In/out/side: Positioning the Researcher in Feminist Qualitative Research
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article considers issues of and that arose in context of a feminist qualitative research project on experiences of academics, especially women, in faculties of social work, education, pharmacy and dentistry. Members of research team had connections to four fields, and originally believed that their insider status in that regard would facilitate access to participants, rapport in interviews, analysis of data and communication of results. The article identifies some of problems and puzzles that emerged around determination of who is an insider or outsider and who has greater insights in which situation. One possibility is that insider-outsider question cannot be fully resolved, but that we can try to work creatively its tensions.As a sociologist, I am used to that uncomfortable feeling of distancing myself from what is happening around me, whether it be a party, a meeting, or a dinner with relatives -- all potential grist to mill of sociological analysis. As a woman, I have been in many situations where I have been acutely conscious of being in a world dominated by men. What does it mean to be an outsider or insider? Might it simply be a fleeting aspect of subjectivity, like discomfort at start of a social occasion? Alternatively, when does it mark all one's perceptions and actions? When is it a key to insightful analysis? When does it stand in way of clear thinking? How do we even know when we are inside or outside or somewhere in between?This paper is about issues of insiderness and outsiderness that arose in context of a feminist qualitative research project on academic life. Although some quotations from project data are used to illustrate arguments, results of study itself are not featured here as purpose is to focus on a particular issue rather than to report study findings, some of which can be accessed elsewhere (see, for example, Acker & Feuerverger, 1996; Acker, 1997, 1999a; Wyn & Acker with Richards, in press).Questions around insider/outsider standpoints are readily found in sociological writings, especially those concerned with methodology and epistemology of qualitative research. For example, a major concept for Max Weber (1947), a founder of sociology, was Verstehen, which is sometimes translated as understanding. It concerns extent to which we can imaginatively project ourselves into position of another person, in order to try to comprehend reasons that person has for her/his actions. Comprehending a situation and explaining it to others is at heart of qualitative research, though it has been much troubled in recent years by an increased sensitivity to problems inherent in such an exercise (Britzman, 1995). Several other classical sociologists (Simmel, 1908/1971; Schutz, 1944) have considered role and special perceptions of the stranger, and in early 1970s, Robert Merton (1972) directly tackled question of insider and outsider perspectives in research. More recently, Patricia Hill Collins (1991) has developed concept of the outsider within with regard to Black women sociologists, and James Banks (1998) has identified a number of possible insider/outsider categories. Feminist researchers regularly raise questions about positioning of researcher and researched (Stanley & Wise, 1983, 1990; Smith 1987; Cook & Fonow, 1990; Reinharz, 1992; Harding, 1993; Edward & Ribbens, 1998).Despite work that has gone before, in some ways my colleagues and I felt that we were in new territory. One reason for this belief is that we were conducting team research. Team research has its shares of disasters but many consider its strengths to outweigh its problems (Woods, Boyle, Jeffrey & Troman, 2000). Nevertheless, it is one thing to reflect critically upon one's own self in relation to one's work, and quite another to reflect upon relationships among colleagues in a research team and upon colleagues' relationships to other academics we are studying. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,271 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,012 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle