This paper explores conditions that allow data to appear, to come into being, in both conventional and more radical approaches in empirical social science research. Conventional qualitative inquiry that uses a positivist ontology—even when it claims to be interpretive—treats qualitative data, words, as brute, existing independent of an interpretive frame, waiting to be “collected” by a human. However, a Deleuzo-Guattarian ontology that does not assume the subject/object binary might not think the concept data at all. The author resists recuperating data in the collapse of the old empiricism and is content to pause in the curious possibilities of a normative ontology that imagines a superior, affirmative, and experimental empiricism in which all concepts, including data, must be re-thought.
BrinkmanS. (in press). Doing without data. Qualitative Inquiry.
2.
ChandlerJ.DavidsonA. I.HarootunianH. (1991). Editor’s introduction. In ChandlerJ.DavidsonA. I.HarootunianH. (Eds.), Questions of evidence: Proof, practice, and persuasion across the disciplines (pp. 1-8). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
CloughP. T. (1992). The end(s) of ethnography: From realism to social criticism (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
4.
DeleuzeG. (1990). The logic of sense (BoundasC. V., Ed., LesterM., Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1969)
5.
DeleuzeG. (1991). Empiricism and subjectivity: An essay on Hume’s theory of human nature. (BoundasC. V., Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1953)
6.
DeleuzeG. (2003). Francis Bacon: The logic of sensation. (SmithD. W., Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1981)
7.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (1994). What is philosophy? (TomlinsonH.BurchellG., Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1991)
8.
DenzinN. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
DerridaJ. (1974). Of grammatology (SpivakG. C., Trans.). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published 1967)
10.
DeweyJ. (1929). The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action. New York, NY: Minto, Balch.
11.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York, NY: Macmillan.
12.
FoucaultM. (1985). The history of sexuality. Volume 2. The use of pleasure. (HurleyR., Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1984)
13.
FoucaultM. (1997). The ethics of concern of the self as a practice of freedom (Fornet-BetancourtR.BeckerH.Gomez-MüllerA., Interviewers; AranovP.McGrawthD., Trans.). In RabinowP. (Ed.), Ethics: Subjectivity and truth (pp. 281-301). New York, NY: New Press. (Interview conducted 1984)
14.
FoucaultM. (2000). So is it important to think? In FoucaultM. (Ed.), Power (FaubionJ. D. Ed., EribonD., Interviewer; HurleyR.., Trans.), (pp. 456-458). New York, NY: New Press. (Reprinted from Liberation, 50-51, May1981)
15.
FreemanM.deMarraisK.PreissleJRoulstonK.PierreE. A. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36(1), 25-32.
16.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic Books.
17.
HackingI. (1996). The disunities of the sciences. In GalisonP.StumpD. J. (Eds.), The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power (pp. 37-74). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
HayekF. A. (1952). The counter-revolution of science: Studies on the abuse of reason. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press.
19.
JacksonA. Y.MazzeiL. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. London, UK: Routledge.
20.
KvaleS.BrinkmannS. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
21.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
MayT. (1996). Gilles Deleuze and the politics of time. Man and World, 29, 293-302.
23.
MorseJ. M.SwansonJ. M.KuzelA. J. (Eds.). (2007). The nature of qualitative evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
PascaleC.-M. (2011) Cartographies of knowledge: Exploring qualitative epistemologies. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
25.
PopkewitzT. S. (2004). Is the National Research Council Committee’s Report on Scientific Research in Education scientific? On trusting the manifesto. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 62-78.
26.
RajchmanJ. (1991). Philosophical events: Essay of the ’80s. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
27.
RajchmanJ. (2000). The Deleuze connections. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
SellarsW. (1997). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1956)
29.
SpivakG. C. (1974). Translator’s preface. In DerridaJ.Of grammatology (SpivakG. C., Trans.; pp. ix-xc). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
30.
SteinmetzG. (2005) The epistemological unconscious of U.S. sociology and the transition to post-Fordism: The case of historical sociology. In AdamsJ.ClemensE. S.OrloffA.S. (Eds.), Remaking modernity: Politics, history, sociology (pp. 109-157). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
31.
St. PierreE. A. (1997). Methodology in the fold and the irruption of transgressive data. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 10, 175-189.
32.
TaylorC. (1979). Interpretation and the sciences of man. In RabinowP.SullivanW. M. (Eds.), Interpretive social science: A reader (pp. 25-71). Berkley, CA: University of California Press. (Original work published 1971)
