Feminist Research

: exploring the interconnections of epistemology, methodology, and method. Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy (2007). Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hesse-Biber examines feminist research historically and across disciplines and addresses critical points of feminist research in the frameworks of critical theory grounded in the experience of the oppressed, postmodern theories, which commonly draw on difference.

Drawing on Sandra Harding (1993) and Lorrain Code (1991), Hesse-Biber defined reflexivity as a defining feature of feminist research:

"Through disclosing their values, attitudes, and biases in their approach to particular research questions and in engaging in strong reflexivity throughout the research process, feminist researchers can actually improve objectivity of the research." (p. 10)

More clearly, Hesse-Biber defined reflexivity as a "process, whereby researchers recognize, examine, and understand how their social background, location, and assumptions affect their research practice. Practicing reflexivity also includes paying attention to the specific ways in which our own agendas affect the research at all points in the process--from the selection of the research problem to the selection of method and ways in which we analyze and interpret our findings." (pp. 16-17).

REFLEXIVITY is defined as a process that researchers should take on. How is it related to participatory video? Participant researchers should be conscious of the methods they take, their subjective involvement at all? In PV, it aims to bring about participants' subjective involvement. It makes this explicit, while the predominant discourse of reflexivity calls for recognizing and consciously examining it within researchers. Reflexivity means different things in two different contexts. How should it be addressed and be more explicit? How researchers should think of this issue when they take on participatory research?

Recording social life: Reflexivity and video methodology

Lomax, H., Casey, N. (1998). Sociological Research Online, 3(2), xiii-xiv.

The authors rejects two streams of using video data: one as a replica of unrecorded event and the other as a distorting effect on the researched phenomenon. They argue that a reflexive analysis of video data is essential because the activity of data collection itself is interactive (i am not sure what this means). In this light, they argue, video generated data should be analyzed by providing a faithful record of the process in which interaction occurs.

Qualitative research & evaluation methods

(3rd ed.). Patton, Michael Quinn. (2002). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

1. The nature of qualitative inquiry (3-29)
*Three kinds of qualitative data: interview, observation, and document

The purposes of research and evaluation are different, but research can be evaluative: "When one examines and judges accomplishments and effectiveness, one is engaged in evaluation. When this examination of effectiveness is conducted systematically and empirically through careful data collection and thoughtful analysis, one is engaged in evaluation research" (p. 10)

*Criteria to judge the quality of the findings:
evaluation standards: utility, feasibility, propriety, accuracy
nontraditional criteria: trustworthiness, diversity of perspectives, clarity of voice, credibility of the inquirer to primary users of the findings.

Patton noted, "In qualitative inquiry, the researcher is the instrument. The credibility of qualitative methods, therefore, hinges to a great extent on the skills, competence, and rigor of the person doing fieldwork--as well as things going on in a person's life that might prove a distraction" (p. 14)

Patton discussed the purposes of open-ended responses and participant observation for evaluative research: "the open-ended responses permit one to understand the world as seen by the respondents. The purpose of gathering responses to open-ended questions is to enable the researcher to understand and capture the points of view of other people without predetermining those points of view through prior selection of questionnaire categories. . . . The task for the qualitative researcher is to provide a framework within which people can respond in a way that represents accurately and thoroughly their points of view about the world..." (p. 21)

In order to overcome the limitations pertaining to what people say, Patton called for participant observation for evaluation research. "The purpose of observational analysis is to take the reader into the setting that was observed" (p. 23).

[In my evaluation research, I utilized participant observation, written out in depth in chapter 3, and made available direct quotes from the observed to provide readers with their points of view.]

2. Strategic themes in qualitative inquiry (37-73)
* Patton presented some analysis strategies: unique case orientation (capturing the details of the individual case being studied), inductive analysis and creative synthesis, holistic perspective (focusing on complex interdependence and providing it as a complex system), context sensitivity (attentive to a social, historical, and temporal context), voice/reflexivity (reflective on my own voice)

With regard to reflexivity, Patton wrote: "Reflexivity has entered the qualitative lexicon as a way of emphasizing the importance of self-awareness, political/cultural consciousness, and ownership of one's perspective" (p. 64) He suggested using the first-person, active voice in this light.

Patton seems to be skeptical about paradigmatic division. He argued that a paradigmatic strategy indeed can be a hindrance for evaluation research. He argued:

"Such prejudices and paradigmatic blinders limit methodological choices, flexibility, and creativity. Adherence to a methodological paradigm can lock researchers into unconscious patterns of perception and behavior that disguise the biased, predetermined nature of their methods "decision." " (p. 71)

Further, he argued that "the qualitative-quantitative debate oversimplified and often confused methodological and philosophical issues" (p. 71), as in reality, there are the cases that notably consistent methods and philosophy in a certain paradigm have proven problematic.

3. Variety in qualitative inquiry: Theoretical orientations (75-142)
Patton introduces 16 qualitative inquiries, including phenomenology and grounded theory, which I think are the most relevant to my dissertation research. So I will take a close look at them.

Phenomenology
Foundational question: what is the meaning, structure, and essence of the lived experience of this phenomenon for this person or group of people?

Phenomenon can be emotion, a relationship, a program, or a culture. The focus is on describing the essence of people's experience in a certain phenomenon and developing a worldview. It usually involves participant observation and in-depth interviews. For example, the essence of being a participant in a particular program can be a kind of phenomenological study. [My chapter 4 is a definitely phenomenological study in that sense.]

Grounded theory
Foundational question: What theory emerges from systematic comparative analysis and is grounded in fieldwork so as to explain what has been and is observed?

