Difference between reflection and reflexivity (though the

terms are used interchangeably)

Reflection is related to self and improving future practice through a
retrospective analysis of action. Even in the reflection-in-action
process,reflection is post facto, relating to completed stages and analysing
them before taking the next step. Reflection is future focussed in that it
seeks to improve practice through an understanding of the relative
successes and failures of previous events, however it remains connected to
the past focusing on completed stages. Reflection takes the form of a
cumulative body of knowledge that can then be used to improve practice.
Although reflection influenced the development of reflexive practice, there
are profound differences.
Reflexivity is pro-active as its focus is on providing practitioners with a tool
that will simultaneously improve their communication and help make them
aware of assumptions and priorities that shape theirinteraction with others.
Reflexivity can be used to provide insight into priorities before the party
reacts to the other. Reflexive practice in this manner can have an immediate
impact in improving practice, as practitioners are able incorporate new
insights into each interaction. The difference relates to when the process of
introspection takes place. In reflection, it takes place after an interaction,
whereas the reflexive process incorporates introspection into each
interaction.

Self-reflectivity/self-reflexibility
Self-reflectivity encourages awareness of bias.
The ethnographers and anthropologists as fieldworkers/researchers portray
themselves as infiltrating a group and then report on their experiences as an
insider - highly subjectivist accounts of fieldwork. Other researchers, on a
more objective mission, sought to increase the integrity and trustworthiness
of their findings. Through critical reflection, they used reflexivity to
continually monitor, or even audit, the research process. As the
research process is made transparent, they argued, personal experience is
transformed into public, accountable knowledge.
There should be a power balances between participantsand researchers.
Hertz (1997), urges researchers to be aware of their positions and
interests and to explicitly situate themselves within the research.
She argues that researchers are imposed at all stages of the research

process from the questions they ask to those they ignore, from who they
study to who they ignore, from problem formulation to analysis,
representation and writing in order to produce less distorted accounts
of the social world.
Today, narratives of the self have increased rapidly. In works such as Kondo
(1990), reflexive feminism and cultural critique converge (Marcus, 1994).
Self-reflexivity unmasks complex political/ideological agendas
hidden in our writing (Richardson, 1994: 523).The researcher
appears
not
as
an
individual
creative
scholar,a
knowingsubjectwhodiscovers,but more as a material body through
whom a narrative structure unfolds (Bruner,1986: 150).
Parody(imitation
of
other
writer),
irony(witty
language)
and
skepticism(doubt, inquiry) are evidentin self-reflexive experimental writing
forms (for instance, Ashmore, 1989 andTyler, 1987) seen as better able to
represent a post-modern world.
Most qualitative researchers will attempt to be aware of their role in
the (co)-construction of knowledge. They will try to make explicit how
inter-subjectiveelements impact on datacollection and analysisin an
efforttoenhancethe trustworthiness,transparencyand accountabilityoftheir
research.
Subjectivity in research is transformed from a problem to an
opportunity (Finlay, 2002). In short, researchers no longer question
the need for reflexivity: the question is how to do it.
In practice, the process of reflexivity is ambiguous:
To what extent should researchers give a methodological account of
their experience?
How much personal detail can be disclosed and what forms can it take?
How are researchers to represent a multiplicity of voices while not
hiding themselves?
Embarking on reflexivity is akin to entering uncertain terrainwhere solid
ground can all too easily give way to swamp and mire.Researchers have to
negotiate the swamp of endless self-analysis and self-disclosure. On their
journey, they can all too easily fall into excessive self-analysis and
deconstructions

Meaning

To be reflective is to sit and think about what took place after it is

completed; ones role in it, others reactions and ones responses to
them.
This can be done through thinking, writing, or speaking with another
person.
Reflexivity is a qualitative research strategy that addresses our
subjectivity as researchers related to people and events that
we encounter in the field.
Reflexivity also addresses the subjective nature of the research
account as a narrative constructed by us as researchers.
reflexivity
can
be
understoodas
examining
ones
own
personal,possiblyunconscious, reactions. It can mean exploringthe
dynamicsoftheresearcherresearched relationship.
One goal of engaging in reflection is to learn from ones experiences
with the intention of improving the quality of ones interactions with
others in future encounters

REFLECTIONS ON THE EXPERIENCE

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

Assumptions

What assumptions did I make about the participant(s)?

What assumptions did I make about comments/responses t

o my questions?

How did these assumptions affect or shape: the questions I

asked, the interjections I made,my listening skills, and/or m
y behavior?
Values, beliefs, life story, social/economic status

How did my personal values, beliefs, life story, and/or socia

l/economic status affect or shape: the questions
I asked, the interjections I made, my listening skills, and/or
mybehavior?
Emotional connection with the participant(s)

To what degree did my emotions or feelings for the particip

ant(s) affect or shape: thequestions I asked, the interjectio
ns I made, my listening skills, and/or my behavior?

How will my emotions or feelings for the participant(s) affe

ct the analytical process and myability to draw valid interpr
etations from the data?
Physical environment & logistics

How did the physical setting/location of the research event

alter how I related to theparticipant(s), and how the partici
pant(s) related to me?

How did the physical setting/location impact data collection

?
What were the logistical issues (e.g., in gaining access) tha
t contributed to the success orweakness of the outcomes
?

FIVE VARIANTS/TYPES OF REFLEXIVITY

(i) Introspection; (ii) Inter-subjective reflection; (iii)
Mutual collaboration; (iv)Social critique, and (v) Discursive
deconstruction.

i.

