Suchergebnisse

Modernity is the era of the self-made person: the moderns create themselves by self-reflexivity and make their world – society – in their own image. That the social world is reflexive means that its dynamics become independent of its constructors. It is not made of individuals but of a non-subjective communication. The volume analyzes this double reflexivity from an interdisciplinary perspective, focusing both on individual and social narratives.

PurposeThis paper acts as a commentary on the paper "Self‐reflexivity scrutinized: (pro‐)feminist men learning that gender matters" (Styhre and Tienari, 2013).Design/methodology/approachThe following discussion seeks to build on Styhre and Tienari's argumentation and points to arguments of agreement and disagreement.FindingsFirst, the authors argue that while self‐reflexivity cannot be fully taken into account it would be detrimental to social change to restrict it to accidental, haphazard happenings. Second, they argue that perhaps Styhre and Tienari do not always take self‐reflexivity far enough. In order to increase our understanding of why particular kinds of structural hierarchies take place in academia, it is important to locate these incidents within a system of practices that contribute to the marginalisation/privileging of certain groups of people.Practical implicationsThe authors further see it as a researcher's moral obligation to at least attempt to overcome the identity‐related, cultural, political and structural conditions that make self‐reflexivity difficult, tiresome and emotionally constraining. We should encourage ourselves to have an ongoing conversation with our whole self about what we are experiencing as we are experiencing it, not only after a critical incident has taken place.Originality/valueIn conclusion, the authors are more inclined to argue along the lines of Alvessonet al., who see reflexivity as a skill or capacity that can be developed, while remaining in consensus with Styhre and Tienari that it can never be fully under the control of the researcher or practitioner.

At a time when a global pandemic has disrupted lives to a large extent across the globe, doing research has become ever more complex, challenging and uncertain. Such unexpected shifts in the dynamics of research, resulting in unpredictable consequences, have prompted the author to further reflect on her positionality as a researcher writing LGBTQI history. In this paper, the author joins scholars who propose self-reflexivity as both an analytical and ethical tool in understanding volatile research contexts. In gender and sexuality studies much has been written about the importance of self-reflexivity in understanding the impact of researchers' social and epistemic locations in knowledge production. The paper argues that self-reflexive practice is especially important in studying the histories of gender and sexual identities in a multiply colonised society such as the Philippines. The author reflects on her own identity and its continuing impact on her research process. Through a decolonial lens, she uses the Filipino psychological concept of pagkatao and unpacks its multi-layered meanings as selfhood, humanness and human dignity - three crucial elements in writing the history of identities.

Because the researcher is the instrument in semistructured or unstructured qualitative interviews, unique researcher characteristics have the potential to influence the collection of empirical materials. This concept, although widely acknowledged, has garnered little systematic investigation. This article discusses the interviewer characteristics of three different interviewers who are part of a qualitative research team. The researcher/interviewers – and authors of this article – reflect on their own and each other's interviews and explore the ways in which individual interview practices create unique conversational spaces. The results suggest that certain interviewer characteristics may be more effective than others in eliciting detailed narratives from respondents depending on the perceived sensitivity of the topic, but that variation in interviewer characteristics may benefit rather than detract from the goals of team-based qualitative inquiry. The authors call for the inclusion of enhanced self-reflexivity in interviewer training and development activities and argue against standardization of interviewer practices in qualitative research teams.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate on reflexivity in organization and management studies by scrutinizing the possibilities of self‐reflexivity.Design/methodology/approachBy means of auto‐ethnography, the authors analyze their own experiences as (pro‐)feminist men in the field of gender studies.FindingsThe authors argue that self‐reflexivity is partial, fragmentary and transient: it surfaces in situations where the authors' activities and identities as researchers are challenged by others and they become aware of their precarious position.Originality/valueThe paper's perspective complements more instrumental understandings of self‐reflexivity, and stimulates further debate on its limits as well as potential.

While organizational ethnographers have embraced the concept of self-reflexivity, problems remain. In this article we argue that the prevalent assumption that self-reflexivity is the sole responsibility of the individual researcher limits its scope for understanding organizations. To address this, we propose an innovative method of collective reflection that is inspired by ideas from cultural and feminist anthropology. The value of this method is illustrated through an analysis of two ethnographic case studies, involving a 'pair interview' method. This collective approach surfaced self-reflexive accounts, in which aspects of the research encounter that still tend to be downplayed within organizational ethnographies, including emotion, intersubjectivity and the operation of power dynamics, were allowed to emerge. The approach also facilitated a second contribution through the conceptualization of organizational ethnography as a unique endeavour that represents a collision between one 'world of work': the university, with a second: the researched organization. We find that this 'collision' exacerbates the emotionality of ethnographic research, highlighting the refusal of 'researched' organizations to be domesticated by the specific norms of academia. Our article concludes by drawing out implications for the practice of self-reflexivity within organizational ethnography.

Recent social and cultural theory has emphasized that in risk culture the achievement of a reflexive self-identity is a key resource, for example, in terms of employment, citizenship and intimacy. Commentators on shifts in the organization of health have also stressed the significance of achieving a self-reflexive identity. So, for example, knowing, self-monitoring subjects have emerged as optimal citizens in relation to health. While there is certainly some critical commentary on these kinds of moves, nevertheless reflexive sexual subjects in relation to health have received less critical attention. In this article, through an analysis of HIV antibody testing and, in particular, by looking at the making of reflexivity through the practice of testing, I consider the emergence of a heterosexuality defined in terms of reflexivity. In so doing I suggest that reflexivity should not be understood - as many commentators suggest - as an effect but rather as constitutive of risk culture.

Verschiedene Faktoren wie Geschlecht, Alter, Bildung und/oder ethnische Zugehörigkeit können den Zugang zum Feld beeinflussen. Darüber hinaus können diese Faktoren und die bisherigen Erfahrungen die Forscher*innen dahingehend beeinflussen, wie er/sie die Forschung durchführen und bestimmte Situationen wahrnehmen und bewerten. Daher ist es wichtig, die Selbstreflexion und Positionalität der Forscher*innen aufzuzeigen, um die Bedingungen zu erfassen, die die Forschung geprägt haben. Basierend auf der ethnographischen Feldforschung, die 2016 in der Türkei durchgeführt wurde, sollen diese Fragen hier erörtert werden. Anhand von drei Situationen möchte ich aufzeigen, wie Sorgen hinsichtlich eines "Scheiterns" während der Feldforschung aufkommen können. Ich argumentiere jedoch auch, dass diese nicht als Probleme wahrgenommen werden sollten, sondern als "Rätsel", die zu lösen sind. Tatsächlich bieten sie Möglichkeiten für Forscher*innen, ihre Rolle, ihre Identität und die "Anderen" besser zu verstehen. Sie ermöglichen es den Forscher*innen auch kritisch zu hinterfragen, unter welchen Umständen die Forschungsergebnisse erhoben worden sind.