Complicity as Infiltration: The (Im)possibilities of Research With/in NSF Engineering Grants in the Age of Neoliberal Scientism

Qualitative Inquiry

Volumn 18, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 773-786

  Daza, Stephanie Lynn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

grants; Neoliberalism; Spivak

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867094710     PISSN: 10778004     EISSN: 15527565     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1077800412453021     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Program evaluation at HEW: Research versus reality. Part 2: Education. Abert J. G., ed. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 1979.
2. American Association for the advancement of science report XXXVI: Research and development fiscal year 2012. Washington, DC: Intersociety Working Group; 2011.
3. Anzaldúa G.Borderlands, la frontera: The new mestiza. 1999/1987). Borderlands, la frontera: The new mestiza (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books.San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books; 1999/1987.
4. Baez B.,Boyles D.The politics of inquiry: Education research and the "culture of science.". New York: State University of New York Press; 2009.
5. Bhabha H. K.The location of culture. London, UK; New York, NY: Routledge; 1994.
6. Bourdieu P.The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1990.
7. Bozeman B.,Boardman C.Broad impacts and narrow perspectives: Passing the buck on science and social impacts.Social Epistemology. 2009;23:183-198.
8. Butler J. P.Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York, NY: Routledge; 1997.
9. Coloma R. S.Border crossing subjectivities and research: Through the prism of feminist of color.Race, Ethnicity and Education. 2008;11 (1): 11-28.
10. Daza S.Postcolonial challenges in education. Coloma R. S., ed. New York, NY: Peter Lang; 2009:326-343.
11. Denzin N. K.Qualitative inquiry under fire: Toward a new paradigm dialogue. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press; 2009.
12. DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S.BochnerA.EllisC. (2009, April23). Response to NSF's 2009 Report. Retrieved from http://www.iiqi.org/C4QI/httpdocs/qi2009/index.html.
13. Denzin N. K.,Lincoln Y. S.,Giardina M. D.Disciplining qualitative research.International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE). 2006;19:769-782.
14. Eisenhart M.Hammers and saws for the improvement of educational research.Educational Theory. 2005a;55:245-261.
15. Eisenhart M.Science plus: A response to the responses to scientific research in education.Teachers College Record. 2005b;107 (1): 52-58.
16. Eisenhart M.,Towne L.Contestation and change in national policy on "scientifically based" education research.Educational Researcher. 2003;32 (7): 31-38.
17. EricksonF. (1985). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. Occasional paper no. 81. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 263203). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED263203.pdf.
18. Erickson F.Handbook of research on teaching. Wittrock M. C. American, ed. New York: Macmillan; 1986:119-161.
19. Fairclough N.Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 1992.
20. Fitzpatrick J. L.,Sanders J. R.,Worthen B. R.Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. 2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson; 2011.
21. Foucault M.The archaeology of knowledge. 1972). The archaeology of knowledge (1st American ed.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.New York, NY: Pantheon Books; 1972.
22. Foucault M.,Burchell G.,Gordon C.,Miller P.The Foucault effect: Studies in Governmentality with two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1982/1991.
23. Foucault M.,Gordon C.Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. 1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (1st American ed.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.New York, NY: Pantheon Books; 1980.
24. Freire P.Pedagogy of the oppressed. 2002/1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Continuum.New York, NY: Continuum; 2002/1970.
25. Giroux H.The University in chains: Confronting the military-industrial-academic complex. Boulder, CO: Paradigm; 2007.
26. Guba E. G.The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE; 1990.
27. Guba E. G.,Lincoln Y. S.Effective evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1981.
28. Guba E. G.,Lincoln Y. S.Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE; 1989.
29. Hall S.Discourse theory and practice: A reader. Wetherell M.Taylor S.Yates S. J., ed. London, UK: SAGE; 2001:72-81.
30. Harvey D.A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005.
31. Holbrook J. B.Editor's Introduction. [Editorial].Social Epistemology. 2009a;23:177-181.
32. Social Epistemology. Holbrook J. B., ed. 2009b.
33. House E. R.The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Denzin N.Lincoln Y. S., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2005:1069-1081.
34. Intemann K.Why diversity matters: Understanding and applying the diversity component of the National Science Foundation's broader impacts criterion.Social Epistemology. 2009;23:249-266.
35. Jackson A. Y.,Mazzei L. A.Jackson A. Y.Mazzei L. A., ed. London, UK: Routledge; 2012:39-49.
