...
首页> 外文期刊>Qualitative Reseacrh in Psychology >Multiple Researcher Identities: Highlighting Tensions and Implications for Ethical Practice in Qualitative Interviewing
【24h】

Multiple Researcher Identities: Highlighting Tensions and Implications for Ethical Practice in Qualitative Interviewing

机译:多重研究者身份:在质性面试中突出道德实践的张力和含义

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Drawing on Coffey's (1991) notion of fieldwork as ‘identity work,’ this article explores the implications of constructing and performing multiple ‘researcher identities’ within qualitative research interviewing. In doing so it utilises three examples taken from social psychological research which employed a discursive approach, informed by feminist research principles, to explore issues of power, knowledge, and language on the interaction between primary health care services and women experiencing domestic violence. These examples illustrate how within qualitative in-depth interviews identities can be both constructed by (Wolf 199660. Wolf, DL. 1996. “Situating feminist dilemmas in fieldwork”. In Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork, Edited by: Wolfe, DL. Boulder, CO: Westview. View all references) and required of the researcher by their participants (Thapar-Björkert & Henry 200457. Thapar-Björkert, S and Henry, M. 2004. Reassessing the research relationship: location, position and power in fieldwork accounts. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 7(5): 363-81. [Taylor & Francis Online]View all references). While such researcher identities can be viewed, particularly within research informed by feminist ethics, as a form of ‘integrity’; being responsive to the individual needs of specific participants, they also can leave the researcher with the experience of feeling disingenous. The article explores some of the tensions inherent within these two vantage-points and calls for a wider engagement and discussion of these issues in order to enable researchers to better negotiate such tensions.View full textDownload full textKeywordsethics, feminism, interviewing, performing identities, qualitative, required identities, researcher identityRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14780880902929506
机译:本文利用科菲(1991)的现场工作概念作为“身份工作”,探讨了在定性研究访谈中构造和执行多个“研究者身份”的含义。在这样做的过程中,它利用了来自社会心理学研究的三个例子,这些例子在女权主义研究原则的指导下采用了一种话语方法,以探索有关初级保健服务机构和遭受家庭暴力的妇女之间的互动的权力,知识和语言问题。这些例子说明了如何在定性的深度访谈中,既可以通过(Wolf 199660. Wolf,DL。1996.“在田野调查中定位女权主义困境”,又可以在“田野调查中的女权主义困境”中构建身份)。科罗拉多州博尔德市:Westview。查看所有参考文献),并要求参与者满足研究人员的要求(Thapar-Björkert和Henry200457。Thapar-Björkert,S和Henry,M.2004。重新评估研究关系:位置,位置和权力在实地调查中的应用。International Journal of Social Research Methodology,7(5):363-81。[Taylor&Francis Online]查看所有参考文献)。尽管可以将这些研究者的身份视为“诚信”的一种形式,尤其是在女性主义伦理学指导下的研究中;通过响应特定参与者的个人需求,他们还可以使研究人员感到自己不明智。本文探讨了这两个优势内在的某些内在压力,并呼吁对这些问题进行更广泛的参与和讨论,以使研究人员能够更好地解决这种压力。查看全文下载全文关键词伦理学,女权主义,访谈,表演身份,定性,必需的身份,研究人员身份相关的变量add add_id 4dff56cd6bb1830b“};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14780880902929506

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号