This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]

On: 22 November 2014, At: 01:56

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Social

Research Methodology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsrm20

Personal reflexivity and biography:

methodological challenges and
strategies
a
Ana Caetano
a
ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, CIES-IUL, Av. Forças
Armadas, Lisbon 1649-026, Portugal
Published online: 14 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Ana Caetano (2014): Personal reflexivity and biography: methodological
challenges and strategies, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, DOI:
10.1080/13645579.2014.885154

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.885154

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.885154

Personal reflexivity and biography: methodological challenges and

strategies
Ana Caetano*

ISCTE–Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, CIES-IUL, Av. Forças Armadas, Lisbon 1649-026,

Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

Portugal
(Received 13 March 2013; accepted 13 January 2014)

This article examines the methodological device used in a sociological study that
analyses empirically the concept of personal reflexivity. Taking into account the
specific challenges of such an investigation the paper emphasises the potential of
a biographical approach and the concrete parameters of its use. It is based on the
experience of in-depth interviews conducted in more than one session and
considers the different phases and elements of the empirical research process.
Topics such as epistemological concerns, preparation of the interview guide,
methodological cautions, the research relationship and the interview setting are
at the centre of the discussion.
Keywords: reflexivity; biographical research; interviews; emotions; qualitative
research

Introduction
References to reflexivity have become increasingly common in sociological research
in recent decades, particularly from the 1990s onwards and in debates focused on
social change in modern societies (Beck, Giddens, & Lash, 1994). The discussion of
this concept has generally been theoretical, and it is only recently that scholars have
devoted more sustained attention to the actual operationalisation of the concept of
reflexivity. Margaret Archer’s (2003, 2007, 2012) work is a clear example of this.
Research aimed at examining an abstract notion in social reality requires devot-
ing special attention to the methodological instruments that enable us to move from
the theoretical to the empirical. This is a fundamental stage in any social scientific
empirical research, but gains particular importance in research aimed at empirically
testing a theoretical concept.
The goal of this article is precisely to reflect upon methodological strategies
developed for the sociological analysis of personal reflexivity. It will examine: (1)
how these strategies meet the specific challenges of studying reflexivity and (2) the
concrete experience of conducting empirical research on reflexivity using this meth-
odological approach. It is not intended to present a conceptual model for analysing
the concept, but rather discuss the adequacy of a methodological strategy for
researching it.

*Email: ana.caetano@iscte.pt

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 2 A. Caetano

The research
The methodological reflection presented in this article is part of a research project
focused on the concept of personal reflexivity.1 By personal reflexivity I mean
people’s ability to reflect upon themselves taking into consideration their social
circumstances. It is a private, subjective mental process that takes the form of
dialogues – or internal conversations (Archer, 2003) – and is constituted by, and
constitutive of, the relationship that individuals have with their social contexts.
Although it does not necessarily have any kind of external manifestation, reflexivity
may also take a discursive form in contexts of interaction.
The main goals of this research were to analyse sociologically: (1) how individu-
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

als acquire and develop the ability to think about themselves and their social condi-
tions, (2) how these reflexive processes are characterised, i.e. how they occur, in
what circumstances, parameters and contexts and (3) what effects they have on the
definition of specific courses of action.
Based on the articulation of elements of Archer’s critical realism, proposals from
dispositionalist theory (Bourdieu, 1979/1984, 1980/1992; Lahire, 2002, 1998/2011),
structuration theory (Giddens, 2004), symbolic interactionism (Goffman, 1990) and
synthesis approaches (Alexander, 1988; Mouzelis, 2008), I created a sociological
model for analysing reflexive processes at the individual level. The model is
grounded on the idea that it is not always necessary to make unilateral choices
between the possibilities of one theory or another. It can be productive and enriching
to combine different elements from pertinent proposals to create a more complex
and multidimensional approach.
The analytical model is based on two central ideas. First, it distinguishes
between internal and external dimensions of action, taking into consideration both
the material and the mental existence of social reality (Alexander, 1988; Mouzelis,
2008). The external dimension is composed of: (a) material resources (resulting from
social origins and the present socio-economic condition) that structure the ‘field of
possibles’ of individuals in terms of their life chances and ways of perceiving and
interpreting the world (Bourdieu, 1979/1984, 1980/1992; Lahire, 2002, 1998/2011);
(b) contexts of interaction that constitute the frames where social actors interact with
one another, differently promoting and demanding reflexive competences (Giddens,
2004; Goffman, 1990; Mouzelis, 2008); and (c) discursive reflexivity, exercised
through speech and writing (Lahire, 2008, 1998/2011; Mouzelis, 2008). As for the
internal dimension, it takes into account: (a) systems of dispositions, which are inter-
pretative and action schemes that tend to act at a non-conscious level (Bourdieu,
1980/1992; Lahire, 2002) and (b) internal conversations consisting of dialogues that
individuals have with themselves in the privacy of their minds (Archer, 2003, 2007,
2012).
Second, the relation between external and internal dimensions of action is
mediated at three levels: (a) practical sense, at the structural level, represents the
pre-reflexive adjustment between material conditions of existence and dispositions,
generally making agents know how to act without activating rationalisation
processes, because they have embodied throughout their biographies the objective
possibilities of their contexts (Bourdieu, 1980/1992, 1993/1999; Giddens, 2004;
Lahire, 1998/2011); (b) reflexivity, at the individual level, since external/structural
enablement and constraint are, in many situations, activated through the reflexive
dialogues which people establish with themselves, as they define projects based on
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology 3

