Critical discursive psychology and relational ethics: A n uneasy tension?

The debate over the ethicality of discourse analysis, particularly against the backdrop of relational ethics and the use of interview‐generated data, has recently intensified (see Hammersley, , ; Smith, ; Taylor, ). By way of extending this debate beyond the issue of what constitutes informed consen...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Social and personality psychology compass 2018-11, Vol.12 (11)
1. Verfasser: McMullen, Linda M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 11
container_start_page
container_title Social and personality psychology compass
container_volume 12
creator McMullen, Linda M.
description The debate over the ethicality of discourse analysis, particularly against the backdrop of relational ethics and the use of interview‐generated data, has recently intensified (see Hammersley, , ; Smith, ; Taylor, ). By way of extending this debate beyond the issue of what constitutes informed consent in discourse analytic research, I focus on the question of harm that might come to participants who provide data that are analysed through the lens of critical discursive psychology and who are subsequently privy to our analyses. Through the use of an actual example from my participation in a project on different ways of analysing qualitative data, I consider the ramifications of critical discursive analytic processes and goals for the ethical obligation to minimize harm to participants that might result from our analyses and for the practice of sharing qualitative analyses with participants. I conclude that choosing to reside in an uneasy tension that can exist between critical discursive psychology and relational ethics, particularly at the stages of writing, analysis, and dissemination of our work, raises questions that require further conversation.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/spc3.12420
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1111_spc3_12420</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1111_spc3_12420</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c760-3e5e3541a015e1988e4cc12b6f95ce04e3bf80c5110d03e58ccc524c4865deea3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkE9Lw0AUxBdRsFYvfoI9C6nvZXfTxIuU4p9CwUvvYfvyYldiEvalQr69qXpwLjMwwxx-St0iLHDSvfRkFpjaFM7UDJcOkwLAnv_Ll-pK5AMgy9MMZmqzjmEI5BtdBaFjlPDFupeRDl3TvY_at5WO3PghdO004uEQSB70Srf62LKXUQ_cylQ-XquL2jfCN38-V7vnp936Ndm-vWzWq21CywwSw46Ns-gBHWOR52yJMN1ndeGIwbLZ1zmQQ4QKpnFORC61ZPPMVczezNXd7y3FTiRyXfYxfPo4lgjliUF5YlD-MDDfJpdPqQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Critical discursive psychology and relational ethics: A n uneasy tension?</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><creator>McMullen, Linda M.</creator><creatorcontrib>McMullen, Linda M.</creatorcontrib><description>The debate over the ethicality of discourse analysis, particularly against the backdrop of relational ethics and the use of interview‐generated data, has recently intensified (see Hammersley, , ; Smith, ; Taylor, ). By way of extending this debate beyond the issue of what constitutes informed consent in discourse analytic research, I focus on the question of harm that might come to participants who provide data that are analysed through the lens of critical discursive psychology and who are subsequently privy to our analyses. Through the use of an actual example from my participation in a project on different ways of analysing qualitative data, I consider the ramifications of critical discursive analytic processes and goals for the ethical obligation to minimize harm to participants that might result from our analyses and for the practice of sharing qualitative analyses with participants. I conclude that choosing to reside in an uneasy tension that can exist between critical discursive psychology and relational ethics, particularly at the stages of writing, analysis, and dissemination of our work, raises questions that require further conversation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1751-9004</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1751-9004</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/spc3.12420</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>Social and personality psychology compass, 2018-11, Vol.12 (11)</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c760-3e5e3541a015e1988e4cc12b6f95ce04e3bf80c5110d03e58ccc524c4865deea3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c760-3e5e3541a015e1988e4cc12b6f95ce04e3bf80c5110d03e58ccc524c4865deea3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7948-4778</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>McMullen, Linda M.</creatorcontrib><title>Critical discursive psychology and relational ethics: A n uneasy tension?