Tuesday, June 20, 2006
To be reflective or reflexive
Would you say reflective and reflexive are synonymous? Maybe so, in some contexts it could be, but not according to Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000). These authors sustain being reflexive is a lot more than just being reflective. In qualitative research, being reflexive entails taking different standpoints when interpreting data, conducting metainterpretations, “reflection in various domains” (p. 280).
Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000) analyzed the main orientations in qualitative research: grounded theory, hermeneutics, critical theory, and postmodernism (at moments interchanged with poststructuralism or social constructionism). They dedicated a chapter to each of these orientations, compared them, and identified common criticisms. And at the end, they tied them all together into a reflexive methodology.
What makes reflexivity interesting, is the different theoretical perspectives the researchers need to work from. This means that the researcher is a scholar always reading, always searching for new ideas. This also makes it more difficult, because the researcher needs to stand outside of his/her comfort area and redress him/herself with the principles of another orientation.
Reflexivity is more of a qualitative holistic research methodology, reviewing the data once and again, from four main qualitative perspectives: grounded theory, hermeneutics, critical theory, and postmodernism. But don’t get the idea that the reflexive methodology will allow you to find the truth, or “some sort of reality ‘out there’” (p. 289). Reflexivity stands on a postmodernist theoretical base and as such ‘reality’ is always changing!
As a personal note, reflexive methodology cannot be the object of a doctoral dissertation; one theoretical perspective is more than enough to work with!!
Alvesson, M., and Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodologies: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000) analyzed the main orientations in qualitative research: grounded theory, hermeneutics, critical theory, and postmodernism (at moments interchanged with poststructuralism or social constructionism). They dedicated a chapter to each of these orientations, compared them, and identified common criticisms. And at the end, they tied them all together into a reflexive methodology.
What makes reflexivity interesting, is the different theoretical perspectives the researchers need to work from. This means that the researcher is a scholar always reading, always searching for new ideas. This also makes it more difficult, because the researcher needs to stand outside of his/her comfort area and redress him/herself with the principles of another orientation.
Reflexivity is more of a qualitative holistic research methodology, reviewing the data once and again, from four main qualitative perspectives: grounded theory, hermeneutics, critical theory, and postmodernism. But don’t get the idea that the reflexive methodology will allow you to find the truth, or “some sort of reality ‘out there’” (p. 289). Reflexivity stands on a postmodernist theoretical base and as such ‘reality’ is always changing!
As a personal note, reflexive methodology cannot be the object of a doctoral dissertation; one theoretical perspective is more than enough to work with!!
Alvesson, M., and Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodologies: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
