, we were able obtain richer insights into children’sfood consumption experiences, as children actively engaged in sharing their visualmaterials and, at times, being surprised and questioning their own consumptionexperiences.

Our findings demonstrate that informants were reaching moments of recognitionin their own sense of understanding of courtship in the Sikh communities (in study1) and food consumption practices (in study 2). Within these moments of recognition,informants ‘engage with themselves through thinking about their own thinking’(Johnson & Duberley, 2003, p. 1279). As suggested by Keenoy (1999, p. 11), whenconducting research, we only tend to see what we are looking for and if we wish‘to see the “other side”, we need to change our viewpoint’ . In these longitudinalstudies, by adopting multiple-methods approaches, we were able to see things fromthe informants’ own perspectives.

The practices described in Table 2, and in our findings, advance current methodo-logical knowledge in a number of ways. First, the idea of leveraging informantself-reflexivity in consumer research is potentially valuable because much ofour discussion of reflexivity has been focused on the researcher. This potentialseems especially promising in that it is a more engaging and active methodologythan traditional methods. Second, we advance methodological knowledge in thatinformant self-reflexivity produces unique types of insights, and can address thosehidden consumption practices, that we often take for granted. Third, by recoveringthe voices of consumers through reflexive practice, we as consumer researchersmay open the field of consumer behaviour and marketing to address new typesof research questions, which may have been neglected by traditional methods.When informant reflexivity is not developed, the innermost thoughts and feelingsof consumers may go unrecorded, and implies that we may not get the depth andemotions of consumers. This may mean that vital information is often missed outin most managerial decisions. Finally, self-reflexivity may transform the informantsinto reflexive consumers, and this may have implications on the relationship betweenmarketing organisations and their consumers. Systematically using the suggestedtechniques has the potential to advance methodological knowledge in marketing andconsumer research, particularly the power relationship in the research encounter and,theoretically, in terms of better understanding reflexive consumers.

By continuously questioning themselves and their consumption experiences,informants are actually scrutinising various aspects of their lives. This is in linewith Socrates (in Zannos, 2004) who suggests that individuals consistently inspectand scrutinise all aspects of their lives. By employing multiple sources of data,we were able to reveal informants’ life experiences from different angles, and,more importantly, informants were able to open up their inner selves and seethe hidden truths in their everyday consumption experiences. For example, Sairadiscovers her different multiple identities, and is actively engaged in sharing herinner feelings, thoughts, and experiences. This finding is consistent with Riach (2009)who suggests that the multiple-methods approach produces multiple realities. In thisway, informants were able to see themselves through multiple lenses, and began toquestion their real identities.

The multiple methods used acted as a catalyst and source of encouragementfor informants to get actively involved in the research process, and into moresustained interactions with the researchers. These sustained interactions helped tobuild trust between the researchers and the informants. For example, in study 1, some

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


Table2Guidelinesforevokinginformantself-reflexivity.

Research

environm

ent

Proceduresforevokinginform

antself-reflexivity

Considerations

Online

•Theresearchershouldusereflectivequestioningtechniques:

•Howdoinformantsshiftand

transformwhenempoweredin

theonlineresearchprocess?

–Theresearchershouldusequestioningtechniquesthatwill

encourageinformantstobeself-reflexive.

–Questioningtechniquesthatposesthequestionindifferentways

shouldbeusedtoencourageinformantstothinkmoredeeplyabout

aspecificconsumptionexperience.

•Theresearchershouldobeyethicalguidelinesinundertaking

participantobservation:

•Howdoinformantsemergeinthe

onlineresearchprocess?

–Theresearchershouldparticipateintheresearchenvironment

ethically.

–Theresearchershouldannouncetheirpresenceandintentions

fromtheoutset,demonstratinghonesty,thereforebuilding

informanttrust.

•Theresearchershoulddevelopaself-reflexivityfocusedinterview

design:

•Whatinsightsemergewhen

informantsareallowedto

interrogatethemselvesinthe

onlineenvironment?

–Theresearchershouldconstructaninterviewguidethatfocuseson

evokinginformantself-reflexivity.Forexample,thiscanbeachieved

throughvariedquestioningtechniques,andinterviewinginformants

invariousstagesdependentonemergentthemes,etc.

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


Table2(Continued).

Research

environm

ent

Proceduresforevokinginform

antself-reflexivity

Considerations

Offline

•Theresearchershouldusereflectivequestioningtechniques(asabove)

•Howdoinformantsshiftand

transformwhenempoweredin

theofflineresearchprocess?

