Monday, July 25, 2011

Reflexivity

Something I wrote ages ago:

The importance of a reflexive approach is, perhaps, defined by what might happen if researchers are not reflexive. If the subjectivity of the researcher is denied or ignored, then the analysis takes no account of the reactions of the subjects to the interviewer and thus a large section of the social interaction that has taken place is not considered when constructing frameworks or theories in action.


During the course of my study on both the Open University Masters’ and Doctor of Education programmes, one particular facet of my own development which has been of interest is the development of a more reflective approach to my reading, to my research, and to my practice as a teacher. [Assignments] ... formed part of my audit trail – documenting the changes in my outlook to research in general, to Grounded Theory, and to the research questions that I... [was] investigating.

Reflexivity is closely bound up with, though separate from, reflective practice. The question of reflexivity on the part of the researcher is bound up with the historical development of qualitative action research. The issue of insider research has caused many researchers (including me) to have concerns that the very act of being part of the context being explored will change that context and affect the respondents to the detriment of enabling a theory to emerge. Hellawell (2006: 1) writes about reflexivity, referring to Shacklock and Smyth (1998), who give us the notion of “the conscious revelation of the role of the beliefs and values held by researchers in the selection of research methodology for the generation of knowledge”. As Hellawell points out this indicates a “deliberate self-scrutiny in relation to the research process”.

In other words, to be reflexive, the writer/researcher needs to reflect on her/his own potential impact on the phenomena being investigated. In fact, we should use this reflexivity to monitor the research process, and then, as Finlay (2002: 210) writes, the process is made clear and obvious and “personal experience is transformed into public, accountable knowledge”.

It is important, as Finlay points out, to maintain transparency by clear documentation of all interactions (in my case, interviews), and how these led to the next interaction (for me, how the analysis of each interview, along with my literature search, affected the schedule for the next set of interviews).
There remains a concern that the researcher has put her/his own inference on the analysis of the context. In fact, the constant process of re-analysis could even be regarded as muddying the waters rather than clearing them. Perhaps these concerns could be said actually to be the defining nature of late twentieth and early twenty-first century sociological writing. As Finlay writes, we have become very concerned with being self-analytical.

Finlay proposes certain ‘maps’ to negotiate what she terms the ‘swamp’ of reflexive research. The following gives a very brief account of each of these maps.

• Introspection – thinking about how I feel as the researcher and documenting this for the benefit of the reader, so that s/he may determine a fit with other contexts.

• Intersubjectivity – considering how the respondents might feel and discussing this as a means of further analysis of the way that the research has developed.

• Mutual collaboration – actively discussing with the respondents the relationships that have formed as part of the research

• Social critique – here, we might be seeking to describe a particular social phenomenon (for example, how the leadership style of the Head teacher and her/his professional relationships affect the process of change management within a school) –if using this map, it will be important to consider any power imbalance between the researcher and the respondents.

• Discursive deconstruction – here, Finlay warns of the need to be careful not to over analyse. In deconstructing, we may be in danger of not putting back together again. Like Pole’s flower, do the individual parts of the flower come back together to give us the idea of the beauty of a flower?

Finlay, L. (2002) ‘Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice’. Qualitative Research. 2, 2: 209-230 Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Hellawell, D. (2006) ‘Inside-out: analysis of the insider-outsider concept as a heuristic device to develop reflexivity in students doing qualitative research’. Teaching in Higher Education. 11, 4: 483 - 494

No comments:

Post a Comment