In this article, we provide a critical reflexive tool developed to interrogate hierarchical research team structures. As members of a qualitative research team working on a large-scale federally funded project, we aim to provide guidance for scholars interested in working against established hierarchies toward more democratic team practices. Our approach is guided by critical scholarship that employs Bourdieu’s conceptualization of reflexivity to move beyond individual-level positionality, toward the critical analysis of the larger academic field and intellectual bias produced through the neoliberal academic field. Though some have argued for the need to preserve hierarchy, we stand in defense of democratic teams.
BarryC.BrittenN.BarberN.BradleyC.StevensonF. (1999). Using reflexivity too optimize teamwork in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 9(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973299129121677
3.
BettezS. (2015). Navigating the complexity of qualitative research in postmodern contexts: Assemblage, critical reflexivity, and communion as guides. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(8), 932–954. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2014.948096
4.
BlumerM.GreenM.MurphyM.PalmanteerD. (2007). Creating a collaborative research team: Feminist reflections. Journal of Feminist Reflections, 19(1), 41–55.
5.
BourdieuP. (1990). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Stanford University Press.
6.
BourdieuP.WacquantL. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press.
7.
BrinkmannS.KvaleS. (2005). Confronting the ethics of qualitative research. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18, 157–181.
8.
BryanL.NegrettiM.ChristensenF.StokesS. (2002). Processing the process: One research team’s experience of a collaborative research project. Contemporary Family Therapy, 24(2), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015303525795
9.
Call-CummingsM.RossK. (2019). Re-positioning power and re-imagining reflexivity: Examining positionality and building validity through reconstructive horizon analysis. In StrunkK. K.LockeL. A. (Eds.), Research methods for social justice and equity in education (pp. 3–13). Palgrave Macmillan Cham.
10.
D’AoustA. (2014). Ties that bind? Engaging emotions, governmentality and neoliberalism: Introduction the special issue. Global Society, 28(3), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2014.900743
11.
DaviesB. (2020). Life in neoliberal institutions: Australian stories. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(7), 748–754.
12.
HallW. A.LongB.BermbachN.JordanS.PattersonK. (2005). Qualitative teamwork issues and strategies: Coordination through mutual adjustment. Qualitative Health Research, 15(3), 394–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304272015
13.
HughesS.WillinkK. (2014). Engaging co-reflexive critical dialogues when entering and leaving the “field”: Toward informing collaborative research methods at the color line and beyond. Counterpoints, 449, 95–114. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/42982067
14.
JacksonJ. L.Jr (2004). An ethnographic flimflam: Giving gifts, doing research, and videotaping the native subject/object. American Anthropologist, 104(3), 791–804. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2004.106.1.32
15.
KenwayJ.McLeodJ. (2004). Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology and ‘spaces of points of view’: Whose reflexivity, which perspective?British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569042000236998
16.
KraneV.RossS.BarakK.RowseJ.Lucas-CarrC. (2012). Unpacking our academic suitcases: The inner workings of our feminist research group. Quest, 64(4), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2012.706882
LevinJ. S.AliyevaA. (2015). Embedded neoliberalism within faculty behaviors. The Review of Higher Education, 38(4), 537–563. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2015.0030
19.
LiggettA. M.GlesneC. E.JohnstonA. P.HasaziS. B.SchattmanR. A. (1994). Teaming in qualitative research: Lessons learned. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 7(1), 77–88.
20.
LingardL.SchryerC.SpaffordM.CampbellS. (2007). Negotiating the politics of identity in an interdisciplinary research team. Qualitative Research, 7(4), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794107082305
MalacridaC. (2007). Reflexive journaling on emotional research topics: Ethical issues for team members. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1329–1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307308948
23.
MauthnerN.DoucetA. (2008). “Knowledge once divided can be hard to put together again”: An epistemological critique of collaborative and team-based research practices. Sociology, 42(5), 971–985. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038508094574
24.
McGinnM.NiemczykE. (2020). Team dynamics and learning opportunities in social science research teams. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 66(4), 364–386.
25.
MountzA.MiyarezI. M.WrightR.BaileyA. J. (2003). Methodologically becoming: Power, knowledge, and team research. Gender, Place, and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 10(1), 29–46.
26.
PattersonS. E.HartJ.WeaverT. D. (2010). Delusions and qualitative confusions: A dialogic collaborative exploration. Qualitative Health Research, 20(7), 1008–1018.
27.
PaulusT. M.WoodsideM.ZieglerM. F. (2008). Extending the conversation: Qualitative research as dialogic collaborative process. The Qualitative Report, 13(2), 226–243. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-2/paulus.pdf
28.
PaulusT. M.WoodsideM.ZieglerM. F. (2010). “I tell you, it’s a journey, isn’t it?” Understanding collaborative meaning making in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 852–862.
29.
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.
30.
RaeJ.GreenB. (2016). Portraying reflexivity in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 26(11), 1543–1549. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316634046
31.
Rogers-DillonR. (2005). Hierarchical qualitative research teams: Refining the methodology. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 437–454.
32.
RossS.SavageL. (2021). Work reorganization in the neoliberal university: A labour process perspective. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 32(4), 495–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/10353046211003635
33.
SandersC. B.CuneoC. J. (2010). Social reliability in qualitative team research. Sociology, 44(2), 325–343.
34.
SiltanenJ.WillisA.ScobieW. (2008). Separately together: Working reflexivity as a team. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701622116
35.
SubediB. (2006). Theorizing a ‘halfie’ researcher’s identity in transnational fieldwork. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(5), 573–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390600886353
36.
ThomasR.TienariJ.DaviesA.MeriläinenS. (2009). Let’s talk about “us”: A reflexive account of a cross-cultural research collaboration. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(4), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492608324457
37.
WacquantL. D.BourdieuP. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press.
38.
WasserJ.BreslerL. (1996). Working in the interpretive zone: Conceptualizing collaboration in qualitative research teams. Educational Researcher, 25(5), 5–15.
