NAME: ADRITA CHATTERJEE

C.U ROLL NO: 222031-11-0131

C.U REGISTRATION NO:031-1211-0189-22

NAME OF EXAMINATION: BA SEMESTER 5 (HONOURS EXAMINATION)

UNDER CBCS 2023

SUBJECT: SOCA

COURSE: CC12

ASSIGNMENT TYPE: TUTORIAL

COURSE NAME:

FULL MARKS:15
Reflexivity in Social Research:
Introduction
Reflexivity emerged in the 1980s as a way to approach interpretation. It is more of an
ideological approach than a series of actions, but there are techniques to encourage both the
mind and body to act reflexively. Like situational analysis or SA, this sense/sensibility comes
from practice. Reflexivity is an awareness of the researcher’s role in the practice of research
and the way the object of the study influences this, enabling the researcher to acknowledge
how he or she affects both the research processes and outcomes. It is often termed as the
process by which research turns back upon and takes account of itself. Reflexivity involves
awareness that the researcher and the object of study affect each other mutually and
continually in the research process. In other words, researcher reflexivity involves thinking
about how our thinking came to be, how pre-existing understanding is constantly revised in
the light of new understandings, and how this in turn affects our research.

The terms reflection and reflexivity. May overlap sometimes but there is a slight difference.
Hibbert, Coupland, and MacIntosh (2010) provide a useful distinction between the two:
reflection suggests a mirror image that allows engaging in an observation or examination of
our ways of doing, or observing our own practice, whereas reflexivity is more complex,
involving thinking about our experiences and questioning our ways of doing.

Furthermore, there are two key elements embedded within reflexive research – interpretation
and reflection which set the very basis of the research question chosen in this tutorial. The
interpretive element recognizes that interpretation is not just based on a simple analysis of
facts or data, which reflects some kind of ‘reality’; instead it is aware that interpretation is
influenced by the assumptions of the researcher doing the research, their values, political
position, use of language. The second element is reflection – where the researcher turns
attention to themselves, their research community, and the intellectual and cultural conditions
and traditions informing the research. Both of these concepts intersect in the form that
reflection becomes a form of interpretation of the interpretation, and this is what makes the
research reflexive. We reflect on how our intellectual, perceptual, theoretical, ideological,
cultural, textual, and cognitive, principles and assumptions inform the interpretation.
Reflexivity goes beyond mere reflection or reflectiveness in as much as it is ‘recursive’ – a
reflexive practice is one that constantly redefines the practice, through the ability of human
statements to alter the state of what is being stated and the person who states it. More
generally, a reflexive activity is one in which subject and object co-create each other - in
carrying out a piece of research, I create myself as a researcher. A reflexive researcher
recognizes that what he/she says or writes influences and redefines that about which she is
writing as well as herself as the author. This recursive quality of reflexivity is admirably
captured in Alvesson and Sköldberg’s (2009) ingenious definition of reflexivity as “the
interpretation of interpretation” The implications of this definition are quite far-reaching -
reflexivity makes every interpretation potentially unstable since interpretation is liable to
change the object being interpreted as well as the subject carrying out the interpretation.
Reflexivity, therefore, is not akin to the passive reflection of a mirror but rather the
interaction through the mirror of the subject and the

Reflexivity in Research: Bridging Pre-Understanding and Postmodern Perspectives

Reflexivity as already have been seen above is to question knowledge claims and enhance
understanding by acknowledging the values and preconceptions the researcher brings to that
understanding. In ethnomethodological approaches, such as interpretative research, insights
can be drawn from ‘pre-understanding’ i.e. ‘knowledge, insights, and experience before a
research program’, and ‘understanding’ i.e. ‘knowledge that develops during the program’
such that prior knowledge, experience, and new knowledge interact.

However, for post-modernists, the social construction of reality is constituted within

discursive and textual practices, where no fixed truths are privileged and several fluid,
emergent, and multiple truths may emerge. It is based on multiple realities. Hence,
reflexivity is often centered on the process of writing and interpreting text, in all its various
and multiple forms.

One of the most prominent works by Cunliffe regarding this is the conceptualization of
‘radical-reflexivity’ which suggests that researchers ‘need to go further than questioning the
truth claims of others, to question how we as researchers (and practitioners) also make truth
claims and construct meaning’. He explains how a view of reflexivity goes beyond
advocating reflexivity as a ‘tool’ for more effective research and tends more towards a lived
moral or ethical.

