MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1509114464

In/out/side: Positioning the Researcher in Feminist Qualitative Research

2000· article· en· W1509114464 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sandra Acker

Notice bibliographique

RevueResources for feminist research · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInsiderSociologyContext (archaeology)Qualitative researchFeelingSubjectivityEpistemologySocial psychologySocial scienceLawPsychologyPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,149
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,851
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,790

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,1490,089
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0400,080
Communication savante0,0250,024
Science ouverte0,0040,018
Intégrité de la recherche0,0080,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,561
Tête enseignante GPT0,681
Écart entre enseignants0,120 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
DomaineMéthodes
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations166
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueResources for feminist researchMême sujetQualitative Research Methods and EthicsTravaux en français237 207