When I got a job as a lecturer in qualitative research methods, it seemed obvious to me that I was a qualitative researcher. Since then, five years of teaching qualitative methods and research design to qualitative and quantitative students from across the social sciences have made me growingly uncomfortable with the "qualitative" versus "quantitative" binary categorisation. It often feels like I am pushing categories inherited from previous (established) generations onto new generations. We teach students to problematise categories but ask them to take these for granted. We ask students to be cautious about elements of their socialisation that may lead to social reproduction and come in the way of thinking differently, yet repeat potentially rigid ways of thinking methodology. This practice does not match my pedagogy let alone the values that guide my academic work and the way I see my life.
Two types of literature have helped me fuel this reflection. On the one hand, literature has developed teaching material to help identify “what is qualitative” and support teachers of “qualitative” modules to answer this question (Flick et al., 2004; Martyn Hammersley, 2013). Some authors also tend to directly engage the differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches, for example in the context of mixed-method research (see Baškarada and Koronios, 2018; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017). On the other hand, researchers have provocatively attempted to nuance these differences by stressing the idea that qualitative dimensions of research are “present in quantitative work as well” (Aspers and Corte, 2019: 9413), shifting the conversation regarding what qualitative research is by arguing that “the answer does not matter but the question is important” (Small, 2021), or “transcend[ing] or even subvert[ing] the so-called qualitative-quantitative divide” (Mason, 2006: 9).
In this blog post, I introduce the main points that helped me challenge my socialisation about what is qualitative research and challenge my perceptions about the qualitative versus quantitative divide. Following my own journey, I synthesise what I believed was something specifically qualitative about research before introducing the argument that made me question this belief: in terms of data, method, research design, and standards and values followed by research. As we will see, these ideas are not individual and are in fact discourses commonly found in the methodological literature.
Through analytically organising four arguments that helped me debunk my own assumptions, I hope that this piece can help readers put into perspective their own in an accessible and easy-to-digest way, for example as a brainstorming exercise for a much-needed conversation in methodology seminars. As such, I did not write this piece as a way to denunciate colleagues still finding good use in the binary or as a way to put forward a unique version of what I define as qualitative. This short piece also does not aim to provide an exhaustive review of all the ways qualitative research has been defined in the literature (for readers interested in such literature review, see for example (Aspers and Corte 2019)). Rather I wanted to contribute to put forward the need to unveil, question, and problematise taken-for-granted assumptions and blinders that may come with usual methodological categorisation to avoid further reifying these positions. I wanted to write this essay as an invitation and a provocation to challenge categories that unfortunately sometimes get in the way of not only useful methodological cross-pollination but also healthy academic (pluralistic) environments, in the hope that we can socialise next generations in less entrenched and rigid categories.

One definition of qualitative research I commonly encountered is that research is qualitative when it uses qualitative data. Non-numerical data for example include “rich description given by people (NOT necessary randomly selected – more a kind of a purposeful sample), via interview transcripts, archival documents, descriptive observations, historical and non-historical documents, archaeological-type of ancient languages, though also, through emerging data sources including visual data such as photos and generated art, as well as reflexive logbooks” (Tenenbaum et al., 2011: 349). As such qualitative data is defined as non-numerical in opposition to quantitative data which is defined as numerical (Kalra et al., 2013; Nassaji, 2020).
However, this otherwise straightforward distinction between qualitative and quantitative data does not necessarily hold under scrutiny. On one hand, how we approach so-called ‘qualitative’ data is often implicitly quantitative. Indeed, as Benoit notes:
“… relations such as stronger or greater imply, whether this is made explicit or not, a relative degree of quantity, even if the characteristic being compared is discussed in purely qualitative terms. The act of comparison, therefore, naturally and readily lends itself to quantification.” (Benoit 2005, 10)
On the other hand, quantitative data is rarely purely numerical in all the stages of the research process, a classic example of this being textual data. Used for quantitative analysis, textual data is non-numerical by nature and must be converted into numbers to be analysed quantitively before being transformed into words again in the process of analysis. Moreover, one can note that in the current context of increased computational power and the democratisation of specialised softwares, less and less statistical knowledge and direct manipulation of this quantification process is required in the hand of the researchers as researchers can growingly adopt packages and models that do this conversion for them (see for example Quanteda Guru for quantitative text analysis or H2O AutoML for machine learning).

