Abstract

Qualitative training rarely acknowledges the role of emotions in both data collection and analysis. While bracketing emotions is an important part of reflexivity, emotions are both a source of data and a source of ‘work’ (Hochschild, 1983 Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]). Accordingly, mentoring junior qualitative scholars also requires emotion work. Issues of race, gender, and power come into play when we think critically about the role and importance of recognizing emotion work in the field and the academy. This piece draws on data from a year-long ethnographic multicase study of three schools using restorative practices, focusing on one interview with one participant that raised significant emotions for the principal investigator. I demonstrate and propose a framework for what I call ‘emotional coding’: noting data that give rise to strong emotions, and then identifying what these emotions say about our positionally; our participants; and the research topic. Implications for scholarship and mentorship are discussed.

摘要

定性培训很少承认情绪在数据收集和分析中的作用。包围情绪是自反性的重要组成部分，而情绪既是数据的来源，又是“工作”的来源（Hochschild，1983年） Hochschild，AR（1983）。被管理的心脏：人类情感的商业化。加州伯克利：加州大学出版社。 [Google Scholar]）。因此，指导初级定性学者也需要情感工作。当我们认真思考在田野和学院中认可情感工作的作用和重要性时，种族，性别和权力问题就开始发挥作用。该文章借鉴了对来自三所学校的为期一年的人种学多案例研究的数据，这些研究使用了恢复性实践，重点是对一位参与者的一次采访，这对首席调查员产生了重大影响。我为所谓的“情感编码”演示并提出了一个框架：记录引起强烈情绪的数据，然后确定这些情绪对我们的位置有何影响；我们的参与者；和研究主题。讨论了对奖学金和指导的含义。