International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education

ISSN: 0951-8398 (Print) 1366-5898 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tqse20

On rhizomes, lines of flight, mangles, and other

assemblages

Jennifer C. Greene

To cite this article: Jennifer C. Greene (2013) On rhizomes, lines of flight, mangles, and other
assemblages, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26:6, 749-758, DOI:
10.1080/09518398.2013.788763

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.788763

Published online: 06 Jun 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 916

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tqse20

Download by: [Therapeutic Goods Administration] Date: 27 January 2017, At: 09:23
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 2013
Vol. 26, No. 6, 749–758, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.788763

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

Jennifer C. Greene*

Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

(Received 19 March 2013; final version received 19 March 2013)

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

A positioning
As a framework for my remarks, I will first offer my own standpoint as a social
inquirer.

A memory
I wish to begin with a vivid memory. Some three decades ago, I attended an AERA
session on qualitative approaches to educational research. I was joined by hundreds
of other young scholars hungry for understanding, insight, and practical mastery of
these “new” ideas about the nature of the social world and how best to understand
it. It may even be that one or more of the esteemed authors in this special issue
were among the enlightened panelists that day. The session’s presentations were
exciting yet also challenging. The excitement came from the connective allure of
the ideas being engaged – now this was a way of thinking about and doing educa-
tional research that I could get excited about! The challenges arose primarily in the
language the presenters were using to describe an interpretivist, constructionist, and
sometimes feminist view of the social world and to advance a critical, contextual,
self-reflexive methodology as requisite for understanding this social world. The lan-
guage was unfamiliar and thus constituted a substantial roadblock to understanding.
The language also divided the room – the inner circle of knowledge and privilege
embodied by the panelists was separated from the great masses of unenlightened
souls eager for knowledge but blocked by their lack of linguistic fluency.
I further recall that, with considerable trepidation and nervousness, I made a
comment about the panelists’ use of exclusionary language during the session and
received a small pattering of applause from some fellow members of the masses. I

*Email: jcgreene@uiuc.edu

Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis

750 J.C. Greene

was not the only one feeling excluded by the use of a language I did not know. At
least one of the panelists responded to my comment that the language importantly
constituted the ideas and concepts being discussed, that language is constitutive of
meaning. Some years later, I came to understand and even agree with her response.
The present set of papers in this volume evoked this memory because, once
again, I am challenged to make sense of a “new” or at least different way of think-
ing about the social world and how best we can understand it and, once again, I am
not fluent in the language. I have no independent understanding, outside of these
papers, of concepts like mangle, assemblage, intra-act, sense, rhizomatics, onto-epis-
temologies, lines of flight, and more. So, while I now accept now that language
importantly constitutes meaning – for Deleuze and Foucault today as much as for
Guba and Wolcott those decades ago – I remain an outsider to the post-qualitative
conversation.

My standpoint
I am a practical methodologist. My research involves the social practice of educa-
tional program evaluation, with a focus on its relational, values, and socio-political
dimensions. Evaluation is the systematic process of gathering and interpreting
empirical information in order to make a judgment of quality and worth about the
program, policy, or practice being evaluated. As a judgmental practice, evaluation is
always saturated with values. Evaluation always serves someone’s interests but not
the interests of others. Issues of which values and whose interests are most defensi-
bly advanced in evaluation are the focus of my evaluation research.
My own mental model (Smith, 1997) is a blend of interpretivism, critical theory,
and democratic ideals. I am most comfortable with conventional qualitative method-
ologies, as they match my ontological standpoint on the nature of the social world
and they offer space for my values. I seek understanding rather than truth, I honor
context as constitutive of meaning, I recognize that our data capture but one snap-
shot of experience out of an infinite array (Scheurich, 1995), and I realize that I am
an author of what is learned from a study.1 But, I also believe that all standpoints,
methodologies, and methods have something to contribute to our understanding of
complex, contextual, dynamic social phenomena; this underlies my work in the
development of mixed methods approaches to social inquiry (Greene, 2007). Mixed
methods approaches also appeal to my own value set of tolerance, acceptance, and
dialogue.
It is from this standpoint that I offer the following comments and ponderings
evoked by the papers in this special issue on post-qualitative research.

