9

CRITICAL PEDAGOGY AND

2  Criticality and Research relations of domination and subordination rather than equality
and independence. Given the social and technological changes
Over the past 35 years of our involvement in critical theory, of the last half of the century, which led to new forms of infor-
critical pedagogy, and critical research, we have been asked to mation production and access, critical theorists argued that
explain how critical theory relates to pedagogy. We find that questions of self-direction and democratic egalitarianism
question difficult to answer because (1) there are many critical should be reassessed. Researchers informed by the postdis-
theories; (2) the critical tradition is always changing and evolv- courses (e.g., postmodernism, critical feminism, poststructural-
ing; and (3) critical theory attempts to avoid too much specific- ism) came to understand that individuals’ view of themselves
ity, as there is room for disagreement among critical theorists. and the world were even more influenced by social and histori-
To lay out a set of fixed characteristics of the position is contrary cal forces than previously believed. Given the changing social
to the desire of such theorists to avoid the production of blue- and informational conditions of late-20th century and early-
prints of sociopolitical and epistemological beliefs. Given these 21st century, media-saturated Western culture (Steinberg,
disclaimers, we will now attempt to provide one idiosyncratic 2004a, 2004b), critical theorists have needed new ways of resear­
“take” on the nature of critical theory and critical research in the ching and analyzing the construction of individuals (Agger,
second decade of the 21st century. Please note that this is our 1992; Flossner & Otto, 1998; Giroux, 2010; Hammer & Kellner,
subjective analysis and that there are many brilliant critical 2009; Hinchey, 2009; Kincheloe, 2007; Leistyna, Woodrum, &
theorists who disagree with our pronouncements. We tender a Sherblom, 1996; Quail, Razzano, & Skalli, 2004; Skalli, 2004;
description of an ever-evolving criticality, a reconceptualized Steinberg, 2007, 2009; Wesson & Weaver, 2001).
critical theory that was critiqued and overhauled by the “post-
discourses” of the last quarter of the 20th century and has been
further extended in the 21st century (Collins, 1995; Giroux,
Partisan Research in a “Neutral” Academic Culture
1997; Kellner, 1995; Kincheloe, 2008b; McLaren & Kincheloe, In the space available here, it is impossible to do justice to all
2007; Roman & Eyre, 1997; Ryoo & McLaren, 2010; Steinberg & of the critical traditions that have drawn inspiration from Karl
Kincheloe, 1998; Tobin, 2009; Weil & Kincheloe, 2004). Marx; Immanuel Kant; Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel; Max
A reconceptualized critical theory questions the assumption Weber; the Frankfurt School theorists; Continental social theo-
that societies such as Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, rists such as Jean Baudrillard, Michel Foucault, Jürgen Habermas,
and the United States, along with the nations in the European and Jacques Derrida; Latin American thinkers such as Paulo
Union, are unproblematically democratic and free (Steinberg, Freire; French feminists such as Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva,
2010). Over the 20th century, especially after the early 1960s, indi- and Hélène Cixous; or Russian socio-sociolinguists such as
viduals in these societies were acculturated to feel comfortable in Mikhail Bakhtin and Lev Vygotsky—most of whom regularly

2– 163
164– 2– PART II   PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN CONTENTION

find their way into the reference lists of contemporary critical inter- and cross-disciplinary moves are examples of what has
researchers. Today, there are criticalist schools in many fields, been referred to as bricolage—a key innovation, we argue, in
and even a superficial discussion of the most prominent of an evolving criticality. We will explore this dynamic in relation
these schools would demand much more space than we have to critical research later in this chapter. We offer this observa-
available (Chapman, 2010; Flecha, Gomez, & Puigvert, 2003). tion about blurred genres, not as an excuse to be wantonly
The fact that numerous books have been written about the eclectic in our treatment of the critical tradition but to make
often-virulent disagreements among members of the Frankfurt the point that any attempts to delineate critical theory as dis-
School only heightens our concern with the “packaging” of the crete schools of analysis will fail to capture the evolving
different criticalist schools. Critical theory should not be treated hybridity endemic to contemporary critical analysis (Denzin,
as a universal grammar of revolutionary thought objectified 1994; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Kincheloe, 2001a, 2008b;
and reduced to discrete formulaic pronouncements or strate- Kincheloe & Berry, 2004; Steinberg, 2008, 2010, 2011).
gies. Obviously, in presenting our version of a reconceptualized Critical research can be understood best in the context of the
critical theory or an evolving criticality, we have defined the empowerment of individuals. Inquiry that aspires to the name
critical tradition broadly for the purpose of generating under- “critical” must be connected to an attempt to confront the injus-
standing; as we asserted earlier, this will trouble many critical tice of a particular society or public sphere within the society.
researchers. In this move, we decided to focus on the underlying Research becomes a transformative endeavor unembarrassed
commonality among critical schools of thought at the cost of by the label “political” and unafraid to consummate a relation-
focusing on differences. This is always risky business in terms of ship with emancipatory consciousness. Whereas traditional
suggesting a false unity or consensus where none exists, but researchers cling to the guardrail of neutrality, critical research-
such concerns are unavoidable in a survey chapter such as this. ers frequently announce their partisanship in the struggle for a
We are defining a criticalist as a researcher, teacher, or theo- better world (Chapman, 2010; Grinberg, 2003; Horn, 2004;
rist who attempts to use her or his work as a form of social or Kincheloe, 2001b, 2008b).
cultural criticism and who accepts certain basic assumptions:

„„ All thought is fundamentally mediated by power relations that Critical Pedagogy Informing Social Research
are social and historically constituted; The work of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire is instructive in
„„ Facts can never be isolated from the domain of values or relation to constructing research that contributes to the struggle
removed from some form of ideological inscription; for a better world. The research of the authors of this chapter
„„ The relationship between concept and object and between sig-
has been influenced profoundly by the work of Freire (1970,
nifier and signified is never stable or fixed and is often medi-
ated by the social relations of capitalist production and 1972, 1978, 1985). Concerned with human suffering and the
consumption; pedagogical and knowledge work that helped expose the genesis
„„ Language is central to the formation of subjectivity (conscious of it, Freire modeled critical theoretical research throughout his
and unconscious awareness); career. In his writings about research, Freire maintained that
„„ Certain groups in any society and particular societies are privi- there were no traditionally defined objects of his research—he
leged over others and, although the reasons for this privileging insisted on involving the people he studied as partners in the
may vary widely, the oppression that characterizes contempo- research process. He immersed himself in their ways of thinking
rary societies is most forcefully reproduced when subordinates and modes of perception, encouraging them to begin thinking
accept their social status as natural, necessary, or inevitable; about their own thinking. Everyone involved in Freire’s critical
„„ Oppression has many faces, and focusing on only one at the research, not just the researcher, joined in the process of inves-
expense of others (e.g., class oppression versus racism) often tigation, examination, criticism, and reinvestigation—all par-
elides the interconnections among them; and finally
ticipants and researchers learned to see more critically, think at
„„ Mainstream research practices are generally, although most
often unwittingly, implicated in the reproduction of systems of a more critical level, and to recognize the forces that subtly
class, race, and gender oppression (De Lissovoy & McLaren, shape their lives. Critiquing traditional methods of research in
2003; Gresson, 2006; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1997; Rodriguez schools, Freire took a critical pedagogical approach to research
and Villaverde, 2000; Steinberg, 2009; Villaverde, 2007; Watts, that serves to highlight its difference from traditional research
2008, 2009a). (Kirylo, 2011; Mayo, 2009; Tobin & Llena, 2010).
After exploring the community around the school and
In today’s climate of blurred disciplinary genres, it is not engaging in conversations with community members, Freire
uncommon to find literary theorists doing anthropology and constructed generative themes designed to tap into issues that
anthropologists writing about literary theory, political scien- were important to various students in his class. As data on these
tists trying their hand at ethno-ethnomethodological analysis, issues were brought into the class, Freire became a problem
or philosophers doing Lacanian film criticism. All of these poser. In this capacity, Freire used the knowledge he and his
 Chapter 9   Critical Pedagogy and Qualitative Research– 2– 165

