critical examination meaning in research

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Critical Analysis

Definition:

Critical analysis is a process of examining a piece of work or an idea in a systematic, objective, and analytical way. It involves breaking down complex ideas, concepts, or arguments into smaller, more manageable parts to understand them better.

Types of Critical Analysis

Types of Critical Analysis are as follows:

Literary Analysis

This type of analysis focuses on analyzing and interpreting works of literature , such as novels, poetry, plays, etc. The analysis involves examining the literary devices used in the work, such as symbolism, imagery, and metaphor, and how they contribute to the overall meaning of the work.

Film Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting films, including their themes, cinematography, editing, and sound. Film analysis can also include evaluating the director’s style and how it contributes to the overall message of the film.

Art Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting works of art , such as paintings, sculptures, and installations. The analysis involves examining the elements of the artwork, such as color, composition, and technique, and how they contribute to the overall meaning of the work.

Cultural Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting cultural artifacts , such as advertisements, popular music, and social media posts. The analysis involves examining the cultural context of the artifact and how it reflects and shapes cultural values, beliefs, and norms.

Historical Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting historical documents , such as diaries, letters, and government records. The analysis involves examining the historical context of the document and how it reflects the social, political, and cultural attitudes of the time.

Philosophical Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting philosophical texts and ideas, such as the works of philosophers and their arguments. The analysis involves evaluating the logical consistency of the arguments and assessing the validity and soundness of the conclusions.

Scientific Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting scientific research studies and their findings. The analysis involves evaluating the methods used in the study, the data collected, and the conclusions drawn, and assessing their reliability and validity.

Critical Discourse Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting language use in social and political contexts. The analysis involves evaluating the power dynamics and social relationships conveyed through language use and how they shape discourse and social reality.

Comparative Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting multiple texts or works of art and comparing them to each other. The analysis involves evaluating the similarities and differences between the texts and how they contribute to understanding the themes and meanings conveyed.

Critical Analysis Format

Critical Analysis Format is as follows:

I. Introduction

• Provide a brief overview of the text, object, or event being analyzed
• Explain the purpose of the analysis and its significance
• Provide background information on the context and relevant historical or cultural factors

II. Description

• Provide a detailed description of the text, object, or event being analyzed
• Identify key themes, ideas, and arguments presented
• Describe the author or creator’s style, tone, and use of language or visual elements

III. Analysis

• Analyze the text, object, or event using critical thinking skills
• Identify the main strengths and weaknesses of the argument or presentation
• Evaluate the reliability and validity of the evidence presented
• Assess any assumptions or biases that may be present in the text, object, or event
• Consider the implications of the argument or presentation for different audiences and contexts

IV. Evaluation

• Provide an overall evaluation of the text, object, or event based on the analysis
• Assess the effectiveness of the argument or presentation in achieving its intended purpose
• Identify any limitations or gaps in the argument or presentation
• Consider any alternative viewpoints or interpretations that could be presented
• Summarize the main points of the analysis and evaluation
• Reiterate the significance of the text, object, or event and its relevance to broader issues or debates
• Provide any recommendations for further research or future developments in the field.

VI. Example

• Provide an example or two to support your analysis and evaluation
• Use quotes or specific details from the text, object, or event to support your claims
• Analyze the example(s) using critical thinking skills and explain how they relate to your overall argument

VII. Conclusion

• Reiterate your thesis statement and summarize your main points
• Provide a final evaluation of the text, object, or event based on your analysis
• Offer recommendations for future research or further developments in the field
• End with a thought-provoking statement or question that encourages the reader to think more deeply about the topic

How to Write Critical Analysis

Writing a critical analysis involves evaluating and interpreting a text, such as a book, article, or film, and expressing your opinion about its quality and significance. Here are some steps you can follow to write a critical analysis:

• Read and re-read the text: Before you begin writing, make sure you have a good understanding of the text. Read it several times and take notes on the key points, themes, and arguments.
• Identify the author’s purpose and audience: Consider why the author wrote the text and who the intended audience is. This can help you evaluate whether the author achieved their goals and whether the text is effective in reaching its audience.
• Analyze the structure and style: Look at the organization of the text and the author’s writing style. Consider how these elements contribute to the overall meaning of the text.
• Evaluate the content : Analyze the author’s arguments, evidence, and conclusions. Consider whether they are logical, convincing, and supported by the evidence presented in the text.
• Consider the context: Think about the historical, cultural, and social context in which the text was written. This can help you understand the author’s perspective and the significance of the text.
• Develop your thesis statement : Based on your analysis, develop a clear and concise thesis statement that summarizes your overall evaluation of the text.
• Support your thesis: Use evidence from the text to support your thesis statement. This can include direct quotes, paraphrases, and examples from the text.
• Write the introduction, body, and conclusion : Organize your analysis into an introduction that provides context and presents your thesis, a body that presents your evidence and analysis, and a conclusion that summarizes your main points and restates your thesis.
• Revise and edit: After you have written your analysis, revise and edit it to ensure that your writing is clear, concise, and well-organized. Check for spelling and grammar errors, and make sure that your analysis is logically sound and supported by evidence.

When to Write Critical Analysis

You may want to write a critical analysis in the following situations:

• Academic Assignments: If you are a student, you may be assigned to write a critical analysis as a part of your coursework. This could include analyzing a piece of literature, a historical event, or a scientific paper.
• Journalism and Media: As a journalist or media person, you may need to write a critical analysis of current events, political speeches, or media coverage.
• Personal Interest: If you are interested in a particular topic, you may want to write a critical analysis to gain a deeper understanding of it. For example, you may want to analyze the themes and motifs in a novel or film that you enjoyed.
• Professional Development : Professionals such as writers, scholars, and researchers often write critical analyses to gain insights into their field of study or work.

Critical Analysis Example

An Example of Critical Analysis Could be as follow:

Research Topic:

The Impact of Online Learning on Student Performance

Introduction:

The introduction of the research topic is clear and provides an overview of the issue. However, it could benefit from providing more background information on the prevalence of online learning and its potential impact on student performance.

Literature Review:

The literature review is comprehensive and well-structured. It covers a broad range of studies that have examined the relationship between online learning and student performance. However, it could benefit from including more recent studies and providing a more critical analysis of the existing literature.

Research Methods:

The research methods are clearly described and appropriate for the research question. The study uses a quasi-experimental design to compare the performance of students who took an online course with those who took the same course in a traditional classroom setting. However, the study may benefit from using a randomized controlled trial design to reduce potential confounding factors.

The results are presented in a clear and concise manner. The study finds that students who took the online course performed similarly to those who took the traditional course. However, the study only measures performance on one course and may not be generalizable to other courses or contexts.

Discussion :

The discussion section provides a thorough analysis of the study’s findings. The authors acknowledge the limitations of the study and provide suggestions for future research. However, they could benefit from discussing potential mechanisms underlying the relationship between online learning and student performance.

Conclusion :

The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the study and provides some implications for future research and practice. However, it could benefit from providing more specific recommendations for implementing online learning programs in educational settings.

Purpose of Critical Analysis

There are several purposes of critical analysis, including:

• To identify and evaluate arguments : Critical analysis helps to identify the main arguments in a piece of writing or speech and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. This enables the reader to form their own opinion and make informed decisions.
• To assess evidence : Critical analysis involves examining the evidence presented in a text or speech and evaluating its quality and relevance to the argument. This helps to determine the credibility of the claims being made.
• To recognize biases and assumptions : Critical analysis helps to identify any biases or assumptions that may be present in the argument, and evaluate how these affect the credibility of the argument.
• To develop critical thinking skills: Critical analysis helps to develop the ability to think critically, evaluate information objectively, and make reasoned judgments based on evidence.
• To improve communication skills: Critical analysis involves carefully reading and listening to information, evaluating it, and expressing one’s own opinion in a clear and concise manner. This helps to improve communication skills and the ability to express ideas effectively.

Importance of Critical Analysis

Here are some specific reasons why critical analysis is important:

• Helps to identify biases: Critical analysis helps individuals to recognize their own biases and assumptions, as well as the biases of others. By being aware of biases, individuals can better evaluate the credibility and reliability of information.
• Enhances problem-solving skills : Critical analysis encourages individuals to question assumptions and consider multiple perspectives, which can lead to creative problem-solving and innovation.
• Promotes better decision-making: By carefully evaluating evidence and arguments, critical analysis can help individuals make more informed and effective decisions.
• Facilitates understanding: Critical analysis helps individuals to understand complex issues and ideas by breaking them down into smaller parts and evaluating them separately.
• Fosters intellectual growth : Engaging in critical analysis challenges individuals to think deeply and critically, which can lead to intellectual growth and development.

Advantages of Critical Analysis

Some advantages of critical analysis include:

• Improved decision-making: Critical analysis helps individuals make informed decisions by evaluating all available information and considering various perspectives.
• Enhanced problem-solving skills : Critical analysis requires individuals to identify and analyze the root cause of a problem, which can help develop effective solutions.
• Increased creativity : Critical analysis encourages individuals to think outside the box and consider alternative solutions to problems, which can lead to more creative and innovative ideas.
• Improved communication : Critical analysis helps individuals communicate their ideas and opinions more effectively by providing logical and coherent arguments.
• Reduced bias: Critical analysis requires individuals to evaluate information objectively, which can help reduce personal biases and subjective opinions.
• Better understanding of complex issues : Critical analysis helps individuals to understand complex issues by breaking them down into smaller parts, examining each part and understanding how they fit together.
• Greater self-awareness: Critical analysis helps individuals to recognize their own biases, assumptions, and limitations, which can lead to personal growth and development.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Cluster Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Discriminant Analysis – Methods, Types and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Med Libr Assoc
• v.102(2); 2014 Apr

The Critical Assessment of Research: Traditional and New Methods of Evaluation

Alan Bailin, Ann Grafstein Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing. 2010.. 121 p.$80.00.ISBN: 978-1-84334-543-5.

This book is not a guide to evaluating and interpreting clinical studies in the tradition of Richard K. Riegelman's Studying a Study and Testing a Test (Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013; ISBN: 978-0-78177-4-260). Rather, it explores the contexts in which research is conducted and disseminated. As the authors point out in the introductory chapter, we are continuously bombarded with information derived from research in fields as varied as finance, health care, and climatology. None of us are experts in all of these fields, but we need to decide how to invest our savings, what medicines to take, and whom to elect to represent us in public office. How can we assess this information and make the best possible decisions?

Scholars and librarians use a set of traditional tools to evaluate report publications or base their conclusions on research. These tools include author credentials, publisher reputation, and, of course, peer review. Alan Bailin and Ann Grafstein review these “gold standards” and acknowledge their value. However, they also point out that economic and ideological considerations can limit the effectiveness of these widely accepted measures of the reliability of research results. Using real-life examples, the authors explore how these considerations can impede the conduct of research and determine how (or even if ) results are reported and disseminated.

Chapter 3 focuses on the inhibiting effects that vested interests can have on research and the application of results. Bailin and Grafstein explain how pharmaceutical industry sponsorship led to the promotion of hormone replacement therapy despite the adverse effects of the drugs and describe how the conflict of interest between Arthur Andersen's auditing and consulting services contributed to the collapse of Enron.

Chapter 4 discusses how prevailing paradigms can determine the course that research takes and even whether research questions are posed at all. Here, too, the illustrative cases include a medical example, such as the slow abandonment of the idea that peptic ulcers are caused by stress despite the research showing that Helicobacter pylori infection is the primary cause.

Chapter 5 discusses the dissemination of research results, again arguing that ideology, paradigms, and economic interests can significantly influence what gets published and what is either not published or is relegated to less traditional venues.

Having done their best to cultivate healthy skepticism in their readers, Bailin and Grafstein turn in the last chapter to advice. They review a variety of tools—including newspapers and magazines, Web 2.0 resources such as blogs and wikis, and scholarly publications—that readers can use to become more savvy consumers of research results.

Readers may wonder whether this book, which was published nearly four years ago, is still relevant. It is. Human nature, which is at the root of the problems described here, does not change quickly. It is reasonable to expect that cases like the ones cited in this book will happen again. Bailin and Grafstein prescribe no panacea, really, except to point out that naively accepting research results without evaluating them in their economic, political, and social contexts is dangerous. Seasoned librarians will not learn a great deal from this book, but it was not written solely, or even primarily, for librarians. Still, it has a few pearls, such as tips on searching the “gray” literature. And librarians are as loath to change their paradigms as anyone, so the insights offered by Bailin and Grafstein are worth while. The book includes an index and several pages of references, presumably chosen with especially skeptical care. The Critical Assessment of Research is apparently now sold only as an e-book by the publisher, but print copies may still be available from bookstores or online sellers.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.3: Critical Reading and Rhetorical Analysis

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 176354
• Lumen Learning

Critical Reading and Rhetorical Analysis

Introduction.

Good researchers and writers examine their sources critically and actively. They do not just compile and summarize these research sources in their writing, but use them to create their own ideas, theories, and, ultimately, their own, new understanding of the topic they are researching. Such an approach means not taking the information and opinions that the sources contain at face value and for granted, but to investigate, test, and even doubt every claim, every example, every story, and every conclusion. It means not to sit back and let your sources control you, but to engage in active conversation with them and their authors. In order to be a good researcher and writer, one needs to be a critical and active reader.

This section of the first learning module concerns the importance of critical and active reading. It is also about the connection between critical reading and active, strong writing. Much of the discussion you will find in this chapter is fundamental to research and writing, no matter what writing genre, medium, or academic discipline you read and write in. Every other approach to research writing and every other research method and assignment offered in other courses is, in some way, based upon the principles discussed in this chapter.

Reading stands at the heart of the research process. No matter what kinds of research sources and methods you use, you are always reading and interpreting text. Most of us are used to hearing the word “reading” in relation to secondary sources, such as books, journals, magazines, Web sites, and so on. But even if you are using other research methods and sources, such as interviewing someone or surveying a group of people, you are reading. You are reading their subjects’ ideas and views on the topic you are investigating. Even if you are studying photographs, cultural artifacts, and other non-verbal research sources, you are reading them, also, by trying to connect them to their cultural and social contexts and to understand their multiple meanings. Principles of critical reading, which we are about to discuss in this chapter, apply to those research situations as well.

I like to think about reading and writing not as two separate activities, but as two tightly connected parts of the same whole. That whole is the process of learning and the creation of new meaning. It may seem that reading and writing are complete opposites of one another. According to the popular view, when we read, we “consume” texts, and when we write, we “produce” texts. But this view of reading and writing is true only if you see reading as a passive process of taking in information from the text and not as an active and energetic process of making new meaning and new knowledge. Similarly, good writing does not originate in a vacuum, but instead is usually based upon, or at least influenced by, other ideas, theories, and stories that come from reading. So if, as a college student, you have ever wondered why your writing teachers have asked you to read books and articles and write responses to them, it is because writers who do not read and do not actively engage with their reading, have little to say to others.

