What happened to Çaction

TLDR: In this article, the authors focus on Brosseau's particular version of reflexivity, which is seen as far more demanding, problematic and valuable than Thrift's reflexivity and bring us much further in applying affective reflexivity to research writing than does Thrift.

Abstract: Purpose 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 naive 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. Design/methodology/approach 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. Findings 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. Originality/value A polemic calling for and warnings about the complexities of affective reflexivity, presented as demanding, dangerous and complex.