“My Life? There Is Not Much to Tell”: On Voice, Silence and Agency in Interviews With First-Generation Mizrahi Jewish Women Immigrants to Israel

Abstract

From early 1980s, a large body of feminist literature has been attempting to account for and explain the particular mix of fragmented speech and multiple silences characteristic of interviews with subaltern subjects.The authors offer an epistemological challenge to these orthodoxies on two levels. First, the authors challenge the very premise that views the accounts produced by marginalized research participants as failures that need to be overcome through methodological strategies, proposing instead to understand silence and fragmentation as part of the process through which they develop their sense of self and agency. Second, the authors insist that both the micro interview setting and the macro, sociohistorical contexts must be considered and analyzed within the same framework that positions the research participant at the center. The authors illustrate these arguments through the case study of multiply marginalized Jewish women who immigrated to Israel in the 1950s and 1960s from North Africa and Asia.

Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports

“…Case reports had minimal in-text references to case study methodology, and were informed by other qualitative traditions or secondary sources (Adamson & Holloway, 2012; Buzzanell & D'Enbeau, 2009; Nagar-Ron & Motzafi-Haller, 2011). This does not suggest that case study methodology cannot be multimethod, however, methodology should be consistent in design, be clearly described (Meyer, 2001; Stake, 1995), and maintain focus on the case (Creswell, 2013b).…”

“…Narrative stories, vignettes, and thick description are used to provoke vicarious experience and a sense of being there with the researcher in their interaction with the case. Few of the case studies reviewed provided details of the researcher's relationship with the case, researcher–case interactions, and how these influenced the development of the case study (Buzzanell & D'Enbeau, 2009 ; D'Enbeau et al, 2010 ; Gallagher et al, 2013 ; Gillard et al, 2011 ; Ledderer, 2011 ; Nagar-Ron & Motzafi-Haller, 2011 ). The role and position of the researcher needed to be self-examined and understood by readers, to understand how this influenced interactions with participants, and to determine what triangulation is needed (Merriam, 2009 ; Stake, 1995 ).…”

“…Gillard et al ( 2011 ) provided a good example of triangulation, comparing data sources in a table (p. 1513). Triangulation of sources was used to reveal as much depth as possible in the study by Nagar-Ron and Motzafi-Haller ( 2011 ), while also enhancing confirmation validity. There were several case studies that would have benefited from improved range and use of data sources, and descriptions of researcher–case interactions (Ajodhia-Andrews & Berman, 2009 ; Bronken et al, 2012 ; Fincham, Scourfield, & Langer, 2008 ; Fourie & Theron, 2012 ; Hooghe et al, 2012 ; Snyder-Young, 2011 ; Yeh, 2013 ).…”

Researching children’s silences: Exploring the fullness of voice in childhood research

“…This is a text, as Nagar-Ron and Motzafi-Haller (2011: 659) have argued, “that needs to be interpreted for its gaps, silences, multiple positioning.” Let us take a closer look at this transcript. When I first asked Charis about the domestic workers his family had in the past, he mentioned that they had two, but then when I asked him to comment on his relationship with the first one he said, “I don’t remember the first one” adding, however, that “Our relationship was not so good.” In the exchange that follows, he reveals little pieces of information which show that he does not feel very comfortable talking about this issue.…”

Unraveling the Mobilization of Memory in Research With Refugees

“…Here, the sociopolitical dynamics at stake in participants’ accounts of memory intersect with the researcher’s sociopolitical research ethics (Vandekinderen, Roets, & Van Hove, 2014): Participants’ hope for the research to have a political effect and the transmission of their suffering in the research context may mobilize the researcher’s solidarity. To develop ethically responsible research practice with marginalized groups, the researcher must take the larger dynamics in the interview setting and the broader sociocultural context into account (Nagar-Ron & Motzafi-Haller, 2011) and, subsequently, assume social responsibility in attempting to transform situations of ongoing violence and social injustice (Fine et al, 2003; Rousseau & Kirmayer, 2010). Yet, in trying to raise public awareness in partnerships with refugee participants, the researcher may be confronted with expectations of participants that might lead to a blurring of professional boundaries (Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen, & Liamputtong, 2006).…”