MURDOCH RESEARCH REPOSITORY

This is the author’s final version of the work, as accepted for publication following peer review but without the publisher’s layout or pagination.

The definitive version is available at

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-04-2013-0024

Cumming-Potvin, W. (2013) “New basics” and literacies: Deepening reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research Journal, 13 (2). pp. 214-230.

http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/16299/

Copyright: © 2013 Emerald Group Publishing Limited It is posted here for your personal use. No further distribution is permitted.

This is an author’s copy of the article, which was published at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1443-9883.htm

Qualitative Research Journal

Vol. 13 No. 2, 2013

pp. 214-230

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Note: The author gratefully acknowledges in-kind support from Westbooks (Western Australia) and

financial contribution from Murdoch University. The participants’ engagement in the project is

also most appreciated.

“New basics” and literacies: Deepening reflexivity in qualitative research

Wendy Cumming-Potvin

School of Education, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia

Abstract

Purpose: With particular reference to insider/outsider qualitative research, the purpose of this

paper is to present new understandings about the concepts of literacy and reflexivity, which go against the grain of technical approaches currently privileged under neo-liberal education systems.

Design/methodology/approach : The paper draws on theoretical considerations and empirical

data from a qualitative study in literacy education to examine the concept of researcher reflexivity.

With multiple methods such as focus groups, on-line discussions, shared literacy experiences,

and researcher’s reflections, the qualitative approach was appropriate to unveil thick descriptions

of phenomena.

Findings: Information from the literature, theoretical framework and transcript analysis is

synthesized to present an innovative way of approaching reflexivity in qualitative research, to

acknowledge: theory, power, discomfort; and personal, historical, political and sociocultural influences.

Research limitations/implications: Given the small number of participants involved in the case

study, results are not representative of the general population.

Practical Implications: Deepening researchers’ approaches to reflexivity can lead to cross disciplinary collaboration in professional fields such as teaching, engineering and nursing.

Originality/value: An innovative approach to reflexivity, particularly after the completion of a

study, can rupture the comfortableness of qualitative researchers’ reflexive processes. A rigorous

concept of reflexivity can be useful to scaffold pre-service teachers during professional internships

in schools.

Keywords Literacy: Qualitative research, Communities of practice, Reflexivity, “New basics”,

Multiliteracies, Discomfort

Paper type: Research paper

Introduction

As Prime Minister Gillard rallies to improve Australian students’ standardized

academic results, the My School web site allows for largely statistical comparisons

of approximately 10,000 Australian schools (www.myschool.edu.au/). In this

outcomes-oriented environment, “teaching to the test” to increase students’ scores is

not uncommon and “good” educational research is associated with upgrading teacher

and student skills. Not surprisingly, the fascination with academic performance

obscures the qualitative aspects of Australian schools (Tuinamuana, 2011) and may

result in negative consequences for students, teachers and pre-service teachers. The

current world-wide obsession with teaching and learning standards, for example,

encourages the preparation of a technical teaching force, with little consideration of

socio-political and theoretical aspects (Down and Smyth, 2012).

The pressure to return to “back-to-basics” for improving standards also contrasts

dramatically with a post-modern reality of deepening sociocultural diversity,

necessitating a complex approach to learning, teaching and researching literacies

(see Cumming-Potvin, 2012). From this perspective, new basics of literacies require

that learners ultimately critique texts to reshape an increasingly diverse and complex

world (Luke, 2012; The New London Group, 1996, 2000).While the Australian political

landscape interlocks with performance, literacy education translates to the quest for

superior results in the Programme for International Student Assessment and the

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In parallel, literacy

educators often face popular and narrowly defined positivist views about research,

suggesting that empirically sound results are generally derived through tests and

measurement (Tillman, 2009). Although many researchers have attempted to resist the

public discourse of a literacy crisis, caused by so-called decreasing teaching

standards, Australia’s print media have generally highlighted neo-liberal viewpoints

(Durrant, 2012).

Immersed in a post-industrialized landscape which privileges measurement and

experimental design, literacy researchers have increasingly felt the need to establish

parameters of rigour for qualitative inquiry. As a tool of validity, reflexivity has

often been at the forefront of these discussions. In this chapter, I explore ways of

deepening understanding about reflexivity to acknowledge the complexity and

uncomfortableness of the qualitative research process. These issues have often been

under-researched, yet are important to many educational researchers (Hamdan, 2009;

Mercer, 2007). I first describe the political backdrop of a qualitative literacy project

(Study A), prior to reviewing the study’s design, recruitment and data collection.

I contemplate the advantages and disadvantages of insider and outsider research

prior to unveiling a discussion about researcher reflexivity. Using extracts from data

gathered during Study A, I offer reflections about the concept of reflexivity as it relates

to theoretical considerations in qualitative research. Drawing on the work of diverse

post-modern authors, I synthesize my ponderings about the discomforting nature of

reflexivity. I conclude with remarks pertaining to the implications of this work for

university-based teaching and research.

Literacy education against the grain: context and design of a qualitative study

Directing public scrutiny to the quality of pre-service teachers, recent Commonwealth

initiatives such as the National Inquiry into Literacy Teaching (Nelson Inquiry,

Department of Education, Science and Training, 2005) and the inquiry into teacher

education (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007) have re-ignited literacy “wars” across

Australia. The largely neo-liberal focus of such documents has encouraged the

reduction of literacy to a discrete set of skills, such as children sounding out words

and filling in the blanks (Cross, 2009). Despite the plea for new literacies to embrace an

increasingly globalized and socially diverse world (The New London Group, 1996,

2000), in the race for improved academic performance, The Nelson Inquiry stipulated

that teachers should use direct phonics’ instruction for children to master foundational

reading (Cross, 2009). More recently, The Australian Curriculum (Australian

Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2010), which is currently being

implemented across the nation, suggests a “one size” fits all approach to literacy

learning, describing important understandings, skills and capabilities for all

Australian students (see www.australiancurriculum.edu.au).

