RESEARCH PAPER
The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of
Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative
Studies
Masuko Miyahara, International Christian University     This article discusses some of the methodological issues surrounding research on identity in language learning
research. The aim of this paper is to develop a basic understanding and awareness of the challenges and issues
involved in conducting research in identity studies by bringing the notion of researcher reflexivity to the forefront.
Attention to researcher reflexivity in any empirical research is nothing new, but how it is actually incorporated andmanifested in the research process has not received much attention. The purpose of this paper is thus to discuss
the intricate interplay in which learner identity and researcher identity are negotiated, constructed, and presented in the research process, where identities are constructed through the social practices and discourses that areembedded in the research context. It concludes by suggesting further investigation of the collaborative nature ofreflexivity as one possible way forward.
言語教育におけるアイデンティティ研究において、質的研究手法が多く用いられる傾向にあることはいうまでもないが、その反面、それと並行して様々な課題も増えていることは事実である。本稿では学習者のL2 アイデンテイテイ構成を探った研究データを使用し，reflexivity（再帰性）
を柱に研究者のアイデンティティのみならず、それが参加者のアイデンティティといかに複雑に交差しているプロセスであることを検証したものである。本研究は研究者のreflexivity（再帰性）
を追求するにあたり「協同的対話」(collaborative dialogue)の重要性を示唆している。

Keywords
identity, narratives, reflexivity, researcher – participant relationshipキーワード
アイデンティティ、ナラティブ、再帰性、研究者と研究協力者の関係

Over the last two decades, we have seen a surge in research on identity and its relationship with language learning (Preece, 2016). During these years, innovations and developments in technology coupled with people’s increasing transnational connections
have brought about new understandings of ourselves in the global world. This phenomenon
has resulted in the emergence of transnational identities that were not imaginable two decades ago (De Costa & Norton, 2017). This rapid expansion of the field has been accompanied
by various conceptual changes in our understandings of the notion of identity. From a theoretical point of view, early studies originated from an essentialist view of identity, whereas
recent studies (e.g., Block, 2007) are founded on poststructuralist viewpoints where identity
is multiple, non-unitary, and ever evolving. Such theoretical developments have inevitably
led to a call for methodological diversity and methodological innovations to ensure continued
development and advancement in identity studies in language learning research. 
One of the research aims I have pursued in investigating identity in language and education
over the past few years has also been mainly methodological. In my own research I have usednarrative inquiry quite extensively. By focusing on questions of researcher identity in narrative studies, the most widely used research approach employed in current identity research(Miyahara, 2010; Rezaei, 2017), in this study, I aim to address certain methodological issues
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201997

The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative Studies

and challenges that emerge in the narrative research process by focusing on the often citedand underexplored area of the relationship between the researcher and the researched. It isquite apparent that, in participatory research, our multiple identities, for instance, our ethnic identities, our linguistic profiles, our educational or personal background or experiences
as well as our identities as researchers greatly impact how our participants respond or react
to the research inquiries. We should take into consideration and examine the impact of theresearcher’s identity throughout all stages of the research, that is even at the initial stages
where we form our research questions, structure the research design, conduct fieldwork (datacollection) as well as at the stage of the research where narrative data is analyzed, interpreted
and presented. Drawing on one of my previous research projects (Miyahara, 2015) that offers
unique insights into the understanding of the process of L2 identity construction and development, the main research question in this paper is to discuss the intricate interplay in whichlearner identity and researcher identity are negotiated, constructed, and presented in the
research process. 
I believe that by focusing on the concept of researchers’ reflexivity (Edge, 2011; Mann, 2011),
and by highlighting the importance for researchers of developing and establishing a space for
critical and reflective thinking, I can probe the issues at stake. Considerations of reflexivity, especially how it operates in the qualitative paradigm, may not be new; but how reflexivity is incorporated and managed in the various stages of the research process still warrant
much discussion. In this paper, I attempt to explore this subject by focusing on how reflexive
thinking was incorporated at the analytical stage of the research I conducted in 2015. In otherwords, here I explore the stories of my participants were analyzed, interpreted and presented. In the process of doing so, I find that the reflexive approach did not only help shape myscholarship, but myself as well: it provided me with a valuable opportunity to know the various aspects of myself more intimately. In the next section, I provide an overview of related
theoretical framework of the study. It will then be followed by a short description of the study
used for this paper. I conclude by suggesting a critical collaborative approach as a possible
direction narrative and identity studies could pursue.  

Situating the Study
The Concept of Identity
Norton’s (2000, 2013) often-cited and seminal work on identity revolutionized the notion ofidentity from a non-essentialist point of view (one based on the poststructuralist and constructivist theoretical viewpoints), where one’s identity is understood as “how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed acrosstime and space” (2013, p. 45). Here, identities are multiple, fluid, and socially constructed(Block 2007). However, the social nature of identity does not always allow people to “choose”
the identities they would like to represent. As Preece (2016) succinctly summarizes, among
other things, their identities may be limited by their access to the social spaces where theiridentities are constructed, negotiated, and/or performed; their identities may be ascribed
regardless of their preference, and could often position, or limit their rights to participationin the community they desire to operate in. A university student on a summer study-abroad
program might, for example, see their “self” diminished if they find themselves unable toparticipate freely in the discussion sessions with others, and such an experience could lead
students to be ascribed “unwanted” identities. 
  98Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Masuko Miyahara

Narrative Studies
In this paper, following Bruner (1990) and Clandinin and Connelly (2000), narratives areunderstood as fundamentally stories of “experiences”. People, both individually and socially,lead storied lives. Life is “storied” in the way that people make sense of how they are (andothers are) by interpreting their past in terms of their present lives and selves as well as their
future lives and selves. Narratives are not only about people describing their past experiences,
but also about how individuals understand those experiences, and how they ascribe meanings
to those experiences (Clandinin, 2007). Mishler (1984) was the first to introduce to researchers the co-constructed nature of narratives: that is “narrative produced in interview conversations is the outcome of social interactions between speaker and listener” (p. 87). It thus
follows that the meaning-making process is also a collaborative work. 
The research questions in the study that I draw on in this paper required me to examine theexperiences of my participants and to listen to their “voices” to understand the complexities
involved in forging their identities, and how the affective dimension might be implicated in
the process. This called for a methodology that would allow me to be sensitive to the learners’
accounts of their experiences, and thus, a narrative approach where I could emphasize myrole in co-producing the narratives appeared to be the best way to probe the inner complexities of my research participants. 

My Interest in Reflexivity
More than we would like to admit, researchers are inevitably a much a part of a study as theparticipants. How we take into account the effect of our presence on our research is a critical issue. Although discussions of incorporating researcher reflexivity in the research process
have increasingly been recognized as an important strategy (e.g., Finlay, 2012; Mann & Walsh,
2017; Miyahara, 2015; Prior, 2014; Riessman, 2012; Roulston, 2010a), there appears to be nocommon understanding about the notion of reflexivity, and the concept is often confusedwith reflection. In fact, one of the reasons for my interest in the notion of reflection emerged
from this very question: what is the difference between reflection and reflexivity? In this paper, following Finlay (2012), I take reflection to mean “thinking about” something after the
event, and reflexivity, in contrast, to involve an on-going self-awareness. That is, reflexivity
could be understood as more than reflection in the sense that reflection is to take one stepback from the phenomena under examination, but reflexivity is reflection on the reflection(Jenkins, 1992). That is, the former, reflection, is more of a descriptive process, whereas, thelatter, reflexivity, refers to how you position yourself in the research context, and contemplate how your own self could influence the actions you take (self-awareness). In short, it is aconstant “mirroring of the self” (Foley, 2002, p. 45).
My interest in researcher reflexivity originated when I ventured out in publishing my book
based on my doctoral work, Emerging Self-Identities and Emotion in Foreign Language Learning:
A Narrative-Oriented Approach, in 2015. As many scholars have done in the past, I, too, foundmyself turning the mirror on myself. Looking back at one’s own work is nothing new: autoethnography employed in anthropology or sociology is one example. Some scholars havecriticized self-reflexivity because of its self-indulgent nature, but as Doyle posits, researchers’ backgrounds and their emotions “must be thought about and analyzed, and the analysis
used purposefully in the research process” (2013, p. 253). In my view, the important point
is to always consider how the researcher’s personal disclosure influences narrative analysis,
and how it contributes in understanding the phenomena at hand. Furthermore, self-reflexivity should not be just about the self, so to speak. Researchers should not merely discuss how
their personal identities shaped their narrative projects, they should also consider how these
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201999

The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative Studies

identities intersect with the institutional, cultural, and socio-political context (Nagar & Geiger, 2007). Extending one’s reflexive gaze also helps to reinforce and further one’s awarenessof the self. Lastly, the process of turning the mirror on my previous works revealed the situatedness (the academic, theoretical, political, social, etc.) of my interpretations. It is often
assumed that it is easier to identify one’s assumptions and the “blind spots” after some time
has passed as this allows for stronger reflexivity. For this very reason, many scholars haveframed reflexivity in terms of its cyclic nature (Edge, 2011). Reflexivity illuminates a social
phenomenon from many perspectives. Researcher reflexivity is like a kaleidoscope: the same
event can be approached differently, yielding different findings based on how you turn the
kaleidoscope. 
There are different ways of working with reflexivity. Some are connected to the co-construction of data, while others are concerned with how the researcher and the participants are
positioned and their ever-changing relationship, and so forth. There also appear to be several
dimensions to reflexivity (for details Finlay’s Five Lens of Reflexivity, 2012), and for this paper,
I focus on what Finlay (2012) would call contextual discursive and relational reflexivity. I aim toconsider how the researcher’s and the participants’ multiple and ever-changing identities
interact at the analysis and representation stage. I will now provide a brief sketch of myself
before going on to offer contextual information of the research that I use as a sample to illustrate my point. 

The Researcher
My research interest in identity and language learning is largely rooted in my educational
experiences in and out of Japan. I was born in Tokyo, Japan, but spent most of my formative years overseas, namely, in the United Kingdom and the United States After graduatingfrom high school in New York City, I returned to Japan and transferred to a college in Tokyo,
which happens to be the research site of this study. My educational experience as such iswhat some academics like Kanno (2003) would call the “returnee” experience. One apt phrasethat would characterize my language learning experiences over the years would be a “roller
coaster ride”: riding on a virtual roller coaster of ups and downs in language learning experiences and, henceforth, undergoing identity shifts and periods of mixed emotions towards
myself as a language learner, and later as a practitioner and researcher. As for my professional life, my career as a teacher, practitioner, and researcher started at the tertiary level after
having obtained my master’s and my doctoral degrees in London. The rewarding experiencesthat shaped my thinking, and the intense exposure to the academic world, as well as my experiences as a practitioner and researcher at the institution where I now work, form the basisof what I am today. 

Sample Study and Analytical Procedure
Overview of the Study
The narrative data for this article is drawn from a study that aimed to shed light on the understanding of the process of L2-related identity construction and development among Japanese English learners at the tertiary level (Miyahara, 2015). Unlike previous language learning
research on identity grounded in poststructuralist theory, the particular feature of this study
was its attempt to integrate socially and psychologically oriented perspectives on L2 identity
formation. Contrary to the poststructuralist theory of identity in language learning research(e.g., Block, 2003, 2009; Norton, 2013), the study problematizes the current dominant emphasis on the social dimension of identity in the poststructuralist framework and calls for a100

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Masuko Miyahara

more balanced approach. It emphasizes that the psychological and social aspects of identity
formation need to be attended to more equally. The research contributed to highlighting the
instrumental agency of individuals in responding to and acting upon the social environment,
and in developing, maintaining and/or reconstructing their desired identities as L2 users. It
offered insights into the role of experience, emotions, social and environmental affordances, and individuals’ responses to these, in shaping their personal orientations to English andself-perceptions as English learner-users. The original study revealed the past, present, andfuture dimensions of individuals’ L2-related experiences and trajectories, and showed how
these dimensions are intertwined through the process of narrative construction as participants relate their thoughts, and the researcher represents and interprets their stories.

Participants
The research site, a private university located in the suburbs of Tokyo, aims to build a global
community where a diversity of people from various ethnic and religious backgrounds gathers
together. This institution is also famous for its bilingual identity, and, in Japan, the graduates
and alumni are regarded by the general public as being fluent and well-versed in English andthe English-speaking culture. English is used on a daily basis as a means of communication
not only in classes, but also in the daily lives of the students and faculty alike. The university has several college-wide courses that are required components for all students, and theEnglish Language Program (ELP) is one of them (in 2011, the program was renamed English
for Liberal Arts, ELA). Students for whom English is a second language must study English
intensively for the first two years. The main focus of the program is the study of English foracademic purposes with a focus on critical thinking. The curriculum is further complemented
by a study abroad program referred to as the Study English Abroad (SEA) Program. The firstand second-year students are able to take part in the six-week program during the summer
break at various universities located in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, New
Zealand and Australia.
Six students, all volunteers, going through their first year of their two-year English language curriculum, participated in the study (see Table 1).
Table 1. Participants’ profiles (names are pseudonyms)
Name

Gender Past English Language
Learning Experiences

Experiences Abroad Episodes Before
College

SayakaF

From Pre-K

Yes (two-week study abroad program)

Maki

F

From Pre-K

Yes (international school in Bangladesh
for three years)

