Capdevila, Rose and Lazard, Lisa
PDF (Version of Record)
- Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
|Google Scholar:||Look up in Google Scholar|
In this paper Q as a constructionist methodology is considered through its engagement with marginality. Drawing primarily on debates within and examples from the discipline of psychology, we aim to illustrate ways in which issues of marginality become relevant to constructionist concerns around knowledge production. A key focus of constructionism(s) is on multiple versions of social phenomena in situated and local contexts. This position represents a move away from, and a challenge to, totalising forms of knowledge associated with more objectivist epistemologies. Broadly speaking, Q’s ability to tap into a range of perspectives or, what we will refer to here as, narratives – marginal or otherwise – provides a way to explicate constructionist concerns with multiplicity and unsettle mainstream notions of coherent and total knowledges of the social world. To contextualise the ways in which Q works with notions of marginality, this paper begins by delineating how Q itself is (re)produced as an othered methodology in debates around its location within the quantitative ‐qualitative dichotomy. We move on to consider the ways in which Q may offer a distinctive contribution within constructionist‐informed research through its ability to make expressions of marginality manifest.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Copyright Holders:||2009 The International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity|
|Extra Information:||ISSSS permits readers to make a single copy of this article for personal research or teaching use.|
|Academic Unit/Department:||Social Sciences > Psychology in the Social Sciences
|Interdisciplinary Research Centre:||Centre for Citizenship, Identities and Governance (CCIG)|
|Depositing User:||Rose Capdevila|
|Date Deposited:||18 Jan 2011 11:23|
|Last Modified:||24 Feb 2016 22:30|
|Share this page:|
Download history for this item
These details should be considered as only a guide to the number of downloads performed manually. Algorithmic methods have been applied in an attempt to remove automated downloads from the displayed statistics but no guarantee can be made as to the accuracy of the figures.