A commentary
I will begin this commentary with a descriptive sampling of what these authors pre-
sented related to a post-qualitative view of the social world, because it is this view
of the social world that demands a different way of thinking about knowledge and
research.2 In the papers, the authors do not de-couple but rather intentionally entan-
gle a post-qualitative view of the social world and their ideas about research
approaches, methods, stances, actions, possibilities. I will nevertheless present them
separately, as that has aided my own initial journey into understanding these chal-
lenging ideas. I will then engage the three questions posed at the outset, beginning
with the character of post-qualitative research.
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 751

The social world assemblage according to mostly Deleuze and Barad

As recounted by Patti Lather in her paper, the post-qualitative move is, in part, a resis-
tive response to recent history and politics related to qualitative inquiry. She argues:

The [current] contest over the science that can provide the evidence for practice and
policy pits the recharged positivism of neoliberalism against a qualitative “community”
at risk of assimilation and the reduction of qualitative to an instrumentalism that meets
the demands of audit culture. To refuse this settlement is to push back in the name of
an insistence on the importance of both epistemological and ontological wrestling in
governmentality and calling out the unthought in how research-based knowledge is
conceptualized and produced.

A critical part of this post-qualitative epistemological and ontological wrestling

is to think about the world we inhabit not just in social or human terms, with lan-
guage positioned as the privileged purveyor of meanings and understandings in this
world. That is, this world is not just a “social” world, the term I have been using
up to this point. Rather, human interactions, thoughts, language/discourse, matter
(materiality), and nature are all occupants of this world – referred to as an assem-
blage or mangle in post-qualitative writing – and all have equal status in this
world’s flat topology. Further, in this world, there is no privileged position for the
individual actor or the human subject, including the researcher, the “I” of more con-
ventional qualitative research. “The subject is radically decentered in the collective
assemblage of enunciation” (MacLure). The “I” is but part of the mix.
This assemblage or mangle of people, discourse, matter, and nature is not static
or fixed in any way. Rather it is a dynamic space and time of becoming, emerging,
unfolding, and of moving, connecting, diverging. It is an assemblage of continuous
“intra-active encounters in which the new emerges,” in counterpoint to “the accom-
plishment of the illusory autonomous entity or self” (Davies et al.). From Martin
and Kamberelis’ paper, the assemblage manifests:

an ontology of becoming(s) rather than being. Reality is viewed as a continual process

of flux or differentiation even though this fact is usually masked by powerful and per-
vasive illusory discourses of fixity, stability, and identity that have characterized most
of western philosophy and theory since at least the Enlightenment. This ontology of
becoming(s) enables (even urges) us to see things differently – in terms of what they
might become rather than as they currently are. It is characterized by its ability to
engage productively with real movements of social change that open up new forms of
life both for individuals and for collectives.

Within this post-qualitative mangle, Deleuze in particular:

gives primacy … to differentiation, or continuous difference, focusing on “how things

become different, how they evolve and continue to evolve beyond the boundaries of
the sets they have been distributed into” (Williams, 2003, p. 60; Davies & Gannon,
2009). (Davies et al.)

Distinct beings or agencies do not precede but rather emerge through their intra-
action (Barad, 2007, as cited in Davies et al.). Distinct beings are constantly in a
process of becoming through continuous difference or differenciation. So, being
becomes the “ongoing emergence of entangled beings” or the “mutual constitution
of entangled agencies” (Davies et al.).
752 J.C. Greene

[Further] in this philosophy of difference, difference is understood as a practice rather

than defining [an] identity [as separate from] another. Hence, it is the process and effects
of differing and differentiation – that is, difference in itself, as an ongoing flow of affir-
mative relations – that is constitutive of existence (Deleuze, 1994). (Lenz-Taguchi)

So, how does one conduct research in this post-qualitative assemblage or

mangle? What does post-qualitative research look like?