students had produced around the generative themes to con- in a position of authority and then demonstrate that authority
struct questions. The questions he constructed were designed to in their actions in support of students. One of the actions invo­
teach the lesson that no curriculum or knowledge in general lves the ability to conduct research and produce knowledge.
was beyond examination. We need to ask questions of all knowl- The authority of the critical teacher is dialectical; as teachers
edge, Freire argued, because all data are shaped by the context relinquish the authority of truth providers, they assume the
and by the individuals that produced them. Knowledge, con- mature authority of facilitators of student inquiry and problem
trary to the pronouncements of many educational leaders, does posing. In relation to such teacher authority, students gain
not transcend culture or history. their freedom—they gain the ability to become self-directed
In the context of reading the word and the world and human beings capable of producing their own knowledge
problem-posing existing knowledge, critical educators recon- (Kirylo, 2011; Siry & Lang, 2010).
ceptualize the notion of literacy. Myles Horton spoke of the way Freire’s own work was rooted in both liberation theology
he read books with students in order “to give testimony to the and a dialectical materialist epistemology (Au, 2007), both of
students about what it means to read a text” (Horton & Freire, which were indebted to Marx’s own writings and various Marxist
1990). Reading is not an easy endeavor, Horton continued, for to theorists. Standard judgments against Marxism as economis-
be a good reader is to view reading as a form of research. Read- tic, productivist, and deterministic betray an egregious and
ing becomes a mode of finding something, and finding some- scattershot understanding of Marxist epistemology, his cri-
thing, he concluded, brings a joy that is directly connected to the tique of political economy, and Marx’s dialectical method of
acts of creation and re-creation. One finds in this reading that analyzing the development of capitalism and capitalist society.
the word and world process typically goes beyond the given, the We assert that the insights of Marx and those working within
common sense of everyday life. Critical pedagogical research the broad parameters of the Marxist tradition are foundational
must have a mandate to represent a form of reading that under- for any critical research (Lund & Carr, 2008); Marxism is a
stood not only the words on the page but the unstated dominant powerful theoretical approach to explaining, for instance, the
ideologies hidden between the sentences as well. origins of racism and the reasons for its resiliency (McLaren,
Going beyond is central to Freirean problem posing. Such a 2002). Many on the left today talk about class as if it is one of
position contends that the school curriculum should in part be many oppressions, often describing it as “classism.” But class is
shaped by problems that face teachers and students in their not an “ism.” It is true that class intersects with race, and gen-
effort to live just and ethical lives (Kincheloe, 2004). Such a cur- der, and other antagonisms. And while clearly those relations of
riculum promotes students as researchers (Steinberg & Kincheloe, oppression can reinforce and compound each other, they are
1998) who engage in critical analysis of the forces that shape the grounded in the material relations shaped by capitalism and
world. Such critical analysis engenders a healthy and creative the economic exploitation that is the motor force of any capital-
skepticism on the part of students. It moves them to problem ist society (Dale & Hyslop-Margison, 2010; Macrine, McLaren,
pose and to be suspicious of neutrality claims in textbooks; it & Hill, 2009).
induces them to look askance at, for example, oil companies’ To seriously put an end to racism, and shatter the hegemony
claims in their TV commercials that they are and have always of race, racial formations, the racial state, and so on, we need to
been environmentally friendly organizations. Students and understand class as an objective process that interacts upon
teachers who are problem posers reject the traditional student multiple groups and sectors in various historically specific
request to the teacher: “just give us the facts, the truth, and we’ll ways. When conjoined with an insightful class analysis, the con-
give it back to you.” On the contrary, critical students and teach- cept of race and the workings of racism can be more fully
ers ask in the spirit of Freire and Horton: “Please support us in understood and racism more forcefully contested and as a result
our explorations of the world.” more powerful transformative practices can be mobilized. Class
By promoting problem posing and student research, teach- and race are viewed here as co-constitutive and must be under-
ers do not relinquish their authority in the classroom. Over the stood as dialectically interrelated (McLaren & Jarramillo, 2010).
last couple of decades, several teachers and students have mis-
understood the subtlety of the nature of teacher authority in a
Teachers as Researchers
critical pedagogy. In the last years of his life, Freire was very
concerned with this issue and its misinterpretation by those In the conservative educational order of mainstream school-
operating in his name. Teachers, he told us, cannot deny their ing, knowledge is something that is produced far away from the
position of authority in such a classroom. It is the teacher, not school by experts in an exalted domain. This must change if a
the students, who evaluates student work, who is responsible critical reform of schooling is to exist. Teachers must have more
for the health, safety, and learning of students. To deny the role voice and more respect in the culture of education. Teachers
of authority the teacher occupies is insincere at best, dishonest must join the culture of researchers if a new level of educational
at worst. Critical teachers, therefore, must admit that they are rigor and quality is ever to be achieved. In such a democratized
166– 2– PART II   PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN CONTENTION

culture, critical teachers are scholars who understand the power abide the deskilling and reduction in professional status that
implications of various educational reforms. In this context, accompany these top-down reforms. Advocates of critical peda-
they appreciate the benefits of research, especially as they relate gogy understand that teacher empowerment does not occur just
to understanding the forces shaping education that fall outside because we wish it to do so. Instead, it takes place when teachers
their immediate experience and perception. As these insights develop the knowledge-work skills, the power literacy, and the
are constructed, teachers begin to understand what they know pedagogical abilities befitting the calling of teaching. Teacher
from experience. With this in mind they gain heightened aware- research is a central dimension of a critical pedagogy (Porfilio &
ness of how they can contribute to the research on education. Carr, 2010).
Indeed, they realize that they have access to understandings that
go far beyond what the expert researchers have produced. In the
Teachers as Researchers of Their Students
critical school culture, teachers are viewed as learners—not as
functionaries who follow top-down orders without question. A central aspect of critical teacher research involves studying
Teachers are seen as researchers and knowledge workers who students, so they can be better understood and taught. Freire
reflect on their professional needs and current understandings. argued that all teachers need to engage in a constant dialogue
They are aware of the complexity of the educational process and with students, a dialogue that questions existing knowledge and
how schooling cannot be understood outside of the social, his- problematizes the traditional power relations that have served
torical, philosophical, cultural, economic, political, and psycho- to marginalize specific groups and individuals. In these research
logical contexts that shape it. Scholar teachers understand that dialogues with students, critical teachers listen carefully to what
curriculum development responsive to student needs is not students have to say about their communities and the problems
possible when it fails to account for these contexts. that confront them. Teachers help students frame these prob-
Critical teacher/researchers explore and attempt to interpret lems in a larger social, cultural, and political context in order to
the learning processes that take place in their classrooms.“What solve them.
are its psychological, sociological, and ideological effects?” they In this context, Freire argued that teachers uncover materials
ask. Thus, critical scholar teachers research their own profes- and generative themes based on their emerging knowledge of
sional practice. With empowered scholar teachers prowling the students and their sociocultural backgrounds (Mayo, 2009;
schools, things begin to change. The oppressive culture created Souto-Manning, 2009). Teachers come to understand the ways
in our schools by top-down content standards, for example, is students perceive themselves and their interrelationships with
challenged. In-service staff development no longer takes the other people and their social reality. This information is essen-
form of “this is what the expert researchers found—now go tial to the critical pedagogical act, as it helps teachers under-
implement it.” Such staff development in the critical culture of stand how they make sense of schooling and their lived worlds.
schooling gives way to teachers who analyze and contemplate With these understandings in mind, critical teachers come to
the power of each other’s ideas. Thus, the new critical culture of know what and how students make meaning. This enables
school takes on the form of a “think tank that teaches students,” teachers to construct pedagogies that engage the impassioned
a learning community. School administrators are amazed by spirit of students in ways that move them to learn what they do
what can happen when they support learning activities for both not know and to identify what they want to know (A. Freire,
students and teachers. Principals and curriculum developers 2000; Freire & Faundez, 1989; Janesick, 2010; Kincheloe, 2008b;
watch as teachers develop projects that encourage collaboration Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998; Tobin, in press).
and shared research. There is an alternative, advocates of critical It is not an exaggeration to say that before critical pedagogi-
pedagogy argue, to top-down standards with their deskilling of cal research can work, teachers must understand what is hap-
teachers and the dumbing-down of students (Jardine, 1998; pening in the minds of their students. Advocates of various
Kincheloe, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c; Macedo, 2006). forms of critical teaching recognize the importance of under-
Promoting teachers as researchers is a fundamental way of standing the social construction of student consciousness,
cleaning up the damage of deskilled models of teaching that focusing on motives, values, and emotions. Operating within
infantilize teachers by giving them scripts to read to their stu- this critical context, the teacher-researcher studies students as
dents. Deskilling of teachers and the stupidification (Macedo, living texts to be deciphered. The teacher-researcher approaches
2006) of the curriculum take place when teachers are seen as them with an active imagination and a willingness to view
receivers, rather than producers of knowledge. A vibrant profes- students as socially constructed beings. When critical teachers
sional culture depends on a group of practitioners who have the have approached research on students from this perspective,
freedom to continuously reinvent themselves via their research they have uncovered some interesting information. In a British
and knowledge production. Teachers engaged in critical practice action research project, for example, teachers used student
find it difficult to allow top-down content standards and their diaries, interviews, dialogues, and shadowing (following stu-
poisonous effects to go unchallenged. Such teachers cannot dents as they pursue their daily routines at school) to uncover
 Chapter 9   Critical Pedagogy and Qualitative Research– 2– 167

