Processes of Reflectivity Knowledge Construction in Qualitative Research

Abstract

The aim of this article is to suggest a useful approach demonstrating the focal role of processes of reflectivity in qualitative research. In particular, we distinguish between levels of analysis and analytical procedures for generating and organizing the interpretation of data and meanings in knowledge construction. We argue that reflective processes simultaneously involve both a state of mind and an active engagement. Within this context, reflective processes may refer to deliberate awareness involving both a contemplative stance (state of mind) and intentional activity aimed at recognizing differentness and generating knowledge (active engagement). Specifically, we identify four levels of reflection: observation, informants’ accounts, text deliberation, and contextualization and reconstruction. Simultaneously, we suggest several practical analytical procedures of reflectivity, which emanate from a dialectical line of thinking, including figure and ground, pre-existing expectations, apparent contradictions and opposites, and turning points (epiphanies). The dialectical approach to qualitative inquiry presented here maintains that discrepancies and opposites found at one level of analysis may be reconciled at a higher level of conceptual integration. During this process, the researcher becomes aware of the emergence of new knowledge by being attuned to a sense of differentness. We demonstrate the application of this model utilizing a concrete example taken from a research project evaluating a rehabilitation program for imprisoned male batterers.

Full text

http://qsw.sagepub.com/
Qualitative Social Work
http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/10/29/1473325010369024
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1473325010369024
published online 22 November 2010Qualitative Social Work
Adital Ben-Ari and Guy Enosh
Processes of Reflectivity: Knowledge Construction in Qualitative Research
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Qualitative Social WorkAdditional services and information for
http://qsw.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://qsw.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Qualitative Social Work
!The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav, Vol. 0(0): 1–20
www.sagepublications.com DOI: 10.1177/1473325010369024
Processes of Reflectivity
Knowledge Construction in Qualitative
Research
Adital Ben-Ari
1
and Guy Enosh
1
University of Haifa, Israel
ABSTRACT
The aim of this article is to suggest a useful approach demon-
strating the focal role of processes of reflectivity in qualita-
tive research. In particular, we distinguish between levels of
analysis and analytical procedures for generating and orga-
nizing the interpretation of data and meanings in knowledge
construction. We argue that reflective processes simulta-
neously involve both a state of mind and an active engage-
ment. Within this context, reflective processes may refer to
deliberate awareness involving both a contemplative stance
(state of mind) and intentional activity aimed at recognizing
differentness and generating knowledge (active engage-
ment). Specifically, we identify four levels of reflection:
observation, informants’ accounts, text deliberation, and con-
textualization and reconstruction. Simultaneously, we sug-
gest several practical analytical procedures of reflectivity,
which emanate from a dialectical line of thinking, including
figure and ground, pre-existing expectations, apparent con-
tradictions and opposites, and turning points (epiphanies).
The dialectical approach to qualitative inquiry presented
here maintains that discrepancies and opposites found at
one level of analysis may be reconciled at a higher level of
conceptual integration. During this process, the researcher
ARTICLE
KEY WORDS:
dialectics
knowledge
construction
levels of analysis
reflectivity
qualitative analysis 1
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

becomes aware of the emergence of new knowledge by being attuned to a sense
of differentness. We demonstrate the application of this model utilizing a con-
crete example taken from a research project evaluating a rehabilitation program
for imprisoned male batterers.
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this article is to suggest a useful approach for demonstrating the focal
role of processes of reflectivity in qualitative research. In particular, we distin-
guish between levels of analysis and analytical procedures for generating and
organizing the interpretation of data and meanings in knowledge construction.
Reflective processes have been described using several related terms, including
reflection (e.g. Daudelin, 1996); reflexivity (Sandelowski and Barroso, 2002;
Scho
¨n, 1983) and reflectivity (Burns and Engdahl, 1998). These related terms
are often used interchangeably in the literature (e.g. Cunliffe and Jun, 2005;
Gergen and Gergen, 1991; Outhwaite, 1999; Scho
¨n, 1983; Schwandt, 1997).
We argue that reflective processes simultaneously involve both a state of mind
and an active engagement. Within this context, reflective processes may refer to
deliberate awareness involving both a contemplative stance (state of mind) and
intentional activity aimed at recognizing differentness and generating knowledge
(active engagement). This conceptualization will guide the present article,
emphasizing the shared meanings of these related terms.
Reflectivity: Definitional and Conceptual Considerations
The modern use of the term ‘reflection’ is attributed to John Dewey, who
defined reflection processes as ‘active, persistent and careful consideration of
any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support
it and the further conclusions to which it tends [that] includes a conscious and
voluntary effort to establish belief upon a firm basis of evidence and rationality’
(1933: 9). More recent definitions introduce the constant movement between
being in the phenomena and stepping outside of it, and define reflection as ‘ ...
the process of stepping back from an experience, to ponder, carefully and
persistently, its meaning to the self through the development of inferences’
(Daudelin, 1996: 39). This definition emphasizes the essence of reflectivity as
the role played by the researcher vis-a-vis the phenomenon in question.
Therefore, reflectivity may be thought of as involving active, conscious processes
that emphasize the researcher’s dual position both within and outside the
phenomenon, requiring constant movement between the two. The researcher’s
position could be thought of as representing a ‘liminal space’ referring to a
subjective conscious state of being between two different existential planes
(Meyer and Land, 2005; Turner, 1967, 1995).
2gQualitative Social Work 0(0)
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