In addition, whilst the National Professional Standards for Teachers may contain

elements of good practice, the broader agenda involves national regulation which

risks teachers becoming deliverers of goods, with little consideration to the social or

theoretical aspects of school communities (Down, 2012).

Against the grain of high-stakes testing and moral panic about perceived falling

literacy standards, I undertook a small qualitative project (Study A), to explore

teaching and learning literacies in pre-service teacher education (The New London

Group, 2000, 1996). My work is inspired by the call for resistance to “gold standards”

research (Lather, 2004), which is marketed through positivism (Tobin, 2012) and

experimental design. This struggle resounds against the argument that “good”

educational research is often defined through method rather than the well-being

of students, teachers and communities (Hostetler, 2005; Yates, 2002). Kincheloe and

Steinberg (2007) also highlighted the importance of challenging educational discourse

which privileges research methods over ethics and correlates academic outcomes

with teacher accountability and test-driven curricula.

Emphasizing words, rather than numbers, a qualitative approach was appropriate

to present layered descriptions of relationships between people, space and objects

(Geertz, 1973). With a holistic picture, qualitative inquiry also offered me flexibility

to explore complementary pathways during data collection (Ary et al., 2006; Patton,

2002). I adopted a largely constructivist research design, whereby I remained sensitive

to the context, did not seek one specific truth and aimed to interpret social interaction

from actors’ viewpoints in the natural world (Crabtree and Miller, 1992; Marshall and

Rossman, 1999). As a researcher and teacher educator, I integrated processes involving

multiliteracies (The New London Group, 2000) to transform pre-service teachers’

understandings of literacy education. I privileged a case study by employing multiple

qualitative strategies, such as: researcher’s reflections, face-to-face focus groups,

on-line discussions and home shared literacy experiences.

I completed Study A in aWest Australian university community. The study focused

on a group of three adult female pre-service teachers, who were enrolled in a literacy

education course and were afforded informal learning opportunities integrating theory

and practice. These tertiary students’ four children, aged between four and seven years

old, also participated in the study. I recruited participants through a process of open

invitation and voluntary written consent. Whilst I hoped to provide balance in gender

across the pre-service teacher cohort, the absence of males is reflective of the

predominantly female composition of Australian university initial teacher education

programs. In 2008, for example, only 19 per cent of the total number of students

enrolled in courses for initial teacher education training in West Australia was male

(Council of Australian University Librarians, 2008, www.caul.edu.au/caul-programs/

caul-statistics/auststats

Acknowledging qualitative uncertainties: advantages and disadvantages of

insider/outsider research

Early in the inquiry process, a major uncertainty for many qualitative researchers

is the challenge related to gate keeping. Bruni (2002) stated that beginning and

experienced researchers identify the most formidable gate keeper as the ethics’

committee, which highlights safety through observance of administrative procedures.

To facilitate smooth field entry, data collection and analysis, I dutifully complied

with all institutional requirements relating to the ethics’ application for Study A. But,

as an insider researcher and teacher educator, I needed to carefully apply the

conditions imposed by the Human Research Ethics’ Committee. Due to dependency

issues, the committee stipulated that an external party explain the project to my

pre-service teachers. Because children were being recruited, the committee raised the

issue of dual dependency. So during recruitment, I needed to explain to pre-service

teachers that it was considered unethical and in self-interest, to coerce their child(ren)

or dependants to participate in the study.

Arguing for researchers to go beyond administrative compliance,White et al. (2012)

called for more explicit acknowledgement of ethical uncertainties characterizing

all stages of qualitative inquiry. During the data collection of Study A, for example,

I was faced with the dilemma of whether to allow the participation of a very young

sibling in one family. After reflecting with the parent and my research assistant,

I decided that it would be appropriate for the toddler to engage informally, so that they

were not excluded from the shared literacy experiences. But, to minimize any perceived

pressure about reading performance, I did not officially gather data about this child.

With the study now completed, subsequent reflections have led me to re-consider the

complexities of insider qualitative research. To foreshadow the discussion, I describe

notions of insider research, prior to reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of

insider and outsider research.

The literature generally characterizes insider research as being conducted by a

researcher who is part of a case study, group or organization for a period of time

(Edwards, 2002). Historically, white anthropologists such as Mead (1929) studied

indigenous societies in exotic locations, making obvious distinctions between insider

and outsider (Mercer, 2007). “Insiderness” evolved in the second half of the twentieth

century as anthropologists observed familiar practices in their own societies. These

new conceptions were influenced by Merton’s, (1972) depiction of insiders as members

of specific groups or collectivities, which may involve social status (Mercer, 2007).

Outsiders were considered non-members who did not have access to privileged or

intimate information of the group under study (Griffith, 1998; Merton, 1972).

More recently, many authors have discussed the advantages and disadvantages of

insider and outsider research, while highlighting the challenges of distinguishing

boundaries between these approaches (Butler, 2004; Hellawell, 2006; Humphrey, 2012;

Paechter, 2013). Edwards (2002) suggested that the insider researcher possesses

deeply embedded historical knowledge of the organization or group under study. The

insider researcher thus is advantaged by often being aware of personal relations, which

may make possible the discovery of privileged information. Edwards also argued

that a shared history of the humour and lingua franca in an organization can lead to

meaningful insights. More generally, Kim (2012) contended that the advantage

of insider research lies in the researcher being more likely to understand sensitive

and covert issues.

Whilst greater access to and stronger rapport with participants is characteristically

attributed to insider research, it has been termed a double-edged sword (Mercer, 2007).

