Wasserfall, Rahel R. (1997). In Rosanna Hertz (Ed.), Reflexivity & Voice (pp. 150-168). Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Wasserfall finds the roots of reflexive methods in two interrelated research strands: (1) Reflexive methods were recognized as a reaction to conventional or colonial anthropology since the 1970s with emphasis on researchers' compassionate and nonexploitative relations with research subjects. [THIS IS RELATIONAL REFLEXIVITY] (2) Another strand is found with the "Interpretative Turn" (p. 151) in the social sciences. The objectivity is questioned and the researcher's own subjectivity and power in knowledge production is recognized . In this strand, researchers come under scrutiny, or are conceived as the instrument of their research. Here reflexivity becomes one of the most important research tools. [SELF-CRITICAL]
Wasserfall acknowledged that reflexivity was still ill defined. In her definition, reflexivity is monitoring a researcher's own subjectivity in relation to knowledge production as well as power difference between herself and her research subjects. According to her, feminist research and methodology generally include a reference to reflexivity, yet, she argues that reflexivity, although helpful to contextualize the study and having the potential for empathetic relationships with her subjects, thus empowering both researchers and subjects, has limits, in particular in the fields where conflicts of political beliefs, culture, class, ethnicity, etc. are strong between the two parties.
More specifically she calls attention to a tension between reflexive methods and the feminist approach that questions the commonality stemming from gender and emphasizes differences among women's experiences. She contends that the empathy between researchers and participants cannot be simply assumed, then asks whether it could create an exploitative situations. In this regard, she calls for a re-examination of reflexive methods to the extent that it will shed light on the debated issues of cultural difference and feminism.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
On ideologies of reflexivity
in Contemporary Efforts to Remake the Human Sciences. Marcus, George E. (1994). Poetics Today, 15 (3), 383-404.
Marcus finds the root of reflexive academic writing in postmodernism. In his definition, a postmodern condition is the "world of established but unstable institutions rapidly generating emergent forms of diversity" (p. 384). He argues that postmodern writing in the attempt to reveal this condition and enact it has been radical contemporary cultural criticism. Within this context, he characterizes postmodernism as the 'sign' of reflexivity, and asks how much of reflexivity should appear in ethnographic writing.
Looking at self-critical reflexivity reflected on postmodern ethnography writing, Marcus points out that reflexivity is an ideological matter rather than a methodological one. In his account, there are two types of reflexivity: Essential reflexivity is inherent in the use of language, thus no one can choose to be reflexive or not. On the other hand, derived or ideological reflexivity responds to how to deal with it strategically. However, in academic, he criticizes, the polemic of "more reflexive than thou" is predominant when one does not follow a specific set of postmodern styles of writing "messy text".
Marcus defines as the basic form of reflexivity self-critique, personal quest, subjectivity and empathy. In anthropology, he criticizes, reflexivity opened the possibility for the polyphonic text, but in reality, it reinforced the researcher's own perspective without challenging the paradigm of ethnographic research at all.
He points out that the subjectivist kind of reflexivity is more weighted in feminism, as shown the prolific autobiography in the quest for identity issues. He notes that feminist reflexivity, revolving around subjectivity and experientiality, has been discussed as the practice of positioning, such as male/female, culture/nature. Yet, he argues:
"Yet the practice of positioning can easily get stuck in a sterile form of identity politics, reducing it to a formulaic incantation at the beginning of ethnographic papers in which one boldly "comes clean" and confesses one's positioned identity (e.g., "I am a white, Jewish, middleclass, heterosexual female"). This kind of reflexive "act of location," while potentially a practice of key importance, all too often becomes a gesture that is enforced by politically correct convention." (p. 401).
Marcus hints at objective knowledge as opposed to a postmodern way of writing "messy" ethnography and practicing reflexivity.
Marcus finds the root of reflexive academic writing in postmodernism. In his definition, a postmodern condition is the "world of established but unstable institutions rapidly generating emergent forms of diversity" (p. 384). He argues that postmodern writing in the attempt to reveal this condition and enact it has been radical contemporary cultural criticism. Within this context, he characterizes postmodernism as the 'sign' of reflexivity, and asks how much of reflexivity should appear in ethnographic writing.
Looking at self-critical reflexivity reflected on postmodern ethnography writing, Marcus points out that reflexivity is an ideological matter rather than a methodological one. In his account, there are two types of reflexivity: Essential reflexivity is inherent in the use of language, thus no one can choose to be reflexive or not. On the other hand, derived or ideological reflexivity responds to how to deal with it strategically. However, in academic, he criticizes, the polemic of "more reflexive than thou" is predominant when one does not follow a specific set of postmodern styles of writing "messy text".
