Your search
Results 5 resources
-
In this article, we explore transformative interviewing through the lens of new materialism. Rather than viewing transformation through a humanist perspective that centralizes a transcendent self, we draw upon Barad’s agential realism to reconsider transformation following the ontological turn. Thinking with agential realism, we engaged two interview studies, one on biracialism and one on masculinity, to demonstrate how the materiality of our interviews (e.g., research bodies, computer programs, questionnaires) intra-acted with our participants to both facilitate and hinder our attempts at transformation. We conclude by theorizing transformation as a type of purposeful entanglement that proceeds from the material-discursive intra-actions of our inquiries.
-
In this study, we investigated (1) whether adoptive parents suspected their children might have been victims of abduction for adoption in China and (2) for parents who were uncertain if their own children might be victims of child abduction for adoption, how they coped with the possibility. A total of 342 adoptive parents (representing 529 adopted Chinese children) completed an anonymous online survey on their experiences. Of the 342 parents, 154 (45%) described how they coped with the possibility that their children might be the victims of child abduction for adoption. In terms of suspicion, we found that for about 70% of the children, the parents responded Never; for 18.5% of the children, the parents responded Rarely; for 11.7% of the children, the parents responded Sometimes; and for about 1% of the children, the parents responded that they Always suspected that their children might be victims of abduction for adoption. In terms of coping with the possibility that their children might have been victims of child abduction for adoption, thematic analysis on the 154 parents’ descriptions revealed that parents experienced one or more of seven emotional reactions: sadness, frustration/helplessness, complicity/guilt, anger, fear/worry, hypervigilance, resolve, as well as the belief that they were not affected. Finally, we discussed contributing factors to child abduction for adoption and to adoptive parents’ suspicion of such a practice.
-
This special issue takes up urgent questions about how we education scholars might think and do policy and methodology in what has come to be known as the post-truth era. The authors in this special issue grapple with questions about the roles and responsibilities of educational researchers in an era in which research and policy have lost their moorings in T/truth. Collectively they reconceptualize educational research and policy in light of post-truths, anti-science sentiment, and the global rise of right-wing populism. At the same time we editors wonder whether post-truth is given a bad rap. Could post-truth have something productive to offer? What does post-truth open up for educational research and policy? Or, is the real issue of this special issue a collective despair of our own insignificance and obsolescence in the wake of post-truth. Whatever we editors and authors aimed to do, this special issue will not be heard by post-truth adherents and partisans. Perhaps its only contribution is encouragement to stay with the troubles of a post-truth era, even as we despair the consequences of our research and policy creations. © 2018, Arizona State University. All rights reserved.
-
Inspired by work/think/play in qualitative research, we centered the idea of “play” in a qualitative research project to explore what proceeding from the idea of work/think/play might look like and accomplish. We pursued play in an experimental qualitative inquiry over dinner one night at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Our article centers on one work/think/play inquiry three of us conducted. Through a playful account of how play unfolded in our work/think/play inquiry that evening, we explore research play as generative, deadly, and censored in the context of neoliberalism and other terrors. We reflect on what (good) play does in qualitative research, what our work/think/play/birth/death/terror/qualitative/research accomplished, if anything. Maybe research play is vital, what keeps us fit to do critical qualitative research. Yet research play moves (well) beyond normative rules of much qualitative research. Is it worth the risk? Can we know? Even after?
Explore
Resource type
- Journal Article (5)
Publication year
Resource language
- English (4)