The outsider researcher can be perceived by organizations to be more impartial

(Kim, 2012), while the insider researcher may be criticized for not being sufficiently

distant (Sikes and Potts, 2008). Thus, despite its strengths, insider research can be

riddled with limitations. For example, Edwards argued that an insider researcher who

is well versed with the body language of a group may overlook familiar practices;

they may also experience anxiety about revealing unpalatable information. Finally,

dissociating the research from the inside researcher’s personal life may be challenging

(Mercer, 2007; Scott, 1985).

Kim (2012) concluded that the concept of insider depends on many factors, such

as the age of participants, the time of interaction and the social interactions

surrounding the research. Mercer (2007) conferred with Mullings (1999) that no

absolutes exist with regard to insider/outsider research; because humans cannot be

classified according to a single status, such concepts should be viewed in a pluralistic

way. To support insider researchers in analysing their own position, Mercer suggested

that concepts such as “insiderness” and “outsiderness” be represented as continua

rather than dichotomies. More recently, as individuals’ identities are interpreted as

situational, the distinctions between insider and outsider research have been

increasingly blurred (Anderson and Jones, 2000; Labaree, 2002; Mercer, 2007) Ideally,

argued Hellawell (2006), the researcher should be located inside and outside the

perceptions of the participants.

In the post-script to Study A, as I reflect on the uncertainties of qualitative inquiry,

I am able to more explicitly position myself as a researcher/teacher who possesses

insider and outsider characteristics. Early in the inquiry, due to official ethical

protocols and dependency issues, my immediate focus as a researcher was on reducing

risk and protecting adult and, more particularly, child participants. Given the

unfeasibility and undesirability of eliminating all risk, Humphrey (2012) suggested that

qualitative researchers should be risk-aware, rather than risk-averse, as they seek rich

data within themselves and their communities. Whilst my general aim was to be an

empathetically professional researcher/literacy educator, I now understand that my

multiple and sometimes conflicting insider-outsider roles fluctuated depending on

context. On one level, I shared with my participants a common interest in literacy and

a background as a user of English as a first language. On another level, the adult

participants and I were immersed in a university environment, albeit with contrasting

roles: the participants as undergraduate students and me as teacher educator and

employee. Finally, as an adult educator my position was shaped by the need to protect

the children, but I also sought to promote enjoyable literacy experiences between

parents (guardians) and their young children.

Evolving reflexivity in qualitative research: muddy bogs and discomfort

As discussions evolve about notions of insider/outsider research, commentary about

the importance of reflexivity in qualitative research has also proliferated. In the current

back-to-basics environment, where experimental research is often viewed as a panacea

for improving student literacy outcomes, justifying the validity of qualitative research

has intensified. Notwithstanding, Mauthner and Doucet (2003, p. 415) proffered that

while we conduct research there may be a limit to how reflexive we can be and

how much we understand what shapes our research. These factors may only become

deeply explicit once a study is “done and dusted” and researchers move on with their

lives. In hindsight, after completing Study A, I present in this section, a discussion

about reflexivity, including challenges related to its implementation. I am guided by

the wisdom of Davies et al. (2004) who described the reflexive process as elusive,

exhausting and disruptive, but necessary to create meaning.

Generally defined as self-questioning and self-understanding, reflexivity reminds

the qualitative researcher to engage with the moment, while being conscious of their

cultural, linguistic, political and ideological origins, and those they are studying

(Patton, 2002; Schwandt, 1997). Almost a decade ago, Lather (2004) highlighted

the necessity of reflexivity in establishing rigor for qualitative research, calling for

researchers to acknowledge their biases and subjectivity. Despite reflexivity being

increasingly accepted over the past two decades as a means of validating qualitative

research methods, Patai (1994) argued that the proliferation of reflexivity risks

becoming a narcissistic fad. Pillow (2003) concurred that talking about oneself does not

necessarily improve one’s research, but asserted that silencing researchers is not a

solution for effectively using reflexivity. Clearly, the importance of reflexivity in

qualitative research is no longer contested, but the difficulties and practicalities about

being reflexive have rarely been addressed (Henderson et al., 2012; Finlay, 2002;

Mauthner and Doucet, 2003).

Searching for new ways of applying reflexivity to expose its ambiguities and

difficulties in qualitative research, Pillow (2003) critiqued four popular metaphors

which cast reflexivity as a methodological tool: recognition of self, recognition of other,

truth and transcendence. These metaphors are linked to researchers’ catharsis

and confessions (see Foucault, 1994), with an assumption that they cure issues of

validity. Pillow viewed reflexivity as know thyself as alluding to a unified and essential

self, based on Cartesian thought. Knowing thyself is also wrought with assumptions

that if the researcher exposes their subjectivity and learns about themself during the

research process, they can write uninhibitedly. Second, Pillow argued that reflexivity

defined as recognizing the other assumes that the researcher is able to know and

describe the other (see also Trinh, 1991). Third, Pillow characterized the metaphor

of reflexivity as “truth” as assuming that the researcher can tell the ‘truth. At the heart

of this assumption is the researcher’s engagement in a series of reflexive exercises

will produce truth through a “science” of reflexivity. Webster (2008) also critiqued as

essentialist the notion that reflexivity can uncover truth via the researcher’s

introspection. Finally, the metaphor of transcendence assumes that the researcher can

transcend their subjectivity and cultural context through reflexivity.

Critiquing all four reflexive metaphors as riddled with limitations, Pillow (2003)

called for deeper explorations of reflexivity which interrupt the notion of

comfortableness to disclose relations of power and ideology. Such an approach

to reflexivity acknowledges discomfort and goes beyond the researcher’s

narrative catharsis (Choi, 2006; Tierney, 2002). Finlay (2002) concurred that from a

post-structural perspective, reflexive analysis is continually problematic. He depicted

qualitative researchers as wading through a bog of self-analysis; the journey can

easily be marred by excessive self-analysis bordering on narcissism. Because there are

few guidelines for actually going about being a reflexive researcher, Lather (1993)

suggested that the messiness of deep reflexivity should be acknowledged. In enacting

the discomfort of reflexivity (Britzman, 1995), Pillow suggested a new term: rigorously

self-aware. This involves uncomfortable reflexivity that seeks knowledge, but

envisages it as tenuous.

