Conference Agenda

This presentation considers debates and tensions surrounding differing views of qualitative research, critical posthumanism, and post-qualitative inquiry (PQI). More particularly, it focuses on the issue of incommensurability between qualitative research and PQI, as well as the tensions regarding method and methodology.

The issue of incommensurability refers to the idea that systems of thought or frameworks are so fundamentally different that they cannot be reconciled. This is the main argument promoted by St Pierre (2024) regarding conventional humanist qualitative methodology and post-qualitative inquiry, as they are premised on different ontological and epistemological foundations. We are for the most part, in agreement with this, but with some clarifications that we discuss in our presentation.

The second broad issue we focus on in relation to the differing views of qualitative research and post-qualitative inquiry is the differences between the understandings of method and methodology. Traditional qualitative methods, which rely on structured or semi-structured data collection and analysis techniques (e.g., coding and thematic analysis), may not align well with the fluid, emergent, and often nonlinear approaches of PQI. PQI, which is rooted in poststructuralism and posthumanism, can include the use of art, developing propositions, diffraction, figuration, cartography, walking methodologies, stitching, swimming methodologies, reading, writing and other nontraditional forms of inquiry that go beyond data representation. Whether these are called methods or methodology, however, or different ways of doing inquiry, is a matter of opinion In the presentation, we give some examples of different conceptions of methods and methodology, primarily through examining those writers who are sympathetic to critical posthumanism, feminist new materialism, PQI, and non-representational theory (NRT). Although in some cases, methods and methodology are eschewed, in others like NRT, the methods but not the methodology are eschewed, and in other cases, the process of research is what produces the knowledge.

This paper examines the rapidly growing body of educational research influenced by posthumanist philosophies. Posthumanist philosophies refuse the binary of direct realism and social constructionism, both of which center a humanist spectator subject as the sole agent of meaning making. Instead posthumanist empiricism regards objects of study as active participants in inquiries and the world’s ongoing metaphysical becoming. Understood in this way, social inquiry is a process through which some knowing subjects, communities of human and more-than-human agents, and possibilities for action come into being while others do not. In other words, empirical research is not just a revealing of the world from a transcendent perspective, but is an immanent doing in and with the world.

The paper is a collaborative review of over three hundred articles, book chapters, and books that apply posthumanist philosophies to the practice of educational research. The review was 3 years in the making and has recently been published in the annual AERA publication, the Review of Research in Education. It was broadly inclusive and included educational research influenced by European continental and Anglo-American philosophers most often associated with the term “posthumanism. It also included research influenced by Indigenous philosophies and Black studies scholarship that critique Western humanism and call for a more ethically and politically visionary practice of social analysis.

This paper provides a concept driven review of a rapidly growing and diverse literature in the field of education organized around the theme of ethical and political responsibility. It reviews four genres of posthumanist inquiry: assemblage studies, cartographic studies, diffractive studies, and place-based research. The paper concludes with an examination of three different conceptions of possibility and futurity that inform posthumanist reconceptualizations of research responsibility. A website with a full bibliography of the 300 articles reviewed and other supplementary materials will be made available.

Culturally sensitive qualitative research in the Global South is essential for producing ethical, relevant, and inclusive knowledge. The Global South—encompassing regions in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and other parts of the world—presents unique socio-cultural, historical, and political contexts that differ significantly from those in the Global North. These regions often grapple with the legacies of colonialism, under-resourced institutions, and diverse epistemologies. As such, applying Westernised research frameworks without adaptation can lead to misrepresentation and marginalization of local voices.

To address this, researchers are encouraged to adopt culturally sensitive approaches that prioritize local knowledge systems and community engagement. Key strategies include transdisciplinary collaboration, where researchers work alongside community members, policymakers, and practitioners to co-create knowledge. Participatory and decolonial methods—such as narrative inquiry, ethnography, and indigenous methodologies—help center the lived experiences of participants and challenge dominant paradigms.

Cultural competence is another critical component. Researchers must invest time in understanding the cultural norms, values, and communication styles of the communities they study. This includes avoiding assumptions, using appropriate language, and engaging local partners or interpreters to ensure accurate and respectful representation.

Despite these efforts, several challenges persist. Power imbalances between Global North and South institutions can skew research agendas and funding priorities. Language barriers and differing worldviews can also hinder mutual understanding and collaboration.

