Abstract
The title of this book, Social Research and Reflexivity, might be a bit misleading for those who are steeped in the constructivist or transformative paradigms in which reflexivity is more commonly thought of as being a critical part of the process of qualitative data collection and analysis. If the reader is interested in reflexivity from that perspective, Perils, Pitfalls and Reflexivity in Qualitative Research in Education by Shamim and Qureshi (2010) would be a better choice. The May and Perry book is meant for readers who want to explore the dynamics of research within a philosophical and sociological lens that focuses on the relationships between universities and governments and private sector representatives around the production and use of knowledge. As such, this is not a book for the faint-hearted; the authors make assumptions about the reader’s background knowledge that include sophistication with regard to the philosophies of research as they were articulated by great minds of the past, including Kant, Max Weber, Nietzsche, Marx, Goethe, Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, Habermas, Charles Turner, and Richard Rorty. They then tie these philosophers’ thinking to the shift in the roles of universities who have become the handmaidens of industry; they discuss the perils of this shift as an absence of reflexivity about the production and use of knowledge.
The book is divided into three sections: Part 1 provides the exploration of scholarship related to ontology, epistemology, and methodology as it relates to the role of reflexivity in the production of knowledge. Part 2 explores different types of reflexivity and links them with the social positioning and privilege accorded to different ways of producing knowledge. Part 3 reports on the results of a research study that was undertaken at the Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures, an interdisciplinary, largely self-funded research centre at the University of Salford in the UK. The research methodology is described as ‘interviews with senior managers, policy makers, and staff across different national and regional contexts’ (p. 172). The results of the research are discussed in terms of university, government, and private sector relationships in the context of knowledge production and use.
May and Perry begin the book with some very intriguing questions that are framed as exploring the transformative potential of social science research and how social scientists can contribute to understandings that will lead to an overall improvement in social conditions. Expecting answers to such questions, readers might be led to think that the authors will discuss the work of social activists such as Wangari Maathai (2009) or Nadine Gordimer (2010), winners of the Nobel Peace Prize for writings that address the role of social research in meeting the challenges of social change in Africa. This is not the direction that May and Perry take. Rather, they chose to examine reflexivity in terms of the relations that exist between positioning and belonging as a way of stimulating critical dialogue about the role of the university for illumination and social transformation.
To this end, they describe two types of reflexivity: endogenous and referential. Endogenous reflexivity is interpreted as that of researchers who reflect on their methods of knowledge production so that it can yield scientifically defensible findings to the exclusion of concern for the relevance of the findings to social life. This is contrasted with referential reflexivity that occurs between the researcher and the social world wherein discussion of the consequences of research opens up opportunities for the disruption of scientific routines and the emergence of new questions and learnings. They note that endogenous and referential reflexivities do not represent completely separate camps in the research world, as every researcher engages in some form of critical scrutiny of their work. Researchers who align themselves more strongly with endogenous reflexivity position themselves as experts with ready-made solutions to problems that lack contextual understanding. Such a position eradicates referential reflexivity and leads to partial understandings that are insufficient to generate social transformation. A fusion of endogenous and referential reflexivity permits the exploration of positions of power and assumptions related to power in the production and use of knowledge, hence, creating greater potential for social change.
In the third section of the book, Perry makes explicit the context of reflexivity and knowledge production as it is addressed in this book by painting a very bleak picture of the current state of universities in relation to the political economy represented by government and the private sector. As the world has moved from a post-industrial society to a knowledge economy, the role of universities has shifted as well. Knowledge is no longer looked on as the interest-free illumination or as a servant of social transformation. Rather, it is seen as the answer to specific economic problems and therefore is viewed as a tool to produce competitive advantage. Knowledge of this type needs to be codified, managed, stored, and sold. Research is expected to be relevant to increasing the links between universities and industry, especially in light of budget pressures. Thus, research is supported for economic purposes, for strategic military interests of states, and for the political interests of parties in power. Evidence to support this trend is found in the proliferation of technology transfer offices, business departments, and academic-linked science parks whose responsibility it is to extract the economic value of research.
The heart of the book is a questioning not so much of how research can contribute to social transformation, as a questioning of the role of the university and its position within the knowledge economy. The authors present a critique of the managerial focus of universities and the emphasis on the measurability of indicators of success, e.g. external income generation, citation indexes, student–staff ratio. May and Perry call for critical dialogue about the role of the university in terms of their civic responsibilities and the idea of knowledge as a commodity. They sceptically ask if having a ‘world class university’ is enough for economic development. Accepting a position of creator of knowledge as a commodity leads to a narrowing of the types of knowledge that are viewed as legitimate. Furthermore, it limits the potential for research to contribute to social betterment writ large because the reflexivity needed on cultural and contextual variables is absent or diminished. May and Perry contend that universities are complicit in this narrowing of their roles because they do not create opportunities to challenge strategic partnerships that prioritize corporate values over societal values.
In the final chapter, which is far too short, the authors propose the provision of open forums where university managers and private sector executives could have frank discussions about the values that underlie research knowledge as a commodity and the damage that this does to the broader role that universities could play in terms of social betterment. They cite a need for more active intermediation between university and society, research and practice. They leave the reader with questions about the distinctive role of universities and how spaces for engaged dialogue can occur about that role. The solutions they offer are provocative, although not carefully detailed. Good leadership, self-examination, a commitment to questioning assumptions, a licence to think outside the box, and a willingness to engage in critical reflexivity across disciplines and sectors seem self-evident.
May and Perry present a cogent argument about the problematic situation in which universities find themselves, and they challenge members of that community to address those problems through critical reflection. They discuss the problems within a deep philosophical discussion. However, there are some weaknesses that deserve mention. Their perspectives are largely based on their experiences in the UK and the European Union. They seem to assume that these problems are widely shared by universities across the world, yet they do not include any discussion of literature on community-based transformative research that many universities undertake for social betterment. They do not provide the kind of methodological detail about the research they conducted as the basis of the third part of the book for the reader to judge the quality of that research. So we are left with a very thought-provoking book that should have appeal to those who are engaged in the debates about the role of universities.