The Eye Regards Itself: Benefits and Challenges of Reflexivity in Qualitative Social Work Research
Abstract
Much has been written about the central role of reflexivity in qualitative research, yet there has been no empirical study of how researchers actually practice reflexivity and what it is like for them to do so. To address this question, a project was developed to gather information directly from qualitative social work researchers about the perceived benefits, challenges, and limitations of reflexivity. Participants, representing eight countries with the majority (65%) from the United States, included researchers using diverse methods with varying degrees of experience. In their interviews, these 34 scholars discussed the benefits of reflexive activities for both themselves and their research projects; obstacles that were personal, project-related, professional, and systemic; a discrepancy between valuation and actual use of reflexive practices; and the need to balance flexibility and rigor. The article concludes with directions for further inquiry and suggestions for assessing the adequacy of reflexivity in published studies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Previous studies have not adequately dealt with how researchers do reflexivity and integrate it into their work.
“Moreover, previous studies have not adequately dealt with how researchers do reflexivity and integrate it into their work (Probst, 2015).”
From Challenging perspectives: Reflexivity as a critical approach to qualitative social work research (2024) · cites this paper as Probst, 2015
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · see citing works
Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice
Finlay, L. (2002) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/146879410200200205 · Cited by 1,979 · cited 6× · see citing works
“Finlay (2002a) made a similar point: A researcher’s apparent openness does not guarantee that the voices of participants have been faithfully represented.”
BackgroundInfluential“Outing” the Researcher: The Provenance, Process, and Practice of Reflexivity
Finlay, L. (2002) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973202129120052 · Cited by 1,937 · see citing works
The double arrow: How qualitative social work researchers use reflexivity
Probst, B., & Berenson, L. (2014) · Qualitative Social Work · doi:10.1177/1473325013506248 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Challenging perspectives: Reflexivity as a critical approach to qualitative social work research
Ide, Y., & Beddoe, L. (2024) · Qualitative Social Work · doi:10.1177/14733250231173522 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
“Moreover, previous studies have not adequately dealt with how researchers do re fl exivity and integrate it into their work (Probst, 2015).”
Background
- Authors
- Probst, B.
- Affiliations
- Smith College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Probst, B.
- Venue
- Social Work Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2015-01-14
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-48
- ISSN
- 1070-5309 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-6838
- OpenAlex
- W2013102148
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 23.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Work Research (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
- Keywords
- reflexivity, qualitative research, researcher self-awareness, researcher experience, research rigor, researcher perspectives
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