Interpretive reflexivity in ethnography
Interpretive reflexivity in ethnography
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1466138115592418
复制
发表时间：
2017-03-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Lichterman, Paul
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lichterman, Paul
许多人会争辩说，民族志知识的主张是片面的。许多人说，这种困境要求研究者对民族志主张进行自我反思。通常，民族志学家通过讨论他们的研究如何反映伴随着他们在统治等级中的地位的利益或偏见来进行反思。位置反身性很难跨越一个声称知道哪些位置影响了研究的现实主义和一个旨在揭开我们声称知道的神秘性的规范主义。这两种立场都压制了研究人员和研究人员不断进行的解释工作。在一种更具解释性的反身性实践中，民族志学家探索他们如何在该领域中理解其他人的意义，而不是专注于他们的主张与社会地位之间的相关性。解释自反性考虑研究者和被研究者之间正在进行的交流回路中的社会地位。由于解释在很多民族志中是解释的一部分，解释的自反性扩大了我们评估因果和解释性主张的能力。
Many would argue that ethnographic knowledge claims are partial. Many say this predicament demands the researcher's self-reflexivity about ethnographic claims. Commonly, ethnographers perform reflexivity by discussing how their research may reflect interests or biases that accompany their positions in hierarchies of domination. Positional reflexivity uneasily straddles a realism that claims to know which position(s) affected the research, and a normativism that aims to demystify what we claim to know. Both stances suppress the interpretive work that researchers and researched constantly are doing. In a more interpretive practice of reflexivity, ethnographers explore how they figured out other people's meanings in the field, instead of focusing on correlations between their claims and their social position. Interpretive reflexivity considers social positions within ongoing circuits of communication between researcher and researched. Since interpretations are part of explanation in much ethnography, interpretive reflexivity widens our ability to assess causal as well as interpretive claims.