On the character of post-qualitative research: is it still research?

I think of research as the systematic process of recording and analyzing information
about targeted phenomena – be they people, galaxies, or historical artifacts – toward
better understanding of these phenomena. I also think of research as somehow con-
tributing to the public good, a point to which I will return later in my commentary.
Among the descriptions of and engagements with the character of post-qualitative
research by the authors in this special issue are the following:

• Davies and colleagues share their experiences of and learnings about the phe-
nomena of recognition and nonrecognition through an intense process of col-
lective biography. This process is described as “a set of emergent
possibilities” and as a space for embodied encounters, out of which “both the
research and the experiences [of] being researched may emerge as something
new, something not yet thought of.”
• Lenz-Taguchi explores the subjectivities of the post-qualitative researcher,
striving to deconstructively break free of a “subject-dependent ontology.” She
observes that:

a rhizomatic image of thinking, operating from within a Deleuzian ontology of

difference, can cut qualitative inquiry loose from old tools to invent new ones. This
is not something that can be done only once, but it has to be done over and over
again, in an ongoing flow of differentiation.

• Jackson offers an analytic alternative to coding because “coding takes us back

to what is known,” rather than the production of the new, of different knowl-
edge.
• Lather offers “a thousand tiny methodologies” in her engagement with
post-qualitative research methodology. She suggests that such methodologies
“trouble what it means to know and to tell.” Such methodologies also feature
analyses that seek not meaning but multiple configurations; researcher subjec-
tivities that underscore the “insecurity of knowing”; and methods that leave
room “for the incalculable, the messy, not knowing, and epistemologies of
ruins.”
• The papers by MacLure and by Martin and Kamberelis both argue for a post-
qualitative research that rejects representation. MacLure argues for a
materialist methodology and cites Deleuze in arguing that, “representational
thought is ‘sedentary’, categorical and judgemental. It is the enemy of differ-
ence, movement, change and the emergence of the new.” Instead she
advocates that post-qualitative researchers engage with their texts through the
Deleuzian concept of “sense” or the unrepresentable “wild element” in lan-
guage. Martin and Kamberelis argue for mapping instead of tracing as a route
to a productive rather than representational process of educational research.
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 753

Using examples, these authors argue that with lines of flight mapping can dis-
close “forces that have been elided, marginalized or ignored altogether, forces
that might have the power to transform or reconfigure reality in various
ways,” forces that are generative of new ways of praxis.
• And in Rosiek’s paper on contemporary pragmatism (a domain more familiar
to me), he suggests that inquiry begin not with a predefined topic and ques-
tion but rather by stepping back and asking, “what experiences [emphasis
added] of indeterminacy make our existing habits of living seem in need of
transformation through inquiry?”

So post-qualitative research offers a way of being in the world that fits with and
can engage the mangle that the world is. Post-qualitative research is dynamic, fluid,
indefinite, unfolding. Neither the research process nor what is experienced or
learned in the research is fixed or bounded, but rather they are fleeting and fluid,
propelled by lines of flight, “resisting stasis and capture” (Lather). Post-qualitative
research also gives radical new meaning to the emergent character of conventional
qualitative research. It is not that our methodology and substantive gaze become
more focused and directed as we get to know the context and become a part of it.
Rather, post-qualitative research itself is a set of “emergent possibilities.” One
enters the mangle at any point and time and follows the lines encountered until
another possible line emerges and redirects our gaze and energies.
Post-qualitative research is further embodied and material. Into the mangle we
bring our bodies and our material matters, even as our “I’s” do not occupy a seat of
special privilege but rather join in the flattened jumble of discourse, matter, nature,
and humanity. Post-qualitative research is visceral, tearful and bruising, filled with
laughter and hugs, fully engaged in intra-action.
And post-qualitative research is fully enamored with the new, the something not
yet thought of.
So, is this still research? This question, of course, is only answerable from
within a particular standpoint. Clearly from the standpoint of post-qualitative
thought, from inside the assemblage, the above characterization of research is a
much-needed reconceptualization and redirection of what research is and does in
the world. But, from my outside standpoint, I have some questions and concerns.
First, there is a seeming loss of systematicity in these accounts of post-qualita-
tive research. A distinguishing feature of social science inquiry in my view, and a
critical feature of its defensibility, is that it is a systematic approach to exploring,
learning, and knowing about the world. Further, this systematicity can be communi-
cated to others. Without a shared understanding of how some knowledge or insight
or understanding about the world is obtained – shared within the varied communi-
ties of scholars, and more importantly between researchers and our audiences –
how will such knowledge or understanding be warranted?3 And how will it be of
any meaningful or constructive consequence in the world? I worry about a loss of
the systematic character of social inquiry, where the systems (guidelines, rules, pre-
cepts, assumptions) are open and available to all. I worry that inquiry then becomes
less distinguishable from other important human endeavors and less uniquely conse-
quential.
Second, for all the talk about bodies and materiality, the character of many of
these papers is experienced – at least by this reader – as a kind of retreat into the
mind. I fully recognize that (a) acting or doing and (b) writing about (accounting
754 J.C. Greene

