The Eye Regards Itself: Benefits and Challenges of

Reflexivity in Qualitative Social Work Research

Barbara Probst

Much has been written about the central role of reflexivity in qualitative research, yet there
has been no empirical study of how researchers actually practice reflexivity and what it is
like for them to do so. To address this question, a project was developed to gather infor-
mation directly from qualitative social work researchers about the perceived benefits, chal-
lenges, and limitations of reflexivity. Participants, representing eight countries with the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/swr/article/39/1/37/1629726 by guest on 25 June 2024

majority (65%) from the United States, included researchers using diverse methods with
varying degrees of experience. In their interviews, these 34 scholars discussed the benefits
of reflexive activities for both themselves and their research projects; obstacles that were
personal, project-related, professional, and systemic; a discrepancy between valuation and
actual use of reflexive practices; and the need to balance flexibility and rigor. The article con-
cludes with directions for further inquiry and suggestions for assessing the adequacy of reflex-
ivity in published studies.

KEY WORDS: qualitative research; reflexivity; rigor

R
eflexivity” is generally understood as suggestions for scholars, editors, and consumers of
awareness of the influence the researcher qualitative research.
has on the people or topic being stud-
ied, while simultaneously recognizing how the re- BACKGROUND
search experience is affecting the researcher (Gilgun, Reflexivity and Knowledge
2008). Reflexive engagement while planning, con- The term “reflexive” is used to denote actions that
ducting, and writing about research promotes an on- direct attention back to the self and foster a circular
going, recursive relationship between the researcher’s relationship between subject and object. Nonreflex-
subjective responses and the intersubjective dynamics ive actions, in contrast, are those that distinguish sub-
of the research process itself. ject from object, cause from effect, in a linear or
Although much has been written about the im- temporal relationship. Each approach rests on a dif-
portance of reflexivity in qualitative research, there ferent epistemology and leads to a different way of
has been no empirical study of how researchers ac- searching for knowledge. Epistemology, not meth-
tually practice reflexivity and integrate it into their odology, determines the place of reflexivity in a
work. The literature has focused largely on defini- particular study. A researcher may use qualitative
tion (for example, Finlay, 2002a; Pillow, 2003), or quantitative methods—for example, conduct a
utility (for example, Ben-Ari & Enosh, 2011), and participatory or community-based project using
typology (for example, Barusch, Gringeri, & George, surveys, observations, and focus groups—and, within
2011; D’Cruz, Gillingham, & Melendez, 2007; that study, be more or less reflexive.
Longhoefer & Floersch, 2012), yet there has been In research based on a positivist worldview, the
no study of qualitative researchers themselves to find “experimenter effect”—the impact of the research-
out how and why they engage in actions they con- er’s presence—is generally considered to be a meth-
sider “reflexive.” The purpose of this study was thus odological problem, a form of reactivity in which
to examine the role of reflexivity in qualitative so- a researcher’s biases cause him or her to uncon-
cial work research through the eyes of those who sciously influence participants, contaminating both
practice it, with particular interest in perceptions process and outcome; the more rigorously this in-
of reflexivity’s benefits, challenges, and limitations. fluence is minimized or isolated, the better the
Although the study is primarily descriptive, it also study. Within the constructivist paradigm, on the
includes prescriptive elements and concludes with other hand, reactivity is not seen as a problem to be

doi: 10.1093/swr/svu028 © 2015 National Association of Social Workers 37

reduced or overcome but as an essential element in emoting or interminable deconstructions of de-
the cocreation of knowledge (Ben-Ari & Enosh, constructions” (Finlay, 2002a, p. 226) where the re-
2011). The subject is always present in the object searcher can become hopelessly lost. Others agreed,
(Finlay, 2002b), and the researcher is always “written describing reflexivity as “muddy,” “messy,” a teem-
into the text” (Lynch, 2000); thus, both researcher ing mass of endlessly layered subjectivity that re-
and researched shape the encounter, and “research” quires the researcher to “come clean” (Brown, 2006;
becomes the collaborative construction of knowl- Pillow, 2003; Valandra, 2012).
edge rather than the discovery of knowledge as- Pillow (2003) cautioned against excessive reflex-
sumed to already exist. The measure of rigor is the ivity, “wading in the morass of our own position-
clarity with which both personal and relational ings” ( p. 175), and argued that reflexivity is not a
subjectivity have been identified and revealed, not way to solve the “problem” of subjectivity. “We
how thoroughly they have been “controlled for”

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/swr/article/39/1/37/1629726 by guest on 25 June 2024

