Introduction
It is arguably evident that critical research warrants the need of a political stance. This implies that that the underlying issues associated with bias, positionality, reflexivity and prejudices are pertinent when undertaking a critical research. The consensus from all the researchers in all fields is their disagreement with bias (Burman, 2006). However, there is less unity regarding how the concept of bias in research is understood. For instance, it is a common occurrence for researchers to cite accusations and methodological flaws regarding bias in research that has adopted a political or a moral standpoint, or rather, a research that clearly indicates the its side. Researchers that oppose the aspect of moral or political stand point when conducting research are of the viewpoint that value-free research is a possibility. As such, they consent to the view that any influence that the researcher’s values places on the design of the research and findings is considered as a bias that needs correction. This is not the same case for researchers who clearly indicate their moral and political standpoints (Carr, 2002). Such an approach to research tends to question the feasibility of value-free knowledge and research. Researchers who use this approach claim that social and political stances affect all researches and taking a political or a moral stand point are a sure way of avoiding bias. Basing on this view, researchers do not only tend to take political and ethical standpoints but also inhabit them just like people do inhabit particular social roles and geographical locations. Such varying viewpoints regarding the practicality of value free research poses the need to explore the concepts of research positionality, reflexivity and approaches. Basing on this, this paper discusses how researchers’ position might shape the processes and outcomes of their research. The paper also evaluates whether reflexivity is sufficient when undertaking research.
Reflexivity when undertaking critical research can be viewed as the steady awareness and individual assessment of the researcher regarding one contribution and the manner in which the researcher can influence the research and subsequent findings. The concept of reflexivity is important but its application in the context of research is debatable. Reflexivity primarily entails the explicit self-consciousness of the researcher and the underlying social, political and value standpoints of the financer of the research and the potential influences that they have on the research design, interpretation of the theoretical models and evidence, execution of the research and the underlying conclusions (Gewirtz, 2006). Numerous researchers have consented that reflexivity facilitates effective research on grounds that conducting when research while taking into account an individual’s feelings and assumptions provide the most invaluable source of data. Denzin & Lincoln (2003) consent that reflexivity puts a researcher in a position that one can take into account his individual feelings and perceptions regarding the research environment. Salzman further asserts that reflexivity helps the reader to assess the viewpoint from which the research was done in order to engage in further evaluation. Despite the potential benefits highlighted by the proponents of reflexive research, opponents usually such as Malcolm (1993) challenge the integrity of such research methodology on grounds that taking a moral and political standpoint when conducting research questions the deployed research practices, selection, the research design, manipulation and the subsequent interpretation of data. Malcolm further claims that reflexivity is somewhat a partisan research that has the main objective of confirming the theoretical literature of the researcher (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). Basing on this observations, Malcolm concludes that a effective research approach is required to be consciously self critical with the main objective of making explicit the research evidence required to defend a position, rather than defending a position prior to gathering evidence. There is a possibility that reflexivity during research may compel the researcher to incorporate his/her individual values in the design of the research and manipulate the outcomes of the research to match the standpoint already taken prior to the research. It is important to note that there is a clear cut difference between accepting that neutrality is impractical and open acceptance of bias when conducting research. Researchers opposing the adoption of reflexivity are of the view that reflexivity compromises the value of undertaking the research and puts the researcher in a compromising position to manipulate the results towards the desired outcome (Greenbank, 2003).
Positionality can viewed in the light of a researcher delineating his/her stance with regard to the research, with the main implication that this standpoint may impose significant influences on the core aspects of the research such as the kinds of evidence gathered, the manner in which he/she interprets the data. Positionality has been subjected to intense criticisms basing on accounts related to race, gender, religion and socio-economic statuses. Critical reflection on the researcher’s positionality have been critiqued on accounts positionalities and reflexivites when undertaking research has little purpose and is more associated with the viewpoints of the researcher regarding his theoretical model that one views as a moral stance, or rather how things should be (Griffiths, 2009). The implication from this view is that researchers have to take into account their research practices and the core purpose of undertaking the research. The core area of concern regarding participatory ethics in research is the level of the involvement of the researcher, issues in consultation and the participation allocated to the various groups that are participating in the research. This implies that reflexivity is only needed to applied in a small part of the entire research; this is mainly due to the fact that there are other essential questions that should be addressed relating to the motivations of undertaking the research, the techniques of data analysis, the research method deployed and the dissemination processes. Despite the fact the aspect of the positionality of the researcher is a contentious subject, it does play a significant role in determining the manner in which the participants in the study read and interpret the researcher. The basic implication of this is that positionality should be viewed from an ethical consideration point of view that should only be used by the researcher when needed but not in the entire research process (Pring, 2001). Core aspects of the study such as the research method, the types of data collected and the techniques of analysis adopted, and the interpretation are susceptible to be manipulated by the positionality of the researcher. Harvey (1995, p.30) notes that it is important for researchers to take into consideration the similarities and differences that do exist between their individual viewpoints, the expected outcomes and participants in the study. This is due to the role that positionality plays in influencing the methods and the outcomes of the research. Careful negotiation is needed in order to incorporate positionalities in research practice in order to culminate the potential influences that they impose on the research and its values (Pillow, 2003).
Another way to perceive the potential influences of reflexivity when undertaking research is what May (2001) refers to as “consideration of the research practice, our place within the research and the establishment of individual fields of inquiry. May further notes the potential effects of the diverse individual values and interests when conducting research. For instance, May provides an example of some of the most distorting influences imposed by the researcher on the outcome could range include issues such as the career goals and objectives (Perry, 2009). It is important to note that when deploying all research methods, that are qualitative and quantitative, it is important to take into consideration the effects that individual values impose on the research practice and its potential outcomes. The proponents of reflexive research acknowledge that value free research is impractical; as such, researchers who do not adopt flexibility in their research design and methods should be subject to criticism. It is through such frameworks that have resulted to wide acceptance of reflexivity when undertaking research of any kind. Greenbank (2003) bases on such viewpoint to assert that potential conflicts may arise between the individual values of the researcher or his/her moral values with the widely accepted universal social norms and the moral values of the participants. Macleod & Griffiths (2008) offers a comprehensive discussion of the differences relating the individual values of the researcher with the values of the participants and concludes that researchers should welcome any values and viewpoints of all the parties involved in the research through engaging in dialogue. Such an approach to reflexivity puts the researcher in a position to incorporate his/her values in the research in attempt to concur with the values of the participants (Malcolm, 1993). The limitation of this approach is that there is a possibility that the results of the study are likely to be a pre-judgment of the study in accordance with the theoretical models adopted by the researcher. The core areas that reflexivity is likely to influence the outcome of the methods and the outcome of the research include the interests of the researcher that resulted to the research, the purpose, objectives and the design of the study, the process deployed in data collection, interpretation of data and the application and use of the findings of the research (Gewirtz, 2006). In order to unmask the potential influences of reflexivity on the research, it is vital for the readers to ascertain the source of funding for the research, the intention of the financier, how the research was conducted and the people who conducted the research, the potential problems in the design of the research and its execution and the manner in which the findings of the study were interpreted and respectively. An analysis of the above plays an integral in determining the influences of reflexive research on the design of the research and its relative outcome (Harvey, 1995).
There are diverse viewpoints regarding the inclusion of individual values when undertaking research to justify the position of the researcher. Carr (2002) is of the opinion that partisanship in research is essential and cannot be avoided. Carr argues that partisanship is a core ingredient when undertaking research that can only be avoided through the elimination of the entire aspect of research. Carr further notes that in cases of empirical research, there is nothing like telling it as it is, rather basing on theoretical frameworks to influence the outcomes. Malcolm (1993) disagrees with this research method as being predictable, and dismisses the whole point of conducting research if it is to be influenced by the theoretical frameworks adopted by researcher. In order to have an in depth understanding of how reflexivity influences the outcome and design of the research, it is important to take into consideration the concepts of perspective and bias, and how they are related to the researcher’s positionality and reflexivity. Proponents of reflexive research claim that researchers have can eliminate bias but not positionality and perspective. Bias can be perceived in the light of skewed viewpoint that has been presented in the research in such a manner that the readers of the research are not presented with the opportunity to allow it (Gilbert, 2001). Some of the methods that researchers can deploy to skew the research include laying emphasis on confirming evidence, ignoring evidence and reporting selectively while concealing evidence. It is notable that value-free research does not put the researcher in a position to skew the research, rather present the evidence as it is without being influenced by the theoretical models of the researcher and his/her individual values and stance. Malcolm (1993) asserts that this is not the case for reflexive research, whereby the researcher can skew the study in order to achieve the goals of his/her stance. Perspective on the other hand can be defined as the circumstances that have an influence on what an individual can see and how they subsequently interpret what they see. Perspective serves to indicate individual…

References
Burman, E. (2006). Emotions and reflexivity in feminised education action research. Educational Action Research , 148.
Carr, W. (2002). Partisanship in Educational Research. Oxford Review of Education , 495-501.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2003). Chapter 1, ‘Introduction The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research’. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln, The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. London: Sage.
Gewirtz, S. (2006). Towards a contextualised analysis of social justice in Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory , 39.
Gilbert, G. (2001). Researching Social Life. London: Sage Publications.
Greenbank, P. (2003). The role of values in educational research: the case for reflexivity. , British Educational Research Journal , 25.
Griffiths, M. (2009). Action research for/as/mindful of social justice. In B. Somekh, & S. Noffke, Handbook of Educational Action Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Harvey, L. (1995). Critical social research. London: Unwin Hyman.
Macleod, G., & Griffiths, M. (2008). Personal narratives and policy: never the twain. Journal of Philosophy of Education .
Malcolm, J. (1993). Negotiating the minefield: practical and political issues in policy research. SCUTREA 1993 (pp. 142-144). Leeds: University of Leeds.