The necessities and benefits of reflexivity are now well laid out in the broader social science literature, and the American Evaluation Association's (2004) Guiding Principles for Evaluators identify reflective practices that evaluators are expected to carry out. This article uses the context of the university classroom and a writing sample to demonstrate how disciplined self-reflection can help students examine personal perspectives that surface during the research process and monitor bias. Failure to develop and maintain a reflective stance can result in a variety of ethical and practical dilemmas. Fortunately, written reflections and classroom discussions can help screen for potential dilemmas and point the evaluation in more appropriate directions. A preliminary list of readings and classroom activities is included to help faculty guide students in their exploration, monitoring, and constructive use of personal perspectives.
Abma, T. (1998). Text in an evaluative context: Writing for dialogue . Evaluation, 4(4), 434-454.
2.
Abma, T. (Ed.). (2000). Telling tales: On evaluation and narrative (Advancements in Program Evaluation Series, 6). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier .
3.
American Evaluation Association. (2004). Guiding principles for evaluators. Retrieved March 14, 2007 , from http://www.eval.org/Publications/GuidingPrinciples.asp
4.
Breuer, F., & Roth, W.M. (2003, May). Subjectivity and reflexivity in the social sciences: Epistemic windows and methodical consequences [30 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [online journal] , 4(2). Available at http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-03/2-03intro-3-e.htm
5.
Davidson, J. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Delamont, S. (1992). Fieldwork in educational settings: Methods, pitfalls, and perspectives. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
7.
Dickens, D., & Fontana, A. (Eds.). (1994). Postmodernism and social inquiry. New York: Guilford.
Finlay, L. (2002, April). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531-545.
10.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
11.
Greene, J.C. (1996). Qualitative evaluation and scientific citizenship: Reflections and refractions. Evaluation, 2(3), 277-289.
12.
Greene, J.C. (2000). Understanding social programs through evaluation . In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 981-999). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Jewiss, J. (2003, November). Creative analytic practices for sorting out self and subject matter: A layered account analyzing a pivotal interview with one key informant. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Evaluation Association in Reno, Nevada.
17.
Kirkhart, K. (1995). Seeking multicultural validity: A postcard from the road. Evaluation Practice, 16, 1-12.
18.
Kleinsasser, A.M. (2000, Summer). Researchers, reflexivity, and good data: Writing to unlearn. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 155-162.
19.
Krieger, S. (1985). Beyond “subjectivity”: The use of the self in social science. Qualitative Sociology, 8, 309-324.
20.
Kushner, S. (2000). Personalizing evaluation. London: Sage.
21.
Lather, P. (1992, Spring). Critical frames in educational research: Feminist and poststructural perspectives. Theory Into Practice , 31(2), 87-99.
Patton, M. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Peshkin, A. (1988, October). In search of subjectivity—One's own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17-21.
28.
Pillow, W. (2003, March-April). 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.
29.
Preskill, H., & Russ-Eft, D. (2005). Building evaluation capacity: 72 activities for teaching and training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E.A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry . In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959-978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic.
32.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
Schwandt, T. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
Stake, R. (1975). Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach. Columbus, OH: Merrill .
Taylor, C. (2006). Narrating significant experience: Reflective accounts and the production of (self) knowledge. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 189-206.
37.
Usher, R. (1996). A critique of the neglected epistemological assumptions of educational research. In D. Scot & R. Usher (Eds.), Understanding educational research (pp. 9-32). New York: Routledge.
38.
Weiss, C. (1998). Evaluation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall .
