Working Across/Within/Through Academic Conventions of Writing a Ph.D.: Stories About Writing a Feminist Thesis

  • Anna R. MoxnesEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Gender and Education book series (GED)


This chapter explores some of the stumbling and uncertainties created when developing a feminist Ph.D. thesis. The process draws on Donna Haraway’s and Ursula Le Guin’s bag-lady storytelling strategies—strategies that invite different ways of becoming within an academic ‘world’. The exploration compels me to engage with unexpected and irreducible details when writing feminist texts. It prompts me to reflect on the relationship between academic conventions, the ‘canon’ within reflective practice, and subtle sexism in higher education. I explore data from a literature review together with ‘memory data’ to illustrate some of the obstacles to engaging in feminist research. As a bag-lady, I investigate feminist approaches through troubling academic conventions, one’s ideas, oneself, and reflect on states of becoming an academic thesis writer.


Feminist Ph.D. Reflective practice Donna Haraway Ursula Le Guin Bag-lady stories 


  1. Åberg, A., & Lenz Taguchi, H. (2006). Lyttende pedagogikk [Listening pedagogy]. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, S. (2010). The promise of happiness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a feminist life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arendt, H. (2013). The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, F. S. (2013). Shifting sands in the United Arab Emirates: Effecting conceptual change for creativity in early childhood teacher education. Teacher Development, 17(1), 72–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barad, K. (2014). Diffracting diffraction: Cutting together-apart. Parallax, 20(3), 168–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bayat, M. (2010). Use of dialogue journals and video-recording in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31(2), 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2012). Completing your qualitative dissertation. A road map from beginning to end. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Cherrington, S., & Loveridge, J. (2014). Using video to promote early childhood teachers’ thinking and reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, E. A. (2006). Characterizing productive reflection among preservice elementary teachers: Seeing what matters. Teaching & Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 22(3), 281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Beauvoir, S. (1949/2000). Det annet kjønn [The Second Gender]. Oslo, Norway: Pax Forlag.Google Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
  15. Dolphijn, R., & Van der Tuin, I. (2012). New materialism: Interviews & cartographies. Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garvis, S., & Lemon, N. (2015). Enhancing the Australian early childhood teacher education curriculum about very young children. Early Child Development and Care, 185(4), 549–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grebowicz, M., & Merrick, H. (2013). Beyond the cyborg: Adventures with Donna Haraway. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Grüters, R. (2011). Refleksjon i blogg: En hermeneutisk studie av refleksjon og dens tekstlige og retoriske manifestasjoner i en ny type skrive- og arkiveringsteknologi [Reflection in blog: A hermeneutic study of reflection and its textual and rhetorical manifestations in a new type of writing and archiving technology] (Doctoral dissertation). Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. Last accessed August 2018.
  19. Gur-Ze’ev, I., Masschelein, J., & Blake, N. (2001). Reflectivity, reflection, and counter-education. An International Journal, 20(2), 93–106.Google Scholar
  20. Ha, Y. L. (2014). Who’s the teacher? Who’s the learner? Professional growth and development of a novice teacher in Hong Kong. Childhood Education, 90(1), 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haraway, D. J. (1997). Modest_Witness@ Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouseTM: Feminism and technoscience. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Haraway, D. J. (2004). The Haraway reader. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hohti, R. (2018). Siiri and the ‘Bag Lady’. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 9(1 special issue), 6–16.Google Scholar
  25. Hostetler, K. D. (2016). Beyond reflection: Perception, virtue, and teacher knowledge. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(2), 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Khales, B., & Meier, D. (2013). Toward a new way of learning—Promoting inquiry and reflection in Palestinian early childhood teacher education. The New Educator, 9(4), 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kinsella, E. A. (2012). Practitioner reflection and judgement as phronesis: A continuum of reflection and considerations for phronetic judgement. In E. A. Kinsella & A. Pitman (Eds.), Phronesis as professional knowledge. Practical wisdom in the profession (pp. 35–52). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kinsella, E. A., & Whiteford, G. E. (2009). Knowledge generation and utilisation in occupational therapy: Towards epistemic reflexivity. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 56(4), 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kolle, T., Larsen, A. S., & Ulla, B. (2010). Pedagogisk dokumentasjon [Pedagogical documentation]. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
  30. Korsvold, T. (2005). For alle barn. Barnehagens framvekst i velferdsstaten [For all children. The emergence of kindergartens in the welfare state] (2nd ed.). Oslo, Norway: Abstrakt Forlag.Google Scholar
  31. Korthagen, F., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Korthagen, F., Kim, Y. M., & Greene, W. L. (2013). Teaching and learning from within: A core reflection approach to quality and inspiration in education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Lafton, T. (2016). Refleksjoner og handlinger i barnehagens møter med teknologi. Sosio-materielle teorier som optikk for (re) konstruksjoner av barnehagepraksiser [Reflections and interactions with technology at kindergarten meetings with technology. Socio-material theories as optics for (re) constructions of kindergarten practices] (Doctoral dissertation). University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Last accessed August 2018.
