Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research

TLDR

Reflexivity is widely used in qualitative research to legitimize, validate, and question research practices and representations. This study examines reflexivity as a methodological tool, critiques comfortable uses, and advocates for uncomfortable reflexive practices by reviewing three authors’ work. The author analyzes four prevalent trends in reflexivity—recognition of self, recognition of other, truth, and transcendence—to highlight their problematic aspects. Practicing uncomfortable reflexivity disrupts conventional uses of reflexivity for data improvement and foregrounds the complexities of engaged qualitative research.

Abstract

Reflexivity is commonly used in qualitative research and has been posited and accepted as a method qualitative researchers can and should use to legitimize, validate, and question research practices and representations. This paper closely examines the role of reflexivity as a methodological tool as it intersects with debates and questions surrounding representation and legitimization in qualitative research, within modernist and postmodernist ideologies, and pays close attention to how reflexivity is being defined and used in present-day research. Specifically, the author identifies and discusses the problematics of four common trends in present-day uses of reflexivity: reflexivity as recognition of self, reflexivity as recognition of other, reflexivity as truth, and reflexivity as transcendence. The author argues for a move away from comfortable uses of reflexivity to what she terms uncomfortable reflexive practices and provides an overview of the work of three authors who practice reflexivities of discomfort. Practicing uncomfortable reflexivity interrupts uses of reflexivity as a methodological tool to get better data while forefronting the complexities of doing engaged qualitative research.