To increase the integrity and trustworthiness of qualitative research, researchers need to evaluate how intersubjective elements influence data collection and analysis. Reflexivity--where researchers engage in explicit, self-aware analysis of their own role--offers one tool for such evaluation. The process of engaging in reflexive analysis, however, is difficult, and its subjective, ambiguous nature is contested. In the face of challenges, researchers might retreat from engaging in the process. In this article, the author seeks to "out" the researcher's presence by exploring the theory and practice of reflexivity. Examples from research illustrate its problematic potential.

A B S T R AC T How should researchers reflexively evaluate ways in which intersubjective elements transform their research? The process of engaging in reflexivity is full of muddy ambiguity and multiple trails as researchers negotiate the swamp of interminable deconstructions, self analysis and self disclosure. This article examines how researcher-explorers from a range of research traditions have negotiated this swamp in practice, by drawing on examples of their reflexive experience. 'Maps' are offered on five variants of reflexivity, namely: (i) introspection; (ii) intersubjective reflection; (iii) mutual collaboration; (iv) social critique; and (v) discursive deconstruction. The diversity of practice suggests competing, though also overlapping, accounts of the rationale and practice of reflexivity. In a critical celebration of the richness of reflexivity, this article aims to demonstrate how each way of approaching reflexivity offers different opportunities and challenges. It is hoped that the maps provided will enable researcher-explorers to choose their preferred route through the swamp. The discussion section, along with a 'meta-reflexive voice' threaded throughout, highlights the critical issues at stake when attempting reflexive analysis in practice. K E Y W O R D S : critical analysis, intersubjectivity, methodological evaluation, reflection, reflexivity, researcher's experienceWithout some degree of reflexivity any research is blind and without purpose. (Flood, 1999: 35) Prologue: evolving reflexivity Reflexivity in qualitative research -where researchers engage in explicit selfaware meta-analysis -has a long history spanning at least a century. It has moved from introspection towards critical realist and subjectivist accounts,A RT I C L E 2 0 9 Q R Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice Qualitative Research Downloaded from and more recently towards highlighting the socio-political, post-modern context through deconstructing the research encounter. Although not always referred to explicitly as reflexivity, the project of examining how the researcher and intersubjective elements impinge on, and even transform, research, has been an important part of the evolution of qualitative research. Critical self-reflexive methodologies have evolved across different qualitative research fields in a story of turns and shifts.

Phenomenological researchers generally agree that our central concern is to return to embodied, experiential meanings aiming for a fresh, complex, rich description of a phenomenon as it is concretely lived. Yet debates abound when it comes to deciding how best to carry out this phenomenological research in practice. Confusion about how to conduct appropriate phenomenological research makes our field difficult for novices to access. Six particular questions are contested: (1) How tightly or loosely should we define what counts as "phenomenology" (2) Should we always aim to produce a general (normative) description of the phenomenon, or is idiographic analysis a legitimate aim? (3) To what extent should interpretation be involved in our descriptions? (4) Should we set aside or bring to the foreground researcher subjectivity? (5) Should phenomenology be more science than art? (6) Is phenomenology a modernist or postmodernist project, or neither? In this paper, I examine each of these areas of contention in the spirit of fostering dialogue, and promoting openness and clarity in phenomenological inquiry.

This article explores the nature of "the phenomenological attitude," which is understood as the process of retaining a wonder and openness to the world while reflexively restraining pre-understandings, as it applies to psychological research. A brief history identifies key philosphical ideas outlining Husserl's formulation of the reductions and subsequent existential-hermeneutic elaborations, and how these have been applied in empirical psychological research. Then three concrete descriptions of engaging the phenomenological attitude are offered, highlighting the way the epoché of the natural sciences, the psychological phenomenological reduction and the eidetic reduction can be applied during research interviews. Reflections on the impact and value of the researcher's stance show that these reductions can be intertwined with reflexivity and that, in this process, something of a dance occurs—a tango in which the researcher twists and glides through a series of improvised steps. In a context of tension and contradictory motions, the researcher slides between striving for reductive focus and reflexive self-awareness; between bracketing pre-understandings and exploiting them as a source of insight. Caught up in the dance, researchers must wage a continuous, iterative struggle to become aware of, and then manage, pre-understandings and habitualities that inevitably linger. Persistance will reward the researcher with special, if fleeting, moments of disclosure in which the phenomenon reveals something of itself in a fresh way.

No abstract