the articulation between concerns and social contexts (Archer, 2003, 2007, 2012);
and (c) interaction, in the sense that reflexive deliberations resulting from the rela-
tionship that individuals have with themselves are always filtered and therefore
potentially implemented, negotiated, reformulated or cancelled in concrete interac-
tional contexts, in the presence (even if mediated) of other social actors (Goffman,
1990; Mouzelis, 2008).
Basically, this is a model of analysis that combines Archer’s analytical dualism
with Giddens’ duality of structure and Bourdieu’s processes of internalisation of
exteriority and exteriorisation of interiority. Essentially, the analysis of personal
reflexivity implies that structures are conceptualised as external entities because they
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

are taken as an object that constrains or enables individual projects (Archer, 2003).
But, on the other hand, reflexivity is not the only social mechanism guiding action.
The processes of internalisation of social structures generate a practical knowledge
(Bourdieu, 1980/1992), or practical consciousness (Giddens, 2004), that produces
action adjusted to individuals’ objective possibilities. In some circumstances reflex-
ivity is the guiding principle of practices, but in many other situations dispositions
are the main explanatory factor. They can also combine differently in sequences of
action. Duality and dualism refer to different components of the relation between
structure and agency. Therefore, they should be perceived as variable and should be
combined in order to develop a more complex understanding of social practices.
One of the main challenges in attempting to operationalise this model of analysis
in an empirical project was establishing a methodological strategy that would meet
the defined research goals and fit with the theoretical parameters discussed above.
This required reflecting thoroughly upon methodological tools and the information-
gathering process.

Problems and challenges

Transposing the theoretical principles of conceptualisation of reflexivity into
concrete tools for analysing social reality involves a number of practical challenges
that must be considered. There are three main different types of problems: access,
expression and interpretation.
The first difficulties encountered in the sociological analysis of personal reflexiv-
ity relate to access to the object of study. How does one observe reflexivity?
The actual feasibility of the research rests on finding strategies to address this
challenging question.
An initial concern that a sociological study of reflexivity may raise is the fact
that the subject of the analysis is less visible and immediate. How do we access
ways of thinking, pondering and deliberating that, in spite of their external compo-
nent, tend to be mainly associated with each person’s private thoughts? Since it is
impossible to directly observe internal mental processes, the solution is to look at
their manifestations, namely through discourse. We can ask people to tell us how
they exercise their reflexivity in different contexts and at different times. Indeed, this
is the methodological option chosen for analysing a vast range of sociological prob-
lems, especially those that cannot be directly observed. Here, the study of reflexivity
is on the same level and faces the same research problems as, for example, the anal-
ysis of incorporated dispositions or attitudes (Archer, 2003, pp. 154–156). What a
researcher can access is their materialisation in declarations and practices, which are
their form of social existence.
 4 A. Caetano

The time lapse between the exercise of reflexivity at specific moments and the
discourse produced by each individual about that process retrospectively, in a
research context, poses another problem of access. We can ask someone to talk
about past reflections, but that distance in time results in a possible reconstruction of
senses and meanings. Each person’s discourse is filtered by memory, experience,
social circumstances and emotional states, and these constrain access to what they
actually thought at a given moment in their lives. Once again, this is a difficulty
found in the study of a wide range of social issues and is not exclusive to the analy-
sis of reflexivity. Accessing past practices and representations always involves
dynamics of reinterpretation of events, relationships and decisions. In research
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

focusing precisely on individual interpretations, why would working with recon-

structed meanings be an obstacle?
Discourse on past events is often not entirely disconnected from what actually
happened and is based on concrete situations. Generally, people have the skills to
describe them and memory to be able to talk in more or less detail about what hap-
pened and what they felt and thought at the time. In addition, research into a given
subject always implies a particular, temporal cutting of social reality, even when one
takes a diachronic perspective. Individuals’ discourse about their experiences and
thoughts may change over time, such that it becomes structured differently (at least
partially) if they are contacted at another phase of their lives. These dynamics must
therefore be recognised as general research problems in sociology and not added
obstacles to the study of reflexivity.
Another type of methodological difficulty lies in problems of expression arising
from the fact that the analysis of reflexivity is based largely on each person’s discur-
sive skills and ability to respond to different requests. This means that they have to
put into words mental processes that do not take exclusively the form of language
but also of symbols and images. While it may be hard to do it for themselves, the
task is even more complicated if they have to transmit and explain these inner dia-
logues to someone else. As it is not viable to reproduce them in exactly the same
manner, what happens is that they provide an interpretative summary of what they
consider most important (Archer, 2003, p. 155). But this also occurs in most socio-
logical research that uses a methodology grounded on individual discourse. Individ-
uals focus their declarations on what they remember, on what they consider most
relevant to what they have been asked and to the self-image they wish to convey in
this context. Sociological work is therefore based on information that each person
discloses selectively.
The difficulties arising from this process of constructing and presenting meanings
lead to the third type of methodological problem in the analysis of reflexivity: inter-
pretation. Research must be based on the sociological interpretation of interpretative
individuals. The fact that people have their own concepts and meanings of the social
world in which they live makes the double hermeneutic process inevitable in the
analysis of personal reflexivity (and in sociological research in general). In other
words, in order to understand individuals’ conduct and mental schema, the research
must address their knowledge of social reality and of their own practices and repre-
sentations. On the other hand, sociological knowledge can be incorporated, even if
only partially and in a segmented form, into individuals’ interpretative discourse. It
is a two-way relationship that should be properly recognised in analytical research
processes (Giddens, 1993, pp. 5–13).
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology 5