MegumiF

From Pre-K

No

Yui

F

From elementary school

No

HinakoF

From junior high school

No

Takehiro

M

From junior high schoolYes (two-week study abroad program)Analytical Process
The method employed in this study was what is generally characterized as autobiographicalnarratives. I used a narrative interview strategy based on a series of semi-structured questions to generate data in that I did not have a list of questions but rather a range of topics to
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019101

The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative Studies

be covered (Block, 2008). The language in which talks were conducted is related to the jointly
constructed nature of the interview process in narrative studies, and, thus, the participants
were given choices, but none opted for English, and thus, the language used in all interviews
was Japanese. Five sets of interviews over a period of one year were conducted, each kept
within an hour and a half, mainly for practical reasons. The narrative data was supplemented
by other sources such as weekly journals, audio recordings or group discussions, and weekly self-reports during the six-week study abroad programs for those who participated in the
SEA Program. The talks were audio-taped and transcribed in their entirety using a simplified
transcription style (see Excerpt 5.17 Sayaka as an example). In terms of practicality, translations from Japanese to English were prepared for selected sections during the analysis. The
transcripts were translated by the researcher and were reviewed and cross-checked by a bilingual colleague.
Excerpt 5.17: Sayaka
When there is someone really fluent in my group I am not able to express myself. I feel
intimidated in front of them. I lose confidence in myself. This was the first time I had
felt this way about myself. It was like showing a part of me that I never thought existed. (Miyahara, 2015, p. 92)
As the researcher, I also kept a journal composed of written entries that recorded my reflections, ideas, commentaries and memos throughout the research process in the attempt tomake explicit my assumptions and values, and how they came about, and also to evaluate how
they shaped the research process. A dialogue between myself and journal entries reinforced
my belief that with any reflexive activity there is no escape from the “self” (Roulston, 2010b).
As Roulston posits: “It [reflexivity] means turning the researcher lens back onto oneself torecognize and take responsibility for one’s own situatedness, within the research and theeffect that it may have on the setting and people being studied, questions being asked, data
being collected and its interpretation” (2010b, p. 220). In order to gain a better understandingof the role of self in the construction of knowledge, as noted earlier, it is significant to take
into account the impact that the researcher’s assumptions, beliefs, and identities could haveon their research. In practice, this is no easy task. Thus, to give myself some practical guidelines to address the concerns above, the four typologies outlined by Blaxter, Hughes and Tight(2001) were used as a strategy to assist entries in my journal (below):
Observational notes (describes events such as observation and interviews)
Methodological notes (focus on the researcher/ participant’s action and role)
Theoretical notes (focus on articulating initial explanations from the data)
Analytical memos (bring together inferences through review of other notes and literature
and work towards patterns and themes).		
Based on the above, I made comments about what occurred during the interview interactions with participants as well as thoughts, hunches, and questions that arose during the
research process. I believe guidelines and models are not prescriptive rules for others to follow, but rather mediational tools for us to mindfully consider our actions and interactions
with others. I also believe that guidelines help us to consciously sensitize ourselves to matters that we would normally not be able to discern or observe. The accounts of my reflections
were thus used to analyze the talks. The aim was, as Hertz (1997) suggests “presenting theauthor’s self, whilst simultaneously writing the respondents’ accounts and representing theirselves” (p. 23). Examples will be presented in the next section to illustrate how this was carried out in practice.

102

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Masuko Miyahara

Narrative Analysis and Researcher Reflexivity
The Analytical Model: Incorporating Researcher Reflexivity
The analytical approach taken in this study was situated in its philosophical approach toits analysis within the constructivist perspective on narratives (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002),
where the focus is more on the how questions as opposed to the what questions. The whatquestions include “What happened?” and “What were the experiences people had?”, while thehow questions include “How do the participants position themselves while telling the stories?” and “How does the interpersonal and/or social relationship shape the making of thestories?” (Frost, 2011). Obviously, any analytical model will oversimplify the empirical practices of narrative analysis. I do not intend to prescribe or endorse a certain model, but the Six
Step Analysis Model (refer to Miyahara, 2015 for a detailed account of the model) represents
my attempt to take into account the content (what) and form (how), as well as the context,
ranging from the micro-local to the macro-global. The purpose in providing the analyticalframework is to offer a guide to how the analysis was carried out, and also, to give transparency to the process of attempting to offer some insightful order to the multiple accounts ofhuman experiences that my participants brought to the research site. The precise frameworkused will naturally depend on the enquiry, but in any narrative analysis, the reflexive involvement of the researcher at various stages of the analysis and representation of the data isinherent, and akin to what Mann (2011) refers to as the researcher’s “sensitivity”.

