Qualitative Writing: Exploring Cul-de-Sacs and Alleys

Suzanne D’Souza
{"title":"Qualitative Writing: Exploring Cul-de-Sacs and Alleys","authors":"Suzanne D’Souza","doi":"10.1177/19408447241242423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Writing qualitatively is an immersive experience divergent to other forms of research writing. It is an active construction of reality characterized by integration of the socio-cultural context and in-depth analysis of data viewed through the lens of the writer’s own experience of the phenomenon. However, these characteristics prove challenging and qualitative researchers are often at a loss on how to document their findings. Most studies provide a broad sweep of qualitative writing with few explicit examples in practice which further confounds researchers. Consequently, researchers find qualitative writing exacting and intimidating and tend to present their findings objectively with either scarce or excessive reference to the research paradigm, thwarting the full transformative potential of qualitative research. Drawing on my experience as an interpretive phenomenologist, I present the writing cul-de-sacs and alleys I navigated to illustrate my becoming as a qualitative writer. Specifically, I highlight three distinct strategies to write it right, qualitatively. To maximize findings, the writing style should conceptually align with the research philosophy. Textual cohesion and a multi-dimensional view of social reality can be generated through a mixed-genre writing approach. Finally, making the “I” meaningful by incorporating the researcher’s experiences into the text affords a deepened understanding of the phenomenon. Tenaciously navigating cul-de-sacs in writing and finding solutions to exit no through roads, and walking those shadowy alleys of theoretical constraints, stylistic impositions, and tight word space endow a concrete visibility to the otherwise blurry aspects of life.","PeriodicalId":512691,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Qualitative Research","volume":"65 15","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Qualitative Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19408447241242423","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Writing qualitatively is an immersive experience divergent to other forms of research writing. It is an active construction of reality characterized by integration of the socio-cultural context and in-depth analysis of data viewed through the lens of the writer’s own experience of the phenomenon. However, these characteristics prove challenging and qualitative researchers are often at a loss on how to document their findings. Most studies provide a broad sweep of qualitative writing with few explicit examples in practice which further confounds researchers. Consequently, researchers find qualitative writing exacting and intimidating and tend to present their findings objectively with either scarce or excessive reference to the research paradigm, thwarting the full transformative potential of qualitative research. Drawing on my experience as an interpretive phenomenologist, I present the writing cul-de-sacs and alleys I navigated to illustrate my becoming as a qualitative writer. Specifically, I highlight three distinct strategies to write it right, qualitatively. To maximize findings, the writing style should conceptually align with the research philosophy. Textual cohesion and a multi-dimensional view of social reality can be generated through a mixed-genre writing approach. Finally, making the “I” meaningful by incorporating the researcher’s experiences into the text affords a deepened understanding of the phenomenon. Tenaciously navigating cul-de-sacs in writing and finding solutions to exit no through roads, and walking those shadowy alleys of theoretical constraints, stylistic impositions, and tight word space endow a concrete visibility to the otherwise blurry aspects of life.
定性写作:探索死胡同和小巷
定性写作是一种身临其境的体验,不同于其他形式的研究写作。它是对现实的积极建构,其特点是结合社会文化背景,并通过作者自身对现象的体验对数据进行深入分析。然而,这些特点被证明具有挑战性,定性研究人员往往不知道如何记录他们的发现。大多数研究对定性写作进行了广泛的介绍,但很少有明确的实践范例,这让研究人员更加困惑。因此,研究人员发现定性写作既严谨又令人生畏,他们倾向于客观地介绍自己的研究成果,很少或过多地提及研究范式,从而阻碍了定性研究充分发挥其变革潜力。根据我作为解释性现象学家的经验,我介绍了我在写作中走过的死胡同和小路,以说明我已成为一名定性写作者。具体来说,我强调了三种不同的定性写作策略。为了最大限度地获得研究结果,写作风格应在概念上与研究理念保持一致。通过混合文体的写作方法,可以产生文本的凝聚力和对社会现实的多维度认识。最后,通过将研究者的经历融入文本,让 "我 "变得更有意义,从而加深对现象的理解。在写作中顽强地穿越死胡同,找到解决出口不通路的办法,走过那些理论束缚、文体强加、文字空间狭小的阴暗小巷,让原本模糊的生活有了具体的可视性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书