However, as Archer states (2003, p. 154), although a double hermeneutic is

unavoidable, it should not be an obstacle to the research, particularly when the sub-
ject is precisely the way in which individuals see themselves in the world. Archer is
right when arguing that it is necessary to find a balance that does not involve mini-
mising the interpretative nature of individual declarations, nor maximising the result-
ing difficulties in that they represent general concerns of sociological research
(Archer, 2003, p. 156). Individuals have profound knowledge of themselves that
cannot be fully accessed by social scientific methodological tools. Their self-knowl-
edge may be interpreted in sociological research with gaps and flaws. But this hap-
pens in the interpretation of individual discourse on any subject. Access to the many
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

senses and meanings of individual experiences is always partial and oriented

towards the research questions. In this regard, the study of reflexivity is at the same
level of the analysis of representations, attitudes, beliefs and intentions.
The discussion of these methodological problems shows that the study of reflex-
ivity falls entirely within the parameters of sociological analysis, and the difficulties
that it poses are essentially no different from those arising in research on other top-
ics. An investigation centred in personal reflexivity demands a number of practical
as well as methodological cautions that are shared by other sociological domains of
study. In this sense the main concern must not be if reflexivity is less sociological
than other research topics, but rather the sociological way in which the concept is
analysed (Lahire, 1998/2011, p. 199).
Three different levels of reflexivity are intertwined in the sociological analysis of
personal reflexivity: that of the researcher, that of the individuals being studied and
that specifically raised by the research context. People are asked to talk about mat-
ters that provide access to their reflexivity mechanisms and the discourse produced
by them in this setting is in itself a reflexive act. Based on the information gathered,
it is up to researchers to analyse these processes by exercising a ‘reflex reflexivity’,
i.e. to use their sociological reflexivity skills as an epistemological vigilance tool
(Bourdieu, 2001/2004). These procedures are common to studies involving the col-
lection of data based on individual discourse. The difference is that reflexivity in this
research has a triple function, as it is the object of the study and not just a means of
obtaining information or of monitoring researchers’ practices.

Individual discourse
To analyse the social mechanisms of reflexivity it is essential to consider the narra-
tives of rationalisation, interpretation and allocation of meaning used by each person
to describe, explain and justify their representations and conduct. Individual accounts
(regardless of whether they are written or spoken) are a privileged way of accessing
not only people’s biographical experiences but also and especially how they experi-
enced, interpreted and rationalised each situation. Through discourse, people imbue
reality and themselves with meaning (Skeggs, 2009). In this sense, discourse is not
the object of study in itself, since the focus is not directed at its form and structure or
its performative and power dimensions. It is instead understood essentially as an
external means of expression of reflexive competences and of access to reflexivity.
Focus on individual discourse as a favoured methodological strategy must take
into account three operative aspects. Firstly, the ‘principle of non-consciousness of
practices’ must be assured methodologically (Bourdieu, 1980/1992). Contrary to
Bourdieu, this principle is not reiterated theoretically, i.e. individuals are considered
 6 A. Caetano

to have reflexive competences that can address their normally non-conscious dispo-
sitions at certain moments. Each person is considered capable of describing, inter-
preting and giving meaning to options and circumstances. This does not mean,
however, that individuals are always fully aware of the complex combination of
social factors and determinations that explain their actions. It is necessary to go
beyond their field of consciousness and explore also social dynamics and mecha-
nisms that act, generally, at a non-conscious level. That which individuals highlight
as most relevant in explaining their conduct may not necessarily be the most deci-
sive factor from a sociological point of view. Here, their narratives are also means
of access to social mechanisms that they themselves cannot verbalise or recognise in
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

their representations and conduct.

Secondly, it is important to consider the exceptional nature of narratives pro-
duced specifically for research purposes. Interviews, for instance, are extraordinary
situations and imply a break from everyday practical sense. Interviewees’ discourse
is always the result of a meeting between their dispositions and expectations, and
those of the researcher (Denzin, 1989, p. 82, 2001, p. 24; Fontana & Frey, 2000,
p. 646, 663; Holstein & Gubrium, 1997, pp. 113–114; Lahire, 1998/2011, p. 75;
Nilsen, 1996, p. 17). There are conscious omissions and unconscious aspects that
are not discussed. Although an interview may constitute a particular interaction and
stimulates a certain type of reflexive discourse, there are actually countless situations
in individuals’ lives in which they speak about their attitudes and actions and ratio-
nalise to themselves and others the choices they have made. They do not do so in as
concentrated and detailed a way as they do in interviews, but interpretative accounts
are part of individuals’ everyday lives (Garfinkel, 1999; Goffman, 1990; Lahire,
2008, 1998/2011; Orbuch, 1997). Individuals have their own grid of analysis of the
world that enables them to reflect about themselves and explain who they are and
what they do. Their narratives result not only from self-observation but also from
other people’s interpretation of them.
During an interview, these views of themselves, of others and of the world are
brought into play on the basis of the specific requirements of the research; not only to
uncover a pre-existing discourse but especially to encourage reflection based on each
person’s experiences and perceptions. Here discursive elements that are usually
shared in other contexts are articulated with aspects that only emerge in the interview,
either because they had never been thought of before or because the interviewees
have the opportunity to update their views while recounting them. An interview situa-
tion can be a new, strange experience for individuals, but it is in fact a methodological
technique that basically consists of stimulating reflexivity processes that occur nor-
mally in a more dispersed and segmented manner throughout their lives.
Thirdly, in research focusing on individual discourse, it is essential to take into
account differences in people’s discursive skills. Narratives produced during an
interview always depend on individuals’ ability of verbal expression. The way in
which they talk about themselves may depend on a combination of factors, such as
school attainment, occupation, gender socialisation or other life experiences. They
do it on their own terms and are always fallible when transposing orally reflections,
past experiences and emotions. However, as discussed above, these issues arise in
the analysis of other objects of study that cannot be directly observed. Indeed,
sociological work is usually based on interpretative syntheses produced by each
individual, which provide access to the aspects of social life that are being analysed
in the research.
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7