A second conventional way of distinguishing qualitative and quantitative research I encountered deals with the type of methods used. If the research employs a method of data collection (e.g., interviews, participant observation) perceived as qualitative, then the project is deemed qualitative (Flick, 2017). If the research employs a method of data analysis perceived as qualitative (e.g., discourse analysis, visual analysis) then the project is deemed qualitative (Dey, 1993).
But what do make some methods to be labelled as qualitative in the first place? Qualitative methods of data collection are often associated with direct interactions with human beings – qualitative methods “study persons by directly interacting with them” (Aluwihare-Samaranayake, 2012: 65)– as well as immersion – one goes in the field and spends time with the social groups studied. Qualitative methods of analysis are often associated with the study of perceptions and meanings; one does not only investigate what is but also/rather how people experience things and talk about them (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).
 
However, in contrast with this neat division, one can see that some methods labelled as ‘quantitative’ also directly engage with human participants – e.g., experiments – or aim to understand perceptions – e.g., surveys. In addition, many qualitative methods of collection and analysis do not involve the researcher being physically present or directly interacting with the population studied – e.g., qualitative research focusing on documents or social media data.

A third element used to define qualitative research and to define it in contrast with quantitative research deals with ways of doing research, which some may refer to as epistemological dimensions. Qualitative methods are often qualified as ‘interpretative’ in contrast to ‘a natural scientific model in quantitative research’ which some refer to as positivism ((Clark et al., 2008: 266) cited in (Lamont, 2021, p. 95)). These terms are not often precisely defined. However, one implication of this distinction is that quantitative research is put forward as capable of providing evidence demonstrating causal links in a way that qualitative research cannot (Gunter, 2013). Finally, scholarship sometimes defines and distinguishes qualitative and quantitative research by emphasising the former’s predilection to focus on micro-processes and the latter being best equipped to investigate macro phenomena (Kelle, 2001: 103).
While such perceptions are commonly circulated, there is an established body of literature showing that these distinctions are far from clear-cut. Seminal texts such as King et al. (1994) have long argued that “the logic of inference, or positivism, unites qualitative and quantitative approaches to research.” (Lamont, 2021: 95). Moreover, qualitative methods are growingly mobilised to investigate causality qualitatively, such as is the case with process tracing (Waldner 2015). Finally, many qualitative projects aim to make macro claims, for example by developing elaborated multi-method qualitative research designs to study complex objects such as globalization and internationalization processes. Growing arguments for ‘Big Qual’ datasets also reflect a trend towards macro qualitative work (Davidson et al., 2019; Taylor & Schroeder, 2015).

​Finally, qualitative research is often defined by research values and attention to specific dimensions of research considered characteristic of the qualitative tradition. Some authors refer to them as “qualitative sensitivities” (Tanweer et al., 2021) but these could also be interpreted as specific standards for evaluating research quality. The following points are routinely presented as specific to qualitative research and less emphasized in quantitative research:
Interpretation. Interpretation is considered an important dimension of knowledge production within qualitative research. As such, Tanweer et al. (2021, p. 1) emphasise the “interpretivist lens” as one of the “qualitative sensitivities” they put forward. According to them, the interpretivist lens is “concerned with the construction of meaning in a given context”. In my understanding, this applies not only to the world we study but also to how we approach the process through which we conduct research. Every time we transform data into findings we engage in a process of “this means that” – a meaning-making process – that is one of the most important steps of research. As such, any act of analysis is an interpretative act (Alejandro, 2019) and interpretation should be taken seriously when it comes to validity and quality of research as this act, constitutive of the jump from data to results is where many errors and biases become embedded in our work.
The human element of research. Two dimensions are summarized under this point. On one hand, the human element of research concerns who is researched and how, often with the consideration of avoiding producing harm via our research. This concern has led to an established body of qualitative research literature focusing on research ethics (Kostovicova and Knott, 2022). On the other hand, the human element of research deals with how elements of our socialization, trajectory, and positionality, affect knowledge production and what we should do about it. Here, the keyword is reflexivity, understood "as the practice of making conscious and explicit our practices, assumptions and dispositions" (Alejandro, 2021: 152). Beyond these key dimensions, qualitative scholarship has also introduced socio-psychological concepts to the methodological literature to foster engagement with the human dimension of research and guide researchers in this regard. One such is “emotional intelligence” defined by (Salovey and Mayer, 1990) "as being able to monitor and regulate feelings to guide thought and action through five basic competencies: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills."
Context. Finally, the importance of the context in which the phenomenon studied happens has also traditionally been put forward as an important question in qualitative research (Miller and Dingwall, 1997). This means approaching social phenomena as context-dependent and mobilising primary and secondary sources to produce contextualisation in order to identify how so. Namely, it follows the idea that social problems can only be understood and explained in relation to the contexts (social, political, historical, economic, textual, cultural…) in which they emerge. In that sense, sensitivity to context helps us make sure that claims match empirical evidence in order to avoid problems such as overgeneralising or misattributing characteristics to human subjects that in fact do not match their reality (see for example the literature investigating the problem of Eurocentrism in social sciences).
In regard to qualitative sensitivities and how they are mobilised to distinguish qualitative from quantitative work, I make a normative argument. Qualitative research has distinguished itself for being sensitive and careful about the human element of research, how we interpret, and the contexts in which what study happens. It is unclear why these criteria would only be relevant for qualitative research and why they should not be valued and promoted within social science research at large. Indeed, these elements seem very likely to increase the validity and quality of any kind of research. They also engage with the socio-political implications of research which are growingly put forward beyond qualitative circles, for example in computational social science within and beyond academia.

When I teach methodology, students often ask me what is qualitative research and how it differs from quantitative research. This question is at the forefront of students' learning methodology and how I am asked to organise and label my modules and lectures. In contrast, it seems that established colleagues asked these questions less and less the further into their careers. Identities become comfortably established across the binary as their research programme becomes easily identifiable through these terms.
In this blog post, I aimed to show that without being completely obsolete, the qualitative versus quantitative binary is largely overrated and does not deserve to organise curricula, research programmes, and academic fields in such an extensive way. Social science methodologists pride themselves on the rigour and quality of their analysis. However, when it comes to their own research practice, the lack of precision of the categories we commonly use is striking. Identities and traditions prevail over critical thinking and updating our frameworks to case-by-case situations. The same standards and questioning attitude with which we uphold ourselves when it comes to categories of observation and measurement should also be implemented when it comes to the categories we use in our everyday professional life, as these impact how we work together across the knowledge boundaries thus created.
To conclude, I invite the readers to reflect on the way they relate to the categories qualitative and quantitative and their traditional opposition when it comes to research methodology. Here is a combination of factual, reflective and normative questions to open the floor to the readers and help foster a collective conversation:
 
•       Can you relate to the common perceptions highlighted in this research note? Do you use the categories qualitative versus quantitative often in your everyday work? How so?
•       What are the potential benefits of using (and opposing) the binary qual. versus quant.?
•       Is it useful to mediate the field of methodology through this binary? What are the potential negative consequences of doing so?
•       Shall we still keep socialising the new generations in these old categories? Why so? Does it contribute to producing better knowledge and healthier academic environments?
•       What are the sociological, psychological, political and economic dynamics behind the ongoing success of the use of this binary in social sciences? Who does it benefit? To whose detriment?
•       Why do we keep saying we are qualitative? What does it bring us?

