Reflexivity and Research

Frederick Steier. (Eds.) (1991). Reflexivity and Research. London, Newbury Park, and New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Steier, F. Introduction. (pp. 1-11)

“As inquirers and researchers, we create worlds through the questions that we ask coupled with what we and others regard as reasonable response to our questions” (p. 1).

Taking a constructivist stance, Steier defines reflexivity as “bending back on itself” (p. 2) and emphasizes that the itself is socially constructed through a loop-back or circular process mediated by language. It is the circular process, he stresses, that makes reflexivity useful in the development of constructionist research methodologies, for it allows to bring to light multiple perspectives on realities and multiple views on the same self. Steier wrote:

We are talking about a circular process, in which reflexivity is the guiding relationship allowing for the circularity. This looping back may . . . unfold as a spiraling, if we allow for multiple perspectives, and acknowledge that the ‘the same self’ may be different as a result of its own self-pointing. (p. 2)

von Foerster, Heinz. Through the Eyes of the Other. (pp. 63-75).
For von Foerster, reflexivity grounds in the concept of participatory universe as opposed to the universe that uniquely exists. The notions of Truth and Objectivity are central to this objectivist view and researchers assume that they can separate themselves from the universe as well as from others. In this paradigm, reflexivity is rejected from research practices. From the perspective of participatory universe, on the contrary, one accepts being part of the universe tied with all others.

Gergen, Kenneth, & Gergen, Mary. Toward Reflexive Methodologies. (pp. 76-95).
In responding to the constructivist view that accounts of objects are not independent of the observers, the authors draw upon social constructionism, in which accounts of the world are viewed as “an expression of relationships among persons” (p. 78) mediated by language. Thus, Gergen and Gergen argue that, while constructivists approach reflexivity as an inward subjectivity, social constructionists emphasize reflexivity as an outward and relational realm with shared language. [This is aligned with the concept of multivocality.] Taking a social constructionist stance, the authors categorize three forms of reflexivity oriented research strategies. One of them is about research based on dialogic participation to be used for exploring the range of constructions of menopause in society. In this method, the authors wrote:

Self-reflexive methods became interdependently reciprocal, and the term ‘reflexive’ applied not to one researcher, but to relations between and among investigator and research participants. (p. 93)

[Participatory research is based on this form of reflexivity. My proposition is that participatory video enhances this reflexive process, and to figure out how it happens is going to be my research question.]

The authors also compare practices of traditional scientific research and reflexive dialogic research: In traditional scientific research, subjects are only assumed to respond to variants controlled by researcher, without actively participating in meaning construction. The authors refer to feminist scholars as researchers who developed a new form of scientific work by exploring a reflexive dialogic approach.

Söderqvist, Thomas. Biography or Ethnography or Both? Embodied Reflexivity and the Deconstruction of Knowledge-Power. (143-162).

Söderqvist refers to the notions of social constructionism and reflexivity as integral parts of recent understanding of social epistemology. From the perspective of constructionism, knowledge is seen as a result of social processes mediated through linguistic interactions (Gergen and Davis, 1985). Reflexivity in this light means a researcher’s standpoint in the process of knowledge production.

Söderqvist describes a postmodern world as rejection of objective knowledge and critique of the relationship between knowledge and power. This critique is attuned to deconstructionist movement led by French post-structuralists and in particular Foucault. Here are some expressions related to criticism of objectivism (p. 147):

Feyerbend (1987, Farewell to Reason) wrote reason and objectivity made “Western expansion intellectually respectable” (p. 5) and argued for “farewell to reason”.
Gouldner (1976, The dialectic of Ideology and Technology) asserted that objectivism is a “pathology of cognition that entails silence about the speaker, about his interests and his desires, and how these are socially situated and structurally maintained”(p. 50)

Söderqvist maintains that biography is a “deconstructive enterprise” (p. 148), which could reveal the constructive side of knowledge that researchers claim. He argues that emotion can be explicit only through reflexivity because it is not a linguistic form of knowledge but bodily-based. The problem of biography, he states, arises when biographies are written according to the ‘reality principle’, which means that biographies are measured upon whether they deliver a realistic picture or not (Frye, 1973, Anatomy of Criticism, cited p. 153). In this case, knowledge-power still remains. Söderqvist argues that one way of avoiding such objective reality in biography is to enhance reflexivity, for instance, adding biographer’s autobiography into the biography, as often seen in psychoanalytic biographies.

In contrast, he calls attention to ethnobiography, meaning collective stories that are told to each other in local setting. It is characterized with reciprocity, social construction, and reflexivity. He contends ethobiography as a grounding site for resistance against knowledge-power.

[knowledge produced through PAR can be seen as ethnobiography based knowledge.]

Steier, Frederick. Reflexivity and Methodology: An Ecological Constructionism. (163-185).

For Steier, reflexivity carries the notion of circularity, “turning back onto itself” and this circularity takes place in two completely different ways: small-circuit and long circuit. In his definition, a small-circuit reflexivity means an instinctive action while a long-circuit reflexivity means a contemplative action. He asserts that both are necessary to researchers: Because a small-circuit reflexivity makes researchers act but it does not question the assumptions that drew the actions, researchers should use a long-circuit reflexivity to actively question these assumptions.

Defining reflexivity in terms of researcher’s self-interrogation, Steire stresses its reciprocal nature. Calling those who he does research with reciprocators, Steier insinuates reciprocity as a nature of reflexivity and emphasizes constructionist research mediated through language. He stated:

To call attention to what I would like to see as a more relational language of constructionist research, while still embedding such discourse in reflexive dialogue, I would like, following Orgeta y Gasset (1957), to call those who participate with me reciprocators, for it is only by their hearing me and answering me that a ‘me’ can emerge as an I who does research. (p. 165)

Here reciprocity is required between researcher and reciprocator in his term, in order to define the researcher as a researcher.

In looking into issues of reflexive methodologies, Steier finds mutualness between researcher and reciprocator--calling this mirroring--and co-constructiveness. He argues that through recognition of researcher’s role reflexively, reciprocators are given greater voice in a researcher’s stories. In saying so, he implicitly defines reflexivity as the basic nature of PAR.