Reflexivity holds multiple nuanced, yet largely complementary, definitions depending on disciplinary orientation, yet it is steadily being recognized as a necessary component of trustworthy research and evaluations. There is a rich body of exercises to interrogate positionality, yet the breadth and interdisciplinary nature of this body can be difficult to navigate. Through a metasynthesis approach, we created a live network of 89 citations conceptualized around defined reflexivity practices. Three core concepts emerged from this metasynthesis: (1) strategies to integrate reflexivity in health services research across all stages of the research process, (2) identification of exemplary cases of reflexivity, and (3) scaffolding of practices across the research cycle. Interdisciplinary strategies encompass tools and activities that may produce insights or inform next steps for researchers. We present a model of how reflexivity activities may be integrated across the research cycle. We find that each stage of the research process presents opportunities for researchers to leverage reflexive tools and activities in their teams to produce insights, increase trustworthiness of the research process, or inform next steps. Intentional engagement in reflexivity can help researchers and evaluators more meaningfully acknowledge and respond to their biases and assumptions, which can lead to more meaningful engagement with their subject material, co-researchers, and participants.
AronowitzR.DeenerA.KeeneD.SchnittkerJ.TachL. (2015). Cultural reflexivity in health research and practice. American Journal of Public Health, 105(Suppl 3), S403–S408. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302551
3.
AtkinsS.LewinS.SmithH.EngelM.FretheimA.VolminkJ. (2008). Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: Lessons learnt. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-21
BarrosoJ.GollopC. J.SandelowskiM.MeynellJ.PearceP. F.CollinsL. J. (2003). The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25(2), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945902250034
6.
BatesM. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024320
7.
BojsenH. (2014). Who decides what to develop and how? Methodological reflections on postcolonial contributions to analysis of development fieldwork. In BojsenH. (ed.), Researching identity and interculturality (pp. 169–189). Routledge.
8.
BoothA.HarrisJ.CrootE.SpringettJ.CampbellF.WilkinsE. (2013). Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual “richness” for systematic reviews of complex interventions: Case study (CLUSTER). BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), Article 118. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-118
9.
BoudD.KeoghR.WalkerD. (Eds.). (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Routledge.
10.
Bradbury-JonesC. (2007). Enhancing rigour in qualitative health research: Exploring subjectivity through Peshkin’s I’s. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 59(3), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04306.x
11.
BridgesJ.NicholsonC.MabenJ.PopeC.FlatleyM.WilkinsonC.MeyerJ.TziggiliM. (2013). Capacity for care: Meta-ethnography of acute care nurses’ experiences of the nurse-patient relationship. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(4), 760–772. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12050
12.
BrookfieldS. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass.
13.
BuysT.CasteleijnD.HeynsT.UntiedtH. (2022). A reflexive lens on preparing and conducting semi-structured interviews with academic colleagues. Qualitative Health Research, 32(13), 2030–2039. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323221130832
14.
CainL. K.MacDonaldA. L.CokerJ. M.VelascoJ. C.WestG. D. (2019). Ethics and reflexivity in mixed methods research: An examination of current practices and a call for further discussion. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 11(2), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v11n2a2
ChapmanH. J.Veras-EstévezB. A. (2021). Lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic to strengthen TB infection control: A rapid review. Global Health, Science and Practice, 9(4), 964–977. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-21-00368
17.
CollinsP. H. (1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. Social Problems, 33(6), s14–s32. https://doi.org/10.2307/800672
18.
CollinsP. H. (1997). Comment on Hekman’s “Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited”: Where’s the power?Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22(2), 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1086/495162
19.
CookN.SiddiqiN.TwiddyM.KenyonR. (2019). Patient and public involvement in health research in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review. BMJ Open, 9(5), Article e026514. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026514
20.
CrenshawK. W. (2013). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. In FinemanM. A. (Ed.), The public nature of private violence (pp. 93–118). Routledge.