Marcus defines as the basic form of reflexivity self-critique, personal quest, subjectivity and empathy. In anthropology, he criticizes, reflexivity opened the possibility for the polyphonic text, but in reality, it reinforced the researcher's own perspective without challenging the paradigm of ethnographic research at all.
He points out that the subjectivist kind of reflexivity is more weighted in feminism, as shown the prolific autobiography in the quest for identity issues. He notes that feminist reflexivity, revolving around subjectivity and experientiality, has been discussed as the practice of positioning, such as male/female, culture/nature. Yet, he argues:
"Yet the practice of positioning can easily get stuck in a sterile form of identity politics, reducing it to a formulaic incantation at the beginning of ethnographic papers in which one boldly "comes clean" and confesses one's positioned identity (e.g., "I am a white, Jewish, middleclass, heterosexual female"). This kind of reflexive "act of location," while potentially a practice of key importance, all too often becomes a gesture that is enforced by politically correct convention." (p. 401).
Marcus hints at objective knowledge as opposed to a postmodern way of writing "messy" ethnography and practicing reflexivity.
Monday, April 26, 2010
The Methodological Dilemma
Gallagher, Kathleen. (Ed.). (2008). London and New York: Routledge.
Introduction (pp. 1-8)
Gallagher takes a constructionist perspective, writing, "Through our research and the choices we make, we imagine the world in ever more complex and interesting ways and re-commit ourselves to our intellectual and political projects. But we also risk our comfortable norms and truth claims each time we seek understanding" (pp. 1-2).
In the same vein, she argues that "researchers can mobilize theory [sic], in creative ways, to think through the 'pragmatics' of method" (p. 2). Thus she calls for unfettering our imagination for creative methods.
The Art of Methodology: A Collaborative Science (pp 67-81)
Gallagher proposes participatory research methods as a dialectical exchange between science and art. She argues that such exchange is indispensable in social sciences and humanities research, insinuating a potential for research that is politically engaged as well as pedagogically useful.
Introduction (pp. 1-8)
Gallagher takes a constructionist perspective, writing, "Through our research and the choices we make, we imagine the world in ever more complex and interesting ways and re-commit ourselves to our intellectual and political projects. But we also risk our comfortable norms and truth claims each time we seek understanding" (pp. 1-2).
In the same vein, she argues that "researchers can mobilize theory [sic], in creative ways, to think through the 'pragmatics' of method" (p. 2). Thus she calls for unfettering our imagination for creative methods.
The Art of Methodology: A Collaborative Science (pp 67-81)
Gallagher proposes participatory research methods as a dialectical exchange between science and art. She argues that such exchange is indispensable in social sciences and humanities research, insinuating a potential for research that is politically engaged as well as pedagogically useful.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Visual Research Methods: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?
Holm, Gunilla. (2008). In Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber & Patricial Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of Emergent Methods (pp. 325-341). New York and London: Guilford Press.
Holm pays attention to visual ethnography, action research, and photovoice as recent fields of visual methods. As of visual ethnography, Holm attunes, in particular, to Pink’s argument that reflexivity and intersubjective relationship between researcher and informants are critical to creating “negotiated versions of reality” (2005, p. 20). Holm also observes that recent visual ethnographical research takes on participatory action research by distributing photo cameras, for instance, to research participants. Holm remarks that photovoice, based on this technique, has not been widely used in education, anthropology or sociology, due to the nature of documentary and action research. Holm also notes that there were similar projects even before the groundbreaking photovoice project. She argues that problems with these projects, however, is that they were “mostly informative, and the strong advocacy component has been missing” (p. 330).
Holm pays attention to visual ethnography, action research, and photovoice as recent fields of visual methods. As of visual ethnography, Holm attunes, in particular, to Pink’s argument that reflexivity and intersubjective relationship between researcher and informants are critical to creating “negotiated versions of reality” (2005, p. 20). Holm also observes that recent visual ethnographical research takes on participatory action research by distributing photo cameras, for instance, to research participants. Holm remarks that photovoice, based on this technique, has not been widely used in education, anthropology or sociology, due to the nature of documentary and action research. Holm also notes that there were similar projects even before the groundbreaking photovoice project. She argues that problems with these projects, however, is that they were “mostly informative, and the strong advocacy component has been missing” (p. 330).
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences
Guba, Egon, & Lincoln, Yvonna. (2005). In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd Ed.) (pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage.