Methodological strategy
Considering that the central goal of the research project being discussed here is to
analyse the formation, exercise and causal effects of personal reflexivity, the focus
on individual discourse must necessarily take a diachronic perspective. In methodo-
logical terms, this means using biographical interviews to capture past experiences,
present interpretations and future projects (Brannen & Nilsen, 2011, p. 609).
The biographical approach has a long tradition in sociology, from the work in
1920 of Thomas and Znaniecki (1984) to the intensification of sociological produc-
tion centred on this topic in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in France (Bertaux,
1981, 2001), Germany (Fischer-Rosenthal, 2000; Rosenthal, 2004; Schütze, 1984/
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

2005) and the USA (Denzin, 1989, 2001) – some of these authors continue working
on these issues today – to the more recent work of British authors such as Wengraf
(2001) and Chamberlayne, Bornat, and Wengraf (2000). If initially each author was
mainly connected to a specific approach, today it is much more common for authors
to incorporate elements of different proposals in a more integrated method of
analysis (Brannen & Nilsen, 2011; Domecka & Mrozowicki, 2013; Lahire, 2002;
Nilsen, 1996; Svašek & Domecka, 2012). The present research follows this trend in
the promotion of the cumulative nature of scientific knowledge, considering the
biography simultaneously as an expression of reality and as a social product.
In this study, a person’s life path is considered a means of accessing the
analytical object, a ‘way of knowledge’ (Bertaux, 1981, 2001). This entails paying
attention not only to events that have occurred during people’s lives but also to their
states, i.e. the subjectivity associated with each of these moments (Bertaux, 2001,
p. 87; Brannen & Nilsen, 2011, p. 609; Denzin, 1989, p. 30). The narration of a
biography does not consist only of a description of factual situations. It is not only a
more or less chronological succession of events. It is precisely here that lies its
potential in the analysis of personal reflexivity, in that life trajectories are normally
described in articulation with reasons for acting, evaluation of past choices and
allocation of meaning to social conduct.
This does not, however, mean considering biography only in relation to the inter-
pretative individual. In order to avoid the ‘biographical illusion’ of unity of a path
exclusively permeated with intentions, strategies and plans, it is essential to take into
account the structure of each person’s social relations and contexts (Bourdieu, 1986/
1987). Furthermore, it must be considered that what people say in a biographical
interview is mediated at several levels, not only by the dispositions incorporated
throughout their lives, in relation to their social contexts, but also by memory, dis-
cursive skills, reflexive competences, selectivity of situations recounted, dynamics of
disclosure or concealment of occurrences, and the actual symbolic and material con-
text of the interview (Bertaux, 2001, p. 36). Individual paths must therefore be
reconstructed by combining factual reports, personal interpretations and structural
configurations, without losing sight of the effect of discourse mediation. Carrying
out biographical interviews makes it possible to capture and articulate these
dynamics.
In this research project, an interview guide that stimulated discourse around these
analytical components was created. It was divided into three blocks of questions.
The first considered the biographical pathway and was designed to explore the inter-
viewee’s life (hi)story. It focused on the description of, and reflection on, conditions,
contexts, plans and central concerns. Because the research project aimed at
 8 A. Caetano

producing a broad analysis of reflexivity’s social mechanisms, without focusing on

particular contexts of existence, this part of the interview looked at different
domains of life and periods in time. The interviewees were asked to share their
experiences and perceptions of different spheres, such as family, school, work, socia-
bility and leisure in the different phases of their biographies. In each of these
domains, the goal was to achieve a diachronic understanding of the interviewees’
structural conditions, personal relationships and individual choices.
At the end of this first part, they were asked to assess their life trajectory, by
highlighting important people and moments, turning points, past contexts and deci-
sions that they would like to change, central concerns in life and its evolution, and
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