Popular in social sciences and methodology with emphasis on generating, instead of testing, theory. Patton asserts that all the approaches are grounded in the empirical world, but the conceptualizations of what to ask vary from one inquiry to another. "While the phrase "ground theory" is often used as a general reference to inductive, qualitative analysis, as an identifiable approach to qualitative inquiry, it consists of quite specific methods and systematic procedure" (p. 126). Thus, he argued:

"As a matter of philosophical distinctness, then, grounded theory is best understood as fundamentally realist and objectivist in orientation, emphasizing disciplined and procedural ways of getting the researcher's biases out of the way but adding healthy doses of creativity to the analytic process." (p. 128-129).

[To the extent that I compared the experience of the research participants with that of others in other programs in Chapter 4, it has a systematic comparison emphasized in grounded theory, and yet, this analysis is not so much grounded theory as phenomenology. On the other hand, Chapter 5 is more linked to grounded theory as I intend to provide some methodological tools to researchers. But I also doubt that it can be called grounded theory as I do not develop theory out of the fieldwork. ]

4. Particularly appropriate qualitative applications (143-205)
Patton holds pragmatism in his approach to methodology: "Pragmatic and utilitarian frameworks can guide qualitative inquiry on their practical and applied underpinnings without having to be attached to or derived from a theoretical tradition." (p. 145)

Patton suggests various evaluation models:

Goal-free evaluation
"doing fieldwork and gathering data on a broad array of actual effects or outcomes, then comparing the observed outcomes with the actual needs of program participants" (p. 169). In general, it purposefully suspends the researcher's judgment.

[Then, I can take up goal-free evaluation for the embedded study. The participants want to find out ways to help increase retention rate, in the end, they suggested a way. There is no way to check the actual effects, but from the participants' perspective, the research brought about some solutions they looked for. ]

Transaction models: responsive and illuminative evaluation

The transaction model of evaluation that Ernie House (1978) called concentrates on case studies and "places prime emphasis on perception and knowing as a transactional process between researcher and research participant" (p. 172). Its variations include illuminative evaluation, developed in educational evaluation, and Stake's (1975) responsive approach to evaluation, which requires to have "face-to-face contact with people in the program and learn about diverse stakeholder's perspectives, experiences and concerns. This responsive evaluation has been integrated into Guba and Lincoln's (1989) "responsive constructivist evaluation" known as the fourth generation evaluation, which is based on naturalistic inquiry.
Connoisseurship studies
It places the evaluator's perceptions and expertise at the center of the evaluation process, "drawing heavily on his or her own judgments about what constitutes excellence" (172).

Interactive and participatory applications:

Placing a greater emphasis on human interaction in designing evaluation strategies, Patton wrote:

Qualitative methods may also be perceived as more personal because of their inductive nature. This means that, again, rather than imposing on people or a program some predetermined model or hypotheses, the results unfold in a way that takes into account idiosyncrasies, uniqueness, and complex dynamics. Finally, qualitative methods may be perceived as more humanistic and personal simply by avoiding numbers. (p. 176)

Action research, action learning, reflective practice
i.e. adult educators interviewing students as case studies, then through cross-case analysis they deepened their sensitivity to new immigrant students and developed their professional skills.
Participatory research and evaluation
Film: Awakening (1990)--a real story of participatory research in a mental hospital

Patton provided an overview of a growing popularity of participatory research:
"Interest in participatory research has exploded in recent years, especially as an element of larger community change efforts (Stoecker 1999). The principal researcher trains the coresearchers to observe, interview, reflect, and/or keep careful records or diaries. Those involved come together periodically to share in the data analysis process. The purpose of such shared inquiry is typically to elucidate and improve the nature of practice in some arena of action" (183).

In particular, participatory evaluation emphasizes "working with people" (183), thus, Patton wrote: "The process is facilitated by the researcher, but is controlled by the people in the program or community. They undertake a formal, reflective process for their own development and empowerment" (183).

Patton noted that participatory evaluation has been used with great success by a number of NGOs and private voluntary organization in the Third World.

Patton also drew attention to various connotations of participatory inquiry, saying that there is no definitive definition for participatory evaluation. Patton, in particular, emphasized teaching inquiry logic and skills as the purpose of participatory evaluation, as "the process of participatory self-evaluation, in and of itself, provided useful learning experience for participants" (184).

[Here Patton suggests participatory evaluation/inquiry as a pedagogical form.]

Finally, he noted, "these participatory approaches often employ qualitative methods because those methods are understandable, teachable, and usable by people without extensive research training." (185)

[Patton regards participatory paradigm from the perspective of pragmatism and links qualitative methods as strong candidates for that paradigmatic inquiry.]

8. Qualitative analysis and interpretation (431-534)

Patton discussed about summative vs. formative evaluation: Summative evaluations are usually accompanied by a full report with data, analysis, and recommendations, whereas formative evaluation is conducted for program improvement and may not generate a written report. Findings are often presented orally to the staff or funders. Patton wrote:
"The methods are qualitative, the purpose is practical, and the analysis is done throughout fieldwork; no written report is expected beyond a final outline of observations and implications. Academic theory takes second place to understanding the program's theory of action as actually practices and implemented" (435)

[The VT research can be viewed as formative evaluation to give insights into the OP program, which is not academic theory oriented and rather concentrates on providing critical insights from the insiders' perspective.]

Theory-based analysis approaches: Patton discusses phenomenological analysis and ground theory analysis in great detail, along with qualitative comparative analysis and analytic induction.

Analytic induction seems to be the most relevant to my approach. It originally emphasized discovering universal causal generalizations, but gradually moved away to qualitative inquiry and comparative case analysis including examination of preconceived hypotheses. In this approach, "researchers actively seek to disconfirm emerging hypotheses through negative case analysis, that is, analysis of cases that hold promise for disconfirming emerging hypotheses and that add variability to the sample. In this way, the originators of the method sought to examine enough cases to assure the development of universal hypothesis." (Jane Gilgun 1995:268-269, We shared something special: the moral discourse of incest perpetrators, Journal of marriage and the family, 57, 265-81). Analytic induction consists of re-examinations.

9. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis (541-597)

In traditional scientific research, among the criteria for judging the credibility are objectivity, validity, systematic rigor of fieldwork procedures, triangulation, etc. The common aim is "to use qualitative methods to describe and explain phenomena as accurately and completely as possible so that their descriptions and explanations correspond as closely as possible to the way the world is and actually operates" (p. 546)

Social construction and constructivist criteria: Lincoln and Guba (1986) proposed credibility (for internal validity), transferability, dependability and confirmability. In combination, they viewed these criteria as addressing trustworthiness (in lieu of rigor). Fundamentally, they are "suspicious of causal explanations and empirical generalizations applied to complex human interactions and cultural system" (546)

Critical change criteria: another stream of qualitative inquiry aims at social and political change. Thus consequential validity matters in addressing the credibility of the inquiry.

[For the analysis of my dissertation study, what criteria should be applied? The set of criteria should stem from the hypotheses of participatory (video) research. What does participatory research claim to be able to do? Does my study prove or disprove it? How do I make judgment? --My judgment should be grounded in constructivist perspective, the fourth generation evaluation. Then, what I need to verify is the claims of participatory research. ]

Knowing poverty

:Critical reflections on participatory research and policy. Brock, Karen & McGee, Rosemary (Eds.). (2002). London: Earthscan Publications.

Introduction (Karen Brock, 1-13)
Brock observed that PR as a poverty assessment method has been accepted in dominant institution, yet methodological credibility (validity), representation, and applicability have been in debate. Alongside, PR has been criticized within. Brock focused on the process of "decontextualizing local people's knowledge"(p. 9), which questions which voices are included and excluded as local knowledge. Pointing out Chambers's chapter, Brock also noted the dilemmas and choices a researcher faces in analyzing data. Drawing on methodological, epistemological, and ethical dilemmas, Chambers argued for the necessity of reflexivity: "the process of reflecting critically on the part one plays as a researcher in the formation, framing and construction of knowledge" (p. 9).

Brock's epistemological stance is interesting to note: Knowledge in PR is inseparable from the concept of action. She wrote:

"In participatory research, knowledge is not produced for its own sake, but is seen as being embedded in processes of social change or problem solving, inseparable from the idea of action." (p. 9)

Brock sharply noted that PR is a "process of reflection, learning, and action, producing the development of a critical consciousness" (p. 10). [This model of cycle is different from that of action research--plan, action, observe...--It is more internal and fundamental, happening at the level of consciousness. Thus, I do think that the discourse of action research is distinguished from that of participatory research. Here, action is not immediate, more about influencing policy.]

Brock introduces other topics: how policy-makers learn and change? What is a local perspective on consciousness? What are the policy implications of participatory research?

Power, knowledge and policy influence: Reflections on an experience (Robert Chambers, 133-165)

In his experience, Chambers drew attention to power and knowledge. He stated that power distorts realities and frames the realities of others. In particular, he wrote:

"Researchers had power to determine how open or closed the process was. Knowledge was formed iteratively through interactions of researchers' and participants' priorities, concepts, frames, realities and patterns of analysis and representation. Academic values and practices in part conflicted with the ethics of policy influence. (p. 136)

Because of this very reason, Chambers argued for researchers' reflexivity.

The action research dissertation

: A guide for students and faculty. Herr, Kathryn & Anderson, Gary L. (2005). Thousand Oaks, London and Delhi: Sage.

1. Introduction (1-7)

The authors note that action research, despite its similarities with QUAL (even with QUAN), is different in that "research participants themselves are either in control of the research or are participants in the design and methodology of the research" (p. 1) and action is central to research. They stated as the most important feature the shifting locus of control from professional researchers to research subjects. They noted several terms indicating research in collaboration with practitioners or community members: PAR, community-based PAR, participatory rural appraisal, feminist action research, emancipatory praxis... The authors choose action research as an umbrella term of these.

The authors defined action research as (1) inquiry done "by or with insiders to an organization or community" (p. 3) (2) action-oriented, (3) a reflective process, meaning "deliberately and systematically undertaken and generally requires that some form of evidence be presented to support assertions."(p. 3). Interestingly, the authors argued that "what constitutes evidence or, in more traditional terms, data is still being debated" (p. 3). (4) It is value laden. The authors rightly pointed out that although action research hopes for solving pressing problems or improving situations, what constitutes improvement or a solution is not self-evident. That reflects conflicting values and an unequal distribution of power and resources. Here they stress the importance of reflexivity: "[T]he notion of reflexivity is crucial because action researchers must interrogate received notions of improvement or solutions in terms of who ultimately benefits from the actions undertaken"(p. 4)

The authors observe a researcher's double burden: action (improvement of practice or social change) and research (valid knowledge production), which sets up a conflict between the rigor and the relevance of the research. Similarly, action research demands a form of intervention which is not honored by traditional researchers. The authors pointed out such interventions constitutes a spiral of action cycles--plan-act-observe-reflect (kemmis 1982, p.7)

The authors also observe that "there is more writing about action research than documentation of actual research studies" (p. 6) They suggest that "a dissertation may represent the documentation of a successful collaboration and be used as a case study of not only the process but also the product of the collaboration" (p. 6).
2. Action research traditions and knowledge interests (8-28)

The authors noted two bands of action research: business-oriented administration and emancipatory practice linked to anticapitalist, grassroots movement. They asserted that "action research is working with an oppressed community ti identify what Freire(1970) called generative themes, or issues that the community agreed had highest priority" (p. 9) Participatoy action research (PAR) emphasizes the aspect of this internal/participatory process from insiders. The authors noted, "Participatory action research (PAR) tempers this expert knowledge with the expertise of locals about their own problems and solutions" (p. 10).

