(Im)Possible Erasure of "Methodology" Act

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

Abstract

Objectives: This paper returns to the methodologies as relational potential, thoughts in the act, and interrelational activities. Postmodern times and more-than-human theories call for movement beyond epistemology and methodology (see e.g., Lenz Taguchi, 2016; St. Pierre, 2017) especially since the normativity of methodology, its’ conventional humanist history limit the possibilities of alternative ontologies and ways of doing. At the same time it might unnecessary to erase methodologies as irrelevant or guard methodological thought in the act too closely (see Manning & Massumi, 2014). Instead, one could continuously question the role, functions, and emerging extensions of methodologies and to stay open to diverse and unseen possibilities as repeatedly revisioned, reconceptualized, and re-practiced (i.e., as post-methods, methodologies without methodology, anti-methodologies, research-creations. See Koro-Ljungberg, 2016; Manning, 2016; Nordstrom, 2015).

Perspective: Methodological thought can be found in the movement and act and as such it is always already relational (Manning & Massumi, 2014; Whitehead, 1978). “Every practice is a mode of thought, already in the act” (Manning & Massumi, 2014, p. vii). Scholars enter the field (methodology) at any point, always in the middle, and through the act and excess of existing practices. Becoming, more-than-one, and virtual methodologies are relational, affected and being affected by other methodologies and function as tools through which thinking happens. However, this relationality might not always be ‘recognizable’ or describable in language.

Point of view: Cheek (2017) talks about openness to difference, adding some +s (pluses) to our methodological thinking, and moving from a part of the problem (i.e., term methodology, coding, linear analysis, humanistic representation) toward connections, relationality, and interrelated problems. The dogmatic image of methodological thought and practice needs to be challenged including our desire to formalize and precondition qualitative inquiry of any kind. For example, ‘what-if, as-if, more-than, self-structuring, and trans-methodologies’ have potential to push language, acts, and expressions to their (narrative) and social limits. In addition, the potentiality of methodologies has to do with mutual inclusion, ecologies, taking risks and relating to other people, and orienting towards becoming-other (see Massumi, 2015).

Conclusions and scholarly significance: Instead of fixed or conventional methodological objects/practices one could think about methodological tendencies; tendencies which can clash yet participate to each other. Tendencies can “interpenetrate, without losing their own character. Each tendency is characterized by a certain mode or rhythm of unfolding” (p. 189). Tendencies and the creation of methodological concepts increase scholars’ capacities to act, feel, and think decreasing judgment. Massumi (2015) cautioned us that the process of pinning down and separating out [methodologies] are weaknesses of judgment because they don’t allow seeds of change or connections in the making to be activated. “Judgmental reason is extremely weak form of thought, precisely because it is so sure of itself” (Massumi, 2015, p.15). Rather than judging qualitative researchers could emphasize uncertainty, speculation, the importance of methodological improvisation of all kind, affective attunements, and diverse cartographies of potential (see Massumi, 2015) especially since the relational methodological field is unlimited and always full of unactualized potential for thinking in the act.

Author

• Mirka E. Koro-Ljungberg, Arizona State University