Formative,not extractive: How critically reflexive research makes a difference

Introduction

We are (always already) adapting in response to experience, and reflexive practice focuses on and seeks to understand our own being and becoming in the midst of that process (Hibbert, forthcoming). Reflexive researchers, therefore, seek self-awareness of how we are formed through engagement with experience, by paying close attention to embodied, emotional, thoughtful and relational signals in our everyday lives and projects (Hibbert, 2021, 2024; Mavin, 2022). This usually leads to insights about how all of us are formed in ways that we did not choose, with effects that can be undesirable. Finding – sometimes – that we are not the ‘good person’ we presumed to be, reflexive practice necessarily leads to critical engagement with the people, organisations, cultures and societies that shaped us. Critical and reflexive research has long been a central theme in Management Learning, even before it was formally adopted as a mission statement (Cunliffe and Sadler-Smith, 2015). Pivotal early contributions to debates – that have shaped the field – include Cunliffe’s work on dialogical reflexive practice (Cunliffe, 2002) and reflexivity in teaching leadership (Cunliffe, 2009), Segal’s (2010) work on mobilising Heideggerian thought in reflexive practice on the link between reflexive practice and elite careers and McDonald’s (2013) work on reflexive practice as a route to identity discovery. A particularly strong line of research has focussed on the potential for reflexivity to support critical themes and practice in management education (e.g. Corlett, 2013; Iszatt-White et al., 2017; Vu and Burton, 2020).

Debates and developments continue, but reflexive practice is of central importance to the conduct of critical research, not least for educators seeking to use their research insights to encourage and support emancipatory change. Researchers seek to do this in many ways, for example, by supporting the development of reflexivity in communities of practitioners (Corlett, 2013; Cunliffe, 2002), influencing the ethical choices of leaders (Hibbert, 2024; Hibbert and Cunliffe, 2015; Larsson and Knudsen, 2022) or critiquing and calling for change in the institutions in which we work (Hurd and Singh, 2021; Tomkins and Nicholds, 2017). However, it is not always clear if and how these aims lead to impact on individuals and society. The usual assumption is that research is summarised, shaped and defended in publications that could support application in practice. These outputs are then disseminated, promoted or otherwise hawked to practitioner audiences who we hope will take up the ideas. However, critical and reflexive research threatens the privilege of established groups and institutions, and so those we seek to influence and change are often disinterested, or even actively resistant.

Overcoming resistance to the insights of critically reflexive research requires finding alternative routes to impact and influence, and this represents a gap and an opportunity in this research tradition. A potentially fruitful direction for this quest is to take reflexivity back to its core focus on the individual. Since it requires awareness, critique and movement in the researcher’s positionality as they engage with others in the field (Hibbert et al., 2014), reflexive research and practice necessarily have a role in the formation of the researcher and how their practices and projects are shaped for the future (Hibbert, 2021). Building on those principles, this article seeks to explore and explain how the impact of research may take effect through its influence on the life, practice and deliberate actions of researchers. The key contention is, effectively, that reflexive research is formative, not extractive: it does have influence and impact by gathering information to generate theory, but instead enables understanding and action through shaping the researcher. To develop this argument, I consider three ways in which this impact can take shape. The first route is through our work as educators, where our emerging ideas and intellectual formation can guide our impact on current and future practitioners. The second route is through collaborative work in communities of researchers, centred on the often anonymous but truly transformational work of reviewing and editing. The third route is through wrestling with management and leadership roles: showing how reflexive practice can inform and shape such roles in positive ways, to make a difference. After discussing these three routes, I conclude by discussing how personally relevant research can provide the strongest underpinnings for individual formation and all the routes to impact and influence and suggest some initial directions for such research.

Research impact and influence through our formation as educators

Leading universities often like to claim that they offer research-led teaching. In the context of business and management schools, where curriculum can be constrained by multiple accreditation agencies and expectations about utility, opportunities for research-led teaching may be more constrained. Nevertheless, Bartunek and Ren (2022, building on Pelz, 1978) show that these opportunities include (a) instrumental application of research insights to support the development of student capabilities and skills; (b) conceptual uses of research findings to provide useful information and/or stimulating intellectual challenges; and (c) symbolic applications, with legitimate approaches, policies or perspectives that have already been established. However, Bartunek and Ren (2022: 512) also argue that meaningful research-related experiences are

. . . often associated with pertinence to the academic self-concept and/or self-identity, resulting in making students feel better or worse about themselves and leading, in turn, to self-enhancement and/or self-protective responses – maybe both.