More specifically, reflectivity involves reflecting upon the ways in which
our own values, experiences, interests, beliefs and political commitments shape
our identities. It also involves the need to be aware of one’s social context and
the influence of societal and ideological constraints on previously taken-for-
granted practices. For example, in ethnographic research, researchers are often
in a liminal state, as both participants and observers of the studied phenomena.
Thus, researchers must consider the self in relation to others as well as their own
position vis-a-vis the phenomena (Meyer and Land, 2005; Turner, 1967, 1995).
Moreover, reflectivity allows them to gain control over the direction of these
influences by taking into account the wider historical, cultural and political
contexts in framing and reframing the understanding of social phenomena
(Calderhead, 1989; Gore and Zeichner, 1991; Habermas, 1974). Overall, it
seems that the literature defining reflection may be organized around three
main themes: reflection as a means of carefully inspecting one’s values and
beliefs; reflection as a ‘liminal position’ between familiarity with the studied
phenomena and analytic distance from the same phenomena; and reflection as
a means of understanding the construction of one’s identity. These three ways of
understanding the concept may appear distinct from one another. However, for
us as researchers, the three themes represent different aspects of the same experi-
ence. Namely, by being in a ‘liminal space’ vis-a-vis the studied phenomena,
researchers may use this position to examine their beliefs and values, while
simultaneously redefining and reconstructing their identity, thereby implement-
ing their reflective capacity. As such, reflectivity is an instrumental process in the
research endeavor and in the construction of knowledge.
The Central Roles of Text and Interpretation in Qualitative Inquiry
No definitive way exists for categorizing the various philosophical and theore-
tical perspectives that distinguish types of qualitative inquiry (cf. Cresswell, 1998;
Denzin, 1998; Denzin and Lincoln, 1998; Lincoln and Guba, 2000; Patton,
2002; Schwandt, 2000). However, most typologies of qualitative inquiry share
the core premise that data can be constructed as text, used in its broadest mean-
ing to include documentation of observations, interviews, diaries, visual and
electronic data and existing documents. Researchers make sense of what they
have studied only when they transform the data into a text that is ready for
interpretation. As Denzin so eloquently conceptualized:
In the social sciences there is only interpretation. Nothing speaks for itself.
Confronted within a mountain of impressions, documents, and field notes, the
qualitative researcher faces the difficult and challenging task of making sense of
what has been learned. I call making sense of what has been learned the art of
interpretation. (Denzin, 1998: 313)
Ben-Ari & Enosh Processes of Reflectivity g3
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Within the context of the present article, all modes of qualitative inquiry
conceive data as text to be interpreted; thus, all such modes may benefit from
our theoretical framework, integrating reflective processes and analytical proce-
dures in the process of knowledge production.
The Implications of Reflectivity for Qualitative Modes of Inquiry
Before illustrating how processes of reflectivity are used in qualitative research,
we wish to re-emphasize that we are treating reflectivity as a deliberate aware-
ness, involving both a contemplative stance and intentional activity aimed at
recognizing differentness and generating knowledge. We conceive the origin of
knowledge construction as the recognition of ‘a difference that makes a differ-
ence’ (Bateson, 2000: 459) or, as more currently conceptualized, ‘a sense of
differentness’ (Enosh, Ben-Ari and Buchbinder, 2008). This recognition emerges
when researchers become aware of an apparent incongruity that needs to be
explored and understood. We contend that such exploration and reflection serve
as the starting point for knowledge construction. Namely, reflectivity is geared
toward that which is implicit, not a given or self-evident. This activity may lead
to a new way of understanding that transforms the meaning and perspective
regarding previously acquired information. With regard to both deliberate
awareness and intentional activity as aspects of reflectivity, we differentiate
between levels of analysis and analytical procedures for recognizing differentness.
Levels of Analysis in Qualitative Research
Based on our accumulated experience as qualitative researchers, teachers and
supervisors of graduate students, we have come to realize that qualitative
research involves four levels of analysis of the phenomenon in question: observa-
tion,informants’ accounts,text deliberation, and contextualization and reconstruction.
Each level involves interpretation, which means going beyond the descriptive
data, attaching significance to the findings and making sense of them by ‘offering
explanations, drawing conclusions, extrapolating lessons, making inferences,
considering meanings, and otherwise imposing order on an unruly, but surely
patterned world’ (Patton, 2002: 480). To identify such patterns, researchers can
also benefit from having knowledge of various qualitative approaches and meth-
ods, such as grounded theory (e.g. Strauss and Corbin, 1997, 1998); discourse
analysis (e.g. Edwards and Potter, 1992; Potter and Wetherell, 1987) and
phenomenological analysis (e.g. Smith, Jarman and Osborne, 1999; Smith and
Osborn, 2003; Spinelli, 1989), when applying specific analytical procedures to
the text.
Our conceptual model, with its four levels of analysis described below,
should be considered as a heuristic instrument, while recognizing that other
researchers may identify different ways of stratifying the analytical procedures
taking place in qualitative research.
4gQualitative Social Work 0(0)
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Observation
We were deliberating with the question of whether observation should be
treated as a mode of data collection or as the first analytical level in qualitative
research. We believe that observation can be considered as representing both.
However, within the context of the suggested model, it seems logical to begin
with observation, as this is the researcher’s first encounter with the studied
phenomena and clearly involves interpretation, making sense, drawing conclu-
sions, making inferences and considering meanings (Patton, 2002). Qualitative
inquiry has been defined as a process that focuses on the phenomenon in ques-
tion within its natural setting (Creswell, 1998; Denzin and Lincoln, 1998).
Observation is one of the earliest and most basic forms of gathering information
and gaining knowledge, and is one of the main sources of gathering material
about the social world (Adler and Adler, 1998). Incorporating the observed
phenomenon in its natural setting follows the anthropological tradition, which
invites thick description of the researched phenomenon as a point of departure
for the research endeavor (Geertz, 1973). When combined with other data
sources, observation serves as the bedrock for understanding the phenomenon
at hand (Adler and Adler, 1998; Jorgensen, 1989) and as such, serves as a power-
ful tool for constructing our knowledge of it.
Informants’ Accounts
At this level, the distinction between emic and etic perspectives appears to be the
central focus of the analytical process (Patton, 2002; Pike, 1954), suggesting its
relevance to the conceptualization of the researchers as existing within a liminal
space. Pike (1954) coined the terms emic and etic to denote the differences
between the perspectives of insiders and outsiders to a phenomenon. When first
analyzing an informant’s account, researchers focus on emic knowledge, treating
the informant’s perspective as a significant step in the process leading to a
comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon in question. However, it is
important to note that an informant may be so immersed in the phenomenon as
to be unaware of the existence of patterns and recurrent themes. As researchers,
we are aware of the existence of both the emic and the etic perspectives and are
able to move between them and integrate them.
Text Deliberation
At this level, the analysis moves from the emic to the etic by attempting to
identify recurrent themes – linguistic, behavioral, relational, or other. Practically,
researchers are inductively engaged in an active process of making meaning out
of repetitive patterns in the interview materials. These patterns can be repre-
sented as dimensions, categories, classification schemes, or themes. Once these
representations have been constructed, it is often useful to cross-classify them in
order to generate new insights about how the data may be organized and to look
Ben-Ari & Enosh Processes of Reflectivity g5
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

