The lack of trust in civilian organisations described by Balfour (2018) as a possible reason for a lack of engagement in research studies is potentially countered by my positionality as a veteran and a researcher.
According to Holmes (2020), the term ‘positionality’ both describes an individual’s worldview and the position they adopt about a research task and its social and political context (p1). Bourke (2022) explains it is reasonable to expect that the researcher’s beliefs, political stance, and cultural background (gender, race, class, socioeconomic status, and educational background) are important variables that may affect the research process. Rowe (2014) states It influences both how the research is conducted, and its outcomes and results. Holmes (2020) argues that self-reflection and a reflexive approach are both a necessary prerequisite and an ongoing process for the researcher to be able to identify, construct, critique and articulate their positionality (p2). Finlay (2002), explains, that researchers can use reflexivity as part of their methodological evaluation, as a way of demonstrating trustworthiness. Being explicit about what we are bringing to the research allows those who read our work to better grasp how we produced the data. The reader should then be able to make a better-informed judgement on the research process and how truthful the research data is (Homes 2020 p3).
Caddick et al. (2017) describe tensions as a civilian researcher working with UK veterans. As an outsider, he recognised his positionality and discusses how various interested parties talk about and for veterans. He cites Baker et. al’s (2016) description of how when others talk about veterans it creates uncomfortable tensions. This is brought home with a comment from one veteran in Craddick’s’ study.
I read that academics reflect on how they can witness veterans’ lives and interact with them to better understand their experiences. In some ways I applaud you and in another, I think it's futile … I’ve spoken to other veterans there is an understood brotherhood and trust is automatic … Academics are only witnesses to only what we are prepared to tell. (Craddick et.al 2019 p108)
Muhammad et al. (2014) in their study of the impact of positionality on Community Based Participatory Research describe how their research teams would as far as possible, reflect the class and ethnicity of the communities they investigated and ‘found that matching researcher identity with that of the interviewee minimised social distance, mistrust and barriers to hidden transcripts (Hiding their true thoughts) …to increase the validity of the knowledge accessed.’
My history as a veteran with 15 years of service in the Infantry and Army Physical Training Corps, holding posts such as Deputy Head Group Therapist at the Defence Services Medical Rehabilitation Unit and Head of Rehabilitation at the Army Training Regiment, Pirbright and having treated many seriously injured military personnel leads me to I believe that I am perfectly suited, if not uniquely suited to undertake the research for this study. I also have an existing network of veteran organisations and my positionality will allow the empathy and trust of the veteran community.
As part of the veteran community, I identify very much as an insider, having similar life experiences though not exactly those same experiences as other veterans. I have what Holmes (2020) calls a ‘lived familiarity,’ and we share a common language and a sense of trust with other veterans. Merriam et al. (2010) and Muhammad et al (2014) would describe this as an ‘indigenous insider,’ someone who is from that culture or community – shares the values and beliefs and can speak with authority. In my research, this may help with the asking of more meaningful questions, the phrasing of questions and how to ask them in a veteran-sensitive way. It may allow the participants to feel more like co-researchers, to open up more and for me to interpret the answers to questions more effectively. The veterans themselves may feel that the data they offer is likely to be treated and given a voice in a more respectful way than that of a non-veteran researcher.