Reflexivity is central to qualitative research. It shapes how researchers interpret data, examine positionality, engage with participants, and justify analytic decisions. In this article, I introduce hybrid reflexivity, a framework in which reflective practice is structured through researcher guided interaction with generative large language models (LLMs). Building on FINLAY's (2002) typology, I consider algorithmically mediated prompting as a structured analytic intervention to make inferential movements explicit and open to systematic comparison. Within this framework, LLMs function as provisional interlocutors whose patterned responses can generate counter-readings, surface tacit assumptions, and amplify deficit framings for inspection. Interpretive responsibility remains with the researcher who evaluates generated extensions against primary transcripts and theoretical commitments. Drawing on examples from language teacher identity research, I demonstrate how LLM-mediated exchanges can stabilize, redirect, or intensify discursive cues, prompting closer scrutiny of escalation, affect, and authority. I conclude by outlining methodological and ethical considerations and position hybrid reflexivity as a documented and inspectable extension of reflexive practice to support analytic transparency without displacing human judgment.
In this review essay, I examine Franz SCHULTHEIS' book "Forschen mit Bourdieu. Werkstattbesuche 1958-2002.“ In particular, the extent to which SCHULTHEIS adequately contextualizes or even sociologically objectifies Pierre BOURDIEU's collective research practice is discussed, an aim explicitly stated by SCHULTHEIS. While he provides a rich and vivid account of collective research, it is argued that the analysis largely remains anchored in an internal perspective of the research collective. Key concepts and methods drawn from BOURDIEU's own theoretical framework are repeatedly invoked, yet they are rarely applied, for example, to the analysis of power relations. Structured around three thematic focal points—the portrayal of leadership and collaboration, claims to methodological innovation, and the strongly functional description of BOURDIEU's publication outlets—the descriptive strengths of the book are highlighted while identifying analytical gaps. When measured against its own stated objectives, SCHULTHEIS privileges description over reflexive distance and thus falls short of an objectification of the conditions, dynamics, and effects of collective research.
AIAgents4Qual 2026 war eine eintägige virtuelle Konferenz, die als methodisches Experiment angelegt war. Im Mittelpunkt stand die Frage, was geschieht, wenn generative KI in der qualitativen Forschung anders als in den meisten aktuellen Ansätzen nicht vor allem als Hilfsmittel für Forschende verstanden wird, sondern KI-Systeme selbst zu den primären Akteuren der Analyse-, Schreib- und Begutachtungsprozesse werden. In diesem Bericht schreiben wir über die Diskussionen, die während der Tagung stattgefunden haben, erläutern den Begutachtungsprozess und bündeln zentrale Themen, die sich aus den Präsentationen und Diskussionen ergaben. Dazu gehören die veränderte Rolle der Forschenden, die Herausforderungen bei der Bewertung KI-generierter Arbeiten, Spannungen zwischen Effizienz und methodischer Transparenz, die körperlich-relationale Erfahrung der Arbeit mit KI sowie Fragen von Autor*innenschaft und Verantwortung.
In recent debates in qualitative research, it has been emphasized that methods are not merely collections of techniques, but socially stabilized ways of making knowledge claims intelligible. In this paper, I intervene at this meta-methodological level by examining what it means for a qualitative method to claim philosophical grounding. Rather than evaluating empirical results, I ask under what conditions an appeal to a philosophical source can function as a genuine grounding relation. Specifically, the case examined is Max VAN MANEN's phenomenological methodology, who presented Edmund HUSSERL as a point of departure. Through textual analysis of how VAN MANEN portrays HUSSERL's accounts of the epoché, transcendental reduction, and intentionality, I show that VAN MANEN misrepresented HUSSERL's own concepts. Because the figure named "HUSSERL" no longer corresponded to HUSSERL's own project, VAN MANEN could not claim Husserlian grounding and could not serve as a basis for researchers who seek such grounding themselves.
