ABSTRACT

In this vignette I argue for a central and critical role for reflexivity in research with the aim of developing and strengthening not only our understanding of what we do in environmental education research, but also how, and why we do it. I do this through a narrative account of methodological issues that occurred within, and emerging out of, my doctoral studies. Drawing on various instances in the evolving methodological framework of the study, I firstly offer a response to Connell’s (1997) reading of antagonism in Robottom and Hart’s (1995) work, attempting to illustrate the value (rather than negativity) in opening our work up to critical review, in order to help ourselves and other researchers explore in reflexive and ongoing ways the ‘pinches, binds and gaps’ (Solsken, 1993, p. 316) in our work. This is important if we are to avoid being complacent about the methodological underpinnings of our work in environmental education, and be open towards reflexively exploring ways of developing and strengthening our research. Secondly, I offer support to Hart’s (2000) views on the potential difficulties of developing generic guidelines across diverse research traditions. In this instance, I see the development of such guidelines for environmental education research as a potential constraint on practice, rather than something that can open up our reflexive exploration of improved methodological approaches to the field. In support of Hart’s (2000) work, I argue for a more critical consideration of the role of reflexivity in developing research practice.