for patterns that may not have been immediately obvious in the initial inductive
analysis (Patton, 2002; Tesch, 1990). Such a process can lead to the identification
of configurations of behaviors, relationships, and meanings, which can then be
developed into a comprehensive conceptual model of the phenomenon at hand.
Contextualization and Reconstruction
The fourth level of reflection is centered on integrating the knowledge pro-
duced at the previous levels by examining such knowledge within the wider
context of the study. Being reflective involves self-questioning and self-under-
standing (Patton, 2002; Schwandt, 1997). Reflectivity requires an ongoing
examination of the cultural, social, linguistic and ideological context of the
researcher, as well as the perspectives and voices of informants, those to
whom one reports, and the intricate relationships between all the parties
involved (Enosh and Ben-Ari, 2010). Therefore, this level focuses on examining
the relationships between the knowledge producer and the informants, while
contextualizing the phenomenon under study within the larger social, political,
ethical, ideological and historical context.
Analytical Procedures of Reflectivity
Based on our accumulated experience, we can now identify several practical
analytical procedures of reflectivity derived from a dialectical line of thinking
(Baxter and Erbert, 1999; Ben-Ari, 1995; Buss, 1979; Gould and Kolb, 1964;
Hegel, 1807/1969; Rescher, 1977; Wallace, 2005). This line of thinking
assumes that contradictions are resolved by being observed in a more compre-
hensive system. Adopting a dialectical framework is based on the assumption that
apparent contradictions at one level may, in fact, be integrated as a synthesis of
the two opposing viewpoints at a higher level of conceptual analysis (Enosh and
Ben-Ari, 2010).
More specifically, we explore how the concept of dialectics can enhance
our understanding of the dynamics taking place between and within each level
of analysis (Hegel, 1807/1969; Wallace, 2005). The underlying assumption in
our dialectical approach to qualitative inquiry is that discrepancies and opposites
found at one level of analysis may be reconciled at a higher level of conceptual
integration. During this process, researchers become aware of the emergence of
new knowledge by being attuned, as we remarked above, to ‘a difference that
makes a difference’ (Bateson, 2000) or a ‘sense of differentness’ (Enosh, Ben-Ari
and Buchbinder, 2008). We exemplify this notion by focusing on some of the
major analytical procedures, including switching between figure and ground,
examining pre-existing expectations, searching for apparent contradictions and
opposites, and looking for turning points (epiphanies).
Figure and ground is a concept drawn from the psychology of perception
as a metaphor for higher cognitive processes (Thompson, Locander and
6gQualitative Social Work 0(0)
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Pollio, 1989). This metaphor demonstrates that upon encountering each
phenomenon, researchers have to focus on certain aspects of it (the figure),
while letting other aspects recede into the background (Thompson, Locander
and Pollio, 1989). Figure and ground can then be reversed, as aspects that were
previously in the background can come to the fore, while those previously in
focus can recede into the background. This yields a new picture with new
information, which may be completely different from the one previously
obtained. Shifting perspectives between figure and ground changes the way in
which researchers may think about the phenomenon at hand, with the figure of
one perspective providing an essential ground for the other. This process implies
that figure and ground cannot exist independently, since the ground is essential
in defining the figure and vice versa (Thompson, Locander and Pollio, 1989).
Pre-existing expectations refer to the preconceptions that guide researchers
when entering a new research milieu, be it a program to be evaluated, a new
group of interviewees, or any other setting. As Patton (2002) reflected on his
own experience: ‘We would never have understood the program without per-
sonally experiencing it. It bore little resemblance to our expectations, what
people had told us, or the official program description’ (p. 262). Thus, when
encountering a contrast between pre-existing expectations and the actual experi-
ence of reality, researchers may start questioning the meaning of such discre-
pancies and thereby generate new understandings that lead to a higher level of
conceptual integration.
Contrasts and contradictions help define continua and thus facilitate a
broader understanding of the phenomenon in question. The identification of
a continuum defined by two poles requires an explanation that may further
enhance the production of knowledge. Encountering a contrast or apparent
contradiction, challenges our existing knowledge and sparks our curiosity, pro-
moting our attempts to reconcile the two opposing poles.
Epiphanies are existentially critical moments indicating pivotal events, or
turning points, in the lives of individuals (Creswell, 1998; Denzin, 1989a).
Identifying those events that create a contrast between life prior to and following
the epiphany among individuals, families, groups, or societies reflects an aware-
ness of differences that make a difference. This conceptual model may be illu-
strated graphically using Figure 1.
The figure represents a graphical exposition of the ideas presented in this
article. In the center of the figure are the four levels of analysis, with Observation
at the bottom and Contextualization and Reconstruction at the top. Between
the levels, one can find the analytical procedures of reflectivity, which facilitate
the move from one level to the next. The point to emphasize is that the same
analytical procedures may be used in the movement between the four analytical
levels of reflection. The arrows at the sides represent the directionality of the two
parallel aspects of reflectivity.
Ben-Ari & Enosh Processes of Reflectivity g7
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Utilization of Conceptual Model of Reflectivity in Qualitative Research
We will now proceed to demonstrate the utilization of our conceptual model of
analytical levels and procedures in the practice of qualitative research. In order to
do this, we will use an illustrative example drawn from our own currently
ongoing research project aimed at evaluating a special in-prison treatment pro-
gram for wife-batterers. Several modes of data collection were used, including
field notes, in-depth interviews with staff and inmates, analysis of internal docu-
ments and procedures, and non-participant observations. Semi-structured
in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 staff members (social workers,
criminologists, psychologists, educators and wardens) as well as with 30 inmates.
The inmates were interviewed two weeks before their expected discharge and
one year following discharge. The interviews were informed by an interview
guide, focusing on such topics as violent and criminal conduct prior to impri-
sonment; reasons for imprisonment; marital relationships; parenthood; expecta-
tions at the time of entering the intervention program; changes in perceptions
and attitudes following the program; subjective evaluation of various program
components; and perceptions of existing and future interpersonal relationships.
‘Truth and Trust’: An Illustrative, Integrative Example
In the following example, we demonstrate how levels of analysis and procedures
of reflectivity are integrated and guide our approach throughout the analysis.
The same interview excerpt is used to highlight the differential knowledge
produced at each analysis stage. By employing the same set of analytical
Informants’ accounts
Observations
Text deliberation
Contextualization and reconstruction
Figure and ground *Pre-existing expectations *
Apparent contradictions and opposites * Turning points
Figure and ground * Pre-existing expectations *
Apparent contradictions and opposites * Turning points
(epiphanies)
Figure and ground * Pre-existing expectations *
Apparent contradictions and opposites * Turning points
(epiphanies)
Reflective levels of analysis
Analytical procedures of
reflectivity: Sense of
differentness
Figure 1 Reflective Processes and Guiding Tools of Reflectivity.
8gQualitative Social Work 0(0)
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

