Search results

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate on reflexivity in organization and management studies by scrutinizing the possibilities of self‐reflexivity.

By means of auto‐ethnography, the authors analyze their own experiences as (pro‐)feminist men in the field of gender studies.

The authors argue that self‐reflexivity is partial, fragmentary and transient: it surfaces in situations where the authors’ activities and identities as researchers are challenged by others and they become aware of their precarious position.

The paper's perspective complements more instrumental understandings of self‐reflexivity, and stimulates further debate on its limits as well as potential.

The purpose of this paper is to elaborate on self-reflexivity and, in particular, explore the notion of context in relation to men's reflexivity in academic work.

The paper is a commentary on an earlier paper published in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion addressing the issue of reflexivity in organization studies and commented on by three different scholars.

Relating specifically to men doing gender studies research, the authors argue that they are always men in context, and their “privilege” (and reflections on it) needs to be accounted for in situ; in relation to the assumptions, relations, and practices at hand, rather to some abstract and vague “privileges” contained in, and carried by, men as a general category.

The paper seeks to advance a novel understanding of reflexivity not so much anchored in the willful capacity to reflect on scholarly work but as engagement with experiences of exclusion or unexpected outcomes in fieldwork and in interacting with other researchers.

This paper aims to understand what reflexivity means and explores which types of reflexivity could be applied within social marketing practice as a critical approach to overcoming failures.

This paper is a critical literature review.

The study proposes a typology for a reflexive approach to social marketing practice to overcome failures. The typology is built on self and critical reflexivity, simultaneously allowing social marketers to reflect on external and internal factors that may affect the individual's role and could negatively affect social marketing practice unless otherwise considered. The types of reflexivity discussed are not prescriptive; instead, the authors intend to provoke further discussion on an under-researched but vital area of social marketing.

The proposed typology is conceptual; an empirical investigation to gain social marketer's views would further enhance the effectiveness of the applications of the typology.

Social marketers could use the proposed typology for future practice.

This is the first study that conceptualises various types of reflexivity within social marketing practice to overcome failures.

Upholds the equivalence between the sociological notion of reflexivity and the idea of self‐reference, which epistemologically and structurally distinguish those complex systems where humans participate as elements. Once there is a conceptual bridge between sociology and cybernetics, the reflexivity processes are analysed, and the expression feed‐before is proposed for the corresponding circuits, as they operate after the input, but before the output characteristic of the other complex systems is produced. After distinguishing between micro‐ and macro‐reflexivity, studies mutual connections and submits graphic designs of both types of circuit. Also briefly analyses the tempo of social reflexivity, while deducing the consequences regarding the predictability of social dynamics.

Although the epistemology of researcher reflexivity has been championed as crucial to research for some 30 years, it remains controversial and often ill-defined. In the 1980s, “reflexivity” was championed by the hermeneutically and epistemologically savvy to try and break the strangle hold of naïve positivism. Nowadays, reflexivity most often refers to the turn-to-affect and to the researcher’s ability and willingness to radically sensitivize “self” to others and circumstances. The purpose of this paper is to specify what non-representational research has brought to the reflexivity debate and then focus on Brosseau’s particular rendition of reflexivity, which is seen as far more demanding, problematic and valuable.

The approach followed in this paper is a hermeneutic reflection based on Thrift’s and Brosseau’s oeuvres. The perspective is historical, qua research methods’ take on reflexivity and qua Brosseau textual production.

Five differences between Thrift’s and Brosseau’s reflexivities are highlighted. Brosseau brings us much further in applying affective reflexivity to research writing than does Thrift.

A polemic calling for and warnings about the complexities of affective reflexivity, presented as demanding, dangerous and complex.

This paper acts as a commentary on the paper “Self‐reflexivity scrutinized: (pro‐)feminist men learning that gender matters” (Styhre and Tienari, 2013).

The following discussion seeks to build on Styhre and Tienari's argumentation and points to arguments of agreement and disagreement.

First, the authors argue that while self‐reflexivity cannot be fully taken into account it would be detrimental to social change to restrict it to accidental, haphazard happenings. Second, they argue that perhaps Styhre and Tienari do not always take self‐reflexivity far enough. In order to increase our understanding of why particular kinds of structural hierarchies take place in academia, it is important to locate these incidents within a system of practices that contribute to the marginalisation/privileging of certain groups of people.