Life presents us with a variety of reading situations which demand different reading strategies and techniques. Sometimes, it is important to be as efficient as possible and read purely for information or “the main point.” At other times, it is important to just “let go” and turn the pages following a good story, although this sometimes means not thinking deeply about the story you are reading. At the heart of writing and research, however, lies the kind of reading known as critical reading. The critical examination of sources is what makes their use in research possible and what allows writers to create rhetorically effective and engaging texts. (4)

Key Features of Critical Reading

Critical readers are able to interact with the texts they read through carefully listening, writing, conversation, and questioning. They do not sit back and wait for the meaning of a text to come to them, but work hard in order to create such meaning. Critical readers are not made overnight. Becoming a critical reader will take a lot of practice and patience. Depending on your current reading philosophy and experiences with reading, becoming a critical reader may require a significant change in your whole understanding of the reading process. The trade-off is worth it, however. By becoming a more critical and active reader, you will also become a better researcher and a better writer. Last but not least, you will enjoy reading and writing a whole lot more because you will become actively engaged in both.

Critical reading, then, is a two-way process. As reader, you are not a consumer of words, waiting patiently for ideas from the printed page or a web-site to fill your head and make you smarter. Instead, as a critical reader, you need to interact with what you read, asking questions of the author, testing every assertion, fact, or idea, and extending the text by adding your own understanding of the subject and your own personal experiences to your reading.

The idea behind the rhetorical theory of reading is that when we read, we not only take in ideas, information, and facts, but in the process we also “update our view of the world.” This is what it means to be a monitoring citizen. You cannot force someone to update his or her worldview, and therefore, the purpose of writing is persuasion and the purpose of reading is being persuaded. Persuasion is possible only when the reader is actively engaged with the text and understands that much more than simple retrieval of information is at stake when reading.  (4)

The following are key features of the critical approach to reading:

• No text, however skillfully written or authoritative, contains its own, pre-determined meaning. Audiences bring their education, situated knowledge, and experience to bear on texts in order to better understand their meanings.
• Readers must work hard to create meaning from every text. All complex texts contain surface meaning and subtext. Often, readers have to think of the bigger picture in making sense of how a subject can influence broader culture.
• Critical readers interact with the texts that they read by questioning them, responding to them, and expanding them, usually in writing.
• Critical readers actively search for related texts to place these works in conversation with each other to advance important ideas. Consider how subjects from your other courses and experiences connect to the sources you are reading.  (5)

From Reading to Writing

As stated earlier in this chapter, actively responding to difficult texts, posing questions, and analyzing ideas presented in them is the key to successful reading. The goal of an active reader is to engage in a conversation with the text that he or she is reading. In order to fulfill this goal, it is important to understand the difference between reacting to the text and responding to it.

Reacting to a text is often done on an emotional—rather than on an intellectual—level. It is often quick and shallow. For example, if we encounter a text that advances arguments with which we strongly disagree, it is natural to dismiss those ideas out of hand as flawed and unworthy of our attention. Doing so would be reacting to the text based only on emotions and on our pre-determined opinions about its arguments. It is easy to see that reacting in this way does not take the reader any closer to understanding the text. A wall of disagreement that existed between the reader and the text before the reading continues to exist after the reading.

Responding to a text, on the other hand, requires a careful study of the ideas presented and the arguments advanced in it. Critical readers who possess this skill are not willing to simply reject or accept the arguments presented in the text after the first reading right away. To continue with our example from the preceding paragraph, a reader who responds to a controversial text rather than reacting to it might apply several of the following strategies before forming and expressing an opinion about that text.

• Read the text several times, taking notes, asking questions, and underlining key places. Look for “starring sentences,” or those phrases or passages that use language in creative, memorable ways to underline key points.
• Study why the author of the text advances ideas, arguments, and convictions, so different from the reader’s own. For example, is the text’s author advancing an agenda of some social, political, religious, or economic group of which he or she is a member?
• Study the purpose and the intended audience of the text.
• Study the history of the argument presented in the text as much as possible. For example, modern texts on highly controversial issues such as the death penalty, abortion, or euthanasia often use past events, court cases, and other evidence to advance their claims. Knowing the history of the problem will help you to construct a more comprehensive meaning of a difficult text.
• Study the social, political, and intellectual context in which the text was written. Good writers use social conditions to advance controversial ideas. Compare the context in which the text was written to the one in which it is read. For example, have social conditions changed, thus invalidating the argument or making it stronger?
• Consider the author’s (and your own) previous knowledge of the issue at the center of the text and your experiences with it. How might such knowledge or experience have influenced your reception of the argument?

Taking all these steps will help you to move away from simply reacting to a text and towards constructing informed and critical response to it.  (6)

Strategies for Connecting Reading and Writing

If you want to become a critical reader, you need to get into the habit of writing as you read. You also need to understand that complex texts often require multiple close readings. During the second and any subsequent readings, however, you will need to write, and write a lot. The following are some critical reading and writing techniques which active readers employ as they work to create meanings from texts they read.

Students should get into the habit of composing extended responses to readings. Writing students are often asked to write one or two-page exploratory responses to readings, but they are not always clear on the purpose of these responses and on how to approach writing them. By writing reading responses, you are continuing the important activities of critical reading which you began when you compiled notes on the salient points of the text you are analyzing. You are extending the meaning of the text by creating your own commentary to it and perhaps even branching off into creating your own argument inspired by your reading. Your teacher may give you a writing prompt, or ask you to come up with your own topic for a response. In either case, realize that reading responses are supposed to be exploratory; they are designed to help you delve deeper into the text you are reading than mere note-taking or underlining will allow.

When writing extended responses to the readings, it is important to keep one thing in mind, and that is their purpose. The purpose of these exploratory responses, which are often rather informal, is not to impress your classmates and your teacher with “big” words and complex sentences. On the contrary, it is to help you understand the text you are working with at a deeper level. The verb “explore” means to investigate something by looking at it more closely. Investigators get leads, some of which are fruitful and useful and some of which are dead-ends. As you investigate and create the meaning of the text you are working with, do not be afraid to take different directions with your reading responses. In fact, it is important to resist the urge to make conclusions or think that you have found out everything about your reading. When it comes to exploratory reading responses, lack of closure and presence of more leads at the end of the piece can actually be a good thing. Of course, you should always check with your teacher for standards and formatting with regard to reading responses.  (6)

Guidelines for Writing a Successful Response

Try the following guidelines to write a successful response to a reading:

• Remember that your goal is often exploration. The purpose of writing a response is to construct the meaning of a difficult text. It is not to get the job done as quickly as possible and in as few words as possible.
• As you write, “talk back to the text.” Make comments, ask questions, and elaborate on complex thoughts. This part of the writing becomes much easier if, prior to writing your response, you had read the assignment with a pen in hand and marked important places in the reading.
• If your teacher provides a response prompt, make sure that you understand it. Then, try to answer the questions in the prompt to the best of your ability. While you are doing that, do not be afraid to introduce related texts, examples, or experiences. Active reading is about making connections, and your readers will appreciate your work because it will help them understand the text better.
• While your primary goal is exploration and questioning, make sure that others can understand your response. While it is sometimes fine to be informal in your response, make every effort to write in a clear, error-free language that is amenable to academic writing at the collegiate level.
• Involve your audience in the discussion of the reading by asking questions, expressing opinions, and connecting to responses made by others.

Many of the weekly assignments in this section of ENC 1102, which include quizzes and class-wide discussions, have a minimum guideline of at least eight paragraphs in length. For most student writers, this roughly equates to composing a two-page essay. Students should become comfortable with composing sufficiently insightful, clearly written analyses in this format, as the two-page document is a common length for writing outside of the classroom and in the workplace.

Now, it is time to practice what you have learned concerning the formal approaches to rhetorical theory and critical reading. Before you take this week’s quiz, critically read and analyze the following essay on the prevalence and consequences of fake news. When you feel that you have a stronger understanding of what Professor Pablo Boczkowski is saying about our contemporary information culture, navigate to the quiz and record your response to the questions in the prompt.  (7)

• Chapter 3: Research and Critical Reading. Authored by : Dr. Pavel Zemliansky. Located at : threerivers.digication.com/mod/Introduction. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

9 Critical Approaches to Qualitative Research

Kum-Kum Bhavnani, Department of Sociology, University of California at Santa Barbara

Peter Chua, Department of Sociology, San José State University

Dana Collins, Department of Sociology, California State University, Fullerton

• Published: 04 August 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter reflects on critical strategies in qualitative research. It examines the meanings and debates associated with the term “critical,” in particular, contrasting liberal and dialectical notions and practices in relation to social analysis and qualitative research. The chapter also explores how critical social research may be synonymous with critical ethnography in relation to issues of power, positionality, representation, and the production of situated knowledges. It uses Bhavnani’s framework to draw on Dana Collins’ research as a specific case to suggest how the notion of the “critical” relates to ethnographic research practices: ensuring feminist and queer accountability, resisting reinscription, and integrating lived experience.

Qualitative research is now ubiquitous and fairly well-respected throughout the human sciences. That Oxford University Press is producing this much-needed volume is further testament to that notion, and one which we applaud. However, although there are different approaches to conducting qualitative research, what is often not addressed are the philosophical notions underlying such research. And that is where the “critical” enters. Indeed, “critical,” used as an adjective and applied, within the academy, to methods of research is also a familiar phrase. The question is, therefore: what does “critical” mean, and how might it be translated such that present and future researchers could draw on some of its fundamentals as they plan their research studies in relation to progressive political activism?

The popularity of critical research is not predictable. Although the 1960s and early 1970s did offer a number of publications that engaged with critical research traditions (e.g., Gouldner, 1970 ), and the 1990s also led to a resurgence of interest in this area (e.g., Harvey, 1990 ; Thomas, 1993 ), it is now two decades since explicit discussions of critical research have been widely discussed within the social sciences (see Smith, 1999 ; Madison, 2012 , as exceptions).

In this chapter, we first outline meanings associated with “critical.” We then suggest that the narratives of critical ethnography are best suited for an overview chapter such as this. We consider critical ethnography to be virtually synonymous with critical social research as we discuss it in this chapter. In the final section of our chapter, we discuss Dana Collins’ specific research studies to suggest how her approach embraces the notion of “critical” ( Collins, 2005 ; 2007 ; 2009 ).

The “Critical” in Critical Approaches

“Critical” is used in many ways. In everyday use, the term can refer, among other definitions, to an assessment that points out flaws and mistakes (“a critical approach to the design”), or to being close to a crisis (“a critical illness”). On the positive side, it can refer to a close reading (“a critical assessment of Rosa Luxembourg’s writings”) or as being essential (“critical for effective educational strategies”). A final definition is that the word can be used to either denote considerable praise (“the playwright’s work was critically acclaimed”) or to indicate a particular turning point (“this is a critical time to vote”). It is this last definition that is closest to our approach as we reflect on “critical” in the context of qualitative research. That is, drawing from the writings of Marx, the Frankfurt School, and others (see Delanty, 2005 ; Marx, 1845/1976 ; Strydom, 2011 ), we suggest that critical approaches to qualitative methods do not signify only a particular way of thinking about the methods we use in our research studies, but that “critical approaches” also signify a turning point in how we think about the conduct of research across the human sciences, including its dialectical relations to the progressive and systematic transformation of social relations and social institutions.

The most straightforward notion of “critical” in this context is that it refers to (at the least) or insists (at its strongest) that research—and all ways by which knowledge is created—is firmly grounded within an understanding of social structures (social inequalities), power relationships (power inequalities), and the agency of human beings (an engagement with the fact that human beings actively think about their worlds). Critical approaches are most frequently associated with Marxist, feminist, and antiracist, indigenous, and Third World perspectives. At its most succinct, therefore, we argue that “critical” in this context refers to issues of epistemology, power, micropolitics, and resistance.

What does this mean, both theoretically and for how we conduct our research? Most would agree that whereas qualitative research does not, by definition, insist on a nonpositivist way of examining the social world, for critical approaches to be truly critical, an antipositivist approach is the sine qua non of critical research. Furthermore, it is evident as we survey critical empirical research that issues of reflexive and subjective techniques in data collection and the researcher’s relationship with research subjects also frame both the practices and the theories associated with research.

The following section begins by drawing attention to developments and debates involving the more restricted use the term critical as related to Marxism and then explores the ramifications for varying attempts to conduct critical qualitative research.

The Critical Debates

Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and their contemporaries (see Engels, 1877/1969 ; Harvey, 1996 ; Lenin, 1915/1977 ; Mao, 1990 ; Ollman, 2003 ) developed dialectical materialist notions of critique and “critical” that were substantively different from prior notions. They incorporated these dialectical materialist notions to develop Marxist theories and politics.

Dialectical materialism refers to an outlook on reality that emphasizes the importance of process and change that are inherent to things (such as objects, phenomena, and situations), as well as of the importance of human practices in making change. Significantly, human struggle over existing conditions and contradictions in things creates not only new conditions, but also new contradictions. This outlook serves as an analytical tool over idealist and old-fashioned materialist worldviews and as a source of strength for exploited peoples in their struggle against ruling elites and classes. It emphasizes that correct ideas, knowledge, and theoretical abstractions are established initially, and perhaps inevitably, through practice.

Dialectical materialism may be used to examine two aspects of the research process and the production of academic knowledge. The first aspect involves the writing process as it is carried out among multiple authors. At the drafting phase, the authors craft their distinct ideas into textual form. Contradictions in ideas are bound to exist in the draft. In doing revisions, some contradictions may become intensified and remain unresolved, yet, most frequently (and hopefully!), many are addressed in the form of clearer, more solid, and coherent arguments, thus resolving the earlier contradictions in the text. Yet, new struggles and contradictions emerge. The synthesis of ideas and argument in the final manuscript may again, however, engage in new struggles with the prevailing arguments being discussed.

The second aspect involves the relationship and interaction between the researcher and the interviewee. As their relationship begins, contradictions and differences usually exist between them, for instance, in terms of their prior experiences and knowledge, their material interests in the research project, and their communication skills in being persuasive and forging consent. The struggle of these initial contradictions could result in new conditions and contradictions. For example, this could lead to

the establishment of quality rapport between them, allowing the interview to be completed while the researcher maintains control over the situation;

the abrupt end of the interview due to the interviewee refusing and asserting her or his right to comply with the interview process; or

an explicit set of negotiations that address the unevenness in power relations between them, along with an invitation for both to be part of the research team and to collaborate in the collection and analysis of data and in the forging of new theories and knowledges.

In the first possibility, the prevailing power relations in interviews remain but shift to beneath the surface of the relationship, under the guise of “rapport.” In the second possibility, power relations in the interview process and initial contradictions are heightened, resulting in new conditions and contradictions that the researcher and research participant have to address, jointly and singly. In the third possibility, the research subject is transformed into a researcher as well, and the relationship between the two is transformed into a more active co-learning and co-teaching relationship. Still, new conflicts and contradictions may emerge as the research process continues to unfold. 1 In short, dialectical materialism stresses the analysis of change in the essence (1), practice (2), and struggle (3). Such analyses are at the root of how change may be imagined within the practices of social research.