In search of deeper and more complex ways of depicting reflexivity, Mauthner and

Doucet (2003) argued that epistemology, ontology and research practice are

inseparable. Focusing on data analysis, the authors suggested that most methods

are presented as a series of neutral and technical exercises, with an assumption that

the researcher, method and data are independent. They explored how reflexivity can

be operationalized in relation to social, institutional and interpersonal contexts and

ontological and epistemological concepts of subjects and subjectivities. In the next

section, with the benefit of hindsight and drawing on the (2003) work of Mauthner

and Doucet and other theorists, I re-visit my initial analysis of selected transcriptions

from Study A. In doing so, I offer expanded understandings about reflexivity and the

influences that shaped my insider/outsider research.

Reflexivity revisited in data analysis: literacy and pre-service teacher

education

During Study A’s focus groups, online discussions and shared literacy experiences, the

adult participants (Sally, Dale and Eva) were enrolled in the university’s compulsory

literacy course for pre-service teachers. As the first on-campus focus group unfolded,

in my immediate role of researcher, I asked: how would you define literacy? In

Transcript 1 below, Eva’s response “That’s a big one” (Turn 2) could be interpreted

as a “loaded” or “challenging” question. Although the focus group took place outside

of class hours, the atmosphere was informal and the question was open-ended,

I remarked Eva’s slight discomfort towards the beginning of the focus group. Initially

reviewing the transcripts, I explained Eva’s reaction as generally related to my dual

position as researcher/teacher educator or to a perceived unequal status between the

researcher and participants (see Kim, 2012).

Transcript 1:

1 Wendy (W) Anyway, so our first question is about literacy as I said and it’s really just an

open ended question how would you define literacy?

2 Eva That’s a big one.

3 W It is a big one isn’t it?

4 Grace Well I sort of think, we always used to think it was books, or reading, but

probably even through this unit it’s not just reading a book its reading

everything, like you know visual things, reading advertisements books,

reading like the media all that sort of thing so to me I think literacy is a lot

more than I ever defined it as.

5 W Ok. So do you see it as, in multiple, multiple literacies?

6 Grace Yeah I think so.

7 W Mmmm.

8 Grace And especially like for the children. I think like to them it’s not just that book,

it’s about the whole thing from the computer, CD ROMs that they’re doing, it,

to sort of right through.

9 W Mmmmm.

10 Eva And added to that, I think it’s more, what I’ve got out of the course that it’s

more, it’s also making sense of it in a real holistic, I like to use the word

holistic sense, that you’re being critical, that you, that you see where writers

are coming from and why they’ve written the way they’ve written. Why

newspaper articles are read, you know, portrayed the way they are and that

sort of thing too. So I mean, I was never taught that at school, that was

something that was definitely not there.

In hindsight, Mauthner and Doucet’s (2003) category of academic biography allows for

deeper reflection which links to my role as an insider/outsider researcher. Specifically,

the verb “define” is associated with my academic role as a course coordinator.

Designing curricula for literacy courses over many years, I have presented various

operational definitions of literacy terms. In the compulsory pre-service teacher literacy

course, I often commence the first lecture by asking how we define literacy. As a former

postgraduate and undergraduate student, I have also been shaped over many years by

tertiary courses and assignments, which include academic definitions. In reviewing

Transcript 1, I feel perplexed by questions such as:Why did not I frame my question in

a less academic manner? Whose definitions are presented? Why do I systematically

use definitions when designing tertiary learning materials? Could my language and

practice be related to western society’s obsession with providing clear-cut definitions

that thrive in (post)modern scientific discourse? (Tsekeris and Katrivesis, 2009).

Mauthner and Doucet’s (2003) category of social location and emotional responses is

helpful to tease out alternative understandings in Transcript 1’s remaining utterances.

In Turns 4-9, I listened to and acknowledged Grace’s definition of literacy. Although

Grace referred to the academic course in question, she also explored ideas about

broadening literacy to include “media”, “computers”, “visual things” and more than

“books”. In Turn 5, as I posed a question, I provided Grace with additional

conversational space. Not until Turn 10 did Eva speak again. Although Eva integrated

the terms “critical” and “holistic” in the discussion, she began her utterance with

“And added to that [y]”, suggesting that she was influenced by the voices of Dale

and me (see Bakhtin, 1986). Whilst there is no technical recipe for being reflexive

(Lather, 1993), in hindsight, I speculate about how the discussion may have evolved

differently if my earlier exchanges with Eva had been more profound. As a reflexive

researcher re-engaging with the moment, I am forced to ask difficult questions, such as

Why did not I ask Eva to elaborate on her meaning of: “That’s a big one”; whose story

is being told? (Gertsl-Pepin and Patrizio, 2009).

In Transcript 2 below, a shift occurred in the focus group discussion as I asked

participants how they developed their definitions of literacy (Turn 21). Grouped under

the category emotional responses (Mauthner and Doucet, 2003), Eva’s reply “From the

readings” (Turn 22), foreshadowed an awkwardness, which appears linked to my dual

positioning as a research/teacher educator.

Transcript 2:

21W Ok. Sure. And so how would you say you’ve developed your definitions of literacy?

22 Eva From the readings. (Laughter from participants and researcher).

23 W Good answer (chuckles.) From the readings. Ok

24 Sally And I’ve also found, ‘cause I’m doing sort of three units, like all the curriculum,

and I just find the connections between this unit and like, especially the S&E unit,

are quite interesting, quite a lot of overlap.

