Leading critical theorist in international relations, Robert Cox, believes that “theory is always for someone and for some purpose. All theories have a perspective. Perspectives derive from a position in time and space, specifically social and political time and space” (1981, 128). There is no doubt that the sentiment expressed by Cox is a challenge for academics to be open on their biases. This may be achieved through recourse to the application of reflexivity.
Reflexivity may be generally defined as an “awareness of the ways in which the researcher as an individual with a particular social identity and background has an impact on the research process” (Robson 2002 quoted in McGhee et al. 2007, 335). Knowledge provided through reflexivity is integral to explanation due to “limits of objectivity and the provisional nature of knowledge” (Alvesson et al. 2008, 481). Despite there is likelihood that personal values, attributes, and “our biases and perspectives influence interpretation” (Weston et al. 2001, 384) and can bolster insight, the imputing of a researcher into the process ascribes both limitations and advantages over outcomes and explanations (Finlay 2002, 215).
There are some researchers that are riveted in their antecedent outlook. These often propose that reflexivity presents narcissistic and solipsistic abundance into explanations. I do not share such a view and hence it is integral to my critique of LH’s article to alert readers to the fact that I write from the position of being a proud Barbadian and Caribbean citizen. I am inclined to be pro-integrationist, and I am keenly in favour of the fair and equal treatment of people.



















