Negotiating emotions,rethinking otherness in suburban Melbourne

I argue that research that tries to makes sense of emotion provides a better understanding of the politics and ethics of doing face-to-face research. Reflecting on in-depth interviews with people who live and/or work in Dandenong, an outer suburban area of Melbourne, I draw attention to the emotional dimensions of the research process. In particular I focus on moments when the exercise of white privilege made it difficult to negotiate emotions. These were moments when the intersection of my ethnicity with my position as a new settler in Dandenong made me feel excluded. The outcome was that I found it hard to value the voice of participants who were eager to help me with my research. A critical reflection of the emotions produced during such interpersonal encounters, however, has enabled me to rethink moments when the Self/Other binary unintentionally emerged. Critical self-reflexivity that is attentive to emotions gave me the opportunity to move closer to my goal of being an ethical researcher.     

Kitchen table reflexivity: negotiating positionality through everyday talk

In this article, we explore the role of self-reflexivity in the understanding of positionality in human geography to argue that self-reflexivity in and of itself does not offer researchers sufficient opportunities to question and critique their fluid, ever-changing positionalities. Drawing on the work of feminist scholars, critical race scholars, and experiences carrying out qualitative research, we argue that formal and informal conversations with colleagues and mentors affords the opportunity to deeply engage with positionalities. This article draws on concepts of ‘everyday talk’ to encourage researchers to explore their positionalities through kitchen table reflexivity – an exploration of an individual's positionality and its relationship to their research carried out through formal and informal conversations with others. We demonstrate how everyday talk with each other furthered our understandings of our fluid identities in relation to our research participants. Through these conversations, we were able to more critically interrogate our identity and not simply reduce identity to a laundry list of perceived similarities and differences between research participants and us. In conclusion, we encourage all researchers to use everyday talk as one way to complicate their positionalities and to reflect on how this process relates to the broader societal and academic environment within which they carry out their research.