•Informantsshouldbeencouragedtogeneratetheirownvisualdiaries:

•Howdoinformantsemergeinthe

offlineresearchprocess?

–Researchersareencouragedtoprovideinformantswithcamerasor

camcorders,sothattheycankeepvideodiariesthattheycanwatch

andreflecton.

–Theprocessofgeneratingvisualdiariesshouldbeallowedto

progressoverasetperiodoftime(e.g.1month)sothatdifferent

consumptioncontextscanbecaptured.

•Informantsshouldbeencouragedtogeneratetheirownwrittendiaries:

•Whatinsightsemergewhen

informantsareallowedto

interrogatethemselvesinthe

offlineenvironment?

–Researchersshouldprovideinformantswithdiariessothattheycan

keepajournal.

•Informantsshouldbeencouragedtoreflectontheirexperiencesfrom

previousdaysandreflectonhowtheyfeltthenandperhapsfeelinthe

presentmomentastheybegintowriteinthediaries.

•Theresearchershoulddevelopaself-reflexivityfocusedinterview

design(asabove).

•Autoethnography

–Theresearchershouldrelatetotheinformantsandmakethis

known(asinstudy1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


informants even forgot about the presence of the researcher when sharing theirexperiences online, and one informant ‘fell for’ the researcher, trying to court her.Similarly, in study 2, the trust between the researcher and the informants was eventaken into the home environment, with parents granting permission to the researcherto continue observing children’s food environment on five different occasions in thecomfort of their own homes. An intriguing finding of this process was that throughthe evocation of informant self-reflexivity, informants became more involved in theresearch process by acting as co-researchers (Brembeck et al., 2010). This meantthat the researchers and the informants were working as a team to co-produceknowledge (Tedlock, 2000). Consistent with Lincoln and Guba (2000), informantswere encouraged to take a more active role in the research process.

Scholars have argued that the researcher can construct ‘knowledge’ only in thecontext of a particular research community and society (Alvesson & Sköldberg,2000; Hardy, Phillips, & Clegg, 2001; Mulkay, 1992). However, in our studies,knowledge was co-constructed by both the informants and the researchers. Forexample, study 1 focused more on the dating and marriage rituals within theSikh community, tapping into the minds of informants who were seeking for apossible suitor within this community. Study 2 focused more on the food practicesin children’s food environments. What was of importance within these studies ishow multiple methods were used to create conducive environments for researcherand informant interactions. It was within these natural settings that we were able totap into informant’s self-reflexivity, and obtained insights that others who pay lessattention to informant self-reflexivity would not normally get.

Thus, arguably, in contrast to past studies, the researcher and informant encounterbecame less controlled by the researchers, meaning that the privileged power positionof the researchers in relation to the research subject was significantly reduced(Marcus, 1994). Rather, the research encounter was an outcome of negotiation.An outcome of this process was an emerging narrative of involving informants as co-researchers to enhance informant self-reflexivity. In these longitudinal studies, richerinsights from the ‘lived’ world of the informants made a fundamental contribution toinformant self-reflexivity.

Conclusion

The overall purpose of this paper is to emphasise and develop a more comprehensiveunderstanding of how self-reflexivity can contribute to deeper insight within theinterpretive research process. Furthermore, rather than focusing on the researcheradopting reflexivity practice, as consumer researchers previously have (Bettany& Woodruffe-Burton, 2006, 2009), this paper accentuates the importance ofthe researcher evoking informant self-reflexivity as a means to gaining deeperinsight into the informants psyche. Within this work, various techniques aresuggested to help researchers evoke informant self-reflexivity throughout theconsumer research process. It is intended that consumer researchers use themethods within this framework and consider the relevant facets dependent onthe research environment, that is, online or offline. Though self-reflexivity isan issue surrounded with numerous methodological controversies and accordingto Lynch (2000) is a ‘confusing topic’ (p. 26), there is no doubt that evoking

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


informant self-reflexivity is in fact an academic virtue and a source of privilegedknowledge.

