See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238195734

Becoming a Reflexive Researcher

Article · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

343 670

1 author:

Kim Etherington
University of Bristol
30 PUBLICATIONS   857 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kim Etherington on 05 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research methods: reflexivities – roots, meanings, dilemmas
Kim Etherington
This paper expands the concept of reflexivity used in the paper that follows (page 48).
There are many ways of explaining reflexivity, which has been described as involving
complex relationships between how we know, what we know and who we are
(Rennie, 1998; Hertz, 1997)
‘Why do research for which you must deny
responsibility for what you have found’?
(Steier 1991: 10)
R
eflexivity requires researchers to operate
on multiple levels: being aware in the
moment of what is influencing our
internal and external responses, while also
being aware of what influences our
relationship to our topic and our participants.
Those influences inform personal, cultural or
theoretical constructs that we use to guide
our interactions as we engage in the research
and represent our data.
In the paper that follows I situate myself by
describing how my philosophies and beliefs
developed from my professional background
and the changing trends and traditions in
society and research. I explain my interest in
the topics and how I had gone about trying
to discover new knowledge. By doing so, you
as reader are provided with information
about the values and principles that underpin
the way I conduct research and you can use
that knowledge to judge its rigour and
validity. By including my part in the
conversations you can see how I have
influenced the shape and outcome of the
conversations and the co-construction of
meanings. This transparency also allows you,
the reader, to enter into the meaning-making
process as you recognise your own connections
with the stories.
By using reflexivity in our representation of
research we gain and share with others
‘reflexive knowledge’ (Hertz, 1997):
knowledge not only about the topic of our
inquiry but also about how we acquired
that knowledge.
46 COUNSELLING AND PSYCHOTHERAPY RESEARCH, 2004, VOL 4, NO
Philosophical roots
Research practice has been developing against
a backdrop of changing traditions and trends
in society as a whole: reflexivity needs to be
understood as part of those changes.
Positivist beliefs in a measurable reality that
existed independently from subjectivity have
been challenged by a growing recognition
that even the most objective observers or
interpreters bring themselves and their prior
knowledge and personal and cultural histories
into the equation.
Feminist research approaches emphasised
equality in research relationships and
encouraged transparency of the values
and beliefs that lay behind researchers’
interpretations, thereby lowering the barriers
between researcher and researched, allowing
both sides to be seen and inviting researchers
to take responsibility for their views by using
the first person pronoun, ‘I’, thus losing the
security of the anonymous third person (the
researcher), or ‘the passive voice that distances
subject from object’ (Crotty, 1998).
Postmodernism challenged the certainties
of modernism and invited tentative,
marginalised voices to be heard alongside
dominant patriarchal western discourses,
inviting us to view ‘grand narratives’ as simply
one of many discourses possible among others
of equal value.
Social constructionism encouraged us to
view the world and ourselves as embedded
within historical and cultural stories, beliefs
and practices, and reality and knowledge as
depending upon socially defined stocks of
knowledge available at the time. This brought
greater focus on the relationship between the
storyteller and the listener, and what each
2

brings into the research relationship to create
meaning and understanding of the topic.
Reflexivity – what does it
mean?
There are many ways of understanding and
using reflexivity. It may be the primary
methodological vehicle for an inquiry, as
in research using autoethnography,
autobiography, heuristic and narrative inquiry
or ‘social poetics’. It may be a means of
constructing a bridge between research and
practice. It may be a means of checking
against possible sources of subjective bias.
■ Reflexivity requires self-awareness but is
more than self-awareness in that it creates a
dynamic process of interaction within and
between our selves and our participants and
the data that informs decisions, actions and
interpretations.
■ Reflexivity recognises a circulating energy
between context of researcher and
researched and that both have agency.
■ Reflexivity challenges us to be more fully
conscious of our own ideology, culture and
politics, and that of our participants and
our audience.
■ Reflexivity in research conversations and
writing creates transparency and goes some
way to addressing the ethical issues and
power relations between researcher and
researched.
■ Reflexivity enables us to provide
information on what is known as well as how
it is known.
■ Reflexivity is not the same as subjectivity
but rather it opens up a space between
subjectivity and objectivity where the
distinction between content and process
becomes blurred.
■ Reflexivity adds validity and rigour in
research by providing information about the
contexts in which data is located.
Dilemmas using reflexivity
Accusations of self-indulgence, narcissism,
solipsism. The judicious use of our selves
needs to be essential to the topic, not just a
‘decorative flourish’ if it is to be called
reflexivity.
Subjectivity can be seen as a contaminant.
Positivist paradigms still hold enormous
influence that are hard to challenge as simply
one way of doing research.
Lack of awareness. Researchers may lack
the necessary level of self-awareness required
to use reflexivity.
COUNSELLING AND PSYCHOTHERAPY RESEARCH, 2004, VOL
View publication stats
REFLEXIVITY
Lack of confidence. Researchers may be
anxious about exposure, fearful of judgment
or wish to retain their personal privacy.
Uncertainty and insecurity. Reflexivity may
be too great a challenge to a sense of certainty
and security based on well-established and
familiar practices.
‘Crisis of representation’. People ‘struggle
with how to locate themselves and their
subjects in reflexive texts’ that are complex and
multi-layered and therefore sometimes difficult
to manage (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). ■
Address for correspondence: Kim Etherington,
University of Bristol, 8-10 Berkeley Square, Clifton,
Bristol BS8 1HH Tel: 0117 968 1777
k.etherington@bristol.ac.uk
References
Crotty M. (1998) The foundations of social research:
meaning and perspective in the research process.
London: Sage.
Hertz R. (ed) (1997) Reflexivity and voice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rennie D. (1998) Person-centred counselling: an
experiential approach. London: Sage.
Steier F. (ed) (1991) Research and reflexivity. London: Sage.
Special offer
CPR readers can
order a copy of
Becoming a
Reflexive
Researcher: Using
Our Selves in
Research at a
special discounted
price of £17,
postage free (full
price: £19.95). Just
contact Jessica
Kingsley Publishers at 116 Pentonville Road,
London N1 9JB, quoting ‘CPR Special Offer’.
Tel 020 7833 2307 Fax 020 7837 2917
4, NO 2 47