Researcher Reflexivity in Action
As noted earlier, in line with Riessman (2008) and many leading scholars, narrative analysis
is an iterative process: there is no specific moment when data analysis begins or ends. For
instance, researchers usually find that in the process of transcribing the oral data, they are
already beginning to analyze the data (for that matter, analysis might even begin while conducting the interviews). Indeed, my own processing did not always occur in a linear fashion
as the Six Step Model (Miyahara 2015) mentioned earlier might suggest, as the steps overlapped and quite often, I found myself moving back and forth in a cyclical manner.
Overall, the cyclic nature of the analytical process, however, enabled me to see how and inwhat ways researcher reflexivity could be manifested in the analytical process. Writing yourself into your narrative study is easier said than done. As mentioned earlier, the process could
simply mean to reveal your personal identities and thinking; on the other hand, it could also
refer to how your identities intersect with the wider context of the institutional, material,and of the sociopolitical sphere. Sociologists such as Presser (2005) make a distinction between strong and weak forms of reflexivity. “Strong” reflexivity questions the institutional
and political structure that contextualizes the research, whereas the “weak” version focuses
more on the researcher’s background, their thinking and emotions. In this paper, I seemed tohave combined aspects of reflexivity from the weak version with some of the socio-culturaldimensions of the strong version. 
  The next point is how we incorporate reflexive acts in our research practices and how wemanage our reflexivity in our research practices, which is also the main purpose of this paper.
To illustrate this point, I now present parts from my previous research as mentioned earlier.
I particularly focus on certain mediational tools to manage researcher reflexivity. These tools
can be largely grouped from theoretical, cognitive or practical perspectives (Maynard 2005).
Theoretical tools refer to theories and frameworks that researchers can draw on to examine the “process, context and outcomes of the research and interrogate the construction ofknowledge” (Finlay, 2012, p. 317). Finlay’s five critical lenses, mentioned earlier, could be
one example. Cognitive tools are items such as journals, subjective statements, notes used to
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019103

The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative Studies

stimulate cognitive and metacognitive process of the researcher reflexivity. Practical tools include practices that facilitate the managing of the researcher reflexivity; storing one’s reflexive comments using Moodle platforms could be one example. My reflections that consisted ofmy thoughts recorded in my journal writings were revisited with data that emerged from theanalytical model adding another dialogic dimension in relation to other data sets that were
demonstrated in the form of “reflexive vignettes” (RV). This extra step was not only effective
in locating my subjectivity, but also enabled me to consider different aspects of myself (e.g.,
identities, positions, and roles as well as my beliefs and assumptions), and evaluate the impact they could potentially have on the entire research. Such a reflexive space also gave me
the opportunity to carefully monitor how and in which ways our beliefs and biases are crucial to the understanding of the self in the creation of knowledge. The following are from mynotes: two examples from my research journal and reflexive notes in verbatim.

Example A:
From my research journal #5 : April LL, 20XX
I made arrangements to distribute the flyers to recruit prospective participants sometimeat the end of April (April is the first month of the academic year in Japan). This should be agood time since the students should have gotten over the beginning-of-the-term craziness.
In the flyer, I kind of mentioned that I was an alumnus of this university. Hope this helped
to create some kind of rapport, and also help to send out the message, “I can understandwhat you are going/or going to go through”. Naturally, did not distribute the flyers to myown students but, I was surprised to find out that almost 40 participants (a total of 100 flyers had been distributed) showed interest in my research. 
From my corresponding RV for the above journal entry:
I made use of my position as an alumnus and senpai (senior member of a community). My
aim was to create a rapport in order to recruit as many participants as possible; but, could I
have been using my power as their senpai? In the Japanese culture, the notion of senpai canbe sometimes quite powerful. Some of the participants noted in their journals that they decided to take part in the research because they were interested in 1) the concept of identity
and their own identity, 2) welcomed the opportunity to talk to me who was a senpai as well
as a teacher in this intensive language program. This was interesting: the participants themselves were intentionally taking advantage of my role and position. 
Looking back at these extracts now, there are several key notions that I would briefly like tocomment on, that is, the researcher-participant relationship, positionality (both claimed andassigned), insider-outsider role, and identity. Since, for the large part, most of our identities
overlap and are linked together, instead of focusing on each item one by one, my discussion
here will be holistic in the sense that they will be considered as a group of interrelated factors. 
My reflexive vignettes in Example A helped me to pin down and grasp my position as a
researcher. In this research context, my positionality was multiple and complicated. For
example, I am a researcher, practitioner, alumnus, and senpai in this study. Turning on myreflexive gaze, so to speak, it was clear from the outset that I was positioned in the role of the“insider”, and, as such, this offered certain benefits at various stages of the research process.
For example, my position at this university, as well as my identity as a teacher in this language program (although I had avoided interviewing students in my classes), undoubtedly ac-

