Interpreting and presenting marginalized voices through intersubjective accounts

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce a unique approach to accessing, interpreting, and presenting issues concerning the lives of social science research participants. It particularly focuses on accessing those considered to be economically, socially, or politically marginalized and where there is reliance upon intersubjective accounts in two languages. Design/methodology/approach – The conceptual and empirical material referred to in this paper is drawn from the author’s doctoral research of a Fair Trade case study in Malawi. The approach presented is influenced by concepts derived from postcolonial theory, grounded theory, and intersubjectivity. Findings – For the community empowerment research focus it was important to provide space to capture voices of all participants, accounting for the hierarchical socio-political context in which people were embedded. This required the use of interpreters, introducing challenges related to intersubjectivity such as recognizing and accounting for positionalities and impressions of multiple parties collaborating in the process of collecting and interpreting qualitative research material. Practical implications – Investing in trained and engaged interpreters, using pilot interviews, including participants’ data in the field research design process, and capturing marginalized voices helps a researcher to mitigate challenges related to bias and power relations. Originality/value – Recognizing inherent shortcomings related to interpreter-facilitated research and power relations, the framework presented provides a reflective and practical methodological approach for qualitative researchers.

Stuck in Limbo: how sensemaking discrepancy over strategy-related performance leads to disjointed collaboration in an international joint venture

“…These are ways of dealing with positionalities (including bias, misunderstandings, stereotyping, data loss and power relations), impressions and representations of multiple parties in a research process. This is particularly important where one is trying to capture all voices including those potentially marginalized in a hierarchical context and/or where there are two or more languages or cultures, with interpreters/ translators adding an extra filter to knowledge – known as ‘triple subjectivity’ (Phillips, 2016 : 27). Both conditions applied to our case, where junior and middle managers’ accounts were as important to sensemaking as senior executives’ (and, as data shows, hierarchy being particularly pronounced in CHD); and two juxtaposed languages/ cultures being interpreted by managers and researchers.…”

“…Both conditions applied to our case, where junior and middle managers’ accounts were as important to sensemaking as senior executives’ (and, as data shows, hierarchy being particularly pronounced in CHD); and two juxtaposed languages/ cultures being interpreted by managers and researchers. Thus, intersubjective accounts accommodated multiple voices and helped validate data further in achieving a combinatory balance between emic (‘insider’ participant) and etic (‘outsider’ researcher) accounts (Phillips, 2016 : 30).…”

“…Participants were confronted with their own and partners’ composite narratives and asked to provide reflective, retrospective accounts of sensemaking rationales. Rather than confirming/ refuting strategy practices already identified, participants were encouraged to consider whether any actors were marginalized and whether actors’ positionality may have influenced data, including the researchers’ interpretations (Phillips, 2016 ). This helped minimize research bias and ensure data validity (van der Giesen et al, 2021 ).…”

“…CHD executives adopted a paternalistic management style, resorted to hierarchical communication, and replaced co-branded products with their own. Intersubjective accounts are summarized as themes in Table 1 rather than individual quotes, since they are summaries of participants’ and researchers’ reflections on composite accounts (Phillips, 2016 ), although quotes from third phase interviews are identified in the “ Findings ” section.…”