302
Masculinity
and Reflexivity in Health Research with Men
SAGE Publications, Inc.200710.1177/0967550706ab050oa
SteveRobertson
University of Central Lancashire, UK, srobertson1@uclan.ac.uk
Address
for correspondence: Steve Robertson, Department of Nursing, University of
Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK; Email: srobertson1@uclan.ac.uk
Whilst a great deal has
been written regarding gender and the research process, only a limited amount
of this work relates specifically to masculinity and the research process
and even fewer reflexive accounts of male researchers' experiences exist.
Drawing on the experiences gained and empirical data collected during a three-year
qualitative research project on masculinity and health, this article sets
out to provide a critical, reflexive, autobiographical account of masculinity
and the research process. During the course of this study it became apparent
(although often implicit and hidden rather than explicitly visible) that
the researchers' own male gender and gendered practices influenced the research
process in its various stages. The article explores how these gendered practices
are socially and historically contingent.
INTRODUCTION
Emerging from long-standing debates about the impossibility of researcher
objectivity within the research process, reflexivity has become an integral
part of high-quality qualitative research. It assists with evalu- ating how
intersubjective encounters within research influence data col- lection and
analysis and can increase integrity, trustworthiness, rigor and thereby research
quality (Finlay, 2002; Hall and Callery, 2001; Seale, 1999). Given the proximity
and influence of feminist theory on our under- standing of the need for, and
practice of, reflexivity in research (Roberts, 1981; Maynard and Purvis, 1994),
it is no surprise that the gendered self has become a particular subject position
of reflexive concern. Numerous, often highly nuanced, accounts of the role,
influence and effect of female researchers' own gendered identity within specific
research projects are readily available (for example: Gair, 2002; Inckle,
2005; Letherby, 2002;
303
McCorkel
and Myers, 2003). Yet similar reflexive accounts on the role, influence and
effect of male researchers' gendered subject position are largely absent from
the literature. Whilst there has been a significant increase in men's critical,
autobio- graphical writing that problematizes issues of one's masculine subjectiv-
ity (for example: Jackson, 1990; Sparkes, 1996; Pringle, 2001), there remains
an exceptional paucity of work where men reflect on their mas- culine subject
position as researchers (for notable exceptions, see Gray, 2004; Morgan, 1981).
Although texts have begun to emerge that explore the theoretical and practical
concerns of undertaking research, including health research, with men (White
and Johnson, 1998; Pateman, 2000; Haywood and Mac an Ghaill, 2003; Petersen,
2003), the exhortation within these texts for male researchers to become explicit
about their own gender within the research process has not led to the production
(or at least not the publication) of such reflexive accounts. The reasons
for this absence of reflexive accounts amongst male researchers are undoubtedly
complex. However, I make two suggestions here on why this might be. First,
when discussing the historical invisibil- ity of men as problematized, gendered
research subjects, Hearn and Morgan (1990: 7) remind us that such invisibility
may not be accidental, rather, `it may serve men's interests, keeping their
activities apart from critical scrutiny, by other men as well as by women'.
This being the case, there is no reason to think that this might be any different
in terms of men's research activities. There are undoubtedly moral and political
issues relating to the closer scrutiny, including self-scrutiny, of female
researchers, and this does have the advantage of facilitating and encourag-
ing a reflexive, self-aware approach to research that has not yet been developed
(or at least rarely made explicit) by male researchers (Gill and Maclean,
2002). Second, it has been postulated that within a western philosophical
system, men have become associated with the mind and reason, and women with
the body and emotions; this is known as Cartesian dualism or the mind/body
distinction. Some argue that, for men, this has led to an inherent feeling
of `wrongness' in spending time with ourselves, particularly emotional self-reflection,
which becomes seen as a form of `self indulgence' (Seidler, 1991: 85). In
this sense, the masculine subject position itself may, unconsciously, act
to mitigate against research processes that require self-reflection or self-analysis.
It is here that health research may offer some specific hope for devel- oping
accounts of male reflexivity. Reflection and reflexivity have become central
components of health professional training and practice and have been recognized
as facilitating patient-centred encounters (Baarts et al., 2000), as assisting
the development of expert practice (Hardy et al., 2002), and as ultimately
improving diagnosis and thereby
304
clinical
outcomes (Malterud, 2002). This being the case, men who work as health professionals
are, perhaps, more likely to be familiar with such processes of self-reflection
than men in general. In addition, for those male health professionals working
in roles historically seen as `feminine' (e.g. nursing), there is an on-going
process of reflection about one's gen- dered identity that has to occur to
overcome stereotypes and prejudice, and facilitate successful, intersubjective,
therapeutic encounters (Whittock and Leonard, 2003; Evans, 2004; Stott, 2004).