a student preoccupation with what was labeled a second-order numerous and often hidden ways (Nocella, Best, & McLaren, 2010;
curriculum. This curriculum involved matters of student dress, Watts, 2006, 2009a, 2009b).
conformance to school rules, strategies of coping with boredom Traditional researchers see their task as the description,
and failure, and methods of assuming their respective roles in interpretation, or reanimation of a slice of reality; critical peda-
the school pecking order. Teacher-researchers found that much gogical researchers often regard their work as a first step toward
of this second-order curriculum worked to contradict the forms of political action that can redress the injustices found in
stated aims of the school to respect the individuality of stu- the field site or constructed in the very act of research itself.
dents, to encourage sophisticated thinking, and to engender Horkheimer (1972) puts it succinctly when he argues that criti-
positive self-images. Students often perceived that the daily cal theory and research are never satisfied with merely increas-
lessons of teachers (the intentional curriculum) were based on ing knowledge (see also Agger, 1998; Britzman, 1991; Giroux,
a set of assumptions quite different from those guiding out-of- 1983, 1988, 1997; Kincheloe, 2003c, 2008a, 2008b; Kincheloe &
class teacher interactions with students. Teachers consistently Steinberg, 1993; Quantz, 1992; Shor, 1996; Villaverde & Kincheloe,
misread the anger and hostility resulting from such inconsis- 1998; Wexler, 2008). Research in the critical tradition takes the
tency. Only in an action research context that values the percep- form of self-conscious criticism—self-conscious in the sense
tions of students could such student emotions be understood that researchers try to become aware of the ideological impera-
and addressed (Hooley, 2009; Kincheloe, 2001a; Sikes, 2008; tives and epistemological presuppositions that inform their
Steinberg, 2000, 2009; Vicars, 2008). research as well as their own subjective, intersubjective, and
By using IQ tests and developmental theories derived from normative reference claims. Critical pedagogical researchers
research on students from dominant cultural backgrounds, enter into an investigation with their assumptions on the table,
schools not only reflect social stratification but also extend it. so no one is confused concerning the epistemological and
This is an example of school as an institution designed for political baggage they bring with them to the research site.
social benefit actually exerting hurtful influences. Teachers On detailed analysis, critical researchers may change these
involved in the harmful processes most often do not intention- assumptions. Stimulus for change may come from the critical
ally hurt students; they are merely following the dictates of their researchers’ recognition that such assumptions are not leading
superiors and the rules of the system. Countless good teachers to emancipatory actions. The source of this emancipatory
work every day to subvert the negative effects of the system but action involves the researchers’ ability to expose the contradic-
need help from like-minded colleagues and organizations. tions of the world of appearances accepted by the dominant
Critical pedagogical research works to provide such assistance culture as natural and inviolable (Giroux, 1983, 1988, 1997;
to teachers who want to mitigate the effects of power on their Kincheloe, 2008b; McLaren, 1992, 1997; San Juan, 1992; Zizek,
students. Here schools as political institutions merge with criti- 1990). Such appearances may, critical researchers contend,
cal pedagogy’s concern with creating a social and educational conceal social relationships of inequality, injustice, and exploita-
vision to help teachers direct their own professional practice. tion. If we view the violence we find in classrooms not as random
Anytime teachers develop a pedagogy, they are concurrently or isolated incidents created by aberrant individuals willfully
constructing a political vision. The two acts are inseparable stepping out of line in accordance with a particular form of
(Kincheloe, 2008b; Wright & Lather, 2006). social pathology, but as possible narratives of transgression and
Unfortunately, those who develop noncritical pedagogical resistance, then this could indicate that the “political uncon-
research can be unconscious of the political inscriptions embed- scious” lurking beneath the surface of everyday classroom life is
ded within them. A district supervisor who writes a curriculum in not unrelated to practices of race, class, and gender oppression
social studies, for example, that demands the simple transference but rather intimately connected to them. By applying a critical
of a body of established facts about the great men and great events pedagogical lens within research, we create an empowering
of American history is also teaching a political lesson that upholds qualitative research, which expands, contracts, grows, and ques-
the status quo (Keesing-Styles, 2003; McLaren & Farahmandpur, tions itself within the theory and practice examined.
2003, 2006). There is no room for teacher-researchers in such a
curriculum to explore alternate sources, to compare diverse his-
The Bricolage
torical interpretations, or to do research of their own and produce
knowledge that may conflict with prevailing interpretations. Such It is with our understanding of critical theory and our com-
acts of democratic citizenship may be viewed as subversive and mitment to critical social research and critical pedagogy that we
anti-American by the supervisor and the district education office. identify the bricolage as an emancipatory research construct.
Indeed, such personnel may be under pressure from the state Ideologically grounded, the bricolage reflects an evolving criti-
department of education to construct a history curriculum that is cality in research. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln
inflexible, based on the status quo, unques­tioning in its approach, (2000) use the term in the spirit of Claude Lévi-Strauss (1968
“fact-based,” and teacher-centered. Dominant power operates in and his lengthy discussion of it in The Savage Mind). The French
168– 2– PART II   PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN CONTENTION

word bricoleur describes a handyman or handywoman who In this process, bricoleurs act on the concept that theory is not
makes use of the tools available to complete a task (Harper, an explanation of nature—it is more an explanation of our rela-
1987; Steinberg, 2011). Bricolage implies the fictive and imagi- tion to nature.
native elements of the presentation of all formal research. The In its hard labors in the domain of complexity, the bricoleur
bricolage can be described as the process of getting down to the views research methods actively rather than passively, meaning
nuts and bolts of multidisciplinary research. Research knowl- that we actively construct our research methods from the tools
edges such as ethnography, textual analysis, semiotics, herme- at hand rather than passively receiving the “correct,” universally
neutics, psychoanalysis, phenomenology, historiography, dis- applicable methodologies. Avoiding modes of reasoning that
course analysis combined with philosophical analysis, literary come from certified processes of logical analysis, bricoleurs also
analysis, aesthetic criticism, and theatrical and dramatic ways of steer clear of preexisting guidelines and checklists developed
observing and making meaning constitute the methodological outside the specific demands of the inquiry at hand. In its
bricolage. In this way, bricoleurs move beyond the blinders of embrace of complexity, the bricolage constructs a far more
particular disciplines and peer through a conceptual window to active role for humans both in shaping reality and in creating
a new world of research and knowledge production (Denzin, the research processes and narratives that represent it. Such an
2003; Kincheloe & Berry, 2004; Steinberg, 2011). active agency rejects deterministic views of social reality that
Bricolage, in a contemporary sense, is understood to involve assume the effects of particular social, political, economic, and
the process of employing these methodological processes as educational processes. At the same time and in the same concep-
they are needed in the unfolding context of the research situa- tual context, this belief in active human agency refuses stan-
tion. While this interdisciplinary feature is central to any notion dardized modes of knowledge production (Bresler & Ardichvili,
of the bricolage, critical qualitative researchers must go beyond 2002; Kincheloe & Berry, 2004; McLeod, 2000; Selfe & Selfe,
this dynamic. Pushing to a new conceptual terrain, such an 1994; Steinberg, 2010, 2011; Wright, 2003a).
eclectic process raises numerous issues that researchers must Some of the best work in the study of social complexity is
deal with to maintain theoretical coherence and epistemological now taking place in the qualitative inquiry of numerous fields
innovation. Such multidisciplinarity demands a new level of including sociology, cultural studies, anthropology, literary
research self-consciousness and awareness of the numerous studies, marketing, geography, media studies, nursing, infor-
contexts in which any researcher is operating. As one labors to matics, library studies, women’s studies, various ethnic studies,
expose the various structures that covertly shape our own and education, and nursing. Denzin and Lincoln (2000) are acutely
other scholars’ research narratives, the bricolage highlights the aware of these dynamics and refer to them in the context of their
relationship between a researcher’s ways of seeing and the social delineation of the bricolage. Yvonna Lincoln (2001), in her
location of his or her personal history. Appreciating research as response to Joe L. Kincheloe’s development of the bricolage,
a power-driven act, the critical researcher-as-bricoleur aban- maintains that the most important border work between disci-
dons the quest for some naive concept of realism, focusing plines is taking place in feminism and race-ethnic studies.
instead on the clarification of his or her position in the web of In many ways, there is a form of instrumental reason, of
reality and the social locations of other researchers and the ways rational irrationality, in the use of passive, external, monological
they shape the production and interpretation of knowledge. research methods. In the active bricolage, we bring our under-
In this context, bricoleurs move into the domain of complex- standing of the research context together with our previous
ity. The bricolage exists out of respect for the complexity of the experience with research methods. Using these knowledges, we
lived world and the complications of power. Indeed, it is tinker in the Lévi-Straussian sense with our research methods
grounded on an epistemology of complexity. One dimension of in field-based and interpretive contexts (Steinberg, in press).
this complexity can be illustrated by the relationship between This tinkering is a high-level cognitive process involving con-
research and the domain of social theory. All observations of struction and reconstruction, contextual diagnosis, negotiation,
the world are shaped either consciously or unconsciously by and readjustment. Researchers’ interaction with the objects of
social theory—such theory provides the framework that high- their inquiries, bricoleurs understand, are always complicated,
lights or erases what might be observed. Theory in a modernist mercurial, unpredictable, and, of course, complex. Such condi-
empiricist mode is a way of understanding that operates with- tions negate the practice of planning research strategies in
out variation in every context. Because theory is a cultural and advance. In lieu of such rationalization of the process, bricoleurs
linguistic artifact, its interpretation of the object of its observa- enter into the research act as methodological negotiators.
tion is inseparable from the historical dynamics that have Always respecting the demands of the task at hand, the brico-
shaped it (Austin & Hickey, 2008). The task of the bricoleur is to lage, as conceptualized here, resists its placement in concrete as
attack this complexity, uncovering the invisible artifacts of it promotes its elasticity. In light of Lincoln’s (2001) discussion
power and culture and documenting the nature of their influ- of two types of bricoleurs, (1) those who are committed to
ence not only on their own works, but on scholarship in general. research eclecticism, allowing circumstance to shape methods
 Chapter 9   Critical Pedagogy and Qualitative Research– 2– 169

