Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Social Sciences Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Haunting and the knowing and showing of qualitative research|
representations of research
|Citation:||Wilson S (2018) Haunting and the knowing and showing of qualitative research. Sociological Review, 66 (6), pp. 1209-1225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118769843|
|Abstract:||This article focuses on the representation of qualitative sociological research to academic and non-academic audiences. It argues that a broader, ethically informed consideration of the communication of findings is required, rather than the current, audit-shaped approach, to do justice to complex (affective) data and to research participants. An important catalyst for this article is the concern that the current predominance of peer-reviewed articles may contribute, however unintentionally, to the maintenance of stigmatizing social imaginaries of groups including marginalized young people. This article draws on interdisciplinary sources to extend Avery Gordon’s work on haunting to the representation of research. It contends that research ‘outputs’ can ‘haunt’, or stay with and produce empathy in their audience, by communicating the ‘seething absences’ that trace the everyday effects of power affectively and by highlighting the ‘complex personhood’ of those affected. The possibilities of such an approach are illustrated through consideration of textual and visual representations of findings from a project that explored understandings of ‘belonging’ among young people in state care, and particularly a short film, co-produced with, and featuring, a participant. While ‘representation’ is employed here primarily in an everyday sense, this article discusses ‘non’ or ‘more than’ representational approaches, while advocating a strategic negotiation with representation in relation to social justice.|
|Rights:||Sarah Wilson, Haunting and the knowing and showing of qualitative research, Sociological Review (Volume 66, Issue 6), pp. 1209-1225. Copyright © The Author 2018. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.|
Files in This Item:
|SociologicalReviewPaperFeb52018.pdf||Fulltext - Accepted Version||396.56 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.