Filtern
- soziale Probleme (1)
Wissenschaftssoziologie, Wissenschaftsforschung, Technikforschung, Techniksoziologie (2)
Zeitschriftenaufsatz (2)
Filtern
Anzeige der Dokumente 1-2 von 2
In diesem Beitrag befasse ich mich mit methodologischen Fragen, die für Minderheitenangehörige entstehen, wenn sie Forschung unter einer "Insider-Outsider"-Perspektive betreiben. Rückgreifend auf Beispiele aus meiner Feldforschung veranschauliche ich, in welcher Weise Klassen- und Genderzugehörigkeit den Forschungs- und Auswertungsprozess beeinflusst haben. Ziel der Studie war es, gemeinsam mit den Teilnehmenden Wissen darüber zu generieren, wie Ungleichheit gelebt wird und infrage gestellt werden kann. Zugang und Rapport wurden durch meine eigene Herkunft aus der Arbeiterklasse erleichtert. Zugleich verhalf mir meine "Outsider"-Positionierung als Forschende und Akademikerin zu einer nuancenreichen Gestaltung der Forschungsbeziehungen. Darüber hinaus wurden mein Frau- und Muttersein wesentlich für die gemeinsame Auswertungsarbeit, woraus zusätzliches Wissen über den Zusammenhang von Klassenzugehörigkeit und Fürsorge erwuchs. Indem ich meine eigenen Positionierungen ins Zentrum stelle, können wichtige Fragen zum persönlichen, beruflichen und politischen Kontinuum für qualitative Forschung und genauer für die kollaborative Wissensproduktion in der partizipativen und Handlungsforschung behandelt werden.
In this article, I examine some of the methodological issues present for minority scholars when conducting research with an "insider-outsider" researcher status. Utilising examples from my fieldwork, I will expose how social class, care and gender identity along with positioning have impact on the research process and analysis. Based on a study that sought to collaboratively produce knowledge about how inequality is lived and challenged, I was able to gain access and build rapport with participants with my insider working class background. With my outsider positioning as a "researcher" and "academic", I encountered more nuanced relations in the research process, showing how one can also be an insider-outsider simultaneously. My additional identity and positioning as a woman and mother became influential factors to the collaborative analysis of the findings, from which I gathered new knowledge about the intersection of class and care. In placing my identity and positioning, in terms of class, care and gender, at the centre of this discussion of methodology, I raise important questions on a personal, professional and political continuum for qualitative research and the production of collaborative knowledge and action within the field of participatory research.Spaces and places are at the center of the science studies scholarship. Some scholars focus on the spatial circulation of written traces; others focus on the socio-cultural hierarchies reflected in the spatial organization of the laboratories. But most privilege single-case studies as their research method. While single-case studies offer the advantage of providing rich and detailed ethnographic description of spaces, they often fail to explain how imaginary spaces of science are turned into concrete social settings, often with unexpected deviations from their creators’ initial purposes. This paper argues that a comparative approach, which I call “paired biographies,” can help us study the tensions between imaginary and real spaces of science. This method of paired biographies is applied here to trace the attempts (both failed and successful) by two prominent physicists (J.R. Oppenheimer and E.O. Lawrence) to turn their imaginary scientific spaces into concrete places. This comparative approach, based upon paired biographies of various laboratory lives taken at different points in time, highlights the tensions between imaginary spaces of science and concrete architectural forms (themselves located in broader environments), and shows which unexpected outcomes derive from these tensions.