This article aims to provide a reflexive account of my own subject posi- tion
within a research project that considered the links between lay men's and
community health professionals' conceptualizations of `masculinity' and `preventative
health care'. It does not focus only on the data generated but gives a reflexive
account of the totality of the project, thus providing `a reflection of a
researchers location in time and social space' (Bryman, 2001: 500). Emphasis
is placed on my own masculine subjectivities and how this positioned me in
particular ways at particular stages of the research process. First, in order
to contextualize the reflexive account that follows, I provide a brief description
of the research undertaken. THE RESEARCH PROJECT Within the United Kingdom
(UK), there are continued concerns regarding men's higher mortality rates
and reduced longevity compared to that of women. Explanations for this vary,
but are often based around ideas that the practices associated with `masculinity'
lead men to be both at greater risk of illness and injury, and less likely
to seek help when health may start to deteriorate (Banks, 2001; White, 2001; Peate, 2004). Yet, despite a growing body of research looking at men's experiences
of chronic and acute illness, little empirical work exists that considers
how men under- stand `health' and practise preventative health care, and how
this is influ- enced by issues of `masculinity' (for notable exceptions, see
Mullen, 1993; O'Brien et al., 2005; Watson, 2000). In addition, others have
pointed out how the conceptualizations that health professionals them- selves
hold about masculinity, and how these become embedded in health service delivery,
will also affect the opportunities and experiences men have for engaging with
health-promoting activities (Robertson, 1998; Seymour-Smith et al., 2002).
This research, undertaken in the north-west of England, aimed to provide empirical
data concerning the links between lay men's and health professionals' conceptualizations
of `masculinity' and `preventative health care'. Taking as its starting point
the complex and contradictory nature of `masculinity', a series of focus groups
(n = 4) and in-depth interviews were carried out with lay men (n = 20) and
community health
305
professionals
(n = 7). The focus groups were undertaken at the start of the fieldwork in
order to generate sensitizing concepts that then guided the semi-structured
interview schedules (Morgan, 1997). Informed by Connell's (1995) theoretical
work on the patterning of con- temporary masculinities (Table I), the lay
men included sub-samples of gay men (n = 7) and disabled men (n = 6) as well
as men who did not present themselves as gay or disabled (n = 7). This was
in recognition of the fact that men are not a homogenous group and that varied
configurations of masculinity are likely to result in different health experiences
and prac- tices. Each of the men was interviewed on two occasions with interviews
lasting from 30 minutes to three hours. The health professionals included
two general practitioners (one male, one female), three practice nurses (one
male, two female), a health visitor (female) and a community psychiatric TABLE
I The patterning of contemporary masculinity (Connell, 1995)
306
nurse
(male). Each was interviewed once with interviews lasting from 30 minutes
to one hour. All interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. The overall
design within this project was broadly interpretivist in nature and followed
a process of abductive reasoning where theory, data generation and data analysis
were dialectically related (Blaikie, 1993; Mason, 1996: 142). Preliminary
data analysis was completed following each group of three to four interviews
through a process of iterative read- ing and listening and identification
of emerging themes. Further analysis was completed after all the participants
had been interviewed. Each emerging theme was sub-coded and analytical links
made between these sub-codes and between emerging themes. This constituted
an adapted form of the `constant comparative method' (Glaser and Strauss,
1967) of analysis with the adaptation coming through the inclusion of Connell's
(1995) theoretical work into the continual motion between larger and smaller
data sets. The appropriateness of utilizing the constant compara- tive method
of analysis in this way has been noted by Mason (1996: 142). REFLEXIVE ACCOUNT
In order to provide this reflexive account, I have drawn on two main sources.
First, using field notes (reflective diary, interview notes) made throughout
the research journey, I reflected on how my own subject position(s) had influenced
decisions made at key stages. Second, I re-examined, and recoded, the transcribed
interviews looking specifically at how issues of gendered and professional
identity were created and sustained, or rejected within these interviews.
Assisted by Connell's (1995) theoretical work outlined above, I then made
analytical links between the emerging reflections and codes and considered
their utility as explanatory frameworks for the actions and/or subject positions
I took.11 Why this research topic? Mason (1996: 9) outlines several reasons
for the choice of topic area by social researchers: • gaps in current
knowledge concerning that topic area; • it is particularly timely to
research a given topic area; • research may be commissioned to evaluate
a social programme relat- ing to that topic area; • the topic area is
of particular, substantive interest to the researcher's own experiences.
307
Of these,
the last reason is very rarely written in to subsequent funding proposals
or talked about in final project reports. Indeed, in the account provided
above, sub-titled `the research project', attention is focused much more on
the timeliness and gaps in the current knowledge base than it is on the significance
of this topic area to myself as the researcher. My journey, my own experiences,
that led me to identify this topic area (which I shall broadly term `men's
health promotion'), began seven years before the research actually commenced.