They identify five contemporary qualitative research paradigms: positivism, postpositivism, critical theories, constructivism, and participatory.
Concerning reflexivity, they define it as "the process of reflecting critically on the self as researcher, the 'human as instrument'" (p. 210). They call attention to two ways of interactions here: how research processes are influenced by a researcher's own life and assumptions and how we researchers become ourselves, in other words, how research itself influence researchers.
In the fifth paradigm, participatory one, they added in this article, reflexivity matters. It relies on critical subjectivity and self-awareness, whereas reflexivity may be considered a problem in positivism.
They identify five contemporary qualitative research paradigms: positivism, postpositivism, critical theories, constructivism, and participatory.
Concerning reflexivity, they define it as "the process of reflecting critically on the self as researcher, the 'human as instrument'" (p. 210). They call attention to two ways of interactions here: how research processes are influenced by a researcher's own life and assumptions and how we researchers become ourselves, in other words, how research itself influence researchers.
In the fifth paradigm, participatory one, they added in this article, reflexivity matters. It relies on critical subjectivity and self-awareness, whereas reflexivity may be considered a problem in positivism.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Theorizing Audience, Products and Provocation
Michelle Fine & María Elena Torre. (2008). In Peter Reason & Hilary Bradbury (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Action Research Participative Inquiry and Practice (pp. 407-419). LA, London, New Delhi, and Singapore: Sage Publications.
Describe PAR products as "counter-hegemonic 'weapons of mass instruction'" (p. 407), Fine and Torre write, "PAR is explicitly political" (p. 417), thus call for critical deliberation about the ethics of provocation in relation to vulnerability of participants and social justice.
Describe PAR products as "counter-hegemonic 'weapons of mass instruction'" (p. 407), Fine and Torre write, "PAR is explicitly political" (p. 417), thus call for critical deliberation about the ethics of provocation in relation to vulnerability of participants and social justice.
Action Research
Ernest T. Stringer. (1999). (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage.
Chapter 1. Research in Professional and Public Life.
Similar to Kurt Lewin's model of action research, Ernest Stringer calls attention to action research as a decentralized small-scale format of research that would benefit practitioners' daily work in working with community groups. His model consists of a look-think-act routine. There are three basic assumptions in his model: a researcher's involvement, research subjects' participation in the research processes, and direct benefit to all participants. Thus, community-based research takes on action research. Built on Denzin and Lincoln's (1994) argument, Stringer defines as community-based research "enacting local, action-oriented approaches to inquiry, applying small-scale theorizing to specific problems in specific situations" (p. 10). Characterizing such research as stakeholders' participation, he specifies stages for the participation: data collection, analysis, theorizing, action, and evaluation. Here Stringer describes researchers as research facilitators with less directive power.
Chapter 5. Think: Interpreting and Analyzing.
Built on Denzin's (1997, Interpretive Ethnography) call for performance--"texts waiting to be staged" (as cited on the page 109)--Stringer contends that predominant formalist texts for presentation of research findings may not only silence the voices of people but also limit evocative responses from audiences. He calls particular attention to the movement to performance, such as drama, role play, dance, song, poem, etc., in action research so that people can express their feelings without intrusion of the formality.
Chapter 8. Formal Reports, Theses, and Dissertations (pp. 165-186)
This chapter has useful information about how to write up research findings in formal/informal ways. [GOOD]
In particular, the section of methodology is excellent. Stringer divides it into four subsections.
(1) Methodological Assumptions or a Philosophical Rationale: he suggests a more extended treatment than usual as PAR is not widely accepted yet. Identify research paradigm, detailed purposes, processes, outcomes of research. Cite sources. In principle, answer these questions, "why have we used this approach to research? Is it a valid and rigorous research process? Clarify the nature of the research process by comparing it with survey research, or more conventional styles.
(2) Research Processes: details, who was involved, what information collected, how analyzed. Include position of the researcher and participants. Data collection technique may include INTERVIEWS, OBSERVATIONS, DOCUMENTS (MEDIA, ARTIFACTS), RECORDING INFORMATION (VIDEOTAPES, PHOTOS...). The part of analysis should provide how research participants analyzed information. Stringer introduces the term BRAKETING to refer to the process of analyzing information in interpretive research to reduce it to its most significant or key, elements.
(3) Rigor: Unlike traditional criteria for evaluating rigor, such as objectivity, reliability, validity and generalizability, Stringer proposes CREDIBILITY, TRANSFERABILITY, AND DEPENDABILITY AND CONFIRMABILITY in order to establish the trustworthiness of PAR.