procedures vis-a-vis each analytical level, we can demonstrate the movement
from one level to a more intricate one and the differences between the knowl-
edge produced at each level. This approach to analyzing qualitative data may
contribute to the development of a conceptual framework and ultimately lead to
a better understanding of the phenomenon of interest, as well as the researchers’
stance vis-a-vis that phenomenon.
First Level: Observation
We refer to observation as the immediate encounter between the researchers and
the context in which the phenomenon in question is embedded. At this stage of
the analytical process, we focus on those aspects of the immediate experience
that link the researchers to the studied phenomenon. This is the researchers’ first
encounter with the researched phenomenon, where we begin the process of
defining and refining the basic research questions, issues and data to be analyzed.
As such, observation is geared toward the general context and is aimed at
identifying trends, patterns and styles of behavior to be used in conjunction
with the interview data. Rather than working with predetermined categories,
we construct ideas, generate categories and propose linkages between them. This
kind of flexibility allows insight into new realities and yields new ways of
looking into old realities, thereby generating new knowledge (Adler and
Adler, 1998; Denzin, 1989b). Interpretation, making inferences, selection of
foci, are all integral processes of this analytical level, as we select what to observe,
how to record observations and how to interpret them based on personal refer-
ence points and experiences. Even while selecting the interesting observations to
record, the researchers must interpret and value the data available (Meyer and
Land, 2005; Turner, 1967, 1995).
Observation Field Notes First Level of Reflection: Observation
Looking over a beautiful Galilee valley,
made up of scattered two-story stone
buildings, with expansive lawns and
meticulous gardens reminiscent of a
well-cared-for residential community or
a cozy campus of a rural college.
Conducting a research project in a
prison facility, the researchers expect
to see high walls, watchtowers, gray
buildings, neglected surroundings,
and facilities for a body search.
However, upon entry, the researchers
encounter the pastoral view of the
site.
(continued)
Ben-Ari & Enosh Processes of Reflectivity g9
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

When the researchers become aware of the discrepancy between their
expectations and the actual encounter with the facility, they may begin to
explore the source of these expectations and to analyze their socially constructed
assumptions regarding institutions in general and prisons in particular. They may
then reflect upon their previous experiences with institutions and prisons, lead-
ing to their general conception of what a prison should look like. In addition,
they may also begin to explore the rationale behind the specific architecture and
surroundings of this specific facility in order to understand the message conveyed
by the landscape described above. All these questions converge into a process of
making sense of the encounter with the observed, rather than being limited by
the self-evident.
Encountering a contrast between pre-existing expectations and the actual
experience, and attempting to navigate between the two, all create an experi-
ence of epiphany in the perception of the researchers, vis-a-vis the phenomenon
under study. Therefore, the application of these procedures raises an awareness
of contradiction as the main theme of the above description. Here, the research-
ers encounter situations that are unique, that provide news of difference, and to
which no known theories or previously accumulated information can be applied
Continued
Observation Field Notes First Level of Reflection: Observation
People are walking around dressed in jeans
and brown work shirts. Only the small
PA (Prison Authority) logo hints to the
onlooker that they are, in fact, inmates
of a prison.
The researchers experience a disso-
nance between their pre-existing
expectations and the actual site.
However, no accidental onlooker can
ignore the high fences and the watch-
towers surrounding the perimeter of
the complex. All visitors undergo an
extensive and intrusive security check
prior to entry.
This contrast is demonstrated in the
disparity between the serenity of the
surrounding landscape and the exis-
tence of fences and watchtowers. In
other words, the fences and watch-
towers create a sense of different-
ness with respect to the otherwise
calm picture. In figure and ground
terms, it is clear that fences and
watchtowers can be conceived as
figure embedded in the tranquil
background.
10 gQualitative Social Work 0(0)
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

