We have witnessed our universities becoming neoliberal institutions as monetary goals surmount academic ones and knowledge becomes a commodity. As professors in a neoliberal institution, we mourn in this moment as we are forced to become skilled at negotiating the power of neoliberalism and our qualitative passion for social justice. Although this mourning manifests itself on multiple fronts, after outlining our ethics and sharing personal vignettes, we discuss the ethical tensions of teaching qualitative research, a marginalized paradigm, in this neoliberal moment.

This paper examines dialogue in the higher education classroom. Instigated by my teaching experiences and the paucity of empirical studies examining dialogue in the higher education classroom, I present a re-examination of data I collected in 1996 for an ethnographic study focusing on the experiences of the participants in an ethnic literature course. I return to this data in order to cast further insight into my own teaching. After discussing the findings of this study -speaking (or not) as a cultural practice and translating dialogue to democracy -I reflect on how these findings inform my own teaching practice as an untenured assistant professor.

How one makes meaning differs according to the theoretical perspective one employs. Aligning with a poststructural theoretical perspective, the author understands that meaning is stabilized by being organized according to the concepts available. By using the same concepts to stabilize meaning, qualitative researchers have the propensity to limit the possibilities of experience and knowledge. One way qualitative researchers can consciously work toward creating new meaning is to experiment with applying alternate concepts when analyzing empirical matter. Such an analysis is an ethical move, for it seeks "better" ways to live and understand. In this article, the author illustrates how empirical matter might be analyzed through three different concepts-reading the self through Foucault, reading the self as a hacceity, and reading the participant through territory. The author concludes with an ethics of a poststructural analysis of empirical matter.

The article discusses a specific incidence that occurred during a study undertaken by the author that analyzed transsexual representation: "I made one of my participants cry. Jessie, a self-identified male-to-female transsexual, was dismayed after reading a completed study in which I examined the narrative construction of her gender. Wiping tears from her eyes, she said, "You have taken away the identity I have worked all my life to build . . . Who am I if you take this away?" I was pained, for my desire was to deconstruct gender, not erase her identity. Yet, Jessie appeared diminished, slumped in her chair, shoulders crumpled, and tears on her cheeks. How did I make such a mess?" In this article the author discusses four modes of transsexual representation that have emerged since the first recorded sex reassignment surgery in the 1920s to the present-hermaphroditic, sex-gender misalignment, queer, and material embodiment. The author then rereads Jessie's narrative through these forms of representation in order to explore how each might function in emancipating gender from heteronormativity and Jessie from analytic erasure. The author concludes by rethinking the tension between Jessie and her narrative using Deleuze and Guattari's idea of content and expression.

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. A couple of years ago, I took a graduate course titled "Women and the Construction of Knowledge." For a final project, I agreed to write a paper on feminism and Foucault. Becoming engrossed in the topic, my reading took me long past the end of spring semester and into the summer months. As fall semester approached, I felt I had to complete this project to focus on my upcoming course load. Consumed with guilt, I handed my professor a final paper, an overview of Foucault without any feminist critiques. The day I was scheduled to meet my professor, I was filled with trepidation: Would she accept this paper for a women's studies course when I did not include feminism? Sitting down at the table with her, I avoided eye contact as she pulled my paper from her bag. "Jodi, this is a fabulous feminist reading of Foucault." Trying to hide my shock, I thanked her and listened to the rest of her comments on my paper. I have been continually baffled by this experience. How could this brilliant professor read my work as feminist? Did I read, without conscious effort, Foucault through a feminist lens?• Two months ago, I was having coffee with an English professor from my university. As our discussion began to focus on Butler, she said, "Your reading of Butler is different than mine; in education, you must focus on different aspects than we do." 576