He asserts that credibility is established by prolonged engagement with participants, triangulation of information from multiple sources, member checking to verify the accuracy, and peer debriefing for reflection on the process.
By Transferability Stringer means applying research findings to other contexts. He argues that research methods should provide thick description so that audiences can identify similarities of the research setting with other contexts.
Dependability and confirmability are obtained through detailed description of collecting and analyzing processes and references to the raw data.
[I think that my research project can have certain credibility to begin with. I should work in transferability and the other. Should I keep the raw data? Final video should be sufficient as raw data if we publish a report in a formal way?]
Stringer also suggests having a section of limitations, not for an apology, but for an explanation about why traditional criteria such as objectivity, reliability, etc. are not appropriate.
(4) Ethical issues
guard against unwarranted intrusion into private life, maintaining privacy, establishing ownership, describe how research processed were enacted in ways sensitive to the cultural values and protocols of research participants.
Chapter 9. Understanding Action Research: The Theory Behind the Practice (187-215)
Chapter 1. Research in Professional and Public Life.
Similar to Kurt Lewin's model of action research, Ernest Stringer calls attention to action research as a decentralized small-scale format of research that would benefit practitioners' daily work in working with community groups. His model consists of a look-think-act routine. There are three basic assumptions in his model: a researcher's involvement, research subjects' participation in the research processes, and direct benefit to all participants. Thus, community-based research takes on action research. Built on Denzin and Lincoln's (1994) argument, Stringer defines as community-based research "enacting local, action-oriented approaches to inquiry, applying small-scale theorizing to specific problems in specific situations" (p. 10). Characterizing such research as stakeholders' participation, he specifies stages for the participation: data collection, analysis, theorizing, action, and evaluation. Here Stringer describes researchers as research facilitators with less directive power.
Chapter 5. Think: Interpreting and Analyzing.
Built on Denzin's (1997, Interpretive Ethnography) call for performance--"texts waiting to be staged" (as cited on the page 109)--Stringer contends that predominant formalist texts for presentation of research findings may not only silence the voices of people but also limit evocative responses from audiences. He calls particular attention to the movement to performance, such as drama, role play, dance, song, poem, etc., in action research so that people can express their feelings without intrusion of the formality.
Chapter 8. Formal Reports, Theses, and Dissertations (pp. 165-186)
This chapter has useful information about how to write up research findings in formal/informal ways. [GOOD]
In particular, the section of methodology is excellent. Stringer divides it into four subsections.
(1) Methodological Assumptions or a Philosophical Rationale: he suggests a more extended treatment than usual as PAR is not widely accepted yet. Identify research paradigm, detailed purposes, processes, outcomes of research. Cite sources. In principle, answer these questions, "why have we used this approach to research? Is it a valid and rigorous research process? Clarify the nature of the research process by comparing it with survey research, or more conventional styles.
(2) Research Processes: details, who was involved, what information collected, how analyzed. Include position of the researcher and participants. Data collection technique may include INTERVIEWS, OBSERVATIONS, DOCUMENTS (MEDIA, ARTIFACTS), RECORDING INFORMATION (VIDEOTAPES, PHOTOS...). The part of analysis should provide how research participants analyzed information. Stringer introduces the term BRAKETING to refer to the process of analyzing information in interpretive research to reduce it to its most significant or key, elements.
(3) Rigor: Unlike traditional criteria for evaluating rigor, such as objectivity, reliability, validity and generalizability, Stringer proposes CREDIBILITY, TRANSFERABILITY, AND DEPENDABILITY AND CONFIRMABILITY in order to establish the trustworthiness of PAR.
He asserts that credibility is established by prolonged engagement with participants, triangulation of information from multiple sources, member checking to verify the accuracy, and peer debriefing for reflection on the process.
By Transferability Stringer means applying research findings to other contexts. He argues that research methods should provide thick description so that audiences can identify similarities of the research setting with other contexts.
Dependability and confirmability are obtained through detailed description of collecting and analyzing processes and references to the raw data.
[I think that my research project can have certain credibility to begin with. I should work in transferability and the other. Should I keep the raw data? Final video should be sufficient as raw data if we publish a report in a formal way?]
Stringer also suggests having a section of limitations, not for an apology, but for an explanation about why traditional criteria such as objectivity, reliability, etc. are not appropriate.
(4) Ethical issues
guard against unwarranted intrusion into private life, maintaining privacy, establishing ownership, describe how research processed were enacted in ways sensitive to the cultural values and protocols of research participants.
Chapter 9. Understanding Action Research: The Theory Behind the Practice (187-215)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
