By Adam Chen

There is no single ‘how-to’

If you came to this post looking for a simple how-to guide, you may be disappointed. As May and Perry (2017) note, no single method guarantees reflection or reflexivity. What matters is how you use a method. Writing is a common approach, whether that's a reflexive journal, analytic memos or a reflective essay.

For a thorough overview, the AMEE guide to reflexivity in qualitative research (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023) is an excellent place to start. It outlines four interconnected types of reflexivity:

• Personal – how your own experiences, identities and assumptions shape the research.

• Interpersonal – how relationships and power dynamics with participants (and colleagues) influence the work.

• Methodological – how your methodological choices shape what can be known.

• Contextual – how institutional, cultural and historical contexts frame the research.

Working through each type in turn can encourage thorough reflexivity without focusing purely on personal reflection. For example, after an interview you might ask not only how did I feel? (personal), but also how did the power dynamic between us shape what was said? (interpersonal), what did my interview guide make easy or hard to talk about? (methodological) and what institutional or cultural expectations were in the room? (contextual).

Going beyond reflexivity: a care ethics approach

Reflexivity takes on extra weight when research involves sensitive topics, distress or trauma for participants and researchers alike. Brannelly and Barnes (2022) argue that we need to go beyond reflexivity, drawing on feminist care ethics. A Feminist ethic of care actively resists exploitation and prioritises mutuality and care through relational, context-sensitive, and power-aware practice (Drenten and Gurrieri, 2025).

Care isn't straightforward, though. Brannelly and Barnes (2022) caution that it can slip into paternalism, positioning participants as "vulnerable" and undermining their autonomy. They argue that we need to go beyond reflexivity towards "care-full" research. Rather than only asking "how am I shaping this research?", they ask "how am I caring within this research?" Their framework has five elements:

• Attentiveness – noticing issues, concerns and needs.

• Responsibility – accepting responsibility to act in response to a perceived need.

• Competence – fully understanding the research context and the human, methodological and ethical issues at stake.

• Responsiveness – being responsive to the person receiving care, so that care is completed.

• Solidarity – being aware of injustice and the possibility of reparative action.

Here I’ll provide some space for you to reflect on how you could implement a Feminist ethic of care in your research.

1. Attentiveness: What needs or concerns might my participants have that my study design doesn't currently notice?

2. Responsibility: When I notice a need, such as distress during an interview, what am I prepared to do, and where are my limits?

3. Competence: What do I need to understand about this community, topic or setting before I can care well within it?

4. Responsiveness: How will I know whether participants actually experience my safeguards as care rather than control?

5. Solidarity: What injustices shape my participants' lives, and how could my research contribute to change rather than just documenting harm?