This article diagnoses that qualitative research (QR) methods courses and literature often remain silent on how to actually do QR and explores how practice theory can improve learning and teaching the practice of QR. It develops an experiential learning approach of turning experiences and emotions of doubt and excitement into a dialogical process of asking creative questions, imagining new ideas, and animating a practical relationship to the world. Based on data and observations of a summer school course in QR methods to PhD students, we present three pedagogical practices for recognizing and tolerating affective resistances to experiential learning and finding creative solutions to emergent research problems.
AbbottA (2004) Methods of Discovery. Heuristics for the Social Sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AlexanderTM (1987) John Dewey’s Theory of Art, Experience and Nature. The Horizons of Feeling. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
3.
BartelsKPR (2012) The actionable researcher: Cultivating a process-oriented methodology for studying administrative practice. Administrative Theory and Praxis34: 433–455.
4.
BevirM (2010) Interpretive Political Science. London: SAGE.
5.
BoothWCColombGGWilliamsJM (1995) The Craft of Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BreuerFSchreierM (2007) Issues in learning about and teaching qualitative research methods and methodology in the social sciences. Forum: Qualitative Social Research Sozialforschung, 8(1): art. 30.
7.
BurkeT (1994) Dewey’s New Logic: A Reply to Russell. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
CerwonkaAMalkkiLH (2007) Improvising Theory. Process and Temporality in Ethnographic Fieldwork. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
CharmazK (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE.
10.
CookSDNWagenaarH (2012) Navigating the Eternally Unfolding Present; Toward an Epistemology of Practice. American Review of Public Administration42: 3–38.
11.
De CarloL (2012) Teaching negotiation through paradox. Negotiation Journal28(3): 351–364.
12.
DeLyserDPotterAEChaneyJet al. (2013) Teaching qualitative research: experiential learning in group-based interviews and coding assignments, Journal of Geography112(1): 18–28
13.
DeweyJ (1994 [1925]) Experience and Nature, Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing Company.
14.
DeweyJ (1986 [1938]) Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, The Later works, 1925-1953, Volume 12. BoydstonJo Ann (ed.), Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
15.
FollettMP (2013a [1918]) The New State. Group Organization and the Solution of Popular Government. HardPress Publishing.
16.
FollettMP (2013b [1924]) Creative Experience. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.
17.
GriffithsDSWinstanleyDGabrielY (2005) Learning shock. The trauma of return to formal learning. Management Learning36(3): 275–297.
18.
HackingI (1983) Representing and Intervening. Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HaverlandMYanowD (2012) A hitchhiker’s guide to the public administration research universe: surviving conversations on methodologies and methods. Public Administration Review72(3): 401–408.
20.
HealeyMJenkinsA (2000) Kolb’s experiential learning theory and its application in geography and higher education. The Journal of Geography99(5): 185–195.
HoodJC (2006) Teaching against the text: the case of qualitative methods. Teaching Sociology34(3): 207–223.
23.
HumphreysM (2006) Teaching qualitative research methods: I’m beginning to see the light. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal1(3): 173 – 188.
24.
JayM (2005) Songs of Experience: Modern American and European Variations on a Universal Theme, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
LockeKGolden-BiddleKFeldmanMS (2008) Making doubt generative: rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science19(6): 907–918.
29.
NicoliniD (2012) Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
NoyC (2015) An aikidōka’s contribution to the teaching of qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Research15(1): 4–21.
31.
PickeringA (1995) The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
32.
ReinMWhiteSH (1982) Practice worries in the helping professions. Society19(6): 67–78.
33.
SandlerJDareCHolderA (1992) The patient and the analyst. The basis of the psychoanalytic process. London: Karnac Books.
34.
SchatzkiTR (1996) Social Practices. A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
SchönDA (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
36.
SchönDAReinM (1994) Frame Reflection. Towards the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies, New York, NY: Basic Books.
37.
Schwartz-SheaP (2003) Is this the curriculum we want? Doctoral requirements and offerings in methods and methodology. Political Science and Politics36(3): 379–386.
38.
Schwartz-SheaPYanowD (2012) Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes. London: Routledge.
39.
ShapiroI (2002) Problems, method, and theories in the study of politics, or what’s wrong with political science and what to do about it. Political Theory30(4): 588–611.
40.
StoneD (2013) Taking emotion seriously: the promise of interpretive policy analysis. Keynote speech to the 8th Interpretive Policy Analysis Conference, Vienna, 4 July.
41.
StoutM (2013) Preparing public administration scholars for qualitative inquiry: a status report. Public Administration Research2(1): 11–28.
42.
TaylorC (2002) Gadamer on the Human Sciences. In DostalR J (ed) The Cambridge Companion to Gadamer, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 126–143.
43.
WagenaarH (2004) “Knowing” the rules: Administrative work as practice. Public Administration Review64: 643–655.
44.
WagenaarH (2007) Philosophical hermeneutics and policy analysis: theory and effectuations. Critical Policy Studies1(4): 311–341.
45.
WagenaarH (2011) Meaning in action. Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY.
46.
WagenaarH (2012) Dwellers on the threshold of practice: The interpretivism of Bevir and Rhodes. Critical Policy Studies6: 85–99.
47.
WagenaarHCookSDN (2003) Understanding policy practices: Action, dialectic and deliberation in policy analysis. In HajerMAWagenaarH (eds) Deliberative policy analysis. Understanding governance in the network society (pp. 139–171). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
48.
WagenaarHCookSDN (2011) The push and pull of the world: How experience animates practice. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice7: 193–212.
49.
WengerE (1998) Communities of Practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
50.
WeickKE (1989) Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review14(4): 516–531.
51.
WeissRS (1994) Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
52.
YanowD (2003) Practicing discipline. Political Science and Politics36(3): 397–399.
53.
YanowDTsoukasH (2009) What is reflection-in-action. A phenomenological account. Journal of Management Studies46: 1339–1364.
54.
YanowDSchwartz-SheaP (2011) Interpretation and Method. Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. London: ME Sharpe.
