In this article, the author argues for a central and critical role for "reflexivity in research" with the aim of developing and strengthening not only everyone's understanding of what everyone does in environmental education research, but also how, and why everyone does it. In a narrative account of methodological issues that occurred within, and emerging out of, his doctoral studies, the author draws on various instances in the "evolving" methodological framework of the study. Firstly, he offers a response to Connell's reading of antagonism in Robottom and Hart's work, attempting to illustrate the value (rather than negativity) in opening such work up to critical review, in order to help other people and other researchers explore in reflexive and ongoing ways the "pinches, binds and gaps". Secondly, he offers support to Hart's views on the potential difficulties of developing generic guidelines across diverse research traditions. In this instance, he sees the development of such guidelines for environmental education research as a potential constraint on practice, rather than something that can open up our reflexive exploration of improved methodological approaches to the field. In support of Hart's work, he debates for a more critical consideration of the role of reflexivity in developing research practice. The author illustrates an example of an evolving methodology, the development of which was centrally supported through an open-ended and reflexive approach to his work.