BaradK. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
2.
CicourelA. V. (1979). Field research: The need for stronger theory and more control over the data base. In SnizekW. E.FahrmanE. R.MillerM. K. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in theory and research (pp. 161-176). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
3.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (MassumiB., Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1980)
4.
DerridaJ. (1974). Of grammatology (SpivakG. C., Trans.). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published 1967)
5.
DerridaJ. (1978). Writing and difference (BassA., Trans.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1967)
6.
FoucaultM. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (SheridanA., Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975)
7.
FoucaultM. (2000). Power: Essential works of Foucault, 1954-1984 Vol. III (HurleyR., Trans., & FaubionJ. D., Ed.). New York, NY: The New Press.
8.
GoldsteinE. R. (2011, November18). The anatomy of influence. Chronicle of Higher Education, LVIII(13), B5-B10.
9.
JacksonA. Y.MazzeiL. A. (2009). Voice in qualitative inquiry: Challenging conventional, interpretive, and critical conceptions in qualitative research. New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
JacksonA. Y.MazzeiL. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. London, UK: Routledge.
11.
LatherP. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
MacLureM. (2008). Classification or wonder? Coding as an analytic practice in qualitative research. In ColemanR.RingroseJ. (Eds.), Deleuze and research methodologies (pp. 164-183). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
13.
MillerJ. (2009). The status of qualitative research in criminology. In LamontM.WhiteP. (Eds.), Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research (pp. 69-75). Washington, DC. National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/soc/ISSQR_workshop_rpt.pdf
14.
NesporJ.BarylskeJ. (1991). Narrative discourse and teacher knowledge. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 805-823.
15.
PascaleC.-E. (2011). Cartographies of knowledge: Exploring qualitative epistemologies. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
16.
PattonC. (2008). Finding “fields” in the field: Normalcy, risk, and ethnographic inquiry. International Review of Qualitative Research, 1, 255-274.
17.
PopkewitzT. S. (2004). Is the National Research Council committee’s report on Scientific Research in Education scientific?: On trusting the manifesto. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 62-78.
18.
St. PierreE. A. (2011). Post qualitative research: The critique and the coming after. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of qualitative inquiry (4th ed., pp. 611-635). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
19.
St. PierreE. A. (2013). The appearance of data. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 13, 223-227.
20.
YoungO. (1969). Professor Russet: Industrious tailor to a naked emperor. World Politics, 23, 486-511.