do not escape from the consequences of our posi-
(Jootun, McGhee, & Marland, 2009). At the same tions by talking about them endlessly,” she wrote
time, as Lynch (2000) pointed out, the function (Pillow, 2003); reflexivity can be misused to imply
of reflexivity in this process is not quite clear. Some- that issues of inequity, bias, and misunderstanding
times it is seen as a way to enhance objectivity by have been adequately addressed just because the
“bracketing” the researcher’s subjectivity and there- researcher is aware of them. At the same time, she
by eliminating or reducing bias, while at other times stated, “I do not believe that the solution is then to
it is seen as a means for exposing false claims of ob- stop talking about our positions” (Pillow, 2003,
jectivity (Lynch, 2000). p. 177). She raised a concern, as others also have
Awareness of one’s subjectivity develops through (for example, Finlay, 2002a), about whether reflex-
an internal process that is supported by external ac- ivity is a distraction, focusing on the researcher’s
tivities (Probst & Berenson, 2014). Both are aspects internal processes and shifting attention away from
of reflexivity, which can be understood as a process the people or phenomenon being studied.
of self-examination (exploring one’s assumptions, Access to one’s motivations, biases, and reactions—
emotional reactions, cultural positioning) through the “stuff” of reflexivity—may not be as simple
specific actions (keeping a journal, debriefing with as it sounds, however. The very things that most
others, and so on) within a field of inquiry that is need to be seen are often the most deeply hidden
also an object of awareness. Reflexive researchers (Gemignani, 2011). The intellectual conviction
are, in essence, gazing in two directions at the same that self-awareness is important may not be suffici-
time. As they attend to what is taking place in the ent to expose masks and blind spots to self-scrutiny.
field of study, they become aware of their own A particular kind of skill and stamina may be need-
projections, attachments, assumptions, agendas, ed, because confronting one’s limitations, vulnera-
and biases—like an eye that sees itself while simul- bilities, and mistakes is not an easy task, even for the
taneously seeing the world. Ideally, this double most sincere researcher. Both novice and seasoned
perspective is present throughout the research en- researchers may feel uncomfortable, threatened,
deavor, from the selection of topics and populations and even resistant, though perhaps for different
to be studied to the presentation and dissemination reasons, to the idea of critically interrogating their
of findings (Probst & Berenson, 2014), affecting the own positions and emotional experiences (Hsiung,
way a project is conceptualized and the way it is 2008); researching sensitive topics can also trigger
experienced. unexpected and powerful reactions (Gilgun, 2008)
that are not so easily “managed away” by writing a
“Muddy” Nature of Reflexive Research memo. Because the process is so idiosyncratic, the
Reflexive analysis is challenging, fraught with dan- researcher cannot know in advance what will re-
ger. As Finlay warned, “The researcher treads a cliff quire reflexivity or what tool will serve best, so it
edge where it is all too easy to fall into an infinite may be difficult to build reflexivity into a study de-
regress of excessive self-analysis at the expense of sign. Here again, reflexivity asserts its “messy” nature.
focusing on the research participants” (Finlay, 2002b,
p. 532). She likened reflexivity to a “swamp,” a Evaluating Reflexivity
murky and confusing terrain of self-analysis and Perhaps the “muddiest” issue is whether reflexivity
self-disclosure rife with “endless narcissistic personal produces better research. Gilgun (2008) argued that

38 Social Work Research Volume 39, Number 1 March 2015

reflexivity opens the researcher to a fuller, more and by an apparent discrepancy between what re-
“connected knowing,” and Ben-Ari and Enosh searchers claim to value and what they claim to
(2011) described how reflexivity between inter- do, Gringeri et al. (2013) concluded that “the low
viewer and interviewee can be used for the con- rate of reflexivity in social work articles requires our
struction of new knowledge. Others, however, attention” ( p. 61).
have cautioned against assuming that just because Clearly, there is a paradox worth examining. On
we are reflexive our work is truer, better, or more the one hand, reflexivity is cited as an important tool
valuable. Reflexivity is not, as Pillow (2003) warned, for enhancing the rigor and trustworthiness of a
a cure for the problem of representing someone qualitative study (Gilgun, 2010;Gringeri et al., 2013;
else’s reality. Finlay (2002a) made a similar point: Longhofer & Floersch, 2012). It is often invoked, in
A researcher’s apparent openness does not guaran- fact, as the qualitative equivalent of tests of validity,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/swr/article/39/1/37/1629726 by guest on 25 June 2024

tee that the voices of participants have been faith- something qualitative researchers can point to as an
fully represented. evidentiary trail in their justification of claims to
Lynch (2000) also questioned the notion that knowledge. On the other hand, there is a persistent
reflexivity contrasts with or transforms an “unreflex- uncertainty about reflexivity’s contribution to rigor
ive” condition into something with greater “critical or knowledge. It seems difficult to study the topic in
potency and emancipatory potential” ( p. 36), and a systematic way. As Lynch (2000) and others noted,
thus more valuable or true. There is no inherent there are different kinds of reflexivity—awareness of
advantage to being reflexive, he noted, unless some- social positioning and power relations, documenta-
thing useful comes from it, nor does a reflexive tion of choices, cybernetic feedback loops, stepping
approach necessarily bring the researcher closer back to “break the frame,” methodological self-
to the meaning of a phenomenon (Lynch, 2000). consciousness or self-criticism—corresponding to
He especially challenged the sense of virtuousness different philosophical perspectives, research aims,
and “epistemological hubris that often seems to ac- and types of analysis. Varying from researcher to
company self-consciously reflexive claims” (Lynch, researcher, and from situation to situation even for
2000, p. 47). the same researcher, reflexivity appears to be inher-
The relation of reflexivity to rigor is part of the ently emergent and personal, eluding manualization.
broader question of how qualitative researchers can Still, the question remains whether or how one
“produce credible work when objectivity is no lon- can determine that a researcher has been “reflexive
ger assumed or even pursued” (Barusch et al., 2011, enough.” Is it possible to evaluate the reflexivity of
p. 11). Criteria for qualitative rigor tend to empha- a study without mechanizing something that is
size the relational aspects of knowledge construc- inherently idiosyncratic and co-constructed—that
tion, including transparency, reciprocity, and critical is, without imposing criteria from a dissonant epis-
self-reflection. And yet, in their review of qualita- temology? If so, how can that be done? And if not,
tive social work articles, Barusch and colleagues how can both reader and researcher feel comfort-
found a surprising absence of reflexive practice, able that sufficient reflexivity has been used?
with only 14% of authors they surveyed disclosing By asking qualitative researchers to be reflexive
information about background or positioning. This about their own reflexivity, this study opens the
does not mean, of course, that the other 86% of re- door to investigation of these important questions.
searchers were not reflexive. They may very well Providing insight into barriers and benefits of re-
have been reflexive in their data collection and anal- flexive research, this article offers suggestions for
ysis but did not include that information in pub- enhancing, supporting, and evaluating the use of re-
lished reports. flexivity in social work research.
Gringeri, Barusch, and Cambron (2013) reported
a similar discrepancy in their review of social work STUDY AIMS
publications. Although they cited theory and re- The study was undertaken to gather information
flexivity as the “twin pillars of rigorous qualitative about how qualitative social work researchers expe-
research” (Gringeri et al., 2013, p. 61), they found rience and incorporate reflexivity into their work. It
that only 16% of the articles in their sample incor- sought to identify specific actions researchers take to
porated reflexive accounts. Perplexed by social work- support or enact reflexivity (Probst & Berenson,
ers’ reluctance to situate themselves in their research 2014) and to explore how they view the benefits,