104

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Masuko Miyahara

corded me certain advantages. In addition, my knowledge of the immediate research context
enabled me to recruit, set up and manage the interviews with the participants with ease andsensitivity. My background (and identity) as an alumnus of this university appeared to havefacilitated a rapport with my prospective participants and allowed me some degree of accessand connection to my participants lived experience. 
With regards to data collection, my familiarity with the research context enabled me toaddress the appropriate questions. However, because of my insider position, it was also veryclear that I had to be keenly aware of how my presence could shape the discursive natureof our talk. Researcher positionality clearly has the potential to shape data collection. Also,
what was most interesting to me, and something I did not foresee, was the way the participants would re-position me and assign identities as exemplified in my reflexive notes. Thishighlights the ways in which research identities and the positionalities that are both claimed
or assigned by the researcher and the participants influence the research process, and eventually, the final outcomes of the research. The interesting point that can be drawn from thisexample is that, in terms of issues surrounding researcher-participant dynamics, research is
not “on or for” the participants, but rather “with” the participants. This, I believe, is a moreproactive and empowerment-oriented approach for all those involved in the research, and onethat allows the researcher and the participants to be placed on a more equal footing. Beingreflexive could thus mean empowerment for the participants as well, since they are positioned
as equal contributors in the research process.
However, having said that I do not intend to claim that a reflexive approach to qualitative
research solves all issues and challenges of the so-called “backyard research” (Glesne & Peshkin, 1991, p. 21) such as this particular study, but in this current postmodern age, listening
to and understanding multiple voices, multiple subjectivities, and recognizing the particularities of each research context is crucial in generating new knowledge. What is paramount is toattempt to have a significant level of objectivity through being transparent about the research
process and about one’s own beliefs and attitudes. 
The next example highlights the reflexive process more at the analysis stage, while Example A focused on the pre-data collection phase.  

Example B:
From my research journal # 9, May MM, 20XX
Maki seemed particularly interested in my experiences as a “returnee”. She appeared
to have an akogare (desire) towards returnees. I spoke to her about the negativity, so to
speak, associated with the term, a topic that is not openly discussed. She was definitely
very intrigued by it. This helps to facilitate our discussions about her images of an ideal
English speaker, and how she has (and also is) striving towards it. She clearly makes thedistinction between herself as an English-learner and English-user. 
As most of my participants have expressed at one time or another, they differentiate between their identity as a learner and user (although they do not use these terms). Studying for term-end exams or college entrance exams mean they see themselves as English-learners; contrastively, picturing themselves as English-users means that they areable to see themselves as using English with their peers, teachers, returnees, overseas students on campus, etc. Such a desire or, if you want, imagination, to become English-users
prompted me to think about their idealized selves, especially, Dornyei’s notion of Ideal L2
self. 

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

105

The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative Studies

From my corresponding RV for the above journal entry:
Had I taken advantage of my experiences as a returnee? It was interesting talking to her
about the returnees. I could picture exactly what they were feeling and thinking. Maki said
she would sometimes listen to American teen music; although she herself preferred J-pop.
I remember some of my friends took similar actions when they wanted to establish friendship with me. Although Maki did not explain her actions, I could guess……but in this case,should I have asked Maki her reasons? Am I assuming things here?
Maki’s case above is interesting. At the age of two, her family moved to Bangladesh, where
she received her pre-school education at an international school. Coming back to Japan a couple of years later when she was four years old, Maki does not consider herself as a returnee as
can be observed below from her interview, where she claims her memories of her pre-school
are vague but “fun and full of excitement”. 
Excerpt (from the original interview transcript)
I don’t remember much since I was only two years old, but it was a time of fun and fullof excitement. Although I have no experience of going to schools overseas other thanthis, I have always envied people who can live abroad and attend schools there. As far
as I am concerned, living only for two or three years when I was little does not makeme a returnee.  
We can observe Maki’s struggle from this excerpt. There appears to be a discrepancy in how
Maki regards herself as a returnee and how she is positioned by others. She regards herself tobe on the periphery in terms of the community of returnees; but to the general public, Maki isa returnee. I can keenly resonate with Maki since I have noticed similar frustration that somereturnees experience upon their return to Japan. There is a division among the returnees
themselves as to who the “legitimate” returnees are. Maki, who had spent only two years at a
pre-school in Bangladesh, may not be considered as a returnee compared to those of her peers
who had lived overseas for an extended period of time. The point is that I could identify theissue at stake here for Maki coming from a returnee background. That is, I could “see” myidentity as a returnee through Maki’s stories, and perhaps, Maki was telling me her stories
out of her desire to become like a returnee.      What figures prominently from Example B is, firstly, the co-construction of knowledge, or
what Barkhuizen terms as “narrative knowledge” (2011), that occurs in the conversations (interview process). The discussion of returnees which enabled Maki to consciously distinguishbetween language learner and language user was a notion that was co-constructed between
the researcher and the participant. Secondly, with respect to the researcher/participant experiences and identities, in the process of analyzing the data, my experience as a returnee
at this institute allowed me to bring to the surface, and offer explanations for, phenomenathat could have otherwise been difficult. Maki’s akogare (longing/desire) (Piller & Takahashi,2006) towards the returnees and her desire to become a part of the returnees’ community
serve as a good example. This shared experience (Berger, 2015) provided me with the insights
to sensitize myself to certain dimensions of the phenomena under study that probably an
outsider would have overlooked. However, here again, the insider position required me to be
extremely watchful to maintain the distance (or rather my position) between myself as theresearcher and the student who was my participant. Furthermore, my familiarity with higher
education in Japan contributed towards appreciating my participants’ stories from a different
perspective. My position enabled me to obtain deeper insights into the narratives of my participants because I could operate in both worlds. However, again, because of this, it was more

