Affiliation:
1. University of South Carolina, USA
2. Indiana University, USA
Abstract
In this article, we consider the everyday practices and methodological and theoretical tensions of interdisciplinary, qualitative work. In particular, we discuss the varied interpretations of focus group data from Burundian men and women with refugee status and explore the consequences of representations that result in deficit-based understandings. We highlight how through our research process we learned that following participants, rather than leading with our disciplines, deepened our understanding and complicated our representations.
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献