Alejandro A (2019) What is analysis ? Some tips to become more analytical, The Methodological Artist - ​Personal blog, 2019.
Alejandro A (2021) Reflexive discourse analysis: A methodology for the practice of reflexivity, European Journal of International Relations, 27, 1, 2021, 150-174.
​Aluwihare-Samaranayake D (2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research: A View of the Participants’ and Researchers’ World from a Critical Standpoint. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 11(2): 64–81.
Aspers P and Corte U (2019) What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Sociology 42(2). Springer New York LLC: 139–160.
Baškarada S and Koronios A (2018) A philosophical discussion of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research in social science. Qualitative Research Journal 18(1): 2–21.
Clark T, Foster L, Sloan L, et al. (2008) Bryman’s Social Research Methods.
Creswell JW and Plano Clark VL (2017) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research | SAGE Publications Ltd.
Davidson E, Edwards R, Jamieson L, et al. (2019) Big data, qualitative style: a breadth-and-depth method for working with large amounts of secondary qualitative data. Quality and Quantity 53(1). Springer Netherlands: 363–376.
Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Dey Ian (1993) Qualitative Data Analysis: A User-Friendly Guide for Social Scientists. New York, NY: Routledge.
Flick U (2017) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Flick U, Kardorff E Von and Steinke I (2004) What is Qualitative Research? An Introduction to the Field. A Companion to Qualitative Research (May). Epub ahead of print 2004.
Gunter B (2013) The quantitative research process. A Handbook of Media and Communication Research: Qualitative and quantitative methodologies: 2nd edition. Taylor and Francis: 237–264.
Kalra S, Pathak V and Jena B (2013) Qualitative research. Perspectives in Clinical Research 4(3). Medknow: 192.
Kelle U (2001) Sociological Explanations between Micro and Macro and the Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 2(1).
Kostovicova D and Knott E (2022) Harm, change and unpredictability: the ethics of interviews in conflict research. Qualitative Research 22(1): 56–73.
Lamont C (2021) Research Methods in International Relations. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Martyn Hammersley (2013) What Is Qualitative Research. London: Bloomsbury.
Mason J (2006) Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research 6(1).
Miller Gale and Dingwall Robert (1997) Context and Method in Qualitative Research. Context and Method in Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications Ltd: 1–240.
Nassaji H (2020) Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research 24(4): 427–431.
Salovey P and Mayer JD (1990) Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 9(3): 185–211.
Small ML (2021) What is “Qualitative” in Qualitative Research? Why the Answer Does not Matter but the Question is Important. Qualitative Sociology 44(4). Springer: 567–574.
Tanweer A, Gade EK, Krafft PM, et al. (2021) Why the Data Revolution Needs Qualitative Methods. Harvard Data Science Review. Epub ahead of print 17 June 2021.
Taylor L and Schroeder R (2015) Is bigger better? The emergence of big data as a tool for international development policy. GeoJournal 80(4). Springer Netherlands: 503–518.
Tenenbaum G, Gershgoren L and Schinke RJ (2011) Non-numerical data as data: a positivistic perspective. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 3(3): 349–361.
Waldner D (2015) Process Tracing and Qualitative Causal Inference. Security Studies 24(2). Routledge: 239–250.

A poem ain't gonna change the world. But learning how to create and be comfortable doing it will. Change does not come by repeating what was, but by birthing something new. Creation is a god-like act. It does not just happen. Life is busy, tiring, pressuring. It takes time and energy to carve into our schedule space for creativity. To foster this feeling, to nurture it, so it can nurture us in return and pour over other dimensions of our life and back into the world. Avoiding the social reproduction of the world requires also standing up against inertia, the masses, structural constrains. It requires some level of Courage. There is always some level of risk involved for those willing to put their head above the water to push for social change. Courage to stand up on our own against what is and what needs to change does not happen in a day. We need to learn how to be navigate our fear, work with it, keep pushing in spite of it. Standing in front of a crowd, in public, reading a poem we have created, for many is something out of our comfort zone. Pushing against our fear, one public display of creativity at a time, helps us grow in confidence. Standing on our own, yet not really alone.

To curate a space and structure some time for our students to put these ideas into practice, Alex Stoffel and I organised a poetry activity on Thursday 16 2023 as one of the teach-outs taking place at the London School of Economics during the 2023 strikes over pensions and pay​  This is how we introduced the activity to the students:

"We thought this would be a wonderful opportunity to reconnect and spend some time together outside of the regular setting. The objective is to share our frustrations and hopes for the higher education system. Everyone is invited to come (please don't hesitate to invite others!) and should bring along either poetry you have created or that others have written. The poetry doesn't have to be directly about academia; it can be related to any themes of resistance and creating a different future, individually or collectively."