The authors defined participatory research by and large in the legacy of Freire (1970 Pedagogy of the Oppressed). He viewed research as a form of social action in which generative themes are identified and used as a basis of literacy instruction through collaboration. Focusing on Freirean-inspired participatory research, Brown and Tandon(1983) argued that traditional action research concentrated on an individual or group level of analysis, whereas emancipatory participatory research tends to focus on a broader societal analysis. Such PR often creates a resistance to the research.

On the other hand, coining the term co-operative inquiry, Heron (1996) undertook experiential approaches to action research, emphasizing intersubjectivity among researchers and participants: "[T]here is the possibility of reciprocal participative knowing" (p. 11)

The authors remarked that both the trends (liberation or humanistic psychology) are concerned with using PR for humanization.

The authors pointed out the danger of co-optation in doing action research. They argued that the nature of social institutions is keeping its status quo, thus, if action research lacks a critical spirit, it runs the risk of legimitizing the current status quo.

They noted emerging critical approaches to action research from feminist and critical race theorists to a lesser extent.

Epistemologically, the authors trace back to Jurgen Habermas (1971, Knowledge and Human Interests), who argued knowledge production is never neutral and always pursued with some interest. He argued three types of interest: technical interest (controlling over the natural and social realm), practical interest (gaining understanding through interpretation), and emancipatory interest (the release of human potential and the investigation of ideology and power relation). Depending on types of interest, the authors argue that research aims vary. They see action research in tune with emancipatory knowledge interest, which aims at critical reflection on power constraint imposed on our understanding. However, they stated:

"[W]hile certain methodologies tend to be associated with certain knowledge interest, we don't see a conflict in using statistical methods toward emancipatory ends, as long as it forms part of a cycle of ongoing critical reflection" (p. 28).

[Here, again, the authors place action (participatory) research as a paradigm distinguished from qualitative or qualitative methodology, while slightly emphasizing their position in the emancipatory stream. HOWEVER, when participants utilize or emulate certain methods, which are considered dehumanizing, would it be considered emancipatory? The positionality of participants as insiders would make a difference, while outside researchers conduct surveys, for instance...But I am not quite sure right now.]

3. The continuum of positionality in action research (29-48)

The authors explore different implications of positionality between insiders and outsiders. Here PAR is defined as either reciprocal collaboration or outsider(s) collaborating with insider(s). They assert that although reciprocal collaboration is ideal, many different positinalities are possible and valuable as long as researchers are aware of them and honest about them. The issue of positionalities is also important to the authors because it affects the criteria for quality or trustworthiness of the study they conduct.

4. Quality criteria for action research (49-68)
The authors reject validity (QUAN) and trustworthiness (QUAL/naturalistic researchers) as criteria for action research because the terms do not acknowledge action-oriented outcomes. Instead, they propose five validity criteria which are associated with the goals of action research.

Goal1: the generation of new knowledge-->dialogic and process validity
Goal2: the achievement of action-oriented outcomes-->outcome validity
Goal3: the education of both researcher and participants-->catalytic validity
Goal4: Results that are relevant tot eh local setting-->Democratic validity
Goal5: A sound and appropriate research methodology-->process validity

Process validity: the manner in which research is conducted, including triangulation
Outcome validity: whether action occurs [What is action? In many emancipatory participatory research, action may be intrinsic and they may lack agency to implement the research results but their research has implications of policy change. Thus, actions that may be qualified in more conventional action research may not be appropriate here.]
Catalytic validity: does research lead its participants and researchers to know the reality and transform it? This validity has to do with transformative potential.
Democratic validity: is the research done in collaboration with all parties? In particular, it draws on locality (Cunningham, 1983): does problems emerge from a local context and the solutions are appropriate to that context?
Dialogic validity: peer review.

[I WONDER whether it is appropriate to apply these criteria to both business-oriented and emancipatory action research.]

Reason and Bradbury (2001, Handbook of action research) defined action research as "an emerging, evolutionary and educational process of engaging with self, persons and communities that needs to be sustained for a significant period of time" (p. 12, as cited p. 58).

In short, the authors depart from current QUAN and QUAL validity criteria for action research.

About GENERALIZATION.
The authors take on Robert Stake's (1986) position on naturalistic generalization to illustrate their own. He explained naturalistic generalizations as a way of leading audiences to vicarious experience and helping them think of their own problems in a new way:

A person would be described as an individual, with uniqueness not just in deviance scores, but as a key to understanding the interactions. A reader senses the experience of teamwork in this particular situation. It is a unique situation in some respects, but ordinary in other respects. Readers recognize similarities with situations of their own. Perhaps they are stimulated to think of old problems in a new way (p.99)

In writing dissertation, the authors emphasize that students clarify the evolution, documenting the decisions made. They acknowledge that in naturalistic inquiry, methodologies evolve, yet it should be documented. Secondly, they stress that the students think through their multiple roles in this research as researcher, as outsider, as facilitator, etc.


////
Brown & Tandon
doi: 10.1177/002188638301900306 Journal of Applied Behavioral Science September 1983 vol. 19 no. 3 277-294

Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. London: Sage.

Cunningham, J. B. (1983). Gathering data in a changing organization. Human relations, 36 (5), 403-420

Stake, R. (1986). An evolutionary view of educational improvement. In E.R. House (Ed.), New directions in educational evaluation (pp. 89-102). London: Falmer.

The Practice of Qualitative Research

Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber & Patricia Leavy. (2006). Sage Publications.

Chapter 4. In-Depth Interview (pp. 119-145)

[I chose this chapter to discuss among the VTW research group members. It is written in a plain yet engaging manner with some examples to illustrate the authors' points.]