In the early 1990s, my partner commenced a degree in Women's Studies at a
local university. During this course, she began to question many of the core
values that she held and processes of renegotiation began in our relationship
concerning many aspects of our life, including divisions of labour – in practical terms, who washed, cleaned, prepared food, entertained and helped
educate our (young) children and so on. This inevitably led to (and is still
requir- ing) a (re)negotiation of my own core values and recognition of how
these were/are developed with reference to expected standards, or norms,
of `male' behaviour. I had/have contradictory feelings (experi- enced by other
men in similar circumstances) of wishing to be supportive of a feminist standpoint,
and recognizing the need for personal change, yet fearing where this change
may lead (see Cohen, 1990; Morgan, 1992; Segal, 1997: 279ff). Of particular
on-going concern is which expected male `norms' I could or should sustain,
which I could or should reject, and how any subsequent changes in core values
(and the practices that these would invoke) would be viewed by family, friends,
colleagues and others. This coincided with a professional career move for
me. Although being in nursing had required some consideration of my own male
subject posi- tion, like many male nurses, I had gravitated into the relatively
safe `male' area of critical and intensive care nursing practice, following
qualification. However, my own degree experiences around this time developed
an understanding and appreciation of health in much broader terms and gen-
erated a concomitant desire to move more into health promotion work. It seemed
a logical move to consider and commence my health visitor train- ing as I
had been advised that these were the health professionals most likely to be
participating in health promotion work in the UK. However, I was not prepared
for how less traditionally `male', and more `feminized', the whole area of
health visiting was, still being dominated by work with mothers and babies,
at least in the localities I trained and worked in. As well as being professionally
disappointing, this undoubtedly generated some gender-strain within my working
experiences and necessitated addi- tional consideration of my personal and
professional male subject position (Egeland and Brown, 1989).
308
Combined,
these two simultaneous experiences shook the `taken- for-granted' status of
my male gender. I became increasingly sensitized to issues of gender, and
found myself considering how particular events and circumstances might differentially
impact on men and women. On moving into health visiting practice, I was struck
by the lack of involve- ment that my colleagues had with men as a client group,
despite the rhetoric that health visitors are `family visitors' (see also
Chalmers, 1992). I was further struck by how the interactions I did witness,
and those that I participated in, were likely to influence men's future engagement
(or not) with health services (Williams and Robertson, 1999). It became apparent,
as others have noted, that barriers to accessing health promotion services
and activity for men is as much about stereotypes held by health profes- sionals,
and the `masculine' gendered nature of the health services, as it is about
men's own beliefs and behaviours (Williams, 1997; Robertson, 1998; Seymour-Smith
et al., 2002). I was also aware that many of the stereotypes attributed to
men, and reinforced by colleagues, did not adequately reflect my own experiences
or those of many of my male friends. It is this combination of personal and
professional experiences that initially drove the move into the `men's health
promotion' research project. The influence on `sampling' Growing up as a physically
small man made me aware of the various ways that categories of `men' are
constructed and how individual men `jockey' for position to try to enter or
maintain themselves in particular categories or groups. As also noted in empirical
work by Edley and Wetherell (1997), and Frosh et al. (2002), this often entailed
buying (back) into values (at least rhetorically) associated with hegemonic
masculinity. In line with autobiographical accounts from other `small men',
I found (find) ways to compensate, sometimes to overcompensate, in order to
gain acceptance within particular, often dominant, groups when I was at school
and later on (Jackson, 1990: 171). Yet, this often creates contradictory feelings
as the following research reflective diary entry highlights: I know I'm different
with different people and in different places, but what does this mean, who
is the `real' me? I don't feel fake in any of these situations although I'm
sometimes surprised by my own actions; disappointed at times, impressed at
other times! I feel as comfortable in a pub as I do in the school yard [picking
up my children]. Yet, somehow, I also don't seem to fully `fit' as a `male'
in either place. (Brackets added)
309
This
alerted me to the fact that my different ways of `being' a man were not only
a matter of individual choice, the ability to choose an identity from `free-floating
signs and signifiers' in the post-modern sense. Rather, `being' a man is something
that is predicated on gender relations that are also embedded in social structures.
For example, our attempts at home to develop more equitable divisions of labour
were/are often thwarted by established social structures that act to favour
traditional gender divi- sions. The most obvious expression of this is how
gendered inequalities in financial recompense for paid employment make it
difficult to alter the balance of paid employment/domestic labour arrangements
within our family unit. It was important, therefore, for me within the research
project to locate an adequate theoretical model that could account for such
personal contradictions in (my) male experience and that also recognized the
importance of the socially embedded nature of inequitable power relations
between men and women that result in male privilege; that is a model that
could encompass issues of agency and structure in relation to masculine identity,
position and practices. Connell's (1987; 1995) work provided such a model.
The ability to think about my own (and other men's) activity as `configurations
of practice' that become embedded in, and in turn replicated through, existing
social struc- tures suggests a patterning of masculinities (see Table I) that
encompasses hierarchical power relations, but further suggests some room for
manoeu- vre between different configurations in different sets of social circum-
stance. This model has strong resonance with my own thoughts and experiences
as a man; at times marginalized, subordinated and complicit with, but always
the beneficiary of (and sometimes the perpetrator of), embedded hegemonic
masculine practices. It became clear therefore that my research sample needed
to be able to provide accounts and examples of marginalized, subordinated,
complicit and hegemonic masculinities; hence the specific theoretical sampling
that included gay and disabled men as well as men who presented as not gay
and not disabled. Data analysis and abductive reasoning It is often perceived
by junior researchers that `data analysis' is a matter of acquiring the right
`how to' book or paper and applying it. Even meth- ods of qualitative analysis
are seemingly chosen in objective isolation from the researcher's own background
and experiences; though they (hopefully) reflect the methodological position
taken by the researcher. For me, the abductive reasoning approach that underpinned
this project emerged through subjective processes; at personal cost and out
of personal (gendered) experiences.
310
My
academic journey began in a patriarchal household where scientific reason
was highly valued. The historical connection made between science and technology
and the realm of the `masculine' (Connell, 1995: 164ff), associating men with
the mind, reason and rationality (Seidler, 1994), was (and still is) played
out daily within my father's house. My own early edu- cation reflected this
association, and a desire to please my dad, with my post-compulsory college
subjects being three `hard (male) science' sub- jects. Yet, the movement into
the more `feminized' arena of nursing chal- lenged this base. As Hicks (1996; 1999) has pointed out, the association of nursing with care, compassion, intuition
and empathy, the values that attracted me toward nursing, is almost antithetical
to deductive (scientific) approaches based on detachment, distance, impartiality
and objectivity. Taken-for-granted, gendered assumptions about what knowledge
should be valued were brought into question for me as new modes of enquiry
were opened. On commencing the research, I therefore found myself confused
and torn about the process of reasoning that was directing my approach to
the project. I lived the feeling that there was something wrong with me, with
my professional and gendered identity, that made me unable to accept one of
(what I initially thought were) the only two forms of reasoning; as a reflective
diary entry from the time highlights: I've now spent over a month restraining
myself from completing more interviews until I'm sure of how data analysis
will proceed and why it'll proceed in that way. I'm getting increasingly frustrated
and anxious as time goes on. Others seem to have no difficulty in placing
their work on particular forms of `reasoning'. I know I'm not `theory testing'
but also think that developing theory from data is pure nonsense; anyone who
says they come to data without some theory is fooling themselves. (Emphasis
in original) Unable and unwilling to reject my (male) roots on the importance
of the scientific process, yet wanting to embrace (feminine) approaches that
can accept and welcome uncertainty, and that value interpersonal relation-
ships, created seemingly untenable tensions that led to months of frustra-
tion, internal and external dialogue, tears and desk-thumping – these
last two themselves perhaps being the embodied, physical representation of
a contradictory gendered identity. It was only when I was a third of the way
into the research that I encountered the concept of abductive reasoning. This
described almost perfectly the analytical process I had already become engaged
in, being associated as it is with dialectical movement between everyday concepts
and meanings and more theoretical social science explanations (Blaikie, 1993).
In doing so, it provided a safe place for me, a place that offered the thorough
rigour I demanded in terms of process, but that could also cope
311
with
ambiguity, and that valued subjective expression without reducing it to that
which is incorrigible. Data collection In considering issues of reflexivity,
others have highlighted how the concept of `positioning' has resonance for
their own research experiences. Hamberg and Johansson (1999) explore how they
positioned themselves, and were positioned by the research participants, in
different ways (as `doctors', as `women' and as `researchers') in the interviews
they completed and that such positionings triggered different responses and
reactions and therefore generated different `data'. In this section, I briefly
explore in similar fash- ion some of the various gender positions I experienced
in the interviews and critically explore how the interviews reflected ways
of `doing' my (male) identity. To facilitate this process, I use Connell's
(1995) patterning of con- temporary masculinities (Table I) as a framework.
Hegemonic positioning As outlined above, the research was predicated on a
personal and aca- demic commitment to pro-feminist values; therefore explicit
examples of hegemonic positioning within the focus group or interview narratives
are generally absent (though `complicity' with this position is not, as will
be seen shortly). However, my post-interview field notes tell a different
story in respect to the presence and possible influence/effects of hegemonic
positioning. Several entries following interviews with the gay men refer to
the men having `difficulty understanding what I was asking' or `talking around
subjects rather than directly about them' and covering topics `that are not
related to the current project'. Likewise, three entries following interviews
with the disabled men talk of the men being `very focused on disability'.
