Reflexivity, critical qualitative research and emancipation: a Foucauldian perspective

Abstract

Title. Reflexivity, critical qualitative research and emancipation: a Foucauldian perspective. Aim. In this paper, we consider reflexivity, not only as a concept of qualitative validity, but also as a tool used during the research process to achieve the goals of emancipation that are intrinsic to qualitative research conducted within a critical paradigm. Background. Research conducted from a critical perspective poses two challenges to researchers: validity of the research must be ensured and the emancipatory aims of the research need to be realized and communicated. The traditional view of reflexivity as a means of ensuring validity in qualitative research limits its potential to inform the research process. Data sources. The Medline and CINAHL data bases were searched (1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008) inclusive) using keywords such as reflexivity, validity, subjectivity, bias, emancipation, empowerment and disability. In addition, the work of Michel Foucault was examined. Discussion. Using the work of the late French philosopher Michel Foucault, we explore how Foucault's 'technologies of the self' can be employed during critical qualitative research to achieve emancipatory changes. Using research conducted with marginalized populations as an example (specifically, individuals with disabilities), we demonstrate the potential for using reflexivity, in a Foucauldian sense, during the research process. Conclusion. Shifting the traditional view of reflexivity allows researchers to focus on the subtle changes that comprise emancipation (in a Foucauldian sense). As a result, researchers are better able to see, understand and analyse this process in both the participants and themselves.

What makes qualitative research good research? An exploratory analysis of critical elements.

“…In addition, there should a clear and systematic description of the research path, including the research design, the collection of data, and the steps taken to manage, analyze and report data to further enhance the credibility of the study (Creswell, 2014). Credibility of the study can further be enhanced through reflexivity, and this can be achieved by the researcher describing and interpreting their own experiences as a researcher, in order to control bias (Koch, 2006;Le Gallais, 2008;McCabe & Holmes, 2009). Reflexivity will be further discussed later.…”

“…Reflexivity is a concept of qualitative research rigor, which provides direction for researchers to be aware of bias and control by making an explicit quest to limit the researcher's effects on the data through self-awareness (Timmins, 2006, Jootun, 2009McCabe & Holmes, 2009;Flick, 2014;Holloway & Galvin, 2016). Reflexivity involves raising of the researchers' awareness regarding how their presence affected the research process and the participants, as well as how the participants affected the researcher (McGhee, Marland, Atkinson, 2007;Le Gallais 2008;McCabe & Holmes 2009;Holloway & Galvin, 2016).…”

“…Reflexivity involves raising of the researchers' awareness regarding how their presence affected the research process and the participants, as well as how the participants affected the researcher (McGhee, Marland, Atkinson, 2007;Le Gallais 2008;McCabe & Holmes 2009;Holloway & Galvin, 2016). Reflecting on the research process and understanding how the researcher's own values and views may influence findings can add credibility to the research as the researcher makes an effort to control bias (Jootun 2009).…”

“…Therefore, the researcher must try to remain objective (Timmins, 2006;Jootun 2009;McCabe & Holmes 2009). This could be achieved by the researcher's effort to remain neutral as possible and by avoiding giving opinions while conducting interviews or focus groups (Timmins, 2006, Jootun, 2009).…”

FRONTLINE: Journalism practice and critical reflexivity: A death in custody interview

“…It seeks to expose and understand the forces-such as the conventions, routines and structures in a practice, and practitioner and/or researcher understandings and ways of working-that limit decision-making and curtail the development of practices that provide more human autonomy and agency (McCabe & Holmes, 2009, p. 1520. It is, therefore, both personal and political.…”