106

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Masuko Miyahara

important for me to maintain an awareness of the effects that my position might have hadthroughout the analysis (as well as the entire research process). There exists always the tension between “involvement” and “detachment”. Reflexive engagement could be a vehicle tobalance out such tension. Reflexivity is the deciding factor in a narrative research context, andit can serve as a strategy to monitor the quality of the research. As Roulston (2010b) states “it[reflexivity] can be conceptualized as a means for quality control” (p. 228).

Summary and Thoughts for Further Discussion
If narrative studies, the dominant methodology used in identity studies, are fundamentally interpretative and subjective, the role of the researcher and the participants as well as therelationship between the two parties becomes even more relevant. In this relationship, an
examination of the ways in which the researcher’s involvement influences and informs theresearch at all stages of the research process is an important methodological consideration,and it requires a careful reflexivity on the part of the researcher. The issue of researcher reflexivity or the understanding that researchers’ involvement could change the object of
the study dates back even to the age of Labov (1972), but the main question is how and inwhat ways? In this paper, I have attempted to present a possible way to address this issue by
bringing reflexivity to the center stage. The reflexive component should be an inherent partof narrative studies and any reflexive engagement should be considered as a way to secure therigour of the research study. 
In this chapter, I have focused on matters related to the researcher’s identities, positionality, insider-outsider roles, and researcher-participant relation in line with the main theme ofthis third issue of the LD Journal. My research has a strong biographical element to it. Whilst
I recognize the value of attempting to acknowledge my own identities, bias, and ideas, I must
admit, it was, and still is to a certain extent, a struggle. On reflection, one of my main struggles to write myself (researcher’s voice) into the study is related to my often-overlapping
roles and identities as a practitioner/researcher, which are combined with the experiences I
shared with my participants that made it difficult for me to reflect critically at certain stagesof the research process. 
Another was the ever-evolving nature of my identities as a researcher and the transformative nature of reflexivity. Going back to my original data and dwelling on my reflexive notes
to write up this paper, I noticed that sometimes my interpretations of a certain excerpt of thetranscript had undergone some changes. Although this paper has focused on the influence
the researcher has on the research, there is also another dimension to reflexivity: that is, theinfluence of the research on the researcher (Edge, 2011). Many reasons could be attributed tothis phenomenon. But this would make sense if we consider reflexivity as comprised of two
facets that move in a “hermeneutic cycle of mutually shaping change as the researcher constructs the research, works to see how his/her subjectivity influences it, pursues researchgoals, and works to see how s/he is (being) influenced, in turn, by these processes and outcomes” (Edge, 2011, p. 37). Reflexivity can thus be both developmental and transformative,
but we still need to explore how and in what ways these two dimensions intertwine with eachother. Hopefully, this study would serve as a starting point for further inquiries in this area.
So, where do we go from here? One possibility could be to investigate the collaborative nature of reflexivity to advance our understanding of the notion of researcher reflexivity. Drawing on reflexivity as comprising of a social as well as an individual dimension, although themediational tools suggested in this paper are based on the researcher’s inner dialogue withthemselves that are situated in a certain context, sharing these internal dialogues in collaboration with other researchers could contribute to fostering and developing researcher reflexLearner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019107

The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative Studies

ivity. Such attempts would lead to a broadening as well as a deepening of our understandingof the interactive, dynamic multidimensionality of reflexivity in narrative studies, and, concomitantly, qualitative research in general.  
[Some parts of this article are based on Miyahara, M. (2019). Methodological diversity inemotions research: Reflexivity and identities. Journal for Psychology of Language Learning (1),83-105.]