The authors introduce the significance of in-depth or intensive interview a common method for qualitative research. In comparison with quantitative interview, they argue, qualitative interviews, which are often involved with in-depth interview, should be "knowledge-producing conversation" (p. 128) based upon reciprocal relationships between interviewees and interviewers as well as a sense of shared authority, which regards interviewees as experts.

Similarly, defining the qualitative interview as "co-creation of meaning" (p. 134), the authors call for reflexivity among researchers. In their term:

"The heart of the qualitative interview requires much reflexivity, that is, sensitivity to the important 'situational' dynamics between the researcher and researched that can impact the creation of knowledge" (p. 135)

In the discussion of dealing with difference between researchers and researched, the authors talk about the notions of insiders and outsiders. They argue that one's status as insider/outsider is fluid and prone to change in the course of research. In general, they agree, insiders can bring much in-depth data, yet state the advantage of being an outsider:

"By not belong to a specific group, you may be viewed as more unbiased by your respondent. Likewise, you may be more likely to ask things that you would otherwise take for granted as "shared knowledge" and in fact learn that your participation have their own way of viewing a given issue." (p. 140)

The authors suggest to be mindful of the importance of difference between researchers and researched.

In the discussion of analysis and interpretation of interview data, the authors emphasize the importance of negative cases that do not fit the overall problems, as they are often the most informative. As a way of triangulating data, they suggest to try hard to disprove a researcher's presumed ideas.

Reflexivity, Feminism, and Difference

Wasserfall, Rahel R. (1997). In Rosanna Hertz (Ed.), Reflexivity & Voice (pp. 150-168). Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Wasserfall finds the roots of reflexive methods in two interrelated research strands: (1) Reflexive methods were recognized as a reaction to conventional or colonial anthropology since the 1970s with emphasis on researchers' compassionate and nonexploitative relations with research subjects. [THIS IS RELATIONAL REFLEXIVITY] (2) Another strand is found with the "Interpretative Turn" (p. 151) in the social sciences. The objectivity is questioned and the researcher's own subjectivity and power in knowledge production is recognized . In this strand, researchers come under scrutiny, or are conceived as the instrument of their research. Here reflexivity becomes one of the most important research tools. [SELF-CRITICAL]

Wasserfall acknowledged that reflexivity was still ill defined. In her definition, reflexivity is monitoring a researcher's own subjectivity in relation to knowledge production as well as power difference between herself and her research subjects. According to her, feminist research and methodology generally include a reference to reflexivity, yet, she argues that reflexivity, although helpful to contextualize the study and having the potential for empathetic relationships with her subjects, thus empowering both researchers and subjects, has limits, in particular in the fields where conflicts of political beliefs, culture, class, ethnicity, etc. are strong between the two parties.

More specifically she calls attention to a tension between reflexive methods and the feminist approach that questions the commonality stemming from gender and emphasizes differences among women's experiences. She contends that the empathy between researchers and participants cannot be simply assumed, then asks whether it could create an exploitative situations. In this regard, she calls for a re-examination of reflexive methods to the extent that it will shed light on the debated issues of cultural difference and feminism.

On ideologies of reflexivity

in Contemporary Efforts to Remake the Human Sciences. Marcus, George E. (1994). Poetics Today, 15 (3), 383-404.

Marcus finds the root of reflexive academic writing in postmodernism. In his definition, a postmodern condition is the "world of established but unstable institutions rapidly generating emergent forms of diversity" (p. 384). He argues that postmodern writing in the attempt to reveal this condition and enact it has been radical contemporary cultural criticism. Within this context, he characterizes postmodernism as the 'sign' of reflexivity, and asks how much of reflexivity should appear in ethnographic writing.

Looking at self-critical reflexivity reflected on postmodern ethnography writing, Marcus points out that reflexivity is an ideological matter rather than a methodological one. In his account, there are two types of reflexivity: Essential reflexivity is inherent in the use of language, thus no one can choose to be reflexive or not. On the other hand, derived or ideological reflexivity responds to how to deal with it strategically. However, in academic, he criticizes, the polemic of "more reflexive than thou" is predominant when one does not follow a specific set of postmodern styles of writing "messy text".

Marcus defines as the basic form of reflexivity self-critique, personal quest, subjectivity and empathy. In anthropology, he criticizes, reflexivity opened the possibility for the polyphonic text, but in reality, it reinforced the researcher's own perspective without challenging the paradigm of ethnographic research at all.

He points out that the subjectivist kind of reflexivity is more weighted in feminism, as shown the prolific autobiography in the quest for identity issues. He notes that feminist reflexivity, revolving around subjectivity and experientiality, has been discussed as the practice of positioning, such as male/female, culture/nature. Yet, he argues:

"Yet the practice of positioning can easily get stuck in a sterile form of identity politics, reducing it to a formulaic incantation at the beginning of ethnographic papers in which one boldly "comes clean" and confesses one's positioned identity (e.g., "I am a white, Jewish, middleclass, heterosexual female"). This kind of reflexive "act of location," while potentially a practice of key importance, all too often becomes a gesture that is enforced by politically correct convention." (p. 401).

Marcus hints at objective knowledge as opposed to a postmodern way of writing "messy" ethnography and practicing reflexivity.

Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences

Guba, Egon, & Lincoln, Yvonna. (2005). In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd Ed.) (pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage.

They identify five contemporary qualitative research paradigms: positivism, postpositivism, critical theories, constructivism, and participatory.

Concerning reflexivity, they define it as "the process of reflecting critically on the self as researcher, the 'human as instrument'" (p. 210). They call attention to two ways of interactions here: how research processes are influenced by a researcher's own life and assumptions and how we researchers become ourselves, in other words, how research itself influence researchers.

