Advertisement

Porous, Fluid, and Brut Methodologies in (Post)qualitative Childhoodnature Inquiry

  • Mirka Koro-LjungbergEmail author
  • Marek TesarEmail author
  • Vicki Hargraves
  • Jorge Sandoval
  • Timothy Wells
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

Since the 1980s, research practices used to investigate children and childhoods have experienced a philosophical upheaval, with challenges to traditionally designed research, invoking epistemological and ontological shifts. Both epistemological and ontological shifts have brought to attention the complexity and plurality of children and childhoods and highlighted its epistemologically unstable structures. In this chapter, we follow this trend to problematize the thinking in childhoodnature inquiry that perceives methodology as a set of fixed, controllable, foreseeable, neutral, and a-theoretical practices, which ultimately repeats and reproduces ontological and epistemological sameness. In resisting this status quo, we draw on post-qualitative scholarship, inspired by post-human theories of difference and relationality, who maintain ontological worldviews and methodological practices as fluid, dynamic, and unstable, founded within dimensions of uncertainty. In calling for divergent methodological practices in childhoodnature inquiry, we make connections between the foundational theories of Piaget to the innovative and radical work of Gilles Deleuze, suggesting such frameworks provide a leaky, yet productive, architecture for a rethinking of methodological practices. The notion of leaky architecture enables a rethinking of binary language to invite movement and relationality: between subjects and objects, children and adults, and theories and methods. This chapter ends with a call for porous, fluid, and brut methodological practices as a way to adhere to movements of the unrefined and leaky nature of childhood as well as methodology.

