I look upon reflexivity in qualitative research as the openness of the researcher in transparently acknowledging what he or she brings to the research. Koch and Harrington (1998) suggest that readers of qualitative research should be able to travel through ‘well signposted’ research which includes the worlds of the participants and of the researchers and be able to decide ‘what is going on’ and whether the text is ‘believable’ or ‘plausible’. Murphy et al. (1998) advise that sufficient original data is included.

Koch T, Harrington A.(1998) Reconceptualizing rigour: the case for reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing 28(4):882-890.

Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P. (1998) Qualitative Research Methods in Health Technology Assessment: A Review of the Literature. Health Technology Assessment 2(16).

You might also find informative:

Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. The lancet, 358(9280), 483-488.

I hope this is helpful, Mary

Yes I agree that Tina Koch's work is a good place to start. Reflexivity has it's roots in social science research too, I think Amanda Coffey has published from sociology in this area.

I don't think there is a need to overly 'construct' reflexivity during research - the point is to be aware that the researcher plays an active part in the whole research process and to reflect on how this may influence e.g. the behaviours of others during data collection and/or your engagement with data during analysis and interpretation

As a PhD supervisor I encourage reflexivity during supervision sessions with students by querying how or why they reach certain conclusions, thus ensuring they are connecting with the data on its own merits and not overly influenced by their existing world-views.

I think reflexivity is made much easier if the researcher keeps a journal or a log of their own experiences throughout the research, and periodically examines their motivations, directions and intentions, in the context of that particular piece of research. Then the researcher can look back over what they have written, which is likely to provide a rich source for reflexivity, and this avoids the process of having to drag reflexivity out of their recollections at the end when they are writing up.

Dear Abyekta,

Reflexivity, first, is a question of how you conceptualize actors, the observer included. Depending on how you define the actor the subject of your research changes. For example, in sociology British sociologist Anthony Giddens defines the actor as a person who reflexively monitors what he or she is doing, others do and what is happening around him or her. And by doing this actors for Giddens are developing a permanently renewed, mostly practical knowledge of what is going on around them. The actor is, in sum, understood as a knowledgeable agent, an agent who has a) (at least a practical) knowledge of what is happening and is b) able to use this knowledge in acting.

Second, from this perspective what you are observing is activities and happenings which are caused or influenced by knowledgeable agents. That means, the observer reflexively monitors activities by actors who themselves reflexively monitor what is going on. Giddens calls this double hermeneutic.

Third, consequently any explanation has to take up what actors know about what is happening and how they use their knowledge in acting. Since what you are observing can be brought about, for example, by actors who do not understand quite well what they are doing or what is going on or, the contrasting case, quite intentionally bring these events into life. The explanation of what you are observing would thus dramatically change.

Fourth – as all the contributors, Mary, Aled and Victoria, also mentioned – (qualitative) research has to be sensitive to both, to the ways how the observed and the observer are reflexively monitoring and rationalizing social happenings and how they use their reflexively constructed knowledge in their doings.

Fifth, reflexively can be “constructed” on the one hand through defining the actor – the observer included. On the other hand, reflexivity can be “constructed” by being sensitive – as especially Aled and Victoria also mentioned – to what actors are saying and how the observer makes sense of what he or she observes.

You will find a more sophisticated outline of what I am saying here:

Giddens, Anthony (1984): The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. (The last chapter is on methodological implications of his outline of a structuration approach)

Apologies in advance for plagarising myself...I know, incipient sign of egomania...but this is really a lot simpler than the above post would have you believe.

While popularised by sociologists like Giddens in the 1980s, relexivity has deeper philosophical roots and has passed through Sociology, Anthropology, Economics and other academic disciplines. The basic idea, as the name suggests involves using reflection as means of self-realisation. Therefore you think about a certain course of action, envisage a positive outcome, then move towards that outcome, thus validating the intial reflection. This also implies a strong degree of circularity, meaning that the subject is entering into a kind of virtuous circle.

Therefore to identify its existence, you need to look for signs of such a thought process. This has many applications, but I have applied it specifically to the context of student mobility.

cf Cairns (2014) Youth Transitions, International Student Mobility and Spatial Reflexivity. Houndmills: Palgrave, pp, 27-29.

Answer mine.

Reflexivity should occur throughout a study and should be woven within every aspect.

As Bourdieu points out, researcher biases occur and reflexivity is the solution.

Reflection in and of practice was also identified by Schon (1983) as a key professional skill that could be leant and developed.

Then is reflexivity is a self awareness?

I consider self awareness as a result of reflexivity.

then how can i be reflexive while doing research?

Among the discussions of the reflexivity, one of these arises from a post-modern, relational constructionist perspective which radically re-conceptualizes reflexivity: (i) as a local and co-constructed process oriented towards the question (ii) how we are ‘going on’ together, and therefore paying attention to (iii) the realities and relations we are co-creating during the research process and so (iv) is concerned with local pragmatic and ethical issues (Gergen & Hosking, 2006; McNamee, 1994) rather than with the quality of truth claims.

http://www.relational-constructionism.org/media/reconstructing%20reflexivity.pdf