Obwohl partizipative Forschungsansätze in sozialpsychiatrischer Forschung zunehmend an Bedeutung gewinnen, werden Menschen mit pädophiler Störung bislang nur selten mit Mitbestimmungsrechten in Forschungsprozesse einbezogen. Im vorliegenden Beitrag stelle ich eine partizipative Untersuchung mit Patienten des Präventionsprojekts "Kein Täter werden" vor, die aufgrund einer sexuellen Präferenz für kindliche Körperschemata unter erheblichem Leidensdruck stehen und/oder befürchten, sexuelle Übergriffe zu begehen. Nach einer begrifflichen Differenzierung zwischen Pädophilie, Pädosexualität und pädophiler Störung sowie unter Bezugnahme auf therapeutische Ansätze und Stigma werden Erfahrungen einer partizipativen Forschungsgruppe, bestehend aus drei Peerforschern und einem akademischen Forscher, reflektiert. Auf dieser Grundlage werden forschungsethische und forschungspraktische Chancen und Herausforderungen diskutiert, die sich aus der Zusammenarbeit ergeben haben.
In this article, I build on decolonizing and participatory methodologies in order to unsettle the limitations of institutional ethics frameworks and to (re)imagine the parameters of ethical conduct in sociological research. Foregrounding the interconnections between ethics, epistemology, methodology, and politics, I interweave a vision of loving and undisciplined community-based participatory research (CBPR), grounded in decolonial refusal as both a theoretical and a practical orientation. Specifically, I argue that refusal-oriented CBPR may disturb the prevailing compliance with colonizing logics in knowledge co-creation and create space for engaging historically marginalized communities more deliberately in the research process. Furthermore, I propose that by refusing CBPR's own decolonizing claims—through active negotiation of both its decolonizing and colonizing aspects—researchers may use CBPR to foster critically engaged, ethical practice and offer insights for other methodologies, where such negotiations may be less transparent. In doing so, I contribute to current debates within Germany on embedding ethics and ethical reflexivity into the everyday practices of sociological research.
In the study presented in this article, we explored how a person diagnosed with cervical cancer, with no chance of curative treatment, imagined and reimagined palliative care. Based on sociocultural psychology, we used the concepts of ambivalence, "seeing," and "seeing-as" discussed by ABBEY and VALSINER (2005) and TATEO (2017), as analytical categories. Furthermore, the relational-historical microgenetic approach (e.g., FOGEL, GARVEY, HSU & WEST-STROMING, 2006) was utilized as a theoretical-methodological tool to examine how the oncology patient expanded her semiotic field concerning palliative care through imaginative processes (ZITTOUN, 2016). The participant was interviewed three times while she was at the oncology ward of a philanthropic university hospital in a major city in the northeastern region of Brazil. The methodological instrument "box of surprises" (BoS) (e.g., BATISTA, DE LIMA, MOUTINHO & GARVEY, 2022) was also applied to facilitate the patient's imaginative processes about palliative care as she created images using the materials in the box. We demonstrate how the ambivalence experienced by the participant toward her future opened up the opportunity for her to reimagine palliative care. We suggest that a transitional space emerged and the participant's semiotic field became more susceptible to changes as possibilities were explored through imagination.
Multilingualism raises specific methodological, ethical, and practical challenges for qualitative researchers, yet its implications for teaching remain underexplored. In this article, we examine how engaging with multilingualism, translation, and interpreting can foster methodological competencies in sociology students. After outlining the significance of multilingualism for qualitative inquiry, we identify core areas of knowledge that students should acquire, including theories of translation and interpretation, the dynamics of interpreter-mediated interviews, and the potentials of multilingual research designs. We then present an interdisciplinary course concept jointly developed by instructors from sociology and translation studies, centered on interpreter-mediated qualitative interviews. Drawing on the course design, implementation experiences and student feedback, we discuss what students learn about the interpretative nature of research, the constructedness of knowledge, and the importance of reflexivity. We further discuss framework conditions such as practice-based learning, personal involvement, and peer exchange, before reflecting on limitations of the course design. We conclude that systematically addressing multilingualism in methods teaching promotes reflexivity, openness, and interdisciplinary collaboration as fundamental competencies in qualitative research.
