 |
 |
I do not wish to suggest or give the impression that I think research should be value free...especially "critical" research . What makes our research so interesting and enlightening is that we do have a perspective and we in one form or another have strong ideological positions. Yet I sense that many feel by being critical we enter into what I call the first order of reflexivity and use that position only. By doing so we will mask our ideology cause we are speaking from the position of ideology only. In the way that we speak and in the way we argue the basis of our being critical might be grounded in a certain ideological position but it is left to the reader to ferret that out. Is that being critical? My suggestion is that we should be reflexive about our own reflexivity, a second order of reflexivity, which causes the researcher to attempt to stand outside themselves including their own ideologies and critique from that level. Not an easy thing to dowrestle and come to grips with one's own ideology and understand it enough to critique it, its implications on research, and weave that critique into the critical research. From this second level of reflexivity the ideology is exposed for what its is giving other scholars a clear understanding of the basis, bias and grounding of that research. Ashmore does an excellent job in explaining the many facets of reflexivity in the "Reflexive Thesis". Dorothy Lander uses second order reflexivity in her article "Re-pairing knowledge worker and service worker" in "Managing Knowledge Critical Investigations of Work and Learning" by Prichard, Hull, Chumer and Willmott. Do we all have specific ideologies and belief systems? Certainly. Are they of value in and of themselves when conducting research? Perhaps. Should these ideologies be exposed as part of a researcher's particular project? I think so. Paul mentions that his survey indicates a strong leaning to the "left" and suggests that this is reflective of the "mission statement". Well perhaps this statement needs revisiting. I make the claim about being reflexive of one's own reflexivity cause I am on the final throes of completing a self ethnography which has forced me to think this way. Geez I have a host of biases based on some strong ideologies and I can certainly speak from those positions. It might make for some interesting reading but would it be "critical" scholarship? In other words I pull out of myself in almost a kind of out of body experience and then critique myself performing a first order reflexive analysis. Not only do I critique within the framework of the self ethnography but I also critique myself doing so. Makes for some outlandish headaches. I am not suggesting that critical research be value free rather that those values should not be masked but exposed for what they are and how they might affect the first order critique. Mike Chumer ( I am a grandfather again...Dylan Michael was born Sept. 26 in NYC)