Kleinman and Copp’s Emotions and Fieldwork is a well-written analysis of emotional concerns with qualitative research and an invitation for reflection. The quote that resonates with me is: “When relations are smooth and we think we have achieved the right amount and kind of empathic feelings, we need to be the most alert about the analytical import of our feelings.” (p. 46) This particular passage stood out to me as it brings up some concerns that have already been mentioned in our class. Namely, the idea that there is a danger with feeling too at “ease” with our ideas, data, and in this case with our participants. It is my understanding that as researchers we should “make friends” with uncertainty and learn to be okay with messy research scenarios. In this light, I feel that we must remember that our goals are not exclusively about “getting research done” and “feeling good”; but must also include “capturing reality” and “telling the real story”. I know that I have to work on becoming comfortable with the “mess” of research in order to write the best version of the reality that my participants describe. Lastly, I am also aware that there are many layers of emotions that can complicate the research endeavor, but in some strange way, I am looking forward to getting messy with the data -there is something really interesting in what I have observed and I want to know what it is!
The quote I question is:”Readers tend to expect a sympathetic account of the life of the underdog. But , even in that case, readers expect to learn that appearances are deceptive. We typically write the following story: Despite the bad circumstances participants find themselves in, they manage to work the system or set up an alternative.” (p. 14) In this quote, the particular idea that really struck a chord with me is the fact that as researchers we conduct research for many reasons aside from innate curiosity and the intent of improving outcomes for those who have been historically oppressed. Whether we like it or not, we conduct research for our colleagues, our professional associations, our students and our communities. With that said, in some ways we write our research findings for our aforementioned “readers” and these in turn, will influence our voice, style and focus. Moreover, we also write for ourselves and as such we may write accounts that align with our own biases and our moral senses. Specifically, this quote made me think that the story I “would like” to tell, includes a sequence of events very similar to the one described in the quote (e.g. historical oppression, difficulties, but through science education - success). In this way, I was astonished that my thinking could be predicted by these writers (over 20 years ago). What this means to me, is that I must be particularly attentive to ensure that the “reality” I describe is “true” rather than “sanitized” to fit the nice story line that I easily find myself telling in my head. I must be aware of my own limitations and desires, so that I don’t end up with a limited version of the data.
“For our purposes, participants are the teachers and we are their students. Sometimes we exaggerate the student role to ensure that they continue to teach us.” (29). - This quote resonates with me because it is pretty much exactly how I am hoping to approach my study, it is why I am so interested in my particular area of research. My participants have life experience very different from my own, and it is what makes them so interesting to me. I am a language learner, but not nearly in the same way as my students and participants. I am learning Spanish as a foreign language here in the United States, as a native English speaker. I did not begin to learn Spanish until high school, once I had already developed literacy skills in my own native language. I also have never experienced the immigrant or language minority experiences that my students (participants) have. These differences have so many layers each, and are only the tip of the iceberg in the differences between my own experiences and theirs. Not that all of ‘their’ experiences are the same either. Some are similar, but again I do not anticipate that any two participants histories or experiences will be the “same”. I am interested in this particular area of research because I want to get closer to understanding my students/participants realities and experiences. I want to learn from them, to hear their stories, understand their perspectives and feelings, and ultimately hope to share some of the knowledge I gain along with some of their voices and stories with others.
“Coding suggests that we cannot write an intergraded story unless we examine the parts of the whole. But our own experiences and those of graduate students we have taught suggest that coding can become a crutch that keeps us from thinking in a holistic way about data. Yet it can make us feel better because it allows us to believe that we know what we are doing.” (p.24) - I still have questions about this quote and coding in general. I know I still have a lot to learn about how to code correctly. I do have concerns, which this quote in particular reminded me of in the sense of priori-codes. These being codes (or ideas/ themes) the researcher has in mind or planned when beginning the coding process. I wonder if having too specific of ideas going into analysis would cause a researcher to be “fishing for proof” in the sense that they may be pulling out pieces that can fit a code or theme, that may not be exactly correct for the context… or may be missing other emergent themes or ideas because one is focused on finding “proof”. The chapter goes on to discuss computer coding programs, which I am not very familiar with, but I wonder if you (researcher) are selecting or inputting key words for codes, if it may further the “fishing” process. If one is not careful to actually read the data sets closely his/her self. I’m thinking this would also be an important reason to have a co-researched or critical peer to help review data sets and analysis.