The construction of my masculinity as white, able-bodied and heterosexual – in line with current hegemonic norms (Petersen 1998: 41ff.) – creates
`others' out of that which is not. This `othering' is not just about `differences'
but results in material processes through which the views and expressions
of `others' become less; are devalued. It therefore becomes easy (though not
consciously) for me to interpret these `other' men's narratives in my reflections
as not relevant, not direct, or as the men experiencing difficulty in understanding
or not focusing `correctly' on the topic at hand. These binary oppositions
(in this case able-bodied/disabled, straight/gay), therefore exist as unequal
sets of power relations, and map also onto the researcher/researched oppositions.
My (subconscious) creation of parts of these men's narratives as `other',
as less relevant
312
(demonstrated
in the field note entries), creates the potential for these nar- ratives to
be marginalized within the analysis and/or presentation of results. Yet it
is only in the writing of this paper that I have fully recognized, or admitted,
this potentially destructive possibility. I feel shamed (again) by my own
elitist, hegemonic, male position yet have also been quite happy to use it
to achieve an end, and to leave this level of personal reflec- tion until
that end has been achieved (perhaps in order to achieve a further end?). In
this way, there is perhaps a degree of complicity with current hegemonic masculinity
and it is to this that I now turn. Complicit positioning As Connell (1995)
outlines, complicit configurations of masculinity real- ize the patriarchal
dividend (the advantages men gain from the overall subordination of women
and particular `other' groups of men) without the risks attached to `being
the frontline troops of patriarchy' (p. 79); that is, without having to necessarily
enter into situations of direct conflict. As such, complicity is often achieved
by following rather than taking a lead and language plays a key role in facilitating
such `turn-taking' and in reproducing established gendered sets of relations
(see also Coates, 2003; Gough and Edwards, 1998). Within the interview narratives,
I commonly engaged in banter around football, drinking and sex: I: How come,
if you're disabled, you can't move from the waist down, you've just got to
sit in one position for 24 hours, you can't move your legs, so how do you
not get a deep vein thrombosis? Does someone come along and start massaging
you? R: It would be nice wouldn't it on the NHS? [laugh] I: Yeah, 6 foot 2
blonde, Swedish you know [laugh] yeah. and I: I remember being able to stay
up all night drinking and then go to work the next day [laugh]. [R: Yeah.]
Yeah and regularly. That's the kind of thing that makes you feel old. When
you go out and you're knackered by 11 o'clock and you wanna come home [laugh].
R: Yeah. The other thing I've noticed is the length of time it takes to get
over hangovers. [laugh] I: I just stay in bed. I don't really suffer from
hangovers, unless I drink cider. That blows me head off. [R: Lethal.] Whilst
such conversations could be seen simply as ways of establishing a rapport
(numerous other examples exist of me trying to identify common ground with
participants on non-`macho' topics) they also construct, and
313
thereby
possibly expect from participants, particular ways of `doing' mas- culinity.
Given that health is often seen by men as a feminized issue (see Robertson,
2003), and that men researching gender are often viewed with suspicion in
terms of their sexuality (Frosh et al., 2002: 62ff.), it seems that at least
part of my motivation behind such exchanges was to show that, although I was
a researcher of gender and health (`feminine') issues, I was still a `real'
(that is heterosexual, and/or hegemonic) man. This analysis is reinforced
by the fact that I mention my own children in many of the interviews (although
only in a couple of the interviews with the gay men), a strategy that I have
since discovered has been utilized by other male researchers to `reassure'
curious participants concerning their sexual identity (Wight, 1994). However,
I also participated in narratives that constructed a masculin- ity positioned
outside such `macho' stereotypes that seem to suggest a rejection of complicity:
I: We've got a steamer now [pointing] so ... [R: It's the same as ours.] It's
brilliant. The difference, we were so surprised because of the food now. I
mean, like with the kids as well. What we eat basically, like we eat the veg,
so they get a good balanced diet, and we get a good balanced diet. And since
we've had the steamer the taste in the food has been unbelievable. R: Its
brilliant innit? We've had ours probably just a year ... [Interruption, participant's
wife comes in]. Sorry we're talking steamers here ... W: Oh right [laugh].
