This article reflects on how teachers of qualitative research methods might facilitate and promote dialogue across paradigmatic and disciplinary difference. Using the musical concept of polyphony, together with phenomenologist Alfred Schutz's ideas on intersubjectivity and transcendence (1962, 1996), the article discusses possible ways of thinking about breakdowns in understanding in classroom encounters across theoretical and paradigmatic difference. Schutz was intensely interested in examining how intersubjectivity is accomplished by members of society and, with Luckmann (Schutz & Luckmann, 1973, 1989), reflected on the boundaries of understanding that people encounter that involve “little,” “medium,” and “great” transcendencies. Using these ideas, the article examines approaches that teachers of qualitative inquiry might use with students to examine paradigmatic and theoretical difference.
ClandininD. J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
CuffE. C., SharrockW. W., & FrancisD. W. (1998). Perspectives in sociology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
DenzinN. K. (2008). The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21, 315–325. doi:10.1080/09518390802136995
7.
DenzinN. K. (2010). The qualitative manifesto: A call to arms.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
8.
DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 1–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
DolphijnR., & van der TuinI. (2012). New materialism: Interviews and cartographies.Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press.
11.
EisenhartM., & JurowA. S. (2011). Teaching qualitative research. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 699–714). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
EllingsonL. L. (2011). Analysis and representation across the continuum. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 595–610). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
EllsworthE. (1992). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. In LukeC. & GoreJ. (Eds.), Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 90–119). New York, NY: Routledge.
14.
GoffmanA. (2014). On the run: Fugitive life in an American city.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
HazzanO., & NutovL. (2014). Teaching and learning qualitative research ≍ Conducting qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 19(24), 1–29.
16.
Holman JonesS., AdamsT. E., & EllisC. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of autoethnography.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
17.
JacksonA. Y., & MazzeiL. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives.New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
Kazubowski-HoustonM. (2010). Staging strife: Lessons from performing ethnography with Polish Roma women.Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen's University Press.
19.
KennanK. (1972). Counterpoint: Based on eighteenth-century practice (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20.
LatherP. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 35–57. doi:10.1080/09518390500450144
21.
LensmireT. J., McManimonS. K., TierneyJ. D., Lee-NicholsM. E., CaseyZ. A., LensmireA., & DavisB. M. (2013). Mcintosh as synecdoche: How teacher education's focus on white privilege undermines antiracism. Harvard Educational Review, 83, 410–431. doi:10.17763/haer.83.3.35054hl418230574
22.
LeskoN., SimmonsJ. A., QuarshieA., & NewtonN. (2008). The pedagogy of monsters: Scary disturbances in a doctoral research preparation course. Teachers College Record, 110, 1541–1573.
23.
LincolnY. S., LynhamS. A., & GubaE. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
LuhrmannT. M. (2012). When God talks back: Understanding the American evangelical relationship with God.New York, NY: Vintage Books.
25.
LuttrellW. (2005). Crossing anxious borders: Teaching across the quantitative–qualitative ‘divide’. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 28, 183–195. doi:10. 1080/01406720500256251
26.
MaxwellJ. A. (2004). Reemergent scientism, postmodernism, and dialogue across differences. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 35–41. doi:10.1177/1077800403259492
27.
Minikel-LacocqueJ. (2013). Racism, college, and the power of words: Racial microaggressions reconsidered. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 432–465. doi:10.3102/0002831212468048
28.
MossP. A., PhillipsD. C., EricksonF. D., FlodenR. E., LatherP. A., & SchneiderB. L. (2009). Learning from our differences: A dialogue across perspectives on quality in education research. Educational Researcher, 38, 501–517. doi:10.3102/0013189X09348351
29.
PeliasR. J. (2015). A story located in “shoulds”: Toward a productive future for qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 21, 609–611. doi:10.1177/1077800414555073
30.
PreissleJ., & deMarraisK. (2011). Teaching qualitative resesearch responsively. In DenzinN. K. & GiardinaM. D. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and global crisis (pp. 31–39). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
31.
PreissleJ., & deMarraisK. (2015). Teaching reflexivity in qualitative research: Fostering a life style. In DenzinN. K. & GiardinaM. D. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and the politics of research (pp. 189–196). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press
32.
PreissleJ., & RoulstonK. (2009). Trends in teaching qualitative research: A 30-year perspective. In GarnerM., WagnerC., & KawulichB. (Eds.), Teaching research in the social sciences (pp. 13–22). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
33.
ScholesP. A. (1977). The Oxford companion to music (10th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
34.
SchutzA. (1962). Collected papers I: The problem of social reality (NatansonM., Ed.). The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
SchutzA., & LuckmannT. (1973). The structures of the life-world (Vol. 1, ZanerR. M. & EngelhardtH. T.Jr., Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
37.
SchutzA., & LuckmannT. (1989). The structures of the life-world (Vol. 2, ZanerR. M. & ParentD. J., Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
38.
ShavelsonR. J., & TowneL. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39.
St. PierreE. A. (2011). Post qualitative research: The critique and the coming after. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 611–625). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
SuzukiS. (1970). Zen mind, beginner's mind.New York, NY: Weatherhill.
41.
WertzF. J., CharmazK., McMullenL. M., JosselsonR., AndersonR., & McSpaddenE. (2011). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomenological psychology, grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative research and intuitive inquiry.New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
42.
WolcottH. (1990). On seeking – and rejecting – validity in qualitative research. In EisnerE. W. & PeshkinA. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: Continuing the debate (pp. 121–152). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
43.
WolcottH. F. (2002). Sneaky kid and its aftermath: Ethics and intimacy in fieldwork.Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
44.
WolgemuthJ. R. (2016). Driving the paradigm: (Failing to teach) methodological ambiguity, fluidity, and resistance in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 22, 518–525. doi:10. 1177/1077800415615621
