The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research
Abstract
Reflexivity is commonly used in qualitative research and has been posited and accepted as a method qualitative researchers can and should use to legitimize, validate, and question research practices and representations. This paper closely examines the role of reflexivity as a methodological tool as it intersects with debates and questions surrounding representation and legitimization in qualitative research, within modernist and postmodernist ideologies, and pays close attention to how reflexivity is being defined and used in present-day research. Specifically, the author identifies and discusses the problematics of four common trends in present-day uses of reflexivity: reflexivity as recognition of self, reflexivity as recognition of other, reflexivity as truth, and reflexivity as transcendence. The author argues for a move away from comfortable uses of reflexivity to what she terms uncomfortable reflexive practices and provides an overview of the work of three authors who practice reflexivities of discomfort. Practicing uncomfortable reflexivity interrupts uses of reflexivity as a methodological tool to get better data while forefronting the complexities of doing engaged qualitative research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
The Interpretation of Cultures
(2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912128310 · Cited by 16,449
Dewey, J. (1986) · The Educational Forum · doi:10.1080/00131728609335764 · Cited by 13,432
Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography
Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1986) · Cited by 6,157
Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2012) · Cited by 5,975
Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics
hooks, B. (1990) · Cited by 4,317
Richardson, L. (2004) · Turning Points in Qualitative Research · doi:10.5040/9798216417880.ch-17 · Cited by 4,225
Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences
Laitin, D. D., Marcus, G. E., & Fischer, M. M. J. (1987) · Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion · doi:10.2307/1386453 · Cited by 3,658
An Introduction to Social Constructionism
Burr, V. (1995) · Taylor & Francis eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203299968 · Cited by 3,286
The landscape of qualitative research : theories and issues
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,993
Cited by
Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research
Berger, R. (2015) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794112468475 · Cited by 4,031
“Relative to the contribution of reflexivity to keeping the process of research ethical, Pillow (2003) stated that ‘reflexivity is situating the researcher as non-exploitative and compassionate toward the research subjects’, thus helping to address concerns regarding negative effects of power in…”
BackgroundInfluentialA practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149.
Olmos-Vega, F. M., Stalmeijer, R. E., Varpio, L., & Kahlke, R. (2023) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2022.2057287 · Cited by 2,014
“However, modern anthropologists now acknowledge that these neutralizing attempts galvanized a hierarchy between researcher and participant by positioning researchers as neutral observers who stood apart from and above the studied population, and comprehended truths inaccessible to their participant-subjects (Pillow 20…”
BackgroundInfluentialPositionality: Reflecting on the Research Process
Bourke, B. (2014) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1026 · Cited by 814
Considering quality in qualitative interviewing
Roulston, K. (2010) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794109356739 · Cited by 535
Reflexive Thematic Analysis for Applied Qualitative Health Research
Campbell, K., Orr, E., Durepos, P., Nguyen, L., Li, L., Whitmore, C., Gehrke, P., Graham, L., & Jack, S. (2021) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5010 · Cited by 410
“Reflexivity, as we understand it, is a process of self-examination revealing ourselves as individuals and researchers while understanding how our personal biases may influence the research process (Berger, 2015; Creswell, 2014; Pillow, 2003).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Pillow, W.
- Venue
- International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 175-196
- ISSN
- 0951-8398 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-5898
- OpenAlex
- W2016780159
- Cited by
- 2,093
- References
- 53
- FWCI
- 42.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/0951839032000060635
- The paper
- Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
