Just to get things started, I thought I would copy some thoughts here that I wrote today for someone:
I just got back from a conference in the wonderful city of Montreal. I stayed in an inexpensive little hotel in the Latin Quarter. Despite the fact that it was near the central bus station (bus station = unique "diversity") and there was a pimp and his "girls" chillin' in front of the hotel next door, it was clean and quiet hotel (except for when the fire alarm went off at 1am).
The National Network for Aboriginal Mental Health Research meeting was a good opportunity to make some connections and get acquainted with current research directions. The discussions were good and I was impressed that there were several Native physicians and social workers in attendance, as, unfortunately, this area of study is dominated by white colonialists.
A note regarding conferences and meetings:
I find it fascinating and sometimes very valuable when individuals feel moved enough to share very personal information during conference presentations and discussions. Personal sharing happens quite often during counseling or psychological meetings, as the numerous individuals that enter these helping professions often have similar issues, experience with a particular illness, or are searching for answers. At times, sharing personal information during a meeting can add a human dimension to a complex issue, but often, personal narratives are used as a poor attempt to validate one's research.
The past meeting I attended was relaxed enough that a few individuals felt compelled to share their life horror stories in an effort to ground their experiences within a particular presentation topic. This open sharing briefly caught me off guard, as I've been used some of the "hard science" approaches that I've worked with (had to) in the past few years.
Unfortunately, it appears that some individuals are so emotionally connected to their research that it is difficult for them to separate the research from their subjective experiences. This "entrenchment" within one's own research can have some positive effects, but I believe that there are more serious confounding issues that limit one's ability to seriously examine their research from more than one perspective. For example, I discussed a book concerning American Indian post-colonial psychology and intergenerational trauma with an individual that had previously shared his trauma story during a post presentation discussion. He raved about the book and I commented on the various positive aspects of it. But, when I attempted to highlight the author's tendency to over pathologize Native people I was abruptly dismissed, as my critique hit too close to his own traumatized and fragmented life experience.
Perhaps, as I have remarked in other contexts, it is beneficial for ethnographers engaging in sensitive work, congruent with one's feelings or life experience, to receive close supervision or psychotherapy while the work is being conducted. Similar supervision is a requirement for new counselors and psychologists, due to the phenomenon of counter-transference.
Personal experience can provide a unique dimension to ones research, but also can destroy one's ability to conceptualize research objectively. "Over-Reflexivity" can be a troublesome thing.
I just got back from a conference in the wonderful city of Montreal. I stayed in an inexpensive little hotel in the Latin Quarter. Despite the fact that it was near the central bus station (bus station = unique "diversity") and there was a pimp and his "girls" chillin' in front of the hotel next door, it was clean and quiet hotel (except for when the fire alarm went off at 1am).
The National Network for Aboriginal Mental Health Research meeting was a good opportunity to make some connections and get acquainted with current research directions. The discussions were good and I was impressed that there were several Native physicians and social workers in attendance, as, unfortunately, this area of study is dominated by white colonialists.
A note regarding conferences and meetings:
I find it fascinating and sometimes very valuable when individuals feel moved enough to share very personal information during conference presentations and discussions. Personal sharing happens quite often during counseling or psychological meetings, as the numerous individuals that enter these helping professions often have similar issues, experience with a particular illness, or are searching for answers. At times, sharing personal information during a meeting can add a human dimension to a complex issue, but often, personal narratives are used as a poor attempt to validate one's research.
The past meeting I attended was relaxed enough that a few individuals felt compelled to share their life horror stories in an effort to ground their experiences within a particular presentation topic. This open sharing briefly caught me off guard, as I've been used some of the "hard science" approaches that I've worked with (had to) in the past few years.
Unfortunately, it appears that some individuals are so emotionally connected to their research that it is difficult for them to separate the research from their subjective experiences. This "entrenchment" within one's own research can have some positive effects, but I believe that there are more serious confounding issues that limit one's ability to seriously examine their research from more than one perspective. For example, I discussed a book concerning American Indian post-colonial psychology and intergenerational trauma with an individual that had previously shared his trauma story during a post presentation discussion. He raved about the book and I commented on the various positive aspects of it. But, when I attempted to highlight the author's tendency to over pathologize Native people I was abruptly dismissed, as my critique hit too close to his own traumatized and fragmented life experience.
Perhaps, as I have remarked in other contexts, it is beneficial for ethnographers engaging in sensitive work, congruent with one's feelings or life experience, to receive close supervision or psychotherapy while the work is being conducted. Similar supervision is a requirement for new counselors and psychologists, due to the phenomenon of counter-transference.
Personal experience can provide a unique dimension to ones research, but also can destroy one's ability to conceptualize research objectively. "Over-Reflexivity" can be a troublesome thing.
felicia_____:
Hello 