plans for the future. It was the information gathered in the first part of the interview
that, to a large extent, made it possible to reconstruct the processes of formation,
enablement and causality of personal reflexivity.
The second block in the interview guide focused synchronically on the intervie-
wee’s everyday lives: daily habits, possible breaks in these routines and the people
involved. This information allows for an understanding of how they articulate their
daily practices with crisis situations, planning and pondering.
Finally, the third block focused more specifically on personal reflexivity. The
interviewees were first asked to talk about their internal conversations. Archer’s
choice (2003, p. 161) of asking people directly whether they were aware that they
usually had conversations with themselves, silently in their minds, proved in appro-
priate in this research. Not only was it difficult for some interviewees (mainly from
lower social classes) to understand the idea of conversing with themselves, but they
often thought of it as some kind of mental pathology.
The word ‘conversation’ had then to be replaced by one that referred to the same
type of internal dynamics but had no negative connotations. The solution with some
interviewees was to use the word ‘think’ or the expression ‘think to yourself’.
Although in theoretical terms the concept of internal conversation is not restricted to
the idea of thinking, methodologically it proved to be the best choice in some situa-
tions. In other cases, namely with interviewees with higher school attainment and
more developed discursive skills, it was possible to use concepts like ‘introspective’
or ‘reflexive’. The language used to pose the questions in this last block was always
adapted to the interviewees’ discourse presented in the two previous sections of the
interview.
The discussion of these notions was largely based on Archer’s list of 10 mental
activities (2003, p. 161, 2007, p. 91). Each person was asked if they usually plan,
rehearse, mull over, decide, relive, prioritise, imagine, clarify, have imaginary con-
versations and budget. Whenever justified – e.g. when the answers were hasty, no
illustrations were given and it was necessary to delve deeper into some topics – situ-
ations that had already been described in the two previous parts of the interview
were used to probe further. Although Archer believes these activities to be mainly
mental, it should be highlighted that this was not specified to the individuals during
the interview. Each person spoke of these activities without limiting them in terms
of form of expression. Otherwise, this would have excluded, for example, different
ways of planning, calculation or pondering that are exercised externally.
The second part of the last block of the interview guide focused on oral and writ-
ten forms of discursive reflexivity. Considering the oral component, the questions
were aimed at exploring modes of reflexivity exercised in co-presence situations and
the importance of other people in the way interviewees form and use their reflexive
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology 9

competences. Regarding the written element, and in line with Lahire’s conclusions
(2008, 1998/2011), the aim was to understand the exercise of reflexivity through
interviewees’ writing practices, regardless of their context, form or means of
expression.
Even though the first two blocks of the interview allowed for the reconstruction
of the processes of formation, enablement and causality of personal reflexivity, both
diachronically and synchronically, this last part of the interview guide was abso-
lutely central to deepen the understanding of reflexive processes. The nature of the
information on reflexivity gathered by individuals talking about their trajectories,
choices, constraints and rationalisations is not the same as the one provided by inter-
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

viewees when discussing their inner lives and external forms of reflexivity in a more
abstract way. Through these specific questions it was possible to understand how the
actual mechanisms of reflexivity act in a more general way, and how individuals
perceive their inner lives and their discursive forms of reflexivity. Without this block
of the interview, the concrete modes of exercise of reflexivity would remain
unexplored.
The information from the last part of the interview was complemented by written
documents whenever possible, since writing is understood in this research project as
an external mode of exercising reflexivity. Some interviewees allowed access to their
own writings, such as poems and online texts from blogs or social networks.
The methodological procedures of this study combined an autobiographic
approach (Rosenthal, 2004; Schütze, 1984/2005; Wengraf, 2001) with a semi-struc-
tured method of interviewing (Archer, 2003; Bertaux, 2001; Lahire, 2002). The pur-
pose of analysing reflexive competences in different spheres of life and in different
moments in time entailed asking specific questions on many topics, encouraging
subjects to talk about matters which they may not otherwise approach. The goal was
not to examine the spontaneous ways in which individuals narrated their biogra-
phies, but rather the concrete description and interpretation they provided of their
various phases of life. As already mentioned, it is necessary to uncover certain non-
conscious dynamics of individuals’ inner lives and experiences, and not explore
solely the field of consciousness of subjects. Throughout the interview, participants
were given the necessary space to present themselves and their biographies at their
own rhythm and sequence. In the majority of the interviews, individuals talked for
long periods of time without being interrupted.

The biographical interviews

The best strategy for meeting the epistemological and methodological challenges
posed by the sociological analysis of reflexivity was to hold each biographical inter-
view in two separate sessions. Twenty biographical interviews were conducted in
approximately 40 interview sessions. In most cases, they lasted around 6 h (3 h each
session). The elapsed time between sessions varied between one week and two
months. The decision to divide the interview into two parts was made for methodo-
logical and operative reasons. First of all, there was the length of the interview
guide, which stimulated long discussions of a wide range of life dimensions, at
different moments in time. It was crucial to go into each one more deeply but also
made the interview less tiring for the interviewees.2
Another important advantage of this choice was the fact that it stimulated peo-
ple’s reflexivity between sessions. The period between the first and second session
 10 A. Caetano

enabled many interviewees to look further into their perceptions of themselves and
to reflect on certain aspects of their circumstances and options that they had not
considered before. They often returned to topics discussed in the first session, on
their own initiative, and came up with clearer, deeper ideas about some of the
situations previously narrated.
Dividing the biographical interview into two parts also makes it possible for the
researcher to prepare the second session on the basis of the first one, thereby stimu-
lating sociological reflexivity. Information can be used to update and adjust certain
questions, especially more abstract ones regarding the interviewees’ internal conver-
sations. For example, when posing questions about the 10 mental activities proposed
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

