The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contextualizing Theories and Practices of Bricolage Research
Open accessAbstract
Within the last decade, bricolage, as an approach to qualitative inquiry, has gained popularity in academic circles. However, while conceptual and concrete precedents exist, the approach has remained relatively misunderstood, and unpopular, in broader research communities. This may be because the complexity of the approach has stymied widespread discussions and commentary. This article means to address this concern by providing a thick, yet accessible, introduction to bricolage as an approach to qualitative inquiry. While researchers and scholars have conceptualized bricolage, few have attempted to provide an overview of how the concept emerged in relation to qualitative research. Further, while the literature on bricolage offers invaluable conceptual insights, lacking is a survey that provides clear examples of how bricolage has been implemented in research contexts. Therefore, while greatest attention in this article is devoted to contextualizing bricolage and introducing influential theorists, it also provides key examples of research that adopts the bricolage approach. In drawing on a plurality of sources, the article provides a thick discussion of the complex bricolage project; one that can be beneficial to both novice and seasoned researchers who pursue alternative methodological approaches.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity
McIntosh, M. (1991) · Feminist Review · doi:10.1057/fr.1991.33 · Cited by 29,379
(1980) · Cited by 22,286
The SAGE handbook of qualitative research
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-1330 · Cited by 10,183
8 Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2024) · Foundational Concepts of Decolonial and Southern Epistemologies · doi:10.21832/9781800418868-012 · Cited by 9,810
Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples
Hall, T. D., & Smith, L. T. (2000) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2653993 · Cited by 7,420
Gender trouble : feminism and the subversion of identity
Butler, J. (1999) · Cited by 5,203
(2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912281732 · Cited by 4,703
The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005) · Cited by 3,023
Course in General Linguistics: Ferdinand de Saussure
(2013) · Bloomsbury Publishing Plc eBooks · doi:10.5040/9781350284968 · Cited by 2,695
’Society Must Be Defended’: Lectures at the College de France
Cote, M. (2004) · Canadian Journal of Communication · doi:10.22230/cjc.2004v29n3a1488 · Cited by 2,494
Cited by
Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2024) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069241229777 · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- Rogers, M.
- Venue
- The Qualitative Report
- Publisher
- Nova Southeastern University
- Published
- 2015-01-20
- ISSN
- 1052-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 2160-3715
- OpenAlex
- W2372929
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 132.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contextualizing Theories and Practices of Bricolage Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1704
- The paper
- Rogers, M. (2015). Contextualizing Theories and Practices of Bricolage Research. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1704
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.