Reflexivity of Method, Part 3: Metareflection: Construal of Construal

Every construal is already a perspective. But when we step back to construe the construal itself, we move into metareflection. This is not an optional add-on but a constitutive part of relational method.

Why metareflection matters

In a relational ontology, there is no “view from nowhere.” Every claim, every analysis, every description is itself an instance of construal. To take this seriously means recognising that method is not neutral but reflexively shaped by the very dynamics it studies.

Metareflection is the act of:

• Turning cuts on cuts — seeing how our distinctions are themselves distinctions.

• Perspectivising perspectives — recognising the choices behind the frames we adopt.

• Tracking potential/instance dynamics in method itself — asking what range of possibilities our current construal opens up, and which it forecloses.

Layers of construal

We can think of metareflection in terms of layers:

1. First-order construal: making meaning, construing a phenomenon.

2. Second-order construal: construing how we construed, reflecting on method.

3. Third-order construal: construing the field of methods itself, comparing and contrasting perspectives.

Each layer is not a “higher” truth but a further cut in the potential. What matters is how they phase together to scaffold our practice of knowing.

Metareflection in practice

Metareflection does not mean endless doubt or paralysis. It is a disciplined practice of asking:

• What cut have I made?

• What alternative cuts were possible?

• How do these construals open or limit the space of potential?

• How do my construals align with those of others?

This keeps method alive, dynamic, and responsive — preventing it from hardening into dogma.

From reflection to reflexivity

Reflection can still imply a mirror image, as if there were a reality “out there” being reflected back. Reflexivity goes further: it recognises that our construals are part of reality itself. To construe is to participate in the architecture of possibility.

Implications

• Method is always situated — shaped by social, symbolic, and experiential contexts.

• Theory is always reflexive — a theory of meaning is itself a meaning, an instance of its own field.

• Knowledge is never final — it is an evolving play of potential and instance, sustained through reflexive construal.