employed, and (2) those who want to engage in the genealogy/ worldviews of such diverse peoples. In this context, bricoleurs
archeology of the disciplines with some grander purpose in attempt to remove knowledge production and its benefits from
mind, critical researchers are better informed as to the power of the control of elite groups. Such control consistently operates to
the bricolage. Our purpose entails both of Lincoln’s articulations reinforce elite privilege while pushing marginalized groups
of the role of the bricoleur (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 2011). farther away from the center of dominant power. Rejecting this
Research method in the bricolage is a concept that receives normalized state of affairs, bricoleurs commit their knowledge
more respect than in more rationalistic articulations of the work to helping address the ideological and informational
term. The rationalistic articulation of method subverts the needs of marginalized groups and individuals. As detectives of
deconstruction of wide varieties of unanalyzed assumptions subjugated insight, bricoleurs eagerly learn from labor strug-
embedded in passive methods. Bricoleurs, in their appreciation gles, women’s marginalization, the “double consciousness” of
of the complexity of the research process, view research method the racially oppressed, and insurrections against colonialism
as involving far more than procedure. In this mode of analysis, (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1993; Kincheloe, Steinberg, & Hinchey,
bricoleurs come to understand research method as also a tech- 1999; Kincheloe & Berry, 2004). In this way, the bricolage hopes
nology of justification, meaning a way of defending what we to contribute to an evolving criticality.
assert we know and the process by which we know it. Thus, the The bricolage is dedicated to a form of rigor that is conver-
education of critical researchers demands that everyone take a sant with numerous modes of meaning making and knowl-
step back from the process of learning research methods. Such edge production—modes that originate in diverse social loca-
a step back allows us a conceptual distance that produces a tions. These alternative modes of reasoning and researching
critical consciousness. Such a consciousness refuses the passive always consider the relationships, the resonances, and the dis-
acceptance of externally imposed research methods that tacitly junctions between formal and rationalistic modes of Western
certify modes justifying knowledges that are decontextualized, epistemology and ontology and different cultural, philosophi-
reductionistic, and inscribed by dominant modes of power cal, paradigmatic, and subjugated expressions. In these latter
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Foster, 1997; Kincheloe & Berry, 2004; expressions, bricoleurs often uncover ways of accessing a con-
McLeod, 2000). cept without resorting to a conventional validated set of pre-
In its critical concern for just social change, the bricolage specified procedures that provide the distance of objectivity
seeks insight from the margins of Western societies and the (Thayer-Bacon, 2003). This notion of distance fails to take into
knowledge and ways of knowing of non-Western peoples. Such account the rigor of the hermeneutical understanding of the
insight helps bricoleurs reshape and sophisticate social theory, way meaning is preinscribed in the act of being in the world,
research methods, and interpretive strategies, as they discern the research process, and objects of research. This absence of
new topics to be researched. This confrontation with difference hermeneutical awareness undermines the researcher’s quest
so basic to the concept of the bricolage enables researchers to for a thick description and contributes to the production
produce new forms of knowledge that inform policy decisions of reduced understandings of the complexity of social life
and political action in general. In gaining this insight from the (Jardine, 2006b; Selfe & Selfe, 1994).
margins, bricoleurs display once again the blurred boundary The multiple perspectives delivered by the concept of differ-
between the hermeneutical search for understanding and the ence provide bricoleurs with many benefits. Confrontation with
critical concern with social change for social justice (Jardine, difference helps us to see anew, to move toward the light of
2006a). Kincheloe has taken seriously Peter McLaren’s (2001) epiphany. A basic dimension of an evolving criticality involves a
important concern—offered in his response to Kincheloe’s comfort with the existence of alternative ways of analyzing and
(2001a) first delineation of his conception of the bricolage— producing knowledge. This is why it’s so important for a histo-
that merely focusing on the production of meanings may not rian, for example, to develop an understanding of phenomenol-
lead to “resisting and transforming the existing conditions of ogy and hermeneutics. It is why it is so important for a social
exploitation” (McLaren, 2001, p. 702). In response, Kincheloe researcher from a metropolitan center to understand forms of
maintained that in the critical hermeneutical dimension of the indigenous knowledge, urban knowledge, and youth knowledge
bricolage, the act of understanding power and its effects is production (Darder, 2010; Dei, 2011; Grande, 2006; Hooley,
merely one part—albeit an inseparable part—of counterhege- 2009; Porfilio & Carr, 2010). The incongruities between such
monic action. Not only are the two orientations not in conflict, cultural modes of inquiry are quite valuable, for within the ten-
they are synergistic (DeVault, 1996; Lutz, Jones, & Kendall, 1997; sions of difference rest insights into multiple dimensions of the
Soto, 2000; Steinberg, 2001, 2007; Tobin, 2010). research act. Such insights move us to new levels of understand-
To contribute to social transformation, bricoleurs seek to ing of the subjects, purposes, and nature of inquiry (Gadamer,
better understand both the forces of domination that affect the 1989; Mayers, 2001; Semali & Kincheloe, 1999; Watts, 2009a,
lives of individuals from race, class, gender, sexual, ethnic, and 2009b; Willinsky, 2001; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008; Kincheloe
religious backgrounds outside of dominant culture(s) and the & Berry, 2004).
170– 2– PART II   PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN CONTENTION

Difference in the bricolage pushes us into the hermeneutic about it. Bricoleurs attempt to understand this fabric and the
circle as we are induced to deal with parts in their diversity in processes that shape it in as thick a way as possible (Kincheloe
relation to the whole. Difference may involve culture, class, & Berry, 2004).
language, discipline, epistemology, cosmology, ad infinitum. The design and methods used to analyze this social fabric
Bricoleurs use one dimension of these multiple diversities to cannot be separated from the way reality is construed. Thus,
explore others, to generate questions previously unimagined. As ontology and epistemology are linked inextricably in ways that
we examine these multiple perspectives, we attend to which ones shape the task of the researcher. The bricoleur must understand
are validated and which ones have been dismissed. Studying these features in the pursuit of rigor. A deep interdisciplinarity
such differences, we begin to understand how dominant power is justified by an understanding of the complexity of the object
operates to exclude and certify particular forms of knowledge of inquiry and the demands such complications place on the
production and why. In the criticality of the bricolage, this focus research act. As parts of complex systems and intricate pro-
on power and difference always leads us to an awareness of the cesses, objects of inquiry are far too mercurial to be viewed by
multiple dimensions of the social. Freire (1970) referred to this as a single way of seeing or as a snapshot of a particular phenom-
the need for perceiving social structures and social systems that enon at a specific moment in time.
undermine equal access to resources and power. As bricoleurs A deep interdisciplinarity seeks to modify the disciplines
answer such questions, we gain new appreciations of the way and the view of research brought to the negotiating table con-
power tacitly shapes what we know and how we come to know it. structed by the bricolage (Jardine, 1992). Everyone leaves the
table informed by the dialogue in a way that idiosyncratically
influences the research methods they subsequently employ. The
Ontologically Speaking point of the interaction is not standardized agreement as to
A central dimension of the bricolage that holds profound some reductionistic notion of “the proper interdisciplinary
implications for critical research is the notion of a critical ontol- research method” but awareness of the diverse tools in the
ogy (Kincheloe, 2003a). As bricoleurs prepare to explore that researcher’s toolbox. The form such deep interdisciplinarity
which is not readily apparent to the ethnographic eye, that may take is shaped by the object of inquiry in question. Thus, in
realm of complexity in knowledge production that insists on the bricolage, the context in which research takes place always
initiating a conversation about what it is that qualitative affects the nature of the deep interdisciplinarity employed.
researchers are observing and interpreting in the world, this In the spirit of the dialectic of disciplinarity, the ways these
clarification of a complex ontology is needed. This conversation context-driven articulations of interdisciplinarity are con-
is especially important because it has not generally taken place. structed must be examined in light of the power literacy previ-
Bricoleurs maintain that this object of inquiry is ontologically ously mentioned (Friedman, 1998; Kincheloe & Berry, 2004;
complex in that it cannot be described as an encapsulated entity. Lemke, 1998; Pryse, 1998; Quintero & Rummel, 2003).
In this more open view, the object of inquiry is always a part of In social research, the relationship between individuals and
many contexts and processes; it is culturally inscribed and his- their contexts is a central dynamic to be investigated. This rela-
torically situated. The complex view of the object of inquiry tionship is a key ontological and epistemological concern of the
accounts for the historical efforts to interpret its meaning in the bricolage; it is a connection that shapes the identities of human
world and how such efforts continue to define its social, cul- beings and the nature of the complex social fabric. Bricoleurs
tural, political, psychological, and educational effects. use multiple methods to analyze the multidimensionality of this
In the domain of the qualitative research process, for exam- type of connection. The ways bricoleurs engage in this process
ple, this ontological complexity undermines traditional notions of putting together the pieces of the relationship may provide a
of triangulation. Because of its in-process (processual) nature, different interpretation of its meaning and effects. Recognizing
interresearcher reliability becomes far more difficult to achieve. the complex ontological importance of relationships alters the
Process-sensitive scholars watch the world flow by like a river in basic foundations of the research act and knowledge production
which the exact contents of the water are never the same. process. Thin reductionistic descriptions of isolated things-in-
Because all observers view an object of inquiry from their own themselves are no longer sufficient in critical research (Foster,
vantage points in the web of reality, no portrait of a social phe- 1997; Wright, 2003b).
nomenon is ever exactly the same as another. Because all physi- The bricolage is dealing with a double ontology of complex-
cal, social, cultural, psychological, and educational dynamics ity: first, the complexity of objects of inquiry and their being-in-
are connected in a larger fabric, researchers will produce differ- the-world; second, the nature of the social construction of
ent descriptions of an object of inquiry depending on what part human subjectivity, the production of human “being.” Such
of the fabric they have focused on—what part of the river they understandings open a new era of social research where the
have seen. The more unaware observers are of this type of com- process of becoming human agents is appreciated with a new
plexity, the more reductionistic the knowledge they produce level of sophistication. The complex feedback loop between an
 Chapter 9   Critical Pedagogy and Qualitative Research– 2– 171

