Reflexivity, critical qualitative research and emancipation: a Foucauldian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: In this paper, we consider reflexivity, not only as a concept of qualitative validity, but also as a tool used during the research process to achieve the goals of emancipation that are intrinsic to qualitative research conducted within a critical paradigm. BACKGROUND: Research conducted from a critical perspective poses two challenges to researchers: validity of the research must be ensured and the emancipatory aims of the research need to be realized and communicated. The traditional view of reflexivity as a means of ensuring validity in qualitative research limits its potential to inform the research process. DATA SOURCES: The Medline and CINAHL data bases were searched (1998-2008 inclusive) using keywords such as reflexivity, validity, subjectivity, bias, emancipation, empowerment and disability. In addition, the work of Michel Foucault was examined. DISCUSSION: Using the work of the late French philosopher Michel Foucault, we explore how Foucault's 'technologies of the self' can be employed during critical qualitative research to achieve emancipatory changes. Using research conducted with marginalized populations as an example (specifically, individuals with disabilities), we demonstrate the potential for using reflexivity, in a Foucauldian sense, during the research process. CONCLUSION: Shifting the traditional view of reflexivity allows researchers to focus on the subtle changes that comprise emancipation (in a Foucauldian sense). As a result, researchers are better able to see, understand and analyse this process in both the participants and themselves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.353 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.215 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".