Year: 2019
Type: book-chapter
Abstract: Reflexivity is valuable in social research because it draws attention to the researcher as part of the world being studied and reminds us that the individuals involved in our research are subjects, not objects.By being reflexive we acknowledge that we cannot be separated from our biographies.This book is a defence of reflexivity but it also identifies issues and concerns which currently plague mainstream sociological operationalisations of a positivistic form of reflexivity in some accounts of research.It argues for the extension of reflexivity into domains otherwise neglected in public accounts, and a shift from reflexivity as an individualised quality of the researcher (used to judge peers and to naval-gaze), to a feminist, collaborative, reflexive sensibility which is (ethically) mindful of the wider contexts shaping the knower and the construction, negotiation and contestation of knowledge(s) and experience(s).Crucially, a mindful reflexive sensibility and approach seeks to avoid the pitfalls of the present positivist-version-of-reflexivity emerging in predictable reflexive accounts which focus on the latest fad.It also attends to the gap in relation to reflexivity in theory, method and practice by drawing together scholarly work in each of these domains and providing examples of reflexivity in action. INTRODUCTION: REFLEXIVITIES AND REFLECTION… you must learn to use your life experience in your intellectual work: continually to examine and interpret it.In this sense craftsmanship is the center of yourself and you are personally involved in every intellectual product upon which you work.To say that you can 'have experience', means, for one thing, that your past plays into and affects your present, and that it defines your capacity for future experience.As a social scientist, you have to control this rather elaborate This is a pre-print version of the Introduction from Lumsden, K. (forthcoming) Reflexivity: Theory, Method and Practice.London: Routledge. 4understanding of social phenomena.Secondly, reflection involves turning attention 'inwards' to focus on the researcher, the researched, society more generally, the intellectual and cultural traditions, and the 'problematic nature of language and narrative' in the research setting (2009, pp.9).Therefore, reflective research is related to the selection of the research topic, the research context, relationships with/between the researched, the choices made in relation to the management and conduct of data collection (and while in the field), the representation of cultures, individuals and the social world, and also the power dynamics and relations implicated, generated and created via research and reflection.Reflexivity also extends beyond the individual academic to include acknowledgment of the limits of knowledge associated with the social scientist's membership and position in the intellectual field (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).Reflexivity is difficult (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009).It is not merely a quality of the researcher, but is a practice which must be honed, applied, and kept in mind throughout the research process.As May argues: Writings on reflexivity tend to be manuals that provide steps for the practitioner to become more reflexive.What is replicated is an inductivism that separates content, character, and context.There are no easy routes and no self-help books with ten steps to 'becoming reflexive'.(with Perry, 2011, pp. 6) This book reviews, consolidates, and aims to reinvigorate discussions and debates concerning reflexivity in the social sciences.It does not provide the reader with steps to follow in order to 'become' reflexive or instructions on how to 'practice' reflexivity.All too often reflexivity, in its current incarnation, is employed in the social sciences as a means of judging the merits of social research, or of the individual researcher, and this is particularly the case in qualitative research.As Trinh (1989) asks, how do you 'inscribe difference without bursting into a series of euphoric narcissistic accounts of yourself and your kind' (pp.28)?Reflexivity is to an extent a buzzword (May with Perry, 2011) or the This is a pre-print version of the Introduction from Lumsden, K. (forthcoming) Reflexivity: Theory, Method and Practice.London: Routledge.5 current fad (Patai, 1994) in social science research.Questions are often posed to social researchers by their peers such as: 'have you been reflexive"', 'have you been reflexive enough?', 'have you reflected on X, or Y, or Z?' Equally, on being advised of the merits of reflexivity, students will ask 'what should I reflect on?' Reflexivity in this sense risks being adopted as a disciplinary mechanism for the policing of social scientific research and researchers.It also risks being wrapped up with/in the individual identity of the researcher, while failing to recognize the wider disciplinary, institutional and political context(s) in which reflexivity or being reflexive takes place, and in which knowledge is constructed, situated