{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015492957746478873, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.069651741293533, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Critical Approach to Reflexivity in Grounded Theory

A problem with the popular desire to legitimate one’s research through the inclusion of reflexivity is its increasingly uncritical adoption and practice, with most researchers failing to define their understandings, specific positions, and approaches. Considering the relative recentness with which reflexivity has been explicitly described in the context of grounded theory, guidance for incorporating it within this research approach is currently in the early stages. In this article, we illustrate a three-stage approach used in a grounded theory study of how parents of children with autism navigate intervention. Within this approach, different understandings of reflexivity are first explored and mapped, a methodologically consistent position that includes the aspects of reflexivity one will address is specified, and reflexivityrelated observations are generated and ultimately reported. According to the position specified, we reflexively account for multiple researcher influences, including on methodological decisions, participant interactions and data collection, analysis, writing, and influence of the research on the researcher. We hope this illustrated approach may serve both as a potential model for how researchers can critically design and implement their own contextspecific approach to reflexivity, and as a stimulus for further methodological