In this conceptual paper, we speculate on some goals and methodologies for social inquiry responsive to a viral and potentially unthinkable world. Rather than following old methodological scripts and validated practices, we imagine fluid, responsive, and urgent methodologies as needed responses to better show and vividly document our progression toward a possible (methodological) “apocalypse.” As such a real/imaginary apocalypse enables us to (un)think what is currently thinkable, to postulate, speculate, and hesitate as we stretch to imagine inquiry and knowing in more immediate, deeply responsive, and responsible ways.
BogostI. (2012). Alien phenomenology. University of Minnesota Press.
2.
CareyN.FairchildN.TaylorC. A.KoroM.ElmenhorstC.BenozzoA. (2021). Autopsy as a site and mode of inquiry: De/composing the ghoulish hu/man gaze. Qualitative Research. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.1177/1468794121999005
3.
DerridaJ. (1993). Aporias (DutoitT., Trans.). Stanford University Press.
4.
FoxN. J.AlldredP. (2019). The materiality of memory: Affects, remembering and food decisions. Cultural Sociology, 13(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975518764864
5.
GoodmanJ.MarshallJ. P. (2018). Problems of methodology and method in climate and energy research: Socialising climate change?Energy Research & Social Science, 45, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.010
HammondP.Ortega BretonH. (2015). Eco-apocalypse. In RitzenhoffK. A.KrewaniA. (Eds.), The apocalypse in film: Dystopias, disasters, and other visions about the end of the world (pp. 105–116). Rowman & Littlefield.
8.
’t HartD. (2021). COVID times make ‘deep listening’ explicit: Changing the space between interviewer and participant. Qualitative Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211027780
Koro-LjungbergM. (2012). Researchers of the World, create!Qualitative Inquiry, 18(9), 806–816.
12.
Koro-LjungbergM. (2017). Soulbodies lived. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 8(2), 13–28.
13.
Koro-LjungbergM.CannellaG. S. (2017). Critical qualitative inquiry: Histories, methodologies, and possibilities. International Review of Qualitative Research, 10(4), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1525/irqr.2017.10.4.327
14.
Koro-LjungbergM.WellsT. (2018). Methodologies… that encounter (Slowness and) irregular rhythm. In DenzinN. K.GiardinaM. D. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in the public sphere (pp.143–155). Taylor and Francis.
15.
KuntzA. (2015). The responsible methodologist: Inquiry, truth-telling, and social justice. Routledge.
16.
LatourB.StengersI.TsingA.BubandtN. (2018). Anthropologists are talking—About capitalism, ecology, and apocalypse. Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology, 83(3), 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2018.1457703
17.
LemertC. (2007). Thinking the unthinkable: The riddles of classical social theories. Paradigm.
18.
LinkolaP. (2009). Can life prevail? A revolutionary approach to the environmental crisis (RautioE., Trans.). Corrupt Inc., & Artkos.
19.
MooJ. (2015). Climate change and the apocalyptic imagination: Science, faith, and ecological responsibility. Zygon, 50(4), 937–948. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12222
20.
ProbynE. (2016). Eating the ocean. Duke University Press.
21.
SmithN. (2008). Afterword to the third edition. In SmithN. (Ed.), Uneven development (pp. 239–266). University of Georgia Press.
22.
StengersI. (2018). Another science is possible: A manifesto for slow science. Polity.
23.
StevensB. (2009). Introduction. In LinkolaP. (Ed.), Can life prevail? A revolutionary approach to the environmental crisis (RautioE., Trans., pp. 11–18). Corrupt Inc., & Artkos.
WhitcombC. G. (2020). Review of Slavoj Žižek (2020). Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World: New York and London: OR Books. Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 1020–1024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00161-0
31.
WolgemuthJ. R. (2016). Driving the paradigm: (Failing to teach) methodological ambiguity, fluidity, and resistance in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(6), 518–525.
WolgemuthJ. R.MarnT. M.BarkoT.Weaver-HightowerM. (2022). Radical uncertainty is not enough: (In)justices of post-qualitative research. International Review of Qualitative Research, 14(4), 575–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/19408447211012658