The authors further see it as a researcher's moral obligation to at least attempt to overcome the identity‐related, cultural, political and structural conditions that make self‐reflexivity difficult, tiresome and emotionally constraining. We should encourage ourselves to have an ongoing conversation with our whole self about what we are experiencing as we are experiencing it, not only after a critical incident has taken place.

In conclusion, the authors are more inclined to argue along the lines of Alvesson et al., who see reflexivity as a skill or capacity that can be developed, while remaining in consensus with Styhre and Tienari that it can never be fully under the control of the researcher or practitioner.

Many papers have been written about group reflexivity. Testimonials by practitioners often contain strong claims about its performance benefits. Research papers, by scientists, seem to support such claims at first glance, but a closer look reveals methodological problems and weak results, even in the studies that show performance benefits, and there are several studies that show no performance benefits. We have begun our own program of research on group reflexivity, and so far, we have found no performance benefits either. All of this suggests that enthusiasm for group reflexivity should be tempered, until more and better research has been done.

The purpose of this paper is to ask how we can think about critical reflection as a pedagogical practice given the “confessional turn”. By the “confessional turn” the author refers to the idea that “subjective, autobiographical and confessional modes of expression” have expanded exponentially across a wide range of social spheres, including education, the legal system, the media and the workplace. Examining these developments, this paper asks what these debates on critical reflection and confession mean for pedagogical practice.

The main approach is a review of key debates in the literature on critical reflection and also in the wider social sciences.

The discussion compares different debates. Thus it shows that for critics, the turn to the “first person” technologies is narcissistic, psychologistic and de‐politicising. On this view, critical reflective practice might be understood as an individualistic and individualising pedagogy in spite of its claims to be critical. The paper discusses how in contrast, others see this move to talk about the subjective and the self as an extension of the feminist project of the personal is political – i.e. that personal stories, feelings and issues have social and political roots and consequences. For them, reflection can be critical, leading to political consciousness‐raising, i.e. a new awareness about social, political and personal processes. It finishes by examining the view that the idea of reflexivity might help us out of the conflict between these debates.

The paper poses a number of questions in relation to critical reflection that can be taken up by practitioners in the field.

The paper brings new literature to bear on the practice of critical reflection and raises important questions relevant to academics and practitioners.

Illustrate supported by Beer’s Viable System Model and four vignettes the relevance of self-organisation, recursive structures, self-reference and reflexivity in policy processes. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

First, the concepts of self-organisation, recursive structures, self-reference and reflexivity are briefly discussed to ground policy processes in good cybernetics. Then, with the support of four vignettes, the idea of good cybernetics in policy processes is illustrated.

The cybernetics of policy processes is often ignored.

If the purpose of this paper were to influence policy makers it would be necessary to further the empirical base of the four vignettes and clarify desirable forums to ground the relevance of self-organisation, recursive structures, self-reference and reflexivity in policy processes.

Beer’s recursive structures, self-reference and reflexivity have much to contribute to the betterment of policy processes and the amelioration of the unbearable social and organisational costs of many current policies.

The application of concepts such as self-organisation, recursive structures, self-reference and reflexivity adds to the understanding of policy processes.

The concept of common sense has not received much attention in the organization literature. In this paper, I propose a model that links a change agent's self‐awareness and reflexivity, his or her sensemaking of common sense perspectives related to planned change, and buy‐in among organization stakeholders. The case is made for change agents to pay close attention to common sense perspectives because they can become the basis for particular problematic ambivalence and diminished change buy‐in among stakeholders in the organization. This paper aims to address these issues.

Conceptual and theoretical rationales for the model are offered. Examples from the psychological and organizational theory literatures provide support for the various elements of the model.

Common sense perspectives should be factored into the diagnosis of the organization. Self‐awareness, reflexivity, and sensemaking are all forms of social awareness that are necessary to engage stakeholders on matters of common sense.

Four research areas are identified. First, social and cultural contextual influences on common sense require clarification. Second, if resistance is multidimensional, how are dimensions influenced by common sense? Third, what group level of the organization (e.g., individual, group, organization) do common sense perspectives represent? Fourth, how may change agents work out incommensurate common sense perspectives?

Common sense cannot be mandated. Change agents must maintain self‐awareness and reflexivity as they work with stakeholders in a sensemaking process. Increased buy‐in emerges through minimizing ambivalence towards change.

Little, if anything, has been written on the use of common sense in organizational change management.