Though some (Lynch, 2000) may suggest that it is impossible to be unreflexive,others (Riach, 2009) suggest there is an increasing importance in focusing on beingreflexive within social research. In fact, according to Bettany and Woodruffe-Burton(2009), it is significant that we reflect upon our own behaviours and actions asresearchers in order to comprehend our practices as contributors to knowledge.Therefore as major contributors to the research process, it is apparent that it is justas critical that informants are encouraged to be self-reflexive within the researchprocess, as it is primarily their output that results in the academic knowledge thatis produced. This discussion contributes significantly to Bettany and Woodruffe-Burton’s (2009) call for a ‘structured, disciplinary impetus to begin’ (p. 675) inrelation to reflexivity. We would argue that integrating the importance of evokinginformant self-reflexivity into your research design along with researcher reflexivityis imperative on many levels within interpretive research. Evoking self-reflexivityencourages informants to become more active in the research process and informantsare therefore encouraged to act as co-researchers. A foundation of trust is builtbetween the researcher and the informant, as they both engage in being self-reflexive.Consequently, the data that are produced are rigorously tested for reliability and alsocontribute to methods of data triangulation, as reflexivity is clearly about comparingmoments in time (Weick, 2002).

We are not suggesting that evoking informant self-reflexivity or co-research is auniversal remedy to all consumer research, neither are we suggesting that it is the onlymethodological solution within interpretive research. However, we argue that, as thekey contributors, informants are encouraged to comprehend fully and realise theirviews and thoughts through the injection of reflexivity within the research design.Indeed, evoking informant self-reflexivity certainly contributes to the growing ethicalconcerns related to the research process, as evoking informants self-reflexivity andaffirming informants views in ‘real time’ (Weick, 2002) certainly lessens any bias andincreases the depth of insight provided by informants. However, more importantly,evoking informant self-reflexivity within the research process and creating a co-research environment concurs with Riach’s (2009) notion of ensuring that we ‘donot misrecognize one particular mode of knowing as more valid than another’, butshould instead value the wealth of information that is provided through the variousperspectives (researcher/researched) and look to integrate them into future researchdesign.

References

Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neo-positivists, romanticists and localists: A reflexive approachto research interviews. Academy of Management Review, 28, 13–33.

Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas of qualitativeresearch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Arnould, E.J., & Wallendorf, M. (1994). Market oriented ethnography: Interpretation buildingand marketing strategy formulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4), 484–504.

Ashmore, M. (1989). The reflexive thesis: Writing sociology of scientific knowledge. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Beckett, A., & Nayak, A. (2008). The reflexive consumer. Marketing Theory, 8(3), 299–317.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


Bettany, S.M.M., & Woodruffe-Burton, H. (2006). Progressing the taxonomy of possiblereflexivities: Guidelines for reflexive practice in consumer research. Advances in ConsumerResearch, 34, 703.

Bettany, S.M.M., & Woodruffe-Burton. H. (2009). Working the limits of method: Thepossibilities of critical reflexive practice in marketing and consumer research. Journal ofMarketing Management, 25, 661–679.

Brannen, J. (2005). Mixing methods: The entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches intothe research process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 173–184.

Brembeck, H., Bergström, K., Hillén, S., Jonsson, L., Ossiansson, E., & Shanahan, H.(2010, June). Emancipatory consumer research: Working with children as co-researchers.Proceedings from the 1st Conference on Consumer Research, Vaasa, Finland.

Bristor, J., & Fischer, E. (1993). Feminist thought: Implications for consumer research. Journalof Consumer Research, 19, 518–536.

Brown, S., & Reid, R. (1997). Shoppers on the verge of a nervous breakdown. In S. Brown &D. Turley (Eds.), Consumer research: Postcards from the edge. London: Routledge.

Carter, S., & Mankoff, J. (2005). When participants do the capturing: The role of media indiary studies. Portland, OR: ACM Press.

Charmaz, K. (1990). Discovering chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science andMedicine, 30, 1161–1172.

Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cresswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cunliffe, A., & Jun, J. (2005). The need for reflexivity in public administration. Administrationand Society, 37, 225–242.

Denzin, N. (1978). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. New York: McGraw Hill.Elliott, R., & Jankel-Elliott, N. (2003). Using ethnography in strategic consumer research.

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6, 215–223.Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London:

Tavistock.Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. London: Fontana Press.Gouldner, A. (1970). The coming crisis in Western sociology. London: Heinemann.Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Clegg, S. (2001). Reflexivity in organization and management

theory: A study of the production of the research subject. Human Relations, 54, 531–560.Harper, D. (1998). An argument for visual sociology. In J. Prosser (Ed.), Image-based research:

A sourcebook for qualitative researchers. London: Falmer Press.Heidegger, M. (1966). Discourse on thinking. New York: Harper Row.Heron, J. (1981). A philosophical basis for a new paradigm. In P. Reason & J. Rowan (Eds.),

Human inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research. New York: John Wiley.Heron, J. (1985). The role of reflection in co-operative inquiry. In D. Boud & R. Keogh (Eds.),

Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan.Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry. London: Sage.Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3,

274–294.Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2000). Co-operative inquiry. In H. Bradbury & P. Reason (Eds.)