25 W Mmm, mmm, mmm.

26 Sally Into some of the critical literacy and all that, and I think both units have help

broaden my definition of literacy.

Eva’s response “From the readings”, it could be argued, referred directly to the texts

I selected for weekly readings in the compulsory pre-service teacher literacy course.

With regards paralinguistic devices, I originally viewed the ensuing laughter on the

part of the participants and me as a release of tension, due to initial social

awkwardness. I preferred to focus my analysis on participants’ extended utterances

characterized by emerging literacy themes. For example in Turn 65 of the discussion, in

her role as a parent, Eva described what she viewed to be important for teaching and

learning literacy. Through extensive comments, Eva alluded to themes such as “visual

literacy”, “stereotypes” and “critical literacy”:

65 Eva: I also think that children also need to understand too that when they’re watching

television that they do understand what television and the adverts are doing to them and

things like that. I mean I sit there and it annoys the heck out of my children about stereotypes

that happen and all that sort of stuff, I think that’s really important too. Ahm, and ahm, with a

wider context too ahm, just being able to read messages, see things why things are like they

are and, and you know what does the billboard everything around them trying to make sense

of it and talking to them about it and getting them to be aware of what’s around [y].

Retrospectively, whilst I understand that participants’ extended statements are

noteworthy, I have also come to believe that uncomfortable moments in interviews

or focus group discussions should be explicitly acknowledged and highlighted

during analysis. In this case, the participants’ uncomfortableness at the beginning

of the focus group may have been attributed to a desire, as tertiary students, to respond

appropriately within expected norms. As such, when I replied “Good answer”,

chuckled and repeated Eva’s utterance, it could be argued that the uncomfortableness

was sustained (Turn 23). From a position of reflexivity, these awkward turns can be

likened to wading through muddied bogs (see Finlay, 2002). Despite the informality

of the encounter on a physical level (meeting over afternoon tea and nibbles), the

interpersonal relationships appeared bound up in an institutional context of power and

authority (Mauthner and Doucet, 2003). In Turns 24 and 26, for example, although

Sally freely expressed her viewpoint, she peppered her statements with references to

the impact of the pre-service teacher program’s curriculum on her learning.

Deepening reflexivity in qualitative research: theoretical considerations,

truth and power

In a reflexive process of acknowledging bias, the qualitative researcher’s theoretical

stance and the influence of the socio-historical location must be considered (McCabe

and Holmes, 2009; Mauthner and Doucet, 2003). So, to better understand the research

process, deepening the notion of reflexivity necessitates embedding it within a

theoretical framework, which is linked to the production of knowledge. As a qualitative

insider/outsider researcher, I must apply reflexivity without controlling or eliminating

social factors, but to identify the impact of these factors. Through Study A, I aimed to

transform pre-service teachers understandings of literacies to celebrate new literacy

landscapes with heightened sociocultural diversity and modes of communication in

educational settings. Underpinned by a sociocultural perspective, the study’s

theoretical framework drew on a pedagogy of multiliteracies (The New London

Group, 1996, 2000).

To counter the back-to-basics movement in literacy learning and empower students

as informed and engaged citizens for the new millennium, The New London Group

(2000) designed a pedagogy of multiliteracies. Assuming that knowledge is produced

in social, cultural and material contexts, The New London Group explicated four

interrelated aspects of a pedagogy of multiliteracies. Situated practice refers to

learners’ experiences in a community of learners. Overt instruction includes the

teacher’s or expert’s interventions for scaffolding or supporting learning (Bruner, 1983;

Cumming-Potvin, 2009), allowing the learner to augment their consciousness about

learning. Critical framing highlights the importance of learners interpreting the

cultural, political, historical and ideological contexts of learning. Transformed practice

consists of implementing new understandings with reflective practice in new contexts.

From a broader perspective of learning, in designing Study A, I integrated Lave and

Wenger’s (1999) situated theory and the metaphor of communities of practice (Lave and

Wenger, 1999; Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002). Here, learning is explained as

transpiring through informal groups of people sharing passion or concern about a

topic. Members are viewed as negotiating their actions through relationships across

multiple communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). As I revisit Study A’s design, I aim to

acknowledge discomfort vis-a` -vis the theoretical framework, which unveils reflexivity

as confounding and disruptive practices (Mauthner and Doucet, 2003; Lather, 1986;

Pillow, 2003). In this vein, I acknowledge that truth does not exist within theory. For

example, although Lave and Wenger (1999) acknowledge diversity in communities

of practice, numerous researchers have criticized the metaphor, particularly in relation

to inadequate explanations of power distribution (Handley et al., 2006; Roberts, 2006).

Li et al. (2009) also argued that tension can surface amongst learners who are expected

to collaborate, but are often assessed individually and competitively; mastering new

knowledge in such contexts may be considered uncomfortable, thus leading to limited

engagement in a community of practice.

As my post-script to Study A continues and I search to illuminate the process of

acknowledging discomfort within reflexivity and theory, I have found the work

of many qualitative researchers to be helpful. Reflecting on their study “No Outsiders”,

which aimed to disrupt heteronormative practices in UK primary schools, DePalma

and Teague (2009) questioned the possibility of creating and maintaining a democratic

community of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1999). DePalma and Teague analysed the

complex and difficult process of building an international research community

involving diverse sectors such as universities and primary schools. Drawing on

Foucault, the authors cite the importance of disciplinary power, where some practices

become normalized as truth, making some institutional discourses more dominant

than others. McCabe and Holmes (2009) also draw on Foucault’s concept of ubiquitous

power to shift reflexivity from a technical tool in qualitative research to a new way

of being leading to empowerment. For Foucault (1977), “What makes power hold good,

what makes it accepted, is simply the fact that it doesn’t only weigh on us as a force

that says no, but it traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms

knowledge, produces discourse”(p. 119).

