RESEARCH METHODS-1 (SEMESTER-5) REFLEXIVITY

Reflexivity refers to the ‘reflexive monitoring of action’, that is, the way in which humans think about and reflect upon what they are doing in order to consider acting differently in future. Humans have always been reflexive up to a point, but in pre-industrial societies the importance of tradition limited reflexivity. Humans would do some things simply because they were the traditional things to do. However, with modernity, tradition loses much of its importance and reflexivity becomes the norm. Social reflexivity implies that social practices are constantly examined and reformed in the light of incoming information about those very practices, thus continuously altering their character.

 

Alvin W. Gouldner (1920-1980), an American sociologist, in his most influential work The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology offered a substantial and exhaustive argument for ‘reflexive sociology’. Against the view that science in general and sociology in particular is concerned with producing objective truths, Gouldner argued that knowledge is not independent of the knower and that sociology is intimately bound up with the socio-economic and political context in which it exists. 

 

Gouldner advocated ‘reflexive sociology’ in response to Methodological Dualism which was the dominant methodological assumption in early 20^th century in American sociology. Methodological dualism was based on the elementary distinction of subject and object. Natural sciences in general were based on this premise. Since the subject matter of natural sciences was physical reality or matter, their prime concern was to discover the underlying pattern in nature and arrive at certain universal laws which can help in predicting and controlling natural phenomenon. In sociology, methodological dualism was emphasized by scholars belonging to the positivist tradition in France and America. They argued that like natural sciences, social sciences can also study social reality in an objective manner and information thus arrived could be used to predict and control man’s social behaviour and social change. Methodological dualism in sociology implied a clear distinction between the inquiring subject (social scientist) and the studied object (the social group whom he observes). Methodological dualism enjoins the sociologist to be detached from the world he studies. It sees his involvement with his object of study primarily from the standpoint of its contaminating effect upon the information system. 

 

Gouldner rejects the assumption of methodological dualism in sociology. He argues that positivists who emphasize on methodological dualism in sociology do so primarily because they conceive of knowledge only as information. But, according to Gouldner, the ultimate goal of sociology is not to seek neutral information about social reality but rather such knowledge which facilitates a better understanding of social reality in terms of men’s changing interests, expectations, values, etc. In this regard, Gouldner cites the example of Weber’s Verstehen method. In contrast to positivists, Weber had emphasized the need for the interpretative understanding of social action. He argued that in order to have a better understanding of social action, it is necessary to take into account the unique meanings and motives that underlie such action. Weber suggests that this can be done by the sociologist by establishing empathetic liaison with the actor. In other words, it implies that the sociologist should imaginatively place himself in the actor’s position and then try to understand the motives of the actor which guided his action. 

 

Gouldner further extends this argument of Weber and argues that the knowledge of the world cannot be advanced apart from the sociologist’s knowledge of himself and his position in the social world. He argues that to know others, a sociologist cannot simply study them but must also listen to and confront himself. Awareness of the self is seen as an indispensable avenue to awareness of the social world. Reflexive sociology aims at transforming the sociologist’s relation to his work. It is characterized by the relationship it establishes between being a sociologist and being a person, between the role and the man performing it. Reflexive sociology rejects the subject-object dichotomy, that is, sociologist who studies and those whom he studies or observes. Rather, the historical mission of sociology, according to Gouldner is to raise the sociologist’s awareness of himself and his position in the social world. Thus, a reflexive sociologist must become aware of himself as both knower and as agent of change. He cannot know others unless he also knows his intentions toward and his effects upon them. He cannot know others without knowing himself, his place in the social world, and the forces – in society and in himself – to which he is subjected. 

 

Gouldner argues that reflexive sociology is radical sociology. It is radical because in contrast to positivism, it rejects the assumption of methodological dualism i.e. subject-object dichotomy. It is radical because it is a historically sensitive sociology as it seeks to deepen the awareness of sociologists about themselves, of their own historically evolving character and of their place in a historically evolving society. It is radical because it embodies and advances certain specific values. As a work ethic, it affirms the creative potential of the sociologist and encourages him to take an independent stand of his own and resist the demands for conformity by the established authorities and institutions. Hence, according to Gouldner, a reflexive sociology would be a moral sociology. 