by Archer (2003, p. 161, 2007, p. 91), I often used situations described by the inter-
viewee in the first interview session as illustrations and prompts. By using multiple
sessions, the language and the way in which questions are asked can be adapted and
it is also possible to discuss topics that were forgotten during the first part of the
interview, as well as delve deeper into other answers.
The choice of two sessions was also a way of encouraging a degree of proximity
and fostering a relationship of trust between researcher and interviewee in a context
that required people to share details of their personal lives. In practically all of the
interviews, it was clear that the interviewees felt more at ease in the second session.
In the second part of the interview, some individuals felt confident enough to share
more private aspects of their lives. For example, one had not mentioned her son’s
substance abuse problem in the first session but decided to do so in the second one
after consulting her son and asking for his permission. In this particular case, the
interview went into a third session, when she felt able to address another matter that
she had not talked about, which was her husband’s infidelity. As the sessions pro-
gressed the interviewees’ ability to share intimate details increased substantially.
Most of the interviews took place in the interviewees’ own homes. This choice
of a domestic setting arose from the conviction that they would feel more comfort-
able there. An interview’s location can affect the way in which it is structured and
the information that is shared (Herzog, 2005). This methodological strategy had a
number of positive effects. Firstly, as they were being interviewed at home, their pri-
vacy was not undermined if they shared personal aspects of their lives. In most cases
no one else was at home, and even if someone was there the interview took place in
a room with the door closed and without external interference.
The fact that the interviews took place in familiar surroundings that interviewees
controlled helped to balance the relationship between the researcher and the partici-
pants. The initial unease felt because they were in a new, unfamiliar situation con-
trolled by someone else was somewhat reduced by the familiarity of the place,
which only they knew and where they were in charge. Whenever they considered it
relevant, they took the initiative of using items in their homes to illustrate and rein-
force some aspects of their narrations, such as photographs, pictures, books and
other personal belongings. Some of them played music during the interview. These
choices were only possible because the interview took place in their homes, where
the possibilities of presenting themselves multiply and are not limited to speech.
The comfort of the home environment played an important role in creating an
informal atmosphere that could relieve the tension that many interviewees face under
the pressure of ‘giving the right answer’ (Nilsen, 1996, p. 229). A space for sharing,
sometimes even unburdening, emotions developed as the interview progressed. This
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11

atmosphere sometimes even lasted beyond the actual interview, when the individuals
felt like talking a little more.
The time between switching off the recorder and leaving the interviewees’ homes
was often particularly interesting from an analytical point of view. The ‘leave-taking
rituals’ (Warren et al., 2003) provided additional information that complemented the
recording. Many people wanted to continue talking about themselves, supplementing
what they had already said or adding new information, confiding events and emo-
tions off the record. In some cases it was actually hard to end the interview. When I
began to take my leave, some people, happy at being the centre of attention, made a
point of showing me more photos, taking me round their home or offering me some-
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

thing to eat. After the interview had been recorded, the roles were sometimes
reversed and I was the one being interrogated.
The emotional component of the interviews was one of the greatest surprises of
the research. The incursion into the enquiry process was initiated with the awareness
that emotions are an integral part of biographical narration and of reflexive processes
(Archer, 2003, 2007; Holmes, 2010; Mills & Kleinman, 1988; Rosenberg, 1990).
But the intensity and affective investment on the part of many interviewees was
unexpected. While to some extent it is surprising that people participate in such inti-
mate research and open the doors to their homes and privacy, the way in which
some people devoted themselves to the interview is even more so (Clark, 2010). In
a number of cases, the interview was experienced as a cathartic moment, permeated
with laughter, tears, sadness, irritation, remorse and happiness. While several indi-
viduals expressed only some of these emotions, for others the interview was an emo-
tional rollercoaster. Many of the interviewees were moved when talking, for
instance, about losses, such as the deaths of family members and close friends. Oth-
ers, however, cried for long periods of time or even throughout the entire interview.
Strategies for dealing with the crying of interviewees are not something that
often appears in social scientific methodology textbooks.3 If the interviewees refused
to talk about the topic that made them cry, their wishes were respected. In these
cases, I tried to address the issue in a more indirect and dispersed manner. But it
was clear during the interviews that people wanted to carry on talking, even if this
meant delving into their emotions and dealing with their weaknesses in front of a
researcher. It was therefore not a good idea to change the subject and ask new ques-
tions, nor try to comfort them (Brannen, 1988).
The intention was to give them space to express themselves and to feel comfort-
able showing their vulnerability, which sometimes entailed respecting long silences.
They often said at the end of the interview that crying and letting their emotions out
had done them good. In fact, in these cases the interview gave them an opportunity
to talk about themselves that they did not often find in other contexts of their lives.
Many interviewees expressed appreciation for the chance to be heard, to relive the
past and to reflect on themselves (Birch & Miller, 2000; Brannen, 1993). The inter-
views turned out to be moments of exchange, as the interviewees shared their expe-
riences and perceptions for academic purposes and also found the research to be an
opportunity to be heard and a safe space for self-analysis.
It is necessary to create empathy with the interviewees for them to feel that their
practices and representations are important, however mundane they may seem.
Ultimately, the quality of the interaction is reflected in the ‘quality’ of the empirical
material. Biographical research basically requires a certain type of emotional work
(Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen, & Liamputtong, 2009; Hochschild, 1983; Hubbard,
 12 A. Caetano

Backett-Milburn, & Kemmer, 2001). Researchers have to deal with the emotions
that people convey in their accounts, as their narrations express an emotional rela-
tionship with reality. On the other hand, they also need to manage emotions in the
search for empathy with the interviewees and in their efforts to not let their own
emotions interfere in the research (Brownlie, 2011; Holland, 2007).
The greatest difficulty in this process is to create a balance between empathy
with the interviewees and the objectification of the interview relationship, between
the proximity of embracing their point of view and the necessary scientific distance
from their accounts (Bourdieu, 1993/1999, p. 609). The methodological strategy that
has been discussed here was crucial in overcoming these difficulties and in
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

providing a space for emotional sharing, while also regulating the research exchange
relationship within concrete methodological parameters.
The discussion around emotions is methodologically important, but, to conclude,
it should be noted that the emotional dimension of biographical interviews is also
central as a privileged means of accessing specific dynamics of individuals’ reflexive
mechanisms. At the core of individuals’ observation and interpretation of themselves
and their social contexts is the emotional relation they establish with the world
(Archer, 2003; Burkitt, 2012). Emotions are an integral part of reflexive processes,
being simultaneously cause and consequence of the exercise of reflexivity.

