Self-Reflexivity in DevCom Research: An Autoethnography

  • Rikki Lee B. Mendiola
  • Pamela A. CustodioEmail author


With the failures of modernization, Development Communication (DevCom) has pivoted its development paradigm from simply achieving economic well-being as the end-all and be-all to a complex inclusive, long-term sustainable development. Two years after its completion, this is a retelling of a research journey on exploring the notions of an indigenous presence of the Alangan Mangyan public sphere in the mining discourse, and examining these episodes through critical self-reflection. This chapter aims to probe, through the dominant voice of the first author, the following through placing importance on the role of self-reflexivity in research: to achieve theoretical understanding by reevaluating the role of dialogue as an embodiment of participation in DevCom praxis, placing reflexivity in its theory and praxis, and exploring critical studies as a potential tradition in its research.


Reflexivity Development communication Autoethnography 


  1. Alvesson, M. & K. Skoldberg (2000). Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research (Second Ed.). London: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Custer, D. (2014). Autoethnography as a Transformative Research Method. The Qualitative Report, 19, 1–13.Google Scholar
  4. Dy, M. B. (ed.) (1991). Phenomenological Papers: A Supplement to Philosophy of Man, Selected Readings. Office of Research and Publications, Ateneo De Manila University.Google Scholar
  5. Ellis, C. and A. Bochner. (2000). ‘Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity: Researcher as Subject’. Handbook Of Qualitative Research. N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, 2000. 733–768.Google Scholar
  6. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2003). Autoethnography, personal narratives, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, (July 2015), 199–258.Google Scholar
  7. Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209–230. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, translated by T Burger with F Lawrence. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Keane, J. (1995). Structural transformations of the public sphere. The Communication Review Vol 1(1). Malaysia: Overseas Publishers Association.Google Scholar
  10. Koivisto, J., & Väliverronen, E. (1997). Resurgence of the critical theories of public sphere. Journal of Communication Inquiry (1996), 20(2).Google Scholar
  11. Manyozo, L. (2012). Media, Communication, and Development: Three Approaches. New Delhi: SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. Mendiola, R (2013). ‘Exploring the Notions of an Indigenous Presence in the Public Sphere of Mining Discourse: The Alangan Mangyan’s Enclaved Public’. Undergraduate. University of the Philippines Los Baños.Google Scholar
  13. Quebral, N. C. (1971). Development Communication in the Agricultural Context. Lecture delivered at the “In Search of Breakthroughs in Agricultural Development”, Los Baños, December 1971.Google Scholar
  14. Quebral, NC. (1988). Development Communication. Los Baños, Laguna: University of the Philippines Los Baños.Google Scholar
  15. Quebral, NC. (2012). Development Communication Primer. Southbound Sdn. Bhd: Penang, Malaysia.Google Scholar
  16. Waisbord, S. (2001). Family Tree of Theories, Methodologies and Strategies in Development Communication. The Rockefeller Foundation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Development CommunicationThe University of the Philippines Los BañosLos BañosPhilippines

Personalised recommendations