References
Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 391-414.
Barkhuizen, G. (2013). Introduction: Narrative research in applied linguistics. In G.
Barkhuizen (Ed.), Narrative research in applied linguistics (pp.1-16). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning
research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Benson, P. (2017). Ways of seeing: The individual and the social in applied linguistics researchmethodologies. Language Teaching, 52(1), 60-70.
Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative
research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2001). How to research (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes, UK: Open
University Press.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh
University Press.
Block, D. (2010). Researching language and identity. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.),
Continuum companion to second language research methods (pp. 337-350). London, UK:
Continuum.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Clandinin, D. J.
(Ed.) (2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clandinin, D. J. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
De Costa, P., & Norton, B. (2017). Identity, transdisciplinarity, and the good language teacher.
Modern Language Journal, 101(S1), 3-14.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Edge, J. (2011). The reflexive teacher educator in TESOL: Roots and wings. New York, NY: Routledge.
Finlay, L. (2012). Five lenses for the reflexive interviewer. In J. Gubrium, J. Holstein, A.
Marvasti & K. McKinney (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research: The complexity of thecraft (pp. 317-332). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Foley, D. (2002). Critical ethnography: The reflexive turn. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 15(4), 469-490.
Frost, N. (2011). Qualitative research methods in psychology. London, UK: Open University Press.
Glesne, C., & Pershkin, A. (1991). Becoming qualitative researchers. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of interview research: Context andmethod. London: Sage.
Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japanese returnees betwixt two
worlds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

108

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Masuko MiyaharaMann, S. (2011). A critical review of qualitative interview in applied linguistics. Applied
Linguistics, 32(1), 6-24.
Mann, S. (2016). The research interview: Reflexive practice and reflexivity in research processes.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2017). Reflective practice in English language teaching. London, UK:
Routledge.
Mishler, E. (2006). Narrative and identity. In A. de Fina, D. Schiffrin, & M. Bamberg (Eds.),
Discourse and identity (pp. 30-47). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mishler, E. (2008). Narrative methods for human sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Miyahara, M. (2015). Emerging self-identities and emotions in foreign language learning: A
narrative-oriented approach. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Miyahara, M. (2017).
Emotions, experience and identities in L2 narrative research. In A. Shahriar & G. K. Syed
(Eds.), Student culture and identity in higher education (pp. 214-233). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.) Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Page, R. (2010). New perspectives on narrative and multimodality. London, UK: Routledge.
Peshkin, A. (2000). The nature of interpretation in qualitative research. Educational Researcher,29(9), 5-9.
Piller, I., & Takahashi, K. (2006). A passion for English: Desire and the language market. In A.
Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual minds: Emotional experience, expression, and representation (pp. 5983). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journalof Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 8-25.
Preece, S. (Ed.). (2016). The Routledge handbook of language and identity. London, UK:
Routledge.
Rapley, T. (2012). The (extra)ordinary practices of qualitative interviewing. In J. Gubrium, J.
Holstein, A. Marvasti, & K. McKinney (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research: The
complexity of the craft (pp. 541-554). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Riessman, C. (2008). Narrative methods for human sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Riessman, C. (2012). Analysis of personal narratives. In J. Gubrium, J. Holstein, A. Marvasti,& K. McKinney (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp.
367-380). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roulston, K. (2010a). Reflective researcher: Learning to interview in the social sciences. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roulston, K. (2010b). Considering quality in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research, 10,
199-228.
Roulston, K. (2014). Interactional problems in research interviews. Qualitative Research, 14(3),277-293.
Talmy, S. (2010). Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instruments tosocial practice. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 128-148.
Talmy, S. (2011). The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, identity, andideology in a speech event. Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 25-42.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019109

The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative Studies

Author Bio
Masuko Miyahara is a tenured lecturer at International Christian University, Tokyo. She
holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from UCL-Institute of Education, London. Her current
topics of interest are identity studies in SLA, issues related to English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI), and research methodology and methods in language learning research,
particularly in the area of narratives. Her publications include: Emerging Self-identities andEmotion in Foreign Language Learning: A Narrative-oriented Approach (2015), Narratives in language learning research: Developing a reflexive framework (2017) and, most recently, Sampling:
Problematizing the Issue (2019).

110

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019