Probst / Benefits and Challenges of Reflexivity in Qualitative Social Work Research 39

challenges, and limitations of reflexivity. Research (England, Ireland, and Scotland), Australia, New
questions included the following: Zealand, Canada, and Israel. Based on self-reported
descriptions of their research experience, half were
• Benefits: What do qualitative social work re-
rated as highly experienced (n = 17), and approxi-
searchers perceive to be the benefits of reflex-
mately one-fourth each of medium (n = 9) and lim-
ivity? Beneficial for what or for whom?
ited (n = 8) experience. Most of those in the third
• Supports: Are there personal factors or external
group were doctoral students nearing completion
conditions that foster the use of reflexivity?
of their dissertations. Among the participants, 30%
• Challenges: What are the obstacles or draw-
(n = 10) were male and 70% (n = 24) were female.
backs? When reflexivity is not used, why not?
When asked about the specific qualitative approaches
• Potential dissonance: Are there any differences
they used (for example, ethnography, grounded
between how qualitative social work research-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/swr/article/39/1/37/1629726 by guest on 25 June 2024

theory), all described projects that spanned various
ers think about reflexivity and how they actu-
approaches, with the most common kinds of re-
ally use it? If so, what might be the source of
search experience being focus groups, thematic anal-
that dissonance?
ysis, narrative studies, content analysis, and grounded
METHOD
theory. Because no one self-identified as adhering
A realist epistemology served as the framework for to a single methodology, categories were nonex-
the research, because participants’ responses were clusive and it was not possible to link responses to
taken as offered (that is, literally) and analyzed the- particular qualitative methods.
matically across the data set. Because qualitative
Data Collection
research was itself the topic of study, a qualitative
approach to data collection, analysis, and interpre- Individual interviews lasting 45 to 60 minutes were
tation seemed appropriate. Within the qualitative conducted in person, via Skype, or by telephone.
paradigm, thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun Informed consent was obtained before each inter-
& Clarke, 2006) was chosen for its flexible yet view; interviews were audio-recorded and tran-
grounded approach. Thematic analysis is an induc- scribed. After providing background information,
tive method for identifying, analyzing, and report- participants were asked what reflexivity meant to
ing patterns within the data, allowing the researcher them and why they were interested in the study.
to use a bounded theoretical question as a starting To guard against premature closure based on as-
point for identifying themes that can shed light on sumptions about what reflexivity “ought” to look
an identified area of interest; themes can thus be like, an inclusive approach was selected to capture
theory driven or data driven. data that might otherwise slip through the semantic
net; thus, a range of experiences and practices were
Sampling explored, as was the use of these practices in both
Participation in the project was offered through fly- individual and group projects. Finally, participants
ers, sign-up sheets, and e-mail to members of the were asked what they felt were the benefits, obsta-
Listserv for the Qualitative Special Interest Group cles, and potential drawbacks to reflexivity.
(SIG) of the Society for Social Work and Research
(SSWR), individuals on the e-mail list for Soc- Author Positioning
ial Work Day of the International Congress on I have an ongoing interest in reflexivity stemming
Qualitative Inquiry, and other researchers who had from my professional work and personal mind-
expressed interest during workshops and conversa- fulness practice, and have conducted a number of
tions at SSWR’s annual conference in January 2012. sessions on reflexivity in qualitative research at pro-
The only inclusion criterion was experience con- fessional conferences. I knew approximately one-
ducting qualitative social work research, and all who third of the people interviewed, although only
volunteered were interviewed. Because there is no in broad professional contexts and, with one ex-
information about the total number of people on ception, not well. This shared community was use-
either Listserv, the response rate is not known. ful for recruitment. A number of people said they
A total of 34 people took part. Of these, 65% wanted to help a colleague or, as several joked, store
(n = 22) were from the United States, with the up “good research karma.” Engagement was not a
remaining 35% (n = 12) from the United Kingdom problem. Participants were interested in talking

40 Social Work Research Volume 39, Number 1 March 2015

about their work, and many stated at the end of et al. (2006) were taking place below the surface.
the interview that they had found the experience Assumptions of a shared understanding may have
extremely useful. masked important nuances, and some participants
Studying members of a group to which one may have presented themselves as more reflexive
belongs has both advantages and perils, of course. than they really were. The topic itself (described
As Chew-Graham, May, and Perry (2002) noted, on the informed consent form) may have conveyed
when interviewing someone who is a member of the assumption that reflexivity is a hallmark of
the same profession or known to the interviewer “good” qualitative research and evoked the desire
in a professional context, access may be easier, yet to seem like “good” researchers in the interviewer’s
prior knowledge can affect the way that the re- eyes. Although it is never possible to entirely rule
searcher is perceived, the kind of material that is out social desirability bias, numerous comments
about not being sure what reflexivity “really was”

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/swr/article/39/1/37/1629726 by guest on 25 June 2024

offered, and the way that material may be inter-
preted. Because of their common profession, inter- or wishing they had time to “do it more” seemed to
viewees may assume that the researcher sees things indicate an overall candor in interviewees’ responses.
the same way they do. Perception of the researcher From time to time I also offered examples of my
as a peer with a common language and shared un- own reflexivity. For instance, I shared with several
derstanding can make participants less cautious and people the mortification I felt in discovering that I
guarded, resulting in more genuine data or, in con- was competing with my own study participants,
trast, cause them to compete, seek to impress, or feeling jealous when they seemed “more reflexive”
collude with the researcher in “a case of shared con- than I was and then wanting to impress them by per-
ceptual blindness” (Chew-Graham et al., 2002, forming the identity of “expert researcher.” In this
p. 288). way, a parallel process took place between collecting
Wiles, Charles, Crow, and Heath (2006) ex- data about reflexivity in qualitative research while
plored some of the ethical issues that can arise when also experiencing reflexivity in qualitative research.
conducting research with fellow researchers, in-
cluding consent, data ownership, and management Data Analysis
of confidentiality and anonymity. They noted the Following data collection, iterative thematic coding
concern of many participants in their study about was carried out in stages. The data set was divided
giving the “right” answers, and the challenge of into three segments, each including a heteroge-
identifying private rather than public accounts (Wiles neous group of participants irrespective of when
et al., 2006). They also noted that fellow researchers, the interviews took place; one set of interviews
unlike laypeople, are aware of what participation in a was used for developing a theme book and other
research study may involve. two for successive testing and refining of the themes.
In the first stage, one-third of the interviews were
As researchers, our study participants under- independently coded by the researcher and a doctoral
stand what participating in a study will entail intern, who then compared and collapsed themes
because they know the “tricks of the trade”; into a collaborative preliminary code book. This
they know the data may be interpreted in ways tentative list of codes was checked against a second
that they did not intend, and they understand group of interviews to confirm, refine, and elabo-
what “confidentiality” and “anonymity” mean rate on the codes and to highlight fresh ideas that
in practice. This meant, for many of them, that were not yet represented. Themes endorsed or
they were cautious in how they presented them- articulated by this second group were noted, along
selves. (Wiles et al., 2006, p. 293) with additional nuances or alternative viewpoints.
A revised code book was developed and organized
Concerns expressed by participants in Wiles into a chart.
et al.’s study (2006), such as fear that the researcher The chart was shown to the third group of qual-
would “steal” their ideas or reveal their criticism of itative researchers so participants and individuals
fellow researchers, did not arise in this study; at least, similar to participants could review the preliminary
these concerns were not voiced. It is certainly pos- findings. Volunteers for these follow-up interviews
sible, of course, that some of the other issues raised were solicited at SSWR and through the SIG List-
by both Chew-Graham et al. (2002) and Wiles serv. Of the eight people who took part in this third

Probst / Benefits and Challenges of Reflexivity in Qualitative Social Work Research 41

set of interviews, three had been interviewed previ- ner as either “for oneself” or “for the project” and
ously and five had not. Four were experienced, challenges are noted as either personal or systemic,
three were mid-level, and one was relatively new. these distinctions are for ease of exposition only,
All but one were from the United States; 75% because most participants saw these processes as
were female. fluid and overlapping.
During this process, which served as both peer
review and member check, participants were asked Benefits of Reflexivity
to comment on anything they felt was omitted, un- Benefits of reflexivity included accountability, trust-
clear, or did not “ring true,” as well as any thoughts worthiness, richness, clarity, ethics, support, and per-
about their own experience of reflexivity. A num- sonal growth—beneficial for the integrity of the
ber of additional points emerged from these conver- research process, the quality of the knowledge gen-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/swr/article/39/1/37/1629726 by guest on 25 June 2024

sations, and the outline was expanded accordingly. erated, the ethical treatment of those being studied,
With this outline as a template, the interviews were and the researcher’s own well-being and personal
reviewed again for further refinement. Finally, growth.
findings were organized into a conceptual diagram For the Research Project. Participants considered
(see Figure 1) to illustrate relationships among key reflexivity essential for rigor because it made posi-
elements. tionality, subjectivity, and reactivity more transpar-
ent. “Being aware of your positioning in relation to
FINDINGS the research” and “knowing that there’s no neutral-
Respondents spoke candidly about the benefits and ity, however much people might claim they can
the difficulties of reflexivity. Although benefits are remain neutral in their research” provided a baseline
described below in a somewhat dichotomous man- of honesty and served as a check against naïve claims

Figure 1: Reflexivity in Qualitative Research

42 Social Work Research Volume 39, Number 1 March 2015

of purity or objectivity. Being reflexive “helps me Many also considered reflexivity helpful for the
remember what my voice is because, while my development of professional knowledge. “Using
voice is important, I need to see past it or hear reflexivity allows me to think through, test, wonder,
past it.” Reflexivity also provided a way to docu- and use it as a base to explore, all of those things,
ment choices, keep track of an evolving process, reflecting on what I heard in an interview, and then
and leave a trail that could be retraced later if choices looking at it from multiple places in myself.” Both
needed to be revisited. Memos and journals helped self-reflection and feedback from others offered new
to guard against forgetting or distorting what took layers of meaning, depth, and nuance.
place in earlier stages of a project and served as a For the Researcher. Self-awareness was also seen
reminder to keep an open mind. as beneficial for the researcher. It provided a frame-
In particular, reflexivity was seen as important for work for processing, sustaining, renewing, and
epistemological rigor. “To be aware of how you

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/swr/article/39/1/37/1629726 by guest on 25 June 2024

gaining insight both into the research and oneself.
conceptualize, why you conceptualize in that way,” As a tool for managing the research experience, it
to think about “how do I know this, or why am I could serve as a way to discharge and work through
saying this,” and to examine “the kind of questions intense, surprising, or upsetting issues and thus
you ask and what things may have happened in the avoid becoming sidetracked or emotionally de-
actual interviewing” were essential for participants pleted. Some participants saw reflexivity as a way
“because you’re making a case all the time for your to normalize one’s reactions, put them into context,
version of knowledge, and are you cutting off other and create appropriate distance; others noted that it
people all the time from their version?” Without could also help to unnormalize experience and sup-
recursive self-inquiry, assumptions masked as pro- port the effort to “lean into the discomfort” and
fessional expertise might infiltrate one’s work, un- open new perspectives. “Stepping back from the
dermining its authenticity or value. “It’s like, is the data, thinking about what’s in there and how I’m
unexamined life worth living, is the unexamined reacting to it” was seen as a helpful counterweight
study worth doing?” to the tendency to become overimmersed or over-
Closely related were the benefits of reflexivity for identified. “You have to know who you are, how
ethics. Ethics included the honesty of the investiga- you’re interacting, and what you’re feeling and
tor about his or her agenda, hopes, and potential for what role you’re playing in the data collection and
personal gain, and extended to openness about your analysis.” A qualitative researcher without self-
power relations, often covert, between researcher awareness cannot, participants agreed, be a good
and those being studied. Participants saw reflexivity researcher.
as a way to promote trust, equity, integrity, and By Type of Reflexive Activity. Speaking with
respect for those being studied, as well as a way to others provided an opportunity to “bounce ideas
guard against the self-deception and further ineq- off people who are less directly immersed” and can
uity that can result when power imbalance is not “call me on things about my understanding that I
acknowledged. may have missed or taken for granted.” Other peo-
“You can’t look at other people’s lives without ple can bring awareness of blind spots and “sticky
looking at what else is going on in you” because moments,” opening up multiple or alternative view-
“reflexivity means testing the knowledge–power points. Debriefing and working through problems
relationship that’s going on in that process all the with others was seen as a “way to hold myself ac-
time.” Participants were keenly aware of power countable and to manage my own bias and reactivity,
issues in the research process, the question of whose to see what you’re unable to see in your own work,”
knowledge or authority was being upheld, and the thus adding to transparency and trustworthiness.
distaste of benefiting from someone else’s story. Writing fostered recognition and clarification of
Reflexivity could help to bring these issues into salient moments, and “helps me keep my voice sep-
the light and to work through specific ethical arate in my head from the voices of the partici-
dilemmas that might arise. “It’s a way of trying to pants.” It also provided a tangible way to recall
be as honest as we can about what we’re doing, a what might otherwise be forgotten or altered in
way of testing ourselves that we’re being honest memory, a record of observations and ideas that
about what we’re bringing and what we’re drawing could be pondered at future intervals. Not simply
from the research.” writing but also reading what one wrote helped

Probst / Benefits and Challenges of Reflexivity in Qualitative Social Work Research 43

to keep track of how decisions were made and to that contribute to multifaceted understanding. As
guard against premature closure. one respondent noted, “Team reflexivity is some-
thing different, it’s not just a collection of each per-
Research unfolds over time and I find that it is son’s individual reflexivity.”
easy to forget initial ideas and thoughts as I
become more familiar with something. There Challenges to Reflexivity
are things that are potentially relevant to the Obstacles and drawbacks to reflexivity were per-
project but not immediately pertinent at the sonal, project-related, and systemic.
moment, so it provides a record of experiences Personal Challenges. Personal challenges for the
to refresh my memory. researcher centered on managing emotional re-
sponses to the material or people studied (overporos-
Returning to the raw data “helps the researcher ity, emotional flooding, feeling overwhelmed or

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/swr/article/39/1/37/1629726 by guest on 25 June 2024

to keep from falling in love with a particular inter- triggered) that reflexivity might uncover, or the
pretation or path. Despite one’s best efforts, one gets self-doubt and anxiety evoked by questioning one’s
fixed into a view of the messages from the research, assumptions and beliefs. Reflexivity can be a pow-
and these need unsettling.” It helped to “make sure erful experience. As others have noted (for example,
that I’m staying true to the data, true to participants’ Gilgun, 2008; Hsiung, 2008), it can evoke discom-
perspective throughout the process, and not going fort, frustration, vulnerability, and unwanted emo-
off in a different direction.” Returning to the con- tions, especially in a new researcher.
text of data collection “adds a layer of understand-
ing about the impact I have on the data.” Also, When you first start, it is scarier or feels riskier
than after you have been doing it for a while be-
Thinking about the context acts as an orient- cause of our nature to judge ourselves, and if
ing tool that allows me to be mindful of my you are really going to be reflexive, you need
own role throughout the research process. to find a way to be okay with our own foibles,
Being aware of all I take into the research pro- mistakes, things you didn’t do quite so well.
cess and how my history, perspectives, etc.,
influence what I ask, how I hear the answers, The line between openness and intolerable raw-
and what I choose to report in the findings. ness could be difficult to navigate. “Sometimes ask-
ing others for comments opens up more than I had
Returning reflexively to the literature “can affirm or anticipated. Being open to unexpected or critical
challenge your material and make you examine it more feedback is sometimes quite painful.”
critically.” Pondering what has already been written Many respondents reported using additional
helped to position the researcher, identify limits to his supports such as mindfulness, contemplation, psy-
or her understanding, and situate findings in existing chotherapy, creative writing, or “venting” with
knowledge. “We must know what we already know, friends. They differed, however, in whether they
what we need to know, how our work conflicts with felt reflexivity aggravated or mitigated the sense of
or agrees with that knowledge. Research is about being overwhelmed and flooded. Some felt that
building knowledge, which means knowing what is this would happen anyway and that self-awareness
already there and how our work fits in.” helped to manage the feelings, making them less
Reflexivity could be especially important when traumatic; others felt that focusing on areas of per-
working as part of an interdisciplinary research team sonal sensitivity made the researcher more vulnera-
where members approach knowledge differently ble and traumatized.
(Malacrida, 2007; Paulus, Woodside, & Zeigler, Project-related Challenges. Time constraints were
2010). Shared awareness of the criteria each uses to the most frequently cited obstacle. Reflexivity took
formulate categories—the assumptions, filters, and time and self-discipline, participants agreed, espe-
professional stance inherent in each discipline— cially after long days of field observation, and was
contributes to the trustworthiness of study findings. not always feasible because of pressure to move at
The aim of collaborative reflexivity between team a rapid pace or attend to other commitments.
members was not seen as reaching consensus, but “The first challenge is time. The second challenge
as articulating the differing assumptions and agendas for me probably would be not being patient enough

44 Social Work Research Volume 39, Number 1 March 2015

to let it unfold because I think being reflexive and working on a group project and members of your
taking time to do it well can be a slow and painful group are not naturally reflexive or the need for
process.” process isn’t shared.” The biggest challenge was
Many also noted the potential for narcissistic dis- “believing in reflexivity enough to be able to put
tortion or inappropriate emphasis on the researcher’s up with accusations of taking too long, not meeting
experience, leading to deflection from the research deadlines, or being self-indulgent.”
focus by making the researcher more important Other participants cited a lack of training, prep-
than the researched. “Reflexivity can go too far,” aration, or the availability of clear or consistent
some cautioned, “when the researchers were way guidelines for assessing whether one has been ade-
too much thinking about themselves.” quately reflexive. Knowing when to disclose per-
sonal reflections was a related concern. Sharing

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/swr/article/39/1/37/1629726 by guest on 25 June 2024

I’ve seen some material where self-reflexivity one’s biases or doubts was not always useful, espe-
almost goes into what I would call self- cially if those being studied were hostile or might
indulgence, and I don’t like it. Some of the stuff be influenced by what they learned about the
that people write about is really just biographi- researcher. For many participants, there was a dis-
cal. I don’t need to know that. I don’t need to crepancy between valuation of reflexivity—what
hear the person in the publication—I don’t they believed they ought to do—and their actual
need to hear all of their doubts and all of their use of reflexive practices. Reasons for this discrep-
going back and forth, and all of that; it just ancy were linked to the obstacles and limitations
doesn’t work, to me. they encountered in their attempt to put into prac-
tice the self- and collaborative reflection they be-
Objections to reflexivity as self-indulgence had lieved was so important for their work.
to do with published reports, however, not neces-
sarily with its use during the research process, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
which might or might not find its way into the Clearly, interest in qualitative research and respect
written presentation. Here again, there was a dif- for the qualitative paradigm continue to grow. More
ference of opinion, with some feeling that the social work graduate students are attracted to qual-
more rigorously one engaged in reflexivity, the itative research; more professional journals accept
less the likelihood of inappropriate “navel gazing” qualitative studies; and more time is devoted to
and narcissistic distortion. qualitative research at professional conferences. Thus,
External or Systemic Challenges. A lack of val- it is vital for qualitative scholars to be able to artic-
uation by colleagues, administrators, funders, and ulate what they have learned and to transmit that
journals was a major concern. Many participants knowledge to the next generation of researchers
felt that explicit endorsement of reflexivity could who will need to become skilled users and skilled
threaten their credibility with tenure committees producers of qualitative scholarship.
operating from a quantitative model; one person As many participants in this study noted, how-
even said that he had been advised to remove a ever, the quantitative paradigm with its equation of
highly reflexive published article from his portfolio. measurement with evidence continues to dominate
This kind of vigilance could make people feel de- academia. Subjectivity, ambivalence, partial and
fensive, torn, devaluing the sense of themselves as multiple meanings, and the constructed nature of
professionals. In addition, the pressure to publish knowledge carry little currency within this para-
made it tempting to move projects forward quickly digm. Time constraints and pressure to produce
or to jettison reflexive activities that were unlikely research with “hard” findings, especially in tenure-
to be included in the final report. track positions, may inhibit the incorporation of
Isolation from supportive peers engaged in simi- reflexivity into both the research process and the
lar reflexive research was a related concern. “You written report. It is difficult to know, of course,
need colleagues who believe in and practice reflex- whether the scarcity of reflexive accounts in pub-
ivity to be able to maintain your own resilience.” lished studies (Barusch et al., 2011; Gringeri et al.,
This was not always possible, however, because 2013) means that reflexivity was absent from the re-
“coresearchers and peers aren’t always as keen search process itself. It is possible, as Gringeri et al.
to participate in reflexivity as I am . . . if you’re (2013) suggested, that researchers have indeed been

