Writing about the Other arouses questions of representation, and specifically the risk of Othering, that is, the risk of portraying the other essentially different, and translating this difference to inferiority. In this article the authors discuss the textual mechanisms that create Othering and suggest three modes of writing that have the potential to resist Othering: (1) narrative, which enables the retrieval of subjectivity; (2) dialog, which reveals the personal history of the research participant and her interpretation regarding it; and (3) reflexivity, which transforms the text by adding the author’s own feelings, experiences, and history as a vehicle to understand the research participant. The article presents the importance of resisting Othering in academic writing, exemplifies the three modes, and discusses their potential contribution.
ArmsteadC. (1995). Writing contradictions: Feminist research and feminist writing. Women’s Studies International Forum, 18(5-6), 627-636.
2.
BeharR. (1996). The vulnerable observer: Anthropology that breaks your heart. Boston, MA: Beacon.
3.
BeresfordP. (2000) Service users’ knowledges and social work theory: Conflict or collaboration?British Journal of Social Work, 30(4), 489-503.
4.
BeresfordP.WilsonA. (1998). Social exclusion and social work: Challenging the contradictions of exclusive debate. In BarryM.HallettC. (Eds.), Social exclusion and social work: Issues of theory, policy and practice (pp. 85-96). Dorset, UK: Russell House Publishing.
5.
BoreusK. (2006). Discursive discrimination: A typology. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(3), 405-424.
6.
BrunerJ. (1987). Life as narrative. Social Research, 54(1), 12-32.
7.
CharmazK. (2007). What’s good writing in feminist research? What can feminist researchers learn about good writing. In Hesse-BiberS. N. (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 443-458). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
ClandininD. J.ConnellyF. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
9.
de BeauvoirS. (1949). The second sex. New York, NY: Penguin.
10.
DenzinN. K. (2008). Emancipatory discourses and the ethics and politics of interpretation. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative methods (pp. 435-472). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
11.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2008). Introduction: Critical methodologies and indigenous inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S.SmithL. T. (Eds.), Critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 1-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
12.
EssedP. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. London: SAGE.
13.
FineM. (1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and Other in qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 70-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
FineM.TuckE.Zeller-BerkmanS. (2008). Do you believe in Geneva? Methods and ethics at the global-local nexus. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S.SmithL. T. (Eds.), Critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 157-180). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
GemignaniM. (2011). Between researcher and researched: An introduction to countertransference in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(8), 701-708.
16.
HallS. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: SAGE.
Keifer-BoydK. (in press). Feminist methodologies. In MiragliaK. M.SmilanC. (Eds.), Inquiry in action: Paradigms, methodologies and perspectives in art education research. Reston, VA: NAEA.
19.
KristevaJ. (1991). Strangers to ourselves. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
20.
Krumer-NevoM. (2002). The arena of Othering: A narrative study with women living in poverty and social marginality. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 303-318.
21.
Krumer-NevoM. (2006). Women in poverty: Gender, pain, resistance. Tel-Aviv, Israel: Hakibuth Hameucahd.
22.
Krumer-NevoM. (2009). From voice to knowledge: Feminism and participatory action research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(3), 279-296.
23.
Krumer-NevoM.BenjaminO. (2010). Critical poverty knowledge: Contesting Othering and social distancing. Current Sociology, 58(5), 693-714.
LevinasE. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority (A. Lingis, Trans.). Pittsburg, PA: Duquesne University Press.
26.
ListerR. (2004). Poverty. Oxford, UK: Polity.
27.
MacbethD. (2001). On “reflexivity” in qualitative research: Two readings, and a third. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 35-68.
28.
McAdamsD. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York, NY: William Morrow.
29.
O’BarrW. (1994). Culture and the ad: Exploring otherness in the world of advertising. Boulder, CO: Westview.
30.
PerpichD. (2008). The ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
31.
PickeringM. (2001) Stereotyping: The politics of representation. New York, NY: Palgrave.
32.
PillowW. S. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175-196.
33.
PolkinghorneD. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. New York: SUNY Press.
34.
RainwaterL. (1970). Neutralizing the disinherited: Some psychological aspects of understanding the poor. In AllenL. V. (Ed.), Psychological factors in poverty (pp. 9-28). New York, NY: Academic Press.
35.
RichardsonL. (1990). Writing strategies: Researching diverse audiences. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
RichardsonL. (2007). Reading for another: A method for addressing some feminist research dilemmas. In Hesse-BiberS. N. (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 459-468). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
RigginsS. H. (1997). The rhetoric of Othering. In RigginsS. H. (Ed.), The language and politics of exclusion: Others in discourse (pp. 1-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
39.
RortyR. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
SaidE. W. (1995). Orientalism. New York, NY: Vintage.
SchwalbeM.GodwinS.HoldenD.SchrockD.ThompsonS.WolkomirM. (2000). Generic processes in the reproduction of inequality: An interactionist analysis. Social Forces, 79(2), 419-453.
43.
SidiM. (2009). The Women’s Court: A documentation and conceptualization of crucial social work practice with young women in Jaffa. MA thesis submitted to the Spitzer Department of Social Work, Ben-Gurion University of Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
44.
St. PierreE.PillowW. S. (2000). Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural research and practice in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
45.
TardieuB. (1999) Building a partnership with “Fourth World Families”: The severely poor as leaders. In Ben AriehA.ZionitY. (Eds.), Children in Israel on the threshold of the new millennium (pp.169-180). Jerusalem, Israel: National Children’s Welfare Council and Ashalim.
46.
TodorovT. (1984). The conquest of America: The question of the Other. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
47.
WaskaR. T. (1999). Projective identification, countertransference, and the struggle for understanding over acting out. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 8, 155-161.
