Qualitative Researcher Reflexivity: A Follow-Up Study with Female Sexual Assault Survivors

Qualitative researchers recognize the importance of reflexivity in addressing ethical issues (Cannella, 2004; Del Busso, 2007; Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen, & Liamputtong, 2007; Etherington, 2007; Ramazanoglu & Holland, 2002). Reflexivity has been considered a hallmark of rigorous qualitative research in which the researcher is considered an instrument of the study (Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Hertz, 1997). Guillemin and Gillam (2004) defined reflexivity as a "continuous process of critical scrutiny and interpretation," including relational and personal aspects of conducting, interpreting, and representing research (p. 275). Reflexivity for the promotion of ethical practice necessitates that the researcher notice and respond appropriately to "ethically important moments" (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004). As an early career qualitative researcher, reflexivity compelled me, as the first author, to continue to scrutinize my work. The first author conducted the research under the supervision of the second author; thus, all subsequent first-person singular references are to the first author.I did not view my own insights as sufficient to assure ethical research. As such, I sought to learn from prior participants, specifically female sexual assault survivors, so that I could improve my work with future research participants. Interactions with female sexual assault survivors may be considered "ethically important moments" requiring researcher reflexivity (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004). Negative social responses to disclosures have been described as a second rape, potentially as traumatizing as the actual sexual assault, substantially worsening and lengthening the recovery process (Ahrens, 2006; DePrince, Welton-Mitchell, & Srinivas, 2014; Littleton, 2010; Ullman, 1996). Throughout the original interview-based study, I wondered about the dual possibility of harm and benefit because of my clinical and scholarly experience learning about consequences of negative social response to sexual assault disclosures. I hoped to reconnect with prior participants in order to understand their perspective. The current study is offered as a model of how researchers may engage in reflexivity beyond the completion of an original study. As a follow-up study, I aimed to scrutinize the first study based on participants' feedback. The study is not intended to generalize to the experience of female trauma survivors as research participants. Nonetheless, there is a growing literature about trauma survivors' experience of research participation (see Legerski & Bunnell, 2010; Newman & Kaloupek, 2004), including a limited number of follow-up studies with female sexual assault survivors (Campbell, Adams, Wasco, Ahrens, & Sefl, 2009; Campbell, Adams, Wasco, Ahrens, Sefl, 2010; Martin, Perrot, Morris, & Romans, 1999). For example, Martin et al. (1999) compared female participants with a history of child sexual abuse and female participants without such a history. The female victims of child sexual abuse were less likely to endorse the interview as comfortable, yet were also more likely to indicate that the interview was positive. Participants who perceived the interview negatively cited a variety of reasons, including recounting the childhood sexual abuse, doubting the value and relevance of the research, and feeling uncomfortable with the interviewer. Those who perceived the interview positively reported that they found it helpful to talk about the abuse, that it changed some of their feelings about the abuse, and that they felt that they had contributed to the research. As a whole, this literature suggests that trauma survivors' research participation is a complex process, in which participants report distress and benefits simultaneously. The purpose of this study was to describe the perspectives of female sexual assault survivors who had previously taken part in an interview-based study. The overarching question guiding this research was: How did female research participants who participated in interviews about sexual assault disclosures experience the research process? …