In the fifth paradigm, participatory one, they added in this article, reflexivity matters. It relies on critical subjectivity and self-awareness, whereas reflexivity may be considered a problem in positivism.

Critical Reflection: More Than Nuts and Bolts

Chiu, Lai Fong. (2006). Action Research, 4(2), 183-203.

"Emancipation and transformation are the twin goals of Participatory Action Research" (p. 184). Chiu writes that the notion of critical reflection has been taken for granted in PAR and lacks a genuine review on what constitutes critical reflection.

Chiu draws the contemporary concept of reflection from Shön (1983, 1996), who conceptualized conscious and unconscious practices of reflection. According to him, reflection-in-action is ‘tacit and spontaneous and often delivered without taking thought’ (Schön, 1987, p. 3) and reflection-on-action is a retrospective intellectual activity that 'requires verbalisation and symbolisation’ (p. 5). He asserted that one gains knowledge through the two kinds of reflection.

Specifically, concerning giving voices to the oppressed through narrating life experience, Chiu rightly argues that hearing the voices is intellectually unsatisfactory unless it addresses the process of generating such voices and revealing identities to unsettle exiting power relations. In particular, in pointing out a dilemma of presenting participants' experience in the researcher's own term, which makes the researcher suppress her own experience, Chiu contends that it is the very interactions between researchers and participants that may explain the process of changes that occur during the research. Hereby she calls for a researcher's self-reflexivity.

Chiu contends that reflection is underdeveloped in PAR and critical reflection, in particular, has been taken for granted. She argues that reflection in PAR is multi-perspectival--first, second and third person--as the forms of knowing are diverse--experiential, presentational, propositional and practical. Among these forms, experiential knowing is the foundation of all the other forms, she notes. Interweaving the two sets of conceptual framework, Chiu develops experiential reflection, presentational reflection, critical reflection, and practical reflection and discuss each reflection from first, second and third person perspective.

According to Chiu, reflection is crucial to different forms of knowledge creation. In particular, critical reflection enables people to generate propositional knowledge, such as analysis, conceptualization, inference, and synthesis, mediated by intellectual processes. In the first person, critical reflection is concerned with the reflexivity of the researcher, that is, "turning the researcher’s gaze back onto themselves and examining the hidden assumptions that structure their research" (p. 195; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). In the second person, critical reflection deals with power relations between participants and between participants and researchers and examines ways in which the relations are structured and supported in society. In the third person, critical reflection refers to the facilitation of collective critical reflection among participants.

Practical reflection, on the other hand, is important to create transformative knowledge.

Through her quest for different forms of reflection by attending to different ways of knowing, Chiu proposes a conceptual framework of critical reflexivity: self-reflexivity, relational-reflexivity, and collective reflexivity, which all are concerted to generate propositional knowing.

In her conclusion, she argues that her approach to reflection, first-, second-, and third-person perspective is useful to improve practices of PAR as these multi-perspectival reflection is in tune with the multi-dimensional knowing that PAR practitioners assert. First-person reflection [self-reflexivity] improves PAR practices. Reflexivity from the second-person perspective [relational-reflexivity] attends to conversations and interconnectedness with others, whereas reflexivity from the third person calls for social and political analysis that contributes to social change.

Research and Indigenous participation: critical reflexive methods

Nicholls, Ruth. (2009). International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(2), 117–126.

Building upon Chiu's (2006) model of reflexivity, Nicholls further discusses three layers of reflexivity: self-reflexivity, inter-personal reflexivity, and collective reflexivity. In this discussion, she emphasizes recognition of difference within a collective.

Self-reflexivity (1st person) indicates a researcher's awareness of hidden assumptions that underpin the research; inter-personal reflexivity (2nd person) is referred to as relational-reflexivity, which has to do with researchers' ability of collaboration with others; collective reflexivity "demands the question of asking about the process of how the collaboration determined the frames of inquiry. It also asks what were the terms of participation, who participated or did not…[sic] and what effects did this have on the outcome of social change and practical knowing for the community participants." (p. 123).

Lived Experience, Reflexivity, and Research on Perpetrators of Interpersonal Violence

Gilgun, Jane. (2008). Qualitative Social Work, 7 (2), 181-197.

Emphasizing that researchers are part of research similar to the researched, Gilgun delineates her position of reflexivity:

My working definition of reflexivity involves the idea of awareness – that researchers are reflexive when they examine and take into account the multiple influences they have on research processes and how research processes affect them and the persons and situations they research (Gilgun, 2006). Examples of reflexive processes include informants and researchers’ experience of research
processes, relationships between researchers and informants, and changes informants and researchers undergo in the course of participating in research. (p. 184).

Interdisciplinary agendas in visual research: re-situating visual anthropology

Pink, Sarah. (2003). Visual Studies, 18 (2), 179-192.

In her review of recent literature around visual research methods, which owe much to visual anthropology, Pink notes as common interests among visual researcher reflexivity, collaboration, ethics, and the relationship between the content, social context and materiality of images.
(p. 9)

Looking through the history of visual anthropology and contemporary visual culture studies, Pink concludes that across disciplines, critical approaches to the interpretation of images has departed from positivist truth-seeking.

Pink refers to reflexivity as a key concern among visual researchers, yet calls for clarification of distinct claims to and uses of reflexivity. Calling reflexivity "a kind of autobiography" (p. 130), Rose (2001, Visual Methodologies) writes certain discourses refuse to be reflexive. Foucauldian discourse analysis is one of them, for it analyzes power subconsciously embedded in texts. Pink agrees with Rose to the extent that these methodologies cannot be critical visual ones because they lack reflexivity.

For Pink, reflexivity in ethnography means a researcher's awareness of "how they look and understand when doing ethnography as well as when they look at images" (p. 188).

