Search results

What it is like to experience being the subject of the research process when you are an actor within a new social movement organization? And what lessons can be learned for researchers engaging with members of New Social Movements? Debates on engagement and the relationship between the researcher and the researched so far have taken the perspective solely of the researcher. Based on insights gained by full participation in a horizontal worker cooperative, the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the facilitation of more fruitful, mutually engaging research relations between organizational theory scholars and members of New Social Movement organizations by voicing the researched in this debate.

After providing some accounts from the researched point of view, the paper focuses on crafting an appropriate research process based on participatory action research (PAR) ethos and experience.

Since the research findings suggest that PAR combines elements that both trouble and inspire research participants, namely, workload/availability and relevancy/contribution in practice, the authors introduce and provide a case study of responsive action research that emphasizes adaptation and responsiveness in the research process instead of shared governance.

The originality of this paper lies in voicing the research participants with the aim to aid both scholars and social movements adopt appropriate research designs for the mutual benefit of both theory/action and researchers/researched (even when researchers are already active in the field).

Research projects designed to examine social identity difference in organizations are driven by a passion to affect positive change that ultimately leads to a more just society rather than one which enables status quo power perpetuation and continues to marginalize certain people and inhibit them from achieving personal and career goals. This important change requires the support of all people and not just those who use a simplistically essentialist dyad because they feel a personal connection or because such avenues of inquiry are considered off limits when a researcher or a manager does not “match” members of specific minority groups. Polyvocality is necessary to exorcise -isms in the workplace and larger global communities, so this important work is everyone’s responsibility.

In Chapter 2, difference is operationalized and it is acknowledged that recognizing power differentials between ourselves as researcher and our respondents or participants as researched is a starting point in any important journey when exploring social identity difference. Researching across social identity difference is examined, the simplistically essentialist dyad or racial-matching paradigm is critiqued, and the partial perspective and lived experience orientations are advanced. Useful guidance and methodological techniques also are offered for self-reflexive moves when considering research paradigms, theoretical underpinnings, data collection procedures, data interpretation and analysis steps, and dissemination of findings – as well as discussion about ways that institutionalized power can intervene in potentially risky ways for researchers of social identity and difference.

This book represents an integration of numerous theory streams and approaches so that researchers of social identity difference will have at least one go-to source for engaging with potential analytical, ethical, and methodological challenges. Chapter 2 is divided into these central subthemes: what is social identity difference?, power issues among researchers and the researched, techniques for doing social identity difference research, and researching across social identity difference and the matching paradigm.

Privacy is a highly valued ideal in western societies and the researcher is usually expected to protect the privacy of the researched. However, real world fieldwork experiences are highly complex and the researcher can often find their private life encroached upon. The chapter uses the authors’ own field experiences to discuss this complexity. Lee-Treweek focuses upon her research experience with disabled children living in rural England and Bourne-Day on projects with refugee and asylum seekers in Staffordshire, England. Their discussions reveal that more often than not, privacy issues in the field often interconnect researcher and the researched.

This paper aims to draw attention to a unique paradox concerning doing an autoethnography as a PhD. On the one hand, a student may feel a pull towards revealing a vulnerable, intimate, autoethnographic self, yet on the other hand she may be pushed away from this because the oral/viva voce examination process may deny the student anonymity. Through the telling of this tale the complexities concerning self‐disclosure and student autoethnography reveal are explored.

The tale is autoethnographic: a fictionalised account based on real events and co‐constructed from substantial field notes, personal diaries, e‐mails, and reports.

This paper contributes to relational ethics concerned with self‐disclosure and the “I” of a reveal, and highlight the possibilities for developing Medford's notion of mindful slippage as a strategy for removing highly personal and possibly harmful elements within student autoethnography.

The paper provides a preliminary theoretical framework that has not been empirically tested and is situated within “introspective” autoethnographic research.

The paper takes an innovative approach to autoethnography, addressing ethical value systems specifically within a PhD context.

In this article, research as “mass media” (Luhmann) is appraised. “Videocy” or videoed research results are examined. A form of video research with its roots in action research, Delphi methodology and visual anthropology is reported on. The simulacra it produces, wherein feedback loops are used to produce an effect similar to the fractali‐zations of complexity, achieves a powerful reality‐effect. But is it a “responsible” form of (research) practice?

Research into the literacy of Pasifika (Pacific Island) children has predominantly focused on what the children cannot do. We present a layered account as we report on the issues, strategies and learnings from a project that set out to focus on success. With the guidance of matai (chiefs) we drew on the traditional Pasifika approach of Talanoa to allow important stories to be told. Talanoa both supports and challenges traditional and alternative Palagi (a Polynesian word for European) approaches to qualitative research. Three critical issues for researchers are identified: group ownership and control of the process and outcomes, the importance of collaboratively sharing research outcomes with the researched and the wider Pasifika community, and the value of opportunities for Pasifika and Palagi to undertake Pasifika research together.

