Intra-participant and inter-analyst cacophony: working the hyphen between modalities using provocative reflexivity

IF 4.6 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
David A. Caicedo, Andrea Nikté Juarez Mendoza, M. Pinedo
{"title":"Intra-participant and inter-analyst cacophony: working the hyphen between modalities using provocative reflexivity","authors":"David A. Caicedo, Andrea Nikté Juarez Mendoza, M. Pinedo","doi":"10.1080/14780887.2021.1996664","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Multimodal psychological research highlights the benefit of using complementary approaches to the phenomenological study of lived experience. Rather than focus on any individual method, this study attempts to concentrate on the transition, or hyphen, between them, as a place for reflexivity, ethics, and theory. Participants were 14 adults, recruited from ‘New York Community College’ and ‘New Jersey Community College’ in the U.S., who engaged in focus groups where they completed two activities: drawing a map of their personal journey to the college or of their self-identity, and their definitions for the immigration-related terms illegal and undocumented. Results demonstrated that journey and identity maps contained obstructive and supportive elements, and that the definitions reflected differential cognitive and emotional elements. However, focusing on the transition between these two activities revealed that whereas most participants viewed illegal and undocumented as different, participants who noted many more obstacles reported that the terms had both different but also similar qualities. Implications are discussed with a pivot towards the psychological link between methods as a generative space for future theoretical and conceptual work.","PeriodicalId":48420,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research in Psychology","volume":"19 1","pages":"1035 - 1063"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2021.1996664","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Multimodal psychological research highlights the benefit of using complementary approaches to the phenomenological study of lived experience. Rather than focus on any individual method, this study attempts to concentrate on the transition, or hyphen, between them, as a place for reflexivity, ethics, and theory. Participants were 14 adults, recruited from ‘New York Community College’ and ‘New Jersey Community College’ in the U.S., who engaged in focus groups where they completed two activities: drawing a map of their personal journey to the college or of their self-identity, and their definitions for the immigration-related terms illegal and undocumented. Results demonstrated that journey and identity maps contained obstructive and supportive elements, and that the definitions reflected differential cognitive and emotional elements. However, focusing on the transition between these two activities revealed that whereas most participants viewed illegal and undocumented as different, participants who noted many more obstacles reported that the terms had both different but also similar qualities. Implications are discussed with a pivot towards the psychological link between methods as a generative space for future theoretical and conceptual work.
参与者内部和分析师之间的不和谐:使用挑衅性的自反性处理模式之间的连字符
多模态心理学研究强调了在生活经验现象学研究中使用互补方法的好处。本研究并不关注任何一种单独的方法,而是试图把重点放在它们之间的过渡或连字符上,作为反思、伦理和理论的场所。参与者是来自美国“纽约社区学院”(New York Community College)和“新泽西社区学院”(New Jersey Community College)的14名成年人,他们参加了焦点小组活动,完成了两项活动:绘制他们到大学的个人旅程或自我认同的地图,以及他们对移民相关术语非法和无证的定义。结果表明,旅程和身份地图包含阻碍和支持元素,并且定义反映了不同的认知和情感元素。但是,着重于这两种活动之间的过渡表明,虽然大多数与会者认为非法和无证件是不同的,但注意到许多障碍的与会者报告说,这两个术语既有不同的性质,也有相似的性质。影响讨论与枢纽的心理联系之间的方法作为未来的理论和概念工作的生成空间。
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
Qualitative Research in Psychology
Qualitative Research in Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
20.00
自引率
0.50%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Qualitative Research in Psychology is an international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality, original research. It aims to become the primary forum for qualitative researchers in all areas of psychology, including cognitive, social, developmental, educational, clinical, health, and forensic psychology. The journal also welcomes psychologically relevant qualitative research from other disciplines. It seeks innovative and pioneering work that advances the field of qualitative research in psychology. The journal has published state-of-the-art debates on various research approaches, methods, and analytic techniques, such as discourse analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis, visual analyses, and online research. It has also explored the role of qualitative research in fields like psychosocial studies and feminist psychology. Additionally, the journal has provided informative articles on ethics, transcription, interviewee recruitment, and has introduced innovative research techniques like photovoice, autoethnography, template analysis, and psychogeography. While the predominant audience consists of psychology professionals using qualitative research methods in academic, clinical, or occupational settings, the journal has an interdisciplinary focus. It aims to raise awareness of psychology as a social science that encompasses various qualitative approaches. In summary, Qualitative Research in Psychology is a leading forum for qualitative researchers in psychology. It publishes cutting-edge research, explores different research approaches and techniques, and encourages interdisciplinary collaboration.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信