unstable social structure and the individual can be charted in a colonialism, and neocolonialism. Recent attempts by critical
way that grants human beings insight into the means by which researchers to move beyond the objectifying and imperialist
power operates and the democratic process is subverted. In this gaze associated with the Western anthropological tradition
complex ontological view, bricoleurs understand that social (which fixes the image of the so-called informant from the colo-
structures do not determine individual subjectivity but con- nizing perspective of the knowing subject), although laudatory
strain it in remarkably intricate ways. The bricolage is acutely and well-intentioned, are not without their shortcomings
interested in developing and employing a variety of strategies to (Bourdieu & Wacquaat, 1992). As Fuchs (1993) has so pre-
help specify these ways subjectivity is shaped. sciently observed, serious limitations plague recent efforts to
The recognitions that emerge from such a multiperspectival develop a more reflective approach to ethnographic writing. The
process get analysts beyond the determinism of reductionistic challenge here can be summarized in the following questions:
notions of macrosocial structures. The intent of a usable social How does the knowing subject come to know the Other? How
or educational research is subverted in this reductionistic con- can researchers respect the perspective of the Other and invite
text, as human agency is erased by the “laws” of society. Struc- the Other to speak (Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin, 1995; Brock-Utne,
tures do not simply “exist” as objective entities whose influence 1996; Goldie, 1995; Gresson, 2006; Macedo, 2006; Myrsiades &
can be predicted or “not exist” with no influence over the cos- Myrsiades, 1998; Pieterse & Parekh, 1995; Prakash & Esteva,
mos of human affairs. Here fractals enter the stage with their 2008; Scheurich & Young, 1997; Semali & Kincheloe, 1999;
loosely structured characteristics of irregular shape—fractal Steinberg, 2009; Viergever, 1999)?
structures. While not determining human behavior, for example, Although recent confessional modes of ethnographic writ-
fractal structures possess sufficient order to affect other sys- ing, for example, attempt to treat so-called informants as “par-
tems and entities within their environment. Such structures are ticipants” in an attempt to avoid the objectification of the
never stable or universally present in some uniform manifesta- Other (usually referring to the relationship between Western
tion (Slee, 2011; Varenne, 1996). The more we study such anthropologists and non-Western culture), there is a risk that
dynamics, the more diversity of expression we find. Taking this uncovering colonial and postcolonial structures of domination
ontological and epistemological diversity into account, brico- may, in fact, unintentionally validate and consolidate such
leurs understand there are numerous dimensions to the bricolage structures as well as reassert liberal values through a type of
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). As with all aspects of the bricolage, no covert ethnocentrism. Fuchs (1993) warns that the attempt to
description is fixed and final, and all features of the bricolage subject researchers to the same approach to which other soci-
come with an elastic clause. eties are subjected could lead to an “‘othering’ of one’s own
world” (p. 108). Such an attempt often fails to question existing
ethnographic methodologies and therefore unwittingly extends
2  
Employing a “Method” Within Bricolage: their validity and applicability while further objectifying the
Ethnography as an Example world of the researcher. Foucault’s approach to this dilemma is
to “detach” social theory from the epistemology of his own
As critical researchers attempt to get behind the curtain, to culture by criticizing the traditional philosophy of reflection.
move beyond assimilated experience, to expose the way ideol- However, Foucault falls into the trap of ontologizing his own
ogy constrains the desire for self-direction, and to confront the methodological argumentation and erasing the notion of prior
way power reproduces itself in the construction of human understanding that is linked to the idea of an “inside” view
consciousness, they employ a plethora of research methodolo- (Fuchs, 1993). Louis Dumont fares somewhat better by arguing
gies (Hyslop-Margison, 2009). We are looking at the degree to that cultural texts need to be viewed simultaneously from the
which research moves those it studies to understand the world inside and from the outside.
and the way it is shaped in order for them to transform it. Non- However, in trying to affirm a “reciprocal interpretation of
critical researchers who operate within an empiricist frame- various societies among themselves” (Fuchs, 1993, p. 113)
work will perhaps find catalytic validity to be a strange con- through identifying both transindividual structures of con-
cept. Research that possesses catalytic validity displays the sciousness and transsubjective social structures, Dumont aspires
reality-altering impact of the inquiry process and directs this to a universal framework for the comparative analysis of societ-
impact so that those under study will gain self-understanding ies. Whereas Foucault and Dumont attempt to “transcend the
and self-direction. categorical foundations of their own world” (Fuchs, 1993, p. 118)
Theory that falls under the rubric of postcolonialism (see by refusing to include themselves in the process of objectifica-
McLaren, 1999; Semali & Kincheloe, 1999; Wright 2003a, 2003b) tion, Pierre Bourdieu integrates himself as a social actor into the
involves important debates over the knowing subject and object social field under analysis. Bourdieu achieves such integration
of analysis. Such works have initiated important new modes by “epistemologizing the ethnological content of his own presup-
of analysis, especially in relation to questions of imperialism, positions” (Fuchs, 1993, p. 121). But the self-objectification of the
172– 2– PART II   PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN CONTENTION

observer (anthropologist) is not unproblematic. Fuchs (1993) desire and the reduction of differences to binary oppositions.
notes, after Bourdieu, that the chief difficulty is “forgetting the Within these processes of binary reduction, the male ethnogra-
difference between the theoretical and the practical relationship pher is most often privileged as the guardian of “the factual
with the world and … imposing on the object the theoretical representation of empirical positivities” (Clough, 1998).
relationship one maintains with it” (p. 120). Bourdieu’s approach Critical research traditions have arrived at the point where
to research does not fully escape becoming, to a certain extent, a they recognize that claims to truth are always discursively situ-
“confirmation of objectivism,” but at least there is an earnest ated and implicated in relations of power. We do not suggest that
attempt by the researcher to reflect on the preconditions of his or because we cannot know truth absolutely, truth can simply be
her own self-understanding—an attempt to engage in an “eth- equated with an effect of power. We say this because truth
nography of ethnographers” (p. 122). As an example, critical involves regulative rules that must be met for some statements
ethnography, in a bricolage context, often intersects—to varying to be more meaningful than others. Otherwise, truth becomes
degrees—with the concerns of postcolonialist researchers, but meaningless and, if that is the case, liberatory praxis has no
the degree to which it fully addresses issues of exploitation and purpose other than to win for the sake of winning. As Phil
the social relations of capitalist exploitation remains question- Carspecken (1993, 1999) remarks, every time we act, in every
able. Critical ethnography shares the conviction articulated by instance of our behavior, we presuppose some normative or
Marc Manganaro (1990): universal relation to truth. Truth is internally related to meaning
in a pragmatic way through normative referenced claims, inter-
No anthropology is apolitical, removed from ideology and hence subjective referenced claims, subjective referenced claims, and
from the capacity to be affected by or, as crucially, to effect social the way we deictically ground or anchor meaning in our daily
formations. The question ought not to be if an anthropological text lives. Carspecken explains that researchers are able to articulate
is political, but rather, what kind of sociopolitical affiliations are the normative evaluative claims of others when they begin to see
tied to particular anthropological texts. (p. 35) them in the same way as their participants by living inside the
cultural and discursive positionalities that inform such claims.
This critical ethnographic writing faces the challenge of While a researcher can use, as in this example, critical eth-
moving beyond simply the reanimation of local experience, an nography (Willis, 1977, 2000) as a focus within a project, she or
uncritical celebration of cultural difference (including figural he, as a bricoleur (Steinberg, 2011) employs the additional use
differentiations within the ethnographer’s own culture), and the of narrative (Janesick, 2010; Park, 2005), hermeneutic interpre-
employment of a framework that espouses universal values and tation (Jardine, 2006a), phenomenological reading (Kincheloe,
a global role for interpretivist anthropology (Silverman, 1990). 2008b), content analysis (Steinberg, 2008), historiography
Criticalism can help qualitative researchers challenge dominant (Kincheloe, 2008b), autoethnography (Kress, 2010), social
Western research practices that are underwritten by a founda- media analysis (Cucinelli, 2010; Kress, 2008; Kress & Silva,
tional epistemology and a claim to universally valid knowledge 2009), anthropology (Marcus & Fischer, 1986), quantitative
at the expense of local, subjugated knowledges (Peters, 1993). analysis (Hyslop-Margison & Naseem, 2007), and so on; and the
The issue is to challenge the presuppositions that inform the bricoleur creates a polysemic read and multiple ways of both
normalizing judgments one makes as a researcher. approaching and using research. The bricolage, with its multiple
Although critical ethnography (Hickey & Austin, 2009) lenses allows necessary fluidity and goes beyond a traditional
allows, in a way conventional ethnography does not, for the triangulated approach for verification. The lenses expand the
relationship of liberation and history, and although its herme- research and prevent a normalized methodology from creating
neutical task is to call into question the social and cultural a scientistic approach to the research. Bricolage becomes a fail-
conditioning of human activity and the prevailing sociopolitical safe way in which to ensure that the multiple reads create new
structures, we do not claim that this is enough to restructure the dialogues and discourse and open possibilities. It also precludes
social system. But it is certainly, in our view, a necessary begin- the notion of using research as authority.
ning (Trueba & McLaren, 2000). Clough (1998) argues that Clearly, no research methodology or tradition can be done in
“realist narrativity has allowed empirical social science to be isolation; the employment of the bricolage transcends unilateral
the platform and horizon of social criticism” (p. 135). Ethnogra- commitments to a singular type of research. In the face of a
phy needs to be analyzed critically not only in terms of its field wide variety of different knowledges and ways of seeing the
methods but also as reading and writing practices. Data collec- universe, human beings’ confidence in what they think they
tion must give way to “rereadings of representations in every know collapses. In a countercolonial move, bricoleurs raise
form” (p. 137). In the narrative construction of its authority as questions about any knowledges and ways of knowing that
empirical science, ethnography needs to face the unconscious claim universal status. In this context, bricoleurs make use of
processes on which it justifies its canonical formulations, pro- this suspicion of universalism in combination with global
cesses that often involve the disavowal of oedipal or authorial knowledges to understand how they have been positioned in the
 Chapter 9   Critical Pedagogy and Qualitative Research– 2– 173