R: Very `blokey' conversation [laugh]. Such positioning could be seen as representative
of my remodelled, rene- gotiated `new' male identity, deliberately not complicit
with hegemonic masculine `norms' and values. Yet, care needs to be taken as
constructions of this type of `new man' may merely be modern representations
of what is now hegemonic. Wetherell and Edley (1999) point out in their work
how modern hegemonic masculinity is constructed in part through opposition
to previous `macho' stereotypes. This being the case, such conversations could
merely represent my being complicit with new hegemonic male `norms' rather
than representing alternative ways of `doing' my masculin- ity. The embarrassed
apology about the conversation around steamers given to the participant's
wife speaks of a contradiction and oscillation between `old' and `new' hegemonic
masculine forms that I experience. Subordinated/marginalized positioning The
interviews with the gay men posed particular challenges for me. I was unsure
whether banter such as that above would be an appropriate way to
314
relate
or present myself to the gay male participants, indicative as it is of hegemonic
male conversation (Coates, 2003). I was concerned about causing offence but
at the same time was also aware that I did not want to misrepresent myself,
or be positioned, as a gay man within the interviews. The deeply embedded
nature of homophobia within the construction of hegemonic male identity led
me to be cautious when relating to these men. Despite having several gay friends,
I was unsure what the rules of (my male) engagement with this group could
or should be within this research context. In practice this led to my asking
a health service colleague who had a specific remit to work with gay men to
facilitate this focus group although I was also present. This most likely
represented a combination of my wishing to be sensitive but also a fear of
how I might be perceived and treated by the group as the following indicates:
Why am I so concerned about taking the focus group of gay men? I've run loads
of groups with men, women and mixed groups in work. I'd like to think it's
because I want to be sensitive to particular health issues that may arise
but I half think I'd be out of my depth if the conversation became too loudly
camp, that I might lose control in the group and even get laughed at for not
understanding terms, innuendo etc? (Reflective diary entry) Despite (rhetorical)
commitment to emancipatory, pro-feminist research approaches, I find it difficult
to relinquish control with this particular group. I find it difficult to allow
myself to be subordinated to a `gay hege- mony' that I fear would predominate,
preferring to allow myself to be marginalized in order to achieve the research
outcomes; in this case the collection of adequate, `good-quality' data. I
remained committed to completing the in-depth interviews with the gay men
myself. Here I found myself co-constructing a form of masculin- ity that showed
itself open to engaging with alternative ways of `being male', yet at the
same time showed elements of complicity with other aspects of hegemonic masculine
values: I: I think guys feel a lot better just going out casual wear, just
decide `right I'm going out in an hour' and they're off in an hour, without
having to spend three or four hours like a girl would normally spend tarting
themselves up with make-up and glossy stuff and whatever [R: laughs]. Although
some fellas do that [laughs]. R: Yeah, yeah, I've got some friends that do!
[both laugh]. Here the positioning (demeaning) of women as `girls' and `tarts'
is (albeit subconsciously) endorsed by my laughing at the end of that sentence.
I make clear my engagement with alternative forms of `doing' masculinity
315
by
making comments about my gay friends, yet also position myself (along with
the interviewee) in opposition to that which is female.2 Clearly, other positionings
not directly related to gender also played out in the process of data collection.
These also often operate as sets of binary opposition, such as professional/non-professional,
that are context- ualized within pre-established power relations that become
played out in the co-construction of interview narratives. However, there
is insufficient space to consider all these within this paper and it would
detract from its focus. DISCUSSION Despite recognizing its importance, questions
have been raised about the primacy given to reflexivity in social science
research and the need to avoid approaches that are too introverted and that
act to reproduce ego identity at the expense of exploring and understanding
social life (May, 1998). However, the work presented here suggests that good
critical reflexive accounts can and do act to illuminate issues around masculinity,
gender and men's practices and, in this sense, they represent one means of
understanding particular aspects of social life. What is important to remember
is that `reflexivity as a critical practice may be far from neutral and in
particular may have a hidden politics of gender' (Adkins, 2002: 345). Thus,
even in presenting this account here, gender politics is being played out.
On one level, my account presents a challenge to hegemonic male `norms'. Given
the paucity of male reflex- ive accounts, even the process of producing this
article could be seen as a symbolic resistance to current hegemonic practices
that give precedence to objective (male) research accounts that rely on researcher
neutrality and distance. Likewise, the dissection of my own research practices,
and moti- vations behind these, within this article allows some insight into
how, when, where and why hegemonic practices are (re)produced or resisted
within the research context. Yet, on another level, this account could be
said to be a representative example of the current gender order. The move
since the 1970s for men to become more at home with their emotions and feelings,
not afraid to con- sider who they are, has not, as Segal (1997: 282ff.) points
out, shifted the cultural, social and political domination of men over women.
In this sense, this reflexive piece could be seen as a contribution to a new
hegemonic masculinity that expresses a rhetorical commitment to rejecting
previous male stereotypes, yet that contributes nothing to changing actual
material practices; that is it does nothing to affect the `patriarchal dividend',
the advantages that accrue to men through current gendered structural inequalities.
