The section is devoted to contemporary forms of reflexive sociology—a field that foregrounds the researcher as an active participant in the social world under study. Building on the classical reflexive program of Pierre Bourdieu—who insisted on analyzing the researcher’s position and the structural conditions of knowledge production—we propose a broader perspective on how reflexivity is discussed and practiced across diverse research environments. Our focus encompasses both the theoretical foundations of the “reflexive turn” in sociology and its methodological and procedural consequences.
The reflexive turn has become one of the key developments in contemporary sociology, reshaping its understanding of scientific objectivity and responsibility. It has prompted a reconsideration of the boundaries between researcher and object, science and society, emphasizing that knowledge production is always embedded in social contexts, power relations, and forms of cultural capital.
The section raises questions about the nature and consequences of the reflexive turn:
- How has the concept of scientific objectivity and responsibility changed?
- What happens to the relationship between researchers and research participants?
- How does reflexivity affect research methods, forms of description, and modes of data representation?
We invite colleagues from sociology, anthropology, philosophy of science, cultural and media studies, as well as those who critically examine the limits and potential of the reflexive program. We propose a discussion of diverse approaches to reflexivity: how different research traditions interpret its meaning and functions, what arguments are advanced in defense of reflexive analysis, and how self-reflection, participant observation, metasociology, and emerging forms of “field sensitivity” relate to one another.
We also welcome contributions presenting field-based projects that reconsider the researcher’s position in empirical contexts: the embodied dimensions of fieldwork, practices of describing “field shock,” modes of interaction with participants, and strategies for representing their experience.
Particular attention will be given to methodology after the reflexive turn: what has substantively changed in fieldwork and analytical procedures; the contemporary role of autoethnography; and the development of critical data studies that examine digital data, algorithms, and artificial intelligence through the lens of reflexivity. The question of epistemological frameworks remains central: what arguments support reflexive analysis, and at what point does reflexivity function as a theoretical resource, and at what point as a disciplinary requirement?
Finally, the section will address the teaching and training of reflexive sociology—how and why to cultivate research sensitivity, empathy, and attentiveness to one’s own participation in the production of knowledge.