  34. Lanas, M., Rautio, P., Koskela, A., Kinnunen, S., Viljamaa, E., & Juutinen, J. (2015). Engaging with theoretical diffraction in teacher education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(4), 1–12.Google Scholar
  35. Larsen, A. S. (2015). Forstyrrelsers paradoksale kraft. En studie av hvordan forstyrrelser kan virke produktivt i pedagogisk arbeid i barnehagen [Paradoxical power of disturbances: A study of how disturbance might work productively in pedagogical work in kindergarten] (Doctoral dissertation). Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. Last accessed August 2018.
  36. Le Guin, U. (1989). Dancing at the edge of the world. London, UK: Victor Gollancz.Google Scholar
  37. Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010). Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Lenz Taguchi, H. (2012). A diffractive and Deleuzian approach to analysing interview data. Feminist Theory, 13(3), 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lenz Taguchi, H., & Palmer, A. (2013). A more ‘livable’ school? A diffractive analysis of the performative enactments of girls’ ill-/well-being with(in) school environments. Gender and Education, 25(6), 671–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MacLure, M. (2013a). Researching without representation? Language and materiality in post-qualitative methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 658–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacLure, M. (2013b). The wonder of data. Cultural Studies—Critical Methodologies, 13(4), 228–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moxnes, A. R. (2016). Refleksjon i barnehagelærerutdanningen [Reflection in early childhood teacher education]. Journal of Nordic Early Childhood Education Research, 12(7), 1–13.Google Scholar
  44. Moxnes, A. R., & Osgood, J. (2018). Sticky stories from the classroom: From reflection to diffraction in early childhood teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 19(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ødegård, E. (2011). Nyutdannede pedagogiske lederes mestring og appropriering av barnehagens kulturelle redskaper [Newly educated educational leaders’ management and appropriation of cultural tools in kindergartens]. Oslo, Norway: Unipub Forlaget.Google Scholar
  46. Osgood, J., & Giugni, R. R. S. M. (2015). Putting posthumanist theory to work to reconfigure gender in early childhood: When theory becomes method becomes art. Global Studies of Childhood, 5(3), 346–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Palmer, A. (2011). ‘How many sums can I do’?: Performative strategies and diffractive thinking as methodological tools for rethinking mathematical subjectivity. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology (RERM), 1(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  48. Säljö, R. (2006). Læring og kulturelle redskaper [Learning and cultural tools]. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Akademiske Forlag.Google Scholar
  49. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  50. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  51. Solstad, A. G. (2010). Praksisnær teori og teorinær praksis – den nødvendige relasjonen [Practical theory and theoretical practice—The necessary relationship]. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 94(3), 203–218.Google Scholar
  52. Solstad, A. G. (2013). Profesjonsorientert refleksjon i praksisopplæringen – en utfordring for lærerutdanningen [Job-oriented reflection in practice training—A challenge for teacher education]. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 97(2), 97–108.Google Scholar
  53. Søndenå, K. (2002). Tradisjon og transcendens: ein fenomenologisk studie av refleksjon i norsk førskulelærarutdanning [Tradition and transcendence: A phenomenological study of reflection on Norwegian pre-school teacher education] (Vol. 175). Gothenburg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  54. Søndenå, K. (2004). Kraftfull refleksjon i lærarutdanninga [Powerful reflections on teacher education]. Oslo, Norway: Abstrakt Forlag.Google Scholar
  55. Steinnes, G. S. (2014). A study of preschool teachers in mastery of roles, in qualifications for the profession and division of labor with assistants (Doctoral dissertation). Oslo and Akesrhus University College, Oslo, Norway. Last accessed August 2018.
  56. St. Pierre, E. A. (2016). Rethinking the empirical in the posthuman. In C. A. Taylor & C. Hughes (Eds.), Posthuman research practices in education (pp. 25–36). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  57. St. Pierre, E. A., Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2016). New empiricisms and new materialisms: Conditions for new inquiry. Cultural StudiesCritical Methodologies, 16(2), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Taylor, C. A. (2017). Rethinking the empirical in higher education: Post-qualitative inquiry as a less comfortable social science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 40(3), 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thomson, P., & Kamler, B. (2016). Detox your writing: Strategies for doctoral researchers. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van der Tuin, I. (2014). Generational feminism: New materialist introduction to a generative approach. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  61. van Manen, M. (1999). Knowledge, reflection and complexity in teacher practice. In M. Lang, J. Olson, H. Hansen, & W. Bünder (Eds.), Changing schools/changing practices: Perspectives on educational reform and teacher professionalism (pp. 65–76). ISER, international series on educational renewal. Louvain, Belgium: Garant Publishers.Google Scholar
  62. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Humanities, Sports and Educational SiencesUniversty of South-Eastern Norway, USNKongsbergNorway

Personalised recommendations