In this article, I use a Spivakian decolonizing perspective to take simplification to task in two ways—the simplification of methodology with/in grants and the simplification of critique that skirts the impossibility of noncomplicitous research and researchers. I posit that neoliberal scientism’s grants culture is colonizing research—narrowly defining what is and is not knowledge production and who are and are not researchers. I argue that qualitative research/ers might infiltrate grants culture and then work from within to make the messiness of science visible in a way that makes neoliberal scientism’s “(ab)-use” of science its own undoing (Spivak, 1999). In this sense, I reframe complicity as infiltration, but recognize that complicities are neither equal nor uniform across researchers, projects, or contexts.
AbertJ. G. (Ed.). (1979). Program evaluation at HEW: Research versus reality. Part 2: Education. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). American Association for the advancement of science report XXXVI: Research and development fiscal year 2012. Washington, DC: Intersociety Working Group.
3.
AnzaldúaG. (1999/1987). Borderlands, la frontera: The new mestiza (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books.
4.
BaezB.BoylesD. (2009). The politics of inquiry: Education research and the “culture of science.”New York: State University of New York Press.
5.
BhabhaH. K. (1994). The location of culture. London, UK; New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
BourdieuP. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
BozemanB.BoardmanC. (2009). Broad impacts and narrow perspectives: Passing the buck on science and social impacts. Social Epistemology, 23, 183-198.
8.
ButlerJ. P. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
ColomaR. S. (2008). Border crossing subjectivities and research: Through the prism of feminist of color. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 11(1), 11-28.
10.
DazaS. (2009). The noninnocence of recognition: Subjects and agency in education. In ColomaR. S. (Ed.), Postcolonial challenges in education (pp. 326-343). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
11.
DenzinN. K. (2009). Qualitative inquiry under fire: Toward a new paradigm dialogue. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S.GiardinaM. D. (2006). Disciplining qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 19, 769-782.
14.
EisenhartM. (2005a). Hammers and saws for the improvement of educational research. Educational Theory, 55, 245-261.
15.
EisenhartM. (2005b). Science plus: A response to the responses to scientific research in education. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 52-58.
16.
EisenhartM.TowneL. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on “scientifically based” education research. Educational Researcher, 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.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. C. AmericanEducational Research Association (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.
19.
FaircloughN. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
20.
FitzpatrickJ. L.SandersJ. R.WorthenB. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
21.
FoucaultM. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (1st American ed.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
22.
FoucaultM.BurchellG.GordonC.MillerP. (1982/1991). The Foucault effect: Studies in Governmentality with two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
FoucaultM.GordonC. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (1st American ed.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
24.
FreireP. (2002/1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Continuum.
25.
GirouxH. (2007). The University in chains: Confronting the military-industrial-academic complex. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
26.
GubaE. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
27.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
28.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
29.
HallS. (2001). Foucault: Power, knowledge and discourse. In WetherellM.TaylorS.YatesS. J. (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (pp. 72-81). London, UK: SAGE.
30.
HarveyD. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31.
HolbrookJ. B. (2009a). Editor’s Introduction. [Editorial]Social Epistemology, 23, 177-181.
32.
HolbrookJ. B. (Ed.). (2009b). US National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion.[Special issue]Social Epistemology, 23(3/4).
33.
HouseE. R. (2005). Qualitative evaluation and changing social policy. In DenzinN.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1069-1081). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
34.
IntemannK. (2009). Why diversity matters: Understanding and applying the diversity component of the National Science Foundation’s broader impacts criterion. Social Epistemology, 23, 249-266.
35.
JacksonA. Y.MazzeiL. A. (2012). Spivak: Thinking with marginality. In JacksonA. Y.MazzeiL. A. (Eds.), Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives (pp. 39-49). London, UK: Routledge.
36.
KuhnT. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
LagemannE. C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38.
LatherP. (2010). Engaging science policy: From the side of the messy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
39.
LincolnY. S.CannellaG. S. (2004). Qualitative research, power, and the radical right. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 175-201.
MillerJ. L. (2000). English education in-the-making. English Education, 33(1), 34-50.
42.
MillerJ. L. (2004). Sounds of silence breaking: Women, autobiography, curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
43.
MossP. A.PhillipsD. C.EricksonF. D.FlodenR. E.LatherP. A.SchneiderB. L. (2009). Learning from our differences: A dialogue across perspectives on quality in education research. Educational Researcher, 38, 501-517.
44.
MuñozJ. E. (1999). Disidentifications: Queers of color and the performance of politics. Minneapolis,: University of Minnesota Press.
45.
MurphyW. J. (1950, July). How firm a foundation? I. The National Science Foundation and its scope. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 1265. doi:10.1021/ie50487a001
OngA. (2006). Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and sovereignty. Durham, NC; London, UK: Duke Univeristy Press.
53.
PopkewitzT. S. (2008). Cosmopolitanism and the age of school reform: Science, education, and making society by making the child. New York, NY: Routledge.
54.
RobertsM. R. (2009). Realizing societal benefit from academic research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation’s broader impacts criterion. Social Epistemology, 23, 199-219.
ShumarW. (1997). College for sale: A critique of the commodification of higher education. London, UK: Falmer Press.
57.
SimpsonC. (1998). Universities and empire: Money and politics in the social sciences during the cold war. New York, NY: New Press.
58.
SoleyL. C. (1995). Leasing the ivory tower: The corporate takeover of academia. Boston, MA: South End Press.
59.
SpivakG. C. (1985). Three women’s texts and a critique of imperialism. Critical Inquiry: Race, Writing, and Difference, 12, 243-261.
60.
SpivakG. C. (1993). Outside in the teaching machine. New York, NY: Routledge.
61.
SpivakG. C. (1994). Responsibility. Boundary 2, 21(3), 19-64.
62.
SpivakG. C. (1999). A critique of postcolonial reason: Toward a history of the vanishing present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
SpivakG. C. (2003). Death of a discipline. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
64.
SpivakG. C. (2008). Other Asias. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
65.
SpivakG. C.HarasymS. (1990). The post-colonial critic: Interviews, strategies, dialogues. New York, NY: Routledge Press.
66.
St.PierreE. A.RoulstonK. (2006). The state of qualitative inquiry: A contested science. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 673-684.
67.
StufflebeamD. L.ShinkfieldA. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications (1st ed., pp. xxxii, 736 p.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
68.
SubediB.DazaS. (2008). The possibilities of postcolonial praxis in education. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 11(1), 1-10.
69.
SubediB.RheeJ.-e. (2008). Negotiating collaboration across differences. Qualitative Inquiry, 14, 1070-1092
70.
TaubmanP. M. (2009). Teaching by numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of standards and accountability in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
71.
The National Science Foundation Bill. (1950, May22). Chemical and Engineering News, 28(21), 1729-1732.
72.
Tuhiwai SmithL. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London, UK: Zed Books.
73.
Tuhiwai SmithL. (2005). On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 85-107). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
74.
Van DijkT. (2001/1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. In WetherellM.TaylorS.YatesS. J. (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (pp. 300-317). London, UK: SAGE.
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.
WhitehurstG. J. (2008). Rigor and relevance redux: Director’s biennial report to congress. Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
