CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 157Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsSocial Work Education and Practice

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The double arrow: How qualitative social work researchers use reflexivity

Probst, Barbara, Berenson, Laura·2014·Qualitative Social Work
DOI 10.1177/1473325013506248
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

While much has been written about the central role of reflexivity in qualitative research, there has been no empirical study of how researchers actually ‘do’ reflexivity. As interest in qualitative research continues to grow, data is needed to operationalize and map what is assumed to be a hallmark of the qualitative paradigm. A study was thus conducted to explore the role and use of reflexivity in qualitative research. In-depth interviews were conducted with 34 qualitative social work researchers to gather information about the use of specific reflexive activities at various points in the research process. Participants were from eight countries, with the majority (65%) from the US, and included researchers utilizing diverse methods and with varying degrees of experience. Interviewees described a wide array of activities, formal and informal, conducted alone or with others, that they utilized to support reflexivity; most also stated that they made use of reflexive actions as the need arose, depending on the nature of the project, rather than in a systematic way. Although the study generated a catalog of reflexive activities, ultimately the mechanism of reflexivity may not lie in the specific activity but in the attitude with which it is carried out.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1473325013506248

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Jootun D, 2009, Nursing Standard, 23, 42
  2. Valandra V, 2012, Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research, 6, 204

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Probst, B., & Berenson, L.
Affiliations
Smith College (US)
Corresponding author
Probst, Barbara
Venue
Qualitative Social Work
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2013-10-31
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
813-827
ISSN
  • 1473-3250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3117
DOI
10.1177/1473325013506248
OpenAlex
W2129172777
Cited by
157
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2
FWCI
14.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Qualitative Social Work (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Fordham University
  • Nature
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, reflexive practice, researcher self-awareness, research process, reflexive activity, researcher attitudes

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