Pokaż uproszczony rekord

dc.contributor.authorFlis, Maria
dc.contributor.authorPiotrowski, Karol
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-20T11:37:21Z
dc.date.available2024-02-20T11:37:21Z
dc.date.issued2024-01-31
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/50305
dc.description.abstractAttention to metaphor as a tool for cognition and action has already been called by the classic work by Georg Lakoff and Mark Johnson—Metaphors We Live By (1980). However, some four decades after this publication’s first edition, the role of metaphor as a useful instrument in empirical research seems to have been forgotten. Therefore, the first step taken in the text at hand is to highlight that codes of ethics neither resolve nor befit the dynamically shifting circumstances of research conducted in the field. Ethical codes are often insufficient. Hence, an objective here will be to critically assess the broad application of such codes in general. The second step will be to turn to metaphor as a tool in developing the sociological imagination as understood by C. Wright Mills. The metaphor can also assist in finding oneself when confronted with difficult, ambiguous circumstances that may arise during fieldwork. Metaphor as a tool, as an ethical kaleidoscope coherently links the field research experience precisely with the sociological imagination.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesQualitative Sociology Review;1en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectMetaphoren
dc.subjectEthical Kaleidoscopeen
dc.subjectResearcher Identityen
dc.subjectResearcher Sensitivityen
dc.subjectEthical Codeen
dc.titleThe Conceptual Metaphor as an Ethical Kaleidoscope in Field Researchen
dc.typeArticle
dc.page.number30-41
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationFlis, Maria - Jagiellonian University, Polanden
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationPiotrowski, Karol - Jagiellonian University, Polanden
dc.identifier.eissn1733-8077
dc.referencesBauman, Zygmunt. 1993. Postmodern Ethics. New York: Blackwell Publishers.en
dc.referencesBauman, Zygmunt. 1995. Life in Fragments: Essays in Postmodern Morality. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.en
dc.referencesBloch, Natalia. 2011. “Teren a władza, czyli kto tu rządzi? Moje doświadczenia w badaniu uchodźców tybetańskich [Space and Power, or Who Rules Here? My Experience Researching Tibetan Refugees].” Pp. 209-235 in Teren w antropologii. Praktyka badawcza we współczesnej antropologii kulturowej [Terrain in Anthropology. Research Practice in Contemporary Cultural Anthropology], edited by T. Buliński and M. Kairski. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.en
dc.referencesBuliński, Tarzycjusz. 2014. “Ruchoma wiedza terenowa: Perspektywa antropologii procesualnej [Mobile Field Knowledge: Processual Anthropology Perspective].” Zeszyty Etnologii Wrocławskiej 2014/2(21):97-111.en
dc.referencesBurzyński, Robert. 2012. Metafory jako narzędzie poznania polityki i oddziaływania politycznego [Metaphors as a Tool for Learning about Politics and Political Influence]. Ph.D. dissertation. Faculty of Political Science and International Studies. University of Warsaw, Poland.en
dc.referencesCarrithers, Michael. 1992. Why Humans Have Cultures: Explaining Anthropology and Social Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.en
dc.referencesCassirer, Ernest. 1963. An Essay on Men: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.en
dc.referencesClifford, James. 1997. “Spatial Practices: Fieldwork, Travel, and the Disciplining of Anthropology.” Pp. 185-222 in Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science, edited by A. Gupta and J. Ferguson. Los Angeles: University of California Press.en
dc.referencesDenzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2005. The Sage of Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications.en
dc.referencesFlis, Maria. 1994. Leszek Kołakowski – teoretyk kultury europejskiej [Leszek Kołakowski—A Theoretician of European Culture]. Cracow: Universitas.en
dc.referencesFoucault, Michel. 2006. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.en
dc.referencesHorolets, Anna. 2016. “Badacz jako gość [Researcher as a Guest].” Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej 12(3):54-69.en
dc.referencesKodeks Etyki Socjologa [Code of Ethics of a Sociologist]. 2012. Retrieved June 21, 2022 https://pts.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/kodeks.pdfen
dc.referencesKołakowski, Leszek. 1971. “Ethics without a Moral Code.” TriQuarterly 22:153-182.en
dc.referencesKrzeszowski, Tomasz. 2020. “Wstęp do wydania polskiego [Introduction to Polish Edition].” Pp. 7-29 in Metafory w naszym życiu [Metaphors We Live By], edited by G. Lakoff and M. Johnson. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Aletheia.en
dc.referencesLakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.en
dc.referencesLewis, Clive Staples. 1947. Miracles. London, Glasgow: Collins, Fontana Books.en
dc.referencesMarody, Mirosława. 2021. “Odpowiedzialność, nieodpowiedzialność, współodpowiedzialność [Responsibility, Irresponsibility, Co-Responsibility].” Pp. 77-93 in Kultura (nie)odpowiedzialności. Społeczne konteksty zaniechanej cnoty [Culture of (Ir)responsibility. Social Contexts of Abandoned Virtue], edited by M. Bogunia-Borowska. Warsaw: PWN.en
dc.referencesMills, C. Wright. 2000. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.en
dc.referencesNowak, Jacek. 2010. “Metodologiczne rozterki współczesnych antropologów: obserwacja uczestnicząca w praktyce [Methodological Dilemmas of Contemporary Anthropologists: Participant Observation in Practice].” Studia Socjologiczne 4(199):121-145.en
dc.referencesPopper, Karl. 2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge Classics.en
dc.referencesRicoeur, Paul. 1992. Oneself as Another. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.en
dc.referencesRorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, Irony, Solidarity. New York: Cambridge University Press.en
dc.referencesRorty, Richard. 2002. “Etyka zasad a etyka wrażliwości [Ethics of Principles and Ethics of Sensitivity].” Teksty Drugie 1-2:51-63.en
dc.referencesSłownik Języka Polskiego [Dictionary of the Polish Language]. Retrieved July 13, 2022 https://sjp.pwn.pl/slowniki/odpowiedzialno%C5%9B%C4%87.htmlen
dc.referencesSztompka, Piotr. 2021. “Logika i granice odpowiedzialności [Logic and Limits of Responsibility].” Pp. 13-34 in Kultura (nie)odpowiedzialności. Społeczne konteksty zaniechanej cnoty [Culture of (Ir)responsibility. Social Contexts of Abandoned Virtue], edited by M. Bogunia-Borowska. Warsaw: PWN.en
dc.referencesŚroda, Magdalena. 2020. Obcy, inny, wykluczony [The Stranger, the Other, the Excluded]. Gdansk: Wydawnictwo Słowo/Obraz Terytoria.en
dc.referencesTokarczuk, Olga. 2020. Czuły narrator [The Tender Narrator]. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie.en
dc.referencesZnaniecki, Florian. 1973. Socjologia wychowania [Sociology of Education], vol. 2. Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.en
dc.contributor.authorEmailFlis, Maria - maria.flis@uj.edu.pl
dc.contributor.authorEmailPiotrowski, Karol - karol.piotrowski@doctoral.uj.edu.pl
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/1733-8077.20.1.03
dc.relation.volume20


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0