Reflexivity and Relevance

​

To commence with, we shall shed light on how an applied research is different from a pure research. On the one hand, a pure research, which is also named as a basic or traditional research, appears to be academically motivated and relevant. On the other, an applied research is defined by a high extent of practicality and functionality. Whilst a pure research seeks intellectual and general solutions, an applied research is in the quest of practical and specific answers. There is, however, no clear-cut division between the two, as they exist on a continuous spectrum rather than as disconnected dichotomies. The nature of a research largely depends on the context as well as the position of the researcher (Sarangi & Candlin, 2003, p.272). For instance, a research that offers a theoretical framework on a particular area of interest for future researchers to analyze authentic data could not be regarded as purely basic in nature, as its underlying motive is to assist later practical research. Correspondingly, a research analyzing authentic data can hardly be considered as an applied one if the research findings have never been put into practice.

​

The position of the researcher and his or her scale of participation decide on the range and degree of primary data he or she may be able to obtain. More often than not, researchers can only act as outsiders when conducting an ethnographic research because they presumably have no thorough knowledge about the ongoing professional practice. Each profession has its “zones of mastery”, as proposed by Schön (1987, p.25). This kind of exclusiveness troubles researchers as such denial to that particular non-transparent professional practice causes unawareness of tacit change in discourse and workplace practice. In response, Sally Candlin (2003, pp. 386-394) suggests that the idea of “collaborative interpretation” should be taken seriously in order to surmount such an obstacle (pp. 386-394). It means the researcher and the researched jointly review and analyze the collected data to ensure the transcription is accurate and the interpretation of the data is free from misunderstanding induced by the lack of insiders’ knowledge.

​

Collaborative interpretation, however, comes with both pros and cons. It benefits researchers by granting them access to participants’ perspectives and hence, achieving better comprehension of the activity. More importantly, collaborative interpretation functions as a channel through which researchers can validate their data by seeking participants’ recognition. Nevertheless, interaction between participants and analysts may challenge the analysts’ discernment to look for an appropriate point between etic and emic ways of interpretation, which means looking at the issue from the point of view of the observer and from that of the subject, respectively. Whilst the former tends to understand the language in a non-structural and objective sense, the latter scrutinizes the internal features and their role. It is called “the analysts’ paradox,” as termed by Sarangi (2002, p.117). Though it is essential to an extent, collaborative interpretation may lure researchers to align their stance with that of the participants. In other words, it may compromise objectivity and exert undesirable influence on the observation results and the analysis.

​

This sort of mutuality also prompts the discourse on reflexivity. When they are working, professional practitioners and applied linguists often undergo two kinds of reflective action, which are ‘reflect in’ action and ‘reflect on’ action. Reflection in action refers to the immediate deliberation in the course of action, and reflection on action means reflecting upon what has happened, at a later time. The advantages of such reflexivity during and after the professional practice are mutual and bilateral. Researchers do not only obtain result scrutiny through reflexive referral to the professional practitioners. They can also help assess the quality of the practice and service provided. They are able to provide observations that are arguably not preconceived, which can account for the reasons for success or failure. Sometimes, researchers can even offer “hot feedbacks” i.e. immediate feedbacks so that professional practitioners can apply the research findings into their practice as soon as possible.

​

Therefore, it is manifest that the roles of researchers are more complex than merely being outsiders or insiders. In addition to the temporal dimension, the synergy between participants and analysts can be understood in relational terms, too. According to Sarangi and Candlin (2003), researchers can also act as resource, befriender, target audience and assessor of performance, and expert and agent of change (pp. 278-281). Most of the roles are self-explanatory, whilst some require further explanation. In brief, the notion of insider or outsider puts emphasis on the distance between the researchers and the participants, which again involves the dichotomy between emic and etic terms. As befrienders, they serve to put participants at ease and stimulate ideas’ formation. As target audience, they are assumed to be at a position to systematically survey and evaluate the performance of the participants. As experts, they are expected to possess expertise and be able to come up with incisive insights. The roles, however, are not fixed or static, and researchers are “required to move between them in context-sensitive ways” (Sarangi & Candlin, 2003, p. 281). That is to say, instead of “being” any particular roles, researchers are supposed to “do” different roles depending on the context. Besides, the respondents researched are never homogeneous, too. To cope with different situations and to manage different participants, the roles of researchers are demanded to be dynamic.

​

​

Figure 1. The dynamic role(s) of the researcher

Having examined the relation between researchers’ participation and reflexivity, it is manifest that researchers have the need to pay attention to two important points if they wish to attain a more productive and constructive data collection and hence, analysis. First and foremost, they have to be aware of the role they play in relation to the context and to the subject investigated. On top of that, they shall avoid undermining analytical independence during necessary collaborative interpretation.