Researching relationality: Reflections on the use of concept cards during in-depth interviews

Q1 Social Sciences
Kristina Saunders
{"title":"Researching relationality: Reflections on the use of concept cards during in-depth interviews","authors":"Kristina Saunders","doi":"10.1177/20597991211035525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article reflects on the use of concept cards during in-depth interviews when researching reproductive decision-making in the context of neoliberalism and postfeminism. As existing literature has shown, card methods are valuable in centring participants’ individual experiences through increased control and inclusion during data collection, and attention has been drawn to their use as an ethically attentive method that can elicit richer, more complex narratives than interviews alone. While these strengths initially led me to consider the cards as an appropriate ‘fit’ with my feminist methodological approach, on reflection, the cards also illuminated the relationality of experiences that my research was concerned with. I view this as occurring in two ways. First, participants’ use of the cards helped to uncover the intertwining of their reproductive decisions with the social and political world, therefore complicating the neoliberal prioritization of the individual. Second, the cards brought the relation between myself and the participants, and between the participants, to the forefront. The reflections in this article therefore offer new insights into what concept cards can achieve, as not only validating individual accounts, but as enhancing the relationality of knowledge production.","PeriodicalId":32579,"journal":{"name":"Methodological Innovations","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20597991211035525","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methodological Innovations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20597991211035525","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article reflects on the use of concept cards during in-depth interviews when researching reproductive decision-making in the context of neoliberalism and postfeminism. As existing literature has shown, card methods are valuable in centring participants’ individual experiences through increased control and inclusion during data collection, and attention has been drawn to their use as an ethically attentive method that can elicit richer, more complex narratives than interviews alone. While these strengths initially led me to consider the cards as an appropriate ‘fit’ with my feminist methodological approach, on reflection, the cards also illuminated the relationality of experiences that my research was concerned with. I view this as occurring in two ways. First, participants’ use of the cards helped to uncover the intertwining of their reproductive decisions with the social and political world, therefore complicating the neoliberal prioritization of the individual. Second, the cards brought the relation between myself and the participants, and between the participants, to the forefront. The reflections in this article therefore offer new insights into what concept cards can achieve, as not only validating individual accounts, but as enhancing the relationality of knowledge production.
研究关联性:关于深度访谈中概念卡使用的思考
本文反思了在新自由主义和后女权主义背景下研究生育决策时,概念卡在深度访谈中的使用。正如现有文献所表明的那样,卡片方法在数据收集过程中通过增加控制和包容性来集中参与者的个人体验是很有价值的,并且人们已经注意到,卡片方法作为一种道德关注的方法,可以引发比单独采访更丰富、更复杂的叙述。虽然这些优势最初让我认为这些卡片适合我的女权主义方法论,但经过反思,这些卡片也阐明了我的研究所关注的经验的相关性。我认为这有两种情况。首先,参与者使用卡片有助于揭示他们的生育决定与社会和政治世界的交织,从而使个人的新自由主义优先顺序复杂化。其次,这些卡片将我和参与者之间以及参与者之间的关系带到了最前沿。因此,本文中的反思为概念卡的实现提供了新的见解,不仅验证了个人账户,而且增强了知识生产的相关性。
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
Methodological Innovations
Methodological Innovations Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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