reflexive journal

Reflexivity: 10 Articles on the Role of Reflection in Qualitative Research

Reflexivity in qualitative research“Reflexivity: 10 Articles on the Role of Reflection in Qualitative Research” is a new compilation of selected articles appearing in Research Design Review from 2012 to 2019 concerning the critical role of reflexivity in qualitative research data gathering & analysis. There are many other articles in RDR that discuss reflexivity and the reflexive journal, e.g., as one factor in mitigating bias within a particular method — such as “In-depth Interviewer Effects: Mitigating Interviewer Bias,” “Ethnography: Mitigating Observer Bias,” and “Narrative Research: Considerations in Gathering Quality Data” — and the role reflexivity plays in verification — such as “Verification: Looking Beyond the Data in Qualitative Data Analysis” — as well as transparency — such as “Transparent Qualitative Research: The Total Quality Framework Transparency Component” and “25 Ingredients to ‘Thicken’ Description & Enrich Transparency in Ethnography.”

However, in the articles chosen for this compilation, reflexivity plays the starring role and is central to the discussions of bias, “qualitative literacy,” gathering data in the field, and conducting research with the most vulnerable and marginalized populations.

“Reflexivity: 10 Articles on the Role of Reflection in Qualitative Research” is available for download here.

Four other recent compilations are also available for download:

“The Focus Group Method: 18 Articles on Design & Moderating is available for download here.

“The In-depth Interview Method: 12 Articles on Design & Implementation” is available for download here.

“Qualitative Data Analysis: 16 Articles on Process & Method” is available for download here.

“Qualitative Research: Transparency & Reporting” is available for download here.

“Did I Do Okay?”: The Case for the Participant Reflexive Journal

It is not unusual for an in-depth interview (IDI) or focus group participant to wonder at some point in an interview or discussion if the participant “did okay”; that is, whether the participant responded to the researcher’s questions in the Reflexivitymanner in which the researcher intended. For instance, an interviewer investigating parents’ healthy food purchases for their children might ask a mother to describe a typical shopping trip to the grocery store. In response, the mother might talk about the day of the week, the time of day, where she shops, and whether she is alone or with her children or someone else. After which she might ask the interviewer, Is that the kind of thing you were looking for? Is that what you mean? Did I do okay in answering your question? The interviewer’s follow up might be, Tell me something about the in-store experience such as the sections of the store you visit and the kinds of food items you typically buy.

It is one thing to misinterpret the intention of a researcher’s question – e.g., detailing the logistics of food purchasing rather than the actual food purchase experience – but another thing to adjust responses based on any number of factors influenced by the researcher-participant interaction. These interaction effects stem, in part, from the participant’s attempt to “do okay” in their role in the research process. Dr. Kathryn Roulston at the University of Georgia has written quite a bit about interaction in research interviews, including an edited volume Interactional Studies of Qualitative Research Interviews.

The dynamics that come into play in an IDI or focus group study – and in varying degrees, ethnographic research – are of great interest to qualitative researchers and important considerations in the overall quality of the research. This is the reason that a lot has been written about the researcher’s reflexive journal and its importance in Read Full Text

Reflections on “Qualitative Literacy”

In March 2018, Mario Luis Small gave a public lecture at Columbia University on “Rhetoric and Evidence in a Polarized Society.” In this terrific must-read speech, Small asserts that today’s public Mario Luis Smalldiscourse concerning society’s most deserving issues – poverty, inequality, and economic opportunity – has been seriously weakened by the absence of “qualitative literacy.” Qualitative literacy has to do with “the ability to understand, handle, and properly interpret qualitative evidence” such as ethnographic and in-depth interview (IDI) data. Small contrasts the general lack of qualitative literacy with the “remarkable improvement” in “quantitative literacy” particularly among those in the media where data-driven journalism is on the rise, published stories are written with a greater knowledge of quantitative data and use of terminology (e.g., the inclusion of means and medians), and more care is given to the quantitative evidence cited in media commentary (i.e., op-eds).

Small explains that the extent to which a researcher (or journalist or anyone involved in the use of research) possesses qualitative literacy can be determined by looking at the person’s ability to “assess whether the ethnographer has collected and evaluated fieldnote data properly, or the interviewer has conducted interviews effectively and analyzed the transcripts properly.” This determination serves as the backbone of “basic qualitative literacy” which enables the research user to identify the difference between a rigorous qualitative study and Read Full Text