The First International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry

Qualitative Social Work

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 105-111

  Denzin, Norman K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

evidence based models; methodological fundamentalism; mixed methods experimentalism; science

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248603663     PISSN: 14733250     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1473325005050205     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Atkinson, Elizabeth (2004) ‘ Thinking Outside the Box: An Exercise in Heresy ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (1): 111 - 129.
2. Bloch, Marianne (2004) ‘ A Discourse That Disciplines, Governs, and Regulates: On Scientific Research in Education ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (1): 96 - 110.
3. Campbell, Donald and Stanley, Julian (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
4. Cannella, Gaile S. (2004) ‘ Regulatory Power: Can a Feminist Poststructuralist Engage in Research Oversight? ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (2): 235 - 245.
5. Cannella, Gaile S. and Lincoln, Yvonna S. (2004 a) ‘ Dangerous Discourses II: Comprehending and Countering the Redeployment of Discourses (and Resources) in the Generation of Liberatory Inquiry ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (2): 165 - 174.
6. Cannella, Gaile S. and Lincoln, Yvonna S. (2004 b) ‘ Epilogue: Claiming a Critical Public Social Science-Reconceptualizing and Redeploying Research ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (2): 298 - 309.
7. Feuer, M.J., Towne, L. and Shavelson, R.J. (2002) ‘ Scientific Culture and Educational Research ’, Educational Researcher 31 (8): 4 - 14.
8. Howe, Kenneth R. (2004) ‘ A Critique of Experimentalism ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (1): 42 - 61.
9. Lather, Patti (2004) ‘ This Is Your Father's Paradigm: Government Intrusion and the Case of Qualitative Research in Education ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (1): 15 - 34.
10. Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Cannella, Gaile S. (2004 a) ‘ Dangerous Discourses Methodological Conservatism and Governmental Regimes of Truth ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (1): 5 - 14.
11. Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Cannella, Gaile S. (2004 b) ‘ Qualitative Research, Power, and the Radical Right ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (2): 175 - 201.
12. Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Tierney, William G. (2004) ‘ Qualitative Research and Institutional Review Boards ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (2): 219 - 234.
13. Maxwell, Joseph A. (2004) ‘ Reemergent Scientism, Postmodernism, and Dialogue Across Differences ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (1): 35 - 41.
14. Mutua, Kagendoo and Swadener, Beth Blue (2004) ‘ Introduction ’, in Kagendo Mutua and Beth Blue Swadener (eds) Decolonizing Research in Cross-Cultural Contexts: Critical Personal Narratives, pp. 1 - 23. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
15. Popkewitz, Thomas S. (2004) ‘ Is the National Research Council Committee's Report on Scientific Research in Education Scientific?: On Trusting the Manifesto ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (1): 62 - 78.
16. Ryan, Katherine E. and Hood, Lisa K. (2004) ‘ Guarding the Castle and Opening the Gates ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (1): 79 - 95.
17. Schwandt, Thomas (2000) ‘ Three Epistemological Stances for Qualitative Inquiry ’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, pp. 189 - 213. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Seale, Clive, Gobo, Giampietro, Gubrium, Jaber F. and Silverman, David (2004) ‘ Introduction: Inside Qualitative Research ’, in Clive Seale, Giampietro Gobo, Jaber F. Gubrium and David Silverman (eds) Qualitative Research Practice, pp. 1 - 11. London: Sage.
19. St Pierre, Elizabeth Adams (2004) ‘ Refusing Alternatives: a Science of Contestation ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (1): 130 - 139.
20. Teddlie, Charles and Tashakkori, Abbes (2003) ‘ Major Issues and Controversies in the Use of Mixed Methods in the Social and Behavioral Sciences ’, in Abbes Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 3 - 50. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Weinstein, Matthew (2004) ‘ Randomized Design and the Myth of Certain Knowledge: Guinea Pig Narratives and Cultural Critique ’, Qualitative Inquiry 10 (2): 246 - 260.