Maria Kmita
I am a humour researcher specialising in staffroom humour ( that was the focus of my PhD research ). My research interests include: spontanous humour, staffrooms, school workplace, qualitative methodology.
I am also a lecturer in English as a Foreign Language and co-lecturer of Humour research course.
I am also a lecturer in English as a Foreign Language and co-lecturer of Humour research course.
less
Related Authors
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Maria Kmita
interactions between participants and researcher that can be treated just like the research data. By means of
autoethnographic analysis, the author explores the expectations of the researcher and participants that
humour research entails and discusses how different expectations are revealed in participants’ provocations.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses an autoethnographic approach to discuss the informal
interactions between participants and the researcher gathered during research into staffroom humour.
The informal interactions in general and humour specifically were recorded, analysed, coded, interpreted and
theorised just like the data on humour between participants. The theoretical framework used in the study
combines Goffman’s (1959) version of symbolic interactionism and Solomon et al. (2006) idea of hybrid spaces.
Findings – The study shows the need for reconsideration of expectations entangled in humour research and
proposes to be prepared for unexpected. Expecting unexpected can help stay open minded in the field and in
interactions with participants and apply healthy distance towards own research and own expectations.
The study shows that whenever certain behaviour was expected and different behaviour was delivered, there
was a chance for certain behaviour being interpreted as provocations. Participants’ provocations can result
from their own expectations about the research or what they think is expected from them by the researcher
and thus they remain subject to different interpretations.
Research limitations/implications – Further research could investigate and discuss the role of humour in
participant-researcher interactions in different research contexts and across different methodologies.
Combining and analysing experiences of use of humour from both participants and researchers could allow
for creating the guidelines in the use of humour in different research situations. Ethical challenges posed by
informal interactions between researcher and participants could be explored further and suggestions as to
how to protect the researcher, research and participants in such interactions could be developed.
Originality/value – This paper aims to be a starting point for a discussion about the understudied
relationship between expectations humour research is entangled with and participants’ provocations.
The study shows innovative approach to informal interactions between participants’ and researcher which
are treated as research data and are theorised using original combination of symbolic interactionism and
hybrid spaces. The study contributes to the qualitative research methodology by discussing the ethics of both
using humour with participants and recording and analysing informal humorous interactions between
participants and the researcher.
Keywords Humour research, Participants’ provocations, Research expectations
a fusion autoethnographic analysis of how lead author used humor to interact with the participants. This analysis outlines the two examples of joke-ability; specifically self-deprecating humor and more generally attempts to blend in.
interactions between participants and researcher that can be treated just like the research data. By means of
autoethnographic analysis, the author explores the expectations of the researcher and participants that
humour research entails and discusses how different expectations are revealed in participants’ provocations.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses an autoethnographic approach to discuss the informal
interactions between participants and the researcher gathered during research into staffroom humour.
The informal interactions in general and humour specifically were recorded, analysed, coded, interpreted and
theorised just like the data on humour between participants. The theoretical framework used in the study
combines Goffman’s (1959) version of symbolic interactionism and Solomon et al. (2006) idea of hybrid spaces.
Findings – The study shows the need for reconsideration of expectations entangled in humour research and
proposes to be prepared for unexpected. Expecting unexpected can help stay open minded in the field and in
interactions with participants and apply healthy distance towards own research and own expectations.
The study shows that whenever certain behaviour was expected and different behaviour was delivered, there
was a chance for certain behaviour being interpreted as provocations. Participants’ provocations can result
from their own expectations about the research or what they think is expected from them by the researcher
and thus they remain subject to different interpretations.
Research limitations/implications – Further research could investigate and discuss the role of humour in
participant-researcher interactions in different research contexts and across different methodologies.
Combining and analysing experiences of use of humour from both participants and researchers could allow
for creating the guidelines in the use of humour in different research situations. Ethical challenges posed by
informal interactions between researcher and participants could be explored further and suggestions as to
how to protect the researcher, research and participants in such interactions could be developed.
Originality/value – This paper aims to be a starting point for a discussion about the understudied
relationship between expectations humour research is entangled with and participants’ provocations.
The study shows innovative approach to informal interactions between participants’ and researcher which
are treated as research data and are theorised using original combination of symbolic interactionism and
hybrid spaces. The study contributes to the qualitative research methodology by discussing the ethics of both
using humour with participants and recording and analysing informal humorous interactions between
participants and the researcher.
Keywords Humour research, Participants’ provocations, Research expectations
a fusion autoethnographic analysis of how lead author used humor to interact with the participants. This analysis outlines the two examples of joke-ability; specifically self-deprecating humor and more generally attempts to blend in.