不均衡流动与认知不公正:对反身性流动的研究

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY Mobilities Pub Date : 2024-01-02 DOI:10.1080/17450101.2023.2244682
Malene Rudolf Lindberg , Nikolaj Grauslund Kristensen , Malene Freudendal-Pedersen , Katrine Hartmann-Petersen
{"title":"不均衡流动与认知不公正:对反身性流动的研究","authors":"Malene Rudolf Lindberg ,&nbsp;Nikolaj Grauslund Kristensen ,&nbsp;Malene Freudendal-Pedersen ,&nbsp;Katrine Hartmann-Petersen","doi":"10.1080/17450101.2023.2244682","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Who we are and how we ask questions shape qualitative researchers’ material and influence the understanding and intelligibility we attach to different mobility experiences. Our normativity and social positions have implications for the representation of people and places. In this way, methodological decisions are interlinked with the production and reproduction of mobility injustice and epistemic injustice. With its starting point in reflexive methodology, this article critically examines qualitative mobility research based on a research project in its final phases and exemplifies how mobility injustice is easily produced and reproduced in the research process. By way of confronting this tendency, we demonstrate that the interview guide is a powerful tool for supporting reflexivity at all stages of the research process, identifying new perspectives, and promoting reflexive mobilities research that recognises epistemic justice. However, the strategy is not infallible as it is impossible for mobilities researchers to identify all blind spots in their own culture, research field and language. A rich research community and adequate time for researchers to circle around and outside their core field are also crucial for supporting reflexivity and for reflexive mobilities research to thrive.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51457,"journal":{"name":"Mobilities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uneven mobilities and epistemic injustice: towards reflexive mobilities research\",\"authors\":\"Malene Rudolf Lindberg ,&nbsp;Nikolaj Grauslund Kristensen ,&nbsp;Malene Freudendal-Pedersen ,&nbsp;Katrine Hartmann-Petersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17450101.2023.2244682\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Who we are and how we ask questions shape qualitative researchers’ material and influence the understanding and intelligibility we attach to different mobility experiences. Our normativity and social positions have implications for the representation of people and places. In this way, methodological decisions are interlinked with the production and reproduction of mobility injustice and epistemic injustice. With its starting point in reflexive methodology, this article critically examines qualitative mobility research based on a research project in its final phases and exemplifies how mobility injustice is easily produced and reproduced in the research process. By way of confronting this tendency, we demonstrate that the interview guide is a powerful tool for supporting reflexivity at all stages of the research process, identifying new perspectives, and promoting reflexive mobilities research that recognises epistemic justice. However, the strategy is not infallible as it is impossible for mobilities researchers to identify all blind spots in their own culture, research field and language. A rich research community and adequate time for researchers to circle around and outside their core field are also crucial for supporting reflexivity and for reflexive mobilities research to thrive.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mobilities\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mobilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S1745010123001327\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mobilities","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S1745010123001327","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们的身份和提问方式决定了定性研究人员的材料,也影响了我们对不同流动经历的理解和认识。我们的规范性和社会地位对人和地方的表述具有影响。因此,方法论的决定与流动性不公正和认识论不公正的产生和再生产相互关联。本文以反思性方法论为出发点,以一个处于最后阶段的研究项目为基础,批判性地审视了定性流动性研究,并举例说明了流动性不公正是如何在研究过程中轻易产生和再现的。通过正视这种倾向,我们证明了访谈指南是一种强大的工具,可以在研究过程的各个阶段支持反思性,发现新的视角,促进反思性流动性研究,承认认识论上的公正。然而,这一策略并非无懈可击,因为流动性研究人员不可能找出自身文化、研究领域和语言中的所有盲点。一个丰富的研究社区和充足的时间让研究人员在其核心领域内外转悠,对于支持反思性和反思性流动性研究的蓬勃发展也是至关重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Uneven mobilities and epistemic injustice: towards reflexive mobilities research

Who we are and how we ask questions shape qualitative researchers’ material and influence the understanding and intelligibility we attach to different mobility experiences. Our normativity and social positions have implications for the representation of people and places. In this way, methodological decisions are interlinked with the production and reproduction of mobility injustice and epistemic injustice. With its starting point in reflexive methodology, this article critically examines qualitative mobility research based on a research project in its final phases and exemplifies how mobility injustice is easily produced and reproduced in the research process. By way of confronting this tendency, we demonstrate that the interview guide is a powerful tool for supporting reflexivity at all stages of the research process, identifying new perspectives, and promoting reflexive mobilities research that recognises epistemic justice. However, the strategy is not infallible as it is impossible for mobilities researchers to identify all blind spots in their own culture, research field and language. A rich research community and adequate time for researchers to circle around and outside their core field are also crucial for supporting reflexivity and for reflexive mobilities research to thrive.

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
Mobilities
Mobilities Multiple-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
17.90%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: Mobilities examines both the large-scale movements of people, objects, capital, and information across the world, as well as more local processes of daily transportation, movement through public and private spaces, and the travel of material things in everyday life. Recent developments in transportation and communications infrastructures, along with new social and cultural practices of mobility, present new challenges for the coordination and governance of mobilities and for the protection of mobility rights and access. This has elicited many new research methods and theories relevant for understanding the connections between diverse mobilities and immobilities.
期刊最新文献
Re-storying gendered im/mobilities through a mobile and generationed autoethnography The mobility biography of things and the climate emergency Driving while dreaming: oneiric automobility (Im)mobile autobiography: the mobilisation of life without children auto/biography and its significance Mobility practices in a changing climate: Understanding shifts in car ownership and use across the life course
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1