Doing ‘judgemental rationality’ in empirical research: the importance of depth-reflexivity when researching in prison

IF 3.2 N/A PHILOSOPHY
Muzammil Quraishi, Lamia Irfan, Mallory Schneuwly Purdie, M. Wilkinson
{"title":"Doing ‘judgemental rationality’ in empirical research: the importance of depth-reflexivity when researching in prison","authors":"Muzammil Quraishi, Lamia Irfan, Mallory Schneuwly Purdie, M. Wilkinson","doi":"10.1080/14767430.2021.1992735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Critical realist thought has theorised convincingly that epistemic relativism is constellationally embedded in ontological realism which in turn necessitates judgemental rationality. In social science, judgemental rationality involves acting upon plausible decisions about competing points of view. However, the tools for doing this are, as yet, under-articulated. This paper addresses this absence by articulating triangulation and depth-reflexivity as two tools for doing judgemental rationality in empirical research. It draws on the experiences of a diverse team working on an international comparative research project on conversion to Islam in prisons. It demonstrates how epistemic and relational gaps between researchers and research subjects can be bridged by mobilising the ‘laminated’ properties and personal attributes of a diverse research team that factors in attributes that are absent as well as those present. The biographical experiences of the team are analyzed in a variety of intersecting dimensions: faith, ethnicity/ethno-culture, gender, class and professionality.","PeriodicalId":45557,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Critical Realism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Critical Realism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2021.1992735","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

ABSTRACT Critical realist thought has theorised convincingly that epistemic relativism is constellationally embedded in ontological realism which in turn necessitates judgemental rationality. In social science, judgemental rationality involves acting upon plausible decisions about competing points of view. However, the tools for doing this are, as yet, under-articulated. This paper addresses this absence by articulating triangulation and depth-reflexivity as two tools for doing judgemental rationality in empirical research. It draws on the experiences of a diverse team working on an international comparative research project on conversion to Islam in prisons. It demonstrates how epistemic and relational gaps between researchers and research subjects can be bridged by mobilising the ‘laminated’ properties and personal attributes of a diverse research team that factors in attributes that are absent as well as those present. The biographical experiences of the team are analyzed in a variety of intersecting dimensions: faith, ethnicity/ethno-culture, gender, class and professionality.
在实证研究中做“判断理性”:深度反思性在监狱研究中的重要性
批判现实主义思想令人信服地论证了认识论相对主义是星形地嵌入本体论实在论的,而本体论实在论反过来又要求判断理性。在社会科学中,判断理性涉及对相互竞争的观点作出貌似合理的决定。然而,到目前为止,实现这一目标的工具还不够明确。本文通过阐明三角测量和深度反身性作为在实证研究中进行判断理性的两种工具来解决这种缺失。它借鉴了一个从事监狱改信伊斯兰教国际比较研究项目的多元化团队的经验。它展示了研究人员和研究对象之间的认知和关系差距是如何通过调动一个多样化的研究团队的“分层”属性和个人属性来弥合的,这些属性既考虑了缺失的属性,也考虑了存在的属性。团队的传记经历在各种交叉的维度上进行分析:信仰、种族/民族文化、性别、阶级和专业。
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
4.70
自引率
30.80%
发文量
26
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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