 |
 |
Hello Dina and BNIM team, I am sending my thoughts about the two concerns raised by you. a) How to do justice to the principles of anonymity and confidentiality when we deal with very detailed and rich case-based material? The possible strategy to do justice to the principles of anonymity is to develop case typologies. The case typology aims to understand the biographical structures of action patterns and latent behaviour trends (the genesis and developmental course) and subject’s understanding (system of knowledge) and biographical relevant reflections on the relations between lived experience, social context and sense of self. The typologies comprise of cases of similar kind. As a BNIM researcher, our task is to facilitate the detection of the underlying rules/mechanisms that contribute to the precarious developmental course (or difficult transition) of problem or vulnerable people and help remove biographical blockages. By doing psycho-society integrated framework (instead of using either psycho or social-driven one) could produce explanations that take into account both individual biography and social institutions. B) From my experience of participating in BNIM interpretation panels analysing case-based material, I can see how such panels may run the risk of over-interpretation; The social phenomena or ‘problem’ we are investigating can only be understood fully if we take more account of their personal biographies and the institutional contexts and social practices that intricately interface with their lives, As Wengraf argues, BNIM first provides a comprehensive psycho-societal understanding in which neither sociological nor psychological dynamics and structures should be neglected, and in which both are understood not statically but as being situated historically and developmentally. Second, remember, the abductive interpretation distinguishes itself from traditional inductive and deductive analysis, is where the initial hypothetical readings which were formulated from the researcher and team members are tested against the empirical data from the subjects' own actions and interpretations. Only those Hs and FHs (follow-up hypotheses) are supported by the subsequent revealed empirical data are remained. If there is no linkage from subsequently revealed empirical datum to support and falsify established particular FHs, then the previously developed Hs and FHs by the panel cannot be justified. Furthermore, as a BNIM researcher, our task is to facilitate the detection of the underlying rules/mechanisms that contribute to the precarious developmental course of problem or vulnerable people and help remove biographical blockages and foster socially-integrated citizens (not publish for the sake of publication). By doing psycho-society integrated framework (instead of either psycho or social-driven one) could produce explanations that take into account both individual biography and social institutions. Best wishes, I hope it would help. Vivienne