Moving forward, the field must prioritize equitable partnerships, support locally led research initiatives, and advocate for inclusive publication practices that amplify Global South scholarship. By doing so, qualitative research can become a more powerful tool for social justice, policy development, and community empowerment across diverse global contexts.

Drawing on my experience as a qualitative mental health researcher in Ghana, this presentation explores practical strategies for embedding cultural sensitivity into research design and implementation—ensuring that cultural contexts are not peripheral but central to the research process.

This study aims to explore a qualitative research method that delves deeply into interviewees’ perspectives while retaining their voices. In traditional narrative inquiry (NI), Clandinin and Connelly (2000) emphasize the importance of lived experience and propose restorying to reconstruct texts into coherent narratives, thereby analyzing the form and meaning of experience. McCormack (2004) further developed storytelling as a method to capture the interpretive complexity of participant narratives. Reflective thematic analysis (RTA), as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2021), enables systematic and in-depth exploration of participants’ accounts. Overall, NI excels at listening to and preserving participants’ voices but provides limited depth in analyzing content, whereas RTA allows for detailed examination and cross-case comparison but can be less efficient with large-scale data.

This study explores how storytelling can function as a pre-analytic tool to organize and manage large-scale narrative data, and examines how the integration of storying with reflective thematic analysis influences both participant engagement and the depth of analytic insights.

To address these aims, this paper introduces a hybrid strategy for managing extensive narrative interview data. To reduce information clutter, participants’ narratives were first organized into concise stories, facilitating the identification of key insights and the construction of causal connections. Recognizing that this integration inevitably reflects researcher subjectivity, the stories were subsequently returned to participants for verification through member checking (Birt et al., 2016).

This approach offers both methodological and ethical advantages. Beyond serving as an analytic bridge between transcripts and thematic analysis, the storytelling process fostered narrative motivation: participants were more willing to share sensitive experiences, particularly concerning mental health, when assured their narratives would be respectfully crafted. This study thus demonstrates how storytelling can enhance participant engagement while enabling effective analysis of large-scale narrative data, providing an innovative contribution to qualitative methodology.

This paper explores the persistent rejection of qualitative research in Training and Development (T&D) journals, arguing that these rejections often stem from the enduring, yet anachronistic, influence of positivist assumptions. Drawing on Derrida’s concept of hauntology and the pervasive nature of neoliberal audit culture, I contend that the “ghost of positivism” continues to dictate what counts as legitimate evidence, even in studies designed to explore lived experience and situated learning. This phenomenon is particularly acute in T&D, where evaluation frameworks like Kirkpatrick’s levels and the emphasis on psychometric instruments have fostered an environment where calculability is equated with credibility.

Through an analysis of reviewer comments on my own rejected qualitative manuscripts, I illustrate how demands for psychometric validity, large sample sizes, quantification of qualitative data, and replicability fundamentally misinterpret the ontological and epistemological foundations of interpretive inquiry. These demands, while appearing as technical advice, are shown to be ontological impositions that force phenomena to fit pre-existing measures, thereby thinning rich human change into quantifiable proxies.

I propose a “counter-haunting” approach, advocating for an aesthetic of quality grounded in qualitative rigor. This includes explicitly stating a constructivist/interpretivist paradigm, prioritizing trustworthiness (credibility, dependability, confirmability) over psychometric reliability, justifying sample sufficiency through information power, and demonstrating practical illumination through design principles and rich exemplars. The paper argues that changing this dynamic requires a collective effort from authors, editors, reviewers, and practitioners to protect methodological plurality and recognize diverse forms of evidence, ensuring that what truly matters in T&D is not overshadowed by what can merely be counted.

How can we help graduate students think like qualitative researchers? And how do we best engage graduate students in conducting their first qualitative study? Drawing from my experience teaching a qualitative research seminar at a US university, I’ve noticed that many students struggle with conceptual skills --such as configuring their interviews to effectively address their research questions. In this presentation, I will share some of the strategies I use to help students step into the mindset of a qualitative researcher. I will describe creative ways to engage students in data collection and analysis. In particular, I will highlight my approach of pairing students to collaborate throughout the semester, both in and outside of class. I invite you to engage in a lively discussion about teaching qualitative research, especially in the context of rapidly evolving AI technologies.