DansoR. (2018). Cultural competence and cultural humility: A critical reflection on key cultural diversity concepts. Journal of Social Work, 18(4), 410–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017316654341
23.
DarawshehW. (2014). Reflexivity in research: Promoting rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 21(12), 560–568. https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2014.21.12.560
24.
DayS. (2012). A reflexive lens: Exploring dilemmas of qualitative methodology through the concept of reflexivity. Qualitative Sociology Review, 8(1), 60–85. https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.8.1.04
25.
DenyerD.TranfieldD.Van AkenJ. E. (2008). Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607088020
26.
DenzinN. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Sage.
EnochJ.SubramanianA.WilligC. (2023). “If I don’t like it, I’ll just pop the phone down!”: Reflecting on participant and researcher experiences of telephone interviews conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health, 4(1), Article 100351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2023.100351
29.
FangM. L.RogowskyR.WhiteR.SixsmithJ.McKayR.ScruttonP.GratzkeM. (2024). Using creative methodology to explore LGBTQ+ love and relationship experiences across the lifespan: Developing inclusive and healthy spaces through positive intergenerational exchange. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health, 6(1), Article 100463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2024.100463
30.
FariaC.MollettS. (2016). Critical feminist reflexivity and the politics of whiteness in the ‘field’. Gender, Place & Culture, 23(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369x.2014.958065
31.
FinlayL. (2002a). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205
32.
FinlayL. (2002b). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129120052
33.
FinlayL. (2003). Through the looking glass: Intersubjectivity and hermeneutic reflection. In FinlayL.GoughB. (Eds.), Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences (pp. 106–119). Blackwell Science.
34.
FinlayL.BallingerC. (Eds.). (2006). Qualitative research for allied health professionals: Challenging choices. John Wiley & Sons.
35.
FinlayL.GoughB. (Eds.). (2008). Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. John Wiley & Sons.
36.
FosteZ. (2020). Remaining vigilant: Reflexive considerations for white researchers studying whiteness. Whiteness and Education, 5(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2020.1738264
37.
Freitas-JesusJ. V.SánchezO. D. R.SuritaF. G. (2025). The remote approach in a qualitative study during the COVID-19 pandemic: A perspective considering the researcher’s life experiences and the trustworthiness. Qualitative Health Research, 35(12), 1271–1282. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241244957
38.
FroshS.EmersonP. D. (2005). Interpretation and over-interpretation: Disputing the meaning of texts. Qualitative Research, 5(3), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794105054457
GentlesS. J.JackS. M.NicholasD. B.McKibbonK. A. (2014). Critical approach to reflexivity in grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 19(44), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1109
41.
GetrichC. M.BennettA. M.SussmanA. L.SolaresA.HelitzerD. L. (2016). Viewing focus groups through a critical incident lens. Qualitative Health Research, 26(6), 750–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315579178
42.
GilgunJ. F. (2010). Methods for enhancing theory and knowledge about problems, policies, and practice. In ShawI.OrmeJ.Briar-LawsonK.RuckdeschelR. (eds.), The Sage handbook of social work research (pp. 281–297). Sage.
43.
GonzalezC. J.KrishnamurthyS.RollinF. G.SiddiquiS.HenryT. L.KieferM.WanS.WeerahandiH. (2024). Incorporating anti-racist principles throughout the research lifecycle: A position statement from the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM). Journal of General Internal Medicine, 39(10), 1922–1931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-08770-2
44.
GrantM.LeighJ.MurrayC.HowarthM. (2007). The role of the academic in clinical practice: A systematic review. University of Salford, Salford Centre for Nursing, Midwifery and Collaborative Research for the RCN Education Forum.
45.
GrayC.MalinsJ. (2016). Visualizing research: A guide to the research process in art and design. Routledge.
46.
GrimpeB.StahlB. C.Ten HolterC.InglesantP.EdenG.PatelM.JirotkaM. (2020). From collaborative to institutional reflexivity: Calibrating responsibility in the funding process. Science and Public Policy, 47(5), 720–732. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa038
47.
HardingS. (1997). Comment on Hekman’s “truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited”: Whose standpoint needs the regimes of truth and reality?Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22(2), 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1086/495163
48.
HardingS. G. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. Psychology Press.
49.
HartsockN. C. (1983). Money, sex, and power: Toward a feminist historical materialism. Northeastern University Press.
50.
HenninkM. M.KaiserB. N.MarconiV. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough?Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344
51.
HertzR. (1997). Introduction: Reflexivity and voice. In HertzR. (Ed.), Reflexivity and voice (pp. vi–xviii). Sage.
52.
HirtJ.NordhausenT.Appenzeller-HerzogC.EwaldH. (2021). Using citation tracking for systematic literature searching-study protocol for a scoping review of methodological studies and a Delphi study. F1000Research, 9(1), Article 1386. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27337.3
53.
JacobsonD.MustafaN. (2019). Social identity map: A reflexivity tool for practicing explicit positionality in critical qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919870075
KoayA.DevittC. (2024). What obstructs health policy implementation? A multi-method qualitative case study of the delayed deployment of community pharmacies in Ireland’s national covid-19 vaccination programme. Qualitative Health Research, 35(13), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241302239
56.
KoopmanW. J.WatlingC. J.LaDonnaK. A. (2020). Autoethnography as a strategy for engaging in reflexivity. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393620970508
57.
KvaleS. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage.
MannK.GordonJ.MacLeodA. (2009). Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: A systematic review. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(4), 595–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-007-9090-2
60.
MarkhamA. N. (2023). Failure as reflexive method: Using critical junctures to think otherwise. In LammesS.JungnickelK.HjorthL. and Lamm, S.RaeJ.LammS. (Eds.), Failurists: When things go awry (pp. 48–59). Institute of Network Cultures.
61.
MauthnerN. S.DoucetA. (2003). Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis. Sociology, 37(3), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385030373002
62.
MayT. (2002). Qualitative research in action. Sage.
63.
Mayorga-GalloS. (2019). The white-centering logic of diversity ideology. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(13), 1789–1809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219842619
64.
MezirowJ. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
65.
MorelandR. L.McMinnJ. G. (2010). Group reflexivity and performance. In ThyeS. R.LawlerE. J. (Eds.), Advances in group processes (pp. 63–95). Emerald Publishing.
66.
MorganT.DuschinskyR.GottM.BarclayS. (2021). Problematising carer identification: A narrative study with older partner’s providing end-of-life care. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health, 1(1), Article 100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2021.100015
67.
MortariL. (2015). Reflectivity in research practice: An overview of different perspectives. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915618045
68.
Nederveen PieterseA.Van KnippenbergD.van GinkelW. P. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.003
69.
NelsonJ. (2017). Using conceptual depth criteria: Addressing the challenge of reaching saturation in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 17(5), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116679873
70.
NencelL. (2014). Situating reflexivity: Voices, positionalities and representations in feminist ethnographic texts. Women’s Studies International Forum, 43(1), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.07.018
71.
NewtonB. J.RothlingovaZ.GutteridgeR.LeMarchandK.RaphaelJ. H. (2012). No room for reflexivity? Critical reflections following a systematic review of qualitative research. Journal of Health Psychology, 17(6), 866–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105311427615
72.
O’BrienB. C.HarrisI. B.BeckmanT. J.ReedD. A.CookD. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
73.
Olmos-VegaF. M.StalmeijerR. E.VarpioL.KahlkeR. (2023). A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE guide no. 149. Medical Teacher, 45(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2022.2057287
74.
PahwaM.CavanaghA.VanstoneM. (2023). Key informants in applied qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 33(14), 1251–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323231198796
75.
PataiD. (1994). (Response) when method becomes power. In GitlenA. (Ed.), Power and method (pp. 61–73). Routledge.
76.
