This article explores data from focus groups that, at first glance, yielded nothing fruitful. Drawing inspiration from Robin Wall Kimmerer’s writings in which she learns from the wisdom of plants, the author poses the question, what might volunteer plants teach us about unanticipated, even undesired, qualitative data? Conceptualizing volunteer data as data that were not sought, asked for, or even desired, this article reframes these data in a more generative light. Through (re)engaging with focus group transcripts, the author came to shift perspectives from data-as-weeds (what is undesired) to data-as-volunteer plants (what is unexpected, yet holds potential).
AdlerP. A.AdlerP. (2002). The reluctant respondent. In GubriumJ.HolsteinJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 515–536). Sage Publications.
2.
BenozzoA.BellH.Koro-LjungbergM. (2013). Moving between nuisance, secrets, and splinters as data. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 13(4), 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708613487878
3.
BhattacharyaK. (2009). Othering research, researching the other: De/colonizing approaches to qualitative inquiry. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 105–150). Springer.
4.
BowlingA. (2002). Research methods in health: Investigating health and health services (2nd ed.) Buckingham.
FlickU. (2019). The concepts of qualitative data: Challenges in neoliberal times for qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(8), 713–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418809132
7.
GherardiS.BenozzoA. (2021). Shadow organising as dwelling in the space of the not-yet. Studies in Continuing Education, 43(3), 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2021.1900097
8.
HallJ. N. (2020). Focus groups: Culturally responsive approaches for qualitative inqury and program evaluation. Myers Education Press.
9.
KimmererR. W. (2003). Gathering moss. Oregon State University Press.
10.
KimmererR. W. (2015). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants (1st ed.) Milkweed Editions.
11.
KimmererR. W. (2024). The Serviceberry: Abundance and reciprocity in the natural world. Scribner.
12.
Koro-LjungbergM.MacLureM.UlmerJ. (2018). D. . .a. . .t. . .a, data++, data, and some problematics. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 462–483). Sage Publications.
13.
KovachM. K. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. (2nd ed.) University of Toronto Press.
14.
MazzeiL. A. (2013). A voice without organs: Interviewing in posthumanist research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 732–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.788761
PaulusT. M. (2007). Online but off-topic: Negotiating common ground in small learning groups. Instructional Science, 37(3), 227–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9042-5
RoulstonK. (2011). Working through challenges in doing interview research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(4), 348–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691101000404
20.
SomervilleM. (2016). The post-human I: Encountering ‘data’ in new materialism. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(9), 1161–1172. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1201611
StewartD.ShamdasaniP. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
23.
St PierreE. A. (1997). Methodology in the fold and the irruption of transgressive data. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183997237278
TorranceH. (2019). Data as entanglement: New definitions and uses of data in qualitative research, policy, and neoliberal governance. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(8), 734–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418807239
