Overponderabilia : Overcoming overthinking when studying “ourselves”
(2016) In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 17(2).- Abstract
This article discusses a key methodological difficulty in conducting qualitative research close to home: the issue of overthinking. Whereas MALINOWSKI's concern regarding imponderabilia, i.e., the risk of not thinking about the subtle phenomena of everyday life, has long haunted ethnographers and qualitative researchers, not least those working "at home," we highlight an issue of overponderabilia, i.e., the risk of overthinking seemingly familiar statements and practices of the people studied. How do we, as qualitative researchers, study very well-known phenomena such as science, bureaucracy, management etc. without reading our own ideas and understandings into the deceptively familiar concepts and accounts of our research subjects?... (More)
This article discusses a key methodological difficulty in conducting qualitative research close to home: the issue of overthinking. Whereas MALINOWSKI's concern regarding imponderabilia, i.e., the risk of not thinking about the subtle phenomena of everyday life, has long haunted ethnographers and qualitative researchers, not least those working "at home," we highlight an issue of overponderabilia, i.e., the risk of overthinking seemingly familiar statements and practices of the people studied. How do we, as qualitative researchers, study very well-known phenomena such as science, bureaucracy, management etc. without reading our own ideas and understandings into the deceptively familiar concepts and accounts of our research subjects? Pondering this issue is inevitably a central concern for the increasing number of qualitative researchers who study people who apparently talk, think and work in a way which is similar to their own. While previous answers or solutions to this issue first and foremost emphasize various means of reflexivity, this article presents the method of "mutual participatory observation" as a particular way of overcoming overthinking: a method which in situ invites our research subjects into our thinking. Thus, in the pursuit of an ever enhanced understanding, qualitative research becomes not so much a reflexive deciphering as an active debate; that is, a mutual induction of the differences between the qualitative researcher and the research subjects.
(Less)
- author
- Vangkilde, Kasper Tang and Sausdal, David Brehm LU
- publishing date
- 2016-05
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Ethnography as debate, Imponderabilia, Mutual induction, Mutual participatory observation, Overponderabilia, Qualitative research at home, Reflexivity
- in
- Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung
- volume
- 17
- issue
- 2
- article number
- 28
- publisher
- The Institute for Qualitative Research and the Center for Digital Systems, Freie Universität Berlin
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:84971255169
- ISSN
- 1438-5627
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- additional info
- Publisher Copyright: © 2016, Inst. fur Klinische Psychologie und Gemeindepsychologie. All rights reserved. Copyright: Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
- id
- 0bf5c770-1af2-428c-afe5-3c51adec2a5e
- date added to LUP
- 2021-06-09 12:54:36
- date last changed
- 2022-02-01 22:17:08
@article{0bf5c770-1af2-428c-afe5-3c51adec2a5e,
abstract = {{<p>This article discusses a key methodological difficulty in conducting qualitative research close to home: the issue of overthinking. Whereas MALINOWSKI's concern regarding imponderabilia, i.e., the risk of not thinking about the subtle phenomena of everyday life, has long haunted ethnographers and qualitative researchers, not least those working "at home," we highlight an issue of overponderabilia, i.e., the risk of overthinking seemingly familiar statements and practices of the people studied. How do we, as qualitative researchers, study very well-known phenomena such as science, bureaucracy, management etc. without reading our own ideas and understandings into the deceptively familiar concepts and accounts of our research subjects? Pondering this issue is inevitably a central concern for the increasing number of qualitative researchers who study people who apparently talk, think and work in a way which is similar to their own. While previous answers or solutions to this issue first and foremost emphasize various means of reflexivity, this article presents the method of "mutual participatory observation" as a particular way of overcoming overthinking: a method which in situ invites our research subjects into our thinking. Thus, in the pursuit of an ever enhanced understanding, qualitative research becomes not so much a reflexive deciphering as an active debate; that is, a mutual induction of the differences between the qualitative researcher and the research subjects.</p>}},
author = {{Vangkilde, Kasper Tang and Sausdal, David Brehm}},
issn = {{1438-5627}},
keywords = {{Ethnography as debate; Imponderabilia; Mutual induction; Mutual participatory observation; Overponderabilia; Qualitative research at home; Reflexivity}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{2}},
publisher = {{The Institute for Qualitative Research and the Center for Digital Systems, Freie Universität Berlin}},
series = {{Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung}},
title = {{Overponderabilia : Overcoming overthinking when studying “ourselves”}},
volume = {{17}},
year = {{2016}},
}