I'm not entirely sure what this reading has to do with our oral history project, but I'll take a stab at it. Perhaps this is the idea that as the people we are interviewing are telling us their stories, they will be further engaging with us their ideas and opinions of the particular subject. Our interviews are supposed to almost take the form of a conversation (even though it is supposed to be a little more of a one-sided conversation, with us trying to get as much out of the interviewee as possible), and perhaps this is where the reflexivity is supposed to come into play.
Another possibility is that we are not experts on the subject matter that we are supposed to be researching, and we might not have our opinions made up about the controversy surrounding genetically modifed foods vs organic farming. We might have to linger in the "in between", and sort through what we do know, our own experiences, and what we are going to be told through our interviews and other sources. We have to pay attention to the thoughts that we have surrounding the subject, and be aware of how and why our thoughts
Another possibility is that we are not experts on the subject matter that we are supposed to be researching, and we might not have our opinions made up about the controversy surrounding genetically modifed foods vs organic farming. We might have to linger in the "in between", and sort through what we do know, our own experiences, and what we are going to be told through our interviews and other sources. We have to pay attention to the thoughts that we have surrounding the subject, and be aware of how and why our thoughts