第三个领域:在基于社区的参与性研究实践中重新定义盟友关系

IF 4.6 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Qualitative Research in Psychology Pub Date : 2020-12-21 DOI:10.1080/14780887.2020.1854402
Chloé Dierckx, Lynn Hendricks, Sara Coemans, K. Hannes
{"title":"第三个领域:在基于社区的参与性研究实践中重新定义盟友关系","authors":"Chloé Dierckx, Lynn Hendricks, Sara Coemans, K. Hannes","doi":"10.1080/14780887.2020.1854402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A central tenet in the conduct of community-based participatory research is the establishment of an allyship between researchers and other actors, a relation that ideally should be reciprocal in nature. In theory, true allyship would stand for a mutual search for understanding and potential transformation of life circumstances through investigation and argumentation, in the absence of coercive force or preset boundaries. However, in practice, researchers often behave as privileged guests that enter a particular local reality at predefined moments in time and leave when they are satisfied with what they got. We critically reflected on the challenge of developing equitable and sustainable relationships that cut across time-space dimensions of collective engagement and action in community-based research. We offer a critique of the project-based logic of participatory research practice and how this may unwittingly affirm actions that work against the concept of true allyship. We advocate for the creation of a ‘third sphere’ that unfolds itself as an experimental laboratory for constructive and disruptive thought, wherein every stakeholder is equally subjected to the centripetal force of meeting each other in the middle. This increases the likelihood that unanticipated and new ways of thinking and acting will emerge from the collective.","PeriodicalId":48420,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research in Psychology","volume":"18 1","pages":"473 - 497"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14780887.2020.1854402","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The third sphere: Reconceptualising allyship in community-based participatory research praxis\",\"authors\":\"Chloé Dierckx, Lynn Hendricks, Sara Coemans, K. Hannes\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14780887.2020.1854402\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT A central tenet in the conduct of community-based participatory research is the establishment of an allyship between researchers and other actors, a relation that ideally should be reciprocal in nature. In theory, true allyship would stand for a mutual search for understanding and potential transformation of life circumstances through investigation and argumentation, in the absence of coercive force or preset boundaries. However, in practice, researchers often behave as privileged guests that enter a particular local reality at predefined moments in time and leave when they are satisfied with what they got. We critically reflected on the challenge of developing equitable and sustainable relationships that cut across time-space dimensions of collective engagement and action in community-based research. We offer a critique of the project-based logic of participatory research practice and how this may unwittingly affirm actions that work against the concept of true allyship. We advocate for the creation of a ‘third sphere’ that unfolds itself as an experimental laboratory for constructive and disruptive thought, wherein every stakeholder is equally subjected to the centripetal force of meeting each other in the middle. This increases the likelihood that unanticipated and new ways of thinking and acting will emerge from the collective.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qualitative Research in Psychology\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"473 - 497\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14780887.2020.1854402\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qualitative Research in Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1854402\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1854402","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

基于社区的参与式研究的核心原则是在研究人员和其他参与者之间建立盟友关系,这种关系在理想情况下应该是互惠的。理论上,真正的盟友关系应该是在没有强制力量或预设界限的情况下,通过调查和辩论,相互寻求理解和潜在的生活环境转变。然而,在实践中,研究人员经常表现得像特权客人,在预定的时间进入特定的当地现实,并在他们对所得到的感到满意时离开。我们批判性地反思了发展公平和可持续关系的挑战,这种关系跨越了集体参与和社区研究行动的时空维度。我们对参与性研究实践的基于项目的逻辑提出了批评,以及这种逻辑如何在不知不觉中肯定了违背真正盟友概念的行为。我们提倡创建“第三领域”,作为建设性和破坏性思想的实验实验室,其中每个利益相关者都平等地受到在中间相遇的向心力的影响。这增加了从集体中产生意想不到的新思维和行动方式的可能性。
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
The third sphere: Reconceptualising allyship in community-based participatory research praxis
ABSTRACT A central tenet in the conduct of community-based participatory research is the establishment of an allyship between researchers and other actors, a relation that ideally should be reciprocal in nature. In theory, true allyship would stand for a mutual search for understanding and potential transformation of life circumstances through investigation and argumentation, in the absence of coercive force or preset boundaries. However, in practice, researchers often behave as privileged guests that enter a particular local reality at predefined moments in time and leave when they are satisfied with what they got. We critically reflected on the challenge of developing equitable and sustainable relationships that cut across time-space dimensions of collective engagement and action in community-based research. We offer a critique of the project-based logic of participatory research practice and how this may unwittingly affirm actions that work against the concept of true allyship. We advocate for the creation of a ‘third sphere’ that unfolds itself as an experimental laboratory for constructive and disruptive thought, wherein every stakeholder is equally subjected to the centripetal force of meeting each other in the middle. This increases the likelihood that unanticipated and new ways of thinking and acting will emerge from the collective.
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
Qualitative Research in Psychology
Qualitative Research in Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
20.00
自引率
0.50%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Qualitative Research in Psychology is an international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality, original research. It aims to become the primary forum for qualitative researchers in all areas of psychology, including cognitive, social, developmental, educational, clinical, health, and forensic psychology. The journal also welcomes psychologically relevant qualitative research from other disciplines. It seeks innovative and pioneering work that advances the field of qualitative research in psychology. The journal has published state-of-the-art debates on various research approaches, methods, and analytic techniques, such as discourse analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis, visual analyses, and online research. It has also explored the role of qualitative research in fields like psychosocial studies and feminist psychology. Additionally, the journal has provided informative articles on ethics, transcription, interviewee recruitment, and has introduced innovative research techniques like photovoice, autoethnography, template analysis, and psychogeography. While the predominant audience consists of psychology professionals using qualitative research methods in academic, clinical, or occupational settings, the journal has an interdisciplinary focus. It aims to raise awareness of psychology as a social science that encompasses various qualitative approaches. In summary, Qualitative Research in Psychology is a leading forum for qualitative researchers in psychology. It publishes cutting-edge research, explores different research approaches and techniques, and encourages interdisciplinary collaboration.
期刊最新文献
Lego Serious Play in Psychology: Exploring Its Use in Qualitative Interviews Tracking narrative change in post-intervention focus groups for teachers: an exploratory study Language and psychosocial oppression: Methodological approaches, challenges, and opportunities Bringing identities to the table: Exploring conversational practices of vegetarians and vegans at flashpoints in interaction with meat-eaters The researcher as instrument - how our capacity for empathy supports qualitative analysis of transcripts
×
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