This text is loaded with quotes that trigger thoughts and feelings about my own situation right now in the classroom, and that also make me project into my upcoming research. But one quote that stuck with me comes from Ben Agger: "The seeming avoidance of values is the strongest value commitment of all, exempting one's empirical claims from rigorous self-reflection and self-criticism." (1991, p.111) The examples given by the authors of feelings and opinions, or even political positions being put aside for the sake of being objective took my mind to my case study of EB students and the fact that I have some very definite ideas about the idea of young of any language background being subjected to what boils down to approximately six weeks of testing in their third grade year. In reading this book, I'm coming to the conclusion that I have to be sure to somehow get my position on this situation into the story. What I'm struggling with is where I would put how I feel about the current high-stakes situation and it's possible effects on EB students into my research proposal. Would something like that go into the methods section, or would that be part of the introduction as a segment of"my story"? I will address a quote that I question next, but will publish this now so I don't lose it. (Not sure how to save!)
“Sneaking emotions through the backdoor” There is this process of finding your voice both as a researcher and as writer that you go as you move through the program. Early on, you are simply trying to raise the technical parts of your academic writing. Especially if you have been away from this type of writing for a long time. As that improves, you find yourself writing towards the context of the course and the professor. What I mean by that is in more quant classes, you use the more prescribed, scientific terms (e.g. variable, validity, etc.). But eventually, when have more confidence and freedom, your real voice begins to come through. I think that has been one of my biggest struggles; writing for the dissertation versus writing for the self. As a qualitative research student, I feel that a lot of my writing efforts are always in this tension. Writing in an academic tone while persevering my researcher beliefs and emotions. Trying to “get it right” and trying to please the committee and meet their (sometimes disparate) suggestions. And trying to do justice to the voice of my participants. “Writing when the professional coast is clear” The idea that post-doc, you have more room to stretch your legs as writer when you don’t have to please a committee. In the dissertation, you have to write for a variety of audiences, and sometimes I feel that part of your voice gets lost in that process. Whereas post-doc, you have more confidence, and you have been through the process once. You can write more for yourself. “We are expected to be unemotional (professional) as we write”, as if including emotions, or having empathy for our participants delegitimizes the writing. Or that if we address this, we have to “quarantining the reflections and emotions” into an appendix, drawing a firm line of demarcation between “scientific writing” and “humanistic writing”. I definitely have questions to ask as we move through this class on how to reconcile the two, particularly in my findings section. “Fieldworkers enter the field as more than researchers. Our identities and life experiences shape the political and ideological stances we take in our research”. Early on, I was advised if you want to get through the program, you should do a quant study and use pre-existing data. But that’s not who I am, who I want to be, or what I hope to accomplish as a researcher. Yes qual studies take more time. Yes, you will encounter some resistance along the way. But, as least for me the qual process has been very fulfilling both personally and professionally. I think that our research is part and parcel of who we are, and I don’t think that you can separate the two.
As for a quote that I question, that's a little more difficult for me to do right now. I'm reading something written by people who do qualitative studies for a living, so I'm finding it hard to critique their point of view. I did find a quote on page 33 from Sheryl Kleinman in response to her own question about what to do about lacking empathy or having negative feelings toward participants. She says,"Numbness may protect the individual from experiencing particular feelings (but) numbness itself is an overpowering feeling-state." I'm not sure if I agree with that. I suppose it depends on what is causing the numbness in the first place. If you are just so overwhelmed by something, that would be the result of extreme emotion that overwhelms you. But what if what is being experienced, or felt, is just not having the background to understand what is being observed? I suppose that might still be considered an emotion, but I'm not sure whether or not that it might count as something else, if it's really connected to a lack of knowledge or experience with something.
“As I look back, may anger served as an inequality detector. This detector, however, is fallible; we should use it to test whether or not we are witnessing an injustice. But we can only test this hypothesis if we first acknowledge such feelings as anger.” The first dozen pages of this book made me uncomfortable. Fieldworkers had never made me uncomfortable because I had really never thought much about it. I remember doing some observations during undergraduate Anthropology classes and feeling that my notes should be- at all costs- faithful to the scene. I would sit in the dining center or library and scribble notes describing the interactions that I witnessed. Sometimes I would manufacture scenes so as to make my descriptions a bit less boring but I do remember being committed to being an unfeeling observer. This quote came along just as I finally bought into the notion that emotions belonged in fieldwork/research. I found this important because it not only acknowledges that emotion (in this case anger) can and should be present in research but also that it plays a productive role. It is also important to manage the role of emotion in data collection/fieldwork. If the “inequality detector” is used appropriately it can enhance a researcher’s understanding of a scene. It is also conceivable that emotion could negatively influence what a researcher is able to draw from a situation. Acknowledging the presence of emotion allows a researcher to use it judiciously (in this case as an inequality detector) in their work. My intentionally boring observation notes from 1996 may not have been as faithful of a representation of the scene. I may not and probably did not train a critical eye on certain interactions because of my belief that I should just report the “truth”. In doing so I created an unnecessarily narrow vision of “truth”. “Overidentification like over-rapport, implies that there is a right amount of rapport and we need to stop when we reach it. What matters more than our degree of identification is what we do with our feelings.” While I don’t necessarily disagree with this, I am having trouble shaking the notion that it seems to allow for relationships that would corrupt findings. I am very inexperienced and feel uncomfortable offering a critique here. That said, my gut tells me that there probably is zone of appropriate rapport that lends itself to optimal data collection. I know that that the authors were not advocating “going native” in this section but this does feel just a hair “loose” to me. This also has me questioning why I am uncomfortable here. These researchers are…professional researchers. I would not question a contractor’s judgement in using tools appropriately. I probably shouldn’t here either.
The authors, Kleinman and Copp, succinctly justify the importance of the most humanistic side of qualitative research – the engagement of emotions in fieldwork. One quote that resonates with me is: “We can learn from any vantage point as long as we know what roles we occupy in different situations. Our feelings while in a particular role might mirror those who hold a similar role in the setting.” (p.31). Although the status of qualitative research continues to gain increased credibility from those with more positivist views, restrictions in displaying negative emotions, such as anger or fear, could significantly influence data results. To counter the criticisms of qualitative studies as subjectively driven, researchers attempt to detach themselves from emotional reactions or connections they might have with the intention of enhancing objectivity. I believe researchers in the field should act professionally and conform to the conditions of their data collection settings. In most cases researchers should not separate themselves from their emotions, which in essence is part of their self-identity. Connecting with participants in an emotional level can elicit observable behaviors related to that emotion that would otherwise be concealed. When the researcher feels comfortable in recognizing his own emotions, especially negative emotions, participants are also likely to feel comfortable in sharing or demonstrating accounts associated with that emotion. Suppressing emotions is unnatural - the researcher or participant is interacting void of emotional content, which can lead to inconsistencies in results.
One quote that I question is: “Most researchers still try to keep themselves out of their work, believing that their method has “a life of its own,” independent of themselves (p. 55). Researchers bring their values, spiritual beliefs, emotions among other personality traits into their interactions with their participants. The way they document and interpret information is closely related to their prior personal experiences. It is almost impossible for the researcher to be completely objective at any point of their data collection, analysis or interpretation processes. The researcher already begins by choosing a particular study based on personal interests, including corresponding methods, and theoretical frameworks. Personal views are invariably integrated throughout the entire study.
Kleinman and Copp’s Emotions and Fieldwork is a well-written analysis of emotional concerns with qualitative research and an invitation for reflection. The quote that resonates with me is: “When relations are smooth and we think we have achieved the right amount and kind of empathic feelings, we need to be the most alert about the analytical import of our feelings.” (p. 46)
ReplyDeleteThis particular passage stood out to me as it brings up some concerns that have already been mentioned in our class. Namely, the idea that there is a danger with feeling too at “ease” with our ideas, data, and in this case with our participants. It is my understanding that as researchers we should “make friends” with uncertainty and learn to be okay with messy research scenarios. In this light, I feel that we must remember that our goals are not exclusively about “getting research done” and “feeling good”; but must also include “capturing reality” and “telling the real story”. I know that I have to work on becoming comfortable with the “mess” of research in order to write the best version of the reality that my participants describe. Lastly, I am also aware that there are many layers of emotions that can complicate the research endeavor, but in some strange way, I am looking forward to getting messy with the data -there is something really interesting in what I have observed and I want to know what it is!
The quote I question is:”Readers tend to expect a sympathetic account of the life of the underdog. But , even in that case, readers expect to learn that appearances are deceptive. We typically write the following story: Despite the bad circumstances participants find themselves in, they manage to work the system or set up an alternative.” (p. 14)
In this quote, the particular idea that really struck a chord with me is the fact that as researchers we conduct research for many reasons aside from innate curiosity and the intent of improving outcomes for those who have been historically oppressed. Whether we like it or not, we conduct research for our colleagues, our professional associations, our students and our communities. With that said, in some ways we write our research findings for our aforementioned “readers” and these in turn, will influence our voice, style and focus. Moreover, we also write for ourselves and as such we may write accounts that align with our own biases and our moral senses. Specifically, this quote made me think that the story I “would like” to tell, includes a sequence of events very similar to the one described in the quote (e.g. historical oppression, difficulties, but through science education - success). In this way, I was astonished that my thinking could be predicted by these writers (over 20 years ago). What this means to me, is that I must be particularly attentive to ensure that the “reality” I describe is “true” rather than “sanitized” to fit the nice story line that I easily find myself telling in my head. I must be aware of my own limitations and desires, so that I don’t end up with a limited version of the data.
“For our purposes, participants are the teachers and we are their students. Sometimes we exaggerate the student role to ensure that they continue to teach us.” (29).
ReplyDelete- This quote resonates with me because it is pretty much exactly how I am hoping to approach my study, it is why I am so interested in my particular area of research. My participants have life experience very different from my own, and it is what makes them so interesting to me. I am a language learner, but not nearly in the same way as my students and participants. I am learning Spanish as a foreign language here in the United States, as a native English speaker. I did not begin to learn Spanish until high school, once I had already developed literacy skills in my own native language. I also have never experienced the immigrant or language minority experiences that my students (participants) have. These differences have so many layers each, and are only the tip of the iceberg in the differences between my own experiences and theirs. Not that all of ‘their’ experiences are the same either. Some are similar, but again I do not anticipate that any two participants histories or experiences will be the “same”. I am interested in this particular area of research because I want to get closer to understanding my students/participants realities and experiences. I want to learn from them, to hear their stories, understand their perspectives and feelings, and ultimately hope to share some of the knowledge I gain along with some of their voices and stories with others.
“Coding suggests that we cannot write an intergraded story unless we examine the parts of the whole. But our own experiences and those of graduate students we have taught suggest that coding can become a crutch that keeps us from thinking in a holistic way about data. Yet it can make us feel better because it allows us to believe that we know what we are doing.” (p.24)
- I still have questions about this quote and coding in general. I know I still have a lot to learn about how to code correctly. I do have concerns, which this quote in particular reminded me of in the sense of priori-codes. These being codes (or ideas/ themes) the researcher has in mind or planned when beginning the coding process. I wonder if having too specific of ideas going into analysis would cause a researcher to be “fishing for proof” in the sense that they may be pulling out pieces that can fit a code or theme, that may not be exactly correct for the context… or may be missing other emergent themes or ideas because one is focused on finding “proof”. The chapter goes on to discuss computer coding programs, which I am not very familiar with, but I wonder if you (researcher) are selecting or inputting key words for codes, if it may further the “fishing” process. If one is not careful to actually read the data sets closely his/her self. I’m thinking this would also be an important reason to have a co-researched or critical peer to help review data sets and analysis.
This text is loaded with quotes that trigger thoughts and feelings about my own situation right now in the classroom, and that also make me project into my upcoming research. But one quote that stuck with me comes from Ben Agger: "The seeming avoidance of values is the strongest value commitment of all, exempting one's empirical claims from rigorous self-reflection and self-criticism." (1991, p.111)
ReplyDeleteThe examples given by the authors of feelings and opinions, or even political positions being put aside for the sake of being objective took my mind to my case study of EB students and the fact that I have some very definite ideas about the idea of young of any language background being subjected to what boils down to approximately six weeks of testing in their third grade year. In reading this book, I'm coming to the conclusion that I have to be sure to somehow get my position on this situation into the story. What I'm struggling with is where I would put how I feel about the current high-stakes situation and it's possible effects on EB students into my research proposal. Would something like that go into the methods section, or would that be part of the introduction as a segment of"my story"? I will address a quote that I question next, but will publish this now so I don't lose it. (Not sure how to save!)
Some quotes that resonate with me:
ReplyDelete“Sneaking emotions through the backdoor”
There is this process of finding your voice both as a researcher and as writer that you go as you move through the program. Early on, you are simply trying to raise the technical parts of your academic writing. Especially if you have been away from this type of writing for a long time. As that improves, you find yourself writing towards the context of the course and the professor. What I mean by that is in more quant classes, you use the more prescribed, scientific terms (e.g. variable, validity, etc.). But eventually, when have more confidence and freedom, your real voice begins to come through. I think that has been one of my biggest struggles; writing for the dissertation versus writing for the self. As a qualitative research student, I feel that a lot of my writing efforts are always in this tension. Writing in an academic tone while persevering my researcher beliefs and emotions. Trying to “get it right” and trying to please the committee and meet their (sometimes disparate) suggestions. And trying to do justice to the voice of my participants.
“Writing when the professional coast is clear”
The idea that post-doc, you have more room to stretch your legs as writer when you don’t have to please a committee. In the dissertation, you have to write for a variety of audiences, and sometimes I feel that part of your voice gets lost in that process. Whereas post-doc, you have more confidence, and you have been through the process once. You can write more for yourself.
“We are expected to be unemotional (professional) as we write”, as if including emotions, or having empathy for our participants delegitimizes the writing. Or that if we address this, we have to “quarantining the reflections and emotions” into an appendix, drawing a firm line of demarcation between “scientific writing” and “humanistic writing”. I definitely have questions to ask as we move through this class on how to reconcile the two, particularly in my findings section.
“Fieldworkers enter the field as more than researchers. Our identities and life experiences shape the political and ideological stances we take in our research”. Early on, I was advised if you want to get through the program, you should do a quant study and use pre-existing data. But that’s not who I am, who I want to be, or what I hope to accomplish as a researcher. Yes qual studies take more time. Yes, you will encounter some resistance along the way. But, as least for me the qual process has been very fulfilling both personally and professionally. I think that our research is part and parcel of who we are, and I don’t think that you can separate the two.
As for a quote that I question, that's a little more difficult for me to do right now. I'm reading something written by people who do qualitative studies for a living, so I'm finding it hard to critique their point of view. I did find a quote on page 33 from Sheryl Kleinman in response to her own question about what to do about lacking empathy or having negative feelings toward participants. She says,"Numbness may protect the individual from experiencing particular feelings (but) numbness itself is an overpowering feeling-state." I'm not sure if I agree with that. I suppose it depends on what is causing the numbness in the first place. If you are just so overwhelmed by something, that would be the result of extreme emotion that overwhelms you. But what if what is being experienced, or felt, is just not having the background to understand what is being observed? I suppose that might still be considered an emotion, but I'm not sure whether or not that it might count as something else, if it's really connected to a lack of knowledge or experience with something.
