Reflexive Methodology 95

In this section, I consider notions of reflexivity, and the implications for ‘reflexive methodology’ an approach that underpins the current study. I view reflexive methodology as an approach to research in which the researcher explicitly adopts a reflexive gaze with respect to the conduct of research and its interpretation. Reflexivity has been an important topic of attention throughout this dissertation, but reflexivity is also a slippery concept, and discerning exactly what reflexivity is and how it can be integrated into a study can be a challenge.

Davies et al. (2004) suggest that engaging in reflexivity allows one to “turn one’s reflexive gaze on discourse—turning language back on itself to see the work it does in constituting the world” (p. 361). A number of thinkers contend that reflexivity involves thinking critically about the world we take for granted (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992; Taylor & White, 2000; Kinsella & Whiteford, 2009). Definitions of reflexivity frequently speak to its’ critical nature. Kinsella and Whiteford (2009) suggest “reflexivity goes beyond pragmatic reflection to embrace a critical dimension and to carefully interrogate the very conditions under which knowledge claims are accepted and constructed” (p. 251). Maxine Greene’s (1995) image of a “cloud of givenness, of what is considered ‘natural’ by those caught in the taken-for-granted, in the everydayness of things” (p. 47) calls for reflexivity. This cloud houses languages and acts of domination, entitlement, power, and most importantly silences; silences that she suggests “our pedagogies ought somehow to repair” (Greene, 1995, p.47). Reflexivity also focuses on an interrogation of how language is used, recognizing the capacity for language “to contain and restrain thought as well as its productive possibilities” (Davies, et al., 2004, p. 364). Hesse-Biber & Piatelli (2007) suggest that reflexivity can assist researchers to critically examine how their theoretical assumptions and personal biographies shape what they choose to study and with what approach and methods.

Although reflexivity is often called for in qualitative research, Alvesson and Sköldberg (2009) note that methodologies themselves can be reflexive. They contend that reflexive methodologies draw attention to the complexities of processes of knowledge production/generation and its relationship with the various contexts of such processes, as well as the involvement of the “knowledge producer” (p. 8). Reflexive methodologies

involve forefronting ‘careful’ interpretation of the research, calling for the “utmost awareness of the theoretical assumptions, the importance of language and pre- understanding, all of which constitute major determinants of the interpretation” (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009, p. 9). It also involves forefronting reflection—

turn[ing] attention ‘inwards’ towards the person of the researcher, the relevant research community, society as a whole, intellectual and cultural traditions, and the central importance, as well as the problematic nature, of language and narrative (the form of presentation) in the research context. (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009, p.9)

Indeed for Alvesson and Sköldberg, it is this level of reflexivity that assures the empirical value of qualitative research. And, as Hesse-Biber and Piatelli (2007) point out, it also fosters less hierarchical and more ethical, socially relevant research. This perspective is similar to that of Sandra Harding (1993) and her notions of strong objectivity and strong reflexivity. Harding (1986, 1993) acknowledges the importance of situating the self and the research, and being reflexive about our position within the research. She asserts that strong objectivity and strong reflexivity creates a reflexive science, “one that better reflects the world around us and one that acknowledges that researchers bring their biographies, their experiences, and their knowledge into the field of research” (Hesse- Biber & Piatelli, 2007, p. 497).

When beginning to consider case study as my methodology of choice, I had a unique opportunity to engage in a reflexive dialogue with Dr. Bill Green, Professor of Education at Charles Sturt University. Dr. Green challenged me to think about ethics and intersubjectivity in case study research, pointing out the importance of seeing the case

study as a text, and how the researcher plays a role in constructing that text. Thomas (2011) underlines this point when he states “case study offers understanding presented from another’s ‘horizon of meaning’, but understood from one’s own” (p.32). As does Flyvbjerg (2006) who contends that the reader should be invited to interrogate the actors’ and narrators’ interpretations. In recognizing the complexity of the intersubjective

encounter and the implications for interpretation, the moral and ethical imperatives of reflexivity become even more pertinent. In considering intersubjective encounters and the process of interpretation, Alvesson and Sköldberg (2009) write:

The research process constitutes a (re)construction of the social reality in which researchers both interact with the agents researched and, actively interpreting, continually create images for themselves and for others: images which selectively highlight certain claims as to how conditions and processes—experiences,

situations, relations—can be understood, thus suppressing alternative interpretations. (p. 10)

Recognizing the importance of reflecting upon my interpretations, and viewing the case study as a text, I am conscious of the need to consider the lenses and perspectives that inform my interpretations. In addition, reflection on how my interpretations are constructed, how the participants are represented, how others might interpret the data, and what/whose perspectives are absent or silenced is important. Further, I hope to interrogate my position, to the extent possible, to understand why I have rendered the interpretations I have made. As Hesse-Biber and Piatelli (2007) remind us, “reflexive researchers and writers are responsible for and indebted to the very texts that they shape, because it is the text and in it the reflexive self that is externalized, taking on a material

life of its own” (p. 497). Some of these reflections are discussed further in chapter seven and chapter eight.

The stories emerging through these case studies are represented through a

combination of voices. My socio-cultural perspective (elaborated in chapter two) plays a significant role in shaping the design of the research and therefore influences the

perspectives elicited from the participants. Perhaps more prominently, my disability studies perspective sees, hears, witnesses, and presents a story in a particular way, reflecting the social dimensions of disability from a critical perspective (described in chapter three). Such a perspective no doubt draws my attention to particular kinds of data, quotes and images. Being reflexive about how the process of research design, data

collection, data analysis, and the act of writing and representation impacts the way the cases and case findings are taken up by the reader is an essential part of the research process. A deeper discussion about my experience engaging in reflexivity throughout the research process, and its connection with ethical research practice, is presented in both chapter seven and chapter eight.