Hvad handler kvalitativ psykologi om? Henimod en deltagerpsykologi

I artiklen spørger jeg, hvad kvalitativ psykologi handler om. Jeg tager udgangspunkt i en tese om, at en psykologisk videnskab må have et normativt udgangspunkt, idet dens genstand er normativt bestemt. Psykologien studerer nemlig ikke blot, hvad der sker i verden, men hvordan levende mennesker agerer og retter sig intentionelt mod verden gennem deres tanker, handlinger og følelser, hvilket kun kan forstås, hvis man erkender, at disse fænomener er normativt konstitueret. Jeg vil hævde, at det, der nu kaldes kvalitativ psykologi, har de bedste forudsætninger for at begribe psykologiens normativitet og intentionalitet. Jeg vil argumentere for, at distinktionen mellem kvalitative og kvantitative metoder er mindre fundamental end en distinktion mellem en deltager- og tilskuerpsykologi, som anden del af artiklen udfolder

Qualitative research between craftsmanship and McDonaldization. A keynote address from the 17th Qualitative Health Research Conference

Although qualitative research methods remain marginalized in certain disciplines, qualitative inquiry has within the last couple of decades become generally accepted as a legitimate scientific way of working. Today, society at large is making more use of qualitative research than ever, not just in laudable social justice research, for example, but also in relation to market and consumer research and focus groups for different political parties. With this in mind, I wish to discuss three current questions for qualitative researchers: The first I will refer to as “ethical progressivism versus new ethical challenges”. Is qualitative research as such more ethical and progressive than quantitative research (as some have argued), or do qualitative researchers on the contrary face more elusive and perhaps difficult ethical challenges? The second question is called “solid evidence versus subjective anecdotes”. How should qualitative researchers respond to the current call for evidence? Should they seek legitimacy by accepting the dominant politics of evidence, or should they play by their own rules with the risk of increasing marginalization? The third question is “method versus intuition”. Should qualitative researchers strive for maximum transparency by following accepted methods, or should they proceed more intuitively like artists to create their stories? Both sides of the questions have their influential advocates today. I will argue that all three questions are handled most fruitfully by conceiving of qualitative research as a craft

Persons and Their Minds

Today’s approaches to the study of the human mind are divided into seemingly opposed camps. On one side we find the neurosciences, with their more or less reductionist research programs, and on the other side we find the cultural and discursive approaches, with their frequent neglect of the material sides of human life. Persons and their Minds seeks to develop an integrative theory of the mind with room for both brain and culture. Brinkmann’s remarkable and thought-provoking work is one of the first books to integrate brain research with phenomenology, social practice studies and actor-network theory, all of which are held together by the concept of the person

Qualitative research between craftsmanship and McDonaldization. A keynote address from the 17th Qualitative Health Research Conference

Although qualitative research methods remain marginalized in certain disciplines, qualitative inquiry has within the last couple of decades become generally accepted as a legitimate scientific way of working. Today, society at large is making more use of qualitative research than ever, not just in laudable social justice research, for example, but also in relation to market and consumer research and focus groups for different political parties. With this in mind, I wish to discuss three current questions for qualitative researchers: The first I will refer to as “ethical progressivism versus new ethical challenges”. Is qualitative research as such more ethical and progressive than quantitative research (as some have argued), or do qualitative researchers on the contrary face more elusive and perhaps difficult ethical challenges? The second question is called “solid evidence versus subjective anecdotes”. How should qualitative researchers respond to the current call for evidence? Should they seek legitimacy by accepting the dominant politics of evidence, or should they play by their own rules with the risk of increasing marginalization? The third question is “method versus intuition”. Should qualitative researchers strive for maximum transparency by following accepted methods, or should they proceed more intuitively like artists to create their stories? Both sides of the questions have their influential advocates today. I will argue that all three questions are handled most fruitfully by conceiving of qualitative research as a craft

Persons and Their Minds

Today’s approaches to the study of the human mind are divided into seemingly opposed camps. On one side we find the neurosciences, with their more or less reductionist research programs, and on the other side we find the cultural and discursive approaches, with their frequent neglect of the material sides of human life. Persons and their Minds seeks to develop an integrative theory of the mind with room for both brain and culture. Brinkmann’s remarkable and thought-provoking work is one of the first books to integrate brain research with phenomenology, social practice studies and actor-network theory, all of which are held together by the concept of the person

Editorial

This is the first issue of a new journal, entitled Qualitative Studies. We hope that this new journal will become a central forum for discussions of qualitative research in psychology, education, communication, cultural studies, health sciences and social sciences in general. Qualitative Studies is peer-reviewed and publishes papers in English and the Scandinavian languages in any of these areas. We are interested in papers that discuss qualitative methods, their promises, problems and philosophies, and also papers that apply such methods in concrete qualitative studies. We aim to publish two issues a year, but since Qualitative Studies is an open access and web-based journal, we can allow ourselves some flexibility in this regard, and for example choose to publish additional special issues, if such options arise. Qualitative Studies is associated with the Center for Qualitative Studies at Aalborg University in Denmark (www.cqs.aau.dk). But we hope that potential authors from other universities in Denmark and the rest of the world will take an interest in Qualitative Studies as an outlet for their work. In preparing this first issue, we have received a fair amount of manuscripts, many of which are still under review, but in order to show that Qualitative Studies is alive as a journal, we have chosen to publish this first issue with four articles, two of which are in English and two of which are in Danish. Together, these articles show the scope of themes and approaches that we hope will flourish in Qualitative Studies. Abbey and Zittoun offer a semiotic analysis of interview processes, Kristensen analyses power dynamics as reflected in people’s everyday lives, in casu modern traffic, Klausen reports a study of parkour, an art of urban movement, and Frimann & Jantzen present a cultural-poetic analysis of a short interaction sequence at a gas station. All articles integrate theory and empirical material in fruitful, albeit very different, ways. We hope that this will inspire future contributors to Qualitative Studies. As a journal its mission is on the one hand to discuss qualitative methods, but equally important to be a forum for the publication of qualitative studies that contribute to our knowledge about the human, social and cultural world. We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers, whose generous comments have helped improve the quality of the manuscripts and also our editorial board. We look forward to seeing how Qualitative Studies will develop! The Editors, Svend Brinkmann, email: [email protected] Lene Tanggaard, email: [email protected]