Arguably, relevance to students’ self-identity is determined not simply by the nature of the research material but also by the way in which the educator/researcher reflexively engages with research, as part of their own identity work ¹ in the classroom. For those of us committed to the tradition of critically reflexive research, this ought to be second nature. If our reflexive research is to inform and support our identity work, then we need to be deeply aware of our motivations and positionality in the projects we undertake – and expect to be changed by how our research impacts on us through reflexive practice that is embodied, emotional, thoughtful and relational (Hibbert, 2021; Hibbert et al., 2014; Mavin, 2022; Wright et al., 2023). In this way, we are fully present and vulnerable (Corlett et al., 2019, 2021), which supports a deep level of learning for educators as well as students: enabling us to use what we learn in our research (and the classroom) to question the values and assumptions that drove us to undertake such work (Will, 2022) and to consider how our own learning should shape our approach to learning and teaching (Spoelstra, 2024).

Engaging with our students as relationally reflexive partners in the elaboration of learning is centrally important but leads to a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, it feels right that educators’ approaches are shaped by research that tackles critical themes, such as how managerialism and performance obsessions have degraded our own academic profession (Hartz, 2023; Spoelstra, 2024), the banalities and manipulation inherent in organisational strategy processes (Wright, 2022) or the international implications of developments in geopolitics and how to be more aware of them (Belhoste and Dimitrova, 2024). There are worthy targets of such critical attention. On the other hand, educators’ own learning and formation needs to continue in relationally reflexive dialogue with those we presume to inform (Hibbert et al., 2014). We need to avoid a self-indulgent focus that seeks to replicate our views among student cohorts: Relational reflexive practice in the classroom asks us to meet our students where they are, taking their experiences and needs seriously as we learn from them too. Achieving such a balance means staying true to our critically reflexive position, while remembering that critical approaches are intended to be emancipatory. And emancipation is not simply about critical awareness but needs to be practical too (Hibbert, 2013). It is a hard truth that in the neoliberal, marketized context of modern higher education, many students graduate with crushing debts, often with precarious employment options, and struggle to afford halfway decent housing. Helping our students to recognise the systemic inequalities and injustices behind their economic circumstances is a valid aim, but we also need to help them find a practical way out of these conditions. Therefore, we need to think about how reflexive engagement in the classroom helps us provide the right mix of applied instrumental learning and student self-enhancement, alongside conceptual challenges and symbolic support for emancipatory agendas (Bartunek and Ren, 2022; Hibbert, 2013). In this way, our relationally reflexive engagement in research and education should lead us to two conclusions: that higher education must not be reduced to employability, but it also cannot be less than that.

Critically reflexive impact and influence, without the metrics: editorial and review work

If our own research contributes to our formation – shaping our learning and future reflexive practice – it enables us to have more thoughtful roles as reviewers and editors. In addition to which, reviewing magnifies the formative effects: we learn from the examples reviewed, the comments of other reviewers and from editorial guidance. The impact of reviewer and editorial service may not be reflected in many career metrics, but nevertheless it makes a significant difference to the field.

Most scholars agree that our work is improved through the peer review process, even if it is sometimes laborious and emotionally draining. As reviewers, we can have the most significant impact on scholarship in our field (and minimise the emotional strain) if we accept that reviewing is a collaborative process and not a combative one (Corner and Hibbert, 2019). A collaborative perspective on the process supports learning and development for reviewers too: if we are open to it, the process involves relational reflexivity (Hibbert et al., 2014) when there is a genuine intention to engage in intellectual exchange on both sides. This can lead to an acknowledgement of the review process as a constituent part of research methodology, as described by Hibbert et al (2022a) and Korber et al (2024). All of this leads to the insight that there is no such thing as a single-authored academic article in our field: There is a hidden supporting cast behind every article, and they make a significant difference.