Pink further traces approaches to reflexivity in research: Whereas visual anthropologists such as Ruby regards reflexivity as an ethical issue, Emmison and Smith (2000, Researching the Visual) interpret reflexivity as a question of validity. For MacDougall, another visual anthropologist, a 'deep' reflexivity requires revealing "the position of the author in the very construction of the work" (1998:89, Transcultural Cinema; cited on the page 188). Critiquing Holliday (2000), who refered to reflexivity as "a mere buzz word" (p. 505), Pink writes Holliday's argument lack historical understanding of issues and debates around visual anthropology in the past couple of decades.

In sum up, Pink writes:

"Across the different approaches, reflexivity has commonly been coined as a need for understanding ‘‘where the researcher is coming from’’ and how this impacts on the knowledge
produced. Some leave this at a question of validity and research quality control. However, most visual anthropologists take a quite different tack. They argue that reflexivity should be integrated fully into processes of fieldwork and visual or written representation in ways that do not simply explain the researcher’s approach but reveal the very processes by which the positionality of researcher and informant were constituted and through which knowledge was produced during the fieldwork" (p. 189)

We've been framed: visualising methodology

Holliday, Ruth. (2000). The Sociological Review, 48 (4), 503-521.

Holliday asserts that reflexivity, alongside with multivocality, has arisen as an outcome of the post-colonial critique of the ethnocentrism of anthropology. She contends that multivocality, however, loses some of its criticality. She quotes Trinh (Visualizing theory : selected essays from V.A.R., 1990-1994, Author:Lucien Castaing-Taylor (Ed.). Trinh's interview with Nancy Chang.(1994). p.440):

"Multivocality...is not necessarily a solution to the problems of centralized and hierarchical knowledge when it is practised accumulatively--by juxtaposing voices that continue to speak within identified boundaries. Like the much abused concept of multiculturalism, multivocality here could also lead to the bland 'melting-pot' type of attitude, in which 'multi' means 'no'--no voice--or is used only to better mask the Voice--that very place from where meaning is put together.

As to reflexivity, Holliday argues, "Reflexivity is the latest in a long line of ... techniques aimed at ensuring the production of greater degrees of 'truth'," thus it can be viewed as a pseudo-positivist approach concerning greater truth.
Holliday stresses video as a confessional medium quoting from Michael Renov (1996, “Video Confessions” in Resolutions: Contemporary video Practices, Univ. of Minnesota Press):
In the case of video confessions, the virtual presences of a partner—the imagined other effectuated by the technology—turns out to be a more powerful facilitator of emotion than flesh-and-blood interlocutors. Camera operators, sound booms, cables, and clapperboards are hardly a boon to soul confession. (pp. 88-89; as cited on page 511)

Holliday’s argument about the power of video diaries in exploring one’s subjectivity is tied with this insight into video as a confessional medium. She wrote:

In terms of the video diaries, then, the power to present one’s subjectivity may override the risk of having that speech appropriated by others (for example, academics). Thus, the fullest confession opens up the greatest space to talk and affords the greatest power at that moment. (p. 512)

[In a participatory video, an interviewing situation may be similar to this confessional setting, for interviewers are much closer to interviewees compared with academics. Thus interviewees’ subjectivity can be more freely expressed and thus the medium of video can be more reflexive in bring out the lived/embodied experience of the interviewees.]

Holliday proposes video diaries as a “Queer Methodology” that “disrespects and disrupts disciplinary boundaries and discriplines”(p. 516) and an unconventional format of academic text.

Walking with video

Pink, Sarah. (2007). Visual Studies, 22 (3), 240 — 252

In her methodological proposal of "walking with someone" to learn his or her experiences, Pink further inquires into "how the integration of video into this method can serve as a catalyst for creating ethnographic understandings of other people’s experiences and communicating about these to a wider audience" (p. 243).

Her ethnographic study stems from the emphasis of the sensory nature of sociality and empathetic learning by sharing the same sensory experiences. In particular with respect to walking or moving body, she quotes Ingold, "Locomotion, not cognition, must be the starting point for the study of perceptual activity’ (Ingold 2004, 331; 2000, 166; as cited on page 245).

As to benefits of using video in the method, she wrote:

First, video provides us with a tool that can enable embodied communication about, empathetic understandings of and representations of other people’s perceptions of their environments. Second, ... the film/videomaking context serves as a process through which people, things and sensory experiences are drawn together. (p. 245)

Pink attributed David and Judith MacDougall to a key development of a participatory and reflexive form of observational anthropological filmmaking. Building on this approach, Pink defines the method of walking with camera as a place-making practice, for film explores and gathers experiences, things, people, relationships, and so forth, while "meandering" the routes taken by the film subject (p. 247). With respect to empathetic experience of watching such ethnographic films, Pink wrote:

Some types of ‘indeterminate’ experience generated through viewing the embodied experience of another represented in ethnographic film would not necessarily transcend culture, but would allow us to make culturally framed reflections based on our empathetic responses to filmic representations of others’ experiences. (p. 248)

Here, concerning about application of ethnographic knowledge outside of academia, Pink argues for the empathetic engagement that film or video can invite to viewers.

As to walking with camera with a subject, Pink describes a representation of people's experience, thus producing historical text.

Exploring Participant-centred Reflexivity in the Research Interview

Kathleen Riach. (2009). Sociology, 43(2), 356–370.

[Her participant-driven reflexivity compensates for researcher-oriented reflexivity that predominates massive literature.]

Riach remarks that reflexivity, which evolved primarily from feminist research, becomes a primary agenda in social science research concerning the construction of knowledge and power.

Criticizing the traditional interview method of tape recording followed by transcription, Riach introduces a new interview method based on interviewees' reflexivity. She contends, "a participant-centred reading of interview transcripts and consideration of personal biographies can be a source of participant-focussed reflexivity" (p. 357).

