IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Alison Rouse
{"title":"The Research Relationship: Negotiating Multiple Selves and Boundaries in Exploring Sensitive Topics.","authors":"Alison Rouse","doi":"10.1177/10497323241302665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article considers responsibilities and challenges inherent in the research relationship, from the position of a researcher who is also a counselling practitioner. It draws on my experience of undertaking a qualitative interview-based doctoral research study with adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, engaging critically with the debates in the research literature concerning researcher-practitioner role boundaries and comparable (and distinct) areas of practice between research and counselling. I suggest that within well-held, monitored boundaries, practitioner identities and contextual knowledge are invaluable to the research relationship and that a collaborative fluidity can operate between researcher and professional (in this case, counsellor) identities rather than them being in conflict. Though the issues addressed here arise from the researcher as counselling practitioner, I believe they have a wider relevance for all qualitative researchers. What happens in the research relationship is complex, involving the various identities (personal and professional <i>selves</i>), emotions, and subjectivities of both researchers and research contributors. Our <i>personhood</i> in research can help to generate rich sources of understanding and at the same time demands our critical reflexivity to interrogate our subjectivities and their influence. In undertaking research which asks individuals to reflect in detail and depth on intimate areas of their lives, researchers need to be prepared for the potential emergence of distress and feel equipped, through training, support, and contextual-based knowledge, to be able to respond appropriately. It calls for reflexive relational competence at the heart of qualitative research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48437,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Health Research","volume":" ","pages":"10497323241302665"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241302665","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文从研究者同时也是咨询从业者的立场出发,探讨了研究关系中固有的责任和挑战。文章借鉴了我对童年性虐待的成年幸存者进行定性访谈博士研究的经验,批判性地探讨了研究文献中关于研究人员与从业人员的角色界限以及研究与咨询之间的可比(和不同)实践领域的争论。我认为,在严格遵守和监督的界限内,实践者的身份和背景知识对于研究关系是非常宝贵的,研究者和专业人员(在本例中为辅导员)的身份之间可以形成一种合作的流动性,而不是相互冲突。虽然这里讨论的问题是由作为咨询从业者的研究人员提出的,但我相信它们对所有定性研究人员都有更广泛的意义。研究关系中发生的事情非常复杂,涉及研究人员和研究贡献者的各种身份(个人和专业自我)、情感和主观性。我们在研究中的个人身份有助于产生丰富的理解来源,同时也要求我们具有批判性的反思能力,以审视我们的主观性及其影响。在开展要求个人对其生活中的隐私领域进行详细深入反思的研究时,研究人员需要对可能出现的困扰做好准备,并通过培训、支持和基于背景的知识,感到自己已经具备了适当应对的能力。这就要求定性研究的核心是反思性关系能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Research Relationship: Negotiating Multiple Selves and Boundaries in Exploring Sensitive Topics.

This article considers responsibilities and challenges inherent in the research relationship, from the position of a researcher who is also a counselling practitioner. It draws on my experience of undertaking a qualitative interview-based doctoral research study with adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, engaging critically with the debates in the research literature concerning researcher-practitioner role boundaries and comparable (and distinct) areas of practice between research and counselling. I suggest that within well-held, monitored boundaries, practitioner identities and contextual knowledge are invaluable to the research relationship and that a collaborative fluidity can operate between researcher and professional (in this case, counsellor) identities rather than them being in conflict. Though the issues addressed here arise from the researcher as counselling practitioner, I believe they have a wider relevance for all qualitative researchers. What happens in the research relationship is complex, involving the various identities (personal and professional selves), emotions, and subjectivities of both researchers and research contributors. Our personhood in research can help to generate rich sources of understanding and at the same time demands our critical reflexivity to interrogate our subjectivities and their influence. In undertaking research which asks individuals to reflect in detail and depth on intimate areas of their lives, researchers need to be prepared for the potential emergence of distress and feel equipped, through training, support, and contextual-based knowledge, to be able to respond appropriately. It calls for reflexive relational competence at the heart of qualitative research.

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
6.80
自引率
6.20%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH is an international, interdisciplinary, refereed journal for the enhancement of health care and to further the development and understanding of qualitative research methods in health care settings. We welcome manuscripts in the following areas: the description and analysis of the illness experience, health and health-seeking behaviors, the experiences of caregivers, the sociocultural organization of health care, health care policy, and related topics. We also seek critical reviews and commentaries addressing conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative enquiry.
×
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