(Scho
¨n, 1983). This is why it can be perceived as the starting point of the
generation of new knowledge. This point is critical because it emphasizes the
significance of the immediate experience as the first level from which knowledge is
produced.
Thus, the first level of analysis highlights the significance of the context –
the natural setting of the phenomenon in question – prior to exploring the
informant’s perspective, which is the focus of the second level. As it appears,
even at this preliminary stage of the analysis, construction plays a central role in
the analytical process. Constructing means interpreting, and interpretations start
with observation of the phenomenon in its natural setting (Denzin and Lincoln,
1998).
Second Level: Informants’ Accounts
At this level of analysis, we are committed to the informants’ perspectives and
constructions of reality in the process of understanding the studied phenomenon.
Here, the researchers continue to act mainly as spectators, focusing on the
concrete, factual descriptive information provided by the informants and staying
attuned to the informants’ offered interpretations, however implicit they may
be. Nonetheless, engaging with informants’ accounts increases the researchers’
access to information, together with greater involvement in the studied
phenomena. The researchers then may find themselves in a liminal space where
their engagement may blur the researcher role. This liminal state of being
betwixt and between may facilitate the researchers’ use of self-reflexivity in
interpreting informants’ accounts (Meyer and Land, 2005; Turner, 1967, 1995).
We now demonstrate the application of analytical procedures utilizing an
emic perspective to the analysis of an excerpt from an in-depth interview with a
prisoner serving time for domestic violence. Adib is 41 years old and has been in
prison for six years. He is now about to be discharged after spending the last year
in a special treatment program for wife-batterers.
Interview Text Second Level: Informants’ Accounts
I: Tell me about your experience with the
program.
A: The truth is ... the truth is that I had
several incidents here, not with fellow
prisoners, but with the staff ... At first, I
got the feeling that the staff didn’t
really believe in me. They just don’t
Several manifestations of a sense of
differentness can be identified in this
excerpt. First, shifts between figure
and ground: Adib shifts between
himself (figure) and the staff and
(continued)
Ben-Ari & Enosh Processes of Reflectivity g11
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Third Level: Text Deliberation
Up to this level of analysis, the researchers have been dealing mainly with
observational information generated either from the encounter with the natural
setting of the phenomenon in question or from the informant’s account. As the
analysis moves from the emic to the etic, the identification of recurrent patterns
is the main research task. Here, the researchers are actively involved in meaning-
making processes of identifying dimensions, categories, classification schemes,
Continued
Interview Text Second Level: Informants’ Accounts
believe in you. The truth is that I’ve been
carrying this feeling with me for such a
long time that it finally started to
bother me. One day, after about four
months of being in the program, we had
this meeting in which all the residents
talked with the staff about their expec-
tations and their problems with the
staff. Then, without any preparation, I
found myself telling them: ‘I just feel as
if you don’t believe in me’ and you ...
ahh ... don’t trust me enough and it
really makes things difficult for me.’
And I explained how I become angry
and frustrated. I didn’t believe I could
ever say something like this in front of
40 people and four female staff mem-
bers. It is not like opening up to another
man with whom you can really be open.
Then I saw that they were signaling to
me that they agreed with me and that
what I was saying was true. I then
started to feel that as long as I am here,
I should do something with myself ...
that I should really show them that I am
worthy of them, and that’s when ...
that’s when treatment actually started
for me ...
other members of the program
(ground) or between his long-term
sense of being distrusted (back-
ground) and the discovery following
the special event in which he did feel
worthy and trusted (figure).
Second, the interviewee constructs
his experiences by means of con-
trasts. For example: ‘I didn’t believe I
could ever say anything like that in
front of 40 people and four female
staff members. It is not like opening
up to another man, with whom you
can really be open.’ Thus, Adib is
contrasting personal disclosure to a
single man with public disclosure in
front of 40 men and four females.
One may ask which sector of the
public is more crucial for Adib; the
40 men or the four females?
Even the interviewee’s realization:
‘that’s when treatment actually
started for me ...’ creates a con-
trasted perception of time, starting
from the ‘turning point’ or epiphany
rather than from the official starting
point of his entry into the treatment
program.
12 gQualitative Social Work 0(0)
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