Riach develops the notion of reflexivity from Bourdieu's reflexive sociology, which seeks to escape from 'self-fascinated observation of the observer’s writings and feelings’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 72). Here the notion of epistemic reflexivity is developed where "the processes
of objectification we undertake as researchers become the focus of analysis itself" (p. 359).

Drawn from Bourdieu's conceptual work of reflexivity, Riach rejects reducing the notion of reflexivity to critical reflection, contending that "the notion of displacement opens up a more radical mode of reflexivity where not only may the individual reflect on the situation or positionality per se, but interrogate their own way of understanding that world, a mode of thinking that requires some form of epistemological interruption" (p. 360). Here displacement means "the potential to 'objectify' and distance ourselves from our own bodies whilst still being situated within them" (p. 360). In so doing, Riach asserts that reflexivity is in tune with Bourdieu's spectivism, "multiple perspectives that correspond to the multiplicity of coexisting, and sometimes directly competing, points of view" (Bourdieu et al., 1999: 3; p. 360).

Concerning ethical issues related to reflexivity, Riach writes that "reflexivity, along with social trends relating to feminism, diversity and multi-culturalism, has resulted in social science research becoming answerable to wider ethical or political debates, particularly in relation to the research interaction" (p.367). Within this context, she calls for integration of reflexivity into both theoretical commitments and analyses.

On "Reflexivity" in Qualitative Research: Two Readings, and a Third

Macbeth, Douglas. (2001). Qualitative Inquiry, 7 (1), 35-68.

According to Macbeth, reflexivity in qualitative research is a "deconstructive exercise for locating
the intersections of author, other, text, and world, and for penetrating the representational
exercise itself" (p. 35).

He finds contemporary expressions of reflexivity in cultural and radical relativism, which problematizes meaning and values as well as representation. Thus, he conceives relativism and reflexivity, intertwined in the crisis of objectivism and totalizing discourses, as a feature of a postmodern condition.

Macbeth categorizes reflexivity into three domains: positional, textual, and constitutive.

By positional reflexivity, he means self-referential analytic exercise that attempts to deconstruct the duality of power and antipower, hegemony and resistance, and insider and outsider. Macbeth notes that positional reflexivity becomes the very methods of qualitative methodology in particular in educational research, thus it "becomes an obliged topic, if not method", for qualitative researchers.

Macbeth finds the root of textual reflexivity in anthropology that threw skepticism on the correspondence between representation (ethnographic reports) and object (view and beliefs). In Macbeth’s treatment, textual reflexivity is a mode of writing that disrupts both the realist assumption of representation in text and the text itself by various devices and experiments. [Jay Ruby delves into this kind of reflexivity]

Lastly, Macbeth looks for reflexivity in an ethnomethodological sense. Harold Garfinkel, in his seminal work "Studies in Ethnomethodology" (1967), defined the term ethnomethodology as "the investigation of the rational properties of indexical expressions and other practical actions as contingent ongoing accomplishments of organized artful practices of everyday life" (p. 11). In other words, ethnomethodology is a study of ways in which people make sense of their everyday activities. Ethnomethodological reflexivity is an ordinary activity that constitutes "world making" (p. 49) and points to "the organization of ordinary sense and meaning...reflexively made of the social technologies for producing and detecting them" (p. 49). Macbeth states that for EM, reflexivity is far from professional or methodological senses. Rather it is the organization of routine grounds of everyday life.

For instance, in reviewing a videotape in a classroom, Macbeth recognizes that students become analysts in their choices in class and understanding of the sequential organizations through reflexive activities. They make sense of their environment and cohort it through reflexivity. Here reflexivity is inherent in people's action. Thus Macbeth writes about the reflexivity in EM mode: "A constitutive reflexivity thus has no use for nonreflexive worlds and makes no sense as a demarcation exercise" (p. 55).

Reflexivity, Social Justice and Educational Research

Siraj-Blatchford, Iram, & Sirag-Blatchford, John. (1997). Cambridge Journal of Education, 27 (2), 235-248.

For the authors, reflexivity is a notion central to understanding the complex relationship among social justice, academic research, and education. In their definition, reflexivity refers to "the process by which the observations that we make are dependent upon our prior understandings of the subject of our observations" (p. 237). Reflexivity here means "looking back" and is thus associated with constructivism. Interestingly, the authors emphasizes the distinction of reflexivity from self-reflection. They argue that self-reflection is sometimes conceived as "a strategy for overcoming the problems that reflexivity poses to research designs" (p. 237).

The authors contend that many researchers respond to the challenge of reflexivity through collaborative research designs, such as taking on insider's roles or action research.

Voiced and Unvoiced

Atkinson, Paul. (1999). Sociology, 33 (1), 191-197.

In his review essay about recent literature on voice, Atkinson wrote:

"There has been an upsurge of empirical, methodological and reflective writing on biographical approaches to social research. They have received fresh legitimation from a variety of contemporary standpoints -- feminist, post-structuralist and postcolonialist among them. Indeed, the celebration of multiple 'voices' to be found in much of the literature parallels the multiplicity of epistemological 'positions' to be found in contemporary social research" (p. 191)

In particular, looking at "Reflexivity and Voice" edited by Rosanna Hertz, Atkinson states that reflexivity and voice are twin themes. He writes, "Reflexivity is itself a polyvalent term, much used and much abused in different contexts" (p. 192). In Hertz's own treatment, Atkinson argues, reflexivity is a feature of research and writing. In further articulation:

"Reflexivity thus traverses the personal and political sources of identity -- gender, ethnicity and class among them. Here it is intended to capture not merely the self-absorption of the researcher, but also the complexities of difference and identity between researchers/authors, their informants/hosts and the audiences for research-based texts." (p. 192-193)

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.