Qualitative description (QD) is a qualitative research methodology that is meant to produce deep and non-inferential understandings of events and phenomena in a way that is as close as possible to the people providing the accounts. While QD and its supporting methods have been around longer, it was formalized as a methodology in the nursing research field in the early 2000s and has yet to see widespread use in safety research and practice despite being accordingly well-suited. In this methodological paper, I first describe QD as it is used in nursing and health sciences research to provide an in-depth description of what characterizes the methodology, where it is appropriate to apply, and the general steps involved in a QD study. I then argue for the use of QD as a methodology for safety researchers before presenting a modified version of QD for use by safety practitioners working in practical, industry-level safety management. This is to provide the safety management professional/practitioner with a robust and systematic method of gathering and analyzing qualitative data in industrial-corporate settings where quantitative data is often held in higher regard despite the academy-established importance of qualitative data in safety management.
In this position statement, I articulate an emerging form of human-AI collaboration in qualitative research, i.e. the co-creation of methodology-specific analysis tools through iterative dialogue between domain experts and large language models (LLMs). Crucially, in this approach, I use AI in the coding stage of the development process, producing standalone tools that contain no AI in their operation, thereby addressing significant ethical concerns around data security while leveraging AI's computational translation capacity. Drawing on established critiques of methodologically agnostic computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) (COFFEY, HOLBROOK & ATKINSON, 1996; KELLE, 1997; LONKILA, 1995), contemporary work on AI as co-researcher (COSTA, BRYDA, CHRISTOU & KASPERIUNIENE, 2025), and human-AI co-creation frameworks (GIACCARDI & REDSTRÖM, 2020; VERGANTI, VENDRAMINELLI & IANSITI, 2020), in this statement, I position the development of critical incident semantic analysis (CISA) tools as a case study in what I term "theory-operationalising tool co-creation". With this approach, I expand access to methodological tool development, enabling non-programmers to learn to build sophisticated software in weeks rather than the months or years that would be required by traditional development teams while also maintaining robust data security through client-side processing.
In this article, I describe two distinct reasons for engagement with entertaining political content by today's teenagers. As young people increasingly use digital media for access to political information, they rely less on traditional outlets such as newspapers and television. Yet the appeal of humorous political content in this sphere remains underexplored by researchers. Drawing on data from the Swiss longitudinal study Biographical Experiences and Political Engagement in Youth, I examine how young people's information-seeking behaviors relate to their biographies and political socialization processes. I identify two contrasting user types: Firstly, youths who consume entertaining content as an entry point into political communication and to strengthen relationships; secondly, others who engage with it to compensate for a lack of political discussion and to bolster their identities. Based on these patterns, I show how political engagement can be facilitated through humorous formats in ways that are associated with biographical trajectories and social milieus. Furthermore, I demonstrate how the broader social inequalities among youths are reflected in their media consumption in addition to addressing methodological challenges in researching fast-evolving digital phenomena.
Qualitative Forschung bringt Forschende immer wieder in Situationen, in denen ihre "academic armor" (LERUM 2001) – die professionell erwartete Distanz – Risse bekommt. Solche Momente gehen oft mit Scham, Irritation oder Verletzlichkeit einher und werden in methodischen Debatten häufig als Störfaktoren oder Risiken für die Forschung verhandelt. Wir argumentieren hingegen, dass gerade emotionale Erfahrungen ein besonderes epistemisches Potenzial entfalten und tiefergehende Einblicke in soziale Phänomene und Prozesse geben können. Auf Basis zweier Studien (einer zu Körpergewicht und einer zu Scham) zeigen wir, wie die Irritation durch persönliche Infragestellung und Beschämung der Forschenden nicht nur die Macht- und Rollenordnungen in Interviewsituationen sichtbar macht, sondern auch neue analytische Zugänge zum Forschungsgegenstand eröffnet. Damit tragen wir zur aktuellen Diskussion um die Rolle von Emotionen und Vulnerabilität von Forschenden in der qualitativen Forschung bei und plädieren für institutionalisierte Reflexions- und Unterstützungsformate, die es ermöglichen, Verletzlichkeit sowohl analytisch zu nutzen als auch für die eigene Selbstsorge fruchtbar zu machen.
Grounded theory methodology (GTM) is a prominent and versatile approach in the social sciences, with various iterations such as the classical GLASER and STRAUSS (1967) model, the approach by STRAUSS and CORBIN (1998), the situational analysis by CLARKE (2005), and the constructivist GTM by CHARMAZ (2006). These well-established approaches have proven valuable to systematically generate comprehensive theories from qualitative data in numerous research contexts. Yet, in the context of international research, uncertainties remain about how to capture the complexity of transcultural phenomena without imposing culturalist or globalist frameworks. Considering the increasing internationalization and blurring of borders, driven by migration, rapid transportation, and new technologies, corresponding advancements in research are equally necessary. In this article, I explore how GTM researchers can incorporate and respond to these global developments. Drawing on well-established GTM approaches, I introduce a transcultural GTM framework to provide a designated approach to international qualitative research, facilitating global perspectives beyond context comparison. In this way, I contribute to the ongoing debate on how research can be conducted in an increasingly complex and interconnected world without resorting to simplistic perspectives. By referring to research on the global issue of inclusive education, I demonstrate transcultural GTM and its methodological foundations.
In this article, I offer a qualitative critical analysis of co-participation within MICADO (Migrant Integration Cockpits and Dashboards), a European Union project (2019-2022) aimed at improving communication among migrants, public administrations, and civil-society actors through a multilingual digital platform. Centering on Bologna as a pilot site, I examine the usability testing and public piloting phases in which migrants were engaged in co-participatory evaluation of an application prototype that was still under development. Data sources include project documentation, interviews and surveys with migrants, enabling an examination of recruitment practices, feedback collection, and the valuation of participation. I highlight achievements as well as tensions in the co-participation approach. Structured co-participatory methods (think-aloud protocols, cultural mediation, and multilingual facilitation) generated context-specific insights and moments of migrant empowerment. Engagement nevertheless remained uneven: Legal precarity, linguistic barriers, and unequal digital skills limited involvement; and some participants questioned the value of participation amid persistent socio-legal inequalities. I argue that EU initiatives promoting co-participation and co-creation must extend beyond technical inclusivity. Genuine co-production with migrants requires sustained community partnerships, reflexive adaptation, and structural reforms that address the legal and social asymmetries shaping migrants' everyday life.
In ihrem Lehrbuch verbinden Margrit SCHREIER und Nicole WEYDMANN methodologische Grundfragen der Fallauswahl mit forschungspraktischen Anwendungen in unterschiedlichen qualitativen Ansätzen und mit verschiedenen Erhebungsverfahren. Sie erläutern Grundgedanken und Grundlagen des Samplings in qualitativen Studien und zeigen Strategien der Fallauswahl aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven und für eine Vielzahl unterschiedlicher Forschungssituationen. In dieser Verbindung von methodologischer Systematik und forschungspraktischer Orientierung liegt eine besondere Stärke des Bandes. Dazu gehört der Fokus auf die Frage, wann und wo überall Auswahlentscheidungen zu treffen sind und wie jeweils konkret verallgemeinert werden kann. Im Zentrum des Review Essays steht die kritische Auseinandersetzung mit der Forschungskonzeption, auf der diese Grundlagen und Strategien des Samplings beruhen, sowie mit den zentralen Begriffen, die die Autorinnen verwenden. Hervorgehoben werden drei Kritikpunkte: Erstens wird die starke Orientierung an quantitativen Forschungskonzeptionen problematisiert. Zweitens wird insbesondere der zentrale Begriff der "Grundgesamtheit" kritisch diskutiert. Drittens werden die Ausführungen zu Verallgemeinerung und Repräsentativität eingeordnet und es wird vorgeschlagen, Repräsentativität als allgemeinen Begriff empirischer Forschung zu fassen. Im Anschluss wird die Unterscheidung von Repräsentativität auf der Ebene des Materials und der Ebene der Analyse vorgestellt.
Frühe Kritische Theoretiker*innen widmeten sich unter Anleitung von Max HORKHEIMER dem Versuch, dass sich Gesellschaftstheorie und empirische Sozialforschung dialektisch durchdringen und so gegenseitig befruchten sollten. Im Beitrag rekonstruiere ich die ursprünglichen Überlegungen HORKHEIMERs sowie die Ausführungen zur dialektischen Sozialforschung von Theodor W. ADORNO, um deren methodologische Reflexionen im Lichte ihrer Gesellschaftstheorie zu begreifen. So ergeben sich insbesondere in ADORNOs Ausführungen zur "Hingabe ans Einzelne" (HORKHEIMER 1985a [1963], S.263) Ansatzpunkte für eine kritische Sozialforschung, bei der durch eine mikrologische Fokussierung sozialer Phänomene hindurch ihre gesellschaftliche Einbettung zu begreifen versucht wird.
In this article, we contemplate how mixed-race persons are recognized and recognize their selves in others. We draw on the examples of our lived experiences—a Trinidadian-born Dougla woman, a Caribbean person of mixed African and Indian descent, and a biracial man, born in the United States to a father of West African descent and a bi-racial mother of mixed European ancestry. In both contexts, there has been a negotiation of identity—both experiences marked by not only mixedness, but also mixedness with Blackness amid the understandings of the one-drop rule which persists in the United States, and of the Dougla as impure, due to dilution of perceived Indian purity in the Caribbean. Drawing on the work of BARRATT and RANJITSINGH (2018), and made salient through the use of duoethnography as an epistemology and a "collaborative research methodology" (NORRIS & SAWYER, 2012, p.9), we argue that "mixedness is a shared ontology," and "the act of recognizing selves in others," rests in the way we enact or perform maneuvering as a means to manage our mixed-race selves (BARRATT & RANJITSINGH, 2018, p.482). Our lives thus present as a curriculum as we move towards a place of transformation in our (re)storying.
Interdisziplinarität adressiere ich im Folgenden nicht als stabile Koexistenz unterschiedlicher Forschungslogiken, sondern als situative Abfolge performativer Modi der Zusammenarbeit ("stark", "schwach", "dialogisch"). Anhand eines künstlerisch-soziologischen Forschungsprojekts zu Verkörperungen in der westlich-klassischen Musik zeige ich, wie wechselnde Rollenverteilungen und Formen der Beteiligung in diesem Sinn epistemisch wirksam gemacht wurden. Im Zentrum steht daraufhin die Analyse eines ursprünglich randständigen Arbeitsschritts, in dem die Forschenden disziplinäre Routinen temporär aussetzten. In dieser Konstellation entstand eine Verschränkung von verkörperter Nähe, analytischer Distanz und gemeinsamer Validierung, ohne dass disziplinäre Differenzen eingeebnet wurden. Daran anknüpfend schlage ich vor, variable Nähe-Distanz-Relationen und temporäre Re-Konfigurationen von Zuständigkeiten als Forschungsressourcen bewusst in interdisziplinäre Konstellationen zu integrieren: Solche third spaces oder "Sonderzonen" können insbesondere für qualitative Teamforschung, partizipative Ansätze und experimentelle Forschungsformate produktiv gemacht werden.
In this paper, we explore the ethical dimensions of the peer research approach (PRA) drawing on our experiences—as researchers and peer researchers—gained through an international project about young migrants' integration. We emphasize the necessity for deep reflection on relationships within the research team and with the community involved in the study. We also highlight the importance of recognizing the dual role of peer researchers as both members of the community and research team. Based on our experiences, we provide a set of ethical reflections for applying PRA. Our discussion is concentrated around three areas: First, we propose principles of working with peer researchers as full-fledged team members. Then, we focus on their dual role and its implications. Finally, we examine the importance of communicating with the broader community and knowledge co-production. The ethical principles discussed include transparency, openness, trust, partnership, power balance, respect, responsibility, recognition, intersectionality, agency, diversity, empowerment, inclusion, social justice and equity.
As a group of academics working for the first time together on a collective project on children and young people's reading engagement, we discovered the value of reflexive conversations on the nature of our individual roles as literacy educators and our roles as collaborative researchers. As the project progressed, we developed this paper from conversations that drifted into self-reflection on our own experiences as readers, teachers and researchers. Rather than viewing these conversations as digression, we decided to embrace wholeheartedly the possibility that they would enrich our research and progress our goals as a group. This was an opportunity to pause and venture into a less familiar research arena. In the process, as individuals, we revealed more of ourselves as collaborative researchers interacting in this new space which enriched our collective undertaking as well as our individual projects within different reading communities.
