References
Bridging perspectives: reflexivity and bracketing in qualitative studies of pregnancy loss care
Abstract
Reflexivity is crucial for maintaining rigour and credibility in qualitative research, particularly in studies addressing sensitive subjects, such as pregnancy loss. This article explores the dual positionality of an insider-outsider dynamic and the role of bracketing in a phenomenological study of nurses' and midwives' preparedness to care for women experiencing pregnancy loss. The insider perspective fostered trust and rapport but also risked introducing bias as a result of assumed shared understanding. The outsider role facilitated critical distance and objectivity. Reflexivity and bracketing are essential tools for managing these roles, preserving objectivity and enhancing the authenticity of research findings. This article highlights ways for managing dual positionality in qualitative research through reflexive journaling, peer debriefing and deliberate self-awareness. These methods provide a robust framework for future studies exploring sensitive healthcare topics, ensuring methodological rigour and balanced representation of participants' perspectives.
Qualitative research relies on complex judgements that require the researcher's reflexivity; however, reflexivity is frequently discussed superficially or overlooked entirely during the research process (Darawsheh, 2014; Finlay, 2021). This article examines reflexivity in the context of a phenomenological study currently being carried out by the authors, which explores nurses' and midwives' preparedness to provide care for women experiencing pregnancy loss in Brunei Darussalam.
Reflexivity is crucial in enhancing the rigour and credibility of qualitative research, particularly in managing the challenges of the insider-outsider dynamic and bracketing. Gabriel (2018) defined reflexivity as a continuous process of vigilance and self-questioning that every qualitative researcher must engage in, to improve the trustworthiness, reliability and validity of their work. The indicators for research rigour are significantly different in qualitative research to those for quantitative research (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Levitt, 2018). While quantitative research seeks to reveal important beliefs to be as free as possible from researcher ‘bias’ (Lazard and McAvoy, 2020), qualitative research depends on subjectivity (Aspers and Corte, 2019).
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting British Journal of Midwifery and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for midwives. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
What's included
-
Limited access to our clinical or professional articles
-
New content and clinical newsletter updates each month