Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber & Patricia Leavy. (2006). Sage Publications.
Chapter 4. In-Depth Interview (pp. 119-145)
[I chose this chapter to discuss among the VTW research group members. It is written in a plain yet engaging manner with some examples to illustrate the authors' points.]
The authors introduce the significance of in-depth or intensive interview a common method for qualitative research. In comparison with quantitative interview, they argue, qualitative interviews, which are often involved with in-depth interview, should be "knowledge-producing conversation" (p. 128) based upon reciprocal relationships between interviewees and interviewers as well as a sense of shared authority, which regards interviewees as experts.
Similarly, defining the qualitative interview as "co-creation of meaning" (p. 134), the authors call for reflexivity among researchers. In their term:
"The heart of the qualitative interview requires much reflexivity, that is, sensitivity to the important 'situational' dynamics between the researcher and researched that can impact the creation of knowledge" (p. 135)
In the discussion of dealing with difference between researchers and researched, the authors talk about the notions of insiders and outsiders. They argue that one's status as insider/outsider is fluid and prone to change in the course of research. In general, they agree, insiders can bring much in-depth data, yet state the advantage of being an outsider:
"By not belong to a specific group, you may be viewed as more unbiased by your respondent. Likewise, you may be more likely to ask things that you would otherwise take for granted as "shared knowledge" and in fact learn that your participation have their own way of viewing a given issue." (p. 140)
The authors suggest to be mindful of the importance of difference between researchers and researched.
In the discussion of analysis and interpretation of interview data, the authors emphasize the importance of negative cases that do not fit the overall problems, as they are often the most informative. As a way of triangulating data, they suggest to try hard to disprove a researcher's presumed ideas.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Feminism and Film
Humm, Maggie. (1997). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Feminist Theory, Aesthetics and Film Theory: Mulvey, Kuhn, Kaplan and hooks (3-38)
Humm states that feminist aesthetics emphasizes the promotion of women as producers of art. However, ways in which feminist artists engaged with their audiences rejected the traditional concept of art creation, artistic individualism; they undertook performance, creating a moment for interacting with an audience. Another characteristic of feminist aesthetics is, Humm pointed out, a focus on women's social subjectivity on the basis that the personal is political. Thus, feminist art aims at transformation of traditional aesthetics built upon sexist oppression.
The author further examines feminist film theory focusing on Laura Mulvey (psychoanalytic), Annette Kuhn (materialism), E. Ann Kaplan (postmodernism), and bell hooks (Black feminism).
Feminist Theory, Aesthetics and Film Theory: Mulvey, Kuhn, Kaplan and hooks (3-38)
Humm states that feminist aesthetics emphasizes the promotion of women as producers of art. However, ways in which feminist artists engaged with their audiences rejected the traditional concept of art creation, artistic individualism; they undertook performance, creating a moment for interacting with an audience. Another characteristic of feminist aesthetics is, Humm pointed out, a focus on women's social subjectivity on the basis that the personal is political. Thus, feminist art aims at transformation of traditional aesthetics built upon sexist oppression.
The author further examines feminist film theory focusing on Laura Mulvey (psychoanalytic), Annette Kuhn (materialism), E. Ann Kaplan (postmodernism), and bell hooks (Black feminism).
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Reflexivity, Feminism, and Difference
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
