Conventional and Postqualitative Research: An Invitation to Dialogue

Abstract

This article explores a question that was left mostly unanswered in a recent special issue of Qualitative Inquiry surveying the field of postqualitative research: How can conventional and post qualitative research coexist within the qualitative community? The importance of addressing this key question is first highlighted. Then, a possible answer is offered, which is: By promoting a new paradigm dialogue grounded in the principles of agonistic pluralism. Challenging the idea of consensus and harmonious coexistence, agonistic pluralism allows casting researchers with competing paradigmatic positions as adversaries or “friendly enemies,” which exist together in the same space without each sacrificing its beliefs about knowledge production. We invite members of the global qualitative community to explore this possibility.

A figurational viewpoint of the complexity of policy enactment: An opportunity for agonistic dialogue?

“…Arguably, that conversation would be the ‘doing’. As Monforte and Smith (2020, pp. 7–8) state,

agonism creates an imperative in which the task is to not only tell one's stories, but also to assume the responsibility to listen carefully and attempt to grasp what is being expressed, said, and done by others who live by contrasting tales.

…”

“…In discussing the tensions between conventional qualitative research and postqualitative research, Monforte and Smith (2020) draw on the concept of ‘agonism’ to understand and accept these tensions. The concept of ‘agonism’ may help us understand how we can move forward with the conflict, disagreement and tensions, and play it to our advantage in the moving forward of ‘doing’ policy work together .…”

“…The concept of ‘agonism’ may help us understand how we can move forward with the conflict, disagreement and tensions, and play it to our advantage in the moving forward of ‘doing’ policy work together . Monforte and Smith (2020, p. 7) suggest,

agonism poses the democratic relationship in terms of ‘conflictive consensus’. This kind of consensus does not hide differences and particularities, but rather departs on their recognition to support democratic coexistence.

…”

“…Once we capture the 'who', the question begs: How can we move forward in 'doing' policy work with different stakeholders? We explore this question drawing on the concept of agonism (Monforte & Smith, 2020).…”

Troubling the Troublemakers: Three Challenges to Post-Qualitative Inquiry

“…Here, PQI may have been a bit too swift in its attempt to distance itself from existing qualitative inquiry. Indeed, some scholars have blamed PQI for overstating its own newness (Gerrard et al, 2017), while others have argued for a higher degree of coexistence between PQI and conventional qualitative research (Monforte & Smith, 2021; Rautio, 2021;).…”