world. Almost all of us from Western backgrounds or non- Agger, B. (1998). Critical social theories: An introduction. Boulder, CO:
Western colonized backgrounds have been implicated in some Westview.
way in the web of universalism (Scatamburlo D’Annibale Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (Eds.). (1995). The post-colonial
&McLaren, 2009). The inevitable conflicts that arise from this studies reader. New York: Routledge.
implication do not have to be resolved immediately by brico- Au, W. (2007). Epistemology of the oppressed: The dialectics of Paulo
Freire’s theory of knowledge. Journal for Critical Education Policy
leurs. At the base of these conflicts rests the future of global
Studies, 5(2). Available at http://www.jceps.com/index.php?pageI
culture as well as the future of multicultural research and peda- D=article&articleID=100
gogy. Recognizing that these are generative issues that engage us Austin, J., & Hickey, A. (2008). Critical pedagogical practice through
in a productive process of analyzing self and world is in itself a cultural studies. International Journal of the Humanities, 6(1),
powerful recognition. The value of both this recognition and the 133–140. Available at http://eprints.usq.edu.au/4490/
process of working through the complicated conceptual prob- Bourdieu, P., & Wacquaat, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology.
lems are treasured by bricoleurs. Indeed, bricoleurs avoid any Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
notion of finality in the resolution of such dilemmas. Comfort- Bresler, L., & Ardichvili, A. (Eds.). (2002). Research in international
able with the ambiguity, bricoleurs as critical researchers work education: Experience, theory, and practice. New York: Peter Lang.
to alleviate human suffering and injustice even though they Britzman, D. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning
possess no final blueprint alerting them as to how oppression to teach. Albany: SUNY Press.
takes place (Kincheloe & Berry, 2004; Steinberg, 2011). Brock-Utne, B. (1996). Reliability and validity in qualitative research
within Africa. International Review of Education, 42, 605–621.
Cannella, G., & Steinberg, S. (2011). Critical qualitative research: A
Toward a Critical Research reader. New York: Peter Lang.
Carspecken, P. F. (1993). Power, truth, and method: Outline for a critical
Within the context of multiple critical theories and multiple
methodology. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University.
critical pedagogies, a critical research bricolage serves to create Carspecken, P. F. (1999). Four scenes for posing the question of meaning
an equitable research field and disallows a proclamation to cor- and other essays in critical philosophy and critical methodology.
rectness, validity, truth, and the tacit axis of Western power New York: Peter Lang.
through traditional research. Employing a rigorous and tenta- Chapman, D. E. (Ed.). (2010). Examining social theory: Crossing borders/
tive context with the notions presented through Marxist exami- reflecting back. New York: Peter Lang.
nations of power, critical theory’s location and indictment of Clough, P. T. (1998). The end(s) of ethnography: From realism to social
power blocs vis-à-vis traditional noncritical research method- criticism (2nd ed.). New York: Peter Lang.
ologies, a critical pedagogical notion of emancipatory research Collins, J. (1995). Architectures of excess: Cultural life in the information
can be located within a research bricolage (Fiske, 1993; Roth & age. New York: Routledge.
Tobin, 2010). Without proclaiming a canonical and singular Cucinelli, G. (2010). Digital youth praxis and social justice. Unpub-
method, the critical bricolage allows the researcher to become lished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montréal, Québec,
participant and the participant to become researcher. By Canada.
Dale, J., & Hyslop-Margison, E. J. (2010). Paulo Freire: Teaching for free-
eschewing positivist approaches to both qualitative and quanti-
dom and transformation. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
tative research (Cannella & Steinberg, 2011; Kincheloe & Tobin,
Darder, A. (2010). Schooling bodies: Critical pedagogy and urban
2009) and refusing to cocoon research within the pod of uni- youth [Foreword]. In Steinberg, S. R. (Ed.), 19 urban questions:
methodological approaches, we believe critical theory and criti- Teaching in the city (pp. xiii–xxiii). New York: Peter Lang.
cal pedagogy continues to challenge regularly employed and Dei, G. (Ed.). (2011). Indigenous philosophies and critical education.
obsessive approaches to research. New York: Peter Lang.
De Lissovoy, N., & McLaren, P. (2003). Educational “accountability”
and the violence of capital: A Marxian reading. Journal of Educa-
tion Policy, 18, 131–143.
2  Note Denzin, N. K. (1994). The art and politics of interpretation. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
1. Thanks to Dr. Michael Watts, a local, for his suggestions and
Oaks, CA: Sage.
critique of this chapter.
Denzin, N. K. (2003). Performative ethnography: Critical pedagogy and
the politics of culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and
2  References practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand
Agger, B. (1992). The discourse of domination: From the Frankfurt Oaks, CA: Sage.
School to postmodernism. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University DeVault, M. (1996). Talking back to sociology: Distinctive contributions
Press. of feminist methodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 29–50.
174– 2– PART II   PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN CONTENTION

Fiske, J. (1993). Power works, power plays. New York: Verso. Hooley, N. (2009). Narrative life: Democratic curriculum and indige-
Flecha, R., Gomez, J., & Puigvert, L. (Eds.). (2003). Contemporary socio- nous learning. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
logical theory. New York: Peter Lang. Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical theory. New York: Seabury.
Flossner, G., & Otto, H. (Eds.). (1998). Towards more democracy in Horn, R. (2004). Standards. New York: Peter Lang.
social services: Models of culture and welfare. New York: Aldine. Horton, M., & Freire, P. (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversa-
Foster, R. (1997). Addressing epistemologic and practical issues in tions on education and social change. Philadelphia: Temple Uni-
multimethod research: A procedure for conceptual triangulation. versity Press.
Advances in Nursing Education, 20(2), 1–12. Hyslop-Margison, E. J. (2009). Scientific paradigms and falsification:
Freire, A. M. A. (2000). Foreword. In P. McLaren, Che Guevara, Paulo Kuhn, Popper and problems in education research. Educational
Freire, and the pedagogy of revolution. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Policy, 20(10), 1–17.
Littlefield. Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Naseem, A. (2007). Scientism and education:
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Empirical research as neo-liberal ideology. Dordrecht, the Nether-
Freire, P. (1972). Research methods. Paper presented at a seminar on lands: Springer.
Studies in Adult Education, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Janesick, V. (2010). Oral history for the qualitative researcher: Choreo-
Freire, P. (1978). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury. graphing the story. New York: Guilford.
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and libera- Jardine, D. (1992). The fecundity of the individual case: Considerations
tion. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. of the pedagogic heart of interpretive work. British Journal of
Freire, P., & Faundez, A. (1989). Learning to question: A pedagogy of Philosophy of Education. 26(1), 51–61.
liberation. London: Continuum. Jardine, D. (1998). To dwell with a boundless heart: Essays in curriculum
Friedman, S. (1998). (Inter)disciplinarity and the question of the theory, hermeneutics, and the ecological imagination. New York:
women’s studies Ph.D. Feminist Studies, 24(2), 301–326. Peter Lang.
Fuchs, M. (1993). The reversal of the ethnological perspective: Jardine, D. (2006a). On hermeneutics: “What happens to us over and
Attempts at objectifying one’s own cultural horizon: Dumont, above our wanting and doing.” In K. Tobin & J. L. Kincheloe
Foucault, Bourdieu? Thesis Eleven, 34(1), 104–125. (Eds.), Doing educational research (pp. 269–288). Rotterdam, the
Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). Truth and method (2nd rev. ed., J. Weinsheimer Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
& D. G. Marshall, Eds. & Trans.). New York: Crossroad. Jardine, D. (2006b). Piaget and education. New York: Peter Lang.
Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for Keesing-Styles, L. (2003). The relationship between critical peda-
the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. gogy and assessment in teacher education. Radical Pedagogy, 5(1).
Giroux, H. (1988). Critical theory and the politics of culture and voice: Available at http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_1/03_
Rethinking the discourse of educational research. In R. Sherman keesing-styles.html
& R. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in education: Focus and Kellner, D. (1995). Media culture: Cultural studies, identity, and politics
methods. New York: Falmer. between the modern and the postmodern. New York: Routledge.
Giroux, H. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, Kincheloe, J. L. (1998). Critical research in science education. In
and schooling. Boulder, CO: Westview. B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science
Giroux, H. (2010). Zombie politics and the age of casino capitalism. education (Pt. 2). Boston: Kluwer.
New York: Peter Lang. Kincheloe, J. L. (2001a). Describing the bricolage: Conceptualizing a new
Goldie, T. (1995). The representation of the indigenous. In B. Ashcroft, rigour in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 679–692.
G. Griffiths, & H. Tiffin (Eds.), The post-colonial studies reader. Kincheloe, J. (2001b). Getting beyond the facts: Teaching social studies/
New York: Routledge. social sciences in the twenty-first century (2nd ed.). New York:
Grande, S. (2004). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political Peter Lang.
thought. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Kincheloe, J. (2003a). Critical ontology: Visions of selfhood and cur-
Gresson, A. D., III. (2006). Doing critical research in mainstream disci- riculum. JCT: Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 19(1), 47–64.
plines: Reflections on a study of Black female individuation. Kincheloe, J. L. (2003b). Into the great wide open: Introducing critical
In K. Tobin & J. Kincheloe (Eds.), Doing educational research. thinking. In D. Weil & J. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical thinking: An
Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers. encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Grinberg, J. (2003). “Only the facts?” In D. Weil & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Kincheloe, J. L. (2003c). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative paths to
Critical thinking: An encyclopedia. New York: Greenwood. empowerment (2nd ed.). London: Falmer.
Hammer, R., & Kellner, D. (2009). Media/cultural studies: Critical Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). Iran and American miseducation: Coverups, dis-
approaches. New York: Peter Lang. tortions, and omissions. In J. Kincheloe & S. Steinberg (Eds.), The
Harper, D. (1987). Working knowledge: Skill and community in a small miseducation of the West: Constructing Islam. New York: Greenwood.
shop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kincheloe, J. L. (2007). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative paths to
Hickey, A., & Austin, J. (2009). Working visually in community identity empowerment. London: Falmer.
ethnography. International Journal of the Humanities, 7(4), 1–14. Kincheloe, J. L. (2008a). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd ed.). New York:
Available at http://eprints.usq.edu.au/5800/ Peter Lang.
Hinchey, P. (2009). Finding freedom in the classroom: A practical intro- Kincheloe, J. L. (2008b). Knowledge and critical pedagogy. Dordrecht,
duction to critical theory. New York: Peter Lang. the Netherlands: Springer.
 Chapter 9   Critical Pedagogy and Qualitative Research– 2– 175

