In this introduction, the authors briefly survey the field of post-qualitative inquiry, outlining innovations, tensions, and questions that reside within the current field. The authors follow this survey with a review of the special issue, detailing the call and the individual contributions.
BenozzoA.BellH.Koro-LjungbergM. (2013). Moving between nuisance, secrets, and splinters as data. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 13(4), 309–315.
2.
BenozzoA.CareyN.CozzaM.ElmenhorstC.FairchildN.Koro-LjungbergM.TaylorC. A. (2019). Disturbing the AcademicConferenceMachine: Post-qualitative re-turnings. Gender, Work and Organization, 26(2), 87–106.
3.
BenozzoA.Koro-LjungbergM.CareyN. (2016). Post author/ship: Five or more IKEA customers in search of an author. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(7), 568–580.
4.
BodénL. (2015). The presence of school absenteeism: Exploring methodologies for researching the material-discursive practice of school absence registration. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 15(3), 192–202.
5.
CarlsonD. L.Koro-LjungbergM. (2017). (Re)mixing Foucault and Deleuze: Power games in critical qualitative research. International Review of Qualitative Research, 10(4), 411–429.
6.
CarlsonD. L.WellsT. (2020). Narratives of Amor Fati: Meditations on life and death. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(10), 1206–1212. doi:1077800418786308
7.
CloughP. T. (2009). The new empiricism: Affect and sociological method. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(1), 43–61.
8.
Koro-LjungbergM. (2016). Reconceptualizing qualitative research: Methodologies without methodology. SAGE.
9.
Koro-LjungbergM.MacLureM. (2013). Provocations, re-un-visions, death, and other possibilities of “data.”Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 13(4), 219–222.
10.
KuntzA. M.PresnallM. M. (2012). Wandering the tactical: From interview to intraview. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(9), 732–744.
11.
LatherP. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35–57.
12.
LatherP. (2013). Methodology-21: What do we do in the afterward?International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 634–645.
13.
LatherP. (2016). Top ten+ list (re)thinking ontology in (post) qualitative research. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16(2), 125–131.
14.
MarnT. M.WolgemuthJ. R. (2017). Purposeful entanglements: A new materialist analysis of transformative interviews. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(5), 365–374.
15.
MazzeiL. A. (2016). Voice without a subject. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16(2), 151–161.
16.
NordstromS. N. (2015). Not so innocent anymore: Making recording devices matter in qualitative interviews. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(4), 388–401.
17.
PierreE.St (2006). Scientifically based research in education: Epistemology and ethics. Adult Education Quarterly, 56(4), 239–266.
18.
PierreE. ASt.. (2011). Post qualitative research: The critique and the coming after. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 611–625). SAGE.
19.
St. PierreE. A. (2016). The empirical and the new empiricisms. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16(2), 111–124.
20.
St. PierreE. A. (2017). Post qualitative inquiry: The next generation. In DenzinN. K.GiardinaM. D. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in neoliberal times (pp. 37–47). Routledge.
21.
St. PierreE. A. (2019). Post qualitative inquiry in an ontology of immanence. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(1), 3–16.
22.
VagleM. D.ClementsC. H.CoffeeA. C. (2017). Analytic productions in post-intentional phenomenological research. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 17(6), 427–441.
23.
WolfeM. J. (2017). Post-qualitative filmic research in education: Utilizing a “re/active documentary” methodology. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(6), 427–437.