As a literacy researcher and educator aiming to transform the status quo, I am

mindful that institutional regimes of truth are linked to power and status in society

(Foucault, 1977). More specifically, I ask myself: whose community and whose practice

am I researching? (Lave and Wenger, 1999; DePalma and Teague, 2009). How can

participants transform literacy practices in new settings (The New London Group,

2000)? So as an insider/outsider qualitative researcher aiming for deeper reflexive

explorations which acknowledge uncomfortableness in theory, I ask myself how

and why multiple discourses are constructed. Davies et al. (2004) described this form of

reflexivity as critical literacy. The image drawn is of the questioning researcher who

turns the reflexive gaze on: themselves, discourses, language and the world.

In Figure 1, which is inspired by my reflections on Study A and the work of

multiple post-modern researchers and theorists, I illustrate my ponderings to

integrate the discomforting practices of reflexivity with theoretical considerations of

qualitative inquiry. Insert Figure 1 about here.

The outer rectangle represents Mauthner and Doucet’s (2003) and Foucault’s (1977)

allusions to the personal, sociocultural, historical and political influences on reflexivity

in qualitative inquiry. The second rectangle represents the theory of situated practice,

with particular reference to the metaphor of community of practice (Lave and Wenger,

1999; Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002). Here, DePalma and Teague’s work suggests

possibilities and constraints in building communities of practice, which are

characterized by uneven notions of democracy. The third rectangle represents the

pedagogy of multiliteracies (The New London Group, 1996, 2000), which aims to

broaden literacy practices to meet the needs of an increasingly globalized,

multicultural and technological world. Embedded in the centre is the rectangle of

reflexivity. Referring to the work of Foucault (1977); Pillow (2003) and Lather (1986,

2004), this inner rectangle is divided into sub-components of: discomfort, truths

and power. These uncomfortable sub-components are at the heart of qualitative

inquiry, which should acknowledge that reflexivity in practice is “perilous, full of

muddy ambiguity and multiple trails” (Finlay, 2002, p. 212).

Concluding remarks

Over many years, as a teacher educator, I have engaged in subtle resistance to

a technical approach to literacy education, which essentializes literacy as reading and

writing for the purpose of standardized testing and academic performance. This

simplification dismisses the plurality and complexity of ever-evolving literacies, which

are linked to civic engagement and sociocultural, historical and political spheres

(see New London Group, 2000). Indeed, Cross (2009) contended that if individuals’

acceptance in society is reduced to a basic, manageable and testable model of literacy,

one wonders if such a model is of value. More broadly, as neo-liberal policies are

implemented across Australia, the dominant ideology in education continues to

embrace positivism, often assuming that good teaching means effective student

management and quiet classrooms (Tobin, 2012).

As a qualitative researcher, I have simultaneously resisted the dominant ideology of

positivism, which sets the standards for good research as based on narrowly defined

scientific evidence (Lather, 2004). In a post-industrialized climate of neo-liberalism, the

struggle for qualitative researchers has often turned towards establishing validity

through reflexivity. In the quest for validity, there has been an alluring temptation for

qualitative researchers to reduce reflexivity to either a “tick the box” set of mechanical

exercises or a narcissistic fad (Patai, 1994; Pillow, 2003). Having re-visited moments of

my initial analysis from Study A, I have argued that deepening reflexivity and

exposing its difficulties in qualitative research involves viewing phenomena through a

nuanced lens of self-awareness and social, political and cultural consciousness

(see Patton, 2002). This retrospective reflexivity has taken me on a winding

journey, “[y] where solid ground can all too easily give way to swamp and mire”

(Finlay, 2002, p. 212).

In negotiating this challenging journey, to share my explorations for shifting

towards a “new basics” of reflexivity, I have synthesized my reflections in schematic

form (Figure 1). This representation highlights broader theoretical frameworks, such

as communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1999; Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002)

which are adjusted to account for shifting notions of power and democracy (DePalma

and Teague, 2009). The essence consists of the concept of reflexivity, with all its

discomfort and ambiguities. Here, The New London Group’s (1996, 2000) pedagogy of

multiliteracies offers insights into the reflexive process. Through overt instruction, the

researcher turns their gaze inwards to become conscious of the micro-aspects of

learning, such as language and semiotics. Through critical framing, the researcher

broadens their gaze to critique texts, aiming to better understand cultural, political,

historical and ideological relationships. In this sense, divisions between insider and

outsider research are rendered complex and problematic; even if the researcher

engages in mutual activities with their participants, the truths privileged are based

initially on situating the researcher’s need for truth. From these simultaneous inward

and outward gazes, Pillow’s (2003) new term of “rigorously self-aware” is helpful

to contemplate reflexivity as an instrument which produces contending discourses of

truth related to power. Particularly salient is Foucault’s (2000) image of cracks and

tremors in institutions or relationships:

It was always because I thought I identified cracks, silent tremors, and dysfunctions in things

I saw, institutions I was dealing with, or my relations with others, that I set out to do a piece of

work, and each time was partly a fragment of autobiography (p. 458).

Along my journey as an insider/outsider qualitative researcher and literacy educator,

the tremors have resulted in cracks which have implications for university-based

research and teaching in neo-liberal times. First, in seeking validity for qualitative

research, it is vital for university researchers to engage with the concept of reflexivity

in a deep and uncomfortable manner, which links theory and practice. Moving beyond

traditional basics, a pedagogy of multiliteracies (The New London Group, 1996, 2000)

could be particularly useful in scaffolding researchers to represent reflexive processes

in innovative ways (e.g. digital, visual, aural, multimodal). Second, it is important

throughout the research process, that tertiary educators scaffold their research

students to understand the complexities, ambiguities and difficulties related to

reflexivity. Third, it is critical for university researchers to recognize that retrospective

reflexivity can impact significantly on rigorous self-awareness, especially in relation to

personal and professional ethics.