for) action/doing are different avenues of engaging with our social world/assem-
blage. There is a perhaps-necessary distancing of the action from the account of that
action, of the journey through the mangle from the telling of that journey and its
warrant, justification, or consequence. At the same time, reading this collection of
papers, especially with their new vocabulary and unfamiliar concepts, challenged my
mind, but did not engage my body, my material positionality, or my values in the
daily spaces I occupy. For me, the highly cognitive, intellectual, and abstract charac-
ter of the discourse of these papers is somewhat at odds with the stated embracement
of bodies and matter and all the dirt and grime they carry along with them.
Third, I struggle to understand the wholesale rejection of representation, empha-
sized in the MacLure and the Martin and Kamberelis papers, and threaded as
argument or subtext in several other papers. I appreciate (I think) the desire to
embrace materiality in our work as researchers and to honor “the unfolding [and
messy] emergence of the world” (MacLure), rather than impose a static and orderly
image of the world through mostly linguistic representations of it. I also appreciate
(I think) Martin and Kamberelis’ emphasis on research as productive, not just repro-
ductive. Yet, I still struggle to understand how any of our work, as educational and
social inquirers, can be other than representational, at least in the forms we use to
communicate what we have learned to others. I fully recognize that representational
form shapes what is being communicated, and I fully embrace multiple forms of
representation (Johnson, Hall, Greene, & Ahn, in press), from text to dance to inter-
active theatre. But is there any defensible alternative to or escape from representa-
tion? How else can we communicate our experiences and what we have learned to
audiences who matter?
Fourth, I wonder about the infatuation with “the new” in many of these papers.
I speak now from my general position in life, not only from my position as a scho-
lar. Now in my seventh decade, I have come to recognize and even cherish the nat-
ure and role of tradition and traditions in our lives. As a child of the 1960s, I
joined my age-mates in frequent protests – against the Vietnam War, against the
“military-industrial complex,” against the ravages of our planet, for civil rights, for
women’s rights, and more. I also joined my age-mates in a thorough rejection of
the relevance of history and tradition to those contemporary times, including the
(now-recovered) hoop-rolling and chapel step-singing traditions at my undergradu-
ate college. And I did not take a single history course in college – something I was
actually proud of for a few years thereafter. But, since that time, I have not only
developed an appreciation for history and traditions, I have also come to believe in
the importance of connecting the now to the past, of honoring the parts of the past
that should endure, and of nurturing some sense of continuity in our acting in and
sense-making of the world. I missed these connections in these authors’ celebration
of the new.

Where are we going on this post-qualitative journey?