For Cunliffe a construction of radical reflexivity comprises

:  Questioning intellectual suppositions

 Recognising research is a symmetrical and reflexive narrative, many ‘Participant’ stories

which interconnect in some way;

 Examining and exploring researcher/participant relationships and their impact on

knowledge

 Acknowledging the constitutive nature of research conversations;

 Constructing ‘emerging practical theories’ rather than objective truths;

 Exposing the situated nature of accounts through narrative circularity;

 Focusing on life and research as a process of becoming rather than an already established
truth”
Four Steps: A Meta-Process of Reflexivity in Research

Hibbert on the other hand (2010) evaluates the importance of recursion, or a sense of return,
in the process of reflexivity, where through questioning the basis of our reflections,
reflexivity necessarily brings about a change in the process of reflection and is therefore
recursive.

Four steps collectively encapsulate a meta-process of reflexivity, which integrates reflection

and recursion.

The initial step is repetition in which an individual reflects in a relatively self-focussed

manner and recursivity occurs passively.

The second step is extension where there is ‘some building of new principles or
understandings that connect with well-known principle with a conscious involvement in
change.

Disruption, captures the doubting, unsettling element of reflexive research, as opposed to the
routine or confirmatory modes of repletion and extension.

Finally, participation describes ‘the situation where the researcher engages with a particular
community and is transformed by it’.

While not all interpretations of reflexive research embrace disruption to such an extent, the
concept of self-critique and its unsettling impact is prevalent in many reflexive narratives,
where fundamental assumptions and values are questioned and may ultimately undergo
transformation. It is in such moments that ontology and epistemology interact, questioning
both self and knowledge. Reflexivity forces the researcher to re-examine his or her
positioning with methodology, theory, participants, and self. Moreover, in participatory
research, especially co-produced research between researchers and practitioners, the
significance of politics, hierarchy, and authority is central to reflexive understandings of
dynamics in play.
Explanation through examples:

The political and ideological foundations of social research are evident in the language used,
including the terms and concepts employed. With the rise of discourse studies, it has become
clear that every term carries political assumptions. Words like "management," "consumers,"
"markets," "culture," "gender," "stakeholders," and "knowledge" are all loaded with
ideological implications that researchers cannot fully separate from. For example, in research
involving unemployed managers and professionals, the term "unemployed" often implied
self-blame and personal responsibility, triggering defensive reactions among respondents. In
contrast, phrases like "being out of paid work" elicited different responses. Reflexive
researchers remain aware of these underlying assumptions, which can be challenging to
untangle. Additionally, the meanings of terms can vary between researchers and the general
public. For instance, the long-standing convention of referring to homo sapiens through the
male pronoun is seen as sexist, often marginalizing women. Similarly, seemingly neutral
terms can uphold hidden hierarchies of inclusion and privilege.
Conclusion:

Reflexivity can be seen as essential in social research, as it forces the researchers to

critically take into account how they influence both the process of research and outcomes.
It's more than simple reflection because there is a recursive examination
of the way interpretations interact with both what is being researched and
the person researching. The subtle understanding of reflexivity, as described by
scholars such as Alvesson, Sköldberg, and Hibbert, is that it is dynamic, where reflection
becomes a means of interpreting interpretations, thereby continuously redefining the research
process.

Through reflexivity, researchers develop an awareness of the intricate dance between their
preconceptions, values, and the socio-cultural contexts that guide their research. In
ethnomethodological and postmodern perspectives, this awareness is crucial, as multiple
realities and fluid truths are recognized. Radical reflexivity by Cunliffe emphasizes that not
only do truth claims of others need to be questioned but also the role that researchers play in
constructing meaning and knowledge.

Hibbert's reflexivity meta-process - repetition, extension, disruption, and

participation what transformative reflexivity offers in the study. This way, it describes how
self-reflecting about oneself can spur deeper reflection of all the taken
forward assumptions into basic ontology-epistemology relation.

Ultimately, reflexivity requires researchers to address the political and

ideological assumptions embedded in their language and concepts in a way that
is more thoughtful and more inclusive of producing knowledge. By making aware of
how situated and constructed the research narratives are, reflexive researchers contribute to
a body of work that is more ethically grounded and more socially responsive.