Dialectical materialism, which forms the basis of the concept of “critical,” emphasizes the need to engage with power, inequality, and social relations in the arenas of the social, political, economic, cultural, and ideological. Based on this status, it is argued that an analysis of societies and ways of life demands a more comprehensive approach, one that does not view society and social institutions merely as a singular unit of analysis but rather as ones that are replete with history. Dialectical materialism directs its criticism against prevailing views or hegemonies, and, within the context of academic endeavors, engages in debates against positivism and neo-Kantian forms of social inquiry. It is this basis of “critical” that defines it in the context of research as a deep questioning of science, objectivity, and rationality. Thus, the meaning of the term “critical,” based on the idea of “critique,” emerges from the practice and application of dialectical materialism.

Historical materialism emerges from and is based on dialectical materialism. That is, any application of the dialectic to material realities is historical materialism. For example, any study of human society, its history, its development, and its process of change demands a dialectical approach rooted in historical materialism. This involves delving deeper into past and present social phenomena to thereby determine how people change the essence of social phenomena, and, simultaneously, transform their contradictions.

Dialectical materialism regards positivism as a crude and naïve endeavor to seek knowledge and explain phenomena and as one that assumes it is the task of social researchers to determine the laws of social relationships by relying solely on observations (i.e., by assuming there is a primacy of external conditions and actions). In addition, positivism separates the subject (the seemingly unbiased, detached observer) and object (the phenomenon/a under consideration) of study. Dialectical materialism overcomes the shortcomings of positivism by offering a holistic understanding of (a) the essence of phenomena; (b) the processes of internal changes, the handling of contradictions, and the development of knowledge; (c) the unity of the subject and object in the making of correct ideas; and (d) the role of practice and politics in knowledge creation.

Dialectical materialism directs its criticism against dominant standpoints. These standpoints can offer a simplistic form of idealism and philosophical materialism. Within the context of academic endeavors, the methods of dialectical materialism engage in debates against positivism and neo-Kantian forms of social inquiry. This approach challenges assertions that science, objectivity, and rationality are the sine qua non of research and that skepticism and liberalism are the only appropriate analytical positionings by which a research project can be defined as “critical.”

For instance, Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim, in developing sociological positivism, argued for a new science to study society, one that adopted the methods of the natural sciences, such as skeptical empiricism and the practices of induction. In adopting these methods, approaches relying on early positivism sought to craft knowledge based on seemingly affirmative verification rather than being based on judgmental evaluation and transformative distinctions.

Positivism and dialectical materialism were both developed in response to Kantian and idealist philosophy. In the context of the European Enlightenment, in the late 1700s, Immanuel Kant inaugurated the philosophy of critique. Positivism challenged Kant’s philosophy of critique as the basis for the theory of knowledge.

Kant developed his notion of critique to highlight the workings of human reason and judgment, to illuminate its limitations, and to consolidate its application in order to secure a stable foundation for morality, religion, and metaphysical concerns. Politically, Kantian philosophy provided justification for both a traditionalism derived from earlier periods and a liberalism developed during the ascendance of the Enlightenment.

Kant sought to settle philosophical disputes between a narrow notion of empiricism (that relies on pure observation, perception, and experience as the basis for knowledge) and a narrow notion of rationalism (that relies on pure reason and concepts as the basis for knowledge). He argued that the essence (termed “thing-in-itself”) is unknowable, countering David Hume’s skeptical empiricism, and he was convinced that there is no knowledge outside of innate conceptual categories. For Kant, “concepts without perceptions are empty; perceptions without concepts are blind” (1781/1965, pp. A 51/B 75).

The method of dialectical materialism challenges Kant’s idealism for (what is claimed to be) its faulty assertion that correct ideas and knowing about the “thing-in-itself” can only emerge from innate conceptual categories, ones that are universal and transcendental. In Kantian philosophy, there is no reality (out there) to be known. Rather, it is the experience of reality itself that provides for human reason and consciousness.

Dialectical materialism overcomes Kant’s idealism with its recognition of the existence of concrete phenomena, outside and independent of human reason. Dialectical materialism stresses that social reality and concrete phenomena reflect on and determine the content of human consciousness (and also, we would argue, vice versa). Dialectical materialism also emphasizes the role of practice and politics in knowledge development, instead of merely centering the primacy of ideas and the meanings of objects.

In sum, the core debate against positivism centers on the practices of science. Dialectical materialism regards positivist approaches as crude and naïve endeavors that seek to determine unchangeable laws of nature, rely solely on observations and “sense experience” of phenomena as the basis for knowledge, highlight the primacy of external conditions and actions to explain phenomena, and separate the subject from the object of study. That is, dialectical materialism views positivism as a form of mechanical, as distinct from historical, materialism.

This abridged account of dialectical materialism and the critiques it offers of Kantian idealism and sociological positivism can allow for the formation of a preliminary set of criteria for what may constitute the “critical.” We argue that qualitative research may be critical if it makes clear conceptually and analytically:

The essence and root cause of any social phenomena (e.g., youth and politics);

The relationship between the essence of the social phenomena under consideration to the general social totality (such as how youth and their views of politics are related to wider systems within society, such as education, age, exploitation);

The contradictions within this social phenomenon (such as how young people are expressing their discontent),

and, therefore,

How to conduct more reflexive practices that interrelate data generation, data analysis, and political engagement that challenge existing relations of power.

Contemporary debates between neo-Kantian idealists and dialectical materialists have often been friendly regarding the direction for carving out what is meant by a critical project in qualitative social research. These debates bring to the fore issues of politics, ethics, research design, and the collection and analysis of data. They have also prompted a variety of ways in which “critical” may be used in relation to qualitative research. For the purposes of this chapter, we suggest four substantial ways in which “critical” is used in the context of qualitative research: (a) critical as a form of liberalism, (b) critical as a counterdisciplinary perspective, (c) critical as an expansion of politics, and (d) critical as a professionalized research endeavor and perspective.

Critical as a form of Kantian liberalism is one of the more conventional uses of the term in qualitative research. This use of critical is generally contrasted against the dogmatism of positivist approaches within social scientific research. Yet, to use critical in this way means that we embrace a liberalism that ends up promoting idealism in outlook and pluralism in practice. That is, Kantian liberalism presents itself as a “critical” and novel analysis by combining eclectic ideas and theories while not making known its political stand and its material interests. As a result, it supports prevailing modes of thinking that emphasize abstraction over concrete reality, and it succumbs to relativistist and pragmatist practices in research, such as “anything goes” in collecting data. In terms of methods, this use of “critical” promotes looseness and leniency in ethics and data collection and analysis, often without a structured accountability to the many constituencies that underlie all social research. Furthermore, the use of, for example, phrases such as “critical spaces,” when applied to social research, may be better understood as a celebration of method above theory and meta-theory and an engagement with some (of the often rather) excessive approaches to reflexivity and meta-reflexivity. In sum, this understanding of “critical” lacks appropriate structures of ethics and accountability and often tends to reject dialectic materialism.

The second use of “critical” in regards to qualitative research proposes a more analytical disagreement with conventional scholarly disciplines and, in so doing, seeks to take up counterdisciplinary positions ( Burawoy, 1998 ; 2003 ; Carroll, 2004 ; Smith, 2007 ). There are two main strands in this use of “critical.” One strand argues that “critical” is a means of exposing the weaknesses of conventional academic disciplines such as anthropology, political science, psychology, and sociology. At the same time, this strand maintains the viability of these core social science disciplines. For instance, academic feminists have continually highlighted the masculinist and heterosexist bias in what is considered top-tier scholarship and the need for these disciplines to be more inclusive in terms of perspectives and methodological techniques (e.g., Fonow & Cook, 1991 ; Harding, 1991 ; Ray, 2006 ). Yet such an approach may not inevitably focus on the fundamental problems, such as a neglect of the study of power inequalities (e.g., Boserup 1970 ; and see examples in Reinharz & Davidman, 1992 ). This second strand seeks to carve out interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary fields such as women studies, cultural studies, and area studies to overcome the paradigmatic and fundamental crises within core disciplines ( Bhavnani, Foran, & Kurian, 2003 ; March, 1995 ; Mohanty, 2003 ). Many of these interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary fields have often been more historical and qualitative in their approaches, seeking to go beyond positivist limitations and present a more nuanced and thorough analysis. However, even these multi-, inter-, and antidisciplinary fields have an uneven impact on dominant and conventional knowledge.

Moreover, both strands have not been able to overcome the increasing corporatization and neoliberalization of academic institutions. This issue addresses the increasing restructuring of public education into a private domain, one that relies on privatized practices and funding of both teaching and research. The neoliberalization of the academy is found in the ties of academic research to corporate grants, individualized career advancement, excessive publishing demands and citation indices, and the use of outsourcing for transcription, interviewing, online education, and private research spaces that are “rented” by public institutions, to name a few. These neoliberal conditions of research usually push out those critical researchers who attempt to avoid such exploitative avenues for research, writing, and collaboration. This use of “critical,” however, does expose that critical research is taking shape within contemporary processes of neoliberalism and the increasing privatization of the academy ( Giroux, 2009 ; Greenwood, 2012 ; Pavlidis, 2012 ).

The third and less familiar approach is to view “critical” as invigorating politics through the practices of feminist, antiracist, and participatory action research. This approach, for example, highlights the importance of analyzing power in research, as in terms of the conduct of inquiry, in political usefulness, and in affecting relations of power and material relations. Yet this view of “critical” is dogmatic because this approach demands that every research study meet all criteria of criticality comprehensively and perfectly.

A final use of “critical” emerges from the many scholarly and professionalized approaches that engage with the politics of academic knowledge construction while making visible the limits of positivism. “Critical” is used here as a means to focus primarily on revitalizing scholarship and research endeavors. However, we argue that even this use of “critical” ossifies the separation of the making of specialized knowledge from an active engagement to transform social life. Such a separation is antithetical to dialectical materialism. Often, this fourth form of the term “critical” is based on the logics of the Frankfurt School of critical theory (such as that of Adorno [1973] , Habermas [1985] , and Marcuse [1968] ) and other Western neo-Marxisms (from Lukacs [1971] and Gramsci [1971] to Negri [1999] ). Critical ethnographers and other critical social researchers, drawing from this tradition, often develop public intellectual persona by writing and talking about politics through scholarly and popular forms of publishing and speaking presentations and are even seen to take part in political mobilizations. Yet they can also shy away from infusing their research with a deep engagement in political processes outside the academy.

Later in this chapter, we discuss how to avoid some of the pitfalls of these four types of “critical,” but suffice it to say, in short, that it is the politics and the explicit situatedness of research projects that can permit research to remain “critical.”

Is Critical Ethnography the Same as Critical Research?

George Marcus (1998) argues that the ethnographer is a midwife who, through words, gives birth to what is happening in the lives of the oppressed. Beverley Skeggs (1994) has proposed that ethnography is, in itself, “a theory of the research process,” and Asad (1973) offered the now-classic critique of anthropology as the colonial encounter. However, although many approaches to and definitions of ethnography abound, it is the case that they all agree on one aspect: namely, that ethnographies offer an “insider’s” perspective on the social phenomena under consideration. It is often suggested that the best ethnographies, whether defined as critical or not, offer detailed descriptions of how people see, and inhabit, their social worlds and cultures (e.g., Behar, 1993 ; Ho, 2009 ; Kondo, 1990 ; Zinn, 1979 ).

It is evident from our argument so far that we do not think of ethnographic approaches to knowledge construction as being, in and of themselves, critical. This is because an ethnographic study, although not in opposition to critical ethnography or to critical research in general, has practices rooted in social anthropology. Therefore, its assumptions are often in line with anthropological assumptions (see Harvey [1990] for a recounting of some of these assumptions). Concepts such as “insider” versus “outsider,” “going native,” “gaining access,” and even conceptualizations of a homogenized and/or exoticized “field” that is out there ready to be examined by research remain as significant lenses of methodological conceptualization in much ethnographic research.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the move to reflexivity in ethnographic research, there remain enduring assumptions about best practices. As a result, a certain fetishization of research methods transpires, one that is often epitomized as reflexivity. In this instance, ethnographic and qualitative research become an ideal set of practices for extracting information. In sum, “best research practices,” as ways to extract information, reproduce core power dynamics of racism, gender, class, imperialism, and heteronormativity, which, in turn, reproduce the oppressive dynamics of noncritical qualitative research.

Furthermore, when presenting research merely as reflexive research, it is the case that the researcher can lose sight of the broader social structural and historical materialist context. In addition, a static notion of reflexivity can lead to the researcher not looking outward to assess the wider interconnections among the micropolitics of the research. That is, reflexivity is a dialectic among the researcher, the research process, and the analysis ( Jordan & Yeomans, 1995 ), but it is often presented simply as a series of apparently unchangeable/essential facets of the researcher. Our final point is that for theory to be critical in the development of research paradigms, it has to explicitly engage with lived experiences and cultures for, without that engagement, it remains as formalism (see, e.g., the work of Guenther [2009] and Kang [2010] as examples of critical qualitative research). We are very much in tune with Hesse-Biber and Leavy, who have suggested that (grounded) theory building is a “dynamic dance routine” in which “there is no one right dance, no set routine to follow. One must be open to discovery” (2006, p. 76).

An example of the limitation of conventionally reflexive research is in the area of lesbian and gay research methods that focus on the experiences of gay men and lesbians conducting qualitative research. It also offers a commentary on the role that non-normative sexuality plays in social research. By looking inward (see the earlier comment on “reflexivity”), these methodological frameworks focus on the researcher’s and participants’ lesbian/gay identifications. In so doing, this can fabricate a shared social structural positionality with research participants who have been labeled “gay” or “lesbian.” Such an approach to reflexivity overlooks the fabricated nature of positionalities and ignores the sometimes more significant divisions between researchers and participants that are expressed along the lines of race, class, gender, and nationality. Reflexivity is used only as a way to forge a connection for the exchange of information. A grave mistake is made in this rush to force similarity along the lines of how people practice non-normative sexualities ( Lewin & Leap, 1996 ; for a more successful engagement with queer intersectionality in research, see Browne & Nash, 2010 ).

The point to be made is that critical researchers should not merely ask “how does this knowledge engage with social structure?” Critical researchers, when contemplating the question “What is this?” as they set up and analyze their research, could also ask, “What could this be?” ( Carspecken, 1996 ; Degiuli, 2007 ; Denzin, 2001 ; Noblit, Flores, & Murillo, 2004 , all cited in Degiuli, 2007 ). Perhaps, borrowing from Karen O’Reilly’s thoughts on critical ethnography, one may think of critical research as “an approach that is overtly political and critical, exposing inequalities in an effort to effect change” ( Reilly, 2009 , p. 51). That is, in order for qualitative research to be critical, it must be grounded in the material relationships of history, as may be seen in the work of Carruyo (2011) , Chua (2001 ; 2006 ; 2007 ; 2012 ), Collins (2005 ; 2007 ; 2009 ), Lodhia (2010) , and Talcott (2010) .

Quantz (1992) , in his discussion of critical ethnography, suggests that five aspects are central to the discussion of critical research/ethnography: knowledge, values, society, history, and culture. So far in this chapter, we have discussed knowledge and its production, values/reflexivity and qualitative research/ethnography, society and unequal social relationships, and history as a method of historical and dialectical materialism in order to better understand social and institutional structures. What we have not discussed, however, is the notion of culture, nor, indeed, the predicament of culture ( Clifford, 1998 ): “Culture is an ongoing political struggle around the meaning given to actions of people located within unbounded asymmetrical power relations” ( Quantz, 1992 , p. 483).

