Ventriloquial reflexivity: Exploring the communicative relationality of the ‘I’ and the ‘it’

Abstract

Can an exploration of managers’ real-time organizational talk make way for a profoundly revised theory of reflexivity? Indeed, our analysis of the reflexivity literature reveals four significant points of contestation – the subject/object distinction, temporality, representation and agency – all of which revolve around the interplay of an ‘I’ (at least one reflexive agent) and an ‘it’ (something to be reflexive about). The focus of this inquiry lies in how the ‘I’ and the ‘it’ are constituted communicatively and what generates, sustains and animates them in interaction. Such interactions are sourced from a post-experience master programme for practising managers, thus providing naturally occurring data amendable to a ventriloqual analysis. We identify and demonstrate three types of reflexive moments: conflating, bifurcating and animating. We subsequently theorize these as instances of <i></i>ventriloqual reflexivity<i></i>, using the terms conflating, bifurcating and animating to express the different moments in which speakers co-orient to the communicative constitution of the ‘I’ and the ‘it’. Ventriloqual reflexivity allows us to explore reflexivity as an interactional and situated accomplishment, thus further pointing to how reflexive practices can be understood and enhanced.

Clinical Action Research and Its Radically Reflexive Way: Dialogical Encounters to Face Current Organizational Needs

“…Others (Meier & Carroll, 2022; Parker, 2011) have emphasized the importance of integrating critical reflexivity with a radically reflexive approach, which is an ontological and epistemological positioning within three layers of the context of research: the historical assumptions we make about what research is and who should do it; the institutional constraints on what questions can be asked and who can answer them; and the personal alliances that open up some issues and close others down (Parker, 2011). Considering these three layers together is the key to “radical research,” and this can only be obtained through collective activity.…”

“…Additionally, we discuss the distinctive challenges and opportunities offered by a radically reflexive stance. We believe that our work can contribute to bridging the thinking of Meier and Carroll (2022) on radical reflexivity, which focuses on research in general, with the specific literature on action research, where radical reflexivity should involve both researchers and participants in a joint effort.…”

“…Despite reflexivity's potential to shed light on many issues, it is important for reflexive research to move beyond “individualized” perspectives that both cannot adequately address complex institutional and political processes and restrict themselves to merely conceptualizing the method without researching “how efforts to mobilize it fare in real-life scenarios” (Meier & Carroll, 2022, p. 2). In line with these considerations, in our contribution, we drew inspiration from a recent review conducted by Meier and Carroll (2022) to emphasize the importance of action research pushing towards reflexivity by adopting a “radically reflexive” approach (Parker, 2011).…”

“…Despite reflexivity's potential to shed light on many issues, it is important for reflexive research to move beyond “individualized” perspectives that both cannot adequately address complex institutional and political processes and restrict themselves to merely conceptualizing the method without researching “how efforts to mobilize it fare in real-life scenarios” (Meier & Carroll, 2022, p. 2). In line with these considerations, in our contribution, we drew inspiration from a recent review conducted by Meier and Carroll (2022) to emphasize the importance of action research pushing towards reflexivity by adopting a “radically reflexive” approach (Parker, 2011). Radical reflexivity entails an ontological and epistemological positioning within three layers of the research context: the historical assumptions we make about what research is and who should conduct it; the institutional constraints on the questions that can be asked and who can answer them; and the personal alliances that either open up or close down certain issues (Meier & Carroll, 2022; Parker, 2011).…”

“…In line with these considerations, in our contribution, we drew inspiration from a recent review conducted by Meier and Carroll (2022) to emphasize the importance of action research pushing towards reflexivity by adopting a “radically reflexive” approach (Parker, 2011). Radical reflexivity entails an ontological and epistemological positioning within three layers of the research context: the historical assumptions we make about what research is and who should conduct it; the institutional constraints on the questions that can be asked and who can answer them; and the personal alliances that either open up or close down certain issues (Meier & Carroll, 2022; Parker, 2011). Furthermore, from a radically reflexive perspective, reflexivity becomes an ontological issue as it challenges notions of the objectification of reality (Chia, 1996; Cunliffe, 2003).…”