Qualitative inquiry often positions voice as something that can be clarified or protected through reflexive practice. Feminist and post-structural critiques have challenged these assumptions, yet methodological discourse frequently returns to reflexivity as ethical reassurance. This article offers an alternative by conceptualizing voice as relational, structurally conditioned, and unsettled. Drawing on arts-based and educational research encounters, I introduce entangled voicings as a feminist methodological orientation that frames expression and silence as co-produced through shifting positionalities, institutional authority, and affective conditions beyond researcher control. The article offers methodological provocations that position discomfort, silence, and vulnerability as necessary epistemic conditions.
AlcoffL. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique, 20, 5–32.
3.
BallS. J. (2013). The education debate (2nd ed.). Policy Press.
4.
BeharR. (1996). The vulnerable observer: Anthropology that breaks your heart. Beacon Press.
5.
BernardC. F.BylicaK. (2025). Examining the nature and function of rules in the music classroom. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 24(5), 84–112.
6.
BourdieuP. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25.
7.
BourdieuP. (1996). Understanding (FowlerB., Trans.). Theory, Culture, & Society: Explorations in Critical Social Science, 13(2), 17–37.
8.
BritzmanD. P. (1998). Lost subjects, contested objects: Toward a psychoanalytic inquiry of learning. SUNY Press.
9.
BritzmanD. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. SUNY Press.
10.
ButlerJ. (1990). Feminism and the subversion of identity. Gender Trouble, 3(1), 3–17.
11.
BylicaK. (2023). “You can only choose from the things you know”: Engaging with students’ dark and politicized funds of knowledge in the music classroom. Education and Urban Society, 55(5), 617–640.
CouldryN. (2010). Why voice matters: Culture and politics after neoliberalism. Sage.
14.
FineM. (1987). Silencing in the public schools. Language Arts, 64(2), 243–254.
15.
FineM.WeisL. (2003). Silenced voices and extraordinary conversations: Re-imagining schools. Teachers College Press.
16.
FrickerM. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
17.
HarawayD. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
18.
HardingS. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Cornell University Press.
19.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2014). Feminist research practice: A primer (2nd ed.). Sage.
20.
JacksonA. Y.MazzeiL. A. (2013). Plugging one text into another: Thinking with theory in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(4), 261–271.
21.
KuntzA. M. (2015). The responsible methodologist: Inquiry, truth-telling, and social justice. Routledge.
22.
LatherP. (1991). Deconstructing/deconstructive inquiry: The politics of knowing and being known. Educational Theory, 41(2), 153–173.
23.
LatherP. (1993). Feminist perspectives on empowering research methodologies. Qualitative Studies in Education, 6(1), 49–61.
24.
LatherP. (2001). Postbook: Working the ruins of feminist ethnography. Signs, 27(1), 199–227.
25.
PillowW. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196.
26.
RabyR. (2010). School rules. University of Toronto Press.
27.
SchmidtP. (2021). Diluting democracy: Policy, participation, and music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory in Music Education, 20(1), 30–59.
28.
SpivakG. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In NelsonC.GrossbergL. (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). University of Illinois Press.