Finally, to scaffold connections between theory and practice, a more rigorous

concept of reflexivity could be integrated in pre-service teacher programs. This

methodology could be particularly useful during professional internships in school

settings when pre-service teachers often encounter contending and related discourses of

power (Foucault, 2000), which may be at odds with ideologies privileged in universities.

More broadly, collaboration between communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1999)

in the field of education and other professional disciplines, especially those associated

with robust traditions of positivism, such as applied sciences, can facilitate new ways of

thinking and doing reflexivity to scaffold new graduates entering the work force.

References

Anderson, G.L. and Jones, F. (2000), “Knowledge generation in educational administration from

the inside out: the promise and perils of site-based, administrator research”, Educational

Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 428-464.

Ary, D.L., Jacobs, R.A. and Sorensen, C. (2006), Introduction to Research Methods, 7th ed.,

Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2010), “My school”, available at:

www.myschool.edu.au/ (accessed 20 September 2012).

Bakhtin, M. (1986), Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, in Emerson, E. and Holquist, M. (Eds),

(Trans by V. McGee) University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Britzman, D. (1995), “ ‘The question of belief’: writing poststructural ethnography”, International

Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 229-238.

Bruner, J. (1983), Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language, Norton, New York, NY.

Bruni, N. (2002), “The crisis of visibility: ethical dilemmas in autoethnographic research”,

Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 24-33.

Butler, J. (2004), “Bodily inscriptions, performative subversions”, in Sara S. (Ed.), The Judith

Butler Reader, Blackwell, London, pp. 90-118.

Choi, J. (2006), “Doing poststructural ethnography in the life history of dropouts in South Korea:

methodological ruminations on subjectivity, positionality and reflexivity”, International

Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 435-453.

Commonwealth of Australia (2007), “Top of the class: report on the inquiry into teacher

education”, available at: www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/evt/teachereduc/report.

htmwww.appa (accessed 21 February 2008).

Council of Australian University Librarians (2008), “Australian higher education statistics,

council of Australian university librarians”, available at: www.caul.edu.au/caul-programs/

caul-statistics/auststats (accessed 15 September 2012).

Crabtree, B. and Miller,W. (1992), Doing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Cross, R. (2009), “Literacy for all: quality language education for few”, Language and Education,

Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 509-522.

Cumming-Potvin, W. (2009), “Social justice, pedagogy and multiliteracies: developing communities of practice for teacher education”, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 82-99.

Cumming-Potvin,W. (2012), “Critical engagement with literacy and qualitative research: towards

socially just pedagogy in the teacher education classroom”, in Down, B. and Smyth, J.

(Eds), Critical Voices in Teacher Education, Teaching for Social Justice in Conservative

Times. Explorations of Educational Purpose 22, Springer Science þ Business Media B.V,

New York, NY, pp. 196-209.

Davies, B., Browne, J., Gannon, S., Honan, E., Laws, C., Mueller-Rockstroh, B. and Bendix, E.

(2004), “The ambivalent practices of reflexivity”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10 No. 3,

pp. 360-389.

DePalma, R. and Teague, L. (2009), “A democratic community of practice: unpicking all those

words”, in DePalma, R. and Atkinson, E. (Eds), Interrogating Heteronormativity in

Primary Schools, Trentham Books, Stoke on Trent, pp. 111-131.

Department of Education, Science and Training (2005), Teaching Reading: Report and

Recommendations. National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy, Department of

Education, Science and Training, Australian Government, Commonwealth of Australia,

Barton, ACT.

Down, B. (2012), “Reconceptualizing teacher standards: authentic, critical and creative”, in Down,

B. and Smyth, J. (Eds), Critical Voices in Teacher Education, Teaching for Social Justice in

Conservative Times. Explorations of Educational Purpose 22, Springer, New York, NY,

pp. 63-80.

Down, B. and Smyth, J. (2012), “Introduction: from critique to new scripts and possibilities in

teacher education”, in Down, B. and Smyth, J. (Eds), Critical Voices in Teacher Education,

Teaching for Social Justice in Conservative Times. Explorations of Educational Purpose

22, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 1-12.

Durrant, C. (2012), “Whispering to the hippopotamus about the ‘literacy boomerang’: literacy

wars and rumours of wars”, in Down, B. and Smyth, J. (Eds), Critical Voices in Teacher

Education, Teaching for Social Justice in Conservative Times. Explorations of Educational

Purpose 22, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 185-195.

Edwards, B. (2002), “Deep insider research”, Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-84.

Finlay, L. (2002), “Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in

research practice”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 209-230.

Foucault, M. (1994), Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, The New Press, New York, NY.

Foucault, M. (1977), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings (Edited by

C. Gordon) Random House, Vintage Books, New York, NY.

Foucault, M. (2000), “So is it important to think?”, in Faubion, D.J.D. (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Power,

New Press, New York, NY, pp. 454-458.

Gertsl-Pepin, C. and Patrizio, K. (2009), “Learning from Dumbledore’s Pensieve: Metaphor

as aid in teaching reflexivity in qualitative research”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 9 No. 3,

pp. 299-308.

Griffith, A.I. (1998), “Insider/outsider: epistemological privilege and mothering work”, Human

Studies, Vol. 21, pp. 361-376.

Geertz, C. (1973), “Thick description: towards an interpretive theory of culture”, in Geertz, C.

(Ed.), The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 3-30.

Hamdan, A. (2009), “Reflexivity of discomfort in insider-outsider educational research”, McGill

Journal of Education, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 376-404.

Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R. and Clark, T. (2006), “Within and beyond communities of

practice: making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice”, Journal of

Management Studies., Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 641-652.

Hellawell, D. (2006), “Inside-out: analysis of the insider-outsider concept as a heuristic device to

develop reflexivity in students doing qualitative research”, Teaching in Higher Education,

Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 483-494.