</title><title>Social and personality psychology compass</title><description>The debate over the ethicality of discourse analysis, particularly against the backdrop of relational ethics and the use of interview‐generated data, has recently intensified (see Hammersley, , ; Smith, ; Taylor, ). By way of extending this debate beyond the issue of what constitutes informed consent in discourse analytic research, I focus on the question of harm that might come to participants who provide data that are analysed through the lens of critical discursive psychology and who are subsequently privy to our analyses. Through the use of an actual example from my participation in a project on different ways of analysing qualitative data, I consider the ramifications of critical discursive analytic processes and goals for the ethical obligation to minimize harm to participants that might result from our analyses and for the practice of sharing qualitative analyses with participants. I conclude that choosing to reside in an uneasy tension that can exist between critical discursive psychology and relational ethics, particularly at the stages of writing, analysis, and dissemination of our work, raises questions that require further conversation.</description><issn>1751-9004</issn><issn>1751-9004</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpNkE9Lw0AUxBdRsFYvfoI9C6nvZXfTxIuU4p9CwUvvYfvyYldiEvalQr69qXpwLjMwwxx-St0iLHDSvfRkFpjaFM7UDJcOkwLAnv_Ll-pK5AMgy9MMZmqzjmEI5BtdBaFjlPDFupeRDl3TvY_at5WO3PghdO004uEQSB70Srf62LKXUQ_cylQ-XquL2jfCN38-V7vnp936Ndm-vWzWq21CywwSw46Ns-gBHWOR52yJMN1ndeGIwbLZ1zmQQ4QKpnFORC61ZPPMVczezNXd7y3FTiRyXfYxfPo4lgjliUF5YlD-MDDfJpdPqQ</recordid><startdate>201811</startdate><enddate>201811</enddate><creator>McMullen, Linda M.</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7948-4778</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201811</creationdate><title>Critical discursive psychology and relational ethics: A n uneasy tension?</title><author>McMullen, Linda M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c760-3e5e3541a015e1988e4cc12b6f95ce04e3bf80c5110d03e58ccc524c4865deea3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McMullen, Linda M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Social and personality psychology compass</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McMullen, Linda M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Critical discursive psychology and relational ethics: A n uneasy tension?</atitle><jtitle>Social and personality psychology compass</jtitle><date>2018-11</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>11</issue><issn>1751-9004</issn><eissn>1751-9004</eissn><abstract>The debate over the ethicality of discourse analysis, particularly against the backdrop of relational ethics and the use of interview‐generated data, has recently intensified (see Hammersley, , ; Smith, ; Taylor, ). By way of extending this debate beyond the issue of what constitutes informed consent in discourse analytic research, I focus on the question of harm that might come to participants who provide data that are analysed through the lens of critical discursive psychology and who are subsequently privy to our analyses. Through the use of an actual example from my participation in a project on different ways of analysing qualitative data, I consider the ramifications of critical discursive analytic processes and goals for the ethical obligation to minimize harm to participants that might result from our analyses and for the practice of sharing qualitative analyses with participants. I conclude that choosing to reside in an uneasy tension that can exist between critical discursive psychology and relational ethics, particularly at the stages of writing, analysis, and dissemination of our work, raises questions that require further conversation.</abstract><doi>10.1111/spc3.12420</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7948-4778</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1751-9004
ispartof Social and personality psychology compass, 2018-11, Vol.12 (11)
issn 1751-9004
1751-9004
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1111_spc3_12420
source Wiley Journals
title Critical discursive psychology and relational ethics: A n uneasy tension?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T02%3A48%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Critical%20discursive%20psychology%20and%20relational%20ethics:%20A%20n%20uneasy%20tension?&rft.jtitle=Social%20and%20personality%20psychology%20compass&rft.au=McMullen,%20Linda%20M.&rft.date=2018-11&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=11&rft.issn=1751-9004&rft.eissn=1751-9004&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/spc3.12420&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_1111_spc3_12420%3C/crossref%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true