The activity was completely voluntary. To help students prepare themselves and give them a boost of confidence, we organised a get-together a few days before. 

The event was a blast. As one of the participants shared on Twitter, it was truly a "magical" experience. Yes, we did drop "some nasty rhymes"  but it was also about putting ourselves out there, standing up together and inspiring each other. As another of the participants shared after the event: "Overall, it was simply one of the best things .... to be part of something much bigger than our everyday, mundane life :)"  

Because this is not something many of us had done before and in the context of the global classroom,  where many of our students face pressure regarding censorship from their home country, VISA and scholarship status, we aimed for the activity to be as inclusive as possible. We shared the following with the students prior to the event:

• "Some students may feel comfortable reading poems in public but not writing them. Some students may feel comfortable writing poems but not reading them. Strength comes from uniting our forces. For those who come to the preparatory session, we will do some matching up between writers-only and readers-only students so everyone can play a role and feel comfortable with their participation. If you can’t come for the prep session, just send Alex/I an email with the poem you would like other people to read, or saying that you volunteer to read someone else’s poem.
• Following on the previous point, we would like to more specifically address the concerns of those of you who would like to be involved but have concerns regarding being a speaker during the teach-out session on Thursday 16 because of VISA/scholarship/privacy/censorship concerns. We organise this event to inspire and support each other in believing a world with more creativity and freedom is possible. As a result, we don’t want those of you who need this strength the most to have to self-censor or feel excluded, but we also don’t want to put you in potential harm.  We brainstormed strategies to make you feel safe and as included as you feel comfortable to be. We suggest the following options:

-       The preparatory session will be in a controlled environment where we will ask participants not to take pictures/videos of other students, so everyone feels safe to join;
-       Alex, I and the students who volunteer can read the poems of the students who want to write poems anonymously;
-       I invite all students who have written poems to send them to me after the event so I can publish them as a blog post on my methodological artist blog. Those who want will be able to publish them anonymously;
-       Some students suggested coming up with masks/hats to avoid facial recognition. This would be visually very powerful, especially if a group of you do it. Please don’t feel pressured to do it, but if some of you want to organise a masked intervention you are very much welcome.
-       Whether or not you write poems, you are always welcome to join the teach-out on Thursday 16 as part of the audience."

As one of the students who contributed to the event anonymously commented: "Showing solidarity with academics during the strike actions in such creative forms is memorable. I find the teach-outs and marches very politically awakening. As an international student, it's a precious opportunity to learn how the higher education system works and how the flawed mechanism can affect academics and students. Having been living in an authoritarian context before coming to study in the UK, I haven't had any chance to join a march and protest for myself and make an appeal. I cherish expressing solidarity with you all."

Below are the poems of the students who volunteered to share them on the blog-post. Some of the poems come with a bit of context (at the end of the poem) that the students wanted to share with us, for example when the poem is centred around a specific reference to LSE or their experience.

I hope you'll enjoy reading the poems and participating in this creative journey as much as we did 😍​

By Audrey Alejandro, the Methodological Artist
Here is the video of me reciting the poem the day of the event. Thank you Pilar Elizalde for the recording.

Once upon a time in a land far way
In the wild I was born.

Through the earth, through the air,
Through the shadows, through the sea
Life and work got me here, in the intellectual concrete
Some call L.S.E.

Hired I became. Cooking for my students
Prepar-ing for them my wee-kly potion:
1 Litre of analytical wit to sharpen the mind
1 cup of courage to help grow a strong spine
1 spoon of unknown for the imagination
A few words of magic for the transformation
How sweet is the taste of the witchy witch poison.

I’m cooking, I’m cooking 
… but something‘s going on.
Do you hear anything?
Let me pay attention.
A mutter in the sky, a murmur in my heart.
I hear a word: despair.
Where is it coming from?

Thousands of admin files laced in regulations. They shriek.
Neo-liberal eyes, red and dull, modern abomination. They speak:

“Her ideas are quite weird 
She doesn’t brush her hair.
She wears too much colour. 
She won’t go anywhere.”

