Comprehensive or Comprehensible Experience? A Case Study of Religion and Traumatic Bereavement

William Mcgowan,Elizabeth A Cook

doi:10.1177/1360780420978662

Abstract

The first half of this article provides a brief overview of two respective projects concerning traumatic bereavement, in which religious faith appeared to feature amid a constellation of significant coping and sense-making mechanisms for survivors. After presenting some illustrative examples of the kind of data produced in the course of our research, the second half of the article develops a retrospectively critical appraisal of our data collection and corresponding analysis practices. In questioning the extent to which our accounts of our participants’ accounts can be considered adequate representations of social order, we critically explore the relative potential of ‘reflexivity’ for bridging the experiential gap between researchers and participants. Taken together, these reflections prompt a return to the salutary question: what counts as sociologically ‘see-able’?

Highlights

Researching violence, bereavement, and mourning inevitably leads us to recognisable, yet unfamiliar stories
While its proponents have pointed to its emancipatory and critical potential, we argue that the practice of reflexivity is ordinary and mundane; it does not, in this case, carry inherent methodological value alone for grappling with faith and religious worldviews, or for wholly reconstructing participants’ partial or unchallenged accounts
Our focus on religion stems from similar experiences we shared during our respective doctoral research projects which were completed in 2018

Summary

Introduction

Anything, serve to highlight the ontological chasms that exist between us and our participants. While its proponents have pointed to its emancipatory and critical potential, we argue that the practice of reflexivity is ordinary and mundane; it does not, in this case, carry inherent methodological value alone for grappling with faith and religious worldviews, or for wholly reconstructing participants’ partial or unchallenged accounts. In light of these arguments, the final section considers alternative research design strategies we might employ to resist methodological tendencies that create detached, ‘expert’ knowledge only of epistemic value to social scientific communities. The article concludes by reflecting on the gap between comprehension and comprehensibility in social research, returning to the salutary question: what counts as sociologically ‘see-able’?

Background to our respective studies

Conclusion