Parrhesia in Qualitative Research: Unveiling Truths, the Critique of Power, and Embracing Risk

Öz

This work examines a range of qualitative research approaches used in the field of social sciences, including phenomenology, content analysis, action research, critical research, and critical discourse analysis. This argument underscores the significance of adopting a Foucauldian lens, which serves to question the binary opposition between realist and idealist underpinnings in the realm of research methodologies. The text provides an introduction to the notion of “fearless speech” or parrhesia, which is distinguished by its frankness, truth-telling, and acknowledgment of risk. Furthermore, it underscores the inherent danger associated with truth-telling, particularly when confronting those in positions of authority. This study seeks to provide insights into the ethical and methodological dilemmas faced by urban sociology and war and peace studies. The article finishes by establishing a connection between the qualitative research principles and research conducted on the phenomenon of urban fabric destruction. In that way, it is an attempt not only to question the theoretical basis but also to influence the ethical aspects of qualitative research in the intricate context of urban fabric destruction.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Parrhesia
• Qualitative Research
• Critical Discourse Analysis
• Action Research
• The Destruction of Urban Fabric

Nitel Araştırmada Parrhesia: Gerçeklerin Ortaya Çıkarılması, İktidar Eleştirisi̇ ve Riski̇ Kucaklamak

Öz

Bu çalışma, fenomenoloji, içerik analizi, eylem araştırması, eleştirel araştırma ve eleştirel söylem analizi de dahil olmak üzere sosyal bilimler alanında kullanılan bir dizi nitel araştırma yaklaşımını incelemektedir. Bu tartışma, araştırma metodolojileri alanında realist ve idealist temeller arasındaki ikili karşıtlığı sorgulamaya hizmet eden Foucaultcu bir merceğin benimsenmesinin öneminin altını çizmektedir. Metin, açık sözlülüğü, gerçeği söylemesi ve riski kabul etmesiyle ayırt edilen “korkusuz konuşma” ya da parrhesia kavramına bir giriş sunmaktadır. Ayrıca, özellikle otorite konumundaki kişilerle karşı karşıya gelindiğinde, hakikati söylemenin doğasında var olan tehlikenin altını çizmektedir. Bu çalışma, kent sosyolojisi ile savaş ve barış çalışmalarının karşılaştığı etik ve metodolojik açmazlara ışık tutmayı amaçlamaktadır. Makale, bu ilkeler ile kentsel dokunun tahrip edilmesi olgusu üzerine yapılan araştırmalar arasında bir bağlantı kurarak sona ermektedir. Bu şekilde, sadece teorik temeli sorgulamakla kalmayıp, aynı zamanda kentsel dokunun tahribatının karmaşık bağlamında nitel araştırmanın etik yönlerini etkilemeye yönelik bir girişimdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Parrhesia
• Nitel Araştırma
• Eleştirel Söylem Analizi
• Eylem Araştırması
• Kentsel Dokunun Yıkımı

Kaynakça

1. Abujidi, N. (2014). Urbicide in Palestine: Spaces of oppression and resilience. Routledge.
2. Bekiroğlu, S. (2023). Conceptualizing urbicide: Space, memory, war, and necropolitics [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University].
3. Brown, W. (2010). Walled states, waning sovereignty. Zone Books.
4. Butler, J. (2009). Frames of war. Verso.
5. Cannella, G. S., & Perez, M. S. (2009). Power-shifting at the speed of light: Critical qualitative research post-disaster. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and social justice (pp. 165-183). Routledge.
6. Cochran, P. A. L., Marshall, C. A., Garcia-Dowling, C., Kendall, E., Cook, D., McCubbin, L., & Gover, M. S. (2008). Indigenous ways of knowing: Implications for participatory research and community. American Journal of Public Health, 98(1), 22-27.
7. Cooke, M. L. (1994). Method as ruse: Foucault and research method. Mid-American Review of Sociology, 18(1/2), 47-65.
8. Coward, M. (2004). Urbicide in Bosnia. In S. Graham (Ed.), Cities, war, and terrorism: Towards an urban geopolitics (pp. 154-171). Blackwell Publishing.

