Des voix plurielles dans l’écriture de la recherche
The approach I develop here is situated between information and communication sciences and science studies. It sets up a dialogue between my thoughts on writing about the fieldwork I did over several years, on clowning, and the way fieldwork can “take the floor” in writing. The article is made up of...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | fra |
| Published: |
Université Laval
2022-10-01
|
| Series: | Communication |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.openedition.org/communication/16445 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850170400136232960 |
|---|---|
| author | Philippe Hert |
| author_facet | Philippe Hert |
| author_sort | Philippe Hert |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The approach I develop here is situated between information and communication sciences and science studies. It sets up a dialogue between my thoughts on writing about the fieldwork I did over several years, on clowning, and the way fieldwork can “take the floor” in writing. The article is made up of three voices: the voice of theory, the researcher’s, that of writing, which is reflexive, and that of the field itself and lived experience. These voices emerged in the course of writing this article. I was accustomed to the first, with its analysis based on readings and experiences in the field. The second quickly made its presence felt after I started wondering how I could write about writing without falling into an abyss of reflexivity. It was the third voice that was more of a surprise: the field I had decided to talk about, clowning, began making sudden appearances, managing to undo what I was painfully trying to write. Since this field wasn’t just an outside object, but something that I, as an apprentice clown, was part of, I had to give it the floor. It’s that voice I’d like to talk about, because for me it bears the mark of desire.The question I ask is this: How can we reconcile scientific writing with the desire manifested within it? Scientific writing can be agonizing and nerve-wracking, and it’s not fun, despite being fuelled by the desire to write (till you get started) and drawing on fields of research that are often deeply involving, fascinating, and that make us want to share something through writing.How can we to explain this tension, and how can we bring that desire back into scientific writing? My contribution here is to explore, theoretically and in practice, the question of reflexivity—what it involves and what it reveals about the researcher’s desire—and attempt to derive a few practical lessons. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-8080c9d01a6948dab01624fa22342a3a |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1189-3788 1920-7344 |
| language | fra |
| publishDate | 2022-10-01 |
| publisher | Université Laval |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Communication |
| spelling | doaj-art-8080c9d01a6948dab01624fa22342a3a2025-08-20T02:20:30ZfraUniversité LavalCommunication1189-37881920-73442022-10-0139210.4000/communication.16445Des voix plurielles dans l’écriture de la recherchePhilippe HertThe approach I develop here is situated between information and communication sciences and science studies. It sets up a dialogue between my thoughts on writing about the fieldwork I did over several years, on clowning, and the way fieldwork can “take the floor” in writing. The article is made up of three voices: the voice of theory, the researcher’s, that of writing, which is reflexive, and that of the field itself and lived experience. These voices emerged in the course of writing this article. I was accustomed to the first, with its analysis based on readings and experiences in the field. The second quickly made its presence felt after I started wondering how I could write about writing without falling into an abyss of reflexivity. It was the third voice that was more of a surprise: the field I had decided to talk about, clowning, began making sudden appearances, managing to undo what I was painfully trying to write. Since this field wasn’t just an outside object, but something that I, as an apprentice clown, was part of, I had to give it the floor. It’s that voice I’d like to talk about, because for me it bears the mark of desire.The question I ask is this: How can we reconcile scientific writing with the desire manifested within it? Scientific writing can be agonizing and nerve-wracking, and it’s not fun, despite being fuelled by the desire to write (till you get started) and drawing on fields of research that are often deeply involving, fascinating, and that make us want to share something through writing.How can we to explain this tension, and how can we bring that desire back into scientific writing? My contribution here is to explore, theoretically and in practice, the question of reflexivity—what it involves and what it reveals about the researcher’s desire—and attempt to derive a few practical lessons.https://journals.openedition.org/communication/16445identificationconceptnews topicsstatusmethods |
| spellingShingle | Philippe Hert Des voix plurielles dans l’écriture de la recherche Communication identification concept news topics status methods |
| title | Des voix plurielles dans l’écriture de la recherche |
| title_full | Des voix plurielles dans l’écriture de la recherche |
| title_fullStr | Des voix plurielles dans l’écriture de la recherche |
| title_full_unstemmed | Des voix plurielles dans l’écriture de la recherche |
| title_short | Des voix plurielles dans l’écriture de la recherche |
| title_sort | des voix plurielles dans l ecriture de la recherche |
| topic | identification concept news topics status methods |
| url | https://journals.openedition.org/communication/16445 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT philippehert desvoixpluriellesdanslecrituredelarecherche |