Probst / Benefits and Challenges of Reflexivity in Qualitative Social Work Research 45

reflexive but do not include those reflexive accounts expectations on using and revealing reflexivity
in their manuscripts because they believe journal in one’s research? Are there tacit messages and
editors and reviewers do not expect it, or because unspoken barriers? If so, how might this be
they believe it would decrease their chances of addressed at the institutional or professional
publication and professional advancement. Barusch level? For instance, how explicit or flexible
et al. (2011) offered a similar suggestion that social should policies be about the way research is
work authors may fear that self-disclosure would taught and the way it is evaluated by tenure
be “unprofessional” or inconsistent with journal committees?
editors’ expectations and preferences, a finding sup- • Electronic reporting in journals: What are the pos-
ported by this study. sibilities for including description of reflexive
Lack of training also appears to be an issue. Sev- practices in published work, given the expan-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/swr/article/39/1/37/1629726 by guest on 25 June 2024

eral participants commented that they would like sion of journals into electronic formats? While
to “do more reflexivity” but had not been formally keeping to page limits for the main document,
or adequately trained, pointing to a need to exam- are there ways to offer electronic links to sup-
ine, and perhaps modify, how qualitative research is plementary material about the reflexive “back
taught. It is not enough to espouse reflexivity as a story”? Should this become standard practice
value; students must be given models, tools, oppor- for qualitative manuscripts?
tunities to learn by doing, and a place for including • Supporting reflexivity outside the research project:
reflexive accounts in dissertations. Are there informal actions or personal qual-
The skillful use of reflexivity can pose a number ities, extrinsic to the research process itself,
of additional challenges. One difficulty, noted by that foster reflexivity? Without intruding on
several respondents, is that we can only reflect on students’ or scholars’ privacy ( for example,
what strikes us as requiring reflection, what we without making psychotherapy, collabora-
become aware of with our conscious minds, al- tion, or mindfulness a requirement), how
though other forces may be operating and affecting might these beneficial practices be supported?
the research. One can only be reflexive up to a What are the ethical and practical challenges
point on one’s own, and the very things one most of doing so?
needs to examine may be those that are most deeply
hidden. Supervision and peer debriefing can help, Reflexivity is an important tool that enables the
as several respondents noted. researcher to stay engaged in critical self-awareness
Another question has to do with the relationship throughout the research process. It is the embodi-
between reflexivity, the disclosure of oneself to one- ment of an epistemology in which the knower is
self, and disclosure to others. To what extent should always present, a way of looking that gazes outward
the fruits of self-awareness and self-interrogation be at what is taking place while sustaining an inward
shared with those one is studying? From one per- gaze at the looker. More than just a vehicle for hon-
spective, transparency with participants can help esty or management of the research experience,
to build trust, repair power imbalance, and foster reflexivity offers a means for using self-knowledge
the co-creation of knowledge. At the same time, to inform and enhance the research endeavor. As
self-disclosure moves the researcher more forcefully such, it has broad applicability for social work
“into the room,” perhaps too much so, just as self- research regardless of methodology. That is, it
disclosure by the therapist in psychotherapy can is equally relevant and valuable for qualitative,
move the work forward or divert it (Gemignani, quantitative, and mixed methods projects (see, for
2011). Put another way, what should researchers instance, Ryan & Golden, 2006).
do with the products of their self-reflections? Is Assessing the adequacy of a study’s reflexivity
there a way to put reflexivity’s output to use that remains problematic, however. As noted earlier,
can effectively balance its benefits and limitations? the absence of explicit mention of an author’s re-
Other themes that invite further exploration in- flexivity does not mean there was none. What,
clude the following: then, to look for? The notion of establishing bench-
marks applicable across a range of designs risks ob-
• Professional expectations and issues of status: What jectification of what is inherently idiosyncratic, yet
is the impact of professional pressures and editors and readers need guidelines for determining

