ABSTRACT
In our ‘post-/late-modern’ times, the concept of ‘reflexivity’ has gained increasing purchase within social science. For those using qualitative research methods in criminology, especially the research method of ethnography, reflexivity is often seen as the basis from which the researcher can assess their impact upon the research setting and vice versa. However, although many criminological studies utilise this concept, it is sometimes difficult to know exactly where to locate the ‘reflexive Self. For example, should we restrict reflexivity to those relationships which we directly observe and participate? If we do take this option then we risk by-passing the impact of social structures which we can never directly observe. The fact that many of those who do espouse reflexivity tend to be transfixed by a dualism which posits unobservable entities as external, static and secondary to the lived experience of the researched need not also bind us to that dualism. By focusing upon a public sphere, namely Speakers’ Comer, I will argue that it is indeed crucial for the reflexive enterprise to take account of unobservable mechanisms, particularly law and the state.
