DESCRIPTION

The term reflexivity refers to continuous and explicit self-examination regarding the impact of (inter)personal context on a study's design, implementation and analysis. The concept of reflexivity is continuous to an extent with that of positionality, but whereas positionality is strongly associated with a discrete statement of the researcher's situatedness - in the form of a positionality statement - the term 'reflexivity' refers to a more holistic, diverse and sustained set of practices (Sibbald et al., 2025).

Presenting reflexivity as a mechanism of accountability, Doucet and Mauthner (2012) conceptualise it as being as transparent as possible about 'the epistemological, ontological, theoretical and personal assumptions that inform our research generally, and our analytic and interpretive processes specifically'; aspects about which one might choose to be reflexive include not only social positioning but also 'the personal, interpersonal, institutional, pragmatic, emotional, theoretical, epistemological and ontological influences on our research' (n.p). Reflexivity hence entails a recognition that knowledge is never produced or elicited from a neutral standpoint; the process of knowledge creation is always inherently situated, interested, and (inter)subjectively positioned.

Reflexivity as an open practice involves not merely acknowledging the above influences on one's research, but paying careful and sustained attention to how these factors and contexts may impact upon the research. As Berger (2015) notes, reflexivity and an awareness of positionality are vital at all stages of the research, including 'the formulation of a research question, collection and analysis of data, and drawing conclusions' (221). Doucet and Mauthner (2012) identify the latter as an especially crucial locus of reflexivity, observing that data analysis is 'where the ethics of our research practice are particularly acute because of the largely invisible nature of the interpretive process' (n.p.).

Olmos-Vega et al. (2023), who take a constructivist stance within which reflexivity is not a compensatory project but rather a way of embracing and valuing researchers' subjectivity, place the majority of reflexivity practices in two main categories. 'Collaborative reflection' entails peer mechanisms such as mutual reflection and discussion among members of the research team, as in the 'kitchen table reflexivity' theorised by Kohl and McCutcheon (2015), as well as peer review of processes such as research design and analysis. 'Reflective writing' encompasses techniques of simultaneous reflection and documentation including journalling, writing reflexive memos and field notes, and creating an audit trail to log and reflect on decisions during the research process.

Strategies in support of reflexivity may include those historically associated with the minimisation of bias, such as member checking / member sharing (inviting participants to comment on the results of analysis in order to verify accuracy and relevance) and triangulation (using more than one method or approach to investigate the same topic to verify the validity of findings independently of the method used). In the context of reflexivity, these bias-minimising strategies arguably assume a different character, allowing the researcher to explore the impact of the research's situatedness as manifested in specific methodological and interpretive approaches (rather than attempting to remove bias, which would not be possible), though to a qualitative researcher informed by more positivist epistemologies, using reflexivity as a means of identifying and mitigating bias would also be logically consistent.

Various subcategories and specific conceptualisations of reflexivity have been advanced. Some examples include Macbeth (2001), who distinguishes between 'positional reflexivity' - the foregrounding of the researcher's situatedness - and 'textual reflexivity' - the undermining of realist assumptions in critical writing. Pillow (2003) advocates for 'uncomfortable reflexivity', 'a reflexivity that seeks to know while at the same time situat[ing] this knowing as tenuous' (188). Pillow defines uncomfortable reflexivity in opposition to four trends in reflexivity (reflexivity as recognition of self, as recognition of the other, as (enabling/resulting in) truth, and as transcendence of one's own subjectivity) that she sees as problematically implying that 'the researcher, through reflexivity, can transcend her own subjectivity [...] in a way that releases her/him from the weight of (mis)representations' (186). Attia and Edge (2017) introduce the concept of 'retrospective reflexivity' which refers to an examination of the ways the researcher has developed through the process of the research, while Rodriguez and Ridgeway (2023) explore what they term 'intersectional reflexivity', which foregrounds the impact of intersecting social identities on the research process.

Barriers both to reflexivity and to attempts to evidence it have been identified by such scholars as Probst (2015). In this empirical study, challenges to reflexivity raised by social work researchers included the emotional nature of the process, time constraints, risk of a focus on the researcher eclipsing attention to participants, and lack of systemic valuation of and support for the activities. In relation to reflexivity and infrastructural affordances, Woods et al. (2015) have examined the way CAQDAS (computer assisted qualitative data analysis software) programs can impact positively or negatively on reflexivity; their literature review identified four main ways CAQDAS influences researcher reflexivity, including causing researchers to reflect on how using CAQDAS creates new experiences of conducting research.

Recent efforts have been made to advocate for the implementation of reflexivity practices in quantitative research. For instance, Jamieson et al. (2023) suggest that techniques of reflexivity have much to offer quantitative researchers in social and personality psychology and beyond, challenging quantitative methods' supposed objectivity and contending that 'reflexivity can bring biases and unchecked assumptions "to the surface", which may reduce practices that can impact the credibility and verifiability of research' such as HARKing (4). In this way, they suggest, an attention to reflexivity offers a valuable supplement to the existing practices of open research as conceived in dominant discourses of open science, addressing unacknowledged areas of complacency.

See also: positionality

References

Attia, M., and Edge, J. (2017). 'Be(com)ing a Reflexive Researcher: A Developmental Approach to Research Methodology', Open Review of Educational Research, 4(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2017.1300068

Berger, R. (2015). 'Now I See It, Now I Don't: Researcher's Position and Reflexivity in Qualitative Research', Qualitative Research, 15.2, 219–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475

Doucet, A., and Mauthner, N.S. (2012). 'Knowing Responsibly: Ethics, Feminist Epistemologies and Methodologies' in T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner M and J. Jessop (eds), Ethics in Qualitative Research. London: Sage Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473913912

Jamieson, M.K., Govaart, G.H., and Pownall, M. (2023). 'Reflexivity in Quantitative Research: A Rationale and Beginner's Guide', Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12735

Kohl, E., and McCutcheon, P. (2015). 'Kitchen Table Reflexivity: Negotiating Positionality through Everyday Talk', Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 22(6), 747–763. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2014.958063

Macbeth, D. (2001). 'On "Reflexivity" in Qualitative Research: Two Readings, and a Third', Qualitative Inquiry, 7(1), 35–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040100700103

Olmos-Vega, F.M, et al. (2023). 'A Practical Guide to Reflexivity in Qualitative Research: AMEE Guide No. 149', Medical Teacher, 45.3, 241–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287

Pillow, W. (2003). 'Confession, Catharsis, or Cure? Rethinking the Uses of Reflexivity as Methodological Power in Qualitative Research', International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16.2, 175–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635

Probst, B. (2015). 'The Eye Regards Itself: Benefits and Challenges of Reflexivity in Qualitative Social Work Research', Social Work Research, 39(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svu028

Rodriguez, J.K., and Ridgway, M. (2023). 'Intersectional Reflexivity: Fieldwork Experiences of Ethnic Minority Women Researchers', Gender, Work, and Organization, 30(4), 1273–1295. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12977

Sibbald, K.R., et al. (2025). 'Positioning Positionality and Reflecting on Reflexivity: Moving From Performance to Practice', Qualitative Health Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241309230

Woods, M., Macklin, R., and Lewis, G.K. (2015). 'Researcher Reflexivity: Exploring the Impacts of CAQDAS Use'. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(4), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1023964