Speaker
Zhipeng Gao, York University
Title
Toward a Psychological Theory for Practicing Epistemological Reflexivity
Abstract
It has been well recognized that scientific methodology itself does not prevent researchers’ subjectivity from influencing social and behavioral research. With this post-empiricist understanding, many researchers have resorted to epistemological reflexivity (ER) – the reflection on how researchers’ subjectivity biases scientific knowledge, in order to enhance the objectivity and ethicality of their research. However, there exists great conceptual and practical difficulty in developing ER. Based on Kögler’s critical hermeneutic philosophy (representative work: The Power of Dialogue: Critical Hermeneutics after Gadamer and Foucault, 1999), I develop a theoretical-practical approach to developing ER in the social and behavioral sciences.
I suggest when cultural (including gender, ethnicity, class, age, profession, etc.) differences exist between the researcher and the research participant, it is likely that the research will generate ethnocentric knowledge which is both “non-objective” and unethical. In this context, I propose to incorporate a dialogue session into the research for developing case-specific ER. The dialogue should be performed between the researcher and one research participant; the participant should provide a biographical narrative focusing on the current research topic while the researcher should interpret the participant’s narrative for developing ER.
I will provide a practical guideline for developing ER at thematic, content and methodological levels. At the thematic level, I suggest that the researcher develops three sequential forms of reflexivity in the dialogue: descriptive reflexivity in terms of contrasting the researcher and the participant’s cultural-psychological conditions; analytic reflexivity in terms of contrasting the researcher and the participant’s developmental courses; and critical reflexivity in terms of co-evaluating with the participant the sociopolitical and experiential implication of the current research for the participant. At the content level, I suggest that the researcher focuses on the participant’s unique cognition, affection, action and context that are disclosed in the dialogue. At the methodological level, I suggest that the researcher uses Parker and Van Dijk’s critical discourse analysis for interpreting the dialogue.