Editorial roles expand the possibilities for contributions to others’ work, built on our own research experience and formation: having editorial roles at busy journals can lead to involvement with literally thousands of submissions. It is almost always possible to give some advice – if rather minimal, sometimes – even for a submission that is desk rejected. And it can be both affirming and yet heart-breaking to receive sincere thanks for a minimal level of feedback because for some scholars, that may be the only advice they have had.

Editorial work can be personally rewarding and formative for editors too. A recent editorial in another journal explains how this demanding voluntary work provides opportunities for collaboration, scholarship and growth (Hibbert et al., 2023: 569–572):

. . . collaboration supports generativity [. . .] leads to new intellectual connections and guidance [. . .] and supports both the refinement of scholarly work and community-building.

scholarship [. . . focusses on . . .] the extra work that editors put in to help particular authors produce their best work [. . .], establish principles and guiderails that make it easier to understand the standards of the field [. . .], and encourage a breadth of voices and varieties of intellectual contribution to be recognized and flourish.

[taking a reflexive perspective,] the ways in which we collaborate to cultivate scholarship in the field also supports our own growth as editors.

As with reviewing, this can be a relationally reflexive process (Hibbert et al., 2014) that shapes the editor, the submissions they handle and the authors they work with in thoughtful ways. Generally, reflexive researchers who become editors recognise that there are people behind the articles. Moreover, reflexive editors generally want to incorporate edgy, path-breaking work that really challenges the status quo. This means that editors can have enormous impact that builds on their informed judgement – which in turn depends on their own thoughtful and relationally reflexive formation (Hibbert et al., 2017). Editors must necessarily be experienced researchers in the field for this reason. But editors also need to be informed by humility and accept continuing formation in a relational process where

. . . we centre the limits of our cognitive potential and focus attention on the value of being subordinated to a more intelligent collective, respectful, and equitable knowing (Allen, 2017: 137).

All of us involved in editorial and review processes implicitly sign up to such a perspective, if we intend to use our learning in ways that are consistent with becoming and being reflexive scholars. In doing so, we build up the potential of the whole scholarly community to develop and have an impact downstream, in ways that we cannot predict but nevertheless help to realise.

Living out the lessons of critically reflexive research: influence through leader work

Our formation through research provides one further personal route to impact: direct participation in shaping academic organisations. This is possible when critically reflexive researchers take up leadership positions in their institutions. Thus, building on experiences in the classroom, Tomkins and Nicholds (2017: 253) argue that

Authentic leadership will only flourish in the business school if academics muster the courage to acknowledge its relevance for our own role as teacher-leaders, rather than simply teaching or writing to its abstract, ideological appeal.

Going further – whether we focus on authentic leadership or another approach – the point made by Tomkins and Nicholds (2017) can apply beyond the classroom. Reflexive researchers seek to be aware of their own positionality in and through their research (Hibbert, 2021) and can consider how their embodied, emotional, thoughtful and relational experiences may support the potential for leader work. Leader work involves the presentation of self that is congruent on a bodily level (our bodies and words send the same message), shows care (alertness to the emotions of ourselves and others), demonstrates consideration of the way ahead (uses deliberative thought, imagination and intuition flexibly to navigate an uncertain future) and values conversation (Hibbert, 2024). Reflexive researchers benefit from the self-knowledge and self-questioning (Corlett et al., 2019; Hibbert, 2021) that can support such congruent, careful, considerate and conversation-informed leader work on every level, in academic institutions. This is where scholarly identity work and leader work meet, to support the presentation of self as an ‘insider’.

Once they are seen as archetypal insiders, individuals can be recognised as leaders and use their influence to change expectations of what leadership means in the future (Fourie, 2023). The challenge for reflexive researchers who wish to support a critical agenda, and become leaders with that intention, is to ‘hold on’ to their emancipatory agenda and avoid becoming acculturated to managerialism and its habits. André Spicer, a prominent researcher who became dean of a major business school, commented in a recent news feature ² that

. . . I found myself falling into bad habits [. . .] I knew there was plenty of research that finds that out-of-work-hours communication is generally bad for employee wellbeing, and can also be bad for productivity. However, this didn’t stop me. Some mornings, I would find myself sending colleagues emails at 5 am. In the evening, I would be messaging at 10 pm. During the weekends, I would find myself firing off documents to colleagues and asking for comments.

