Reading Intensively: Methodological Literature as Something to Think With

• In Event: Rescuing? Method in (Post)Qualitative Research

Abstract

Objectives: St. Pierre (2011) argues that without reading philosophy, “we have nothing much to think with” (p. 614) during inquiry. Philosophical concepts have the potential to “stop us in our tracks, slow us down, and displace old habits of thinking and doing so that things open up” (St. Pierre, 2015, p. 9). In this paper, we draw on Deleuze’s (1973/1995) notion of intensive reading to position texts about qualitative methods and methodologies (i.e. methodological literature) as something to think with rather than step-by-step processes to follow. Our hope is to produce encounters and connections across educational research rather than reject methods once and for all.

Perspectives: Deleuze (1973/1995) describes how reading intensively is guided by questions like ‘Does it work, and how does it work?’ (p. 8) rather than critiquing meaning. Intensive reading operates on a flat ontology, where words, objects, identities, actions, concepts, etc enter into new connections and flows, picking up speed and slowing down. The work is to experiment, “getting [a book] to interact with other things, absolutely anything…” (p. 9), and if no connections are made, Deleuze recommends, “you try another book” (p. 8). Reading methodological literature intensively, then, welcomes anything from procedural data collection methods to narratives of how scholars worked through ethical conundrums in a conventional humanist study, asking “whether there might be any points of contact, chance encounters and coincidences rather than alignments and rallying-points” (p. 11).

Modes of inquiry: The inquiry for this paper happens always already in the middle of intensive reading, writing, collaborating, living, and so on--experimenting with rhythms of inquiry aimed at being “responsible and responsive to the world’s patternings and murmurings” (Barad, 2012, p. 207) while also negotiating work in the academy (e.g., Authors, 2017; Ulmer, 2017). As such, writing is foregrounded in the inquiry, useful as a way of knowing, doing, and thinking (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005).

Data materials: We draw on our writing (both published and in unpublished documents) across various projects in education, including experiments with philosophical concepts, disciplinary fields (e.g., literacy, educational policy, nature-based education), and methods and methodologies that we’ve claimed as qualitative and post-qualitative.

Results and significance: We read methodological literature, in part, because we are required to teach it in classes, and we must produce ourselves as coherent, recognizable qualitative researchers (Collective, 2017). Reading methodological literature intensively enables it to become generative in the midst of inquiry, “always in-the-making” and “hospitable to new thought” (Massumi, 2015, pp. 61-62). As philosophical literature (e.g., Deleuze, Braidotti, Derrida) (dis)connects with methodological literature as we read/write, the incommensurability of humanist methods (e.g. observation) and post/anti-humanist philosophy (St. Pierre, 2011) generate new problems of ethics, action, and methodology that must be re-thought and re-done for each paper, each classroom interaction, and so on. This work helps us to continuously find/create ways to uphold the SIG’s mission (AERA, 2017) to emphasize how “qualitative research may contribute to reducing inequality and injustice in schools and society” while also “legitimiz[ing] all non-traditional forms of research.”

Authors

• Sarah Bridges-Rhoads, Georgia State University

• Jessica Van Cleave, Mars Hill University