Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice

Finlay, Linda. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2 (2), 209-230.

Interestingly, it is the notion of validity that radical relativistic scholars criticized reflexive research, according to Finlay. They saw reflexivity in the forms of ‘confessional tales’ and transparent account of research as regretful backward glances at positivist ideals. Simultaneously, as Finlay noted, growing critical inquiries on power of the researcher gave rise to feminist versions of reflexivity, interrogating power dynamics between researcher and researched or outsider and insider. Observing current practices of qualitative research, Finlay argues that reflexivity is its defining feature, for most researchers are explicit about the impact of intersubjectivity on data collection and analysis. Thus she writes, “researchers no longer question the need of reflexivity: the question is how to do it” (p. 212). Concerning perilous engagement in reflexivity, she warns, “embarking on reflexivity is akin to entering uncertain terrain where solid ground can all too easily give way to swamp and mire,” (p. 213) thus leading to excessive self-analysis at the expense of focusing on research participants and understanding problems. Reconceptualizing reflexivity, Finlay offered its five variants:(i) introspection; (ii) intersubjective reflection; (iii) mutual collaboration; (iv) social critique, and (v) discursive deconstruction.

(1) Reflexivity as Introspection: Finaly asserts that introspection on a researcher’s own engagement in research can help understanding the research problem. She, however, warns about benign introspection, using personal revelation as an end, because it can suppress the participant’s voice. Thus, she calls upon the researcher to use introspection only as a springboard for further analysis and be explicit about knowledge claims from participants and herself within a social context.
(2) Reflexivity as intersubjective reflection: For Finlay, this genre of reflexivity focuses on mutual meanings emerging from the research relationship. It explores the self-in-relation-to-others. For instance, the researcher tries to understand consequences that the relationship between her and research participants brought into the research.
(3) Reflexivity as mutual collaboration: In my opinion, this is not a particular way of defining reflexivity, but a way of using reflexivity as a research methodological concept and the topic on which researchers place. Thus it should be phrased as “reflexivity for mutual collaboration”. Here, participants become co-researchers and their reflexive dialogue also counts as a valid source for data analysis and evaluation, thus, research becomes a mutual collaborative process. Researchers who explore this genre of reflexivity argue for the need of multivocality against the dominant research practice of “biasing data toward one voice” (p. 220). Finlay argues that reflexivity as mutual collaboration and as intersubjective reflection may shift attention away from the phenomena being studied by focusing too mucho on interpersonal process. [This genre of reflexivity reflects on much thought of the process of PAR. More reading about Finlay’s discussion, however, indicate that Finlay did not explore the critical concept of PAR sufficiently. For her, mutual collaboration is, for example, to give interview transcripts to research participants to ask for their reflection.]

(4) Reflexivity as social critique: “Reflexivity for social critique”. Finlay means using reflexivity, self-interrogation or inspection, as a way of critiquing social norms and practices. An emphasis of this account is given to the social construction of power and power imbalance between them and research participants.
(5) Reflexivity as discursive deconstruction: “Reflexivity within the context of discursive deconstruction.” Finlay observes ways in which researchers engage in reflexivity within the context of discursive deconstruction. According to Finlay, researchers in discursive deconstruction generally pay attention to the ambiguity of meanings in language and its impact on presentation. Thus, some are conscious of ways in which themselves and research participants are represented to each other and a wider community, whereas others, namely post-modern researchers, draw upon reflexive writing itself to represent ambiguity and polyvocality.

[In laying out five variants of reflexivity, Finlay explores major concerns and questions related to reflexivity. Although she does not provide a clear definition of reflexivity, it appears that by reflexivity she means self-inspection. ]

Finlay remarked that the overall functions of reflexivity shifted from an account of research to the position of researcher and multivocality; from an interpretation of data to a consideration of political dimensions in presenting the data.

Finlay points out the potential of reflexivity as a valuable research tool to
● examine the impact of the position, perspective and presence of the researcher
● promote rich insight through examining personal responses and interpersonal dynamics
● open up unconscious motivations and implicit biases in the researcher’s approach
● empower others by opening up a more radical consciousness
● evaluate the research process, method and outcomes
● enable public scrutiny of the integrity of the research through offering a methodological log of research decisions. (Finlay, 2002)

Finlay argues that reflexivity has limits. These limits, however, are not inherent to reflexivity but rather an outcome of unbalanced use of reflexivity. With this respect, Finlay points the problem with its rhetorical functions. According to her, reflexivity is often used to disguise inequalities actually present in research. Finlay stated:

Her partial understanding of collaboration leads to her discussion on limitations of reflexivity. As to the problem of rhetorical functions of reflexivity, Finlay stated:

Researchers’ apparent openness and attention to multiple dynamics can, in fact, disguise the partial and emergent nature of their findings. . . . researchers who offer their participants transcripts of the interview towards collaboratively discussing findings may proceed to suggest that because they have engaged in ‘reflexivity’ and ‘participant validation’, their study is to be trusted. (p. 227)

As the second criticism on reflexivity, Finlay remarks on dangers of infinite regress and self-indulgence. [This aspect is the concern she expresses repetitively in this paper.] According to her, challenges and contradictions are inherent in the reflexive task. Reflexivity is necessary yet it needs a balance. Thus, Finlay maintains that researchers should decide how to exploit reflexivity in order to serve the aims, values and logics of research.