9. Coward, M. (2007). Urbicide reconsidered. Theory & Event, 10(2).
10. Coward, M. (2009). Urbicide: The politics of urban destruction. Routledge.
11. Darder, A., Baltodano, M., & Torres, R. D. (2009). The critical pedagogy reader. Routledge.
12. Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis. Oxford University Press.
13. Dyrberg, T. B. (2014). Foucault on the politics of parrhesia. Palgrave Macmillan.
14. Foucault, M. (1997). What is critique? In S. Lotringer & L. Hochroth (Eds.), The politics of truth (pp. 23–82). MIT Press.
15. Foucault, M. (2001). Fearless speech. Semiotext(e).
16. Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be defended. Picador.
17. Foucault, M. (2011). The courage of the truth (The government of self and others II) lectures at the Collège de France 1983–1984. Palgrave Macmillan.
18. Foucault, M. (2019). ‘Discourse and truth’, and parrhesia. University of Chicago Press.
19. Graham, S. (2002). Bulldozers and bombs: The latest Palestinian–Israeli conflict as asymmetric urbicide. Antipode, 34(4), 642-649. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00259
20. Graham, S. (2004). Cities as strategic sites: Place annihilation and urban geopolitics. In S. Graham (Ed.), Cities, war, and terrorism: Towards an urban geopolitics (pp. 31-53). Blackwell Publishing.
21. Graham, S. (2010). Cities under siege: The new military urbanism. Verso.
22. Harris, C. (2004). The photograph reincarnate: The dynamics of Tibetan relationships with photography. In E. Edwards & J. Hart (Eds.), Photographs objects histories: On the materiality of images (pp. 139-155). Routledge.
23. Kaldor, M. (2012). New and old wars: Organized violence in a global era. Polity Press.
24. Kardeş, E. (2019). Yönsüzleşmiş savaşlar: Politik felsefenin bir sınır meselesi olan savaşa dair. Pinhan Yayıncılık.
25. Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Springer.
26. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE.
27. Mann, D. (2022). Occupying habits: Everyday media as warfare in Israel-Palestine. I.B. Tauris.
28. Maschi, T. (2016). Applying a human rights approach to social work research and evaluation: A rights research manifesto. Springer.
29. McFalls, L., & Pandolfi, M. (2014). Parrhesia and therapeusis: Foucault on and in the world of contemporary neoliberalism. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Foucault now: Current perspectives in Foucault studies (pp. 168-187). Polity Press.
30. Miyahara, M. (2015). Emerging self-identities and emotion in foreign language learning: A narrative-oriented approach. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093823
31. Peerbolte, B. J. L. (2018). Introduction. In P. B. Smit & E. van Urk (Eds.), Parrhesia: Ancient and modern perspectives on freedom of speech (pp. 1-11). BRILL.
32. Petruk, N. K., & Gapchenko, O. V. (2023). Principles of discourse ethics and human existence in times of war. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 23, 44-55.
33. Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research: Understanding qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
34. Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. Routledge.
35. Stavrides, S. (2010). Towards the city of thresholds. Common Notions.
36. Taylor, K. T., Nilsson, M., Forero, P., & Restrepo, M. A. (2020). Conducting field research amid violence: Experiences from Colombia. In Y. G. Acar, S. M. Moss, & Ö. M. Uluğ (Eds.), Researching peace, conflict, and power in the field: Methodological challenges and opportunities (pp. 9-28). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44113-5
37. Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352-371). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194
38. Weizman, E. (2007). Hollow land: Israel’s architecture of occupation. Verso.
39. Weizman, E. (2017). Forensic architecture: Violence at the threshold of detectability. Zone Books.
40. Wu, M. (2023). Intelligent warfare: Prospects of military development in the age of AI. Routledge.
41. Zehfuss, M. (2019). Writing war/ethics: Departures and indirections. Critical Studies on Security, 7(3), 258-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2019.1707357