Currently reading Trundle et al. (2025) on “Beyond the Mirror: Challenging the Common Assumptions of Reflexivity in Qualitative Research”

In Dunnett & Glessmer (2025), we pushed back on the idea that listing identity facets was a good way to do positionality statements in publication or the classroom, and stress that instead, reflection and a declaration of impact of facets was needed. And here comes a great toolkit for “robust reflexivity“!

Trundle et al. (2025) argue that “the reflexive researcher sees knowledge not as a detached process of collecting and observing truth, but one in which the researcher, the methods of research, and the knowledge produced are entangled“. To disentangle this, we need not only reflexivity, but continuous “robust reflexivity“, which includes “being reflexive about reflexivity” and respects subjectivity to the point that “reflexivity within teams does not aim to arrive at a singular interpretation across viewpoints, but rather acts to“negotiate different understandings without imposing commonly shared meanings” (Finefter-Rosenbluh, 2017: 7).“.

With this, Trundle et al. (2025) present four main criticisms of reflexivity:

1) Reflexivity does not lead to revelation! Even if reflexive statements are not written to tell the reader what they want to read (as is easily the case even without bad intentions, because those statements are often written following guidelines, so of course there is some desire to do it “right” and to also be read as legitimate), they often contain the “lightbulb moments” of connection, or “redemptive arcs”, rather than failed experiences. For robust reflexivity, the authors develop methods “to extend reflexivity out of comfort zones into unreflective areas of our practice“.

2) Almost nothing is binary! Identity changes over time, and the status of insider/outsider depends on many identity facets, not just the one in focus in a particular study.

3) Reflexivity is embedded in social and cultural context (which I also describe in point 1 — there are expectations on reflexivity that depend on context), and is not a neutral, universal cognitive practice.

4) There are power dynamics at play even when practising reflexivity, and reflexivity needs to include a critique of who we are influences what we do, and how we benefit from existing social structures. This includes, for example, where grant money flows; typically to researchers in the Global North, even when studies and projects are on and in the Global South. Or when climate change researchers fly around the world to talk to people directly affected by climate change. Or who takes/is assigned the emotional labour of providing the vignette examples of reflexivity.

Based on this, Trundle et al. (2025) suggest a “Robust Reflexivity Tool” that consists of four broad prompts (“What do I hope my reflexivity will reveal? How am I engaging with my positionality and what are the consequences of this? What cultures of reflexivity exist in my social environment(s) and how do these shape me? Who benefits from my reflexivity?” and they all seem so important!) and then more detailed prompts for different parts of the research process (including, for example, “What answers to my research questions would be the least convenient, or least beneficial to me or to the solutions I think are needed?“).

And now I want to go through all their prompts for a current research project, will share when I am done!

Trundle, C., Araújo, N., Khan, S., & Phillips, T. (2025). Beyond the Mirror: Challenging the Common Assumptions of Reflexivity in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24, 16094069251369311.