or themes. Of particular interest are new insights or patterns that were not
readily obvious in previous levels of analysis. In order to identify such patterns,
the researchers can benefit from the application of analytical procedures, as well
as the knowledge of various qualitative approaches. Such processes can lead to
the identification of configurations of behaviors, relationships, and meanings,
which can then be developed into a comprehensive conceptual model of the
phenomenon at hand.
At this level, the researchers are engaged in an active process of making
meaning out of the apparent discrepancies between various accounts and per-
ceptions of reality, contrasts and contradictions, or inconsistencies between
expectations and actual experiences, all of which emerged in the informant’s
account at the previous level. Thus, the essence of the activity at this level is to
look for that which is implicit or not given, that is, those aspects which generate
curiosity and call for interpretation.
Interview Excerpt Third Level: Text Deliberation
I: Tell me about your experience with the
program.
A: The truth is ... the truth is that I had
several incidents here, not with fellow
prisoners, but with the staff ... At first,
I got the feeling that the staff didn’t
really believe in me. They just don’t
believe in you. The truth is that I’ve
been carrying this feeling with me for
such a long time that it finally started to
bother me. One day, after about four
months of being in the program, we had
this meeting in which all the residents
talked with the staff about their expec-
tations and their problems with the
staff. Then, without any preparation, I
found myself telling them: ‘I just feel as
if you don’t believe in me’ and you ...
ahh ... don’t trust me enough and it
really makes things difficult for me’.
And I explained how I become angry
The repetitive usage of the words trust,
believes, truth, and really may sug-
gest that the interviewee is preoccu-
pied with issues of trust, belief, truth
and untruth. From this realization,
we can further discern two basic
notions: ‘trust and belief’ and ‘I and
the other.’ These notions can be
further developed into a continuum
defined by two poles – of certainty
and uncertainty. This preoccupation
is reflected in the underlying theme
of disbelief and lack of trust – which
all converge into the interviewee’s
efforts to gain trust and belief, for
himself and by himself, towards the
staff and his peers in the ward.
These themes emerge in the inter-
view in various contexts described by
(continued)
Ben-Ari & Enosh Processes of Reflectivity g13
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

At this stage, we refer to emergent themes and explicit, implicit and
missing parts as useful for the thematic analysis. In particular, the researchers
are concerned with questions such as: What are the repetitive patterns – linguis-
tic, behavioral, relational, or other – in the text? Are there any themes, figures,
or events that create news of difference? How does language represent self and
others? These questions may elevate the analysis to a higher level.
After interpreting and deliberating about the text, we may conclude that
the core issue represented in this excerpt is the dialectic of truth and authenticity
versus untruth and facade. These themes emerged from applying the analytical
procedures previously specified, mainly the search for contrasts and the shift
between figure and ground. Using the knowledge obtained directly from the
informant’s account, we analyzed how Adib reached the turning point that
he experienced. At the second level (Informants’ Accounts), we focused on
Continued
Interview Excerpt Third Level: Text Deliberation
and frustrated. I didn’t believe I could
ever say something like this in front of
40 people and four female staff mem-
bers. It is not like opening up to another
man with whom you can really be open.
Then I saw that they were signaling to
me that they agreed with me and that
what I was saying was true. I then
started to feel that as long as I am here I
should do something with myself ...
that I should really show them that I am
worthy of them, and that’s when ...
that’s when treatment actually started
for me ...
the interviewee, for example: I versus
the other; I in the past versus I in the
present; appreciation of the present
as a turning point which defines a
potentially different future.
All these themes may reflect the
underlying idea of moving between
conflicts and contrasts, turning
around the core issue of truth and
authenticity versus untruth and
facade. Adib appears to be con-
stantly preoccupied with how others
perceive him in contrast to how he
perceives himself. This constant dia-
logue between self-perception and
others’ perceptions hints at a higher-
level theme focusing on his fear of
the untrue, his difficulty with trust-
ing others, and his need to be
trusted. Despite his presented false
commitment, he expects people in
his environment to accept him as an
authentic person.
14 gQualitative Social Work 0(0)
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

the explicitly described turning point, whereas here at the third level (Text
Deliberation), we are searching for implicit tensions that may have facilitated
this turning point.
Thus, the turning point for Adib shifted from being the figure at the
second level to being the ground at the third level of text deliberation, yielding
the emerging continuum of certainty versus uncertainty as the new figure. This
new figure is composed of the themes that emerge from the unification of
opposites and contrasts into a continuum, which serves as the organizing prin-
ciple for the newly produced knowledge.
Fourth Level: Contextualization and Reconstruction
The fourth level of reflection is centered on integrating the knowledge pro-
duced at the previous levels by examining it within the wider context of the
study. This process includes examining the relationships between the knowledge
producer and the informants, while contextualizing the phenomenon under
study within the larger social, political, ethical, ideological and historical context.
Our suggested model ensures that the analysis does not stop at the descriptive
level, but rather moves beyond it to suggest causal linkages and interpretations.
At this stage, the researchers are able to integrate both emic and etic perspectives,
while being fully aware of the tension between the two. An outsider may not
understand the meaning of the patterns, whereas an insider may be so immersed
as to be oblivious to the fact that a pattern exists. By connecting all previous
levels through the meta-linkages that have emerged, the researchers are able to
create an overriding conceptual canopy which facilitates a comprehensive
understanding of the phenomenon.
Interview Excerpt
Fourth Level: Contextualization and
Reconstruction
I: Tell me about your experience with the
program.
A: The truth is ... the truth is that I had
several incidents here, not with fellow
prisoners, but with the staff ... At first,
I got the feeling that the staff didn’t
really believe in me. They just don’t
believe in you. The truth is that I’ve
been carrying this feeling with me for
such a long time that it finally started to
Contextualizing the previously
highlighted concepts of truth, belief,
and trust and re-examining these
constructs within the larger context
of the phenomenon under study
brings the totality of the institutio-
nalized prison to the fore. Here,
contrast and contradiction shape
(continued)
Ben-Ari & Enosh Processes of Reflectivity g15
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Carefully considering and integrating the information obtained from all
previous levels facilitates the emergence of a theoretical perspective that encom-
passes the relationships between the researchers and the informants. In our
example, the construction of reality by the informant is shaped by a double-
bind situation underlined by issues of truth and facade. The tension between
truth and facade emerges not only in Adib’s account, but is also expressed in the
conflicted messages conveyed to the inmates, the prison’s misleading external
Continued
Interview Excerpt
Fourth Level: Contextualization and
Reconstruction
bother me. One day, after about four
months of being in the program, we had
this meeting in which all the residents
talked with the staff about their expec-
tations and their problems with the
staff. Then, without any preparation, I
found myself telling them: ‘I just feel as
if you don’t believe in me’ and you ...
ahh ... don’t trust me enough and it
really makes things difficult for me’.
And I explained how I become angry
and frustrated. I didn’t believe I could
ever say something like this in front of
40 people and four female staff mem-
bers. It is not like opening up to another
man with whom you can really be open.
Then I saw that they were signaling to
me that they agreed with me and that
what I was saying was true. I then
started to feel that as long as I am here I
should do something with myself ...
that I should really show them that I am
worthy of them, and that’s when ...
that’s when treatment actually started
for me ...
the processes of reconstruction and
contextualization.
The contrast between the facade of
the prison as a pastoral resort versus
the life behind bars brings to the fore
issues of truth and trust. These issues
and the dynamics between them
create a double-bind situation, in
which theinmates are expected to
speak truthfully and to behave in a
trustworthy manner toward their
peers, the staff and representatives
of the legal system. On the other
hand, therapeutic program norms
encourage the genuine expression of
feelings and emotions, which in turn
may be restricted by the institution’s
regulations. Thus, residents may be
caught between the institution’s
contradictory demands. Moreover,
residents are not free to discuss this
experience of conflicting messages
because the exposure of such feel-
ings may be interpreted by the staff
as threatening and may jeopardize
their chances for early discharge.
16 gQualitative Social Work 0(0)
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

appearance, and even in the relationships between the researchers and the prison
staff.
Part of the reconstruction process is expressed in the corresponding pat-
terns between the researched and the researchers. Reflecting on the double-bind
situation in which inmates find themselves, it became apparent that we, as
researchers, were in a parallel double-bind situation. Although we had to
depend on the prison staff’s cooperation and goodwill, we were also in the
role of critical evaluators of the therapeutic program. Therefore, we were
expected to criticize the program, while at the same time refraining from expres-
sing any kind of criticism that might be perceived as threatening. Furthermore,
we were constantly preoccupied with issues of truth and untruth, as told by the
participants in the study, and yet were simultaneously faced by the question of
how truthful we ourselves were being in our own analysis of and reflection on
the emerging themes and patterns.
We argue that research phenomena may be mirrored in two different
ways, one being the social, political, cultural and ethical context within which it
is embedded, and the other being the position of the researchers, vis-a-vis these
contexts. In our example, the concepts of truth, trust and belief that emerged
from the informant’s account were re-examined in relation to the researchers’
experiences of researching prisoners. The similarities in experiences between the
prisoners and the researchers could not have surfaced at previous levels of analysis
because such observations require reconstruction and contextualization of the
studied phenomena within the larger context of the relationships between the
researchers, the research phenomena, and the informants.
DISCUSSION
In this article, we attempted to provide an answer to the overriding question of
how processes of reflectivity contribute to knowledge construction in qualitative
research. We claimed that moving from a lower to a higher level of analysis and
contemplating previous knowledge from a higher inductive level are both com-
plementary aspects of reflectivity. In addition, we argued and demonstrated that
sense of differentness may serve as a point of departure for knowledge production.
The methodological implications of this article are both practical and
theoretical. First, as qualitative researchers, teachers of research methods, and
supervisors of graduate students conducting research, we are often faced with
situations in which students are having difficulty with moving beyond the
descriptive level of analysis to reach more theoretical conceptualizations. The
practice of deliberating between the salient and the hidden, or the explicit and
the implicit, while analyzing differences in the studied phenomenon, can facil-
itate the process of exploration and conceptualization.
Ben-Ari & Enosh Processes of Reflectivity g17
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

As long as the experience is constructed as given, self-explanatory, or
taken for granted, then no curiosity arises, no motive for genuine exploration
emerges, and no new information is produced. Our proposed model can be
instrumental in training novice researchers to be attuned and sensitive to the
identification of opposites and contradictions, such as figure and ground,
pre-existing expectations, and epiphanies, and the need to reconcile those
opposites by reflecting from a higher level of abstraction.
Second, the process of constructing opposites at one level and reconciling
between them at a higher level highlights the dialectical thinking that is at the
heart of qualitative inquiry. A sense of differentness leads the researchers to seek,
identify and define contrasts, opposites and contradictions. This is followed by
the researchers becoming motivated to reconcile those opposites at a higher level
of abstraction. From this more abstracted level, previous opposites can be per-
ceived as integrated and as composing different poles of the same whole.
Thinking about a previous level of abstraction and understanding the different
opposites from a higher level of awareness constitutes the integrative part of the
process. Starting with the use of analytical procedures of reflectivity in order to
identify contrasts and develop their meanings, and moving through the final
integration of these opposites at a higher level of conceptualization, this entire
process assumes a dialectical approach to the construction of knowledge.
Therefore, we claim that reflective processes in qualitative research are dialectical
in nature and that a dialectical understanding requires the adoption of a reflective
stance towards the research endeavor.
Note
1. Both authors have contributed equally to the paper.
References
Adler, P. A. and Adler, P. (1998) ‘Observational Techniques’, in Denzin N. K. and
Lincoln Y. S. (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oak, CA:
SAGE, 79–109.
Bateson, G. (2000) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baxter, L. A. and Erbert, L. A. (1999) ‘Perceptions of Dialectical Contradictions in
Turning Points of Development in Heterosexual Romantic Relationships’, Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships 16: 547–69.
Ben-Ari, A. (1995) ‘Coming Out: A Dialectic of Intimacy and Privacy’, Families in Society
76: 306–14.
Burns, T. R. and Engdahl, E. (1998) ‘The Social Construction of Consciousness. Part 2:
Individual Selves, Self-awareness, and Reflectivity’, Journal of Consciousness Studies
5(2): 166–84.
Buss, A. (1979) A Dialectical Psychology. New York: Irvington.
Calderhead, J. (1989) ‘Reflective Teaching and Teacher Education’, Teaching and Teacher
Education 5: 43–51.
18 gQualitative Social Work 0(0)
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Creswell, J. W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Traditions. Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE.
Cunliffe, A. L. and Jun, J. S. (2005) ‘The Need for Reflexivity in Public Administration’,
Administration & Society 37: 225–42.
Daudelin, M. W. (1996) ‘Learning From Experience Through Reflection’,
Organizational Dynamics 24(3): 36–48.
Denzin, N. K. (1989a) Interpretive Biography. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Denzin, N. K. (1989b) The Research Act. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Denzin, N. K. (1998) ‘The Art and Politics of Interpretation’, in Denzin N. K. and Lincoln Y.
S. (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 313–44.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1998) ‘Introduction: Entering the Field of Qualitative
Research’, in Denzin N.K. and Lincoln Y.S. (eds) The Landscape of Qualitative
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1–34.
Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the
Educative Process. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992) Discursive Psychology. London: SAGE.
Enosh, G. and Ben-Ari, A. (2010) ‘Cooperation and Conflict in Qualitative Research:
A Dialectical Approach to Knowledge Production’, Qualitative Health Research 20(1):
125–130.
Enosh, G., Ben-Ari, A. and Buchbinder, E. (2008) ‘Sense of Differentness in the
Construction of Knowledge’, Qualitative Inquiry 14: 450–65.
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books.
Gergen, K. J. and Gergen, M. M. (1991) ‘Toward Reflexive Methodologies’, in Steier
F. (ed.) Research and Reflexivity. London: SAGE, 76–95.
Gore, J. M. and Zeichner, K. M. (1991) ‘Action Research and Reflective Teaching in
Preservice Teacher Education’, Teaching and Teacher Education 7: 119–36.
Gould, J. and Kolb, W. L. (1964) A Dictionary of the Social Sciences. New York: Free Press.
Habermas, J. (1974) Theory and Practice. London: Heinemann Education Books.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1807/1969) The Science of Logic. London: Allen & Unwin.
Jorgensen, D. L. (1989) Participant Observation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (2000) ‘Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions and
Emerging Confluences’, in Denzin N.K. and Lincoln Y.S. (eds) Handbook of
Qualitative Research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 163–88.
Meyer, J. H. F. and Land, R (2005) ‘Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge
(2): Epistemological Considerations and a Conceptual Framework for Teaching and
Learning’, Higher Education 49: 373–88.
Outhwaite, W. (1999) ‘The Myth of Modernist Method’, European Journal of Social
Theory 2: 5–25.
Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd edn.
Pike, K. (1954) Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior.
Vol. 1. University of California: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Republished in
1967. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology. London: SAGE.
Rescher, N. (1977) Dialectics: A Controversy-oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Ben-Ari & Enosh Processes of Reflectivity g19
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Sandelowski, M. and Barroso, J. (2002) ‘Finding the Findings in Qualitative Studies’,
Journal of Nursing Scholarship 34: 213–20.
Scho
¨n, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997) Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Schwandt, T. A. (2000) ‘Three Epistemological Stances for Qualitative Inquiry:
Interpretivism, Hermeneutics, and Social Constructivism’, in Denzin N.K. and Lincoln
Y. S. (eds) The Landscape of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 189–214.
Smith, J. A. and Osborn, M. (2003) ‘Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis’, in Smith
J.A. (ed.) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Methods. London: SAGE, 51–89.
Smith, J. A., Jarman, M. and Osborne, M. (1999) ‘Doing Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis’, in Murray M. and Chamberlain K. (eds) Qualitative
Health Psychology. London: SAGE, 218–240.
Spinelli, E. (1989) The Interpreted World: An Introduction to Phenomenological Psychology.
London: SAGE.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1997) Grounded Theory in Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Tesch, R. (1990) Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. New York:
Falmer.
Thompson, C., Locander, W. B. and Pollio, H. R. (1989) ‘Putting Consumer
Experience Back into Consumer Research: The Philosophy and Methods of
Existential-phenomenology’, Journal of Consumer Research 16: 133–46. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Turner, V. W. (1967) ‘Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Passage’,
in Turner V. (ed.) The Forest of Symbols. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
93–111.
Turner, V. W. (1995) The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-structure, 3rd edn. New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
Wallace, R. M (2005) Hegel’s Philosophy of Reality, Freedom, and God. Cambridge
University Press.
Adital Ben-Ari, PhD, is an associate professor in the School of Social Work,
Faculty of Welfare and Health Sciences, at the University of Haifa in Haifa,
Israel.
Guy Enosh, PhD, is a senior lecturer and head of the MSW completion
Program in the School of Social Work, and chairperson of the Ethics
Committee for Research on Human Beings, Faculty of Welfare and Health
Sciences, at the University of Haifa in Haifa, Israel. Address: School of Social
Work, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel.
[email: enosh@research.haifa.ac.il]
20 gQualitative Social Work 0(0)
at University of Haifa Library on December 16, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from