On rhizomes, lines of flight, mangles, and other assemblages

Abstract

This commentary offers an outsider’s perspectives on this Deleuzian- and Baradian-inspired constellation of ideas on “post-qualitative research.” My perspectives engage three primary issues: First, is this way of thinking about post-qualitative research still research? Second, the “post” part of the “post-qualitative research” label suggests movement and trajectory, but from where and, perhaps more importantly, to where and to what? And third, what is being accomplished by this shift to a post-qualitative framing of the social world, and what is being lost?

Keywords:

• post
• qualitative
• research

Notes

1. This authorship, however, is problematic in evaluation practice. Evaluators are not hired to tell their own story but rather to tell the stories of those in the contexts being studied. So, as an evaluator, I must be especially attentive to my own presence in the data and the interpretations, and further endeavor to mute that presence as possible.

2. My apologies to Helena Pedersen for my exclusion of her work from this commentary. I simply could not bring myself to read the paper because of its content, which says nothing about the quality of the paper and its contributions to this conversation.

3. This query is not a call for post-qualitative criteria of warrant. I agree with Schwandt (1996) that it is past time to let go of our obsession with “criteriology.”

4. There are multiple legitimate stakeholders in evaluation, from funders and program administrators to front-line staff and intended program beneficiaries. Because no single evaluation can address the interests of all stakeholders, various evaluation approaches have been developed and targeted to the interests of particular stakeholder groups.