Witch-hunters in disguise. They come.
They try to hunt me down.
But what did I expect?
I signed my name in the book of the beast after all, didn’t I?
Dehumanisation monster, factory for the mind,
All that for my pay-check.
Life undead, depletion, exhaustion spells.
Where can I go for help?

I look inside.
Sekhmet, Hecate, Chhinnamasta, Cerridwen.
Goddess of wisdom and change.
We call upon you, 
I the crazy weird witch and the children of the new.
Give us courage. Give us strength.
Show us the path and guide us through.

Silence. Then the goddess softly says:
“Rise poets. Rise.
Rise from these dreadful ashes. 
I bless a reform for this institution.
Consume none. Provoke many.
Rise into the brave inspiring adults you were always meant to be.”

By Miyuki Shiraki

Beaver the weaver
See her build and burrow
Strong-willed and thorough
Thrilled to claim space
As if there’s no tomorrow

Meagre branches
See her
She dances
Bring the twig
Tease her
She advances
Mapping margins
Stacking in the gardens
Hard work pays off
Believe her
She’s Beaver the believer

Then
In the Eden
Where the beaver is eager
Time stops
A sudden seizure
Crime stomps
​On her future
The beaver feels weaker
Annoyed and devoid
With a void deployed

Delusional is the institutional
Imputable, not excusable
Today, a long wait
The days elongate
It’s like an endless hike
This current strike
Casualisation, pay gaps, and withdrawing from Stonewall
Deceiver, can’t you see her?
Why leave her?
Keep her,
Beaver the believer

“To know the causes of things”
You know what dramas that bring,
Deceiver, you leave her
Beaver and the teacher
Teach her, the creature,
​Beaver the believer
To be the achiever

Context: The beaver is LSE mascot. The poem uses the beaver as a metaphor to express what it feels like to be a willing and hardworking students in the current system.

by Walter Schutjens

And the men who hold high places 
Must be the ones who start 
To mould a new reality 
Closer to the heart 
 
But now high places have high salaries 
And thus think themselves apart 
These high places are these glass towers 
That grow further from the heart 
 
LSE's founders forged into much older stained glass 
And thus, unto us impart  
A demand for social justice through knowledge 
Made directly from the heart 
 
Knowledge derived from knowing the cause of things 
our motto: Rerum cognoscere causas if you're smart 
Knowledge of real working conditions 
Using both our heads and heart 
 
To move away from this progressive political legacy 
And let neoliberal technocrats freely play their corruptive part 
Would mean losing our direction and humanity 
The substance of the heart 
 
Their casual casualization of effective education  
Will force future generations to restart 
In their slow progress to freer societies 
That lie nearer to the heart 
 
This management is an affront to LSE's history 
And yet they seem to make it into their art 
To laissez fairly undermine its very foundation 
And drive stakes through this beaver’s heart 

Context: This fact may strike people as unlikely nowadays, but it is no coincidence that the same people who founded the Labour Society were also the founders of our LSE. These people were the Fabians and they inscribed in its very motto the critical dictum that it retains today: rerum cognoscere causas 'know the cause of things', this dictum is in its nature progressive at it promotes understanding of society by its roots, much like the method of the reformist socialist project they initiated in the early 20th century. In the back of the Shaw Library on the 6th floor of the Old Building one can find a stained glass window that was made on the day of LSE's opening, at the top of this modern interpretation of classical liturgy one finds the biblical dictum: 'Remould It Nearer to the Hearts Desire' - it captured the socialist social scientific project LSE was to embark on; but what has come of it when a modern LSE doesnt respect the basic workers rights of its employees. This poem is a reflection on LSE's heritage and what has changed. The first stanza is lent from the classic Rush song: 'Closer to the Heart'. 

by Gabby Unipan

​I stand alone
In a foreign country
Far from friends, family, and home
Am I alone?
I feel so far away

I find myself waiting, watching, yearning
For an unrecognizable reality,
a home, a school, a society
I have never known.

I stand alone
Grieving an experience I could have had,
Should have had.
Stolen out of my grasp
By an invisible, seemingly invincible, divisible force
We all recognize but fail to kill

It smothers us, blinds us, 
Snuffs out our senses
This force, this system
Robs our autonomy
Reduces individuality to marketability

I stand alone,
Forcibly deprioritizing the things I value most
Community, connection, creativity
In favor of my profitable qualities

I stand alone, screaming into the void,
Counteracting the commodification of my experience,
Of my labor,
Of my learning,
Of my teachers,
My classmates, my friends, my family,
My creativity.

Do you stand alone?
Will you stand with me?

by Ruth Boardman

How can it be that the very institutions given the power to educate,
Those who want to learn and strive for a better future,
Those who aim to better not only themselves but future generations,
Those aiming to create a safer and more respectful culture.
 
How can it be that those very same institutions publish research on equality,
Civil, social, economic, health, political.
Research that is used in different sectors of industry,
Leading to outcomes that twenty years ago would have been thought of as miracles.
 
How can it be that these very same institutions who cite values of integrity and diversity;
Claiming to build sustainable futures for people alike,
Leave their staff fearing for their jobs,
Causing them to strike.
 
How can it be that these very same institutions whose research leads to miracles,
Has a third of academic staff on temporary contracts who are hourly paid,
These are the academics facing job insecurity,
Unsure if they’ll be returning to work or facing the blade.
 
How can it be that these very same institutions who seek to drive positive change,
Have decided to accept a negative change in its staff’s pensions,
With a guaranteed loss in retirement incomes.
Are you not aware of this condescension?
 
How can it be that these very same institutions preaching diversity,
See ethnic, gender and disability pay gaps.
Ironically publishing papers on gaps in other industries,
Whilst falling themselves dangerously into the trap.
 
How can it be that these very same institutions,
Who myself, my friends and those who study here,
Have paid thousands of pounds to learn from your academic staff,
Are suffering due to your inability to make these inequalities disappear?
 
How can it be that these very same institutions,
Are failing their staff and students?

by Hongli Liu

Maybe we can be excellent in teaching,
But we lack the energy.
 
Maybe we always show up in class,
But we lose the passion.
 
Maybe we work endlessly to get job done,
But our time and work are not respected.
 
Maybe we understand education systems change,
But we never thought our situation would be on the margin.
 
Maybe we want to give our best to students,
But our real-life situation drains us.
 
Maybe … we are all fragile human beings,
But we have been treated like superheroes.
 
Maybe we just want to show our resistance via strike,
But nobody listens.
Or,
If anybody is listening...
 
So, we look up, where does our help come from?
Does it come from those who sit in these tall buildings?
No, our help comes from those who listen and acts upon our words.

by Macquarie
​
You say the rainbow ugly,
I see we shining in your dictionary;
You say we deviant and silly,
I see we writing down your obituary.
 
Dancing coord,
Singing pulse;
Unnamed color,
Unbuttoned coat;
You say we are nothing,
I see we are everything.
 
I see you watching,
I see you listening;
Stop raping my mother tongue,
Stop murdering my sisters young.
 
“The Child is father of the Man,”
But all you do is wear your masks deadpan;
Dude, we are making it real,
We shall bear no child to be our Achilles’ Heel;
We are the last generation,
We’ll shout that out loud on your coronation.
 
Your voice is unequivocal,
My tears are political;
Because in love I see all the possibilities,
In love, I see all the divinities.
 
I see les feuilles tombent en dansant,
Le soleil se couche en éteignant,
Le cœur se brise en saignant,
Le cheval rouge court en suant,
La mer déferle en rugissant,
La chanson finissant en continuant,
Le petit prince part en disant adieu tendrement.

by Alex Stoffel
​
My first day on a picket line,
It was cold and rainy.
A bus honked in passing,
And a friend said to me,
“Solidarity feels like you’re turning inside out.”

We spoke about teaching,
but about marking and metrics,
and a bus honked in passing.

We spoke about research,
but about submissions and citations.
while another bus honked.

Three more years on the picket,
It’s cold and rainy.
We speak about academic struggles,
about holding them,
like prized possessions,
turning inwards on ourselves.

My fourth year on the picket,
the bus drivers have won their dispute.
We speak about winning,
about turning outwards into politics.
We smile in anticipation,
As a bus honks in passing.

It’s cold and rainy,
but I say to my friend,
“Solidarity turns you inside out.”