Advertisement

Reimagining Rooms for Methodological Manoeuvres: Distilled Dilemmas, Proposed Principles and Synthesised Strategies in Research Education and Social Practices Qualitatively

  • P. A. Danaher
Chapter
  • 3.3k Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods book series (PSERM)

Abstract

Having “room to manoeuvre” is crucial if qualitative education and social researchers are to design and conduct studies effectively, efficiently and ethically. These rooms for manoeuvres also build creatively on the shifting boundaries of contemporary methodologies as well as on the evolving experiences of the researchers deploying such methodologies. This chapter outlines a rationale for reimagining rooms for methodological manoeuvres. This rationale arises from a distillation of the decision-making dilemmas presented in the preceding chapters, and also from an articulation of the proposed principles and the synthesised strategies contained in those chapters. In combination, these dilemmas, principles and strategies constitute an authentic, practical and useful encapsulation of broader implications and issues attending contemporary qualitative education and social research.

Keywords

Qualitative Researcher Previous Chapter Research Misconduct Litmus Test Clarion Call 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge wholeheartedly the intellectual labour and the research leadership of Professor Bobby Harreveld in masterminding this book and the research symposium on 25 and 26 September 2014 at the Rockhampton campus of Central Queensland University, Australia that preceded and informed it. Professor Harreveld and her fellow editors have generated a productive framework for reconsidering the potential and actual contributions of contemporary qualitative methodologies to researching and thereby enhancing current and possible alternative education and social practices. Each chapter author has contributed significantly to adding to and enriching that framework. Ms Jodie Gunders provided indispensable project management expertise for the book. Finally, this chapter has been clarified and strengthened by the rigorous feedback of participants in the writing workshop at which an earlier version of the chapter was discussed.

References

  1. Danaher, M. J. M., Cook, J. R., Danaher, G. R., Coombes, P. N., & Danaher, P. A. (2013). Researching education with marginalized communities. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Danaher, P. A. (2008). Teleological pressures and ateleological possibilities on and for a fragile learning community: Implications for framing lifelong learning futures for Australian university academics. In D. Orr, P. A. Danaher, G. R. Danaher, & R. E. Harreveld (Eds.), Lifelong learning: Reflecting on successes and framing futures: Keynote and refereed papers from the 5th international lifelong learning conference, Yeppoon, Central Queensland, Australia, 16–19 June 2008: Hosted by Central Queensland University (pp. 130–135). Rockhampton, QLD, Australia: Lifelong Learning Conference Committee, Central Queensland University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Danaher, P. A. (2015). Forms of capital and transition pedagogies: Researching to learn among postgraduate students and early career academics at an Australian university. In C. Guerin, P. Bartholomew, & C. Nygaard (Eds.), Learning to research—Researching to learn (pp. 219–240). Faringdon, UK: Libri Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Danaher, P. A., Danaher, G. R., & Moriarty, B. J. (2003, December). Risks and dilemmas, virtues and vices: Engaging with stakeholders and gatekeepers in Australian Traveller education research. In NZARE/AARE conference 2003: Educational research, risks & dilemmas, 29 November–3 December 2003, Hyatt Regency Hotel and University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand (9 pp.). Auckland, New Zealand: New Zealand Association for Research in Education.Google Scholar
  5. Harreveld, R. E., & Danaher, P. A. (2009, August 27). Fostering and restraining a community of academic learning: Possibilities and pressures in a postgraduate and early career researcher group at an Australian university. Paper presented at the 13th biennial conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., & Fairbairn, H. (2015). Examiner reference to theory in PhD theses. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 75–85. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2014.981842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jones, P. (2014). Narrative vignettes and online enquiry in researching therapist accounts of practice with children in schools: An analysis of the methodology. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research: Linking Research with Practice, 14(3), 227–234. doi: 10.1080/14733145.2013.813953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Lather, P., & St Pierre, E. A. (2013). Introduction: Post-qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 629–633. doi: 10.1080/09518398.2013.788752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leech, B. (2002). Asking questions: A technique for semi-structured interviews. Political Science and Politics, 35, 665–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Macfarlane, B. (2010). Values and virtues in qualitative research. In M. Savin-Baden & C. H. Major (Eds.), New approaches to qualitative research: Wisdom and uncertainty (pp. 19–27). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. A. Danaher
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Business, Education, Law and ArtsUniversity of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia

Personalised recommendations