Abstract
ABSTRACT Recently the term reflexivity has entered management discourses about research, education and practice. This paper highlights the ambiguity which prevails concerning the concept of reflexivity showing how the ways in which reflexivity itself is constituted inevitably articulates epistemological circularity in that commentators’ definitions and prescriptions vary according to their tacit metatheoretical commitments. Hence the aim of this paper is to explore this paradox by excavating such commitments and demonstrating how they constitute particular forms of reflexivity – each with distinctive implications for the role of the management researcher in terms of aims, processes, and outcomes. Three generic forms of reflexivity are proposed: the methodological, the hyper or deconstructive, and the epistemic.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