Quantz elaborates by stating that culture develops as people struggle together to name their experiences (see Comaroff & Comaroff, 2012 , for a sophisticated and elegant discussion of this thinking). For example, one key task of critical research is to tease out how disempowerment is achieved, undermined, or resisted. That is, the job of the researcher is to see how the disempowerment—economic, political, cultural—of subordinated groups manifests itself within culture, and, indeed, whether the subordinated groups even recognize their disempowerment. For example, “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” is one example of how the material disempowerment of many groups of women is presented, in fact, as a strength of women, and yet it takes the gaze away from seeing the subordination of women by ostensibly emphasizing women’s hidden social power.

It is critical qualitative research that has to simultaneously analyze how our research can identify processes and expressions of disempowerment and can then lead to a restructuring of these relationships of disempowerment. At times, critical social researchers engage in long-term projects that involve policy advocacy and community solidarity to link community-driven research with social empowerment and community change (see Bonacich, 1998 ; Bonacich & Wilson, 2008 ; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2007 ; Stoecker, 2012 ).

The key point is that critical qualitative research parts company with positivistic approaches because it is argued that positivism is only able to offer a superficial set of findings. Critical qualitative research hones research concepts, practices, and analyses into finer points of reference so that societal relationships may be not only understood, but also so that social power inequalities can be undermined. In short, critical social research has a Foucauldian notion of power at its very core and may thus be thought of as offering insights into people’s lived experiences ( Williams, 1976 ) as they negotiate asymmetrical societal power relations (see e.g., Novelli, 2006 ).

The Practices of Critical Qualitative Research

Within our current era of enduring global inequalities, what could constitute a truly critical approach to qualitative research? More than twenty years ago, in “Tracing the Contours” ( Bhavnani, 1993 ), it was argued that if all knowledge is historically contingent and, therefore, that the processes of knowledge production are situated, then this must apply to all research practices as well. 2 This argument was based on Haraway’s (1988) idea that the particularities of knowledge production do not lie in the characteristics of individuals. Rather, knowledge production is “about communities, not about isolated individuals” (p. 590). Building on this, Haraway discussed the significance of partiality and its relationship to objectivity. She suggested that it is the researcher’s knowledge of her own “limited location” that creates objectivity. In other words, knowing the limitations of one’s structural position as a researcher contributes to objective research because there is no objectivity that is omniscient, one from which all can be revealed (Haraway discusses this as the “god trick,” which is like “seeing everything from nowhere,” p. 582).

It is from Haraway’s insights that we develop our argument that situated knowledges are not synonymous with the static reflexivity we describe earlier. This is because, in this latter scenario, the researcher implies that all research knowledge is based on and derives from an individual’s personal historical and biographical perspectives. That is, researchers note their racial/ethnic identity, sex/gender, sexuality, age, class, and ability (i.e., biographical aspects of themselves), which are presented as essential and unchanging factors and that determine the knowledge created by the research. This has also been called “absolute relativism” ( Bhavnani, 1993 ) or “extreme relativism” ( Alcoff & Potter, 1993 ).

We suggest that the three elements central to research being “critical” are partiality, positionality, and accountability. Partiality leads to critical research interrogating prevailing representations as the research is conducted, and this builds on difference. Positionality is not about being reflexive, but about understanding the sociohistorical/political context from which research is created and thus engages with the micropolitics of a research endeavor. Accountability makes it evident that there are many constituencies to which all academic researchers are accountable—for example, their discipline, intellectual integrity, their institution and academic colleagues, the idea of rigorous scientific research, and academic freedom in research—as well as being accountable to the people with whom the research is being conducted. It is accountability that leads to a critical research project interrogating how the lived experiences and cultures of the research participants are inscribed within the research (see Stoecker, 2012 ).

What might the necessary elements be for ensuring that our research practices retain the criticality we have discussed earlier? We offer four possibilities that could form a filter through which one could decide if research is critical, using our definition of the term. First, all critical qualitative researchers should interrogate the history of ethnographic research that has led to the systematic domination of the poor; working classes; ethnic, racialized, sexual Others; women; and colonized peoples. That is, critical qualitative researchers must begin research with an understanding of how previous research, including their own, may continue to play a part in the subordination of peoples around the world, for example, by reinscribing them into predictable and stereotypical roles. Second, critical qualitative researchers should work to develop a consciousness of what might constitute critical research practices—without fetishizing methods—that challenge the system of domination often present in social research. Third, researchers who embrace critical qualitative approaches must develop comfort with the notion that they are conducting research with a purpose; that is, researchers grapple with and comprehend that critical research demands that they engage with the idea that they conduct research into research inequalities in order to undo these inequalities. Finally, critical qualitative researchers comprehend that their level of comfort can extend into the idea that research does not simply capture social realities; rather, the critical research approach is generative of narratives and knowledges. Once this last idea is accepted—namely, that knowledge is created in a research project and not merely captured—it is then a comparatively straightforward task to see the need for a researcher’s accountability for the narratives and knowledges he or she ultimately produces. In so doing, it is possible to recognize that all representations have a life of their own outside of any intentions and that representations can contribute to histories of oppression and subordination.

We propose that it is the actual practice of research, and, perhaps, even the idea of researcher as witness ( Fernandes, 2003 ), and not a notion of “best practices,” that keeps the politics of research at the center of the work we do. This includes insights into the redistribution of power, representation, and knowledge production. We suggest that critical research is work that shifts research away from the production of knowledge for knowledge’s sake and edges or nudges it toward a more transformative vision of social justice (see Burawoy, 1998 ; Choudry, 2011 ; D’Souza, 2009 ; Hussey, 2012 ; Hunter, Emerald, & Martin, 2013 ).

Thoughts from the Field

Here, based on Collins’s fieldwork, we highlight a set of critical methodological lessons that became prominent while she was conducting her field research in Malate, in the city of Manila, the Philippines, currently a tourist destination but once famous as a sex district. We define her work as a critical research practice.

Since 1999, Dana Collins has conducted urban ethnographic work in Malate, exploring gay men’s production of urban sexual place. She has been interested in the role of “desire” in urban renewal, and, in particular, how informal sexual laborers (whom she terms “gay hospitality workers,” a nomenclature drawn from their own understandings of their labor and lives) use “desire” to forge their place in a gentrifying district that is also displacing them. This displacement has involved analyzing urban tourism development, city-directed urban renewal, and gay-led gentrification, as well as informal sexual labor.

The research has involved her precarious immersion in an urban sexual field. She undertook participant observation of gay night life in the streets, as well as in private business establishments, and conducted in-depth and in-field interviews with gay business owners, city officials, conservationists, gay tourists, and gay-identified sexual laborers. In addition, she drew on insights from visual sociology and also completed extensive archival work and oral history interviewing. In all of this, she explored the collective memories of Malate as a freeing urban sexual space.

There exist multiple and shifting positionalities of power, knowledge, exchange, and resistance in her research. For one, she points out that she occupies multiple social locations as a white, lesbian-identified feminist ethnographer from a US university, one who forges complicated relationships with urban sexual space, sex workers, and both gay Filipino men and gay tourists.

A critical research practice at heart involves the shifting of epistemological foundations of social science research by addressing core questions of how we know what we know, how power shapes the practices of research, how we can better integrate research participants and communities as central producers of knowledge in our research, and how we can better conceptualize the relationship between the research we do and the social justice we are working toward in this world. 3 Such questions function as a call to action for critical researchers not only to examine the power relations present in research, but to generate new ways of researching that can confront the realities of racism, gender and class oppression, imperialism, and homophobia. This is about not only becoming better researchers, but also about seeking ways to shift the very paradigm of qualitative research and ensuring its service to social change. We have learned to use these questions as a central and ongoing part of the research we do.

Feminist and Queer Accountability to the Micropolitics of the Field

One of the primary tenets of critical qualitative research is that researchers must work with a wider understanding and application of the politics of research. For Kum-Kum Bhavnani (1993) , this means that one needs to be accountable to the micropolitics of research because such accountability destabilizes the tendency to conduct and present research from a transcendent position—the “all knowing” ethnographer, the “outsider” going in to understand the point of view of “insiders,” the attempt to (avoid) “go(ing) native,” and the researcher who aims to “gain access” at all costs and in the interests of furthering research. Micropolitics is not only the axis of inequality that shapes contemporary field relations; it is also the historical materialist relationship that constitutes the field and informs the basis of critical qualitative research. Micropolitics therefore is a critical framework that questions the essentializing and power-laden perceptions of research spaces and people because it encourages both a reflexive inquiry into the limited locations of research, and it involves the more critical practice of the researcher turning outward, to comprehend what Bhavnani calls the “interconnections” among researcher, research participants, and the social structural spaces of “the field.”

Micropolitics illuminates how all research is conducted from the limited locations of gender, race, class, sexual identification, and nationality, as well as illuminating the interconnections among all of these locations. This is not a simplistic reflexive practice of taking a moment in research to account for one’s positionality and then moving on to conduct normative field work; Bhavnani has been critical of such moments of inward inspection that lack substantial accountability to the wider micropolitics of the field. Rather, this move requires an ongoing interrogation of the limited locations of research that show how knowledge is not transcendent. Furthermore, when used reflexively, limited locations offer a more critical framework from which to practice research.

Micropolitics encouraged Collins’ attention to the limited location of a global feminist ethnographer doing research on gay male urban sexual space in Manila. For one, she moved among different positionalities throughout her research—of woman, queer-identified, white, US academic, tourist, ate (Tagalog term for older sister)—and none of these positions was either a transcendent or more authentic standpoint from which to conduct ethnographic work. So, for instance, as a white tourist, she moved easily among the gentrifying gay spaces because these spaces were increasingly designed to encourage her movement around Malate. This limited location showed the increasing establishment of white consumer space, which encouraged the movement of consumers like herself yet dissuaded the movement of the informal sexual laborers with whom she was also spending time—the gay hosts. Her limited location as a white woman researcher from a major US university meant that gay hosts sometimes shared their spaces and meanings of urban gay life with her, yet many times those particular spaces and dialogues were closed—she was not allowed into the many public sexual spaces (parks and avenues for cruising and sex late at night), yet gay hosts treated her as an audience for their many romantic stories about the boyfriends they met in the neighborhood.

Hosts emphasized that they gained much from hosting foreigners in terms of friendship, love, desire, and cultural capital. Yet they monitored the information they shared because she remained to them a US researcher who wielded the power of representation over their lives, despite her closeness with a group of five gay hosts. Hence, gay hosts often chose to remain silent about their difficult memories of sex work or any information that could frame them as one-dimensional “money boys,” as distinct from the “gay”-identified Filipino men who migrated to Malate to take part in a gay urban community.

Micropolitics challenges the authenticity of any one positionality over another; it was Collins’ movement among all of them, as well as her ongoing consideration of their social structural places, that provided her with a more critical orientation to the research. She suggests that she was not essentially a better “positioned” researcher to study “gay” life in Manila because she too is gay. Rather she found that differences of race, class, gender, and nationality tended to serve as more enduring, limited locations that influenced relationships within this research and that required ongoing critical reflexive engagement.

We want to add that a queer micropolitics of the field also offers critical insight into how identities are not stagnant but rather can be fabricated and performative during the research process. This moves researchers away from an essentialist take on their standpoint because an essentialist mind-set can lead to a search for the authentic insider and outsider. It can also lead to an essentialist social positionality that is more conducive for researching. Queer micropolitics show that research is made up of a collection of productive relations and identities. So, for example, her lesbian identification did not create a more authentic connection with gay hosts in Manila; rather, she often fabricated a shared “gay” positionality. This was a performance that served as a point of departure for her many conversations, from which she could proceed to share meanings of what it meant to be “gay” in the Manila and the United States.

Some of the productive relations that arise in research are the continuum of intimacies that develop while doing research. So, like feminists before her, she chose to develop close friendships with hosts where they genuinely loved (in a familial way) as they spoke of love. While learning about gay life in Malate, she stroked egos, offered advice, cried over broken hearts and life struggles, and built and maintained familial relations. Queer micropolitics shows, however, the limitations of such intimacies because intimacy does not equal similarity—the differing social locations of class, race, gender, and nationality meant that the experiences of urban gay life varied immensely. Thus, building such intimacies across these differences requires both the recognition and respect for boundaries that hosts constructed. She had to learn to see and know that when hosts became quiet and pulled away these were acts of self-preservation as well as acts of defiance against the many misrepresentations of their lives that had taken shape in academic research and journalistic renderings of their place in “exotic” sex districts.

A queer micropolitics also shows how research is an embodied practice: researchers are gendered, racialized, classed, and sexualized in the field. This became most apparent as she walked alone at night in the “field” and developed a keen awareness of the deeply gendered aspects of Malate’s urban spaces. For one, her embodiment was a peculiar presence because women in Manila do not walk alone at night. This includes women sex workers who publicly congregate in groups or with clients and escorts; otherwise, they are subject to police harassment. Hence, her very movement in the field as a sole woman felt like a transgression into masculine urban space because her feminine body was treated as “out-of-place” in the public spaces of the streets at night—she was flirted with, name called, followed, and sexually handled as she walked to gay bars for her research. As much as her queer location afforded her an understanding of how gender is a discursive production on the body, replete with the possibility of her being able to transcend and destabilize the gendered body as a biological “reality,” she confronted the discomfort of being read as a real woman in what became predominantly men’s spaces at night.

Yet this gendered embodiment, in part, shaped her knowledge of the district as she developed quick and knowledgeable movement through the streets, a queer micropolitical reading of urban space that arose out of this limited gender location. She was aware of the spacing of blocks, the alleys, the street lighting, and the time of night when crowds spilled out from the bars and onto the streets, allowing her to realize that a socially vibrant street life actually facilitated her movement. This queer micropolitical reading of urban space showed how both researchers and research participants do not simply exist in a neutral way in city space; rather, gender leads to our use and misuse of urban space. She has juxtaposed her experience with those of research participants in her study. The latter spoke at length about their exploratory and liberatory experiences of urban space, replete with their access to masculine sexual spaces—parks for cruising and sex, city blocks for meeting clients or picking up male sex workers, and alleys, movie theaters, and mall bathrooms for anonymous sex.

This queer micropolitical read of Malate’s gentrified space showed how very different was her access to the newly opening bars, restaurants, cafés, and lifestyle stores. Her whiteness signaled assumptions of her class location and positioned her as part of the international presence that this gentrifying space was targeting and whose movement among establishments was encouraged. She received free entry, free drinks, exceptional hospitality, and invitations to private parties, and her movements were closely monitored as she entered and exited establishments for the sake of “protecting a foreign tourist from street harassment” (interview with bar owner).

Overall, she experienced whiteness and class as equally embodied because these locations signaled her power as a “legitimate” consumer, allowing access to urban consumer sites and a privileged movement among gentrified spaces. This embodied experience of gentrified space differed from that of her gay hosts, who were often denied access to these establishments for being Filipino, young, working class, gay, and interested in foreigners. Contrarily, their bodies were constructed as a “threat” to urban renewal in the district.

