Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research
Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research
复制标题
坦白，宣泄，还是治愈？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
W. Pillow
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Pillow
反身性通常用于定性研究，已经被认为是定性研究人员可以而且应该用来合法化、验证和质疑研究实践和表述的一种方法。本文考察了反身性作为一种方法论工具的作用，因为它与定性研究中围绕表征和合法化的争论和问题相交，在现代主义和后现代主义意识形态中，并密切关注反身性在当今研究中是如何被定义和使用的。具体地说，作者指出并讨论了当今使用反身性的四种常见趋势的问题：反身性是对自我的认识，反身性是对他人的认识，反身性是真理，反身性是超越性。作者主张从舒适的反身性使用转向她所说的不舒服的反身性练习，并概述了三位练习不舒适的反身性练习的作者的工作。练习令人不快的反身性打断了反身性作为一种方法工具的使用，以获得更好的数据，同时领先于从事定性研究的复杂性。
Reflexivity is commonly used in qualitative research and has been posited and accepted as a method qualitative researchers can and should use to legitimize, validate, and question research practices and representations. This paper closely examines the role of reflexivity as a methodological tool as it intersects with debates and questions surrounding representation and legitimization in qualitative research, within modernist and postmodernist ideologies, and pays close attention to how reflexivity is being defined and used in present-day research. Specifically, the author identifies and discusses the problematics of four common trends in present-day uses of reflexivity: reflexivity as recognition of self, reflexivity as recognition of other, reflexivity as truth, and reflexivity as transcendence. The author argues for a move away from comfortable uses of reflexivity to what she terms uncomfortable reflexive practices and provides an overview of the work of three authors who practice reflexivities of discomfort. Practicing uncomfortable reflexivity interrupts uses of reflexivity as a methodological tool to get better data while forefronting the complexities of doing engaged qualitative research.