316
The
important point here is not to become concerned with the `truth' of such contradictory
explanations but rather to recognize that the process of reflexivity itself
allows for, and indeed demands, the consideration of such issues that may
not otherwise be thought about within a research project. In doing so, it
facilitates, as Frank (1997) points out, `a focus for a more intense insight'.
Within this `men's health promotion' project, on-going reflexive practice
helped guide the way that issues of masculinity, or more accurately masculinities,
were to be understood. In particular, it facilitated a movement away from
intrapsychic approaches to understanding men's health practices (that is understanding
these practices as the product of individual motivation and behaviour) and
towards understanding these practices as being socially embedded and contingent.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work was supported through an ESRC/MRC Postdoctoral award.
NOTES
1 As a methodological point,
I am not arguing that this account necessarily provides a factual and/or
truthful explanation of why particular decisions were made and/or subject
positions adopted. Rather, with the help of sociological insights into `masculinity'
and professional identity, and with the advantage (?) of hindsight, I am
providing what now appear, to me, to be the most likely explanations.
2 That some gay men, despite
their often subordinated and marginalized position, still choose to construct
their male identity in opposition to that which is female is not surprising
given the historical investment that all men have in maintaining (even subconsciously)
the current structure of gender order that privileges men's position (see
Connell, 1992).
REFERENCES
Adkins, L.
2002: Reflexivity and the politics of qualitative research . In May, T., editor, Qualitative research in action. Sage, 332—48.
Baarts, C., Tulinius, C.
and Reventlow, S.
2000: Reflexivity — a strategy for a patient centred
approach in general practice. Family Practice 17, 430—34.
Banks, I.
2001: No man's land: men, illness and the NHS.
British Medical Journal 323, 1058—60.
Blaikie, N.
1993: Approaches to social enquiry. Cambridge .
Bryman, A.
2001: Social research methods, second edition. Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, K.
1992: Working with men: an analysis of health visiting
practice in families with young children. International Journal
of Nursing Studies 29, 3—16.
Coates, J.
2003: Men talk. Blackwell.
Cohen, D.
1990: Being a man. Routledge.
317
Connell, R.W.
1987: Gender and power. Polity Press .
——— 1992: A very straight gay: masculinity, homosexual experience
and the dynamics of gender. American Sociological Review 57, 735—51.
——— 1995: Masculinities. Polity Press .
Davies, C.
1995: Gender and the professional predicament in nursing . Open University Press.
Edley, N.
and Wetherell, M.
1997: Jockeying for position: the construction of masculine
identities. Discourse and Society 8, 203—17.
Egeland, J.W.
and Brown, J.S.
1989: Men in nursing: their fields of employment, preferred
fields of practice and role strain. Health Services Research 24, 693—707.
Evans, J.
2004: Men nurses: a historical and feminist perspective . Journal of Advanced Nursing 47, 321—28.
Finlay, L.
2002: `Outing' the researcher: the provenance, process
and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research 1, 531—45.
Frank, G.
1997: Is there life after categories? Reflexivity in
qualitative research. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research 17, 84—98.
Frosh, S., Phoenix, A.
and Pattman, R.
2002: Young masculinities. Palgrave .
Gair, S.
2002: In the thick of it: a reflective tale from an Australian
social worker/qualitative researcher. Qualitative Health Research 12, 130—39.
Gill, F.
and Maclean, C.
2002: `Knowing your place': gender and reflexivity in
two ethnographies . Sociological Research Online 7, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/ 7/2/gill.html (last accessed 8 June 2006).
Glaser, B.
and Strauss, A.
1967: The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine.
Gough, B.
and Edwards, G.
1998: The beer talking: four lads, a carry out and the
reproduction of masculinities. The Sociological Review 46, 409—35.
Gray, R.
2004: No longer a man: using ethnographic fiction to
represent life history research. Auto/Biography 12, 44—61.
Hall, W.A.
and Callery, P.
2001: Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: incorporating
reflexivity and relationality. Qualitative Health Research 11, 257—72.
Hamberg, K.
and Johansson, E.E.
1999: Practitioner, researcher and gender conflict in
a qualitative study. Qualitative Health Research 9, 455—67.
Hardy, S., Garbett, R., Titchen, A.
and Manley, K.
2002: Exploring nursing expertise: nurses talk nursing . Nursing Inquiry 9, 196—202.
Haywood, C.
and Mac an Ghaill, M. 2003: Men and masculinities.
Open University Press.
Hearn, J. and Morgan,
D.H.J., editors, 1990: Men, masculinities and
social theory. Unwin Hyman, 1—18.
Hicks, C.
1996: The potential impact of gender stereotypes for
nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing 24, 1006—13.
——— 1999: Incompatible skills and ideologies: the impediment
of gender attributions on nursing research. Journal of Advanced
Nursing 30, 129—39.
Inckle, K.
