Abstract
In this chapter we seek to challenge positivist and traditional ways of conducting research in the field of science education by turning to post-human approaches in order to analyse the data. Feeling trapped when completing research where objects are regarded as having inherent boundaries and fixed properties, we have read data with and through a feminist materialist lens. We are curious to understand how post-human approaches can be mobilised using Karen Barad’s and Donna Haraway’s theories of diffractive reading. Our aim has been to open up the data to diffract for new images and thereby to trouble the human-centred and objective perspectives of carrying out research. Instead of taking a distance from our objects of research, this diffractive reading approach has meant that we have infiltrated the data, a student text and an excerpt from a classroom observation. We have allowed the data to influence us as well as the other way around and thus regarded the research objects as equivalent to ourselves in terms of agency. What resulted from this way of working with the research material is partly a different view of ourselves as scientists and the realisation that research objects can have agency, as well as a more intrinsic, emotionally influenced, ethical and embodied view. The research process in this chapter troubles the human-centred perspective, as well as the view of research process as something objective, logical and rational. A perspective that is based on binary thinking and a dichotomous framework.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alaimo, S. (2008). Trans-corporeal feminisms and the ethical space of nature. In S. Alaimo & S. Heckman (Eds.), Material feminism. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Barad, K. (2003). Performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801–831.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway. Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham/London: Duke University Press.
Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 282–295.
Deleuze, G. (1990). The logic of sense. Trans. M. Lester. New York: Columbia University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1996). Writing science. Literacy and discursive power (Vol. 5). London/New York: Farmer Press.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.
Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions. Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York/London: Routledge.
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and woman. The reinvention of nature. London: Free Association Books Ltd.
Haraway, D. (1994). A game of Cat’s cradle: Science studies, feminist theory, cultural studies. Configurations, 2(1), 59–71.
Haraway, D. (1997). Modets_Witness@Second_Milennium.FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™. New York/London: Routledge.
Haraway, D. (2008). Otherworldly conversations, Terran topics, local terms. In S. Alaimo & S. Heckman (Eds.), Material Feminism (pp. 157–187). Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Hultman, K., & Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010). Challenging anthropocentric analysis of visual data: A relational materialist methodological approach to educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(5), 525–542.
Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. London: Routledge.
Lenz Taguchi, H. (2012). A diffractive and Deleuzian approach to analyzing interview data. Feminist Theory, 13(3), 265–281.
Lykke, N. (2009). Genusforskning: En guide till feministisk teori, metodologi och skrift. [Gender studies: A guide to feminist theory, methodology and writing. Own trans.] Stockholm: Liber.
Mazzei, L. (2013). Materialist mappings of knowing in being: Researchers constituted in the production of knowledge. Gender and Education, 25(6), 776–785.
Milne, C., & Rubin, K. (2011). Embodying emotions: Making transactions explicit in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 625–633. doi:10.1007/s11422-011-93554-2.
Östman, L. (1995). Socialisation och mening. No-utbildning som politiskt och miljömoraliskt problem [Socialization and meaning. Science education as a political and environmental-ethical problem.] Doctoral thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Svennbeck, M. (2004). Omsorg om naturen. Om NO-utbildningens relativa traditioner med fokus på miljöfostran och genus [Care for nature. About the selective traditions in science education, with a focus on environmental education and gender.] Doctoral thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Taylor, C. A., & Ivinson, G. (2013). Material feminisms: New directions for education. Gender and Education, 25(6), 665–670.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Orlander, A.A., Ståhl, M. (2018). Towards an Understanding of Diffractive Readings of Narratives in the Field of Science Education. In: Otrel-Cass, K., Sillasen, M., Orlander, A. (eds) Cultural, Social, and Political Perspectives in Science Education . Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61191-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61191-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61190-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61191-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)