 

Field: 

 

In the context of sociological research, the term ‘field’ refers to the members of a social group which is the prime object of study for a social scientist. In its early phase, Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown laid the foundations of intensive fieldwork among anthropologists in Britain. However, in Indian context, it was M.N. Srinivas who strongly advocated for the ‘field-view’ of Indian society in place of the ‘book-view’. Book-view of Indian society was largely championed by the Indologists like B.K. Sarkar, G.S. Ghurey, Radhakamal Mukerjee, Irawati Karve. Indologists claimed that Indian society could be understood only through the concepts, theories and frameworks of Indian civilization. They believed that an examination of the classical texts, manuscripts, archaeological artefacts, etc. should be the starting point for the study of the present. 

 

Srinivas was critical of the ‘book-view’ of Indian society. He argued that the book-view gave a distorted picture of society by dwelling on the ideals of the past from which the present reality departed considerably. The book-view of Indian society presented an idealized picture of its institutions – marriage, family, kinship, caste and religion – dwelling more on what they were supposed to be than how they actually worked. For example, the book-view had represented caste in terms of the invariant and immutable scheme of the four varnas. Field studies shifted attention away from the four-fold scheme of varnas to the operative units of the system which were the innumerable jatis. They also drew attention to the ambiguities of caste ranking and the very distinctive process of caste mobility. Thus, the field-view revealed the gap everywhere between ideal and the actual. By bringing to attention ambiguities, contradictions and conflicts, it paved the way for a better understanding of the dynamics of social change. Thus, the idea of an unchanging and immutable society began to give way, and the field-view changed not only the perception of India’s present, but to some extent also the perception of its past. 

 

However, like every other method, field-work too is marked by its own set of challenges and problems in conducting a genuine sociological research. Firstly and foremostly, the researcher faces the problem of the choice of the ‘field’ to carry out his field-work as no typical field exists in reality. As stated earlier, unlike natural sciences, sociology cannot study any particular social phenomena in a laboratory by the experimental method due to certain moral and ethical reasons. As a result, social research takes place in the open, where, unlike a scientific experiment, it is extremely difficult to control the extraneous variables. Hence, it becomes increasingly challenging for the social scientist to establish a cause-effect relationship between the variables stated under hypothesis. After having identified the field for his research, the researcher faces the challenge of entry into the field. This implies that unless the researcher is able to establish a good rapport with the natives, he would find it hard to carry out his research. Thus, in order to seek the cooperation of the native population for his data collection, the researcher must gain their acceptability. In this, the social background of the researcher also plays an important role. 

 

Further, since the researcher can only carry out a limited study of any given social phenomenon, the problem of holism looms large. Since holistic study appears impractical in study of complex societies, the researcher should keep in mind that the segment he is studying is the part of a larger and complex whole and should look for interrelationships. Researcher may also face problem in the formulation of hypothesis and might have to reformulate or modify his hypothesis because hypotheses cannot be formulated in the vacuum, without the knowledge of the field. Further, the issues of objectivity and ethical-neutrality also need to be addressed. The researcher should be aware of his biases and prejudices and try to make certain that they do not influence his collection and interpretation of data. Though some of these challenges are endemic to any social science enquiry, yet they can be dealt with a cautious and informed approach on the part of the researcher. Since the field-work basically involves dealing with people, the researcher must be empathetic and flexible in his approach and employ the services of well trained field workers. 

 

In the ultimate analysis, it may be argued that in any field research, the sociologist is an integral part of the research process. The data so collected has no existence independent of him. His data are ‘constructions, not reflections of facts or relationships alone. In the process of knowing, external facts are sensorily perceived and transformed into conceptual knowledge. Thus, the sociologist as a researcher in an active factor in the creation of knowledge and not just a mere passive recipient. The importance of his perception makes a sociologist as integral a part of the research process as the data he observes. 

