Bricolage bewilderment

Having read Kincheloe’s (2001 & 2005) articles some time ago I returned to them this week trying to finally finish this write-up only to discover that my understanding has morphed somewhat.

The design of my research is bricolaged, which (in the spirit of not over-facing people with jargon) means that I learn and understand several theoretical perspectives on research and the methods of collection and analysis which could feasibly accompany them, and allow my experience of interpreting my participants’ contributions to inform what, out of this toolkit, would be the next useful way forward.

This is all well and good but if your head spins with some of the terminology that has to appear in these posts then mine most certainly is. Having renewed the direct connection between a hermeneutic philosophy of engaging with my presence and my participants’ selves in the research and a bricolaged design I am finding that I need to dig even deeper – it’s time to go back to basics and check out the originator of this form of thinking. Great but when on earth will I have time to do that justice? I’m sorry for the vagueness but I’m just getting my head around the re-experience of these articles that I read ages ago in 2008 and then again in the summer.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Describing the Bricolage: Conceptualizing a New Rigor in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry , 7: 6, 679-692.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). On to the Next Level: Continuing the Conceptualization of the Bricolage. Qualitative Inquiry , 11: 3, 323-350.