It is important to define the ethnographical practices as a way of thinking and doing critical qualitative inquiry. Creative subversion currently arises as a breaking of rules, institutional change, social or political protest, popular or civic rebellion, fighting the law or simply radical transformation of situations. Today it is everywhere even though there is too much silence around it, which could be catastrophic for qualitative research. Reflexive methods could be enriched if researchers looking for social transformation and collaborating in civil resistance integrate in their ethnographical practices the creative subversion as shared knowledge object. It is pertinent to interpret the social action involved in such transformative processes as a poetics of rage collective or individually performed. Doing a review of how creative subversion has been dealt in the contemporary social science, this article is an effort to provide a nuance and rigorous definition.
ApoifisN. (2017). Fieldwork in a furnace: Anarchists, anti-authoritarians and militant ethnography. Qualitative Research, 17(1), 3–19.
2.
ArmstrongD.MitchellC. (2017). Shifting identities: Negotiating intersections of race and gender in Canadian administrative contexts. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(5), 825–841.
3.
BeckerH. (2017). Creativity is not a scarce commodity. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(12), 1579–1588.
4.
BochnerA. (2000). Criteria against ourselves. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 266–272.
5.
BogdanichJ. (2014). The (cue) spaces between: Teaching Shakespeare and collaborative writing. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 14(4), 380–384.
6.
BonnettA. (1989). Situationism, geography, and poststructuralism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 7(2), 131–146.
7.
BonnettA. (1992). Art, ideology, and everyday space: Subversive tendencies from Dada to postmodernism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 10(1), 69–86.
8.
BulleyD. (2014). Inside the tent: Community and government in refugee camps. Security Dialogue, 45(1), 63–80.
9.
CallahanJ. (2014). Creation of a moral panic? Self-plagiarism in the academy. Human Resource Development Review, 13(1), 3–10.
10.
CampbellD. (2011). Policy workaround stories are valuable evaluative indicators: But should they be told?American Journal of Evaluation, 32(3), 408–417.
11.
CarlenP. (1983). Review on cheats at work: Anthropology of workplace crime. The Sociological Review, 31(4), 805–807.
12.
Cisneros PueblaC. A. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and creative subversion: Challenges in the context of terror. In RinehartR.KiddJ.GarciaA. (Eds.), Southern hemisphere ethnographies of space, place, and time (pp. 17–29). Peter Lang.
13.
Cisneros PueblaC. A. (2019). “Mexican, not Latino”: A T-shirt as an artifact of creative subversion. International Review of Qualitative Research, 12(1), 36–41.
14.
Cisneros PueblaC. A. (in press). Poetics of rage as performative creative subversion: Autoethnography and social drama. In DenzinN.CalvoJ. (Eds.), New directions in theorizing qualitative research: Performance as resistance. Myers Education Press.
15.
Cisneros PueblaC. A.AlatorreF.AllenM.BénardS.CastañedaD.CastañedaY.CharmazK.DavidsonJ.De La GarzaS.EspinozaA.FaulknerS. L.FerreyraG.GilgunJ.GutiérrezL. F. G.HeinS. F.HernándezD.BiberS. H.LabarthéV. J.JohnsonJ. M.. . . Tilley-LubbsG. A. (2016). 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . . . 43: Justice! Ay! Ay! Ayotzinapa: A challenge for new critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(6), 447–465.
16.
CourpassonD. (2017). The politics of everyday. Organization Studies, 38(6), 843–859.
17.
CurnowW.DavisA.AsherL. (2019). Politicization in process: Developing political concepts, practices, epistemologies, and identities through activist engagement. American Educational Research Journal, 56(3), 716–752.
18.
DaviesB.GannonS. (2012). Collective biography and the entangled enlivening of being. International Review of Qualitative Research, 5, 357–376.
DenzinN.GiardinaM. (2009). Qualitative inquiry and social justice: Toward a politics of hope. Left Coast Press.
21.