Handbook of Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hertz, R. (1996). Introduction: Ethics, reflexivity and voice. Qualitative Sociology, 19, 3–9.Hirschman, E. (1986). Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: Philosophy, method and

criteria. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 237–249.Hudson, L., & Ozanne, J. (1988). Alternative ways of seeking knowledge in consumer

research. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 509–521.Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2003). Reflexivity in management research. Journal of

Management Studies, 40, 1279–1303.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


Keenoy, T. (1999). HRM as hologram a polemic. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 1–23.Kozinets, R.V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research

in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 61–72.Latour, B. (1988). The politics of explanation: An alternative. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Knowledge

and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge. London: Sage.Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging

confluences. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lynch, M. (2000). Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privilegedknowledge. Theory, Culture and Society, 17, 26–54.

Macbeth, D. (2001). On reflexivity in qualitative research: Two readings, and a third.Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 35–68.

Marcus, G. (1994). What comes (just) after ‘post’: The case of ethnography. In N. Denzin &Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mauthner, N., & Doucet, A. (2003). Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity inqualitative data analysis. Sociology, 37, 413–431.

Mulkay, M. (1992). Science and the sociology of knowledge. Aldershot, England: GreggRevivals.

O’Kane, C. (2000). The development of participatory techniques. Facilitating children’s viewsabout decisions which affect. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children:Perspectives and practices. London: Falmer.

O’Shaughnessy, J., & Holbrook, M. (1988). Understanding consumer behaviour: Thelinguistic turn in marketing research. Journal of Market Research Society, 30, 192–223.

Porcino, A., & Verhoef, M. (2010). The use of mixed methods for therapeutic massageresearch. International Journal of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork: Research, Educationand Practice, 3, 230–242.

Prosser, J. (1998). Image-based research: A sourcebook for qualitative researchers. London:Falmer Press.

Reason, P. (1994). Co-operative inquiry, participatory action research and action inquiry: Threeapproaches to participative inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook ofqualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reason, P., & Heron, J. (1995). Co-operative inquiry. In J.A. Smith, R. Harre, &L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage.

Reason, P., & Rowan, J. (1981). Issues of validity in new paradigm research. In P. Reason &J. Rowan (Eds.), Human inquiry. Chichester: John Wiley.

Reinharz, S. (1983). Experiential analysis: A contribution to feminist research. In G. Bowles& R. Duelli Klein (Eds.), Theories of women’s studies. London: Routledge.

Riach, K. (2009). Exploring participant centred reflexivity in the research interview. Sociology,43, 356–370.

Schwandt, T. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry: Handbook ofqualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sherry, J., & Schouten, J. (2002). A role for poetry in consumer research. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 29, 218–235.

Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journalof Consumer Research, 21, 491–503.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory proceduresand techniques. London: Sage.

Tedlock, B. (2000). Ethnography and ethnographic representation. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wallendorf, M., & Brucks, M. (1993). Introspection in consumer research: Implementationand implications. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 339–359.

Weick, K. (2002). Real-time reflexivity: Prods to reflection. Organization Studies, 3, 893–899.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014


Woodruffe, H.R. (1996). Methodological issues in consumer research – Towards a feministperspective. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 14, 13–18.

Woodside, A.G. (2005). Advancing hermeneutic research for interpreting interfirm newproduct development. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 20(7), 364–378.

Zannos, S. (2004). The life and times of Socrates (biography from ancient civilizations).Hockessin, DE: Mitchell Lane.

About the authors

Amandeep Takhar is a lecturer in marketing at the University of Bedfordshire in the UK.Her research interests focus on consumption, ethnicity, and identity construction. Recentpublications have looked at the role of computer culture within the Indian Diaspora andsocial comparisons to the globalised Bollywood film medium. She has published in theJournal of Marketing Management and Advances in Consumer Research.

Corresponding author: Dr Amandeep Takhar, University of Bedfordshire, Park Square,Luton, Bedfordshire, LUI 3JU, UK.

E [email protected]

Pepukayi Chitakunye is a senior lecturer in management at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa. His research interests bring critical perspectives to children’s foodconsumption practices. He has published in Consumption Markets and Culture, Advancesin Consumer Research, and Young Consumer Journal.

E [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

01 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

rich descriptions: evoking informant self-reflexivity in marketing and consumer research

Documents