参与性行动研究和交叉性:对老年人研究的批判性对话反映

IF 0.8 Q4 GERONTOLOGY
Maaike Muntinga, Elena Bendien, Tineke Abma, Barbara Groot
{"title":"参与性行动研究和交叉性:对老年人研究的批判性对话反映","authors":"Maaike Muntinga, Elena Bendien, Tineke Abma, Barbara Groot","doi":"10.1108/qaoa-03-2023-0024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Researchers who work in partnership with older adults in participatory studies often experience various advantages, but also complex ethical questions or even encounter obstacles during the research process. This paper aims to provide insights into the value of an intersectional lens in participatory research to understand how power plays out within a mixed research team of academic and community co-researchers. Design/methodology/approach Four academic researchers reflected in a case-study approach in a dialogical way on two critical case examples with the most learning potential by written dialogical and via face-to-face meetings in duos or trios. This study used an intersectionality-informed analysis. Findings This study shows that the intersectional lens helped the authors to understand the interactions of key players in the study and their different social locations. Intersections of age, gender, ethnicity/class and professional status stood out as categories in conflict. In hindsight, forms of privilege and oppression became more apparent. The authors also understood that they reproduced traditional power dynamics within the group of co-researchers and between academic and community co-researchers that did not match their mission for horizontal relations. This study showed that academics, although they wanted to work toward social inclusion and equality, were bystanders and people who reproduced power relations at several crucial moments. This was disempowering for certain older individuals and social groups and marginalized their voices and interests. Originality/value Till now, not many scholars wrote in-depth about race- and age-related tensions in partnerships in participatory action research or related approaches, especially not about tensions in research with older people.","PeriodicalId":44916,"journal":{"name":"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Participatory action research and intersectionality: a critical dialogical reflection of a study with older adults\",\"authors\":\"Maaike Muntinga, Elena Bendien, Tineke Abma, Barbara Groot\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/qaoa-03-2023-0024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose Researchers who work in partnership with older adults in participatory studies often experience various advantages, but also complex ethical questions or even encounter obstacles during the research process. This paper aims to provide insights into the value of an intersectional lens in participatory research to understand how power plays out within a mixed research team of academic and community co-researchers. Design/methodology/approach Four academic researchers reflected in a case-study approach in a dialogical way on two critical case examples with the most learning potential by written dialogical and via face-to-face meetings in duos or trios. This study used an intersectionality-informed analysis. Findings This study shows that the intersectional lens helped the authors to understand the interactions of key players in the study and their different social locations. Intersections of age, gender, ethnicity/class and professional status stood out as categories in conflict. In hindsight, forms of privilege and oppression became more apparent. The authors also understood that they reproduced traditional power dynamics within the group of co-researchers and between academic and community co-researchers that did not match their mission for horizontal relations. This study showed that academics, although they wanted to work toward social inclusion and equality, were bystanders and people who reproduced power relations at several crucial moments. This was disempowering for certain older individuals and social groups and marginalized their voices and interests. Originality/value Till now, not many scholars wrote in-depth about race- and age-related tensions in partnerships in participatory action research or related approaches, especially not about tensions in research with older people.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44916,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/qaoa-03-2023-0024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qaoa-03-2023-0024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在参与性研究中与老年人合作的研究人员通常会经历各种优势,但也会遇到复杂的伦理问题,甚至在研究过程中遇到障碍。本文旨在深入了解参与性研究中交叉镜头的价值,以了解权力如何在学术和社区共同研究人员的混合研究团队中发挥作用。设计/方法/方法四名学术研究人员以对话的方式对两个最具学习潜力的关键案例进行案例研究,通过书面对话和面对面的二人或三人会议。本研究采用了交叉性分析。本研究表明,交叉镜头有助于作者了解研究中关键参与者的相互作用以及他们不同的社会位置。年龄、性别、种族/阶级和职业地位的交叉点是冲突的类别。事后看来,特权和压迫的形式变得更加明显。作者还明白,他们在共同研究人员群体内以及学术和社区共同研究人员之间再现了传统的权力动态,这与他们的横向关系使命不符。这项研究表明,虽然学者们想要为社会包容和平等而努力,但他们是旁观者,是在几个关键时刻复制权力关系的人。这削弱了某些老年人和社会群体的权力,使他们的声音和利益被边缘化。独创性/价值到目前为止,对参与性行动研究或相关方法中的伙伴关系中与种族和年龄相关的紧张关系进行深入研究的学者并不多,特别是对老年人研究中的紧张关系的研究较少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Participatory action research and intersectionality: a critical dialogical reflection of a study with older adults
Purpose Researchers who work in partnership with older adults in participatory studies often experience various advantages, but also complex ethical questions or even encounter obstacles during the research process. This paper aims to provide insights into the value of an intersectional lens in participatory research to understand how power plays out within a mixed research team of academic and community co-researchers. Design/methodology/approach Four academic researchers reflected in a case-study approach in a dialogical way on two critical case examples with the most learning potential by written dialogical and via face-to-face meetings in duos or trios. This study used an intersectionality-informed analysis. Findings This study shows that the intersectional lens helped the authors to understand the interactions of key players in the study and their different social locations. Intersections of age, gender, ethnicity/class and professional status stood out as categories in conflict. In hindsight, forms of privilege and oppression became more apparent. The authors also understood that they reproduced traditional power dynamics within the group of co-researchers and between academic and community co-researchers that did not match their mission for horizontal relations. This study showed that academics, although they wanted to work toward social inclusion and equality, were bystanders and people who reproduced power relations at several crucial moments. This was disempowering for certain older individuals and social groups and marginalized their voices and interests. Originality/value Till now, not many scholars wrote in-depth about race- and age-related tensions in partnerships in participatory action research or related approaches, especially not about tensions in research with older people.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
17
×
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