Telling about our qualitative inquiry in public spheres has a whole new meaning in a neoliberal-derived research marketplace. It is also about being seen and heard in that competitive marketplace to accrue the market currency that different types of public telling differentially provide. This can result in an “overadaptive” telling of a qualitative inquiry that itself has been overadapted to meet other agendas. Three snapshots of different types of public telling provide the vehicles for our discussion: about impact to funders, about relevance at our workplace, and to journalists so they can publicly retell that research.
AlvessonM. (2013). The triumph of emptiness: Consumption, higher education and work organization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2.
AlvessonM.GabrielY.PaulsenR. (2017). Return to meaning: A social science with something to say. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3.
BallS. J. (2012). Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-spy guide to the neoliberal university. British Journal of Educational Studies, 60, 17-28. doi:10.1080/00071005.2011.650940
4.
BevanG.HoodC. (2006). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 84, 517-538.
5.
BrunssonN. (2002). The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions and actions in organizations (2nd ed.). Herndon, VA: Copenhagen Business School Press.
6.
CheekJ. (1997). (Con)textualizing toxic shock syndrome: Selected media representations of the emergence of a health phenomenon 1979–1995. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 1, 183-203.
7.
CheekJ. (2005). The practice and politics of funded research. In DenzinN. K.GiardinaM. D. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 387-410). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
CheekJ. (2006). The challenge of tailor-made research quality: The RQF in Australia. In DenzinN. K.GiardinaM. D. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and the conservative challenge: Contesting methodological fundamentalism (pp. 109-126). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
9.
CheekJ. (2011). The politics and practices of funding qualitative inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 251-268). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
CheekJ. (2017a). The marketization of research: Implications for qualitative inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 322-340). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
CheekJ. (2017b). Qualitative inquiry, research marketplaces, and neoliberalism: Adding some +s (pluses) to our thinking about the mess in which we find ourselves. In DenzinN. K.GiardinaM. D. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in neoliberal times (pp. 19-36). London, England: Routledge.
12.
CheekJ.ØbyE. (2018). “Getting attention” Creating and Presenting the Visible, Online, Researcher Self. Qualitative Inquiry. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1077800418806593
13.
CheekJ.GarnhamB.QuanJ. (2006). What’s in a number? Issues in providing evidence of impact and quality of research(ers). Qualitative Health Research, 16, 423-435.
14.
ChubbJ.WatermeyerR. (2017). Artifice or integrity in the marketization of research impact? Investigating the moral economy of (pathways to) impact statements within research funding proposals in the UK and Australia. Studies in Higher Education, 42, 2360-2372. doi:10.1080/03075079.2016.1144182
15.
DenzinN. K.GiardinaM. (2017). Introduction. In DenzinN. K.GiardinaM. D. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in neoliberal times (pp. 1-16). London, England: Routledge.
16.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2017). Strategies of inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 309-321). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
HallN. (2014). The Kardashian index: A measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biology, 15(7), Article 424. doi:10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0
20.
HamannT. H. (2009). Neoliberalism, governmentality, and ethics. Foucault Studies, 6, 37-59. doi:10.22439/fs.v0i0.2471
21.
HirschJ. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569-16572.
22.
KemmisS.McTaggartR. (2005). Participatory action research. Communicative action and the public sphere. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 559-603). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Savin-BadenM.Howell MajorC. (2010). Introduction. In Savin-BadenM.MajorH. C. (Eds.), New approaches to qualitative research: Wisdom and uncertainty (pp. 1-5). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
31.
SpoonerM. (2017). Qualitative research and global audit culture: The politics of productivity, accountability and possibility. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 894-914). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Steinkopf SundS. (2017). Bedre skole med mindfulness? [Better schools with mindfulness?]. Skolelederen, 31(7), 18-20.
