Critical qualitative research is at a troubled juncture. Web 2.0 has stimulated an appetite for Big Data across the policy community that maps to quantitative research, less to qualitative work. Evidence-based policy places qualitative research at the bottom of the scientific credibility scale. A lurch to the hard Right in the political world marginalizes critical research and sets back the indigenous and alienated, with whom many qualitative researchers most naturally ally. Qualitative research has a long tradition of impact in the policy world. Current trends are set against that tradition to take stock of where we are now.
AdlerM. (2008). The Justice implications of activation policies in the UK. In ErhagT.StendahlS.DenetziS. (Eds.), A European work-first welfare state (pp. 95-131). Goteborg: University of Goteborg Press.
2.
AhmadK. (2018). Social computing and the law: Uses and abuses in exceptional circumstances. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
ApoifisN. (2017). Fieldwork in a furnace: Anarchists, anti-authoritarians and militant ethnography. Qualitative Research, 17, 3-19.
4.
BarnesH.GunnT.BarnesA.MurinaiE.WetherellM.McCreanorT. (2017). Feeling and spirit: Developing an indigenous wairua approach to research. Qualitative Research, 17, 313-325.
5.
BijkerW. (1997). Of bicycles, bakelite, and bulbs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
BothwellE. (2017, April13). Social networks grip on data. Times Higher Education, p. 13.
7.
boydD.CrawfordK. (2011, September). Six provocations for big data. Oxford Internet Institute Symposium, Oxford, UK.
8.
BrethertonJ.PleaceN. (2014). Evaluation of the broadway skills exchange. York, UK: University of York.
9.
BroerC.MoermanG.WesterJ. C.MalamudL. R.SchmidtL.StoopendaalA.. . . SjølieH. (2016). Open online research: Developing software and method for collaborative interpretation. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17(3), Article 2.
10.
CooperJ. (2017, March9). Listening to the commons. Times Higher Education, p. 23
11.
CordeiroL.SoaresC.RittenmeyerL. (2017). Unscrambling method and methodology in action research traditions. Qualitative Research, 17, 395-407.
12.
CulleyA. (2014). British women’s life writing. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
DenzinN. (2010). The qualitative manifesto: A call to arms. Walnut Creek CA: Left Coast Press.
14.
DenzinN.LincolnY. (2005). Introduction. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1-32). London, England: Sage.
15.
EdwardsR.BrannellyT. (2017). Approaches to democratising qualitative research methods. Qualitative Research, 17, 271-277.
16.
ElmesJ. (2017, April13). All take and no give. Times Higher Education, p. 12.
17.
ElseH. (2017, 23March). US budget: Academics warn of devastating impact of Trump’s cuts. Times Higher Education, p.10.
18.
FalabellaG. (1980). With the torrante in the trail. Journal of Social Issues, 9, 99-120.
19.
FieldingN. (2006). Writing dissertations, theses and reports. In GilbertN. (Ed.), From postgraduate to social scientist (pp. 128-148). London, England: SAGE.
20.
FieldingN. (2017). The national front. London, England: Routledge.
21.
FlickU.HansB.HirselandA.RascheS.RöhnschG. (2017). Migration, unemployment, and lifeworld: Challenges for a new critical qualitative inquiry in migration. Qualitative Inquiry, 23, 77-88.
22.
GlynosS.SpeedE. (2012). Varieties of co-production in public services: Time banks in a UK policy context. Critical Policy Studies, 6, 402-433.
23.
JewittC.XamboA.PriceS. (2017). Exploring methodological innovation in the social sciences: The body in digital environments and the arts. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20, 105-120.
24.
Kahn-HarrisK. (2017, April24). Banning books is tempting but a bad idea. The Guardian, p. 39.
25.
KaraH. (2017). Identity and power in co-produced activist research. Qualitative Research, 17, 289-301.
26.
KellerR. (2017). Has critique run out of steam: On discourse research as critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23, 58-68.
27.
KitchinR. (2014). Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1, 1-12. doi:10.1177/2053951714528481
28.
LatourB. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30, 225-248.
29.