Concluding remarks
The main conclusion of this methodological reflection is that the challenges posed
by the analysis of personal reflexivity are basically not very different from those of
research into other sociological issues. Furthermore, sociology has at its disposal a
vast and diversified set of analytical instruments for dealing with the difficulties
involved in this type of research process. Even so, the empirical study of reflexivity
demands sustained discussion of its specific features, methods of observation and
challenges.
The research discussed in this article is based on the idea that in order to study
personal reflexivity sociologically one needs to understand how reflexive compe-
tences are formed, how they are exercised, what effects they can have on people’s
lives and what their specific dynamics of action are. It entails observing and explor-
ing life contexts throughout individual biographies, the evolution of mental schemes,
social roles and social relationships, the impact of different spheres of socialisation,
the actual parameters of mobilisation of reflexivity over time and in daily life, and
the causal effects of exercising reflexive competences.
The research goals and the theoretical guidelines of the study have implications
at the level of the methodology adopted. Based on a multi-level model of analysis,
it was necessary to mobilise an instrument to gather empirical data that made it pos-
sible to capture structural frameworks, contextual plurality and individual singular-
ity. In this sense, biographical interviews are a methodological tool with immense
potential in the analysis of personal reflexivity. On the one hand, they focus on
individual discourse permeated by rationalisation, interpretation and allocation of
meaning. On the other hand, they make it possible to explore the synchrony and the
diachrony of each person’s life pathway in different life domains.
However, biographical interviews had to be adapted to address the distinctive
challenges of research on reflexivity. The singularity of these interviews lies at two
levels; first, in the organisation of the interview guide. It has to be particularly long
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology 13

in order to gather in-depth information on different life stages and on the plurality of
contexts of each person’s life, not only in descriptive terms but also interpretatively.
The interview guide was applied as a combination of a semi-structured interview
and an autobiographical narrative. Second, the interviews required prolonged contact
with the interviewees, stimulating proximity, trust, intimacy, comfort and empathy.
These are all necessary requirements for the more thorough understanding of the
dynamics of people’s inner lives and external contexts of living, because they allow
interviewees to feel more comfortable when sharing intimate experiences. Each
interview was personalised and adjusted to the interviewees’ characteristics and
discursive modes. This privileged contact was achieved through long, emotional
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

multi-session interviews that took place in people’s homes.

The use of biographical interviews in sociology is not new. On the other hand,
the empirical study of reflexivity is relatively recent if one considers Archer’s work
as a paradigmatic approach. The main goal of this article was to discuss and propose
a methodological strategy that articulates these two strands: how to observe a theo-
retical concept that is still underexplored empirically using sociology’s established
research tools. It hopes to contribute to the project of advancing sociological
research on reflexivity by proposing a methodological strategy that adapts the
biographical method to the specificities of the empirical study of this central aspect
of social life.

Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Eduardo Rodrigues, António Firmino da Costa and Maria do Mar Pereira for
their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this article.

Notes
1. This research was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology
(FCT, Ministry of Education and Science).
2. See Lahire (2002), McLeod (2003) and Plumridge and Thomson (2003) for a focused
discussion on the potential of multi-session and also longitudinal interviews.
3. For some considerations on this question, see Svašek and Domecka (2012) and Wengraf
(2001, p. 128).

Notes on contributor
Ana Caetano holds a PhD in Sociology (ISCTE-IUL) and is a researcher at Centro de
Investigação e Estudos de Sociologia (CIES-IUL) from ISCTE–Instituto Universitário de
Lisboa, Portugal. Her main research interests are focused on the topics of reflexivity, the rela-
tion between structure and agency and individual biographies. She has published articles and
book chapters on these subjects. The most recent article is: ‘Reflexivity and social change: a
critical discussion of reflexive modernization and individualization theses’, The Portuguese
Journal of Social Science (2014).

References
Alexander, J. C. (1988). Action and its environments: Towards a new synthesis. New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.
Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
 14 A. Caetano

Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and
aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Bertaux, D. (Ed.). (1981). Biography and society: The life history approach in the social
sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bertaux, D. (2001). Les récits de vie. Perspective ethnosociologique [Life stories.
Ethnosociological perspective]. Paris: Nathan.
Birch, M., & Miller, T. (2000). Inviting intimacy: The interview as therapeutic opportunity.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3, 189–202. doi:10.1080/
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