DunnS. (1990). Voyages of the valkyries: Recent lesbian pornographic writing. Feminist Review, 34, 161–170.
22.
FaulknerS. (2017). Poetry is politics: An autoethnographic poetry manifesto. International Review of Qualitative Research, 10(1), 89–96.
23.
FotakiM.DaskalakiM. (2020). Politicizing the body in the anti-mining protest in Greece. Organization Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619882955
24.
GaleK.WyattJ. (2012). Back to futures: Diffractions and becomings of collaborative writing. International Review of Qualitative Research, 5(4), 467–477.
25.
GaleK.WyattJ.GullionJ.HouN.JeansonneC.LinnellS.ReavesM.ReillyR.RhodesP. (2019). Deleuze and collaborative writing in the dance of activism. International Review of Qualitative Research, 12(3), 323–338.
26.
GayáP.PhillipsM. (2016). Imagining a sustainable future: Eschatology, Bateson’s ecology of mind and arts-based practice. Organization, 23(6), 803–824.
27.
GoldsteinR. (2004). Who needs the government to police us when we can do it ourselves? The new panopticon in teaching. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 4(3), 320–328.
28.
GreggN. (1987). Reflections on the feminist critique of objectivity. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 11(1), 8–18.
29.
GuzzettiB. (2008). Identities in online communities: A young woman’s critique of cyberculture. E-Learning and Digital Media, 5(4), 457–474.
30.
HerreraT. (2017). The pragmatics of domestic violence discourse in Uruguay. SAGE Open, 7(1), 1–9.
31.
HodkinsonS. (2012). Book reviews: The knowledge business: The commodification of urban and housing research. Urban Studies, 49(16), 3699–3701.
32.
HugheyM. A. (2015). Reflection on the sociological study of subcultures. Humanity & Society, 39(3), 339–341.
33.
JohnsonI. M. (2017). The intelligent university library: Developing a more comprehensive option for the researcher. Information Development, 33, 2219–2223.
34.
JossP.TompkinsM. (2004). The accountability paradox in an age of reinvention: The perennial problem of preserving character and judgment. Administration & Society, 36(3), 255–281.
35.
JuppJ.SlatteryP. (2012). Becoming teachers of inner-city students: Identification creativity and curriculum wisdom of committed white male teachers. Urban Education, 47(1), 280–311.
36.
KiziltunaliG. (2020). Détournement in social media visuals for a shared activist identity and imagery. Visual Communication, 19(1), 99–120.
37.
LippensR. (2012). Radical sovereignty and control society: Images of late modern sovereignty in Rebeyrolle’s Le Cyclope. Crime, Media, Culture, 8(1), 23–37.
38.
LisleD. (2007). Benevolent patriotism: Art, dissent and the American effect. Security Dialogue, 38(2), 233–250.
39.
MartyM. (1972). Jesus: The media and the message. Theology Today, 28(4), 470–476.
40.
McEwanD. (1996). Interview with Rachel Lewis. Feminist Theology, 4(11), 86–101.
41.
MouldO. (2019). The spark, the spread and ethics: Towards an object-orientated view of subversive creativity. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 37, 468–483.
42.
NashM. (1992). The man without a penis: Libidinal economies that (re)cognize the hypernature of gender. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 18(2), 125–134.
43.
NegriA. (2005). The politics of subversion: A manifesto for the twenty-first century. Polity Press.
44.
ParrinderP. (2011). Vike Martina Plock, Joyce, medicine, and modernity. Literature & History, 20(2), 102–104.
45.
ScanlonP. M. (2007). Song from myself: An anatomy of self-plagiarism. Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 2, 57–66.
46.
TilleyL. (2017). Resisting piratic method by doing research otherwise. Sociology, 51(1), 27–42.
47.
VaidhyanathanS. (2005). Remote control: The rise of electronic cultural policy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 597(1), 122–133.
48.
ZhaoE. J. (2017). The bumpy road towards network convergence in China: The case of over-the-top streaming services. Global Media and China, 2(1), 28–42.