Resisting Reinscription

Critical qualitative research is also concerned with the politics of representation in research. This requires a hard look at the implicit imperialisms of ethnographic work, including the tendency to go in and get out with abundant factual information, as well as the lasting impact of objectificatory research practices on fields of study. Such practices are evident in the now global rhetoric about the so-called Third World prostitute, who in both academic and journalistic renderings tends to be sensationalized and sexually Othered. This rendering is part of a long history of exoticization that has denied subjectivity and rendered invisible the lived experiences of sexual laborers around the world.

Such failed representations are part of what Kum-Kum Bhavnani (1993) has called “reinscription”—the tendency in research to freeze research participants and sites in time and space, thus rendering them both exotic and silenced. Reinscription denies agency to research participants and renders invisible the dynamic lived experiences of those same research participants. Doing research in both postcolonial and sexual spaces means that researchers must grapple with how our research participates in histories of reinscription—we both enter into and potentially contribute to a field that has been already “examined,” overstudied, and often exoticized. Thus, a critical qualitative approach is one that begins with a thorough understanding of these histories of representation so that we are not entering fields naïvely, as spaces only of exploration. Rather, we enter with knowledge of how the field has already been constituted for us through reinscription. A critical orientation has a core objective of understanding how our representations of research at all levels of the research process could contribute to exoticization by reinscribing participants and sites.

The issue of reinscription became particularly apparent when Dana Collins interviewed gay hosts and grappled with what appeared to be their elaboration of a contradictory picture of their sexual labor, as well as of their lives. In short, hosts tended to “lie,” remain silent, embellish “truths,” and articulate contradictory allusions to their life and labor in Malate. When Collins began her interviewing, she held the implicit objective of obtaining the “truth” about hosts’ lives, which she believed resided in “what they do” in the tourism industry. She was concerned with the “facts” about their lives, even though gay hosts were more likely to express their desire—desire for relations with foreigners, desire to migrate to a “gay” urban district, desire for rewarding work, and desire for community and social change. She struggled with many uncertainties about the discussions: how could they hold a range of “jobs” and attend school, yet spend most of their days and nights in Malate? How could they understand gay tourists as both boyfriends and clients? Why resist the label “sex worker” yet refer to themselves as “working boys” and claim to have “clients?” She struggled to make sense of the meanings that hosts offered even as she simultaneously felt misled concerning the “real” relations of hospitality.

Interviewing hosts about sexualized labor—as a way to produce a representation of sex work—did not facilitate the flow of candid information; hosts later expressed their view that sex work and their lives were already “overstudied.” Many researchers had previously descended on Malate to study sex work, and the district was a prime location for the outreach of HIV/AIDS organizations, some of which had breached the confidence of the gay host community. In short, Dana mistakenly started her research without the knowledge of Malate as a hyperrepresented field, and her research risked reinscribing gay hosts’ lives within that field as static and unchanging.

Importantly, those gay hosts who resisted becoming the “good research subjects” who give accurate and bountiful information, prompted a radical shift in her research framework. They told her stories about their imagined social lives, which encouraged her to rethink her commitment to researching sex work because the transformation of the discourses offered another view of the district, their work, and lives, one that offered a more visionary perspective. She began to focus less on “misinformation” and instead followed how hosts framed their lives. She treated these framings as social imaginings in which Malate features prominently in their understandings of gay identity, community, belonging, and change. In short, their social imaginings functioned as counternarratives to reinscription and offered their lived experience of urban gay place. Such imaginations expressed hope, fear, critique, and desire—in short, they present a utopic vision of identity, community, and urban change.

Integrating Lived Experience

Finally, critical qualitative research is a call to study lived experience, which is a messy, contradictory realm, but a deeply important one if we as critical researchers are truly interested in working against a history of research that has silenced those “under study” (see Weis & Fine, 2012 ). Paying attention to lived experience allows us to better engage with the contradictions mentioned earlier because lived experience is about understanding the meanings that research participants choose to share with researchers, and it is also about respecting their silences. As Kum-Kum Bhavnani (1993) has argued, silences can be as eloquent as words. Finally, integrating lived experience can take a critical qualitative project further because lived experience allows researchers to explore the epistemological relationship of the meanings and imaginings offered by research participants and to be explicit about the project of knowledge production. In other words, a central guiding question of critical qualitative research is how can research participants speak and shape epistemology, rather than solely being spoken about or being the subjects of epistemology?

Collins used hosts’ social imaginings as an epistemological contribution because their imaginings showed how hosts draw from experiences of urban gay community to articulate their desires for change, despite their simultaneous experiences of inequality and exclusion. We read social imaginings as a subjective rendering of urban place—the hosts’ social imaginings expressed their history, identity, subversive uses of urban space, and, ultimately, the symbolic reconstitution of that urban space. In this way, hosts were refiguring transnational urban space by writing themselves and their labor back into the district’s meaning, even as the global forces of tourism and urban renewal threatened to displace them.

In conclusion, we seek to highlight how critical research insists on the interplay of reflexivity, process, and practice. In particular, we encourage critical researchers to be mindful of the multiple meanings and usages of the term “critical” so that we can make more explicit our political interests and stand within our disciplines, the academy, our community, and the world. We offer dialectical materialism as a distinct mode of critical analysis that emphasizes an analysis of change in essence, practice, and struggle. We also suggest that, for researchers to be critical in their research, they should strive to take up research questions and projects that study change, contradictions, struggle, and practice in order to counter dominant interests and advance the well-being of the world’s majority. We should strive to build new research relationships—such as overcoming the faulty divides between researchers and research participants and by promoting systems of community accountability—that dialectically fuse research, political activism, and progressive social change.

Furthermore, we suggest that critical research can agitate against the homogeneity of ethnographic representation, allowing for the realities of people’s lives to come into view. Critical researchers recognize the contested fields of research; yet this requires our critical engagement with the research process, as a reflexive, empathetic, collective, self-altering, socially transformative, and embedded exercise in knowledge production. Therefore, critical research can resist imperialist research practices that are disembodied and that assume a singular social positioning. We use an imperative here to say that we must conduct research as embodied subjects who shift between multiple and limited locations. We also have to find more ways to remain accountable to our communities of research as a way to undo implicit imperialisms in social research. Critical research can work against the remnants of an objectivist and truth-seeking method that supports prevailing interests, classes, and groups while embracing research from social locations that offer situated knowledges and the possibility for greater shared understandings. Finally, critical research can engage the micropolitics of research and foreground the need for the accountability of researchers to resist reproducing epistemic violence.

This last is an idealist imagining of what should happen. However, a number of research projects have approximated closely to these goals.

Parts of our argument have appeared in some of our earlier work (e.g., Bhavnani & Talcott, 2011 ; Collins, 2009 ; 2002 ; Chua, 2001 ).

Although we, as the chapter’s three authors, do not usually use “we” in our writing as a general pronoun, it is the most direct way to offer our insights in this section.

Adorno, T. W. ( 1973 ). Negative dialectics . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Alcoff, L. , & Potter, E. (Eds.). ( 1993 ). Feminist epistemologies . New York: Routledge.

Asad, T. (Ed.). ( 1973 ). Anthropology and the colonial encounter . London: Ithaca Press.

Behar, R. ( 1993 ). Translated women: Crossing the border with Esperanza’s story . Boston: Beacon Press.

Bhavnani, K. -K. ( 1993 ). Tracing the contours: Feminist research and feminist Objectivity.   Women’s Studies International Forum , 16 (2), 95–104.

Bhavnani, K. -K. , Foran, J. , & Kurian, P. (Eds.). ( 2003 ). Feminist futures: Re-imagining women, culture, and development . London: Zed Books.

Bhavnani, K. -K. , & Talcott, M. ( 2011 ). Interconnections and configurations: Towards a global feminist ethnography. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 176–186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bonacich, E. ( 1998 ). Reflections on union activism.   Contemporary Sociology , 27 (2), 129–132.

Bonacich, E. , & Wilson, J. B. ( 2008 ). Getting the goods: Ports, labor, and logistics revolution . Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press.

Boserup, E.   1970 . Women’s Role in Economic Development . New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Browne, K. , & Nash, C. J. (Eds.). ( 2010 ). Queer methods and methodologies: Intersecting queer theories and social science research . Burlington, VA: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Burawoy, M. ( 1998 ). The extended case method.   Sociological Theory , 16 (1), 4–33.

Burawoy, M. ( 2003 ). Revisits: Outline of a theory of reflexive ethnography.   American Sociological Review , 68 , 645–679.

Carroll, W. (Ed.). ( 2004 ). Critical strategies for social research . Ontario: Canadian Scholars Press.

Carspecken, P. F. ( 1996 ). Critical Ethnography in Educational Research: A theoretical and practical guide . New York: Routledge.

Carruyo, L. ( 2011 ). Producing knowledge, protecting forests: Rural encounters with gender, ecotourism, and international aid in the Dominican Republic . Philadelphia: Penn State University Press.

Choudry, A. ( 2011 ). On knowledge, learning and research in struggle. In C. Fanelli & P. Lefebvre (Eds.), Uniting struggles: Critical social research in critical times (pp. 175– 194). Ontario: Red Quill Books.

Clifford, J. ( 1998 ). The predicament of culture: Twentieth-century ethnography, literature, and art . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chua, P. (2001). Condom matters and social inequalities: Inquiries into condom production, exchange, and advocacy practices . PhD. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.

Chua, P. ( 2006 ). Bloodshed and coercive communal peace negotiations. In R. Tolentino & S. Raymundo (Eds.), Kontra-gahum: Academics against political killings (pp. 42–57). Quezon City, Philippines: IBON Publishing.

Chua, P. ( 2007 ). Corporatizing public education in the Philippines: The case of USAID and the Ayala Foundation. In B. Lumbera , R. Guillermo , & A. Alamon (Eds.), Mula Tore Patungong Palengke: Neoliberal education in the Philippines (pp. 115–125). Quezon City, Philippines: IBON Publishing.

Chua, P. ( 2012 ). National schooling in crisis: Neoliberal policies and the 2011 justice campaign for the PGCPS Filipino overseas contract teachers.   Pingkian , 1 (1), 45–58.

Collins, D. M. (2002). Laboring districts, pleasuring sites: Hospitality, “gay” life, and the production of urban sexual space in Manila . Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.

Collins, D. ( 2005 ). Identity, mobility, and urban placemaking: Exploring gay life in Manila.   Gender and Society , 19 (2), 180–198.

Collins, D. ( 2007 ). When sex work isn’t “work”: Hospitality, gay life, and the production of desiring labor.   Tourist Studies , 7 (2), 115–139.

Collins, D. ( 2009 ). “ We’re there and queer”: Homonormative mobility and lived experience among gay expatriates in Manila.   Gender and Society , 23 (4), 465–493.

Comaroff, J. , & Comaroff, J. L. ( 2012 ). Theory from the South: How Euro-America is evolving towards Africa . Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

D’Souza, R. ( 2009 ). The prison houses of knowledge: Activist scholarship and revolution in the era of globalization.   McGill Journal of Education , 44 (1), 19–38.

Degiuli, F. ( 2007 ). A job with no boundaries: Home eldercare work in Italy.   European Journal of Women’s Studies , 14 (3), 193–207.

Delanty, G. ( 2005 ). Social science: Philosophical and methodological foundations (2nd ed.). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

Denzin, N. K. ( 2001 ). Interpretive interactionism . Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications.

Engels, F. (1877/ 1969 ). Anti-Dühring . London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Fernandes, L. ( 2003 ). Transforming feminist practice: Non-violence, social justice, and the possibilities of a spiritualized feminism . San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.

Fonow, M. M. , & Cook, J. A. (Eds.). ( 1991 ). Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Giroux, H. A. ( 2009 ). Democracy’s nemesis. The rise of the corporate university.   Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies , 9 (5), 669–695.

Gouldner, A. ( 1970 ). The coming crisis of American sociology . New York: Basic Books.

Gramsci, A. ( 1971 ). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci . ( Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith , Eds. & Trans.). New York: International Publishers.

Greenwood, D. J. ( 2012 ). Doing and learning action research in the neo-liberal world of contemporary higher education.   Action Research , 10 (2), 115–132.

Guenther, K. M. ( 2009 ). The impact of emotional opportunities on the emotion cultures of feminist organizations.   Gender and Society , 23 (3), 337–362.

Habermas, J. ( 1985 ). The theory of communicative action: vol. 2: Lifeword and system: A critique of functionalist reason . Boston: Beacon Press.

Haraway, D. ( 1988 ). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective.   Feminist Studies , 14 (3), 575–599.

Harding, S. ( 1991 ). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Harvey, D. ( 1996 ). Justice, nature, and the geography of difference . Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publisher.

Harvey, L. ( 1990 ). Critical social research . London: Routledge.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. , & Leavy, P. ( 2006 ). The practice of qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ho, K. ( 2009 ). Liquidated: An Ethnography of Wall Street . Durham: Duke University Press.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. ( 2007 ). Domestica: Immigrant workers cleaning and caring in the shadows of affluence (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hunter, L. , Emerald, E. , & Martin, G. ( 2013 ). Participatory activist research in the globalised world . Düsseldorf: Springer.

Hussey, I. ( 2012 ). “Political activist as ethnographer” revisited.   Canadian Journal of Sociology , 37 (1), 1–23.

Jordan, S. , & Yeomans, D. ( 1995 ). Critical ethnography: Problems in contemporary theory and practice.   British Journal of Sociology of Education , 16 (3), 389–408.

Kant, I. (1781/ 1965 ). The critique of pure reason . New York: St. Martins Press.

Kang, M. ( 2010 ). The managed hand: Race, gender, and the body in beauty service work . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kondo, D. K. ( 1990 ). Crafting selves: Power, gender, and discourses of identity in a Japanese workplace . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lenin, V. I. (1915/ 1977 ). On the question of dialectics. In Collected works (vol. 38, pp. 357–361). Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Lewin, E. , & Leap, W. L. (Eds.). ( 1996 ). Out in the field: Reflections of lesbian and gay anthropologists . Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Lodhia, S. ( 2010 ). Constructing an imperfect citizen-subject: Globalization, national “security,” and violence against South Asian women.   Women’s Studies Quarterly , 38 (1), 161–177.

Lukacs, G. ( 1971 ). History and class consciousness . ( R. Livingstone ,)Trans.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mao, Z. ( 1990 ). Lecture notes on dialectical materialism . In N. Knight (Ed.), Mao Zedong on dialectical materialism: Writings on philosophy, 1937 (pp. 84–131). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Madison, D. S. ( 2012 ). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Marchand, M. H. ( 1995 ). Latin American women speak on development: Are we listening yet? In M. H. Marchand & J. L. Parpart (Eds.), Feminism/postmodernism/development (pp. 56–72). London: Routledge.

Marcus, G. E. ( 1998 ). Ethnography through thick and thin . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Marcuse, H. ( 1968 ). Negations: Essays in critical theory . Boston: Beacon Press.

Marx, K. (1845/ 1976 ). Thesis on Feuerbach. In Marx and Engels collected works (vol. 5, pp. 3–9). New York: International Publishers.

Mohanty, C. T. ( 2003 ). Feminism without borders: Decolonizing theory, practicing solidarity . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Reinharz, S. , & Davidman, L. (Eds.). ( 1992 ). Feminist methods in social research . New York: Oxford University Press.

