Curiosity and Serendipity in Qualitative Research

Malin Åkerström

doi:10.18778/1733-8077.09.2.02

Authors

Malin Åkerström Lund University, Sweden

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.09.2.02

Keywords:

Serendipity, Qualitative Methods, Curiosity

Abstract

This presentation argues that we seldom speak of our findings in qualitative research as serendipitous, although we have splendid possibilities to make surprising findings. In order to enhance the chances and sharpen our analyses we have to read broadly but also pay attention to details in our data. We should avoid societal or scholarly conventionality, even be disobedient to recommendations, if this blinds us to new meanings of our findings. The value of serendipitous findings lies in the fact that they diverge from conventionally held knowledge. Thus, we have to retain our curiosity, with the “strange intoxication” or passion that Ma XWeber wrote about in Science as Vocation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Malin Åkerström, Lund University, Sweden

Malin Åkerström is a Professor of Sociology at Lund University in Sweden. Her research focuses on ethnographic studies of deviance and social control. She has published several books, including Betrayal and Betrayers and Crooks and Squares, and articles such as: “Slaps, Punches, Pinches – But not Violence: Boundary Work in Nursing Homes for Elderly” (in Symbolic Interaction), “Doing Ambivalence: Embracing Policy Innovation – At Arm’s Length” (Social Problems), and “Balancing Contradictory Identities ‒ Performing Masculinity in Victim Narratives” (Åkerström, Burcar, and Wästerfors), Sociological Perspective.

References

Agar, Michael. 1994. Language Shock. Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: Perennial Books.
Google Scholar

Åkerström, Malin. 2002. “Slaps, Punches, Pinches – But not Violence: Boundary Work in Nursing Homes for the Elderly.” Symbolic Interaction 25(4):515-536.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2002.25.4.515

Åkerström, Malin. 2011. “Möterskultur i ungdomsvården [Meeting culture in juvenile care in the social services].” Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift 18(3):186-205.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2011.18.3.2511

Andel van, Pek. 1994. “Anatomy of the unsought finding. Serendipity: origin, history, domains, traditions, appearances, patterns and programmability.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45(2):631-648.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/45.2.631

Basic, Goran, Joakim Thelander, and Malin Åkerström. 2009. Vårdkedja för ungdomar eller professionella? [Care as inter-organizational cooperation ‒ for youngster or for professionals?].” Stockholm: Statens institutionsstyrelse.
Google Scholar

Brown, Roger. 1965. Social Psychology. New York: Free Press.
Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1982. Interaction Ritual. New York: Pantheon Books.
Google Scholar

Katz, Jack. 2001. “Analytic Induction.” Pp. 480-484 in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by N. J. Smelser, P. B. Baltes. Oxford: Elsevier.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00774-9

Kärfve Eva. 2000. Hjärnspöken: Damp och hotet mot folkhälsan [literally: Brain-ghosts, a play with word: could be Brain damage, the risk of Damp (appr. ADHD) for the public health]. Stockholm: Symposion.
Google Scholar

Meyers, Morton. 2007. Happy Accidents ‒ Serendipity in Modern Medical Breakthroughs. When Scientists Find What They’re NOT Looking for. New York: Arcade.
Google Scholar

Norrby, Erling. 2010. Nobel Prizes and Life Sciences. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/7677

Sacks, Harvey. 2005. Lectures on Conversation, vol. I & II. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar

Sandström, Ulf et al. 2010. Hans Excellens: om miljardsatsningarna på starka forskningsmiljöer [His Excellency: on the investments of billions in centers of excellence]. Stockholm: Högskoleverket [Swedish National Agency for Higher Education].
Google Scholar

Swedberg, Richard. 2012. “Theorizing in sociology and social science ‒ turning to the context of discovery.” Theory and Society 41(1):1-40.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-011-9161-5