There are disagreements about, and contradictory indications of, the state of qualitative inquiry as a global endeavor. The article argues that these disagreements rather miss the point. The issue is not whether or not qualitative approaches to social research are developing across disciplines and continuing to receive funding, but rather to what purposes are qualitative methods being put? What research agendas are being pursued, and who sets them? The article illustrates these issues with respect to the effects of research selectivity and concentration in the United Kingdom and argues that qualitative research should continue to develop as an intellectual resource for the community rather than as a technical service to government.
AtkinsonP.DelamontS. (2006). In the roiling smoke: Qualitative inquiry and contested fields. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 747-755.
4.
BlunkettD. (2000). Influence or irrelevance: Can social science improve government?Research Intelligence, 71, 12-21.
5.
Cabinet Office. (2003). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. London, England: Author.
6.
CaracelliV. (2006). Enhancing the policy process through the use of ethnography and other study frameworks: A mixed methods strategy. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 84-92.
Economic and Social Research Council. (2009). Strategic plan 2009-2014: Delivering impact through social science. Retrieved from http://www.esrc.ac.uk/strategicplan/
HargreavesD. (1996). Teaching as a research based profession (TTA Annual Lecture). London, England: Teacher Training Agency.
18.
HillageJ.PearsonR.AndersonA.TamkinP. (1998, August). Excellence in research on schools (DfEE Research Report, 74). London, England: Department for Education and Employment.
19.
HouseE.HoweK. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
LatherP. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 15-34.
21.
LatherP. (2010). Engaging science policy from the side of the messy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
22.
LincolnY. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275-289.
23.
MacDonaldB. (1974). Evaluation and the control of education. (Reprinted in Evaluating education: Issues and methods, by MurphyR.TorranceH., Eds., 1987, London, England: Harper & Row)
24.
MillsD.RatcliffeR. (2012). After method: Ethnography in the knowledge economy. Qualitative Research, 12, 147-164.
25.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26.
NicolausM. (1972). The professional organisation of sociology: The view from below. In BlackburnR. (Ed.), Ideology in social science (pp. 45-60). London, England: Fontana.
OakleyA. (2000). Experiments in knowing. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
29.
OakleyA. (2003). Research evidence, knowledge management and educational practice: Early lessons from a systematic approach. London Review of Education, 1, 21-33.
SchwandtT. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2, 58-72.
33.
SmithL. (2005). On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 85-108). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
34.
TooleyJ.DarbyD. (1998). Educational research: A critique. London, England: Ofsted.
35.
TorranceH. (2011). Qualitative research, science and government: Evidence, criteria, policy and politics. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 569-580). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
