Introduction: What if the researcher is part of the research instrument?

Imagine interviewing a father about his experience of living with spinal cord injury.

He pauses before answering.

You notice that his voice becomes quieter. You feel uncomfortable. Perhaps you interpret his silence as sadness. You ask another question because you want to help him continue.

But what actually happened?

Was he distressed?

Was he thinking?

Was the question difficult?

Or did your own expectations influence how you interpreted the silence and changed the direction of the interview?

This is where reflexivity becomes essential.

Qualitative researchers do not simply collect information from participants as if they were passive recording devices. They enter research encounters with professional identities, personal experiences, assumptions, theoretical perspectives, cultural backgrounds and expectations. These can influence what they notice, what they ask, what participants disclose, and how data are interpreted.

Reflexivity therefore requires the researcher to critically examine how their position and assumptions interact with the research process.

Kahlke et al. (2022) describe reflexivity as an ongoing, collaborative and multifaceted practice through which researchers examine how their subjectivity and context influence research processes.

One practical way to develop this reflexivity is through a reflective or reflexive journal.

What Is a Reflective Journal in Qualitative Research?

A reflective journal is a systematic record of the researcher's thoughts, observations, assumptions, questions, emotional responses, methodological decisions and developing interpretations throughout the research process.

It is not simply a personal diary.

It is also not a place to document only what happened during an interview.

A well-maintained reflexive journal creates an audit trail of the researcher's thinking.

For example:

Field note: The participant became quiet when discussing returning to work.

This describes what happened.

A reflexive entry goes further:

Reflexive note: I interpreted the participant's silence as frustration because I strongly associate employment with successful community reintegration. I need to consider whether this assumption is influencing my interpretation. During the next interview, I should avoid assuming that employment represents the participant's preferred outcome.

The second entry is more analytically valuable because the researcher is questioning their own interpretation.

This distinction is fundamental.

Reflection asks:

“What happened?”

Reflexivity asks:

“How might my position, assumptions and interaction with the participant have shaped what happened and how I understand it?”

Reflection and reflexivity are closely related but not identical. Reflexivity involves moving beyond noticing one's reactions to critically examining how those reactions relate to the research context and subsequent decisions.

Why Does Reflexive Journaling Matter?

Qualitative research often involves interpretation rather than simply measurement.

When a researcher conducts an interview, several processes occur simultaneously:

Participant experience → Interview interaction → Researcher interpretation → Coding → Theme development → Final narrative

At every stage, interpretation can occur.

A reflexive journal provides a space to make those interpretive processes visible.

Research on reflexivity emphasizes that researchers' culture, history, beliefs and relationships can influence qualitative encounters and interpretations.

This does not mean that researchers must eliminate subjectivity.

In many qualitative methodologies, eliminating subjectivity is neither realistic nor necessarily desirable.

Instead, researchers should become sufficiently aware of their positioning to examine how it contributes to knowledge production.

Reflective Journaling Is Not About “Removing Bias”

This is one of the most important misconceptions.

A common assumption is:

“If I write a reflexive journal, I can remove my bias.”

That is usually an oversimplification.

Reflexivity is not a magic technique for making qualitative research completely objective.

Rather, it helps the researcher identify, interrogate and account for their assumptions.

For example, an occupational therapist interviewing a person with spinal cord injury may enter the study with professional assumptions about independence, rehabilitation, assistive technology or occupational participation.

Those assumptions may be useful because they provide professional knowledge.

But they may also create blind spots.

The researcher might unintentionally:

• focus heavily on rehabilitation outcomes;
• assume independence is the participant's primary goal;
• interpret assistive technology positively;
• overlook family expectations;
• prioritize clinical language over lived experience;
• ask leading follow-up questions;
• interpret participant experiences through a rehabilitation framework.

A reflexive journal gives the researcher a place to ask:

“Am I hearing the participant—or am I hearing my own professional expectations?”

What Should You Write in a Reflexive Journal?

A useful journal does not need to be complicated.

You can structure entries around five dimensions.

1. Positionality

Ask:

• Who am I in relation to this research?
• What is my professional background?
• What experiences do I bring?
• What assumptions do I have about the topic?
• How might participants perceive me?

Example

“As an occupational therapist, I have been trained to focus on participation and independence. I noticed that I automatically interpreted the participant's return to work as an important indicator of successful rehabilitation. I need to remain open to the possibility that the participant defines recovery differently.”

This is reflexive thinking.

2. Emotional Responses

Emotions are not necessarily methodological weaknesses.

They can provide useful signals.

During qualitative research, researchers may experience:

• empathy;
• frustration;
• sadness;
• discomfort;
• surprise;
• defensiveness;
• identification with participants;
• uncertainty.

The important question is not:

“Did I have an emotion?”

The better question is:

“What might this emotion be telling me about my assumptions or the research interaction?”

Example

“I felt unusually protective when the participant described discrimination at work. I noticed that I wanted to reassure him immediately. I need to consider whether my emotional response encouraged me to move away from difficult questions.”

This can reveal how the researcher's emotional response may influence interviewing.

3. Interviewer–Participant Relationship

Qualitative interviews are social interactions.

The participant is responding to a person—not an anonymous questionnaire.

Consider:

• Did the participant appear comfortable?
• Did they seem to agree with me?
• Did my professional role influence what they disclosed?
• Did power differences exist?
• Did I interrupt?
• Did I unintentionally lead the participant?
• Did I respond differently to some participants?

For example:

“Because I am a healthcare professional, the participant may have assumed that I expected a rehabilitation-focused answer. I should therefore examine whether my professional identity shaped the conversation.”

This is particularly important in healthcare research where researchers may simultaneously be clinicians, educators, supervisors or service providers.

4. Analytical Decisions

A reflexive journal should continue during analysis.

Record:

• why a code was created;
• why a code was changed;
• why some data seemed important;
• why a possible theme was rejected;
• contradictory cases;
• surprising findings;
• alternative interpretations;
• changes in conceptual understanding.

For example:

“Initially, I coded this extract as ‘lack of social support.’ On rereading the interview, I realized the participant actually described strong family support but limited community acceptance. I therefore separated these concepts.”

This creates a record of analytical development.

5. Moments of Surprise

Some of the most valuable reflexive entries begin with:

“I did not expect this.”

Unexpected findings can challenge preconceived ideas.

For example:

“I expected participants to describe assistive devices primarily as tools that increase independence. Instead, several participants described them as symbols of identity, stigma or social visibility. This challenges my initial assumption that functional benefit would dominate their experience.”

Such moments can become important analytical turning points.

When Should You Start a Reflective Journal?

Before data collection.

Not after.

Reflexivity should ideally begin during research planning and continue throughout the study.

A practical timeline is:

Research idea → Reflexive positioning → Protocol development → Recruitment → Interviews → Field notes → Transcription → Coding → Theme development → Writing → Publication

Kahlke et al. (2022) emphasize that reflexivity is an ongoing process rather than an activity restricted to the end of a qualitative study. Reflective writing, including journals, memos and field notes, can be used throughout the research process.

A Simple Reflexive Journal Template

You can use the following structure after each interview.

Reflexive Journal Entry

Date:
Participant:
Stage of research:

1. What happened?

Briefly describe important events during the research encounter.

2. What did I notice?

Record observations, interactions, silences, unexpected responses or changes in the interview.

3. What did I feel?

Identify significant emotional responses.

4. What assumptions did I bring?

Ask what you expected before the encounter.

5. How might I have influenced the participant?

Consider your language, professional role, body language, questions and reactions.

6. What surprised me?

Document findings that challenged your expectations.

7. What alternative interpretation is possible?

Challenge your first interpretation.

8. What will I do differently?

Identify a specific methodological or analytical action.

This final question is critical.

Reflexivity should influence action.

Reflective Journaling During Reflexive Thematic Analysis

The importance of reflexive journaling becomes particularly clear when researchers use reflexive thematic analysis.

Braun and Clarke describe reflexive thematic analysis as an approach in which interpretation and researcher subjectivity are central rather than treated as errors that must simply be eliminated.

This means the researcher should not treat themes as objects that simply “exist” inside the dataset waiting to be discovered.

Instead, themes are developed through an interpretive process involving the researcher and the data.

A reflexive journal can therefore document:

Initial reading → Interesting observations → Coding decisions → Pattern recognition → Theme development → Theme review → Interpretation

Example

Suppose a researcher interviews caregivers of children with cerebral palsy.

During early analysis, the researcher repeatedly notices statements about financial difficulties.

The initial interpretation is:

“Financial burden is the major challenge.”

But reflexive journaling might reveal:

“I am highly focused on financial barriers because I work in a setting where affordability frequently limits access to rehabilitation. I may therefore be giving economic explanations more analytical weight than other factors.”

The researcher then returns to the dataset.

This may reveal that transportation, caregiver knowledge, social expectations and service accessibility are equally important.

The journal has therefore not merely documented the research.

It has challenged the researcher's analytical assumptions.

Reflective Journal vs Field Notes vs Research Memo

These terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but they can serve different purposes.

ToolMain purpose

Field notes

Document observations and contextual details

Reflective journal

Examine the researcher's thoughts, assumptions and responses

Analytic memo

Develop and interrogate emerging analytical ideas

Research diary

Broader chronological record of research activities

In practice, these may overlap.

The important issue is not the label.

The important issue is whether the documentation helps researchers critically examine how knowledge is being produced.

A Powerful Question: “What Am I Taking for Granted?”

One of the most useful reflexive questions is:

What am I assuming that the participant may not actually believe?

Consider a study exploring quality of life after spinal cord injury.

A researcher may unconsciously assume:

Quality of life = independence + employment + mobility

But a participant may define quality of life as:

family relationships + dignity + spirituality + social acceptance + meaningful occupation

If the researcher does not examine their assumptions, the interview and analysis may unintentionally reproduce a clinical definition of wellbeing.

Reflexivity creates space for the participant's meaning to challenge the researcher's framework.

Can a Reflexive Journal Improve Research Quality?

Yes—but it should not be presented as a standalone guarantee of quality.

Qualitative quality depends on the coherence of the methodology, sampling, data generation, analysis, interpretation and reporting.

Reflexivity contributes by making the researcher's position and decisions more transparent.

The COREQ reporting guideline, for example, includes researcher characteristics and reflexivity among information relevant to reporting qualitative interviews and focus groups.

This is important because readers need to understand not only:

“What did participants say?”

but also:

“Who generated these data, in what context, and how were they interpreted?”

What Should NOT Go Into a Reflexive Journal?

A reflexive journal should not become a collection of vague statements such as:

“The interview went well.”

“The participant was cooperative.”

“I tried my best.”

These statements provide little analytical value.

Instead, write specifically.

Weak

“The participant seemed uncomfortable.”

Stronger

“When I asked about returning to employment, the participant looked away and paused for approximately 10 seconds. I immediately rephrased the question, assuming discomfort. On reflection, I may have interrupted a period in which the participant was formulating an answer.”

The second entry creates a methodological question.

That is the value of reflexivity.

How Much Should You Write?

More is not necessarily better.

A five-page diary entry is not automatically more reflexive than a five-line entry.

The goal is depth rather than volume.

A useful entry should ideally connect:

Experience → Interpretation → Assumption → Critical questioning → Action

For example:

Experience: Participant became quiet when discussing employment.
Interpretation: I initially interpreted this as frustration.
Assumption: I associate employment with successful rehabilitation.
Critical question: Could the silence represent something else?
Action: Revisit the transcript and avoid imposing an employment-centred interpretation during coding.

That is a compact but meaningful reflexive cycle.

A Reflexive Journal Is Not a Confession

Some researchers hesitate to write honestly because they believe acknowledging assumptions will make their research appear weak.

The opposite can be true.

A researcher who writes:

“I initially interpreted the participant's response in this way, but later recognized that my professional background may have influenced this interpretation.”

is demonstrating methodological awareness.

Reflexivity is therefore not about proving that the researcher has no assumptions.

It is about demonstrating that the researcher is aware of them and willing to interrogate them.

The Most Important Principle

Perhaps the most useful way to understand reflexive journaling is this:

Do not only record what happened in the research. Record how your understanding of what happened was produced.

That small shift changes the purpose of the journal.

The journal becomes a space where researchers can question themselves:

Why did I ask that question?

Why did that answer stand out to me?

Why did I interpret the participant's silence in that way?

Why did I create this code?

What assumptions am I bringing to this interpretation?

What alternative explanation have I overlooked?

How might my professional identity influence this analysis?

These questions do not weaken qualitative research.

They make the researcher's interpretive work more visible.

A Practical Reflexivity Framework: PAUSE

For researchers who want a memorable framework, try PAUSE:

P — Position

Where am I positioned in relation to this research?

A — Assumptions

What am I taking for granted?

U — Uncertainty

What am I not sure about?

S — Subjectivity

How might my experiences and responses influence interpretation?

E — Evolution

What changed in my thinking, and what will I do differently?

The purpose of PAUSE is simple:

Before interpreting the participant, pause and examine the interpreter.

Final Thoughts

Qualitative research is often described as an exploration of people's experiences.

But there is another story happening simultaneously:

the researcher's journey of understanding.

A reflexive journal captures that second story.

It allows researchers to document changing assumptions, emotional responses, methodological decisions, interpersonal dynamics and analytical development. Contemporary methodological literature increasingly emphasizes reflexivity as an ongoing practice rather than a brief statement placed in the methods section.

For students, clinicians and experienced researchers alike, the reflexive journal can become one of the simplest tools for improving methodological awareness.

You do not need an expensive software package.

You do not need a complicated template.

You need curiosity—and the willingness to question your own thinking.

Because in qualitative research, the most important question is not always:

“What did the participant tell me?”

Sometimes it is:

“Why did I understand what the participant told me in this particular way?”

That is where reflexivity begins.

Key Takeaways

• A reflexive journal is more than a personal diary.
• Reflection describes experiences; reflexivity critically examines how those experiences shape research.
• Reflexivity should begin before data collection and continue throughout analysis and writing.
• Researchers should document assumptions, emotions, positionality, relationships and analytical decisions.
• Reflexive journaling is particularly valuable when using interpretive approaches such as reflexive thematic analysis.
• The purpose is not to eliminate subjectivity but to make the researcher's influence visible and critically examined.
• Good reflexive writing connects experience → interpretation → assumption → critical questioning → action.
• Reflexivity should contribute to methodological transparency and research quality.

References

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360

Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke's approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56, 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y

Kahlke, R., O'Brien, B. C., & Vanstone, M. (2022). A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149. Medical Teacher, 45(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287

Karcher, K., McCuaig, J., & King-Hill, S. (2024). (Self-) reflection/reflexivity in sensitive, qualitative research: A scoping review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241261860

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042