首页> 外文OA文献 >Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique?: Reflections from the 'waiting field'
【2h】

Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique?: Reflections from the 'waiting field'

机译:是做人种学还是应用定性技术?:来自“等待领域”的思考

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Contemporary social science research is often concerned to engage with and promote particular forms of postmodern and innovative data production, such as photo-elicitation, autoethnography or free association interviews. This fascination with the latest and greatest techniques has been accompanied by an ever more fragmented range of research methods training for students where the week-by-week shift between approaches engenders a disjointed view of becoming the researcher. This individualisation of techniques has set up rival camps and critiques where the common ground of being embedded in traditional ethnography is often forgotten. For researchers, who began their academic careers in the ethnographic tradition, there is an appreciation of the holistic base of enquiry from which a family of methods can be effectively employed. However, more recently qualitative researchers have been distracted by ‘the technique’; a distraction that can blind them to the occupation of ethnography. Concurrently, there have been shifts in the social and economic expectations placed on qualitative inquiry that have acted to close down spaces of ethnographic teaching and practice. In response, this article focuses on the importance of the ‘waiting field’; an opportunity to explore the times where real lives carry on before they make room for the intrusion of the data production of ‘the technique’ and remind us that much qualitative research is, in fact, an ethnographic undertaking: one that encompasses the researcher within and beyond the field.
机译:当代社会科学研究经常涉及与特定形式的后现代和创新数据生产进行互动,例如照片激发,自传民族志或自由协会访谈。对最新,最先进技术的迷恋伴随着针对学生的研究方法培训的范围越来越零散,其中方法之间的逐周转换导致脱颖而出的成为研究者的观点。这种技术的个性化设置了相互竞争的阵营和批评,在这些阵营和批评中,人们常常忘记了嵌入传统民族志中的共同点。对于以人种学传统开始其学术生涯的研究人员而言,他们对整体研究基础有了鉴赏,可以从中有效地运用一系列方法。但是,最近有更多定性研究人员对“技术”分心;可能使他们对民族志职业视而不见的干扰。同时,对定性探究的社会和经济期望发生了变化,从而缩小了民族志教学和实践的空间。作为回应,本文重点介绍“等待领域”的重要性;一个机会,在现实生活为“技术”的数据产生提供入侵空间之前探索其生存的时代,并提醒我们,许多定性研究实际上是一项人种志研究:将研究人员包括在内超越领域。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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