Skip to content

From Practitioner to Researcher: Reflexivity, Positionality, and the Power of Frontline Experience.

    Wednesday, 13 August 2025

    By Helen Lawrence

    Collaboratory PhD Candidates

    Helen Lawrence, 2025 Collaboratory Research Showcase, Nottingham

    When I began my PhD research exploring the barriers to recovery from rough sleeping through employment, I did so not as a distant observer, but as someone with a long-standing connection to the sector. I had worked for years with people experiencing rough sleeping and severe multiple disadvantage – in an outreach team, supported accommodation and hostel settings. Some of these services later hosted part of my research fieldwork. This background has shaped my research through the methods I chose, the relationships I am building, and the insights I have been able to draw.
    Reflecting on how my prior experience influenced my research practice, drawing on concepts of reflexivity, positionality, and the increasingly acknowledged identity of the pracademic.

    Positionality: Insider, Outsider: Both

    Aligning my thoughts with interpretivist theory, which explores that social reality is constructed through human meaning and interaction, I recognise that research is inherently shaped by the perspectives and contexts of both participants and researchers (Weber et al., 2007; Denzin, 1989; Weber et al., 2007). That is to say, social research is not neutral – as researchers, we bring our histories, values and identities into the field. My dual role as both a former practitioner and a researcher placed me in a unique position, neither fully insider or outsider, but something in between.

    This ‘insider-outsider’ dynamic has been long discussed in qualitative research with academics recognising that being an insider can enhance trust and access. However, they also acknowledge that it also brings the risk of assumptions, blind spots and over-familiarity (Dwyer and Buckle, 2009). Some argue that being an outsider allows for critical distance to be built between the researcher and participants but agree that it understanding context is then significant challenging (Bukamal, 2022).

    In my case, familiarity with the sector enabled a smooth transition into the research space. For organisations who I approached as gatekeepers, many of whom I had worked alongside in practice settings, my prior professional identity established a level of credibility that might otherwise have taken significant time to build. This facilitated not only access to locations for the research to take place, but also to the kinds of collaborative, creative engagement that my PhD fieldwork demanded. For participants, particularly in arts-based activities, this familiarity helped reduce the power-dynamic struggle. They identified me as someone who already had a level of understanding of ‘their world’, someone who understood the systems and the frustrations that exist. Rather than being viewed as an external evaluator, I was seen as someone who was familiar and trustworthy. This experience and my positionality allowed for a level of participation and engagement with the research that would have been unlikely without my frontline work experience. It also allowed for a more open flow of conversation, with a more in-depth, nuanced understanding of the outcomes.

    Reflexivity in Practice

    Recognising the influence of my positionality has required ongoing reflexivity. As described by Finlay, reflexivity is the process of a continued internal conversation and critical self-evaluation of the researchers own thoughts and experiences (Finlay, 2002).
    Maintaining reflexive notes throughout my fieldwork so far, noting moments where my prior frontline experience guided me, I was able to ask myself questions that allowed my positionality to serve as a positive, rather than over-shaping the research. At times, the same empathetic understanding that helped participants open up could also lead me to interpret their experiences too readily through the lens of my past work. In this case, I had to consciously adopt a more critical, interpretative stance, letting participants write their own stories.


    In my analysis of the arts-based data, I am seeking to reduce the siloed influence of my own prior frontline experience by also involving support staff who were directly engaged in the research process. Their perspectives, grounded in ongoing practitioner relationships with participants, will provide an additional layer of interpretation and will help to mitigate the risk of over-identifying with certain narratives. This collaborative approach not only intends to enhance the credibility of findings, but also demonstrates a reflexive commitment to co-constructing meaning with those embedded in the practice context (Finlay, 2002; Hemming et al., 2021). Funded by Collaboratory Universities for Nottingham, the research remains in line with the collaborative ethos, reinforcing a commitment to socially engaged research that not only investigated, but also informs and supports practice.

    The Value of the Pracademic Perspective

    I have come to understand that my identity as a pracademic, a practitioner turned academic, is not something to neutralise. Rather it is an asset to be acknowledged, critiqued and utilised with integrity. Bringing practice-based understanding into the research process I have been able to better understand the power-dynamics of services, the casual language used by participants and the emotional realities of people navigating systems of support.

    This does not mean that pracademic research is without risks. The proximity to the field can cloud judgement, or mean critiquing familiar systems is uncomfortable. However, when paired with critical reflexivity, this positionality can yield research that is deeply grounded, highly ethical and creates a nuanced perspective on the complexities of lived experience.

     

    Reference list

    Bukamal, H. (2022). Deconstructing Insider–Outsider Researcher Positionality. British Journal of Special Education, [online] 49(3), pp.327–349. Available at: https://nasenjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-8578.12426.

    Denzin, N.K. (1989). Interpretive Biography. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

    Dwyer, S.C. and Buckle, J.L. (2009). The Space between: on Being an insider-outsider in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), pp.54–63.

    Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: the Opportunity and Challenge of Reflexivity in Research Practice. Qualitative Research, [online] 2(2), pp.209–230. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/146879410200200205.

    Hemming, L., Pratt, D., Bhatti, P., Shaw, J. and Haddock, G. (2021). Involving an Individual with Lived‐experience in a Co‐analysis of Qualitative Data. Health Expectations, 24(3), pp.766–775. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13188.

    Schutz, A. (1967). The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press.

    Weber, M.W.C., Shils, E., Finch, H.A., Antonio, R.J. and Sica, A. (2007). The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New Bruswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Helen Lawrence is a Collaboratory PhD candidate.