ReplyDelete“As I look back, may anger served as an inequality detector. This detector, however, is fallible; we should use it to test whether or not we are witnessing an injustice. But we can only test this hypothesis if we first acknowledge such feelings as anger.”
ReplyDeleteThe first dozen pages of this book made me uncomfortable. Fieldworkers had never made me uncomfortable because I had really never thought much about it. I remember doing some observations during undergraduate Anthropology classes and feeling that my notes should be- at all costs- faithful to the scene. I would sit in the dining center or library and scribble notes describing the interactions that I witnessed. Sometimes I would manufacture scenes so as to make my descriptions a bit less boring but I do remember being committed to being an unfeeling observer. This quote came along just as I finally bought into the notion that emotions belonged in fieldwork/research. I found this important because it not only acknowledges that emotion (in this case anger) can and should be present in research but also that it plays a productive role. It is also important to manage the role of emotion in data collection/fieldwork. If the “inequality detector” is used appropriately it can enhance a researcher’s understanding of a scene. It is also conceivable that emotion could negatively influence what a researcher is able to draw from a situation. Acknowledging the presence of emotion allows a researcher to use it judiciously (in this case as an inequality detector) in their work. My intentionally boring observation notes from 1996 may not have been as faithful of a representation of the scene. I may not and probably did not train a critical eye on certain interactions because of my belief that I should just report the “truth”. In doing so I created an unnecessarily narrow vision of “truth”.
“Overidentification like over-rapport, implies that there is a right amount of rapport and we need to stop when we reach it. What matters more than our degree of identification is what we do with our feelings.”
While I don’t necessarily disagree with this, I am having trouble shaking the notion that it seems to allow for relationships that would corrupt findings. I am very inexperienced and feel uncomfortable offering a critique here. That said, my gut tells me that there probably is zone of appropriate rapport that lends itself to optimal data collection. I know that that the authors were not advocating “going native” in this section but this does feel just a hair “loose” to me. This also has me questioning why I am uncomfortable here. These researchers are…professional researchers. I would not question a contractor’s judgement in using tools appropriately. I probably shouldn’t here either.
The authors, Kleinman and Copp, succinctly justify the importance of the most humanistic side of qualitative research – the engagement of emotions in fieldwork. One quote that resonates with me is: “We can learn from any vantage point as long as we know what roles we occupy in different situations. Our feelings while in a particular role might mirror those who hold a similar role in the setting.” (p.31). Although the status of qualitative research continues to gain increased credibility from those with more positivist views, restrictions in displaying negative emotions, such as anger or fear, could significantly influence data results. To counter the criticisms of qualitative studies as subjectively driven, researchers attempt to detach themselves from emotional reactions or connections they might have with the intention of enhancing objectivity. I believe researchers in the field should act professionally and conform to the conditions of their data collection settings. In most cases researchers should not separate themselves from their emotions, which in essence is part of their self-identity. Connecting with participants in an emotional level can elicit observable behaviors related to that emotion that would otherwise be concealed. When the researcher feels comfortable in recognizing his own emotions, especially negative emotions, participants are also likely to feel comfortable in sharing or demonstrating accounts associated with that emotion. Suppressing emotions is unnatural - the researcher or participant is interacting void of emotional content, which can lead to inconsistencies in results.
ReplyDeleteOne quote that I question is: “Most researchers still try to keep themselves out of their work, believing that their method has “a life of its own,” independent of themselves (p. 55). Researchers bring their values, spiritual beliefs, emotions among other personality traits into their interactions with their participants. The way they document and interpret information is closely related to their prior personal experiences. It is almost impossible for the researcher to be completely objective at any point of their data collection, analysis or interpretation processes. The researcher already begins by choosing a particular study based on personal interests, including corresponding methods, and theoretical frameworks. Personal views are invariably integrated throughout the entire study.