Keywords

Childhoodnature Post-qualitative Piaget Deleuze 

References

  1. Annamma, S. (2016). Disrupting the carceral state through education journey mapping. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(9), 1210–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bogue, R. (2007). Deleuze’s way: Essays in transverse ethics and aesthetics [Adobe Digital Editions version]. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/auckland/detail.action?docID=438554
  4. Bradley, G. F. (2016). Composing academic identities: Stories that matter? Qualitative Inquiry, 22(5), 377–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brunial, K. (2016). The ambivalences of becoming a professor in neoliberal academia. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(5), 386–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cuconato, M., & Walther, A. (2015). ‘Doing transitions’ in education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(3), 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dahlbeck, J. (2014a). On following commands: A philosophical inquiry into the governing values of Swedish early childhood education. Studies in Philosophy of Education, 33(5), 527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahlbeck, J. (2014b). Towards a pure ontology: Children’s bodies and morality. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(1), 8–23.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00775.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deleuze, G. (1990). The logic of sense (M. Lester & C. Stivale, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1969).Google Scholar
  11. Deleuze, G. (1991). Bergsonism (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.). New York, NY: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  12. Deleuze, G. (2006). What voice brings to the text. In D. Lapoujade (Ed.), Two regimes of madness: Texts and interviews 1975–1995 (A. Hodges & M. Taormina, Trans., pp. 325–326). New York, NY: Semiotext(e). (Original work published 2004).Google Scholar
  13. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). London, England: Bloomsbury Academic. (Original work published 1980).Google Scholar
  14. Deleuze, G., & Parnet, C. (2007). Dialogues II (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.). London, England: Continuum. (Original work published 1977).Google Scholar
  15. Duhn, I., Malone, K., & Tesar, M. (2017). Troubling the intersections of urban/nature/childhood in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 23(10), 1357–1369.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1392486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Higgins, M. (2016). Placing photovoice under erasure: A critical and complicit engagement with what it theoretically is (not). International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(5), 670–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Higgins, M., Madden, B., Berard, M. F., Lenz Kothe, E., & Nordstrom, S. (2017). De/signing research in education: Patchwork(ing) methodologies with theory. Educational Studies, 43(1), 16–39.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1237867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hsiung, P. C. (2016). Teaching qualitative research as transgressive practices: Introduction to the special issue. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(2), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson, A., & Mazzei, L. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2016). Reconceptualizing qualitative research: Methodologies without methodology. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  21. Koro-Ljungberg, M., Carlson, D., Tesar, M., & Anderson, K. (2015). Methodology brut: Philosophy, ecstatic, thinking, and some other (unfinished) things. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(7), 612–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuby, C. R., & Christ, R. C. (2017). Productive aporias and inten(t/s)ionalities of paradigming: Spacetimematterings in an introductory qualitative research course. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(4), 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Land, N., & Danis, I. (2016). Movement/in provocations in early childhood education. Journal of Childhood Studies, 41(3), 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lather, P., & Smith, C. (1997). Troubling the angels: Women living with HIV/AIDS. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lather, P., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2013). Post-qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 629–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Law, J. (2006, January 19). Making a mess with method. Retrieve from http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2006MakingaMesswithMethod.pdf
  28. Lenz Taguchi, H. (2016). “The concept as method”: Tracing-and-mapping the problem of the neuro(n) in the field of education. Cultural Studies<—>Critical Methodologies, 16(2), 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malcolm, Z. T., & Mendoza, P. (2014). Afro-Caribbean international students’ ethnic identity development: Fluidity, intersectionality, agency, and performativity. Journal of College Student Development, 55(6), 595–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manning, E. (2013). Always more than one: Individuation’s dance. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Manning, E., & Massumi, B. (2014). Thought in the act: Passages in the ecology of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt6wr79fGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin, A. D., & Kamberelis, G. (2013). Mapping not tracing: Qualitative educational research with political teeth. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 668–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. London, England: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McKechnie, L. E. F. (2008). Observational research. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 574–578). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  35. McLaren, P., & Pinkney-Pastrana, J. (2000). The search for the complicit native: Epistemic violence, historical amnesia, and the anthropologist as ideologue of empire. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(2), 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Myers, C. Y. (2015). Children, among other things: Entangled cartographies of the more-than-human kindergarten classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University College, Ohio, OH).Google Scholar
  37. Nakagawa, Y., & Payne, P. G. (2015). Critical place as a fluid margin in post-critical environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 21(2), 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education (G.-A. Roberts, Trans.). New York, NY: Grossman. (Original work published 1948 and 1972).Google Scholar
  39. Piaget, J. (1981a). Afterthoughts. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (pp. 278–284). London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  40. Piaget, J. (1981b). The psychogenesis of knowledge and it’s epistemological significance. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (pp. 23–34). London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  41. Rautio, P., & Winston, J. (2015). Things and children in play: Improvisation with language and matter. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(1), 15–26.Google Scholar
  42. Reinertsen, A. B. (2016). The a/un/grammatical child/hood/s and writing. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(3), 240–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roy, K. (2003). Teachers in nomadic spaces: Deleuze and curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  44. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Schulte, C. M. (2016). Possible worlds: Deleuzian ontology and the project of listening in children’s drawing. Cultural Studies<—>Critical Methodologies, 16(2), 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Somers-Hall, S. (2013). Deleuze’s difference and repetition. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  47. St. Pierre, E. A. (2013). The appearance of data. Cultural Studies<—>Critical Methodologies, 13(4), 223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Swanger, J. (2002). Laboring in “borderless” world: The threat of globalization. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(1), 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sweet, J. D., & Carlson, D. L. (2017). A story of becoming: Trans* equity as ethnodrama. Qualitative Inquiry, 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417704467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Walsh, A., & Tsilimpounidi, M. (2016). Dear tina: Protesting institutions in times of crisis. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(2), 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolgemuth, J. R. (2016). Driving the paradigm: (Failing to teach) methodological ambiguity, fluidity, and resistance in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(6), 518–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wright, F. L. (1971). The language of an organic architecture. The Structurist, 0(11), 80–112.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Section editors and affiliations

  • Paul Hart
    • 1
  • Phillip Payne
    • 2
  1. 1.Science EducationUniversity of ReginaReginaCanada
  2. 2.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations