Conference Agenda

This study examines how professional reflexivity is dialogically organized through an analysis of I-positions in a researcher–practitioner, drawing on Dialogical Self Theory (DST) as its theoretical framework. Rather than treating reflexivity as a stable quality, the study approaches it as a dynamic process shaped by perceived differences between self and others.

The first author (K), a clinical psychologist, researcher, and volunteer swimming instructor for individuals with disabilities (IWDs), narrated her life story to the second author (S) as interviewer in two interviews (total 6 hours), focusing particularly on experiences related to disability and interactions with IWDs. The study adopted a collaborative autoethnographic design. A thematic analysis informed by DST was conducted to identify I-positions and examine their relations and tensions. Some positions were recognized during the interviews, others were identified through post-interview engagement with the transcripts, and still others were pointed out by S, indicating that reflexive self-understanding was co-constructed within the dialogical process.

Five main I-positions were identified and closely connected: I-as-curious observer; I-as-outsider seeking recognition from insiders; I-as-ethical self-examiner acknowledging prejudice; I-as-discriminator with guilt; and I-as-apprehensive-of-discriminating. Guilt strengthened the wish to be recognized by insiders as someone not engaging in discrimination. Attempts to deny one’s own prejudice were experienced as reproducing discrimination, while openly acknowledging prejudice sometimes functioned as a presentation of moral awareness. Efforts to act ethically paradoxically intensified outsiderhood. Guilt-driven reflexivity reorganized the self around the very difference sought to be overcome, thereby reinforcing the boundary between outsider and insider.

By emphasizing outsiderhood as a structuring feature of the dialogical self, the study contributes to discussions of I-position exploration as an ongoing negotiation of difference rather than its resolution. At the same time, it suggests that examining one’s I-positions can foster ethical reflection in researcher–practitioners and serve as a valuable component of professional training.