(Non)corporeality in Online Studies – Reflections of Researchers on Conducting Online Focus Interviews
Abstract
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The aim of the article is to consider the presence and significance of the body in designing and conducting remote (online) ethnographic (field research) studies.
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: The research problem refers to answering the following question: What is the significance of corporeality in conducting remote (online) studies? In attempting to answer the research question we made use of autoethnography, treating it as method and research strategy.
THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: Inspired by the conclusions drawn by Anna Kacperczyk regarding ways of defining corporeality in ethnographic studies, the authors intend to present their reflections regarding their own research conducted in virtual space in 2021. These considerations refer to studies on academic education during the pandemic.
RESEARCH RESULTS: Reflections on corporeality in ethnographic studies allowed us to frame our experiences in three dimensions (perspectives): the body as a source of individual corpore- al experiences, the body (corporeality) of the researcher and of the respondent during an ethno- graphic study and the body as a topic of individual self-reflection and as a subject for theorizing.
CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (Non)corporeality turned out to be ambiguous, thus we decided to treat it in a multidimensional manner, considering corporeality as a value regardless of the circumstances of the study (in-person vs online). The significance and role of the body in ethnographic studies conducted remotely (online) are equally important to those in studies conducted in-person (traditionally). In remote studies corporeality is restricted to some extent for both researcher and respondent, however, focusing on other sensory impressions (e.g. auditory) allows us to experience another dimension of corporeality.
References
Adams, T.E., Jones S.H., & Ellis C. (2014). Autoethnography: Understanding qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
Barbour, R. (2011). Badania fokusowe (B. Komorowska, Trans.). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Biernacka, A., Rorot, W., & Statkiewicz, R. (2019). Skąd ciało wiedziało? Czyli o badaniach nad ucieleśnieniem słów kilka. AVANT, 10(3), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.26913/avant.2019.03.26
Blumer, H. (2009). Interakcjonizm symboliczny (G. Woroniecka, Trans.). Zakład Wydawniczy Nomos.
Caplan, C. (1964). Principles of preventive psychiatry. Basic Books.
Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. MIT Press.
Csordas, T.J. (1994). Embodiment and experience: The existential ground of culture and self. Cambridge University Press.
Csordas, T.J. (2002). Embodiment as a paradigm for anthropology. In T.J. Csordas (Ed.), Body/meaning/healing: Contemporary anthropology of religion (pp. 58-87). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-08286-2_3
Ellis, C. (1995). Final negotiations: A story of love and chronic illness. Temple University Press.
Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. AltaMira Press.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A.P. (2006). Analyzing analytical autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 429-449.
Fine, G.A., & Hancock, B.H. (2016). The new ethnographer at work. Qualitative Research, 17(2), 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116656725
Gibson, J.J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Erlbaum.
Hałas, E. (2012). Interakcjonizm symboliczny. Społeczny kontekst znaczeń. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Hanna, R., & Thompson, E. (2012). Problem umysł-ciało-ciało (P. Nowakowski, Trans). AVANT, 3(T), 14-37.
Harris, A. (2016, August 30). Embodiment. Oxford Bibliographies. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0151
Husserl, E. (1975). Idee czystej fenomenologii i fenomenologicznej filozofii. Ks. 1 (D. Gierulanka, Trans.). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Jakubowska, H. (2012). Ciało jako przedmiot badań socjologicznych – dylematy, pominięcia, możliwości. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, 8(2), 12-31. https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8069.8.2.02
Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice. Routledge Falmer.
Kacperczyk, A. (2012). Badacz i jego ciało w procesie zbierania i analizowania danych – na przykładzie badań nad społecznym światem wspinaczki. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, 8(2), 32-63. https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8069.8.2.03
Kacperczyk, A. (2014). Autoetnografia – technika, metoda, nowy paradygmat? O metodologicznym statusie autoetnografii. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, 10(3), 33-74. https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8069.10.3.03
Kacperczyk, A. (2016). Społeczne światy – teoria – empiria – metody badań. Na przykładzie społecznego świata wspinaczki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1988). Metafory w naszym życiu (T.P. Krzeszowski, Trans.). Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning legitimate peripherial participation. Cambridge University Press.
Lisek-Michalska, J. (2013). Badania fokusowe. Problemy metodologiczne i etyczne. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2017). Fenomenologia percepcji (M. Kowalska & J. Migasiński, Trans.). Fundacja Aletheia.
Merton, R.E., Fiske, M. & Kendall, P. (1990). The focused interview: A manual of problems and procedures. The Free Press.
Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. SAGE Publications.
Walczak, A. (2021). Ciało i cielesność – ku doświadcze(a)niu egzystencjalnemu. Humaniora. Czasopismo Internetowe, 3(35), 13-29. https://doi.org/10.14746/h.2021.3.1
Walczak-Człapińska, K. & Dobińska, G. (2020). Metodologiczno‑etyczne aspekty prowadzenia badań fokusowych z udziałem przedstawicieli instytucjonalnego systemu wsparcia dla rodzin z problemem alkoholowym. In D. Müller-Siekierska, J. Ratkowska-Pasikowska & K. Walczak-Człapińska (Eds.), Rodzina w systemie wsparcia i pomocy osobom z problemem alkoholowym(pp. 165-177). Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/8142-800-2.12
Walczak-Człapińska, K., Dobińska, G. & Okólska, K. (2021a). Indywidualne i wspólnotowe uczenie się nauczycieli akademickich w czasie pandemii COVID-19. Studia z Teorii Wychowania,12(3)36, 155‑168. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.4830
Walczak-Człapińska, K., Dobińska, G. & Okólska, K. (2021b). Kształcenie akademickie online. Perspektywa uczestników. In B. Pituła & J. Konieczny (Eds.), Zdalna edukacja – epizod czy trwały ślad? (pp. 91-100). Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek.
Walczak-Człapińska, K., Dobińska, G. & Okólska, K. (2021c). The process of positive adaptation to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lubelski Rocznik Pedagogiczny, 41(2), 55-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/lrp.2022.41.2.55-71
Copyright (c) 2023 HORIZONS OF EDUCATION
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND licence that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are asked to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access). We advise to use any of the following reserach society portals:
