Department of Management

Troubling Methods in Qualitative Inquiry and Beyond

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Troubling Methods in Qualitative Inquiry and Beyond. / Tanggaard, Lene.

In: Europe's Journal of Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2013.

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Tanggaard, L 2013, 'Troubling Methods in Qualitative Inquiry and Beyond', Europe's Journal of Psychology, vol. 9, no. 3. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v9i3.647

APA

Tanggaard, L. (2013). Troubling Methods in Qualitative Inquiry and Beyond. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v9i3.647

CBE

Tanggaard L. 2013. Troubling Methods in Qualitative Inquiry and Beyond. Europe's Journal of Psychology. 9(3). https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v9i3.647

MLA

Tanggaard, Lene. "Troubling Methods in Qualitative Inquiry and Beyond". Europe's Journal of Psychology. 2013. 9(3). https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v9i3.647

Vancouver

Author

Tanggaard, Lene. / Troubling Methods in Qualitative Inquiry and Beyond. In: Europe's Journal of Psychology. 2013 ; Vol. 9, No. 3.

Bibtex

@article{4340794985ca42b8b6a7ae62c07ce924,
title = "Troubling Methods in Qualitative Inquiry and Beyond",
abstract = "This present paper troubles and literally {\textquoteleft}shakes{\textquoteright} the idea of methods as the founding ground of qualitative inquiry. It does so by addressing the real-time messiness of research and the retrospective character of research reports. While the paper is not as such opposed to methods, it does suggest that many actual research practices do not follow defined and regular plans as the terminology of methods inclines. However, rather than seeing the messiness as a bias to be eliminated, a more constructive approach is suggested. With the intention of inviting more creative and thought-provoking research within qualitative inquiry, three specific {\textquoteleft}messy{\textquoteright} research strategies are suggested in the paper. These are: 1) Searching for associations between actors, of both human and non-human kinds, 2) following the traces of many kinds of actors and 3) doing a theoretical re-working of materials. The overall suggestion is that these open-ended and flexible strategies allow for an innovative approach to the development of a qualitative psychology while also serving to trouble (at least for a moment) the current popularity of methods in research.",
author = "Lene Tanggaard",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.5964/ejop.v9i3.647",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
journal = "Europe's Journal of Psychology",
issn = "1841-0413",
publisher = "PsychOpen",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Troubling Methods in Qualitative Inquiry and Beyond

AU - Tanggaard, Lene

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - This present paper troubles and literally ‘shakes’ the idea of methods as the founding ground of qualitative inquiry. It does so by addressing the real-time messiness of research and the retrospective character of research reports. While the paper is not as such opposed to methods, it does suggest that many actual research practices do not follow defined and regular plans as the terminology of methods inclines. However, rather than seeing the messiness as a bias to be eliminated, a more constructive approach is suggested. With the intention of inviting more creative and thought-provoking research within qualitative inquiry, three specific ‘messy’ research strategies are suggested in the paper. These are: 1) Searching for associations between actors, of both human and non-human kinds, 2) following the traces of many kinds of actors and 3) doing a theoretical re-working of materials. The overall suggestion is that these open-ended and flexible strategies allow for an innovative approach to the development of a qualitative psychology while also serving to trouble (at least for a moment) the current popularity of methods in research.

AB - This present paper troubles and literally ‘shakes’ the idea of methods as the founding ground of qualitative inquiry. It does so by addressing the real-time messiness of research and the retrospective character of research reports. While the paper is not as such opposed to methods, it does suggest that many actual research practices do not follow defined and regular plans as the terminology of methods inclines. However, rather than seeing the messiness as a bias to be eliminated, a more constructive approach is suggested. With the intention of inviting more creative and thought-provoking research within qualitative inquiry, three specific ‘messy’ research strategies are suggested in the paper. These are: 1) Searching for associations between actors, of both human and non-human kinds, 2) following the traces of many kinds of actors and 3) doing a theoretical re-working of materials. The overall suggestion is that these open-ended and flexible strategies allow for an innovative approach to the development of a qualitative psychology while also serving to trouble (at least for a moment) the current popularity of methods in research.

U2 - 10.5964/ejop.v9i3.647

DO - 10.5964/ejop.v9i3.647

M3 - Journal article

VL - 9

JO - Europe's Journal of Psychology

JF - Europe's Journal of Psychology

SN - 1841-0413

IS - 3

ER -