Kincheloe, J. L., & Berry, K. (2004). Rigour and complexity in educa- Manganaro, M. (1990). Textual play, power, and cultural critique: An
tional research: Conceptualizing the bricolage. London: Open orientation to modernist anthropology. In M. Manganaro (Ed.),
University Press. Modernist anthropology: From fieldwork to text. Princeton, NJ:
Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. R. (1993). A tentative description of Princeton University Press.
post-formal thinking: The critical confrontation with cognitive Marcus, G. E., & Fischer, M. M. J. (1986). Anthropology as cultural cri-
theory. Harvard Educational Review, 63, 296–320. tique: An experimental moment in the human sciences. Chicago:
Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. R. (1997). Changing multiculturalism: University of Chicago Press.
New times, new curriculum. London: Open University Press. Mayo, P. (2009). Liberating praxis: Paulo Freire’s legacy for radical
Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. R. (2008). Indigenous knowledges in education and politics. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense
education: Complexities, dangers, and profound benefits. In Publishing.
N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith, (Eds.), Handbook of McLaren, P. (1992). Collisions with otherness: “Traveling” theory, post-
critical and indigenous methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage colonial criticism, and the politics of ethnographic practice—the
Publishing. mission of the wounded ethnographer. International Journal of
Kincheloe, J. L., Steinberg, S. R., & Hinchey, P. (Eds.). (1999). The post- Qualitative Studies in Education, 5, 77–92.
formal reader: Cognition and education. New York: Falmer. McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary multiculturalism: Pedagogies of dis-
Kincheloe, J. L., & Tobin, K. (2009). The much exaggerated death of sent for the new millennium. New York: Routledge.
positivism. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 513–528. McLaren, P. (1999). Schooling as a ritual performance: Toward a
Kirylo, J. (2011). Paulo Freire: The man from Recife. New York: Peter political economy of educational symbols and gestures (3rd ed.).
Lang. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kress, T. (2010). Tilting the machine: A critique of one teacher’s attempts McLaren, P. (2001). Bricklayers and bricoleurs: A Marxist addendum.
at using art forms to create postformal, democratic learning envi- Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 700–705.
ronments. The Journal of Educational Controversy, 5(1). McLaren, P. (2002). Marxist revolutionary praxis: A curriculum of
Kress, T. (2011). Singing a different tune: An auto/ethnographic jour- transgression. Journal of Curriculum Inquiry Into Curriculum and
ney into and out of the land of educational technology. In Instruction, 3(3), 36–41.
K. Tobin & A. Shady (Eds.), Transforming urban education: Col- McLaren, P. (2003a). Critical pedagogy in the age of neoliberal global-
laborating to produce success in science, mathematics and technol- ization: Notes from history’s underside. Democracy and Nature,
ogy education. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers 9(1), 65–90.
Kress, T., & Silva, K. (2009). Using digital video for professional devel- McLaren, P. (2003b). The dialectics of terrorism: A Marxist response to
opment and leadership: Understanding and initiating teacher September 11: Part Two. Unveiling the past, evading the present.
learning communities. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Cultural Studies/Critical Methodologies, 3(1), 103–132.
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Interna- McLaren, P. (2009). E. San Juan, Jr.: The return of the transformative
tional Conference 2009 (pp. 2841–2847). Chesapeake, VA: Asso- intellectual. Left Curve, 33, 118–121.
ciation for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). McLaren, P., & Farahmandpur, R. (2003). Critical pedagogy at ground
Leistyna, P., Woodrum, A., & Sherblom, S. (1996). Breaking free: The zero: Renewing the educational left after 9–11. In D. Gabbard &
transformative power of critical pedagogy. Cambridge, MA: K. Saltman (Eds.), Education as enforcement: The militarization
Harvard Educational Review. and corporatization of schools. New York: Routledge.
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Analyzing verbal data: Principles, methods, and McLaren, P., & Farahmandpur, R. (2006). Who will educate the educa-
problems. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook tors? Critical pedagogy in the age of globalization. In A. Dirlik
of science education (Pt. 2). Boston: Kluwer. (Ed.), Pedagogies of the global: Knowledge in the human interest
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1968). The savage mind. Chicago: University of (pp. 19–58). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Chicago Press. McLaren, P., & Jaramillo, N. (2010). Not neo-Marxist, not post-Marxist,
Lincoln, Y. (2001). An emerging new bricoleur: Promises and not Marxian, not autonomist Marxism: Reflections on a revolu-
possibilities—a reaction to Joe Kincheloe’s “Describing the tionary (Marxist) critical pedagogy. Cultural Studies <=> Critical
bricoleur.” Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 693–696. Methodologies, 10(3), 251–262. 
Lund, D., & Carr, P. (Eds.). (2008). Doing democracy: Striving for politi- McLaren, P., & Kincheloe, J. L. (2007). Critical pedagogy: Where are we
cal literacy and social justice. New York: Peter Lang. now? New York: Peter Lang.
Lutz, K., Jones, K. D., & Kendall, J. (1997). Expanding the praxis debate: McLeod, J. (2000, June). Qualitative research as bricolage. Paper pre-
Contributions to clinical inquiry. Advances in Nursing Science, sented at the annual conference of the Society for Psychotherapy
20(2), 23–31. Research, Chicago.
Macedo, D. (2006). Literacies of power: What Americans are not allowed Myrsiades, K., & Myrsiades, L. (Eds.). (1998). Race-ing representation:
to know (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview. Voice, history, and sexuality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Macrine, S., Hill, D., & McLaren, P. (Eds.). (2009). Critical pedagogy: Nocella, A. J., II, Best, S., & McLaren, P. (2010). Academic repression:
Theory and praxis. London: Routledge. Reflections from the academic industrial complex. Oakland, CA:
Macrine, S., McLaren, P., & Hill, D. (Eds.). (2009). Revolutionizing AK Press.
pedagogy: Educating for social justice within and beyond global Park, J. (2005). Writing at the edge: Narrative and writing process theory.
neo-liberalism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. New York: Peter Lang.
176– 2– PART II   PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN CONTENTION