2005: Who's hurting who? The ethics of engaging the marked
body . Auto/Biography 13, 227—48.
Jackson, D.
1990: Unmasking masculinity: a critical autobiography . Unwin Hyman.
Letherby, G.
2002: Claims and disclaimers: knowledge, reflexivity
and representation in feminist research. Sociological Research
Online 6, http://www.socresonline.
org.uk/6/4/letherby.html (last accessed 8 June 2006).
318
Malterud, K.
2002: Reflexivity and metapositions: strategies for appraisal
of clinical evidence. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 8, 121—34.
Mason, J.
1996: Qualitative researching. Sage .
May, T.
1998: Reflexivity in the age of reconstructive social
science . International Journal of Social Research Methodology 1, 7—24.
Maynard, M.
and Purvis, J.
1994: Researching women's lives from a feminist perspective . Taylor & Francis.
McCorkel, J.A.
and Myers, K.
2003: What difference does difference make? Position
and privilege in the field. Qualitative Sociology 26, 199—232.
Morgan, D.H.J.
1981: Men, masculinity and the process of sociological
enquiry . In Roberts, H., editor,
Doing feminist research. Routledge, 83—113.
——— 1992: Discovering men. Routledge.
——— 1997: Focus groups as qualitative research, second
edition. Sage.
Mullen, K.
1993: A healthy balance: Glaswegian men talking about
health, tobacco and alcohol. Avebury.
O'Brien, R., Hunt, K.
and Hart, G.
2005: `It's caveman stuff, but that is to a certain extent
how guys still operate': men's accounts of masculinity and help seeking.
Social Science & Medicine 61, 503—16.
Pateman, B.
2000: Feminist research or humanist research? Experiences
of studying prostatectomy. Journal of Clinical Nursing 9, 310—16.
Peate, I.
2004: Men's attitudes towards health and the implications
for nursing care. British Journal of Nursing 13, 540—45.
Petersen, A.
1998: Unmasking the masculine. Sage .
——— 2003: Research on men and masculinities: some implications
of recent theory for future work. Men and Masculinities 6, 54—69.
Pringle, R.
2001: Competing discourses: narratives of a fragmented
self, manliness and Rugby Union. International Review for
the Sociology of Sport 36, 425—39.
Roberts, H., editor, 1981: Doing
feminist research. Routledge.
Robertson, S.
1998: Men's health: present practice and future hope . British Journal of Community Nursing 3, 45—49.
——— 2003: Men managing health. Men's Health
Journal 20, 111—13.
Seale, C.
1999: The quality of qualitative research. Sage.
Segal, L.
1997: Slow motion: changing masculinities, changing men , second edition. Virago
Press.
Seidler, V.
1991: Recreating sexual politics. Routledge .
——— 1994: Unreasonable men: masculinity and social theory . Routledge.
Seymour-Smith, S., Wetherell, M.
and Phoenix, A.
2002: `My wife ordered me to come': A discursive analysis
of doctors' and nurses' accounts of men's use of general practitioners.
Journal of Health Psychology 7, 253—67.
Sparkes, A.C.
1996: The fatal flaw: a narrative of the fragile body-self . Qualitative Inquiry 2, 463—94.
Stott, A.
2004: Issues in the socialisation process of the male
student nurse: implications for retention in undergraduate nursing courses . Nurse Education Today 24, 91—97.
Watson, J.
2000: Male bodies: health, culture and identity.
Open University Press.
319
Wetherell, M.
and Edley, N.
1999: Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: imaginary positions
and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology 9, 335—56.
White, A.
2001: How men respond to illness. Men's
Health Journal 1, 18—19.
White, A.
and Johnson, M.
1998: The complexities of nursing research with men.
International Journal of Nursing Studies 35, 41—48.
Whittock, M.
and Leonard, L.
2003: Steeping outside the stereotype: a pilot study
of the motivation and experiences of males in the nursing profession.
Journal of Nursing Management 11, 242—49.
Wight, D.
1994: `Boys' thoughts and talk about sex in a working
class locality of Glasgow. The Sociological Review 42, 703—38.
Williams, R.
1997: Health visitors ideologies regarding health promotion
for men. British Journal of Community Health Nursing 2, 238—48.
Williams, R.
and Robertson, S.
1999: Fathers and health visitors: `it's a secret agent
thing' . Community Practitioner 72, 56—58.
NOTE
ON CONTRIBUTOR
STEVE
ROBERTSON is a Post-doctoral Research Fellow at the University of Central
Lancashire. A nurse and health visitor by background, he has been writing
and researching issues related to men and health for over 10 years and has
recently completed an ESRC/MRC Interdisciplinary Award looking at `Understanding
masculinity and gender in health and illness'. He also undertakes voluntary
work as co-director on the board of the European Men's Health Development
Foundation.