On February, 4, 2014 class, the concept and practice
of reflexivity was discussed and evaluated in terms of its functions and
importance for researcher. I found it very important to see the way in which researcher
is able to map, frame and exhibit her own relations and existence with
research. There may be many ways to keep it and make reflection to be accessible
for participants, other groups for reaching understanding. Here, I am going to
discuss the social action and reflexivity.
As
it is defined in our text book, ‘reflexivity is the process of intentionally
attending to perspectives, attitudes, beliefs that shape how your design a research
study’. If I go further about this sentence and action that is carried in all social
relations. Although internet presents itself as distance, the social relations
are exist and reshape every meaning with and within it. In this sense, I want
to use Habermas typology for social action that I thought in the class to help
understand the foundational importance of reflection in qualitative studies.
Social action is typically divided into two categories by Habermas. They are
strategic and communicative action. Strategic action is also consist of two
different types which are openly and latently strategic action. These claim
that the goal manipulates the understanding since the action in these
categories focuses on reaching goal, success and what doers want. The other
category, communicative action, include two sub-categories which are action
oriented toward reaching understanding and consensual action. I think that
reflection is more about communicative action since the reflexivity enables us
to communicate ourselves about the research processes and also communicate with
other to reach understanding. Thus, reflexivity is not only one part of the duties that we need to conduct, do and make during the research, but also philosophical and critical positionality to reach, construct and reconstruct the meaning with the help of the communication between ‘alter’ and ‘ego’ and also first person and second person.
Hmm...I really like the connections you are making to Habermas and the notion of intentional reflexivity. I can certainly see the direct linked to communicative action, as Habermas defined it. Also, your word choice of constructing and reconstructing lead me to question whether we ever can claim to 'know' self fully and biases, which perhaps speaks back to the need to engage in recursive reflexivity. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteHi Zulfukar!
ReplyDeleteI very much enjoy reading your blog!! I notice that you often bring in new theory into our discussions!
For example, Habermas's typology has very interesting notions regarding reflexivity. It intentionally incorporates "consensual action" as part of the communicative process. I would like to learn more about this area? Will you please send me any sources you may have?
Also, I have in my notes to ask you about illocutionary acts? Are these ideas related?
I am asking a lot of ?'s. Thank you in advance, Dan
Hello Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI am very happy to hear your great comments. I send you Habermas articles about social action. You are always welcome to ask many questions since we can reach 'shared and consensual understanding' in our life.
All the best,