Dear Margi and Renee,
Thank you so much for your helpful comments on my question. Apologies for
the late reply.
I very much agree with the idea that these processes of self-reflection and
separating self from other not only aid responsible and ethical interviewing
practices, but also have methodological advantages. Your suggestions help me
as a beginning teacher to improve the debriefing sessions of students after
interviewing and preparing them.
The methodological point I find very interesting and I would like to take it
a bit further and see how others see the process of what i would call an
embodied analysis. I encourage students to start their analysis from their
annoyance, boredom, irritation, smiling, warm feeling, mixed-up feeling and
so on, and to reflect on these feelings instead of ignoring them. so these
feelings are 'allowed' at least in the initial phase of the analysis to aid
an embodied understanding of the material. all kinds of risks to do with
distance-closeness so widely known in counselling practices are similar to
but might also differ when applied in research settings (for instance a
difference in role, aim and so on). the experience in counselling could be
very helpful in developing such an 'embodied' methodology. and the other way
around embodied methodologies (i am thinking of John Shotter's work for
instance, in particular his notion of 'active responsiveness', I don't have
enough knowledge of bnim-analysis to know how this issue is taken up there)
could be very insightful for counsellers or other professionals. I would be
very interested to keep on thinking along these lines. I am open to any
suggestions. and I am very grateful to Tom for taking my questions so
seriously and sharing so generously.
Best wishes,
Anneke
|