Negri, A. ( 1999 ). Insurgencies: Constituent power and the modern state . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Noblit, G. W. , Flores, S. Y. , & Murillo, E. G. ( 2004 ). Postcritical ethnography: Reinscribing critique . New York: Hampton Press.

Novelli, M. ( 2006 ). Imagining research as solidarity and grassroots globalisation: A response to Appadurai (2001).   Globalisation, Societies and Education , 4 (2), 275–286.

Ollman, B. ( 2003 ). Dance of the dialectic: Steps in Marx’s method . Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Pavlidis, P. ( 2012 ). The antinomic condition of the university: “Universal labour” beyond “academic capitalism.”   Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies , 10 (2), 139–159.

Ray, R. ( 2006 ). Is the revolution missing or are we looking in the wrong places?   Social Problems , 53 (4), 459–465.

Reilly, K. ( 2009 ). Key concepts in ethnography . London: Sage Publications.

Quantz, R. A. ( 1992 ). On critical ethnography (with some postmodern considerations). In M. S. Lecompte , W. L. Millroy , & J. Preissle (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 447–505). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Skeggs, B. ( 1994 ). Situating the production of feminist ethnography. In M. Maynard (Ed.), Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective (pp. 72–81). London: Routledge.

Smith, D. ( 2007 ). Institutional ethnography: From a sociology for women to a sociology of the people. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 409–416). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Smith, L. T. ( 1999 ). Decolonizing methodologies . London: Zed Books.

Stoecker, R. ( 2012 ). Research methods for community change: A project based approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Strydom, P. ( 2011 ). Contemporary critical theory and methodology . London: Routledge.

Talcott, M. ( 2010 ). As neoliberal crises persist, indigenous-led movements resist: Examining the current social and political-economic conjuncture in southern Mexico. In R. A. Dello Buono & D. Fasenfest (Eds.), Social change, resistance and social practices (pp. 131–148). Boston: Brill Publishers.

Thomas, J. ( 1993 ). Doing critical ethnography . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Weis, L. , & Fine, M. ( 2012 ). Critical bifocality and circuits of privilege: Expanding critical ethnographic theory and design.   Harvard Educational Review , 82 (2), 173–201.

Williams, R. ( 1976 ). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society . New York: Oxford University Press.

Zinn, M. B. ( 1979 ). Field research in minority communities: Ethical, methodological and political observations by an insider.   Social Problems , 27 (2), 209–219.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Qualitative Research in the Post-Modern Era pp 29–58 Cite as

An Introduction to Critical Approaches

• Robert E. White   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8045-164X 3 &
• Karyn Cooper 4  
• First Online: 29 September 2022

1216 Accesses

As can be understood from the previous chapter, in qualitative research, words are used as data rather than numerical representations (Miles & Huberman, 1994). All qualitative methods rely on linguistic information rather than on statistical evidence. As such, they tend to employ meaning-based (as opposed to numerical-based) data analysis (Polkinghorne, 1983). Thus, qualitative research utilizes data in the form of text, which, in turn, serves to furnish a detailed analysis of a situation, a case, a subject or an event through original analysis (Creswell, 2013). In qualitative research, data is usually collected and analyzed on fewer participants and situations (Patton, 2014) than is commonly found in quantitative research practices. The previous chapter introduced a short history of qualitative research as it relates to quantitative research endeavours. The current chapter devotes itself to a discussion of a number of approaches to qualitative research, specifically the critical approach.

The reliance on personal experience is the main building block, the main distinction of qualitative research. Not so much feelings, not so much how do we feel about things, but what is the experience as felt, as told, as manifest in the things that we do. Robert Stake, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . University of California Press.

Google Scholar  

Butler, T. (1998). Towards a hermeneutic method for interpretive research in information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 13 (4), 285–300.

Article   Google Scholar  

Collins, H. (2010). Creative research: The theory and practice of research for the creative industries . AVA Publications.

Comte, A. (1908). A general view of positivism (Trans. J. A. Bridges). Routledge.

Cooper, K., & White, R. E. (2012). Qualitative research in the post-modern era: Contexts of qualitative research . Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

Crossman, A. (2017). What is positivism in sociology? Background and theory of positivism . Retrieved October 25, 2017 from https://www.thoughtco.com/positivism-sociology-3026456

Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language . Prentice Hall.

Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge . New Left Books.

Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs. interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21 (2), 135–146.

Henning, E., Van Rensburg, W., & Smit, B. (2004). Finding your way in qualitative research . Van Schaik Publishers.

Horgan, J. (1993). Profile: Paul Karl Feyerabend—The worst enemy of science. Scientific American, 268 (5), 36–37.

Krippendorff, K. H. (2003). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology . Sage.

Marx, K. (1867/2012). Das kapital: A critique of political economy . Regnery Publishing.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Sage.

Myers, M., & Avison, D. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research in information systems. In M. Myers & D. Avison (Eds.), Qualitative research in information systems: A reader . Sage.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ong, Y. S. (2016). Reexamining education research methodologies—Collaborative rather than competitive. Bulgarian Journal of Science & Education Policy, 10 (1), 124–141.

Orbe, M. P., & Kinefuchi, E. (2008). Crash under investigation: Engaging complications of complicity, coherence, and implicature through critical analysis. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 25 (2), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295030802032275

Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2 (1), 1–28.

Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory & practice (4th ed.). Sage.

Polkinghorne, D. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences . Human Sciences Press.

Popper, K. R. (1979). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach . Oxford University Press.

Shusterman, R. (2004). Pragmatism and East-Asian thought. Metaphilosophy, 35 (1/2), 13–43.

Thomas, V. G., & Madison, A. (2010). Integration of social justice into the teaching of evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31 (4), 570–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010368426

Trauth, E. M. (Ed.). (2001). Qualitative research in IS: Issues and trends . Idea Group.

Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches . Sage.

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy . University of Chicago Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS, Canada

Robert E. White

OISE, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Karyn Cooper

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert E. White .

Transformative Potentials of Critical Educational Inquiry

Emma Simmons

The foundational questions to critical work are: Who/what is helped/privileged/legitimated? Who/what is harmed/oppressed/disqualified?

(Cannella & Lincoln, 2009, p. 54)

Critical inquiry has been criticized for creating illusions of justice and being unable to transform the situations of the oppressed. Critics have voiced concerns for the paradoxical nature of critical inquiry, arguing that by providing alternative understandings of social phenomena, critical inquirers send a message that the oppressed are partly responsible for their situations due to their lack of “ appropriate” knowledge. In this article, we discuss the transformative potentials of critical educational inquiry. We use five contexts of qualitative research, namely, autobiographical, historical, political, postmodern, and philosophical to explore the possibilities of critical inquiry in educational research. We also use an article by Deborah Hicks (2005) to exemplify how critical research may be transformative and empowering by involving the researched in a process of inquiry characterized by negotiation and reciprocity.

critical inquiry, educational research, contexts of qualitative research, empowerment

Introduction

Critical theory generally refers to the theoretical traditions developed by a number of scholars affiliated with the Institute of Social Research at the University of Frankfurt in the mid-twentieth century. This group of scholars, including Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse, situated this inquiry within German philosophical, social, and political thoughts and traditions. Very soon, the life and work of these scholars were heavily influenced by the devastation of World War I, along with resulting economic crises and political instability. They believed that reinterpretations of society were necessary, during an infamous period in history, when various forms of injustice and subjugation were shaping their world. Unfortunately, only a decade after the establishment of the Frankfurt School, the Nazis overtook Germany in body and mind. The leading scholars of the Frankfurt School decided (or were forced) to move to the United States. However, they were shocked by many aspects of American culture, especially the unquestioned acceptance of empirical practices of American social science research. In 1953, Horkheimer and Adorno decided to return to Germany in order to revitalize the Institute of Social Research, but Marcuse chose to stay in the United States and continue his work in social science research and theorization (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2011).

All members of the Frankfurt School championed a vision of a more just society, in which people have not only an equal access to desirable things but also control over the economic, political and cultural aspects of their lives. They argued that the oppressed and exploited people would be emancipated only if they were empowered to transform their situations by themselves. This theoretical tradition is called “critical” because the promoters of this theory “saw the route to emancipation as being a kind of self-conscious critique which problematizes all social relations, in particular those of and within the discursive practices of power, especially technical rationalism” (Tripp, 1992, p. 13).

Although frequently referenced in social science literature, critical theory has also been misinterpreted, misunderstood and accused of being patriarchal and re-inscribing old power structures. For example, Elizabeth Ellsworth (1989) famously questioned the ability of critical theory to empower the oppressed and transform their situations. To avoid confusion in our discussion, we conceptualize critical theory as a framework to understand “issues of power and justice and the ways that the economy; matters of race, class, and gender; ideologies; discourses; education; religion and other social institutions; and cultural dynamics interact to construct a social system” (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2011, p. 288).

Because of its emancipatory nature, critical theory is different from traditional empiricist theories in three important ways (Schwandt, 2007). First, it is a self-reflective, democratic discourse in the sense that it relinquishes normative and accepted understandings of the social order and adopts a lens of critical reconsideration. Second, unlike the empiricist tradition in which the theorist is disinterested in and detached from the research subjects, critical inquiry is closely related to praxis [i.e., action + reflection = word = work = praxis] (for details, see Freire, 1970). Third, critical inquiry “employs the method of immanent critique, working from within categories of existing thought in order to radicalize those categories, reveal their internal contradictions and shortcomings, and demonstrate their unrecognized possibilities” (Schwandt, 2007, p. 55). Therefore, when research is carried out from the perspectives of critical theory, it aims to identify various forms of power and “seeks in its analyses to plumb the archaeology of taken-for-granted perspectives to understand how unjust and oppressive social conditions came to be reified as historical ‘givens’” (Cannella & Lincoln, 2009, p. 54).

The critical theory tradition has been taken into the field of education by a number of scholars, “but most notably by Paulo Freire in his work with oppressed minorities which gave rise to the term critical pedagogy , meaning teaching-learning from within the principles of critical theory” (Tripp, 1992, p. 13). Other scholars, such as Michael Apple, Henry Giroux, Joe Kincheloe and Peter McLaren have taken up critical theory to unpack politics of education, epistemological violence, control of teachers and learners, commodification of knowledge, and how schools reproduce social, economic, political, and cultural inequalities. In addition to identifying these oppressive roles of education, they have also provided the language of possibility .

In this article, we explore critical inquiry through five contexts, namely, autobiographical, historical, political, postmodern, and philosophical. Karyn Cooper and Robert White (2012) propose these five contexts as “a theoretical framework for conducting, understanding, and interpreting qualitative research” (p. 23). Throughout our exploration, we use Deborah Hicks’ (2005) article “Cultural hauntings: Girlhood fictions from working-poor America” as an example of reflexive, advocacy-centred critical inquiry. In this article, Hicks delineates links between third and fourth-grade girls’ fascination with horror fiction, layered dimensions of their voice and identity, and the complexities of growing up in a predominantly white working-poor community. Using the five contexts of qualitative research (Cooper & White, 2012) as a theoretical framework with reference to Hicks (2005), as an example of critical inquiry, we present our analysis of and insights into the possibilities for and realities for empowerment in critical education research.

Autobiographical Context

One of the over-arching aims of critical inquiry is to include various perspectives in academia and to acknowledge that the stories and voices of particular groups have long been underrepresented in conversation of research. Critical inquiry has paved the way for, and continues to incorporate, the lenses of feminist theory, critical race theory and class analyses, among others, and ultimately seeks to challenge the canonical frames of academia that have allowed for only one reality. The autobiographical context provides a step forward in that challenge, and many practitioners of critical inquiry have used the autobiographical context both to inform their larger critiques and also to situate themselves within the larger discourse. Race and gender theorists such as Gloria Anzaldua (1987), bell hooks (1994), and Beverly Daniel Tatum (1997) weave their autobiographies throughout their critical analyses in order to establish the inextricability between their lived experience and their perspective regarding the world around them.

As described in Cooper and White (2012), the autobiographical context is a way to highlight the researcher’s own perspective in order to better establish a connection between researcher, researched and reader, as well as to contextualize the research produced. Without an autobiographical context, the researcher and, in fact, the research itself would be disembodied and without a human source. As a reader, one would be unable to understand both the insights and the blind spots that the researcher brings to an investigation without an understanding of the author’s preconceived ideologies and experiences: “To use a metaphor, viewing a work of art without contextualizing it in terms of our knowledge about the artist tends to limit our understanding of the painting itself” (Cooper & White, 2012, p. 33). Before theorists in the latter half of the 20 th century began to call into question the positionalities within the academy, the autobiography of the researcher was hidden, leading to an inability to trust the work produced, and an “othering” of the subject.

Referencing William Pinar, Cooper and White (2012) highlight the use of autobiography in research, noting that it need not be a self-indulgent exercise. Pinar demonstrates, through his method of currere, that autobiography is a part of a larger context. His four steps allow researchers to incorporate their lived experiences into their larger research and, in fact, study themselves in order to ask and understand the question, “What do I make of what I have been made?” (Cooper & White, 2012, p. 34). As critical inquiry attempts to inspire new ways of thinking, it simultaneously follows the steps that Pinar lays out—regressive, progressive, analytical, and synthetical. These steps give us the opportunity first to look back on our formative experiences, then forward to where we desire to go. The third step looks at our present, while being informed by our past and future and, fourth, we bring all three pieces together in order to understand our ways of understanding (Pinar, 1975).

Hicks’ (2005) relies heavily on the autobiographical context to perform her critical inquiry. Within her analysis, she interweaves her own autobiography, as well as those of her students. Hicks’ voice as the researcher and author is never lost within her writing; her choices, observations and interactions are always deeply embedded within her work. In fact, the writing/research process and the choices she has made within that are all reflective of her positionality, and she makes no secret of that. In so doing, she avoids the problem of the researcher’s gaze which, gone unmentioned, can affect the ways in which the reader sees the subjects of the research, ultimately skewing the reader’s response and, perhaps in turn, any action taken as a result of her research. As Cooper and White (2012) discuss, by being autobiographically expository, one ensures that both researcher and reader are using the same tools to understand and view the subjects of the research. By revealing our subjectivity, we actually allow more space for our reader to be objective.

In addition to being honest about her own autobiography, we would also argue that Hicks presents what functions almost as an autobiography of the community where she conducted her research. More than simply contextualizing her students’ narratives, the way in which she describes the setting of the classroom leads the reader to feel as if the place is in and of itself. She describes its position on the economic margins of the city by stating that the middle-class “might drive through on the way to something else, noting in passing the ghostly frames of abandoned warehouses or the thick, gray smoke churned out from one of the few working factories” (p. 172).

While this contextualization also has its place in discussions of both the historical and political context, it is raised here as well. Hicks regards the space that her subjects live in with her particular eye and mindset, and gives a specific meaning to both their autobiographies and the very act of contextualization. In doing so, Hicks provides her individual subjects with more of a universality, a way to posit that narrative need not be insular and without academic merit. The research question, as stated by Hicks, is “what was it like to grow up as a girl in contemporary working-poor America?” (p. 172). Thus, her focus on the economic and structural context of her subjects is vital to the larger underpinnings of her research, for which horror novels become merely a vehicle and not the point, in themselves.

