Reflexivity is commonly used in qualitative research and has been posited and accepted as a method qualitative researchers can and should use to legitimize, validate, and question research practices and representations. This paper closely examines the role of reflexivity as a methodological tool as it intersects with debates and questions surrounding representation and legitimization in qualitative research, within modernist and postmodernist ideologies, and pays close attention to how reflexivity is being defined and used in present-day research. Specifically, the author identifies and discusses the problematics of four common trends in present-day uses of reflexivity: reflexivity as recognition of self, reflexivity as recognition of other, reflexivity as truth, and reflexivity as transcendence. The author argues for a move away from comfortable uses of reflexivity to what she terms uncomfortable reflexive practices and provides an overview of the work of three authors who practice reflexivities of discomfort. Practicing uncomfortable reflexivity interrupts uses of reflexivity as a methodological tool to get better data while forefronting the complexities of doing engaged qualitative research.

No abstract

Building from conversations in a 2011 special issue in this journal, “Contestation and Opportunity in Reflexivity,” in which the omnipresent status yet contested terrain of reflexivity in research is highlighted, this essay takes up ontological and theoretical investments surrounding reflexivity as a way to map and make sense of what reflexivity does to research. After an overview of how reflection and reflexivity are currently put to use, Pillow turns to Kathy Ferguson’s essay, “Interpretation and Genealogy in Feminism,” as a model for tracing interpretation and genealogy in research reflexivity. Differentiating reflexivity as interpretation and reflexivity as genealogical identifies unmarked intentionalities in research as well as the irreducible necessity of both approaches in research reflexivity. The essay concludes with a discussion of how attending to the investments of reflexivity begins to address issues of epistemic privilege that continue to limit research.

No abstract

No abstract