In this manuscript, we develop the concept of recognition as a methodological concept, with a particular focus on its inter-subjective dimensions. Departing from the way recognition is used in much contemporary social theory and socio-political discourse, we suggest that recognition is a foundational methodological concept, related to but transcending methodological discussions of reflexivity, and with implications for meaning and validity. We ground our discussion in empirical examples that help illustrate the principles of recognition (and of misrecognition), and how researchers can attend to these principles in their own work.
BenjaminJ. (2018). Beyond doer and done to: Recognition theory, intersubjectivity and the third. Routledge.
4.
BrandomR. (2019). A spirit of trust: A semantic reading of Hegel’s phenomenology. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
5.
browna.m. (2019). Pleasure activism: The politics of feeling good (emergent strategy, 1). AK Press.
6.
browna.m. (2020). AK Press. We will not cancel us: And other dreams of transformative justice (Emergent Strategy Series, 3). AK Press.
7.
BuberM. (1958). I and thou. SmithR. G. (trans.). Scribner Classics.
8.
Call-CummingsM.DennisB.MartinezS. (2019). The role of researcher in participatory inquiry: Modeling intra-active reflexivity in conversational reflections. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 19(1), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708617750677
9.
CarspeckenP. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. Routledge.
10.
CarspeckenP. F. (1999). Four scenes for posing the question of meaning and other essays in critical philosophy and critical methodology. Peter Lang Inc.
11.
CarspeckenP. F. (2018). The missing infinite; a critique of mainstream and counter-mainstream methodological discourses. In Winkle-WagnerR.Lee-JohnsonJ.GaskewA. N. (Eds.), Critical theory and qualitative data analysis in education. Routledge.
12.
Combahee River Collective (1977/2001). Combahee River collective statement. In RitchieJ.RonaldK. (Eds.). Available means: An anthology of women’s rhetoric(s). (pp. 292–300). University of Pittsburgh Press.
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). Sage.
14.
FinlayL. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205
HardingS. (1995). “Strong objectivity”: A response to the new objectivity question. Synthese, 104(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01064504
27.
HegelG. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit. (Trans. MillerA. V.). Oxford University Press.
28.
HonnethA. (1996). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. MIT Press.
29.
HonnethA. (2014). The I in we: Studies in the theory of recognition. John Wiley & Sons.
30.
JansenJ. D. (2009). Knowledge in the blood: Confronting race and the apartheid past. Stanford University Press.
31.
KincheloeJ. L.McLarenP. L. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 138–157). Sage.
32.
LiP.BanksT. (2020). Understanding and theorizing the pursuit of intersubjective recognition. Awry: Journal of Critical Psychology, 1, 51–69.
33.
LiP.RossK. (2021). Validity of transformative experiences: An unfolding. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(3–4), 385–396.
34.
Limes-Taylor HendersonK.EspositoJ. (2019). Using others in the nicest way possible: On colonial and academic practice (s), and an ethic of humility. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(9-10), 876–889. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417743528
35.
LincolnY. S.LynhamS. A.GubaE. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 163–188). Sage.
36.
MarkmanH. (2021). Creative engagement in psychoanalytic practice. Routledge.
37.
Mason-BishH. (2018). The elite delusion: Reflexivity, identity and positionality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 19(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118770078
38.
MauthnerN. S.DoucetA. (2003). Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis. Sociology, 37(3), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385030373002
39.
MayT.PerryB. (2017). Reflexivity: The essential guide. Sage.
40.
PillowW. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635
41.
RossK.LiP.Call-CummingsM. (2023). Solidarity as methodological praxis. Qualitative Research, 23(5), 1181–1202.
42.
Saville YoungL. (2011). Research entanglements, race, and recognizability: A psychosocial reading of interview encounters in (post-) colonial, (post-) apartheid South Africa. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410389443
43.
SmithE. B.LukeM. M. (2021). A call for radical reflexivity in counseling qualitative research. Counselor Education and Supervision, 60(2), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12201
44.
TaylorC. (1994). The politics of recognition. In GutmannA. (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 98–131). Princeton University Press.