Peters, M. (1993). Against Finkielkraut’s la défaite de la pensés culture, Siry C. A., & Lang, D. E. (2010). Creating participatory discourse for
post-modernism and education. Unpublished manuscript, Uni- teaching and research in early childhood science. Journal of
versity of Glasgow, Scotland. Science Teacher Education, 21, 149–160.
Pieterse, J., & Parekh, B. (1995). Shifting imaginaries: Decolonization, Skalli, L. (2004). Loving Muslim women with a vengeance: The West,
internal decolonization, postcoloniality. In J. Pieterse & B. Parekh women, and fundamentalism. In J. L. Kincheloe & S. R. Steinberg
(Eds.), The decolonization of imagination: Culture, knowledge, (Eds.), The miseducation of the West: Constructing Islam. New York:
and power. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Zed. Greenwood.
Porfilio, B., & Carr, P. (Eds.). (2010). Youth culture, education, and resis- Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school: Schooling and inclusive education.
tance: Subverting the commercial ordering of life. Rotterdam, the London: Routledge.
Netherlands: Sense Publishing. Soto, L. (Ed.). (2000). The politics of early childhood education.
Prakash, M., & Esteva, G. (2008). Escaping education: Living as learning New York: Peter Lang.
within grassroots cultures. New York: Peter Lang. Souto-Manning, M. (2009). Freire, teaching, and learning: Culture cir-
Pryse, M. (1998). Critical interdisciplinarity, women’s studies, and cles across contexts. New York: Peter Lang.
cross-cultural insight. National Women’s Studies Association Jour- Steinberg, S. R. (2000). The nature of genius. In J. L. Kincheloe,
nal, 10(1), 1–11. S. R. Steinberg, & D. J. Tippins (Eds.), The stigma of genius: Einstein,
Quail, C. B., Razzano, K. A., & Skalli, L. H. (2004). Tell me more: Rethink- consciousness, and education. New York: Peter Lang.
ing daytime talk shows. New York: Peter Lang. Steinberg, S. R. (Ed.). (2001). Multi/intercultural conversations.
Quantz, R. A. (1992). On critical ethnography (with some postmodern New York: Peter Lang.
considerations). In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle Steinberg, S. R. (2004a). Desert minstrels: Hollywood’s curriculum of
(Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education. New York: Arabs and Muslims. In J. L. Kincheloe & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.),
Academic Press. The miseducation of the West: Constructing Islam. New York:
Quintero, E., & Rummel, M. K. (2003). Becoming a teacher in the new Greenwood.
society: Bringing communities and classrooms together. New York: Steinberg, S. R. (2004b). Kinderculture: The cultural studies of child-
Peter Lang. hood. In N. Denzin (Ed.), Cultural studies: A research volume.
Rodriguez, N. M., & Villaverde, L. (2000). Dismantling White privilege. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
New York: Peter Lang. Steinberg, S. R. (2007). Cutting class in a dangerous era: A critical
Roman, L., & Eyre, L. (Eds.). (1997). Dangerous territories: Struggles for pedagogy of class awareness. In J. Kincheloe & S. Steinberg (Eds.),
difference and equality in education. New York: Routledge. Cutting class: Socioeconomic status and education. Lanham, MD:
Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2010). Solidarity and conflict: Prosody as a Rowman & Littlefield.
transactional resource in intra- and intercultural communication Steinberg, S. R. (2008). Reading media critically. In D. Macedo &
involving power differences. Cultural Studies of Science Educa- S. Steinberg (Eds.), Media literacy: A reader. New York: Peter Lang.
tion, 5(4), 807–847. Steinberg, S. R. (2009). Diversity and multiculturalism: A reader.
Ryoo, J. J., & McLaren, P. (2010). Aloha for sale: A class analysis of New York: Peter Lang.
Hawaii. In D. E. Chapman (Ed.), Examining social theory: Crossing Steinberg, S. R. (2010). Power, emancipation, and complexity: Employ-
borders/reflecting back (pp. 3–18). New York: Peter Lang. ing critical theory. Journal of Power and Education, 2(2), 140–151.
San Juan, E., Jr. (1992). Articulations of power in ethnic and racial stud- Steinberg, S. R. (2011). Critical cultural studies research: Bricolage in
ies in the United States. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. action. In K. Tobin & J. Kincheloe (Eds.), Doing educational
Scatamburlo-D’Annibale, V., & McLaren, P. (2009). The reign of capital: research (2nd ed.). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishing.
A pedagogy and praxis of class struggle. In M. Apple, W. Au, & Steinberg, S. R. (in press). The bricolage. New York: Peter Lang.
L. Armando Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook Steinberg, S. R., & Kincheloe, J. L. (Eds.). (1998). Students as research-
of critical education (pp. 96–109). New York and London: Routledge. ers: Creating classrooms that matter. London: Taylor & Francis.
Scheurich, J. J., & Young, M. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our Steinberg, S. R., & Kincheloe, J. L. (2011). Employing the bricolage as
research epistemologies racially biased? Educational Researcher, critical research in science education. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, &
26(4), 4–16. C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), The international handbook of research in
Selfe, C. L., & Selfe, R. J., Jr. (1994). The politics of the interface: Power science education (2nd ed.). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
and its exercise in electronic contact zones. College Composition Thayer-Bacon, B. (2003). Relational “(e)pistemologies.” New York: Peter
and Communication, 45(4), 480–504. Lang.
Semali, L., & Kincheloe, J. L. (1999). What is indigenous knowledge? Tobin, K. (2009). Repetition, difference and rising up with research in
Voices from the academy. New York: Falmer. education. In K. Ercikan & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Generalizing from
Shor, I. (1996). When students have power: Negotiating authority in a educational research (pp. 149–172). New York: Routledge.
critical pedagogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tobin, K. (2010). Global reproduction and transformation of science
Sikes, P. (2008). Researching research cultures: The case of new univer- education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5.
sities. In P. Sikes & A. Potts (Eds.), Researching education from the Tobin, K., & Llena, R. (2010). Producing and maintaining culturally
inside: Investigations from within. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. adaptive teaching and learning of science in urban schools. In
Silverman, E. K. (1990). Clifford Geertz: Towards a more “thick” under- C. Murphy & K. Scantlebury (Eds.), Coteaching in international
standing? In C. Tilley (Ed.), Reading material culture. Cambridge, contexts: Research and practice (pp. 79–104). Dordrecht, the
MA: Blackwell. Netherlands: Springer.
 Chapter 9   Critical Pedagogy and Qualitative Research– 2– 177

Trueba, E. T., & McLaren, P. (2000). Critical ethnography for the study Watts, M. (2009b). Sen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: Adap-
of immigrants. In E. T. Trueba & L. I. Bartolomé (Eds.), Immigrant tive preferences and higher education in England. Studies in Phi-
voices: In search of educational equity. Boulder, CO: Rowman & losophy and Education, 28(5), 425–436.
Littlefield. Weil, D., & Kincheloe, J. (Eds.). (2004). Critical thinking and learn-
Varenne, H. (with McDermott, R. P.). (1996). Culture, development, ing: An encyclopedia for parents and teachers. Westport, CT:
disability. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, & R. Shweder (Eds.), Ethnography Greenwood.
and human development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wesson, L., & Weaver, J. (2001). Administration-educational standards:
Vicars, M. (2008). Is it all about me? How Queer! In P. Sikes & A. Potts Using the lens of postmodern thinking to examine the role of the
(Eds.), Researching education from the inside: Investigations from school administrator. In J. Kincheloe & D. Weil (Eds.), Standards
within. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. and schooling in the United States: An encyclopedia (3 vols.). Santa
Viergever, M. (1999). Indigenous knowledge: An interpretation of Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
views from indigenous peoples. In L. Semali & J. L. Kincheloe Wexler, P. (2008). Social theory in education. New York: Peter Lang.
(Eds.), What is indigenous knowledge? Voices from the academy. Willinsky, J. (2001). Raising the standards for democratic education:
Bristol, PA: Falmer. Research and evaluation as public knowledge. In J. Kincheloe &
Villaverde, L. (2007). Feminist theories and education primer. New York: D. Weil (Eds.), Standards and schooling in the United States: An
Peter Lang. encyclopedia (3 vols.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Villaverde, L., & Kincheloe, J. L. (1998). Engaging students as research- Willis, P. E. (1977). Learning to labour: How working class kids get work-
ers: Researching and teaching Thanksgiving in the elementary ing class jobs. Farnborough, UK: Saxon House.
classroom. In S. R. Steinberg & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Students as Willis, P. (2000). The ethnographic imagination. Cambridge, UK:
researchers: Creating classrooms that matter. London: Falmer. Polity.
Watts, M. (2006). Disproportionate sacrifices: Ricoeur’s theories of Wright, H. K. (2003a). An introduction to the history, methods, politics
justice and the widening participation agenda for higher educa- and selected traditions of qualitative research in education [Edi-
tion in the UK. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40(3), 301–312. torial]. Tennessee Education, 32(2), 5–7.
Watts, M. (2008). Narrative research, narrative capital, narrative capa- Wright, H. K. (Ed.). (2003b). Qualitative research in education. Tennes-
bility. In J. Satterthwaite, M. Watts, & H. Piper (Eds.), Talking see Education, 32(2).
truth, confronting power: Discourse, power, resistance (Vol. 6). Wright, H. K., & Lather, P. (Eds.). (2006). Paradigm proliferation in
Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books. educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
Watts, M. (2009a). Higher education and hyperreality. In P. Smeyers & in Education, 19(1).
M. Depaepe (Eds.), Educational research: Educationalisation of Zizek, S. (1990). Beyond discourse analysis. In E. Laclau, (Ed.), New
social problems. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. reflections on the revolution of our time. London: Verso.