Methodologies

Ansart, Pierre (1968). Sociologie de Proudhon. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Antliff, Allan (2012). “Anarchism and Art History: Methodologies of Insurrection.” ‘The Continuum Companion to Anarchism. Ed. Ruth Kinna. New York: Continuum. 72-85.

Chodorkoff, Daniel (1990). “Social Ecology and Community Development.” Renewing The Earth: The Promise of Social Ecology. London: Green Print. 69-79.

• <– Advocates for and provides an example of a bottom-up methodology of social research and local economic development.

Coleman, Lara Montesinos and Bassi, Serena (2011). “Militant manhood revisited: a note on methods and madness.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 13.2: 203-210.

Ehrlich, Carol (1975). The Conditions of Feminist Research. Research Group One Report No. 21. Baltimore: Research Group One.

Franks, Benjamin (2012). “Anarchism and Analytic Philosophy.” ”The Continuum Companion to Anarchism.” Ed. Ruth Kinna. New York: Continuum. 50-71.

Goodman, Paul (1962). “Preface.” Utopian Essays and Practical Proposals. New York: Vintage Books. xi-xvii.

– – – (1962). “Utopian Thinking.” Utopian Essays and Practical Proposals. New York: Vintage Books. 3-21.

– – – (1962). “Some Problems of Interpretation: Silence, and Speech as Action.” Utopian Essays and Practical Proposals. New York: Vintage Books. 236-254.

– – – (1950). “Statistical Method in Sociology.” ”Resistance” 8.3: 3-5.

Gordon, Uri (2012). “Participant Observation.” ”The Continuum Companion to Anarchism.” Ed. Ruth Kinna. New York: Continuum. 86-95.

– – – (2007). “Practising Anarchist Theory: Towards a participatory political philosophy.” Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigation, Collective Theorization. Ed. Stevphen Shukaitis and David Graeber. Edinburgh/Oakland, Calif.: AK Press. 276-287.

Graeber, David (2010). Direct Action: An Ethnography Edinburgh/Oakland: AK Press.

Greenway, Judy. 2008. “Desire, delight, regret: discovering Elizabeth Gibson.” Qualitative Research 8: 317-324. -> ABSTRACT My research into the life of a relative, poet and feminist Elizabeth Gibson, problematizes the boundaries and interrelationships between ‘academic’ and ‘family’ histories, narratives and identities. The desire for, and impossibilities of, control over the components of research and the stories that can be produced from it are discussed. The interrelated narratives of the research into Gibson, my experiences of researching my own family, and the structuring of the material into an academic paper, are analysed and combined to argue that the production and presentation of narratives is itself a form of methodology. The creative juxtaposition of narratives can generate a positive methodological anarchism that relinquishes control and challenges boundaries and hierarchies.

Heckert, Jamie (2010). “Intimacy with Strangers/Intimacy with Self: Queer Experiences of Social Research.” In K. Browne and C. Nash (eds.) Queering Methods and Methodologies: Intersecting Queer Theories and Social Science Research. Farnham: Ashgate.

Ibáñez Gracia, Tomás (2006). “El giro lingüístico.” Análisis del discurso: Manual para las ciencias sociales. Ed. Lupicinio Íñiguez Rueda. Barcelona: Editorial UOC. 23-46

Juris, Jeffrey (2007). “Practicing Militant Ethnography with the Movement for Global Resistance (MRG) in Barcelona.” Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigation, Collective Theorization. Ed. Stevphen Shukaitis and David Graeber. Edinburgh/Oakland, Calif.: AK Press. 164-176.

Juris, Jeffrey (2008). Networking Futures Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Kaufmann, Judy. (2005). “Autotheory: An Autoethnographic Reading of Foucault.” Qualitative Inquiry 11.4: 576-587. –> ABSTRACT In this article, the author plays with the dialectical relationship between theory and autobiography. Interrupting her theoretical interpretation of Foucault’s understanding of the body and subject with autoethnographic pieces that function as illustrations and/or counterpoints to her summary of his theories, the author suggests there is no “right” understanding and use of theory but only autotheoretical interpretations.

Maddock, Kenneth (1961). “Action Anthropology or Applied Anarchism?” ”Anarchy” 8: 232-236.

Newman, Saul (2012). “Research Methods and Problems: Postanarchism.” ”The Continuum Companion to Anarchism.” Ed. Ruth Kinna. New York: Continuum. 41-49.

Pallister-Wilkins, Polly (2008). “Building a new theory in the shell of the old: how anarchism offers an alternative to the limits of social movement theory.” Panel on Anarchist Approaches in Empirical Political Analysis, Anarchist Studies Network conference (Loughborough University, 4-6 September).

Plows, Alexandra (2008). “Social Movements and Ethnographic Methodologies: An Analysis Using Case Study Examples” Sociology Compass 2.5: 1523–1538. –> ABSTRACT This paper defines and discusses the viability and applicability of specific ethnographic methods for the study and theorising of social movements and related social mobilisation. Ethnographic methods are shown to be one tool in a box of available methods, but are perhaps especially suited for the in-depth study of social movements and social networks. Pros and cons of such methods are identified, using examples drawn from an ethnographic narrative comprising over a decade of research; ethnography of UK environmental direct activists, and more recent ethnography of UK publics engaging with human genetic technologies. Ethnography enables developments in latent social interactions to be identified in the field, providing data sources that inform social analysis and the development of theoretical stakes. This ethnographic narrative has contributed to the theorising of complexity in movement collective identity and complex social mobilisation patterns; namely the theorising of social movement. Findings can be disseminated to a range of stakeholders, including the research participants. Thus, ethnography can be both a method for studying social movements and a means of ‘upstream’ public engagement, understanding what is happening at the grassroots, with the aim of enabling capacity building between all actors in the research process. This methodological rationale is defined as ‘action research’.

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1982). “Philosophie populaire: programme.” De la Justice dans la Révolution et dans l’Église. Ed. Célestin Charles Alfred Bouglé and Henri Moysset. Genève : Slatkine. 1.187-284.

– – – (1982). “Septième étude: les idées.” De la Justice dans la Révolution et dans l’Église. Ed. Célestin Charles Alfred Bouglé and Henri Moysset. Genève : Slatkine. 3.149-314.

– – – (1982). De la Création de l’ordre dans l’humanite, ou, principes d’organisation politique. Ed. Célestin Charles Alfred Bouglé and Henri Moysset. Genève: Slatkine.

Purkis, Jonathan (2004). “Towards an Anarchist Sociology.” Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in a Global Age. Ed. Jonathan Purkis and James Bowen. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 39-54.

Amster, Randall, Abraham DeLeon, Luis Fernandez, Anthony J. Nocella, II, and Deric Shannon, eds. (2009). “Section Two: Methodologies.” Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy. London: Routledge. 71-122.

• Ferrell, Jeff. “Against Method, Against Authority… For Anarchy.” 73-81.Routledge, Paul. “Toward a Relational Ethics of Struggle: Embodiment, Affinity, and Affect.” 82-92.Fernandez, Luis A. “Being There: Thoughts on Anarchism and Participatory Observation.” 93-102.Graeber, David. “Anarchism, Academia, and the Avant Garde.” 103-112.

  Ben-Moshe, Liat, Dave Hill, Anthony J. Nocella, II, and Bill Templer. “Dis-Abling Capitalism and an Anarchism of “Radical Equality” in Resistance to Ideologies of Normalcy.” 113-122.