The third modality in which we see the autobiographical context at play is, of course, in the narratives of the girls themselves. Hicks uses bell hooks (1994), Myles Horton (1990) and Paulo Freire (1970) as a framework, all three of whom centered both their pedagogies and their scholarship within a context of dialogue so the human aspect of each of the girls’ experiences is vital to the analysis that Hicks is attempting to construct. We learn about these girls through our understanding of their community and through their understandings of and interactions with the books that Hicks posits as “subversive” texts (p. 174). As Hicks describes their reactions to the texts, their previous experience with different genres and the choices that they make, we are able to understand the girls both as individuals, and within their larger contexts.

In Inquiry and Reflection, Diane Dubose Brunner (1994) talks about representations of student experience in various forms of media (pp. 153-186), a topic that is also tackled quite often by both bell hooks and Henry Giroux. By investigating how these girls read different texts, Hicks provides us a new reading of the girls themselves. Brunner talks about the way in which language has been used to describe students, especially along class lines, in television, film and literature, as well as the ways in which students, themselves, have been depicted as using (or conversely, failing to use) language. Hicks’ framing of her larger point of inquiry, the ways in which language and linguistic practices are both reflective and constructive of their material and cultural lives is an investigation into the very way that fictional depictions of youth in educational spaces disembodies them from their contexts, a process described by Brunner (1994). By focusing on the autobiography and narrative experience of herself, her students, and their teacher, Hicks is able to re-contextualize these experiences.

Historical Context

Moving through the five contexts of critical inquiry, we arrive at the historical context. Cooper and White (2012) open their discussion of the historical context with the African proverb, “Until the lion has his own historian, the hunter will always be the hero” (p. 52). This proverb is central to the ideas of a critical, historical analysis. Without questioning, “Whose history is it?” we are unable to look critically at the stories that we have taken as truth (p. 52). Denzin and Lincoln (2005) do just this by going through what they depict as the eight moments of qualitative research. They move from the traditional, through modernist, blurred genres, crisis of representation, and finally, the triple crisis. As they move through these moments, we see the history of qualitative research in varying complexities itself, as it is opened to new voices, new ways of knowing, seeing and understanding.

There are, of course, numerous scholars who aim to illustrate both a critical and historical understanding of their subjects. One such scholar, whose work seems of particular relevance to Hicks’ content and analysis, is David Roediger (1993). By developing a history of American racial construction through the paradigm of whiteness, Roediger takes both a critical and historical look at the ways in which our understanding of self, power, poverty and privilege are informed by the history of racial construction, as well as the history of labour in the United States. As Hicks discusses the working poor character of the town that her work is centered in, Roediger’s (1993) analysis of how labour history and the history of slavery becomes particularly critical to our understandings of the intersections of whiteness and working class identities, as posited by Hicks (2005).

Gloria Ladson-Billings (1995, 1999) also captures a historical context in her analyses of education and race, uniting the contexts of critical race theory and critical pedagogy. By tracing notions of racial segregation and looking at cultural deprivation, Ladson-Billings is able to reclaim the ways that we look at modern schooling and the ways that we talk about racial disparities in education. In so doing, the historical perspective in critical inquiry acts as a counter-argument to sometimes dangerous modes of thinking, such as the “deficit” model of education. Hicks continues this tradition by highlighting the voices of subjects schooled within a working class context, as well as by demonstrating positive examples of engaged learning.

Many of Hicks’ methodological and writing strategies demonstrate a strong connection to the historical context. Firstly, she contextualizes the geographic location based on historical understanding. She discusses its physical make-up, position within the larger urban space and, also, demographic profiles within a historical context. The critical inquiry piece here is that neighborhoods do not simply arise, just as residents are not divorced from their space—neighborhoods themselves do not exist separately from the forces that construct them (Hicks, 2005). She specifically mentions factors such as factory closings that occurred long before her students were born, largely as a means to highlight the ways in which communities live under the economic shadows of what came before. It is clear within a historical context that events do not just happen and dissipate; they continue to have an effect on what comes after them.

Hicks is also able to engage with the historical context by extending her study over a year-long period (She even goes so far as to refer to her data as a “history” (p. 173)). By looking at the girls over a period of time, she engages with notions of change. The other way in which she engages with the historical context is by situating her methodology and theoretical framework within a trajectory of study, wherein she cites the work of Gee (2004) and other practitioners of new literacy studies. In so doing, she draws a historical lens over her specific research, as well as engaging in a larger theoretical conversation.

Political Context

Within critical theory, it is impossible to create barriers between the political, postmodern, and philosophical contexts. Like the postmodern world we live in, they are liquid, and flow into each other at different times of the research and inquiry process. First and foremost, we currently live in the postmodern era and, thus, all contemporary research is firmly rooted within that particular framework. Secondly, if, as Pinar (1978) claims, all intellectual acts are inherently political, then any act of research by an individual or institution is, of course, political as well. Finally, thoughtful considerations of philosophy hold these concepts together and, through the philosophical context, dialogue and discourse are created to enable change. Nonetheless, the political aspect of critical theory is interwoven into all four contexts and must always be present in any research that aims to be called “critical.”

The Frankfurt School, notably Max Horkheimer, is central in exploring the political context of critical theory. Horkheimer (1972) states in his pivotal work, Critical Theory , that there cannot be many defined criteria for critical theory, as it is a product of its political, social, cultural, and economic contexts and is, thus, continually changing; however, he argues that critical theory must always contain the unfaltering “concern for the abolition of social injustice” (p. 242), a sentiment echoed by scholars such as Giroux (2004) and Lather (1986).

Lather (1986), in particular, argues that researchers should employ critical theory in order to avoid the “rape model” of research—namely, objectifying and “othering” one’s research subject. Critical theory can help researchers and institutions build and maintain “a more collaborative approach...to empower the researched, to build emancipatory theory, and to move toward the establishment of data credibility within praxis-oriented, advocacy research” (Lather, 1986, p. 272). Essentially, the goal of critical theory should be to encourage and facilitate emancipatory change for the oppressed, marginalized and misunderstood. For example, in her article, Hicks investigates—and eventually advocates for—the typically “hidden face of poverty” or the hidden “white” face of poverty. Intrigued and surprised by the “predominant Whiteness of the neighbourhood” (p. 171), where she situates her research, Hicks draws attention to an often overlooked area in urban poverty research.

The change called for in critical inquiry can be demonstrated through the realization of agency, which is central to the political context, and to critical inquiry as well: “the political contexts at work within society impact upon one’s sense of agency” (Cooper & White, 2012, p. 72). In Hicks’ article, her goal (though flawed by her own middle-class biases and preconceptions of the working-poor) was to investigate the experience of girlhood in working-poor America, and how the school language practices—mainly reading novels—were “layered within their cultural and material lives” (p. 172). Though her research began with a more observational rather than advocacy focus, Hicks accomplished the praxis-oriented research that is often advocated by Lather (1986) and other critical researchers and theorists. When one student, Brandy, voiced her newfound confidence and proclaimed that “We can start to control this [their situation] by just sitting down and talking” (p. 184), she demonstrated that she had begun to realize her agency—the first step towards the change that critical theory champions.

The students in Hicks’ research also struggled with “juggling the tension and ambiguity of their class differences in a middle-class school culture” (p. 173). This is clearly evident in Hicks’ demonstration of her own middle-class cultural capital, when she attempts to begin the course with a text that the girls simply did not relate to, involving a cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1985) that rested outside of their realm of experience. Instead, the girls chose to focus on a type of text that was familiar to them: horror paperbacks. This shift in the types of literature that the students gravitated towards raises some critical questions: Are students in working-poor, urban neighbourhoods only capable of consuming simple, seemingly “low brow” texts? Should educators push those students beyond their comfortable reading environment into something more literary?

It is here that the true task of critical inquiry begins to take shape: “Literary” for whom, exactly? Why are these texts considered to be “low brow?” Why do we feel the need to teach certain accepted texts within the English classroom? While not specifically stating that these questions entered her research, Hicks displays in her article her engagement with these issues, as she questions her own cultural capital and decides to investigate, instead, the possibilities that lay within the horror paperbacks for unveiling the layered meanings of her students’ identities.

By taking this critical approach, Hicks’ grounds herself in the realm of critical pedagogy for political and social change—after reflecting on and altering her preconceptions of the cultural awareness and capital of her students, she provided them with a forum to be heard and to express their own cultural hauntings. Bauman (1997) claims that “the key to a problem as large as social justice lies in a problem as (ostensibly) small-scale as the primal moral act of taking up responsibility for the other nearby” (p. 70)—while Hicks may not have solved the issue of social justice, her research and willingness to speak and listen to these young girls illustrates her commitment to this group in working-poor America.

Postmodern Context

Critical theory argues that, in our postmodern society, normative assumptions and dominant perspectives of politics, culture and society often remain unquestioned. Horkheimer (1972) proposes that we re-evaluate our interactions and place within society a renewed consciousness that is “dominated at every turn by a concern for reasonable conditions of life” (pp. 198-199). Of course, the critical researcher must question and define what is meant by “reasonable conditions of life;” the researcher must also focus on how that is attainable for each individual. For many theorists, the key lies in the search for individual and collective agency. For example, once the young girls in Hicks’ class developed and discovered their personal stories and voices, they were able to create a larger, collaborative agency that, potentially, could be heard outside of their small, working-poor neighbourhood classroom.

Central to the postmodern context is the move from a producer to a consumer society, and the power dynamics that occur as a result—a concept encountered by many critical theorists and researchers. Foucault (1982) claims that, for society to progress to a more equitable and open society, we are in desperate need of a “new economy of power relations” (p. 779). However, as Giroux (2004) notes, it is important to remember that, within our capitalist, postmodern society, power does not disappear but, rather, becomes reworked, replayed and restaged; perhaps that reworking of power can result from the turn from consumer to producer.

Bauman also voices his concern for our movement from a producer society to a consumer society and notes that, “if unchecked, [it] will spell dire consequences for humanity” (quoted in Cooper & White, 2012, p. 86). He further explains that the concept of choice, and the deceptively simple ability to choose, is yet another crucial component of our postmodern condition, rooted in the dichotomy of producer and consumer. Surrounded by menial daily choices of what espresso drink to purchase, television program to fit into our schedule or Twitter account to follow, it is clear that our postmodern society values choice. Bauman would argue, however, that these are quick, meaningless choices that require little to no responsibility once the choice has been made, but it is these choices that create and shape our identities, only to be “adopted and discarded like a change of costume” (1997, p. 88).

In Hicks’ article, her students began as consumers. They were drawn to the paperback horrors because of their distribution and saturation within the media, from television programs such as Goosebumps , as well as other film interpretations of the genre. However, once they began creating the same horror texts that they originally consumed and became producers, they found their voices and became individuals with their own sense of agency and the awareness of their autobiographical situation within their postmodern, political world.

Even so, Hicks’ students do not have the same choices as many of their middle-class counterparts. Our consumer-driven society emphasizes the constant need for choice, yet so many fail to have the privilege of choice. Indeed, the word “fail” might seem insensitive and severe but, in a consumer-driven society, members of the working-poor have neither the ability nor the means to choose and participate in material culture. In her article, Hicks observes that her students fail to meet the material standards of the dominant, middle-class culture and, therefore, their ability to live within the consumer, postmodern world is gone; there are no jobs left in their area and, so, the “material possibilities” have disappeared for the youth in this working-poor neighbourhood (p. 170). In addition to their attempted participation in the middle-class consumer culture, the young girls also continuously struggle with “juggling the tension and ambiguity of their class differences in a middle-class school culture” (p. 173). If material possibilities are valued in identity construction in a postmodern consumer society, then the students’ inability to obtain them means a negation of individuality and agency and, thus, the potential for collective action and change.

Philosophical Context

The girls in Hicks’ summer school reading group may have juggled tensions and struggled with expression, but they certainly took matters into their own hands when they decided to circulate horror paperbacks amongst themselves. Hicks’ article illustrates a difference between education and schooling, and these young girls in working-poor America used the horror paperbacks as a means of creating their own form of education. Postmodern critical philosopher Maxine Greene (1988) notes the philosophical differences between schooling and education, and argues that “Education...encourages individuals to grow and to become, while schooling constrains students to become servants of a technocratic society” (Cooper & White, 2012, p. 106). This is particularly crucial to coming to an understanding of the dynamic nature of critical theory and, thus, critical pedagogy. Schooling, in Hicks’ situation, relied on a middle-class cultural capital that was not in the same sphere of experience as the education that the girls created for themselves, based on their interests and understandings. They began reading these texts as a self-created peer reading group and it was from this form of education, on the periphery of a middle-class school culture and environment, that the educator, Hicks, noticed the potential in exploring (and further complicating) the layered meanings of the girls’ identities.

Greene (1988) also states that imagination is central to developing one’s particular perspective and realizing one’s individual agency.

It takes imagination to become aware that a search is possible, and there are analogies here to the kind of learning we want to stimulate...it takes imagination on the part of the young people to perceive openings through which they can move. (Cooper & White, 2012, p. 110)

Greene’s (1988) emphasis on imagination paving the path to freedom is central to understanding the philosophical context of critical inquiry and also the philosophical context of Hick’s research. During a discussion of The Wizard of Oz, Hicks asked her students if, given the choice, they would choose to stay in Oz or go back to Kansas. One student, Shannon, imagines her escape from her current situation in a heartbreaking revelation:

I would choose Oz because it’s a beautiful land and up there you don’t hear no gunshots. And you don’t walk on glass and don’t hear people hollering and screaming at you like you do here. (Hicks, 2005, p. 183)

Shannon might not have made a plan of action for escaping her reality, but her imagination in this one instance displays her awareness of her political, social and economic situation, and her desire to escape. Picturing a better place—even one that is imaginary—could have been Shannon’s first step into plucking herself from her reality and escaping into a new one of change and autonomy (Greene, 1988).

Critics often blame critical inquiry for its emphasis on the language of critique, rather than the language of possibility. For example, Elizabeth Ellsworth (1989) expresses her doubt in critical inquiry’s empowering and transformative powers. She argues that “the discourse of critical pedagogy is based on rationalist assumptions that give rise to repressive myths,” and critical pedagogues “perpetuate relations of domination in their classrooms” (p. 297). Like Ellsworth, Viviane Robinson (1992) argues that there is a paradox at the heart of critical inquiry’s endeavours for emancipation. When critical researchers offer alternative understandings of subjects’ situations, their offer has two “arrogant” claims:

a) subjects’ (mis)understandings are at least in part responsible for the situation they find unacceptable; and (b) the alternative understandings offered by the critical social scientist, if acted on, would result in outcomes that are more effective and fulfilling than those currently experienced. (p. 346)

Nonetheless, critical inquiry is, by its nature, self-critical, and critical theorists assert that, while these may be potential issues, true critical inquiry inherently addresses these problems. Rather than criticizing the nature of critical inquiry, Canella and Lincoln (2009) identify three issues that may marginalize and disempower critical inquiry, thus impacting its reception amongst academic and general populations. First, a high level of abstraction and use of difficult language keep the work of critical inquiry away from broader audiences. Second, political forces often attack diversity and discredit critique. Finally, the rise of neoliberalism and hyper-capitalism suppress critical inquiry and privileges evidence-based, positivistic research.