46 Social Work Research Volume 39, Number 1 March 2015

if reflexivity is present. The following questions are Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3,
far from a blueprint but represent a sample of what 77–101.
might be asked: Brown, J. (2006). Reflexivity in the research process: Psy-
choanalytic observations. International Journal of Social
• Agenda: Is there note of the author’s back- Research Methodology, 9(3), 181–197.
Chew-Graham, C. A., May, R. R., & Perry, M. S. (2002).
ground, previous scholarship, or the genesis Qualitative research and the problem of judgment:
of the project, other than the usual “gap in Lessons from interviewing fellow professionals. Family
the literature”? Why was the study under- Practice, 19(3), 285–289.
D’Cruz, H., Gillingham, P., & Melendez, S. (2007).
taken? Why does it matter, and to whom? Reflexivity, its meanings and relevance for social work:
• Process: Was there more than one step in the A critical review of the literature. British Journal of Social
Work, 37, 73–90.
analysis? Were there any opportunities to reas- Finlay, L. (2002a). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity
sess or revise? and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qual-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/swr/article/39/1/37/1629726 by guest on 25 June 2024

• Intersubjectivity: Who else was included in itative Research, 2(2), 209–230.
Finlay, L. (2002b). “Outing” the researcher: The prove-
interpretation of the data? Was anyone invited nance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative
to co-construct or review the findings? How Health Research, 12, 531–545.
Gemignani, M. (2011). Between researcher and researched:
convincing are the author’s claims of trustwor- An introduction to counter-transference in qualitative
thiness, beyond his or her own perspective? inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 701–708.
Gilgun, J. F. (2008). Lived experience, reflexivity, and
• Self-interrogation: Are any contradictory or dis- research on perpetrators of interpersonal violence.
confirming data presented, or does everything Qualitative Social Work, 7(2), 181–197.
fit (too) neatly into tidy categories? Gilgun, J. F. (2010). Reflexivity and qualitative research.
Current Issues in Qualitative Research, 1(2). Retrieved
• Audit trail: Is there mention of how the from http://www.scribd.com/doc/35787948/
author kept track of choices, hunches, and Reflexivity-and-Qualitative-Research
Gringeri, C., Barusch, A., & Cambron, C. (2013). Episte-
interpretations? mology in qualitative social work research: A review of
published articles, 2008–2010. Social Work Research, 37,
Although few manuscripts will offer explicit 55–63.
evidence on all these points, the absence of any evi- Hsiung, P. C. (2008). Teaching reflexivity in qualitative
interviewing. Teaching Sociology, 36, 211–226.
dence does raise a question about whether reflexiv- Jootun, D., McGhee, G., & Marland, G. R. (2009).
ity was incorporated into the research. Reflexivity: Promoting rigour in qualitative research.
Nursing Standard, 23(23), 42–46.
Despite its “messiness,” reflexivity remains a fun- Longhofer, J., & Floersch, J. (2012). The coming crisis
damental way, particularly in qualitative studies, to in social work: Some thoughts on social work
and science. Research on Social Work Practice, 22,
bolster credibility by parsing the research endeavor 499–519.
into its mutually affecting parts and documenting Lynch, M. (2000). Against reflexivity as an academic virtue
the pathways through which knowledge was gener- and source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture
and Society, 17(3), 26–54.
ated. This is particularly critical in social work Malacrida, C. (2007). Reflexive journaling on
research, because decisions about policies and emotional research topics: Ethical issues for team
researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 17,
practices affecting the nation’s most vulnerable pop- 1329–1339.
ulations rely heavily on the strength of research Paulus, T. M., Woodside, M., & Zeigler, M. R. (2010).
findings. Consumers of social work research, as “I tell you, it’s a journey, isn’t it?”: Understanding
collaborative meaning making in qualitative research.
well as those whom their work ultimately serves, Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 852–862.
should be able to trust the authenticity of the Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethink-
ing the uses of reflexivity as methodological power
knowledge offered to them. The practice of reflex- in qualitative research. Qualitative Studies in Education,
ivity can support this aim. 16(2), 175–196.
Probst, B., & Berenson, L. (2014). The double arrow: How
qualitative social work researchers use reflexivity.
REFERENCES Qualitative Social Work, 13, 813–827.
Barusch, A., Gringeri, C., & George, M. (2011). Rigor in Ryan, L., & Golden, A. (2006). Tick the box, please:
qualitative social work research: A review of strategies A reflexive approach to doing quantitative social
used in published articles. Social Work Research, 35, research. Sociology, 40, 1191–1200.
11–19. Valandra, V. (2012). Reflexivity and professional use
Ben-Ari, A., & Enosh, G. (2011). Processes of reflectivity: of self in research: A doctoral student’s journey.
Knowledge construction in qualitative research. Qual- Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research, 6,
itative Social Work, 10(2), 152–171. 204–220.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Wiles, R., Charles, V., Crow, G., & Heath, S. (2006).
Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, Researching researchers: Lessons for research ethics.
CA: Sage Publications. Qualitative Research, 6, 283–299.

Probst / Benefits and Challenges of Reflexivity in Qualitative Social Work Research 47

Barbara Probst, PhD, is lecturer and adjunct instructor, School
for Social Work, Smith College, Lilly Hall, Northampton, MA
01063; e-mail: [email protected].
Original manuscript received September 6, 2013
Final revision received December 17, 2013
Accepted February 10, 2014
Advance Access Publication January 14, 2015

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/swr/article/39/1/37/1629726 by guest on 25 June 2024

48 Social Work Research Volume 39, Number 1 March 2015