36. Kuhn T.The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1962.
37. Lagemann E. C.An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2000.
38. Lather P.Engaging science policy: From the side of the messy. New York, NY: Peter Lang; 2010.
39. Lincoln Y. S.,Cannella G. S.Qualitative research, power, and the radical right.Qualitative Inquiry. 2004;10:175-201.
40. MazuzanG. T. (1994). NSF 88-16: A brief history. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf50/nsf8816.jsp.
41. Miller J. L.English education in-the-making.English Education. 2000;33 (1): 34-50.
42. Miller J. L.Sounds of silence breaking: Women, autobiography, curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang; 2004.
43. Moss P. A.,Phillips D. C.,Erickson F. D.,Floden R. E.,Lather P. A.,Schneider B. L.Learning from our differences: A dialogue across perspectives on quality in education research.Educational Researcher. 2009;38:501-517.
44. Muñoz J. E.Disidentifications: Queers of color and the performance of politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1999.
45. Murphy W. J.How firm a foundation? I. The National Science Foundation and its scope.Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. 1950 1265;.
46. National Science Board. (2011). NSF merit review reports Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/topics/MeritReviewReports.jsp.
47. Research experiences for teachers (RET) in engineering. Arlington, VA: Author; 2006.
48. Research experience for undergrads (REU). Arlington, VA: Author; 2011a.
49. Reserch experiences for teachers (RET) in engineering and computer science. Arlington, VA: Author; 2011b.
50. National ScienceFoundation. (2011c, February14). The National Science Foundation: FY 2012 Budget request to congress. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2012/toc.jsp.
51. National Science Foundation Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide. (2011, January). NSF proposal & award policies & procedures guide. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/.
52. Ong A.Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and sovereignty. Durham, NC; London, UK: Duke Univeristy Press; 2006.
53. Popkewitz T. S.Cosmopolitanism and the age of school reform: Science, education, and making society by making the child. New York, NY: Routledge; 2008.
54. Roberts M. R.Realizing societal benefit from academic research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation's broader impacts criterion.Social Epistemology. 2009;23:199-219.
55. Scriven M.Evaluation Thesaurus. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1991.
56. Shumar W.College for sale: A critique of the commodification of higher education. London, UK: Falmer Press; 1997.
57. Simpson C.Universities and empire: Money and politics in the social sciences during the cold war. New York, NY: New Press; 1998.
58. Soley L. C.Leasing the ivory tower: The corporate takeover of academia. Boston, MA: South End Press; 1995.
59. Spivak G. C.Three women's texts and a critique of imperialism.Critical Inquiry: Race, Writing, and Difference. 1985;12:243-261.
60. Spivak G. C.Outside in the teaching machine. New York, NY: Routledge; 1993.
61. Spivak G. C.Responsibility.Boundary 2. 1994;21 (3): 19-64.
62. Spivak G. C.A critique of postcolonial reason: Toward a history of the vanishing present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999.
63. Spivak G. C.Death of a discipline. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2003.
64. Spivak G. C.Other Asias. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
65. Spivak G. C.,Harasym S.The post-colonial critic: Interviews, strategies, dialogues. New York, NY: Routledge Press; 1990.
66. St.Pierre E. A.,Roulston K.The state of qualitative inquiry: A contested science.International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. 2006;19:673-684.
67. Stufflebeam D. L.,Shinkfield A. J.Evaluation theory, models, and applications. 2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications (1st ed., pp. xxxii, 736 p.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2007:xxxii 736.
68. Subedi B.,Daza S.The possibilities of postcolonial praxis in education.Race, Ethnicity and Education. 2008;11 (1): 1-10.
69. Subedi B.,Rhee J.-e.Negotiating collaboration across differences.Qualitative Inquiry. 2008;14:1070-1092.
70. Taubman P. M.Teaching by numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of standards and accountability in education. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009.
71. Chemical and Engineering News. 1950;28 (21): 1729-1732.
72. Tuhiwai Smith L.Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London, UK: Zed Books; 1999.
73. Tuhiwai Smith L.The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Denzin N. K.Lincoln Y. S., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2005:85-107.
74. Van Dijk T.Discourse theory and practice: A reader. Wetherell M.Taylor S.Yates S. J., ed. London, UK: SAGE; 2001/1993:300-317.
75. WeathertonY.DazaS.PhamV. (2011). Perceived Barriers to Participation in Engineering: Why Underrepresented Groups Remain Underrepresented. American Society for Engineering Education Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from http://www.asee.org/search/proceedings.
76. Whitehurst G. J.Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences; 2008.