Exploring methodological innovation in the social sciences: the body in digital environments and the arts

References

• Bell, D. M. (2003). Method and Postmethod: Are They Really So Incompatible?. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 325–336. doi: 10.2307/358850710.1177/1468794113501687
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bengry-Howell, A., Wiles, R., Nind, M., & Crow, G. (2011). A Review of the Academic Impact of Three Methodological Innovations: Netnography, Child-Led Research and Creative Research Methods. Southampton (UK), National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM).
   Google Scholar
• Crow, G., Edwards, R., Nind, M., & Wiles, R. (2011). Opportunities for methodological synergies at the boundaries of the social sciences and the arts and humanities. Report for ESRC, Southampton: National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM).
   Google Scholar
• Delamont, S., & Atkinson, P. (2001). Editorial. Qualitative Research, 1, 275–277.10.1177/146879410100100301
   Google Scholar
• Dicks, B. (2014). Action, experience, communication. Qualitative Research, 14, 656–674.10.1177/1468794113501687
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eisner, E. (2001). Concerns and aspirations for qualitative research in the new millennium. Qualitative Research, 1, 135–145.10.1177/146879410100100202
   Google Scholar
• Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226206868.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Glass, N. (2008). Interrogating the conventional boundaries of research methods in social sciences: The role of visual representation in ethnography. Qualitative Social Research, 9, 50–68.
   Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh, T., Potts, H., Wong, G., Bark, P., & Swinglehurst, D. (2009). Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: A systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method. Milbank Quarterly, 87, 729–788.10.1111/milq.2009.87.issue-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimshaw, A., Owen, E., & Ravetz, A. (2010). Making do: The materials of art and collaboration. In A. Schneider & C. Wright (Eds.), Between art and anthropology: Contemporary ethnographic practice (pp. 147–162). Oxford: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Gwyther, G., & Possamai-Inesedy, A. (2009). Methodologies a la carte: An examination of emerging qualitative methodologies in social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12, 99–115.10.1080/13645570902727680
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Holmquist, L. E. (2013). The interplay between research and industry: HCI and grounded innovation. In S. Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown (Eds.), The Sage handbook of digital technology research (pp. 459–472). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Howes, D., & Classen, C. (2014). Ways of sensing: Understanding the senses in society. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jewitt, C. (2013). Multimodal methods for researching digital technologies. In S. Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown (Eds.), Sage handbook digital technology research (pp. 250–265). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lofland, J., Snow, D., Anderson, L., & Lofland, L. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, P., & Hornecker, E. (2013). Theories of embodiment in HCI. In S. Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown (Eds.), Sage handbook digital technology research (pp. 144–158). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, J., & Davies, K. (2009). Coming to our senses? A critical approach to sensory methodology. Qualitative Research, 9, 587–603.10.1177/1468794109343628
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pink, S. (2009). Sensory ethnography. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Robins, C. (2013). Art, academe and the language of knowledge. In N. Addison & L. Burgess (Eds.), Debates in art & design teaching (pp. 157–172). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
   Google Scholar
• Rylander, A. (2009). Design thinking as knowledge work: Epistemological foundations and practical implications. Design Management Journal, 4, 7–19.10.1111/dmj.2009.4.issue-1
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, A., & Wright, C. (Eds.). (2010). Between art and anthropology: Contemporary ethnographic practice. Oxford: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan, G. (2010). Art practice as research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C., & Coffey, A. (2008). Innovation in qualitative research methods: Possibilities and challenges (Working paper. 121). Cardiff University. Retrieved from http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/research/publications/workingpapers/papers-121-130.html
   Google Scholar
• Travers, M. (2009). New methods, old problems: A sceptical view of innovation in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 9, 161–179.10.1177/1468794108095079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiles, R., Crow, G., & Pain, H. (2011). Innovation in qualitative research methods: A narrative review. Qualitative Research, 11, 597–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xenitidou, M., & Gilbert, N. (2009). Innovations in social science research methods. National centre for research methods report. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/804/
   Google Scholar