The international congresses of qualitative inquiry

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2006, Pages

  Denzin, Norman K ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84967277622     PISSN: 17465648     EISSN: 17465656     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/qrom.2006.29801baf.002     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Atkinson, E. (2004), “Thinking outside the box: an exercise in heresy”,Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 111-29.
2. Bloch, M. (2004), “A discourse that disciplines, governs, andregulates: on scientific research in education”, Qualitative Inquiry,Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 96-110.
3. Campbell, D. and Stanley, J. (1963), Experimental and Quasi-experimental Design, Rand McNally, Çhicago, IL.
4. Feuer, M.J., Towne, L. and Shavelson, R.J. (2002), “Scientific cultureand educational research”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 31 No. 8,pp. 4-14.
5. Howe, K.R. (2004), “A critique of experimentalism”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 42-61.
6. Lather, P. (2004), “This is your father's paradigm: governmentintrusion and the case of qualitative research in education”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 15-34.
7. Lincoln, Y.S. and Cannella, G.S. (2004 a), “Dangerous discoursesmethodological conservatism and governmental regimes of truth”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 5-14.
8. Lincoln, Y.S. and Cannella, G.S. (2004 b), “Qualitative research, power,and the radical right”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp.175-201.
9. Maxwell, J.A. (2004), “Reemergent scientism, postmodernism, anddialogue across differences”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10 No. 1,pp. 35-41.
10. Mutua, K. and Swadner, B.B. (2004), “Introduction”, in Mutua, K.and Swadner, B.B. (Eds), Research in Cross-cultural Contexts: Critical Personal Narratives, SUNY Press, Albany, NY, pp. 1-23.
11. Popkewitz, T.S. (2004), “Is the national research council committee'sreport on scientific research in education scientific? On trusting the manifesto”,Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 62-78.
12. Ryan, K.E. and Hood, L.K. (2004), “Guarding the castle and opening thegates”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 79-95.
13. Schwandt, T. (2000), “Three epistemological stances for qualitativeinquiry”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Hand book of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 189-213.
14. Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J.F. and Silverman, D. (2004), “Introduction:inside qualitative research”, in Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J.F. and Silverman, D. (Eds), Qualitative Research Practice, Sage, London, pp.1-11.
15. St Pierre, E.A. (2004), “Refusing alternatives: a science ofcontestation”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 130-9.
16. Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2003), “Major issues and controversiesin the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences”, in Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds), Hand book of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 3-50.
17. Weinstein, M. (2004), “Randomized design and the myth of certainknowledge: guinea pig narratives and cultural critique”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 246-60.