PL EN


2019 | 10 | 2 | 126-132
Article title

Cooperative research– on collective fieldnotes, experience negotiation and common text

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Aim.  The aim is to depict specificy of fieldnotes  as a first result of research experience are standing between perception which obviously has to be personal (even if it's based on non-individual experience) and text which main feature is to be intersubjectively understandable. Method. The study is based on experience of conducting collaborative fieldwork and writing common fieldnotes. Paper itself is also an example of collaborative work - written together is an opportunity to share theoretical perspective on team research grounded in fieldwork experience in process. Resullt and Conclusions. Fieldnotes as a part of fieldwork process are first step of translation from subjective experience to objective knowledge. In the case of collaborative writing, unlike in the case of report where the final research result is presented which can have the form of general, conclusion, fieldnotes are much more dynamic – become domain of negotiation revealing crucial points of collective fieldwork experience.
Year
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
126-132
Physical description
Dates
published
2019-09-02
Contributors
author
  • Institute of Polish Culture, Faculty of Polish Studies, Warsaw University Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28, 00-001 Warszawa
  • Institute of Polish Culture, Faculty of Polish Studies, Warsaw University Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28, 00-001 Warszawa, Poland
References
  • Clifford, J. (1990). Notes on (Field)notes. In: R. Sanjek (Ed.), Fieldnotes. The Makings of Anthropology (pp. 46-71). Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
  • Gańko, A. (2018). Writing what is told – on ethnographic narrative and text. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 2, 229-237.
  • Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995–2007). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Nycz, R. (2018). Odkrywanie zmysłu działania [Discovering the sense of action]. Teksty drugie 1, 7-15.
  • Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and Literacy: Technologizing the word. London, New York: Methuen.
  • Ottenberg, S. (1990). Thirty Years of Fieldnotes: Changing Relationships to the Text. In: R. Sanjek (Ed.), Fieldnotes. The makings of Anthropology (pp. 138-161). Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
  • Rakowski, T. (2016). Hunters, Gatherers, and Practitioners of Powerlessness. An Ethnography of the Degraded in Postsocialist Poland. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
  • Rakowski, T. (2018). Etnografia przedtekstowa. Fenomenologiczne korzenie interpretacji antropologicznej [Pretextual Ethnography: The Phenomenological Roots of Anthropological Interpretation]. Teksty drugie, 1, 16-39.
  • Richardson, L. (2014). Pisanie jako metoda badawcza [Writing as a research method]. In: N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln (Ed.), Metody badań jakościowych (pp. 457-482). Warszawa PWN.
  • Sanjek, R. (1990). A Vocabulary for Fieldnotes. In: R. Sanjek (Ed.), Fieldnotes. The Makings of Anthropology (92-138.). Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
  • Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Wolfinger, N. H. (2002). On writing fieldnotes: collection strategies and background expectancies. In: D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.ojs-doi-10_15503_jecs20192_126_132
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.