Ethnographers and other qualitative social scientists have long reflected on the ways researcher identity – who we are – shapes how we see and understand what and whom we encounter in our research, and how research participants see and understand us. In “Insider–outsider–inbetweener? Researcher positioning, participative methods, and cross-cultural educational research,” Milligan (2016) takes up questions regarding researcher positionality in qualitative research in the field of comparative and international education. In particular, Milligan argues for the use of participative techniques to gain insider perspectives and to lessen unequal power relations between researcher and the researched in cross-cultural research. In this chapter, we will engage Milligan’s discussion of participative research by analyzing the similarities and differences in studying participants with relative social privilege versus studying those from marginalized communities. Specifically, we will reflect on two ethnographic studies that explored the global educational aspirations of middle and upper middle-class Asian students. Furthermore, we attempt to complicate the discussion of “cross-cultural” research by arguing that in the neoliberal global context, researchers and the researched may move back and forth across national and cultural boundaries. The chapter concludes by raising questions regarding the unique challenges of conducting cross-cultural studies that flow across national boundaries.

The purpose of this chapter is to propose a new direction in ethnographic research in education through the emergence of critical presence ethnography (CPE). Through a review of the evolution of the field of ethnography as well as the positionality of the self as ethnographer, this chapter illuminates the ways in which critical ethnographic commitments and critical reflexivity can support a critical presence perspective that captures the ways in which the researcher impacts the internal epistemology and ontology of the research environment. This chapter is a conceptual chapter and does not include a specific research design, methods, or approaches. As a conceptual piece, there are no clear-cut findings, however a review of the extant literature concerning the field of ethnography is presented as well as the roles, opportunities, and tensions that ethnographers experience in the field. Based on the authors’ ethnographic work in the field, they employ a CPE to capture the ripples of self in the research context.

The limitations of this work are that it is only presented in its conceptual form and has not been implemented nor tested in the field. As such, the implications of this work are that it be further developed and operationalized in the field of ethnography. Upon implementation and in depth testing, CPE may have the potential to positively impact the way in which education ethnographers manage researcher identity, conceptions of the self, and researcher bias within a given context. This chapter builds upon a strong body of literature concerning ethnography and critical ethnography in education. Using these processes of ethnography and the ways in which the positionality of the ethnographic researcher have been conceptualized and operationalized in the extant ethnographic literature, our work seeks to provide a way in which the ethnographer can measure his or her impact on the given context. Although infant in our conceptualization, we aspire to contribute to the conversation about ethnography, researcher positionality, and context.

This paper argues for the need to use multiple sources and methods that respond to research challenges presented by new forms of war. There are methodological constraints and contention on the superiority given to positivist and interpretivist research designs when doing fieldwork in war situations, hence there is a need to use integrated data generation techniques. The combined effect of severe limitations of movement for both the researcher and researched fragmented data because of polarized views about the causes of the war and unpredictable events that make information hard to come by militate against systematic, organised and robust data generation. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to make fieldwork researchers understand significant research problems unique to war zones.

This research was guided by the postmodernist mode of thought which challenges standardised research traditions. Fieldwork experiences in Cabo suggest the need to use the composite strategies that rely on the theoretical foundation of integrative and creative collection of data when doing research in violent settings.

The fieldwork experiences showed that the standardised, conventional and valorised positivist and ethnographic research strategies may not sufficiently facilitate understanding of the dynamics of war. There should not be firm rules, guidelines or regulations governing the actions of the researcher in conflict. As such, doing research in violent settings require reflexivity, flexibility and creativity in research strategies that respond to rapid changes. Research experiences in Mozambique show the need to use blended methods that include even less structured methodologies.

Fieldwork experiences in Cabo challenges researchers who cling to standardised research traditions which often hamper awareness of new postmodernist mode of thought applicable to war settings. It is essential to study the nature of African armed conflicts by combining creativity and flexibility in the selection of research strategies.

With particular reference to qualitative humor research, this paper aims to look at fieldwork from a new angle. The purpose of this paper is to address humor research foci by completing a fusion autoethnographic analysis of how lead author used humor to interact with the participants. This analysis outlines the two examples of joke-ability; specifically self-deprecating humor and more generally attempts to blend in.

This paper draws on fusion autoethnography where Author 2 actively worked to help Author 1 push deeper into her use of humor and its historical context within her life. This created a dialogue to deepen the self-analysis on Author 1’s humor methodology.

The use of humor, by humor researchers, may be of particular importance if the researched groups, society, or nation values humor in both formal and informal contexts. Researcher’s humor can be a spontaneous and dynamic way of learning and engaging with the researched environment.

This paper aims to be a starting point for the discussion about the understudied issues of place and role of the use of humor by a humor researcher, and the challenges of conducting humor research within an educational context. The innovative fusion autoethnographic analysis helps to reflect upon researcher’s role and behavior. The study contributes to humor research methodology by exploring the effects of researcher’s use of humor on both the researcher-participant relationship and the data.