13645570050083689
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. (R. Nice,
Trans.). London: Routledge (Original work published 1979).
Bourdieu, P. (1987). The biographical illusion. In R. J. Parmentier & G. Urban (Eds.),
Working papers and proceedings of the Center for Psychosocial Studies 14 (Y. Winkin &
W. Leeds-Hurwitz, Trans., pp. 1–7). Chicago, IL: Center for Psychosocial Studies
(Original work published 1986).
Bourdieu, P. (1992). The logic of practice. (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press
(Original work published 1980).
Bourdieu, P. (Ed.). (1999). The weight of the world. (P. P. Ferguson, Trans.). Cambridge,
MA: Polity Press (Original work published 1993).
Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA:
Polity Press (Original work published 2001).
Brannen, J. (1988). The study of sensitive subjects. The Sociological Review, 36, 552–563.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1988.tb02929.x
Brannen, J. (1993). The effects of research on participants: Findings from a study of mothers
and employment. The Sociological Review, 41, 328–346. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
954X.1993.tb00068.x
Brannen, J., & Nilsen, A. (2011). Comparative biographies in case-based cross-national
research: Methodological considerations. Sociology, 45, 603–618. doi:10.1177/
0038038511406602
Brownlie, J. (2011). ‘Being there’: Multidimensionality, reflexivity and the study of emo-
tional lives. The British Journal of Sociology, 62, 462–481. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
4446.2011.01374.x
Burkitt, I. (2012). Emotional reflexivity: Feeling, emotion and imagination in reflexive dia-
logues. Sociology, 46, 458–472. doi:10.1177/0038038511422587
Chamberlayne, P., Bornat, J., & Wengraf, T. (Eds.). (2000). The turn to biographical methods
in social science. London: Routledge.
Clark, T. (2010). On ‘being researched’: Why do people engage with qualitative research?
Qualitative Research, 10, 399–419. doi:10.1177/1468794110366796
Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretative biography. London: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualitative
Research, 1, 23–46. doi:10.1177/146879410100100102
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2009). Researching sensitive
topics: Qualitative research as emotion work. Qualitative Research, 9, 61–79.
doi:10.1177/1468794108098031
Domecka, M., & Mrozowicki, A. (2013). Linking structural and agential powers: A realist
approach to biographies, careers and reflexivity. In J. F. Turk & A. Mrozowicki (Eds.),
Realist biography and european policy (pp. 191–213). Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Fischer-Rosenthal, W. (2000). Biographical work and biographical structuring in present-day
societies. In P. Chamberlayne, J. Bornat, & T. Wengraf (Eds.), The turn to biographical
methods in social science (pp. 109–125). London: Routledge.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated
text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 645–672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Garfinkel, H. (1999). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
 International Journal of Social Research Methodology 15

Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative

sociologies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, A. (2004). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.
Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Goffman, E. (1990). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.
Herzog, H. (2005). On home turf: Interview location and its social meaning. Qualitative
Sociology, 28, 25–47. doi:10.1007/s11133-005-2629-8
Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart: The commercialization of human feeling.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Holland, J. (2007). Emotions and research. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, 10, 195–209. doi:10.1080/13645570701541894
Holmes, M. (2010). The emotionalization of reflexivity. Sociology, 44, 139–154.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014

doi:10.1177/0038038509351616
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1997). Active interviewing. In D. Silverman (Ed.),
Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 113–129). London: Sage.
Hubbard, G., Backett-Milburn, K., & Kemmer, D. (2001). Working with emotion: Issues for
the researcher in fieldwork and teamwork. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, 4, 119–137. doi:10.1080/13645570116992
Lahire, B. (2002). Portraits sociologiques. Dispositions et variations individuelles
[Sociological portraits. Dispositions and individual variations]. Paris: Nathan.
Lahire, B. (2008). De la réflexivité dans la vie quotidienne: Journal personnel, autobiographie
et autres écritures de soi [About reflexivity in daily life: A personal diary, an autobiogra-
phy and other writings about oneself ]. Sociologie et Sociétés, 40, 165–179. doi: 10.7202/
000652ar
Lahire, B. (2011). The plural actor. (D. Fernbach, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press
(Original work published 1998).
McLeod, J. (2003). Why we interview now – Reflexivity and perspective in a longitudinal
study. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6, 201–211. doi:10.1080/
1364557032000091806
Mills, T., & Kleinman, S. (1988). Emotions, reflexivity and action: An interactionist analysis.
Social Forces, 66, 1009–1027. doi:10.1093/sf/66.4.1009
Mouzelis, N. (2008). Modern and postmodern social theorizing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nilsen, A. (1996). Stories of life stories of living: Women’ narratives and feminist biography.
NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 4, 16–30. doi: 10.1080/
08038740.1996.9959686
Orbuch, T. L. (1997). People’s accounts count: The sociology of accounts. Annual Review of
Sociology, 23, 455–478. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.455
Plumridge, L., & Thomson, R. (2003). Longitudinal qualitative studies and the reflexive self.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6, 213–222. doi:10.1080/
1364557032000091815
Rosenberg, M. (1990). Reflexivity and emotions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 3–12.
Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0190-2725%28199003%2953%3A1%3C3%
3ARAE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F
Rosenthal, G. (2004). Biographical research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, &
D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 48–64). London: Sage.
Schütze, F. (2005). Cognitive figures of autobiographical extempore narration. In R. Miller
(Ed.), Biographical research methods (pp. 289–338). London: Sage (Original work
published 1984).
Skeggs, B. (2009). Techniques for telling the reflexive self. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative
research in action (pp. 349–374). London: Sage.
Svašek, M., & Domecka, M. (2012). The autobiographical narrative interview: A potential
arena of emotional remembering, performance and reflection. In J. Skinner (Ed.), The
interview: An ethnographic approach (pp. 107–126). London: Bloomsbury.
Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1984). The Polish peasant in Europe and America. Chicago:
University of Illionois Press.
 16 A. Caetano

Warren, C. A. B., Barnes-Brus, T., Burgess, H., Wiebold-Lippisch, L., Hackney, J., Harkness,
G., ... Kennedy, V. (2003). After the interview. Qualitative Sociology, 26, 93–110.
doi:10.1023/A:1021408121258
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and
semi-structured methods. London: Sage.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 01:56 22 November 2014