and (re)negotiated.Finally, it risks the production of a tick box list of which aspects of identity should be reflected on.For example, gender is often privileged in reflexive accounts at the expense of other aspects of researcher and participant identities such as race, ethnicity, class, etc. (See Chapter 1).We should also avoid outlining 'steps' for students/researchers to follow in order to be reflexive, as if reflexivity is something which can be done 'correctly' or 'incorrectly'.Johnson (1981) draws attention to the inadequacies of immediacy, of belief in the self-presentation of meaning which 'seems to guarantee the notions that in the spoken word we know what we mean, mean what we say, say what we mean, and know what we have said' (p.viii).We need to acknowledge that there will aspects of our performance as a researcher that we cannot access or research, 'much that eludes the logic of the self-present subject.But situated so as to give testimony and witness to what is happening …' (Lather, 1993, pp.685) After interpretivism and the postmodern turn in social research methods, the question remains of how to 'deal with the fact of reflexivity, how to strategize about it for certain theoretical and intellectual interests' (Marcus, 1993, pp.394, Lather, 1993).Marcus argues for a 'reflexive, messy text' in which we are aware of our own narrative apparatuses:This is a pre-print version of the Introduction from Lumsden, K. (forthcoming) Reflexivity: Theory, Method and Practice.London: Routledge.20 researched.A further point of consideration here is the extent to which reflexivity, in relation to the researched, results in the further privileging of particular voices and the silencing of others.For example, does reflexivity sometimes risk reaffirming social inequalities and injustices?The question posed relates to which contexts and with which social groups researchers are willing to, or able to, publically reflect, and how they involve the researched in these accounts.In which instances might it be uncomfortable to reflect, risky to reflect, or impossible to publicly reflect on the research experience?Making reflections public (baring our souls) can have various, often unpredictable, implications for both researcher and researched which must be mindfully considered, anticipated (when possible), and mitigated. Reflexivity and the Disciplinary / Academic FieldWe must also consider the politics of reflexivity in practice.As Bourdieu points out, reflexivity acknowledges 'the limits of knowledge specifically associated with the analyst's membership and position in the intellectual field' (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, pp.39).This includes not just the social origin and location of the researcher, but also taking account of their position in the academic field and the 'intellectualist bias which entices us to construe the world as a spectacle, as a set of significations to be interpreted rather than as concrete problems to be solved practically' (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, pp.39).The identity of the researcher is linked to their discipline/s, methodological and theoretical orientation and as I will explore in Chapter 9, the vast changes in universities as a result of the neo-liberal marketization of academia have implications for the (public) spaces available for reflexivity, reflection and critical thought. Reflexivity and the UniversityReflexivity is also shaped by university and higher education contexts.Tim May (with Perry, 2011, pp.11-12) argues that the conditions of knowledge production in universities can 'act as inhibitors to reflexivity which requires a supportive context in which to work, as opposed to a celebration of exceptionality through an overblown individualism'.In the This is a pre-print version of the Introduction from Lumsden, K. (forthcoming) Reflexivity: Theory, Method and Practice.London: Routledge. 21UK and US higher education contexts, concern has been raised regarding the shifts in academic labour to a focus on fast-academia as opposed to slower, contemplative scholarly work which requires space and time for reflection and learning.In the context of fast-academia, there is a risk that research will become institutionalized and managerialized.The neoliberal university consists of 'a business model that has ushered in: the introduction of high student fees; the incursion of private providers; changing styles of management embedded in NPM [new public management]' (O'Neill, 2014).Academia consists of a pervasive 'audit culture' (Power, 1997; Strathern, 2000) and the rise of the enterprise university (Lumsden & Goode, 2017) has impacted on the doing of social scientific research, what types of research are funded, and thus the individual experiences and career trajectories of the academic.The academic role is increasingly precarious and recently scholars have reflected on their experiences as early-career researchers negotiating the uncerta
Author: Lumsden, Karen
Language: English
Subfield: Sociology and Political Science
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W7222393280