Overponderabilia: Overcoming Overthinking When Studying "Ourselves"

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Overponderabilia: Overcoming Overthinking When Studying "Ourselves". / Vangkilde, Kasper Tang; Sausdal, David.

In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, Vol. 17, No. 2, 28, 2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Vangkilde, KT & Sausdal, D 2016, 'Overponderabilia: Overcoming Overthinking When Studying "Ourselves"', Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, vol. 17, no. 2, 28. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-17.2.2497

APA

Vangkilde, K. T., & Sausdal, D. (2016). Overponderabilia: Overcoming Overthinking When Studying "Ourselves". Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 17(2), [28]. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-17.2.2497

Vancouver

Vangkilde KT, Sausdal D. Overponderabilia: Overcoming Overthinking When Studying "Ourselves". Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung. 2016;17(2). 28. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-17.2.2497

Author

Vangkilde, Kasper Tang ; Sausdal, David. / Overponderabilia: Overcoming Overthinking When Studying "Ourselves". In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung. 2016 ; Vol. 17, No. 2.

Bibtex

@article{043909269bc544438a1bd53c90d0b956,
title = "Overponderabilia: Overcoming Overthinking When Studying {"}Ourselves{"}",
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? 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.",
author = "Vangkilde, {Kasper Tang} and David Sausdal",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.17169/fqs-17.2.2497",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
journal = "Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung",
issn = "1438-5627",
publisher = "Freie Universitaet Berlin * Institut fuer Qualitative Forschung",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Overponderabilia: Overcoming Overthinking When Studying "Ourselves"

AU - Vangkilde, Kasper Tang

AU - Sausdal, David

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.17169/fqs-17.2.2497

DO - 10.17169/fqs-17.2.2497

M3 - Journal article

VL - 17

JO - Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung

JF - Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung

SN - 1438-5627

IS - 2

M1 - 28

ER -

ID: 243026281