Reflexivityhow

Reflexivityhow is a term used in scholarly discussions to describe a deliberate focus on the mechanisms by which reflexivity operates within research practice. It treats reflexivity not only as a general awareness of how researchers’ positions influence knowledge but as a set of explicit methods to reveal how such influence unfolds in practice.

Definition and scope: It emphasizes the procedural aspects of reflexivity—how decisions are made, how data are collected and interpreted, and how researchers’ biases, assumptions, and social positions are documented and scrutinized. The idea is to create an auditable account of the research process, often through reflexive journals, methodological memos, and coding audits.

Origins and usage: Rooted in sociological and anthropological debates about objectivity and subjectivity, the term has been adopted across qualitative disciplines and in science studies to stress process over product.

Methods and tools: Common techniques include reflexive journaling, analytic memos, audit trails, triangulation, peer debriefing, and transparent reporting of limitations and decision points.

Applications: Used in ethnography, case studies, interviews research, and policy analysis, and increasingly in the documentation of AI or data science workflows to show how human decisions shape outputs.

Criticisms: Critics warn that it can become performative or vague if not anchored by concrete criteria. Proponents argue that explicit process documentation improves credibility and replicability.

See also: reflexivity; methodological transparency; audit trail; positionality.