LaurierE. (2010). Being there/seeing there: Recording and analysing life in the car. In FinchamB.McGuinnessM.MurrayL. (Eds.), Mobile methodologies (pp. 103-117). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
30.
LaveR. (2017, February16). Save now! It’s vital for science that we cache federal agency facts. Times Higher Education, pp. 26-27.
31.
LeonelliS. (2016). Data-centric biology: A philosophical study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
32.
LevitinD. (2017). A field guide to lies and statistics: A neuroscientist on how to make sense of a complex world. New York, NY: Viking.
33.
LipstadtD. (2017, February9). “Eyewitness” views: Irving, Gove, Trump and the guy in the gym. Times Higher Education, pp. 28-29.
34.
ManvilleC.GuthrieS.HenhamM. (2015). Assessing impact submissions for REF 2014. London, England: RAND Europe.
35.
MarkhamA. (2017, May). Digital research in the public sphere. International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA.
36.
MatthewsD. (2016, September1). For impact, use a novel approach. Times Higher Education, p. 7.
37.
MatthewsD. (2017, May25). EU set to ease rules on text and data mining. Times Higher Education, pp. 24-25.
38.
McGregorS.MurnameJ. (2010). Paradigm, methodology and method. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34, 419-427.
39.
MertensD. (2009). Transformative research. New York: Guilford Press
40.
MillsC. W. (2000). The sociological imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
41.
MurrayL. (2010). Contextualising and mobilising research. In FinchamB.McGuinnessM.MurrayL. (Eds.), Mobile methodologies (pp. 13-24). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
NicholsonC. (2017, April6). Societal impact gains prominence in FP9. Research Europe, p. 1.
43.
NindM.ArmstrongA.CansdaleM.CollisA.HooperC.ParsonsS.PowerA. (2016). TimeBanking: Towards a co-produced solution for power and money issues in inclusive research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20, 387-400.
44.
NoveckB. (2015). Smart citizens, smarter state: The technologies of expertise and the future of governing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
PawsonR. (2008). Method mix, technical hex, theory fix. In BergmanM. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications (pp. 120-137). London, England: SAGE.
PilkingtonH. (2017, March9). Radicalisation research should focus on everyday lives. Research Europe, p. 7.
48.
Research Europe. (2017, May11). Research evaluation “dangerously flawed.” Research Europe, p. 15.
49.
Research Fortnight. (2017, May3). What’s going on. Research Fortnight, p. 3.
50.
RobertsR.Dixon-WoodsM.FitzpatrickR.AbramsK.JonesD. (2002). Factors affecting uptake of childhood immunisation: A Bayesian synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence. The Lancet, 360, 1596-1599.
51.
ScratonP. (2002). Defining “power” and challenging “knowledge”: Critical analysis as resistance in the UK. In CarringtonK.HoggR. (Eds.), Critical criminology: Issues, debates, challenges (pp. 15-40). Cullompton, UK: Willan.
52.
ScratonP. (2004). Critical scholarship under threat. Socio-Legal Newsletter, 44, 3-4.
53.
SeyfangG. (2004). Time banks: Rewarding community self-help. Community Development Journal, 39, 62-71.
54.
ShahH. (2017, March15). Lack of trust could hinder efforts to use data for good. Research Fortnight, p. 23.
55.
ShellerM.UrryJ. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38, 207-226.
56.
SolonO. (2017, February18). Power to the people: Zuckerberg answers critics and sets out vision of better world. The Guardian.
57.
SpencerL.RitchieJ.LewisJ.DillonL. (2003). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. London, England: Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office.
58.
StephensN.DelamontS. (2010). Vim de Bahia pra Ihe ver: Multiple movements in the Capoieira Batizado. In FinchamB.McGuinnessM.MurrayL. (Eds.), Mobile methodologies (pp. 85-102). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
59.
ThompsonN.MillerN.BelleauA. (2016). The indigenization of photovoice methodology: Visioning indigenous head start in Michigan. International Review of Qualitative Research, 9, 296-322.
60.
WalmsleyJ.JohnsonK. (2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.
61.
WebbH.JirotkaM. (2017, July28). Spotting the fake. Society Now, p. 13.
62.
WinterR. (2017). The idea of equality and qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23, 27-33.
