‘Reflexivity or Sociological Practice: A Reply to May’

Abstract

The paper constitutes a response to May's concept of reflexivity, and argues that debates on reflexivity have missed the need to ground their claims in the life world of society members - thus promoting the very ironic stance they seek to address. A re-articulation of claims to reflexivity is made in the distinction between ‘essential’ and ‘stipulative’ reflexivities wherein the former is grounded in members’ observable-reportable natural language practical actions, while the latter remains the province of the analyst and subjects members’ versions to sociological remedy. The paper suggests a return to the work of Garfinkel (1967) as a means of respecifying the grounds of the reflexivity debate.