Religious positionalities and political science research in ‘the field’ and beyond: Insights from Vietnam, Lebanon and the UK

IF 3.2 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
S. Rumsby, Jennifer Philippa Eggert
{"title":"Religious positionalities and political science research in ‘the field’ and beyond: Insights from Vietnam, Lebanon and the UK","authors":"S. Rumsby, Jennifer Philippa Eggert","doi":"10.1177/14687941231165884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article contributes to the growing literature on researcher reflexivity by broaching the often-ignored issue of religious positionalities within political science, as well as speaking to the methodological implications of researching religion more broadly. We present and compare two autoethnographic case studies of research on politico-religious conflict in Vietnam and Lebanon, exploring how a researcher’s religiosity presents unique fieldwork challenges, opportunities and insights. We then discuss the ambivalence faced by religious researchers within the highly secularised academic environment, thus blurring the artificial dichotomy between ‘the field’ and the academy. Our reflections centre around three findings: (1) the importance of taking an intersectional approach which neither essentialises nor ignores religious aspects of positionality, whilst also being sensitive to spatial and temporal shifts in how they interact with a researcher’s gender, ethnicity, class and other identifiers; (2) the opportunities and perils of a researcher’s apparent religious common ground with participants (or lack thereof) in building rapport and negotiating a degree of insider status; and (3) the similarities and differences between suspicions of religious partialism during fieldwork and within academia.","PeriodicalId":48265,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941231165884","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article contributes to the growing literature on researcher reflexivity by broaching the often-ignored issue of religious positionalities within political science, as well as speaking to the methodological implications of researching religion more broadly. We present and compare two autoethnographic case studies of research on politico-religious conflict in Vietnam and Lebanon, exploring how a researcher’s religiosity presents unique fieldwork challenges, opportunities and insights. We then discuss the ambivalence faced by religious researchers within the highly secularised academic environment, thus blurring the artificial dichotomy between ‘the field’ and the academy. Our reflections centre around three findings: (1) the importance of taking an intersectional approach which neither essentialises nor ignores religious aspects of positionality, whilst also being sensitive to spatial and temporal shifts in how they interact with a researcher’s gender, ethnicity, class and other identifiers; (2) the opportunities and perils of a researcher’s apparent religious common ground with participants (or lack thereof) in building rapport and negotiating a degree of insider status; and (3) the similarities and differences between suspicions of religious partialism during fieldwork and within academia.
“该领域”及其他领域的宗教立场和政治科学研究:来自越南、黎巴嫩和英国的见解
本文通过探讨政治科学中经常被忽视的宗教立场问题,以及更广泛地研究宗教的方法论含义,为研究人员反身性的文献增长做出了贡献。我们提出并比较了两个关于越南和黎巴嫩政治宗教冲突研究的民族志案例,探讨了研究人员的宗教信仰如何呈现独特的实地工作挑战、机会和见解。然后,我们讨论了宗教研究者在高度世俗化的学术环境中所面临的矛盾心理,从而模糊了“领域”和学院之间人为的二分法。我们的思考围绕三个发现展开:(1)采取交叉方法的重要性,这种方法既不本质化也不忽视宗教方面的地位,同时也对空间和时间的变化敏感,因为它们如何与研究人员的性别、种族、阶级和其他标识符相互作用;(2)研究人员与参与者明显的宗教共同点(或缺乏共同点)在建立融洽关系和协商一定程度的内部地位方面的机会和危险;(3)田野调查与学术界对宗教宗派主义怀疑的异同。
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
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
60
期刊介绍: Qualitative Research is a fully peer reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles on the methodological diversity and multi-disciplinary focus of qualitative research within the social sciences. Research based on qualitative methods, and methodological commentary on such research, have expanded exponentially in the past decades. This is the case across a number of disciplines including sociology, social anthropology, health and nursing, education, cultural studies, human geography, social and discursive psychology, and discourse studies.
×
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