Search

We introduce this special issue of Qualitative Research in Psychology by discussing four themes which, in our view, characterise the collective significance of the papers in this special issue. Even in highlighting these thematic similarities, however, we point to important differences in their manifestation across different papers. In discussing bodies, we highlight an underexplored distinction between the body as ground of experience and the body as the enabler of experience. We also draw attention to three issues relating to (linguistic) representations of feelings, emotions and affect: the problem of ineffability; the role of naming feeling; and how to methodologically and analytically account for differences in the ways that feelings are talked about and named. Regarding situatedness in space and time, we note at least four analytical positions, which frame and reveal different aspects of affective phenomena. Finally, with respect to affective practices we identify two quite different approaches that, whilst sharing some characteristics, are different enough to warrant further specification when researchers deploy this term. Whilst welcoming the apparent trend away from purely language-based methods, we also offer some suggestions for how researchers can move further down this path. Nonetheless qualitative research on feeling, affect and emotion is in fine fettle. As the contributions attest, the time is ripe for this special issue of Qualitative Research in Psychology.

In recent years, the “affective turn” has permeated the arts, humanities, social sciences, and psychology, but like any influential academic movement, has not escaped critique. We outline and agree in general terms with a critique by Leys which emphasises the influence of the basic emotion paradigm; the dualisms that accompany its deployment; and concerns regarding intentionality and meaning. We then propose an alternate approach to affect and feeling, derived from the philosophies of Whitehead and Langer; demonstrate how this avoids the endorsement of cognitivism to which Leys, critique succumbs; illustrate the strengths of this approach with respect to analyses of former U.S. President Reagan; and highlight two strengths of affect theory which are compatible with it. We conclude that our approach closes the intentionality gap that Leys identifies whilst retaining a fruitful emphasis upon the affective realm.

The current age of ‘austerity’ is associated with neoliberal ideology. Neoliberalism can be understood as a form of governmentality – a way of reconfiguring selves and the social order in accord with the demands of market economies. A recent UK policy initiative by the Coalition government’s Behavioural Insights Team required benefit claimants to submit to online psychometric testing. We examine this policy in some detail, arguing that this use of psychometric testing is flawed, unethical, and unlikely to help claimants to find work. Our analysis of the test procedure and its results suggests that the policy functions primarily as a means whereby benefit claimants can be ‘nudged’ towards acceptance of the precepts of neoliberal subjectivities.

Recent influences on the design of automobile driving exposure surveys are briefly discussed relative to other areas of travel demand research. The case for the collection of micro data is argued as background to the development of a major driving exposure survey effort, known as the Michigan Driving Experience Survey, which interviewed 7581 drivers statewide during all of 1976. A summary of sampling, interview, data preparation and quality control methodologies is given, with a description of studies so far released and examples of findings. In commenting on Michigan's experience with the methodology, which was implemented at low cost entirely with the sponsoring state agency's own personnel, survey management is identified as the area most critical to success.