The ‘post’ could therefore be read as signalling the demise of qualitative research. Or at least,
as inaugurating a qualitative research that would be unrepresentable to itself. (MacLure)

I think that Maggie MacLure, and the other authors of this special journal, are
arguing for a form of social and educational research that is consonant with the
contemporary materialist, embodied, re-newed and new feminist, and possibly
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 755

pragmatist philosophies about the character of the world we inhabit – the philoso-
phies of Deleuze, Barad, and others cited liberally in these papers. The argument is
basically that a new form of research is needed to engage meaningfully with the
world philosophized as an assemblage or a mangle.
Social and educational inquiry have long been framed and guided by philosophi-
cal assumptions about the nature of the world we endeavor to understand, even
when inquirers have not been consciously aware of these assumptions. The
still-dominant philosophical paradigm of realist post-positivism remains muted,
unacknowledged in the research reports and papers of most inquirers who work in
this tradition. Yet, it is not possible to conduct research about the “social world”
without some assumptions about the nature of that world we are endeavoring to
understand, the nature of warranted knowledge/knowing about that world, the role
of values and of the knower in that knowledge, and more. It is not possible to be a
social inquirer without some self-understanding of the responsibilities and opportu-
nities that work entails (Schwandt, 2002).
The past half-century in social science has been a time of considerable ferment
and revolution. Once oblivious to the unstated, hidden philosophical assumptions
guiding our work, we became aware of them as we became aware of alternative
philosophical frameworks of assumptions and ideas about the world, knowledge,
and inquiry. And we reached for “new” methodologies and ways of being a social
inquirer that matched these alternative philosophical frameworks. And we became
self-conscious about the assumptions of these frameworks, naming and claiming
them as integral to our work.
This volume about post-qualitative research offers another turn of the wheel,
another reframing of research in alignment with a new, contemporary set of philoso-
phies about social life, knowing, and acting. And it entails a wholesale rejection of
qualitative research as currently practiced.
I wonder …
Are there no viable attributes or contributions of contemporary qualitative research
worth retaining, worth carrying along as a connection from what was to what is becoming?
Should social research practice continue to follow changes and developments in
philosophical thought? Might it be time for a more reciprocal relationship, a dia-
logue between and among abstract conceptualizations of the social world/assem-
blage and the “rough ground” of research practice (Schwandt, 2003)? As an
evaluator, I am a thoroughly practical social inquirer. And I wonder about the privi-
leging of philosophy over practice in the papers in this volume.
The “I” in conventional qualitative research has been hotly contested. On the one
hand, research is something other than auto-biography. On the other (dichotomous)
hand, researchers – perhaps especially qualitative researchers – are fully implicated
in what is learned from the study. The responsibilities of the “I” in post-qualitative
research and its trajectory are neither sufficiently acknowledged nor embraced.
Finally, what does social research become in this post-qualitative vision? What
role or function does it play in society? Whose interests does it serve?
I will now turn to this final question in the last section of this commentary.

What role(s) in society does post-qualitative research fulfill?

In my field of educational and social program evaluation, different evaluation
approaches are most importantly distinguished by whose questions get addressed
756 J.C. Greene

and thus whose interests are advanced (Greene, 1997).4 Different evaluation
approaches then invoke the methodologies best suited to address the evaluation ques-
tions at hand. Because values are an explicit part of the process of making judgments
of quality – though not always named – the values supported or advanced by meth-
odology in evaluation become visible and available for conversation or debate. As
well, the values enlaced in methodology become part of this conversation.
All of this serves a broader conversation in the evaluation community about
evaluation’s overall role(s) in society. There is actually general consensus within the
evaluation community that our work ought to serve the public good. Yet, different
definitions of the public good underlie differences in evaluation’s envisioned socie-
tal role. Among the roles advanced (and their key audiences) are to (a) provide
defensible information to policy makers to help inform their decisions; (b) educate
the citizenry about the issues at hand and catalyze their engagement in civic discus-
sions and action about these issues; (c) provide useful information to program staff
that will enable them to improve and strengthen their program; and (d) democratize
discourse and action in a given context through concerted attention to those least
well served in that context.
As noted, the values enlaced in methodology become part of this conversation
about the various contributions evaluation can offer to the goodness of our society
and the well-being of its peoples. Through an emphasis on the aggregate or average,
postpositivist quantitative methodologies advance values of utilitarianism, effective-
ness, and efficiency. Conventional qualitative methodologies advance a valuing of
pluralism, contextuality, and meaningfulness. Critical, democratic, and participatory
methodologies advance values of justice, equity, inclusion, and voice. Because valu-
ing is central to the evaluative enterprise, explicit negotiations about and presentations
of the values advanced in a given study are the express responsibility of the evaluator.
This set of papers has relatively sparse discussions about the contributions of
post-qualitative research to our societies and the public good, about the concomitant
values that support these contributions, and about the inquirer’s responsibilities
therein. Patti Lather observed that:

method is political and that is a good thing to think with as we explore how much the
development of a counter science “on our own terms” can be community based, com-
munity sustaining, and community serving in ways that might help alter the structures
of institutions in more expansive democratizing ways. Each exemplifies an engaged
social science that is between being “in trouble” and “of use” (Childers, 2008) where
we inherit and invent, each time anew toward the something to come that is already at
work. Here, perhaps, “getting lost” might exactly be about an accountability to com-
plexity and the political value of not being so sure (Lather, 2007).

Martin and Kamberelis stated:

This ontology of becoming(s) enables (even urges) us to see things differently – in

terms of what they might become rather than as they currently are. It is characterized
by its ability to engage productively with real movements of social change that open
up new forms of life both for individuals and for collectives. … [And so our work]
functions as so many beacons that light up possibilities for working within hegemonic
regimes of power and truth to subvert, resist, and change them.

And other authors wrote of research as active, creating and enacting a different
social reality, affirming and enlivening, productive and transformational.
 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 757

Yet, these statements about the potential contributions of post-qualitative

research to society and the public good are under-developed. Patti Lather encour-
ages us to “imagine forward out of troubling a narrow scientificity and enacting an
‘after’ of neoliberalism.” But forward toward what? And what specifically are the
responsibilities of the researcher in this trajectory, this movement? Further, perhaps
the “us” involved might be not restricted to the qualitative research community –
they/we who trouble a narrow scientificity and aspire to get beyond neoliberalism?
Recognizing and honoring the radical disjunctures that exist between different
philosophical and methodological traditions, I also believe that each can contribute
to a better understanding of our complex, dynamic, social world, with its dirty
materiality, grimy bodies, and flattened landscape. I further believe that a dialogic
engagement of multiple ways of knowing, even across visions of what there is to
be known, may offer the greatest potential for understanding, insight, and action in
service of the public good – envisioned as an emphasis on the quality of public
reason and especially the inclusiveness of public discourse.

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 noth-
ing 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.

Notes on contributor
Jennifer C. Greene is a professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. Her research focuses on the intersection of social science methodology
and social policy and aspires to be both methodologically innovative and socially
responsible. Her methodological work has concentrated on advancing qualitative and mixed
methods approaches to social inquiry, as well as democratic commitments in evaluation
practice. Her publications include co-editorship of the Sage Handbook of Program
Evaluation and authorship of Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. She is the past president of
the American Evaluation Association.

References
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of
matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Greene, J. C. (1997). Evaluation as advocacy. Evaluation Practice, 18, 25–35.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Johnson, J., Hall, J., Greene, J. C., & Ahn, J. (In press). Exploring alternative approaches
for presenting evaluation results. American Journal of Evaluation.
Scheurich, J. (1995). A postmodern critique of research interviewing. International Journal
of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 239–252.
758 J.C. Greene

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2, 59–73. (Reprinted

in C. Seale, Ed., Social Research Methodology, London: Routledge, 2004; reprinted in
A. Bryman, Ed., Qualitative Research 2, London: Sage, 2007).
Schwandt, T. A. (2002). Evaluation practice reconsidered. Oxford: Peter Lang.
Schwandt, T. A. (2003). “Back to the rough ground!” Beyond theory to practice in evalua-
tion. Evaluation, 9, 353–364.
Smith, M. L. (1997). Mixing and matching: Methods and models. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli
(Eds.), Advances in mixed methods evaluation: The challenges and benefits of mixing alterna-
tive paradigms (pp. 73–85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.