Please note that a long question on reflexivity may be asked in reference to its contribution in reconstituting the ‘field’ and the practices of fieldwork in social anthropological research. Let us try to understand it. 

 

As you now know that reflexivity offers an alternate perspective to study social reality. Reflexivity in social anthropological research implies that the ideas about ‘field’ and ‘practices’ of field-work are constantly examined and reformed in the light of new developments, thus continuously altering their character. Reflexivity challenges the conventional notions of anthropological research with regard to field and practices of field-work. Early social anthropological research was largely concerned with the study of small scale societies in their natural state or surroundings. Hence the term ‘field’ came to denote a distinct social group which was to be studied in its unique socio-cultural and geographical setting. Early anthropological research was largely based on the dichotomy of subject and object. In other words, it was based on the separation of the social scientist (subject) from those ‘others’ whom he observes (object). It was based on the assumption that over involvement of the social scientist with his object of study (social group) may contaminate the research findings. The idea about ‘otherness’ remained remarkably central to the fieldwork practices of Malinowski, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, etc. 

 

Amory shows how these ideas about ‘otherness’ and taking for granted of a white subject have shaped the field of African studies in the United States. She shows that African American scholars were discouraged from working in Africa, on the grounds that they were “too close” and would not manage to be “objective”, while white scholars were judged to have the appropriate distance from the black “other”. This helps to explain that why the contemporary field of African studiescontains remarkably few black American scholars. Kath Weston too in her study of gay and lesbian communities in United States arrived at a similar conclusion. She argued that her position as a native ethnographer itself blurs the subject-object distinction on which ethnography is conventionally founded. She calls native ethnographer as a ‘virtual anthropologist’. 

 

Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson also question the conventional notion of field and argue that in the light of new developments there is a need for reconstruction of field and field-work practices. They argue that processes such decolonization and globalization, accompanied by processes of diffusion and acculturation, have challenged the traditional definition of field and the very idea of a clearly demarcated space of ‘otherness’. They argue that the conventional notion about the ‘field’ in terms of a homogenous social group with its unique culture and geographical surroundings has come to be questioned in the wake of globalization. Social groups are no longer tightly territorialized or spatially bounded. Further, the process of diffusion and acculturation, have significantly altered the homogenous character of social groups and today cultural heterogeneity is more common. 

 

Gupta and Ferguson further question the ‘field-home dichotomy’ in social anthropological research. They question the traditional notion of field which rested on the idea that different cultures exist in discrete and separate places. They argued that the ‘location’ of the field should not merely be seen in geographical sense alone. They advocated retheorizing of fieldwork from spatial sites to social and political locations in terms of unequal power relations. For example, subaltern approach in sociology has significantly contributed towards a better understanding of various socio-economic and political processes in India, which were until now largely studied from an elitist perspective. Gupta and Ferguson argue that with decolonization, there is proliferation of domestic research led by the natives. As a result, today, the very idea of ‘otherness’, which was central to the early anthropological fieldwork, is subjected to review. Hence, there is a need to modify the practices of fieldwork accordingly. 

 

Further, Gupta and Ferguson also question the fundamental premise of early anthropological field-work practices that only professionally trained observers could be trusted to collect ethnographic data. As Paul Radin in his study found that his untrained native research assistants proved to be better than the academically and professionally qualified observers in terms of gathering valuable data. This is because, as Radin argues that such professionals are socially separated from those whom they study by their very training. The training of the professional observers erects an undesirable barrier between themselves and the persons to be interrogated. It may lead to a difficulty in establishing direct and immediate contact and building rapport with their sources of information. While on the other hand, the native research assistants or local intellectuals are better positioned at least for certain sorts of data collection. Thus, reflexivity has significantly contributed in reconstruction of the ideas about field and field-work practices in social anthropology. Such a rethinking of the idea of the ‘field’ coupled with an explicit attentiveness to ‘location’ might open the way for a different kind of anthropological knowledge and a different kind of anthropological subject.