Embedding Reflexivity Within Experiential Qualitative Psychology

434 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Online Interviewing in Psychology: Reflections on the Process (2011, methodology): “As Shaw (2010) notes, much of the literature on qualitative interviewing techniques emphasise the need to establish rapport with participants.”
Why do youth participate in climate activism? A mixed-methods investigation of the #FridaysForFuture climate protests. (2021, background): “…seen as a source of bias (Yardley, 2015), but also as a strength, as it allowed for a broader interpretation of the material, enhancing our capability to see and incorporate variability in the description of the participants' experiences (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Vestergren & Drury, 2020; Shaw, 2010).”
Exploring analytical trustworthiness and the process of reaching consensus in interpretative phenomenological analysis: lost in transcription (2015, methodology): “ND was therefore employed to carry out the analysis, which she did in line with the process described by Smith et al. (1999). Although ND had not conducted the interviews, she listened to the audio recordings a number of times prior to engaging in an analysis of all the transcripts.”
Doing reflexivity in psychological research: What’s the point? What’s the practice? (2020, background): “Reflection and reflexivity have been conceptualized as a continuum (see, e.g., Woolgar 1988; Shaw 2010), which avoids a straightforward split between reflection/reflexivity, quantitative/qualitative, science/nonscience.”