The “Near Miss”: A Story of Relationship

Abstract

Doing good qualitative research requires engaging with the ethical and epistemological challenges of deliberately entering into relationships with people to learn about them. The authors draw on an event in their personal lives for insight into research relationships, hoping to deepen their understanding of how these relationships feel and work from research participants’ perspectives. The authors present their experience in two linked vignettes to explore ways research participants might experience research about their experiences of loss, pain, shame, and social stigma and to address ways researchers can begin to understand how it feels to be the “written about” in research projects about such topics. They frame their discussion around three areas that arise from the vignettes: the increased risk to research participants when they like and trust researchers who misunderstand their experiences, the personal costs of disclosure, and the need for flexible research plans that can adapt to the interpersonal demands of intimate research relationships.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alcoff, L. , & Gray, L. (1993). Survivor discourse: Transgression or recuperation. Signs, 18(2), 260-290.

Bloom, L. R. (1998). Under the sign of hope: Feminist methodology and narrative interpretation. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Duneier, M. (1999). Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Fine, M. , Weis, L. , Weseen, S. , & Wong, L. (2000). For whom? Qualitative research, rep-resentations, and social responsibilities. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 107-132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Frisby, W. , Crawford, S. , & Dorer, T. (1997). Reflections on participatory action research: The case of low-income women accessing local physical activity services. Journal of Sport Management, 11, 8-28.

Greenwood, D. , & Levin, M. (2000). Reconstructing the relationships between universities and society through action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 85-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudeman, S. , & Rivera, A. (1995). From car to house (del coche a la casa). American Anthropologist, 97, 242-250.

Haig-Brown, C. , & Archibald, J. (1996). Transforming first nations research with respect and power. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 245-268.

Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

10.

Hasan, H. (1999). Afterword. In M. Duneier, Sidewalk (pp. 319-330). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

11.

Klein, B. (1997). Slow dance: A story of stroke, love and disability. Toronto, Canada: Knopf.

12.

Maguire, P. (1993). Challenges, contradictions, and celebrations: Attempting participatory research as a doctoral student. In P. Park , M. Brydon-Miller , B. Hall , T. Jackson (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada (pp. 157-176). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

13.

Martin, J. R. (1994). Methodological essentialism, false difference, and other dangerous traps. Signs, 19, 630-657.

14.

Martin, J. R. (1996). Aerial distance, esotericism, and other closely related traps. Signs, 21, 584-614.

15.

Mercier, L. , & Murphy, M. (1991). Confronting the demons of feminist public history: Scholarly collaboration and community outreach. In S. B. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women’s words: The feminist practice of oral history (pp. 175-188). London: Routledge.

16.

Narayan, K. (1993). How native is a “native” anthropologist. American Anthropologist, 95(3), 671-686.

17.

Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30-61). New York: Routledge Kegan Paul.

18.

Olesen, V. (2000). Feminisms and qualitative research at and into the millennium. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 215-256). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Reid, C. (2000). Seduction and enlightenment in feminist action research. Resources for Feminist Research, 28(1/2), 169-188.

20.

Rosaldo, R. (1988). Where objectivity lies: The rhetoric of anthropology. In J. S. Nelson (Ed.), The rhetoric of the human sciences: Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

21.

Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed.

22.

Stacey, J. (1991). Can there be a feminist ethnography? In S. B. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women’s words: The feminist practice of oral history (pp. 111-120). London: Routledge.

23.

Tierney, W. G. (2000). Undaunted courage: Life history and the postmodern challenge. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 537-554). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Tom, A. (1996). Building collaborative research: Living the commitment to emergent design. Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(3), 347-359.

25.

Tom, A. (1997). The deliberate relationship: A frame for talking about faculty-student relationships. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 43(1), 3-21.

26.

Wendell, S. (1996). The rejected body: Feminist philosophical reflections on disability. New York: Routledge.

27.

Wolf, D. (1996). Situating feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. In D. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork (pp. 1-55). Boulder, CO: Westview.