A potential answer to this problem is a commitment to ongoing reflexive practice, especially involving dialogue with others outside of the culture that might otherwise ‘capture’ us, through relationally reflexive research projects. Such projects can place your practices under the microscope and connect you to a collaborative team that challenges your self-understanding (e.g. Hibbert et al., 2022a; Hibbert et al., 2022b; Korber et al., 2024) and helps to address gaps in your self-knowledge (Keevers and Treleaven, 2011).

Thus, I argue that it is a good idea for reflexive researchers, as long as they seek to stay aware of their limitations, to get involved in university leadership positions. There are opportunities to make a difference from within. In comparison, offering criticism from the outside seems to have been less than successful: the growing corpus of genuinely insightful and well-argued scholarly literature, critiquing business schools and neoliberal universities, has had no discernible direct effect. However, such kinds of critical research can help to shape us to be particularly informed, insightful and strongly motivated agents of change. So, it makes sense to get involved: leadership positions will give us the best chance to support change that, for example, favour equality and diversity (Fourie, 2023). Critically reflexive researchers will also have the benefit of reflexive practice as a self-awareness ‘warning system’ when they are tempted to fall into bad habits. This warning system may even signal when it is time to leave formal leadership positions and consider other possibilities, if the desired changes cannot be achieved (Hibbert et al., 2022b).

Conclusion: in favour of personally relevant research and making a difference

I have argued that critical, reflexive research supports the possibility of our formation as scholars, leading to three kinds of impact and influence that are less obvious than the take-up of the scholarly publications we write. First, such formation supports management education that focusses on critical engagement in the classroom but also, through relationally reflexive awareness, helps educators to meet the prosaic needs of students. Second, this formation gives us the ability to contribute to our scholarly communities’ development on a wider scale, through reviewer and editorial service: for most of us, although it is hard to quantify, that could be the greatest impact that we have. Third, our engagement in critically reflexive research can support our formation as motivated and thoughtful agents of change, and the best place to use this energy and insight could be in a formal leadership role.

To maximise the formative possibilities for all three routes of influence and impact, I would like to advocate for critically reflexive researchers to undertake personally relevant research. If you feel that a study matters deeply to you from the start, it will be most likely to have the strongest effects on your formation and give you the motivation to translate your insights into action for yourself and others. Thus, self-reflexive formation (Hibbert et al., 2017) magnifies the possibility that our teaching, scholarly service to our communities or our leader work might be more influential and impactful. Thus, for example, while research focussed on the scholarly critique of business schools and universities might not have easy routes to direct impact, it need not be seen as wasted: if such research takes effect through the researcher’s formation and motivation, it could make a difference through their leader work.

There are three research directions that align with a focus on critically reflexive, personally relevant research. The first is to study what happens when reflexive practice is aligned to our development as educators, not least in a dialogic mode that looks to the role of students in our formation. The second area for attention is to better understand how our research publications are constructed collaboratively, whether directly or indirectly; that includes understanding the flaws of such processes. We all have a personal stake in that: so, one might also consider how we can better acknowledge and recognise the role of collectives and unseen collaborators (such as reviewers), rather than maintaining the current publication rat race. We might then make the early stage of academic research careers less exhausting and precarious. The final area for research attention is for scholars to focus on their own leader work contributions to the field, through autoethnographic work, building insights and strategies for developing critically reflexive leadership that can really make a difference. Looking at this suggested agenda for research projects that can make a difference, there is a clear area of risk that needs our attention: the seduction of an heroic self-image.

The great temptation, when focussing on ourselves as routes to impact and agents of change, is to fall prey to vanity or hubris. However, reflexive practice, and reflexive research, should prevent us from focussing solely on ourselves and our own concerns, so there is some in-built safeguard against self-obsession. But it is still important to be confident about who you are and to know your strengths and possibilities (Hibbert, 2021; 2024). In addition, knowing yourself and your own context well is the first step to knowing others well. If you know who you are, you can more clearly recognise the authentic connections that you have with others – and be much more aware of the ways in which your life can make a difference to theirs. That should be the goal for every critically reflexive researcher.