In this article, we have used the five contexts for qualitative research (Cooper & White, 2012) to understand the possibilities for empowerment in critical educational research. In our analysis, Hicks’ (2005) article has provided examples of how teachers can adopt responsive and dialogic pedagogies that “start with close readings of students’ lives and voices” (p. 188). Through her constant reflective, self-critical, and participatory methodology, Hicks avoids the potential pitfalls of critical inquiry and, instead, epitomizes the language of possibility in critical inquiry. Thus, the five contexts of Cooper and White (2012) exemplified through Hicks (2005) illustrate the emancipatory potentials of critical educational research by engaging “the researched in a democratized process of inquiry characterized by negotiation, reciprocity, [and] empowerment” (Lather, 1986, p. 257).

Anzaldua, G. E. (1987). Borderlands/La Frontera: The new Mestiza  4th ed., San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books .

Bauman, Z. (1997). Postmodernity and its discontents . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Bauman, Z. (2005). Work, consumerism and the new poor . Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.

Brunner, D. D. (1994).  Inquiry and reflection: Framing narrative practice in education . Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Cannella, G. S., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2009). Deploying qualitative methods for critical social purposes. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and social justice (pp. 53-72). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Cooper, K. & White, R. E. (2012). Qualitative research in the post-modern era: Contexts of qualitative research . New York: Springer.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3 rd Ed. (pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59 (3), 297-324.

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8 (4), 777-795.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed . New York: Seabury Press.

Gee. J. P. (2004).  Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling . London: Routledge.

Giroux, H. (1988). Critical theory amid the politics of culture and voice: Rethinking the discourse of educational research. In R. Sherman & R. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods (pp. 190–210). New York: Palmer.

Giroux, H. A. (2000). Postmodern education and disposable youth. In P. P. Trifonas (Ed.), Revolutionary pedagogies: Cultural politics, instituting education, and the discourse of theory (pp. 174-195). New York: Routledge.

Giroux, H. A. (2004). Critical pedagogy and the postmodern/modern divide: Towards a pedagogy of democratization. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31 (1), 31-47.

Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom . New York: Teachers College Press.

Hicks, D. (2005). Cultural hauntings: Girlhood fictions from working-poor America. Qualitative Inquiry, 11 (2), 170-190.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.

Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical theory . Toronto: Herder and Herder.

Horton, M. & Freire, P. (1990). We Make the Road by Walking: Conversations on Education and Social Change. (Edited by B. Bell, J. Gaventa & J. Peters). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 279–313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2011). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In K. Hayes et al., (Eds.), Key work in critical pedagogy: Joe L. Kincheloe (pp. 285-326). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Ladson-Billings, G. J. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34 (3), 159-165.

Ladson-Billings, G. J. (1999). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race theory perspective. Review of Research in Education, 24 , 211-247.

Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56 (3), 257-277.

Pinar, W. F. (1975). Currere: toward reconceptualization. Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists , 396-414.

Pinar, W. F. (1978). The reconceptualization of curriculum studies. In D. J. Flinders and S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp. 149-157). New York: Routledge Falmer.

Robinson, V. M. J. (1992). Doing critical social science: dilemmas of control. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 5 (4), 345-359.

Roediger, D. (1993). Race and the working-class past in the United States: Multiple identities and the future of labor history. International Review of Social History, 38 , 127-143.

Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tatum, B. D. (1997). “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the. cafeteria?” And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.

Tripp, D. (1992). Critical theory and educational research. Issues in Educational Research , 2(1), 13-23.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

White, R.E., Cooper, K. (2022). An Introduction to Critical Approaches. In: Qualitative Research in the Post-Modern Era. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_2

Published : 29 September 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-85126-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-85124-8

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 25, Issue 1
• Critical appraisal of qualitative research: necessity, partialities and the issue of bias
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5660-8224 Veronika Williams ,
• Anne-Marie Boylan ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4597-1276 David Nunan
• Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences , University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter , Oxford , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Veronika Williams, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; veronika.williams{at}phc.ox.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111132

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

• qualitative research

Introduction

Qualitative evidence allows researchers to analyse human experience and provides useful exploratory insights into experiential matters and meaning, often explaining the ‘how’ and ‘why’. As we have argued previously 1 , qualitative research has an important place within evidence-based healthcare, contributing to among other things policy on patient safety, 2 prescribing, 3 4 and understanding chronic illness. 5 Equally, it offers additional insight into quantitative studies, explaining contextual factors surrounding a successful intervention or why an intervention might have ‘failed’ or ‘succeeded’ where effect sizes cannot. It is for these reasons that the MRC strongly recommends including qualitative evaluations when developing and evaluating complex interventions. 6

Critical appraisal of qualitative research

Is it necessary.

Although the importance of qualitative research to improve health services and care is now increasingly widely supported (discussed in paper 1), the role of appraising the quality of qualitative health research is still debated. 8 10 Despite a large body of literature focusing on appraisal and rigour, 9 11–15 often referred to as ‘trustworthiness’ 16 in qualitative research, there remains debate about how to —and even whether to—critically appraise qualitative research. 8–10 17–19 However, if we are to make a case for qualitative research as integral to evidence-based healthcare, then any argument to omit a crucial element of evidence-based practice is difficult to justify. That being said, simply applying the standards of rigour used to appraise studies based on the positivist paradigm (Positivism depends on quantifiable observations to test hypotheses and assumes that the researcher is independent of the study. Research situated within a positivist paradigm isbased purely on facts and consider the world to be external and objective and is concerned with validity, reliability and generalisability as measures of rigour.) would be misplaced given the different epistemological underpinnings of the two types of data.

Given its scope and its place within health research, the robust and systematic appraisal of qualitative research to assess its trustworthiness is as paramount to its implementation in clinical practice as any other type of research. It is important to appraise different qualitative studies in relation to the specific methodology used because the methodological approach is linked to the ‘outcome’ of the research (eg, theory development, phenomenological understandings and credibility of findings). Moreover, appraisal needs to go beyond merely describing the specific details of the methods used (eg, how data were collected and analysed), with additional focus needed on the overarching research design and its appropriateness in accordance with the study remit and objectives.

Poorly conducted qualitative research has been described as ‘worthless, becomes fiction and loses its utility’. 20 However, without a deep understanding of concepts of quality in qualitative research or at least an appropriate means to assess its quality, good qualitative research also risks being dismissed, particularly in the context of evidence-based healthcare where end users may not be well versed in this paradigm.

How is appraisal currently performed?

Appraising the quality of qualitative research is not a new concept—there are a number of published appraisal tools, frameworks and checklists in existence. 21–23  An important and often overlooked point is the confusion between tools designed for appraising methodological quality and reporting guidelines designed to assess the quality of methods reporting. An example is the Consolidate Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) 24 checklist, which was designed to provide standards for authors when reporting qualitative research but is often mistaken for a methods appraisal tool. 10

Broadly speaking there are two types of critical appraisal approaches for qualitative research: checklists and frameworks. Checklists have often been criticised for confusing quality in qualitative research with ‘technical fixes’ 21 25 , resulting in the erroneous prioritisation of particular aspects of methodological processes over others (eg, multiple coding and triangulation). It could be argued that a checklist approach adopts the positivist paradigm, where the focus is on objectively assessing ‘quality’ where the assumptions is that the researcher is independent of the research conducted. This may result in the application of quantitative understandings of bias in order to judge aspects of recruitment, sampling, data collection and analysis in qualitative research papers. One of the most widely used appraisal tools is the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) 26 and along with the JBI QARI (Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Assessment Instrument) 27 presents examples which tend to mimic the quantitative approach to appraisal. The CASP qualitative tool follows that of other CASP appraisal tools for quantitative research designs developed in the 1990s. The similarities are therefore unsurprising given the status of qualitative research at that time.

Frameworks focus on the overarching concepts of quality in qualitative research, including transparency, reflexivity, dependability and transferability (see box 1 ). 11–13 15 16 20 28 However, unless the reader is familiar with these concepts—their meaning and impact, and how to interpret them—they will have difficulty applying them when critically appraising a paper.

The main issue concerning currently available checklist and framework appraisal methods is that they take a broad brush approach to ‘qualitative’ research as whole, with few, if any, sufficiently differentiating between the different methodological approaches (eg, Grounded Theory, Interpretative Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis) nor different methods of data collection (interviewing, focus groups and observations). In this sense, it is akin to taking the entire field of ‘quantitative’ study designs and applying a single method or tool for their quality appraisal. In the case of qualitative research, checklists, therefore, offer only a blunt and arguably ineffective tool and potentially promote an incomplete understanding of good ‘quality’ in qualitative research. Likewise, current framework methods do not take into account how concepts differ in their application across the variety of qualitative approaches and, like checklists, they also do not differentiate between different qualitative methodologies.

On the need for specific appraisal tools

Current approaches to the appraisal of the methodological rigour of the differing types of qualitative research converge towards checklists or frameworks. More importantly, the current tools do not explicitly acknowledge the prejudices that may be present in the different types of qualitative research.

Concepts of rigour or trustworthiness within qualitative research 31

Transferability: the extent to which the presented study allows readers to make connections between the study’s data and wider community settings, ie, transfer conceptual findings to other contexts.

Credibility: extent to which a research account is believable and appropriate, particularly in relation to the stories told by participants and the interpretations made by the researcher.

Reflexivity: refers to the researchers’ engagement of continuous examination and explanation of how they have influenced a research project from choosing a research question to sampling, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data.

Transparency: making explicit the whole research process from sampling strategies, data collection to analysis. The rationale for decisions made is as important as the decisions themselves.

However, we often talk about these concepts in general terms, and it might be helpful to give some explicit examples of how the ‘technical processes’ affect these, for example, partialities related to:

Selection: recruiting participants via gatekeepers, such as healthcare professionals or clinicians, who may select them based on whether they believe them to be ‘good’ participants for interviews/focus groups.

Data collection: poor interview guide with closed questions which encourage yes/no answers and/leading questions.

Reflexivity and transparency: where researchers may focus their analysis on preconceived ideas rather than ground their analysis in the data and do not reflect on the impact of this in a transparent way.

The lack of tailored, method-specific appraisal tools has potentially contributed to the poor uptake and use of qualitative research for informing evidence-based decision making. To improve this situation, we propose the need for more robust quality appraisal tools that explicitly encompass both the core design aspects of all qualitative research (sampling/data collection/analysis) but also considered the specific partialities that can be presented with different methodological approaches. Such tools might draw on the strengths of current frameworks and checklists while providing users with sufficient understanding of concepts of rigour in relation to the different types of qualitative methods. We provide an outline of such tools in the third and final paper in this series.

As qualitative research becomes ever more embedded in health science research, and in order for that research to have better impact on healthcare decisions, we need to rethink critical appraisal and develop tools that allow differentiated evaluations of the myriad of qualitative methodological approaches rather than continuing to treat qualitative research as a single unified approach.

• Williams V ,
• Boylan AM ,
• Lingard L ,
• Orser B , et al
• Brawn R , et al
• Van Royen P ,
• Vermeire E , et al
• Barker M , et al
• McGannon KR
• Dixon-Woods M ,
• Agarwal S , et al
• Greenhalgh T ,
• Dennison L ,
• Morrison L ,
• Conway G , et al
• Barrett M ,
• Mayan M , et al
• Lockwood C ,
• Santiago-Delefosse M ,
• Bruchez C , et al
• Sainsbury P ,
• ↵ CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme). date unknown . http://www.phru.nhs.uk/Pages/PHD/CASP.htm .
• ↵ The Joanna Briggs Institute . JBI QARI Critical appraisal checklist for interpretive & critical research . Adelaide : The Joanna Briggs Institute , 2014 .
• Stephens J ,

Contributors VW and DN: conceived the idea for this article. VW: wrote the first draft. AMB and DN: contributed to the final draft. All authors approve the submitted article.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Correction notice This article has been updated since its original publication to include a new reference (reference 1.)

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Example sentences critical examination

Any proposed erosions of them need meticulous critical examination .

Again, that may sound airily philosophical, but until we resolve our deepest feelings through honesty and critical examination , they will continue to haunt us.

Televised debates are the voters' chance to listen to what the party leaders propose and how they respond to critical examination .

Never has constructively critical examination of executive action been more important.

This dialogue has the goal of assessing reasons behind competing interpretations through critical examination of evidence, arguments, and alternate points of view.

Definition of 'critical' critical

Definition of 'examination' examination

COBUILD Collocations critical examination

Browse alphabetically critical examination.

• critical engagement
• critical essay
• critical evaluation
• critical examination
• critical factor
• critical faculty
• critical habitat
• All ENGLISH words that begin with 'C'

Quick word challenge

Quiz Review

Score: 0 / 5

Wordle Helper

Scrabble Tools

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Creating a Corporate Social Responsibility Program with Real Impact

• Emilio Marti,
• David Risi,
• Eva Schlindwein,
• Andromachi Athanasopoulou

Lessons from multinational companies that adapted their CSR practices based on local feedback and knowledge.

Exploring the critical role of experimentation in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), research on four multinational companies reveals a stark difference in CSR effectiveness. Successful companies integrate an experimental approach, constantly adapting their CSR practices based on local feedback and knowledge. This strategy fosters genuine community engagement and responsive initiatives, as seen in a mining company’s impactful HIV/AIDS program. Conversely, companies that rely on standardized, inflexible CSR methods often fail to achieve their goals, demonstrated by a failed partnership due to local corruption in another mining company. The study recommends encouraging broad employee participation in CSR and fostering a culture that values CSR’s long-term business benefits. It also suggests that sustainable investors and ESG rating agencies should focus on assessing companies’ experimental approaches to CSR, going beyond current practices to examine the involvement of diverse employees in both developing and adapting CSR initiatives. Overall, embracing a dynamic, data-driven approach to CSR is essential for meaningful social and environmental impact.

By now, almost all large companies are engaged in corporate social responsibility (CSR): they have CSR policies, employ CSR staff, engage in activities that aim to have a positive impact on the environment and society, and write CSR reports. However, the evolution of CSR has brought forth new challenges. A stark contrast to two decades ago, when the primary concern was the sheer neglect of CSR, the current issue lies in the ineffective execution of these practices. Why do some companies implement CSR in ways that create a positive impact on the environment and society, while others fail to do so? Our research reveals that experimentation is critical for impactful CSR, which has implications for both companies that implement CSR and companies that externally monitor these CSR activities, such as sustainable investors and ESG rating agencies.

• EM Emilio Marti is an associate professor at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. His research focuses on corporate sustainability with a specific focus on sustainable investing.”
• DR David Risi is a professor at the Bern University of Applied Sciences and a habilitated lecturer at the University of St. Gallen. His research focuses on how companies organize CSR and sustainability.
• ES Eva Schlindwein is a professor at the Bern University of Applied Sciences and a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Oxford. Her research focuses on how organizations navigate tensions between business and society.
• AA Andromachi Athanasopoulou is an associate professor at Queen Mary University of London and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford. Her research focuses on how individuals manage their leadership careers and make ethically charged decisions.

Partner Center