Reflexivity in PHIR: let's have a reflexive talk!

Abstract

In 2009, a group of researchers who gathered in the context of the Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada (PHIRIC) agreed upon the need to define a specific set of competencies for population health intervention research (PHIR). Following this event, a consultative process allowed the definition of six domains of core competencies in PHIR, which were released for the first time last summer. In this comment, we would like to respond to this set of competencies and, more specifically, to the "reflective researcher" domain of the competencies. We believe that propositions in this domain are rooted in a narrow and oversimplified definition of reflexivity. Furthermore, we are concerned that disseminating such propositions is not only misleading but could also encourage a false practice of reflexivity, impeding the evolution of the PHIR field and its capacity to improve population health. In order to illustrate our point, we build on commonly accepted definitions of reflexivity to critically examine the initial propositions of the group and suggest new ones. As researchers in the population health intervention field, we believe that a more accurate definition of what is a reflective researcher is crucial in order to foster the continuous development of the field and its capacity to improve population health.