REFLEXIVITY AS INTROSPECTION

When Maslow (1966) asserted there is no substitute for experience, none

atall (p. 45), he pointed researchers towards the value of self-dialogue,
discovery and experience.
In addition to examining ones own experience and personal meanings
fortheir own sake, insights can emerge from personal introspection
which thenforms the basis of a more generalized understanding and
interpretations.Reflections are assumed to provide data regarding the
social/emotional world of participants.
Eg.1. Rosaldo (1989) in his influential anthropological study of Ilongot headhunting. Here he drew on his personal experience of bereavement (the
death of his wife) to make sense of the rage people felt which pushed them
to head-hunt.
Eg.2. Similarly, Abu-Lughods experience (see Hertz, 1997) of learning to live
as a modest daughter within a Bedouin community offers an example of
how generating experiential data can contribute to a broader analysis in
this instance of womens modesty and veiling practices.
It was at this moment, when I felt naked before an Arab elder because I could
not veil, that I understood viscerally that women veil not because anyone
tells them to or because they would be punished if they did not, but because
they feel extremely uncomfortable in the presence of certain categories of
men. (Cited in Bolak, 1997: p. 98)

These examples show the value of using introspection and being reflexive about
onesown personal reactions. Being preoccupied by ones own emotions and
experiences,however, can distort findings in unfortunate directions. The
researchers position can become unduly privileged, blocking out the
participantsvoice.As researchers,we need to strike a balance, striving for
enhanced self-awareness while avoiding concentration on a single
issue(self-absorption).Instead,
with
reflexiveanalysis,the
self,should
be
exploitedonlywhileit remainspurposefulto do so.
Ultimately, reflexivity should be neither an opportunity to engage in
subjectivity nor permission to engage in portraying emotions
(Finlay,1998a).Thechallengefor
researchersusing
introspection
is
to
use
personalrevelationnotas an end in itself but as a springboard for interpretations
and more general insight. In this sense, the researcher moves beyond benign
introspection(Woolgar, 1988: 22) to become more explicit about the link
between knowledge claims, personal experiences of both participant and
researcher, and the social context.

ii.

REFLEXIVITY AS INTERSUBJECTIVE REFLECTION

Here, researchers explore the mutual meanings emergingwithin the research

relationship -how unconscious processes structure relations been the researcherand
participant. The process here involves more than reflection instead, a radical
self-reflective consciousness (Sartre, 1969) is sought where the self-inrelation-to-others becomes both the aim and object of focus.This theme
highlights the value of exploring the research relationship aswell as the challenges.
The difficulties of gaining access to personal (and possibly unconscious) motivations
should not be underestimated while the complex dynamics between the researcher
and participant adds a further layer of opacity - requires a self-consciousness
attainable only through intensive psychoanalysis (Seale,1999).
Eg. 1. Research by Ballinger and Payne (2000),experienced by older
peoplehighlights
howthe
researcher
can
be
viewedbythe
patientparticipantsasaprofessionalwith some kind ofauthority and influence.
They noted when the researcher approached the fieldwork she ... appeared very
similar to that of a health professional. She dressed smartly, wore an identity badge
and accessed patients through attending nurse handovers and reading medical
notes. She asked patients to sign a formally worded consent form and then
proceeded to ask about the event that had brought the individual into hospital. (p.
577)

These observations enabled researcher to see how and why participants engaged in
a project to challenge negative professional evaluations that they were mentally or
physically frail.

iii.

REFLEXIVITY AS MUTUAL COLLABORATION

Participative researchers argue thatas research participantsalso havethe

capacityto bereflexivebeings, theycan be co-opted into the research as coresearchers.
Smith
(1994)
cites
an
example
of
how
utilizing
participantsinterpretationsresulted in him confronting,modifying and
honinghisowninterpretations. Here researchers and participants in their
ownresearch, engage in cycles of mutual reflection.
They seek to enlist participants as co-researchers and vice versa. It involves
participants in a reflexive dialogue during data analysis or evaluation.
Smith (1994) cites an example of how utilizing participantsinterpretationsresulted
in him confronting,modifying and honinghisowninterpretations.

iv.

REFLEXIVITY AS SOCIAL CRITIQUE

How to manage the power imbalance between researcher and participant.

Researchers openly acknowledge tensions arising from different social positions,
forinstance, in relation to class, gender and race.

v.

REFLEXIVITY AS DISCURSIVE DECONSTRUCTION

In reflexivity as discursive deconstruction, attention is paid to the

ambiguityof meanings in language used and how this impacts on
modes of presentation.
How,researchersask,
can
wepin
downand
represent
the
dynamic,multiplemeanings embeddedin language?
there is not one voice, butpolyvocality; not one story but many talks,
dramas, pieces of fiction, fables,memories, histories, autobiographies,
poems and other texts (p. 584)

STRENGTHS

valuable tool to examine the impact of the position, perspective and

presence of theresearcher

promote rich insight through examining personal

interpersonaldynamics
evaluate the research process, method and outcomes

responses

and

LIMITATIONS

When researchers focus on theirown experiences, the researchersvoice

may eventually overshadow the participants
focusing on the interpersonalprocess may shift attention away from the
phenomena being studied.

REFERENCES
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12549886
http://researchdesignreview.com/2014/03/30/reflections-from-the-field-questions-tostimulate-reflexivity-among-qualitative-researchers/