9.6.6 Minimising Bias: Reflexivity and Bracketing
Warning: Attempt to read property "ID" on null in /home/990584.cloudwaysapps.com/hvcgdwcmdt/public_html/wp-content/plugins/sfwd-lms/themes/ld30/templates/topic.php on line 80
Describes Methods for Minimising Bias: Reflexivity and Bracketing
Reflexivity and bracketing are two methods used to minimize bias in qualitative research. Reflexivity refers to the researcher’s awareness of their own role in the research process and how their own experiences and biases may influence the research. Bracketing, on the other hand, refers to the process of temporarily setting aside one’s own beliefs and assumptions during data collection and analysis.
Reflexivity:
Reflexivity involves acknowledging the researcher’s role in shaping the research process and the data collected. It requires researchers to reflect on their own values, beliefs, experiences, and assumptions that may influence their interpretations of the data. By being aware of their own biases and potential impact on the research, researchers can strive to minimize their influence on the study.
Bracketing:
Bracketing, on the other hand, involves setting aside one’s own beliefs and assumptions during data collection and analysis. This allows researchers to focus on the perspectives and experiences of the participants without being influenced by their own preconceptions. For example, if a researcher is studying the experiences of individuals with a particular health condition, bracketing may involve setting aside any assumptions they may have about the condition or its treatment, in order to better understand the participants’ perspectives.
Comparing reflexivity and bracketing in qualitative research:
| Reflexivity | Bracketing | |
| Definition | Ongoing critical self-reflection on the researcher’s own values, beliefs, and biases that could influence the research process and findings | The process of setting aside preconceptions, assumptions, and biases to approach the data with an open mind |
| Purpose | To acknowledge and minimize the researcher’s influence on the research process and to enhance the rigour and credibility of the findings | To reduce the impact of the researcher’s preconceived ideas and ensure that the data is analyzed objectively |
| Advantages | – Allows the researcher to critically examine their own biases and values – Enhances transparency and credibility of the findings | – Encourages the researcher to approach the data without any preconceived ideas – Reduces the risk of researcher bias |
| Disadvantages | – Requires significant time and effort to implement – Can be difficult to achieve complete objectivity – May not eliminate all potential biases | – Can be difficult to implement in practice – May not be feasible in all research settings – May limit the scope of the research |
| Examples | – A researcher studying attitudes towards vaccination examines their own beliefs about vaccination before conducting interviews – A researcher exploring the experiences of cancer patients reflects on their own experience with cancer before analyzing the data | – A researcher conducting a study on the experience of living with a chronic illness sets aside their preconceived ideas about the impact of the illness on quality of life – A researcher exploring the impact of social media on body image avoids making assumptions about the relationship between the two variables |
Note: This table presents a general overview of the advantages and disadvantages of reflexivity and bracketing and is not meant to be exhaustive. Different researchers may have different experiences and opinions on the effectiveness of these methods.
Both reflexivity and bracketing are important methods for minimizing bias in qualitative research. By acknowledging and minimizing the potential influence of the researcher’s own beliefs and assumptions, researchers can strive to collect and analyze data in a more objective and accurate way.
References:
- Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209-230.