Advertisement

Interpretation, Reflexivity and Imagination in Qualitative Research

  • Yiannis Gabriel
Chapter

Abstract

Reflexivity has emerged as the new gold standard for qualitative researchers who reject positivist methodologies and traditional criteria of rigour, reliability and validity. But what exactly is reflexivity? How is reflexive different from reflective? And does reflexivity offer a guarantee for quality scholarship? These are some of the questions I will address in this chapter. Reflexivity is a difficult concept to define and an even harder one to deploy or practice. ‘Reflexivity’ is now routinely used as a pompous synonym for ‘reflectiveness’, that is the ability to take a step back from a situation in order to reflect on it. According to this view, reflexive researchers are those who take a step back to question their own assumptions, the interests served by their research, the ramifications of their findings and the ethical foundations of their practice. All this is fine and good, but it is not what reflexivity is all about, or at least it is not all that reflexivity is. If reflexivity is to have some meaning beyond fashionable cliché, it has to recover its fundamental quality. As I see it, this amounts to the ability of human statements to alter the state of what is being stated and the person who states it. More generally, a reflexive activity is one in which subject and object co-create each other. At every moment, the storyteller creates a protagonist, whose predicaments redefine the storyteller. This is an idea present in the now almost forgotten Marxist concept of dialectics where humans and the conditions of their existence co-create each other. A reflexive researcher recognizes that what she says or writes influences and redefines that about which she is writing as well as herself as the author. Reflexivity may be important but it is no guarantee of good quality research work. All the reflexivity in the world will not turn a dull piece of work into an interesting one. Quite the opposite—it will make it still duller. What reflexivity will not replace is the researcher’s intelligence and craft that are equally alert to similarities and exceptions, continuities and discontinuities, plans and improvisations. Above all, what reflexivity cannot replace is the active and inquiring imagination that pressingly and persistently asks two related questions ‘Why?’ and ‘What if?’ In fact, I will argue that without imagination, reflexivity itself ends up as dull academic ritual, another formula with which to elicit the yawning approval of one’s peers.

Keywords

Hermeneutics Interpretation Reflexivity Imagination Qualitative research 

References

  1. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Has Management Studies Lost Its Way? Ideas for More Imaginative and Innovative Research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive Methodology : New Vistas for Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Alvesson, M., Gabriel, Y., & Paulsen, R. (2017). Return to Meaning: A Social Science That Has Something to Say. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker-Blease, K. A., & Freyd, J. J. (2006). Research Participants Telling the Truth About Their Lives—The Ethics of Asking and Not Asking About Abuse. American Psychologist, 61(3), 218–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Booth, T., & Booth, W. (1994). The Use of Depth Interviewing with Vulnerable Subjects: Lessons From a Research Study of Parents with Learning Difficulties. Social Science & Medicine, 39(3), 415–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cunliffe, A. L. (2003). Reflexive Inquiry in Organizational Research: Questions and Possibilities. Human Relations, 56(8), 983–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Czander, W. M. (1993). The Psychodynamics of Work Organizations: Theory and Applications. London: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dyregrov, K. (2004). Bereaved Parents’ Experience of Research Participation. Social Science & Medicine, 58(2), 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Building Theories From Case Study Research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion (Vol. 50, pp. 25–32).Google Scholar
  11. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  12. Gabriel, Y. (2015). Reflexivity and Beyond: A Plea for Imagination in Qualitative Research Methodology. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 10(4), 332–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gabriel, Y., & Ulus, E. (2015). “It’s All in the Plot”: Narrative Explorations of Work-Related Emotions. In H. Flam & J. Kleres (Eds.), Methods of Exploring Emotions (pp. 36–45). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Gabriel, Y., Gray, D. E., & Goregaokar, H. (2010). Temporary Derailment or the End of the Line? Managers Coping with Unemployment at 50. Organization Studies, 31(12), 1687–1712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gabriel, Y., Gray, D. E., & Goregaokar, H. (2013). Job Loss and Its Aftermath Among Managers and Professionals: Wounded, Fragmented and Flexible. Work, Employment & Society, 27(1), 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Hermeneutics and Social Science. Cultural Hermeneutics, 2(4), 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gemignani, M. (2011). Between Researcher and Researched: An Introduction to Countertransference in Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(8), 701–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The Theory of Affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology (pp. 67–82). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Ginzburg, C. (1980). Morelli, Freud and Sherlock Holmes: Clues and Scientific Method. History Workshop, 9, 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  21. Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Clegg, S. (2001). Reflexivity in Organization and Management Theory: A Study of the Production of the Research ‘Subject’. Human Relations, 54(5), 531–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hibbert, P., Coupland, C., & MacIntosh, R. (2006). Reflexivity: Recursion and Relationality in Organizational Research Processes. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 5(1), 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lacan, J. (2006). The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience. In J. Storey (Ed.), Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader (pp. 287–292). London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  24. Liebow, E. (1967/1981). Tally’s Corner: A Study of Negro Streetcorner Men. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  25. Lynch, M. (2000). Against Reflexivity as an Academic Virtue and Source of Privileged Knowledge. Theory, Culture and Society, 17(3), 26–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mahadevan, J. (2011). Reflexive Guidelines for Writing Organizational Culture. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 6(2), 150–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Malaurent, J., & Avison, D. (2017). Reflexivity: A Third Essential ‘R’ to Enhance Interpretive Field Studies. Information & Management. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720617300629?via%3Dihub
  28. Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: G. Routledge & Sons.Google Scholar
  29. Matza, D. (1969). Becoming Deviant. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Mead, M. (2001 [1930]). Coming of Age in Samoa: A Psychological Study of Primitive Youth for Western Civilisation. New York: Perennial Classics.Google Scholar
  31. Mills, C. W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  32. Myrdal, G. (1972). The Place of Values in Social Policy. Journal of Social Policy, 1(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Orr, K., & Bennett, M. (2009). Reflexivity in the Co-production of Academic-Practitioner Research. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 4(1), 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rhodes, C. (2009). After Reflexivity: Ethics, Freedom and the Writing of Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 30(6), 653–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner : How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  36. Schreven, S. (2015). On the Case of the Missing Detail and the Twisted Truth About Hard Work. Organization, 22(5), 702–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stein, H. F. (1999). Countertransference and Understanding Workplace Cataclysm: Intersubjective Knowledge and Interdisciplinary Applied Anthropology. High Plains Applied Anthropologist, 19(1), 10–20.Google Scholar
  38. Svensson, P. (2014). Thickening Thick Descriptions: Overinterpretations in Critical Organizational Ethnography. In E. Jeanes & T. Huzzard (Eds.), Critical Management Research: Reflections From the Field (pp. 173–188). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor, C. (1971). Interpretation and the Sciences of Man. Review of Metaphysics, 25(1), 3–51.Google Scholar
  40. Tomkins, L., & Eatough, V. (2010). Towards an Integrative Reflexivity in Organisational Research. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 5(2), 162–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tsoukas, H. (1992). Postmodernism, Reflexive Rationalism and Organizational Studies: A Reply to Martin Parker. Organization Studies, 13(4), 643–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ulus, E., & Gabriel, Y. (2016). Bridging the Contradictions of Social Constructionism and Psychoanalysis in a Study of Workplace Emotions in India. Culture and Organization, 1–23. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14759551.2015.1131688
  43. Weick, K. E. (2002). Essai: Real-Time Reflexivity: Prods to Reflection. Organization Studies, 23(6), 893–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Willig, C. (2001). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology: Adventures in Theory and Method. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yiannis Gabriel
    • 1
  1. 1.Bath UniversityBathUK

Personalised recommendations