Reflexivity, the Picturing of Selves, the Forging of Method

Abstract

This article addresses alternative models for a reflexive methodology and examines the ways in which doctoral students have appropriated these texts in their theses. It then considers the indeterminate qualities of those appropriations. The paper offers a new account of reflexivity as "picturing," drawing analogies from the interpretation of two very different pictures, by Velázquez and Tshibumba. It concludes with a more open and fluid account of reflexivity, offering the notion of "signature," and drawing on the work of Gell and also Deleuze and Guattari in relation to the inherently specific nature of "concepts" situated in space and time.

Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research

“…This debate has gained central stage as employment of communication research methods continues to evolve and the use of the self expands in a diverse plethora of research strategies across disciplines including autobiography, autoethnography, narrative co-construction, and reflexive ethnography (Pensoneau-Conway and Toyosaki, 2011;Wint, 2011). Consequently, researchers need to increasingly focus on self-knowledge and sensitivity; better understand the role of the self in the creation of knowledge; carefully self monitor the impact of their biases, beliefs, and personal experiences on their research; and maintain the balance between the personal and the universal.While some have used the concept of reflexivity interchangeably with related concepts, such as reflectivity and critical reflection, while others made efforts to differentiate meanings of these concepts (D'Cruz et al, 2007), the literature appears to reflect consensus relative to its meaning.Reflexivity is commonly viewed as the process of a continual internal dialogue and critical self-evaluation of researcher's positionality as well as active acknowledgement and explicit recognition that this position may affect the research process and outcome (Bradbury-Jones, 2007;Guillemin and Gillam, 2004;Pillow, 2003;Stronach et al, 2007). Parallel to the expectation that clinical practitioners pay attention to the impact of their own history and issues on their understanding of and reactions to the client (conceptualized in psychodynamic language as counter transference), reflexivity is the self-appraisal in research.…”

Seeing Voices and Hearing Pictures: Image as discourse and the framing of image-based research

“…We suggest that adults need to attempt to ''unlearn their own privilege'' in order to conduct a different sort of interpretation or analysis. This could usefully begin with a recognition of the complexities of understanding ''difference'', an acknowledgement of not knowing or understanding, and a reflexive (and more ethical) engagement (see Spivak, 1988;Stronach, Garratt, Pearce, & Piper, 2007). This should include a consideration of what is not being said*/ a challenge to the transparency of the ''gaze''.…”

[P2–506]: Exploring the Lived Experience of the Individual of Black Ethnicity Living With Dementia: A Phenomenological Study

“…Reflection is often linked with practitioner development and reflexivity with ethically sound research methodologies (Yin, 2013). Reflexivity is viewed as the process of a continual internal dialogue and critical selfevaluation of the research process and outcome (Pillow, 2003;Bradbury-Jones, 2007;Stronach et al, 2007). This approach is supported by Koch and Harrington (1998) study it was impossible to achieve total objectivity.…”