PearsonM.MoxhamT.AshtonK. (2011). Effectiveness of search strategies for qualitative research about barriers and facilitators of program delivery. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 34(3), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278710388029
PhillipsL.Christensen-StrynøM. B.FrølundeL. (2022). Arts-based co-production in participatory research: Harnessing creativity in the tension between process and product. Evidence & Policy, 18(2), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16445103995426
80.
PillowW. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635
81.
PillowW. S. (2015). Reflexivity as interpretation and genealogy in research. Cultural Studies – Critical Methodologies, 15(6), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708615615605
ProbstB. (2015). The eye regards itself: Benefits and challenges of reflexivity in qualitative social work research. Social Work Research, 39(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svu028
84.
RanklF.JohnsonG. A.Vindrola-PadrosC. (2021). Examining what we know in relation to how we know it: A team-based reflexivity model for rapid qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 31(7), 1358–1370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732321998062
85.
ReidA. M.BrownJ. M.SmithJ. M.CopeA. C.JamiesonS. (2018). Ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in qualitative research. Perspectives on Medical Education, 7(2), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0412-2
86.
RitchieJ.LewisJ.NichollsC. M.OrmstonR. (2003). Qualitative research practice. Sage.
87.
RitchieL. (2001). Empowerment and Australian community health nurses’ work with aboriginal clients: The sociopolitical context. Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973201129119046
88.
SauerbornE.SökefeldN.NeckelS. (2022). Paradoxes of mindfulness: The specious promises of a contemporary practice. The Sociological Review, 70(5), 1044–1061. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261221108570
SchippersM. C.Den HartogD. N.KoopmanP. L.Van KnippenbergD. (2008). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity. Human Relations, 61(11), 1593–1616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708096639
91.
SchönD. A. (1992). Educating for reflection-in-action. In ChoukronJ.SnowR. M. (Eds.), Planning for human systems: Essays in honor of Russell, L. Ackoff (pp. 142–161). University of Pennsylvania Press.
92.
SchwandtT. A. (2014). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Sage Publications.
93.
SheardL. (2022). Telling a story or reporting the facts? Interpretation and description in the qualitative analysis of applied health research data: A documentary analysis of peer review reports. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health, 2(1), Article 100166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2022.100166
94.
SilvermanD. (1997). Towards an aesthetics of research. In SilvermanD. (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method & practice (pp. 239–253). Sage.
95.
SmithJ. A. (1994). Towards reflexive practice: Engaging participants as co-researchers or co-analysts in psychological inquiry. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 4(4), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2450040405
96.
SmithS. (2006). Encouraging the use of reflexivity in the writing up of qualitative research. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 13(5), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2006.13.5.21377
97.
SoedirgoJ.GlasA. (2020). Toward active reflexivity: Positionality and practice in the production of knowledge. PS: Political Science & Politics, 53(3), 527–531. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096519002233
98.
SpaldingN. J.PhillipsT. (2007). Exploring the use of vignettes: From validity to trustworthiness. Qualitative Health Research, 17(7), 954–962. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307306187
99.
SteierF. (1995). Research and reflexivity. Sage.
100.
SultanaF. (2007). Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: Negotiating fieldwork dilemmas in international research. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 374–385. https://doi.org/10.14288/acme.v6i3.786
101.
ThorneS.DarbyshireP. (2005). Land mines in the field: A modest proposal for improving the craft of qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 15(8), 1105–1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305278502
102.
TjosvoldD.HuiC.YuZ. (2003). Conflict management and task reflexivity for team in-role and extra-role performance in China. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14(2), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022895
103.
TongA.SainsburyP.CraigJ. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
YangM.SchloemerH.ZhuZ.LinY.ChenW.DongN. (2020). Why and when team reflexivity contributes to team performance: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1), Article 3044. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03044
109.
YounasA.FàbreguesS.DuranteA.EscalanteE. L.InayatS.AliP. (2023). Proposing the “MIRACLE” narrative framework for providing thick description in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221147162
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