Henderson, S., Holland, J., McGrellis, S., Sharpe, S. and Thomson, R. (2012), “Storying qualitative

longitudinal research: sequence, voice and motif ”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 12 No. 1,

pp. 16-34.

Hostetler, K. (2005), “What is ‘good’ education research?”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 34 No. 6,

pp. 16-21.

Humphrey, C. (2012), “Dilemmas in doing insider research in professional education”, Qualitative

Social Work, doi:1473325012446006, first published 14 May.

Kim, W. (2012), “Research with children: challenges & dilemmas as an insider researcher”, Early

Childhood Development and Care, Vol. 182 No. 2, pp. 263-276.

Kincheloe, J. and Steinberg, S. (2007), “Cutting class in a dangerous era: a critical pedagogy of

class awareness”, in Kincheloe, J. and Steinberg, S. (Eds), Cutting Class: Socioeconomic

Status and Education, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 1-70.

Labaree, R.V. (2002), “The risk of ‘going observationalist’: negotiating the hidden dilemmas of

being an insider participant observer”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 97-122.

Lather, P. (1986), “Issues of validity in openly ideological research: between a rock and a soft

place”, Interchange, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 63-84.

Lather, P. (1993), “Fertile obsession: validity after post-structuralism”, The Sociological Quarterly,

Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 673-693.

Lather, P. (2004), “Scientific research in education: a critical perspective”, British Educational

Research Journal, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 759-772.

Lave, J. andWenger, E. (1999), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge

University Press, New York, NY.

Li, L., Grimshaw, J., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P. and Graham, I. (2009), “Evolution of Wenger’s

concept of community of practice”, Implementation Science, Vol. 4 No. 11, pp. 1-8.

Luke, A. (2012), “Critical literacy: foundational notes”, Theory into Practice, Vol. 51 No. 1,

pp. 4-11.

McCabe, J. and Holmes, D. (2009), “Reflexivity, critical qualitative research and emancipation: a

Foucauldian perspective”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 65 No. 7, pp. 1518-1526.

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. (1999), Designing Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., Sage Publications,

Thousand Oak, CA.

Mauthner, S. and Doucet, A. (2003), “Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative

data analysis”, Sociology., Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 413-431.

Mead, M. (1929), Coming of Age in Somoa, Jonathon Cape, New York, NY.

Mercer, J. (2007), “The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: wielding a

double-edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 33

No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Merton, R. (1972), “Insiders and outsiders; a chapter in the sociology of knowledge”, American

Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 9-47.

Mullings, B. (1999), “Insider or outsider: both or neither: some dilemmas of interviewing in a

cross-cultural setting”, Geoforum, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 337-350.

Paechter, C. (2013), “Researching sensitive issues online: implications of a hybrid insider/outsider

position in a retrospective ethnographic study”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 13 No. 1,

pp. 71-86.

Patai, D. (1994), “(Response). When method becomes power”, in Gitlen, A. (Ed.) Power and

Method, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 61-73.

Patton, M. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications,

Thousand Oaks, CA.

Pillow, W. (2003), “Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as

methodological power in qualitative research”, Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 16

No. 2, pp. 175-196.

Roberts, J. (2006), “Limits to communities of practice”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43

No. 3, pp. 623-639.

Schwandt, T. (1997), Qualitative Inquiry, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Scott, S. (1985), “Working through the contradictions in researching postgraduate education”,

in Burgess, R. (Ed.), Field Methods in the Study of Education, Falmer Press, Lewes,

pp. 115-130.

Sikes, P. and Potts, A. (2008), “What are we talking about and why?”, in Sikes, P. and Potts, A.

(Eds), Researching Education From the Inside: Investigations From Within, Routledge,

London, pp. 3-12.

The New London Group (1996), “A pedagogy of multiliteracies. Designing social futures”,

Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 60-91.

The New London Group (2000), “A pedagogy of multiliteracies. Designing social futures”, in

Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (Eds), Multiliteracies. Literacy Learning and the Future Design

of Social Futures, MacMillan Publishers Australia Pty Ltd, South Yarra, pp. 9-38.

Tierney, W. (2002), “Getting real: representing reality”, International Journal of Qualitative

Studies in Education, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 385-394.

Tillman, C. (2009), “Comments on Howe: the never-ending education science debate: I’m ready to

move”, On Educational Researcher, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 458-462.

Tobin, K. (2012), “Afterword: we can enact change”, in Down, B. and Smyth, J. (Eds), Critical

Voices in Teacher Education, Teaching for Social Justice in Conservative Times.

Explorations of Educational Purpose 22, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 273-284.

Trinh, M. (1991), When the Moon Waxes Red: Representation, Gender and Cultural Politics,

Routledge, New York, NY.

Tsekeris, C. and Katrivesis, N. (2009), “Ethical reflexivity and epistemological weakness

Tamara:”, Journal of Critical Postmodern Organisation Science, Vol. 7 No. 3,

pp. 26-32.

Tuinamuana, K. (2011), “Teacher professional standards, accountability, and ideology:

alternative discourses”, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 36 No. 12,

pp. 72-82.

Webster, J. (2008), “Establishing the ‘truth’ of the matter: confessional reflexivity as introspection

and avowal”, Psychology & Society, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 65-76.

Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. (2002), Cultivating Communities of Practice, Harvard

Business School Press, Boston, MA.

White, J., Grant, J., Rumbold, J. and Rumbold, B. (2012), “Presumptuous methodology”, in

Vicars, M., McKenna, T. andWhite, J. (Eds), Discourse, Power, and Resistance Down Under,

Vol. 88 Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 161-173.

Yates, L. (2002), “What does ‘good’ educational research look like?”, paper presented at Why

Learning? Seminar, Australian Museum/University of Technology, Sydney, NSW

November 22.