根式审查:研究评估的唯物主义小科学方法

IF 3.2 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Qualitative Research Pub Date : 2023-12-06 DOI:10.1177/14687941231216632
Nick J. Fox
{"title":"根式审查:研究评估的唯物主义小科学方法","authors":"Nick J. Fox","doi":"10.1177/14687941231216632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drawing upon the DeleuzoGuattarian metaphor of the ‘rhizome’, this paper proposes a literature and evidence review methodology that complements data collection, analysis and reporting methods appropriate to new materialist and post-human ontologies. Rhizomatic review replicates the branching and multiplying, subterranean and subversive, endless flows of affect that produce the social world in these ontologies of becoming and difference. The paper situates rhizomatic review in relation to Deleuze and Guattari's understanding of ‘minor science’: an approach that rather than attempting to represent the social world ‘follows the action’. Rhizomatic review is open-ended, avoids setting inclusion or exclusion criteria, follows links that open up during the research process, explores a literature or evidence across disciplines, and engages in multiple iterations of searching and synthesis. An example of a rhizomatic review is presented, and the paper concludes with reflections on the opportunities afforded by rhizomatic review.","PeriodicalId":48265,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research","volume":"58 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rhizomatic review: A materialist minor science approach to research evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Nick J. Fox\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14687941231216632\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Drawing upon the DeleuzoGuattarian metaphor of the ‘rhizome’, this paper proposes a literature and evidence review methodology that complements data collection, analysis and reporting methods appropriate to new materialist and post-human ontologies. Rhizomatic review replicates the branching and multiplying, subterranean and subversive, endless flows of affect that produce the social world in these ontologies of becoming and difference. The paper situates rhizomatic review in relation to Deleuze and Guattari's understanding of ‘minor science’: an approach that rather than attempting to represent the social world ‘follows the action’. Rhizomatic review is open-ended, avoids setting inclusion or exclusion criteria, follows links that open up during the research process, explores a literature or evidence across disciplines, and engages in multiple iterations of searching and synthesis. An example of a rhizomatic review is presented, and the paper concludes with reflections on the opportunities afforded by rhizomatic review.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48265,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qualitative Research\",\"volume\":\"58 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qualitative Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941231216632\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941231216632","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据DeleuzoGuattarian对“根茎”的比喻,本文提出了一种文献和证据审查方法,该方法补充了适用于新唯物主义和后人类本体论的数据收集、分析和报告方法。根茎回顾复制了分支和繁殖,地下和颠覆,无尽的情感流动,在这些成为和不同的本体论中产生了社会世界。本文将根茎回顾与德勒兹和瓜塔里对“次要科学”的理解联系起来:一种不试图代表社会世界的“跟随行动”的方法。根茎综述是开放式的,避免设置纳入或排除标准,遵循研究过程中开放的链接,跨学科地探索文献或证据,并进行多次检索和综合。提出了一个根茎审查的例子,并总结了对根茎审查所提供的机会的反思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rhizomatic review: A materialist minor science approach to research evaluation
Drawing upon the DeleuzoGuattarian metaphor of the ‘rhizome’, this paper proposes a literature and evidence review methodology that complements data collection, analysis and reporting methods appropriate to new materialist and post-human ontologies. Rhizomatic review replicates the branching and multiplying, subterranean and subversive, endless flows of affect that produce the social world in these ontologies of becoming and difference. The paper situates rhizomatic review in relation to Deleuze and Guattari's understanding of ‘minor science’: an approach that rather than attempting to represent the social world ‘follows the action’. Rhizomatic review is open-ended, avoids setting inclusion or exclusion criteria, follows links that open up during the research process, explores a literature or evidence across disciplines, and engages in multiple iterations of searching and synthesis. An example of a rhizomatic review is presented, and the paper concludes with reflections on the opportunities afforded by rhizomatic review.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
60
期刊介绍: Qualitative Research is a fully peer reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles on the methodological diversity and multi-disciplinary focus of qualitative research within the social sciences. Research based on qualitative methods, and methodological commentary on such research, have expanded exponentially in the past decades. This is the case across a number of disciplines including sociology, social anthropology, health and nursing, education, cultural studies, human geography, social and discursive psychology, and discourse studies.
期刊最新文献
Creative writing as critical fieldwork methodology Turning the tables or business as usual? COVID-19 as a catalyst in North–South research collaborations Awaiting further consideration ‘You’ll come back another day’ Exploring the challenges of interviewing upper class elites Troubling go-alongs through the lens of care
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1