Paper presented at AERA conference 2015 in Chicago. SIG: Philosophy of education.
For
citation, please wait for the revised version of this paper to the methodology chapter in my
forthcoming dissertation on educational relationality, winter 15/16.
Simon Ceder
Diffraction as a methodology for philosophy of education
Abstract
When performing philosophy, specific ontological and epistemological starting points
demand specific methodological approaches. In this paper, the ways new materialist
theories and post-qualitative research has developed methodologies for their purposes are
discussed. The methodology of diffraction is suggested for studies on philosophy of
education. Diffraction will in this paper be described as a methodology relying on three
legs: multiplicity, affirmativity and creativity. Examples of how these three aspects can be
used in philosophy of education will be discussed.
Objectives or purposes
The ideas … are, however, no more than "beginnings" in the Arendtian sense of the word. For
them to become real they need to be taken up by others in ways that are necessarily beyond my
control and my intentions. For them to become real, in other words, they need to be "risked". In
this sense what is presented … should first and foremost be seen as an invitation for further
theoretical and practical work. (Biesta, 2014, p. xi)
Despite the fact that educational theorist Biesta does not rely on an explicit methodology,
this quote from The Beautiful Risk of Education (2014) carries some interesting affirmative
ideas. Biesta (2014) encourages engagements with his work, even those beyond his
control. In his major works, Biesta (2006, 2010, 2014) scarecely mentions his own
methodological approach. In The Beautiful Risk of Education (2014), he merely notices
that the arguments are not presented in a logical matter, rather "more kaleidoscopic than
linear" (p. xi). It is interesting to see that Biesta writes more about how others can engage
with his work, than how he himself has uses other theorists’ work. In this paper, Biesta’s
invitation of others to develop his ideas will be taken seriously. However, in order to
develop a thorough methodological framework based on this invitation, the overarching
objective of this paper is to discuss the diffractive methodology. Diffraction is connected to
new materialist theory (e.g. Barad, Haraway and Braidotti) and post-qualitative research,
which will both be dealt with in the theoretical section next.
Theoretical framework
Within the field of education, the concept of post-qualitative research has lately been
developed (Lather & St. Pierre, 2013). St. Pierre (2013) explains that the task of qualitative
research originally was to establish an alternative to quantitative social science
methodology, "ironically, by relying chiefly on positivist markers such as systematicity,
linear processes, technique, clarity and transparancy of language, accurate observation,
representation, and so on" (p. 654). The problem with qualitative research is therefore that
1
it is copying a quantitative positivist epistemology and ontology; it is not taking the
methodological consequences that certain theories brings (Lather & St. Pierre, 2013).
A great deal of the research using post-qualitative approaches also uses common
theoretical frameworks that all are working beyond the realm of humanism: new
materialism (Lenz Taguchi, 2010; MacLure, 2013), posthumanism (Blaise, 2013, Jackson,
2013; Pedersen, 2010, 2013), Deleuze (Mazzei & McCoy, 2010; Lenz Taguchi, 2012;
Mazzei, 2013), indigenous theories (Lather, 2013), actor-network theory (Fenwick &
Edwards, 2010), and more. Further, post-qualitative researchers are exploring new ways to
do research non-hierarchically, non-representatively, and from non-essential grounds
(Lather & St. Pierre, 2013). Methodologically, we have so far mainly seen the effects of
the post-qualitative research dealing with various kinds of data such as interviews and
ethnographic work. In this paper, a post-qualitative take on philosophy of education will be
performed using the methodology of diffraction.
What conjuncts the theories used in post-qualitative research is a renewed focus on
ontology, which they have in common with posthumanist and new materialist theories
(Åsberg, Hultman & Lee, 2012; Dolphijn & van der Tuin, 2012). What is at stake here is
not to create new methodologies in order to bring more perspectives to the research. That
kind of perspectivism is suggesting that the phenomena is one (e.g. a real, stable ontology),
and that the knowledge of the phenomena is multiple (e.g. multiple epistemologies). One
of the inspirations here are Mol (2002) who studies how medical practices not only can be
described in a multiple ways, but also actually are multiple. This is an example of why
new importance has been given to ontology instead of epistemology within post-qualitative
research. In order to develop this thought, I will turn to Barad next.
In a scientific tradition, an object is often considered a stable entitity which a researcher, a
subject, can study, measure and classify (Haraway, 1997). Subjectivity is the perspective of
the human subject that is seen as the one with agency that effects and utilizes the passive
object. However, as Karen Barad (2007) shows, using Niels Bohr’s theories on quantum
physics, no object can be studied as an independent entity, rather, it is always already
changing, and changes the subject. The starting point of philosophy is not separated
entities, which is described in various ways dependent on perspective. Instead, the
phenomena, the relation itself is the starting point, and the parts of the relation – the relata
– derives from the relation. As a metaphore, Barad (2003, 2007) uses the example of the
wave-particle duality paradox, based on Bohrs physical-philosophical arguments. In a
particular experiment, it was showed that light appeared as a wave, however, in the same
experiment light was also behaving like a particle. More experiments did not lead to one
single solution, rather, light is both a wave and a particle. Light itself is not the starting
point, rather it is the phenomena of light in relation to the two slit experiment that is the
starting point. How Bohr resolves this paradox is to shift from a multiple epistemologies
and an ontology of the thing, to an ontology of the phenomena, but also viewing the world
as multiple ontologies, not only using multiple perspectives. The relation do not have
preexisting relata, instead, the relata has preexisting relations, hence Barad’s (2003, 2007)
shift from interaction to intraaction.
2
Method
Diffraction stems from Haraway and Barad, however, Haraway (1992) was the one
introducing the concept. Diffraction is a methodological approach to working with a
starting point in the view on ontology presented in the last section. One could for example
argue that diffraction provides an answer to the question of how to work with the agential
cuts proposed by Barad.
Haraway (1997) uses the optical concept of diffraction in order to contest the splendor of
reflexivity. Reflexivity is often used as a critical analytical tool, but Haraway (1997)
argues that a reflection, "only displaces the same elsewhere" (p. 16), like a mirror.
Reflexivity is mirroring essentially fixed positions, that is, hierarchically dominated ideas
from majority identities (male, white, human etc). Diffraction on the other hand is about
interaction, interference and difference; it is about studying the heterogenous and multiple
history of a phenomena. Barad (2007) argues that diffraction "has no patience for tricks
with mirrors, where, for example, the macroscopic is said to mirror the microscopic" (p.
93). Hence, it does not follow a reductivist logic. Lenz Taguchi (2012) explains how
reflexivity often means mirroring essentially fixed positions, that is, reproducing difference
from, whereas "diffraction entails the processing of ongoing differences" (p. 268), that is,
difference within. The notion of difference derives from a Deleuzian view on difference
not from, but rather, ”difference as positive emerges as an effect of connections and
relations within and between bodies” (Lenz Taguchi, 2012, p. 269). Haraway (1992)
explains that diffraction patterns are created as an effect to when the difference appears
within. Methodologically, diffraction is about finding productive connections instead of
limiting the analysis to a critical classification exercise.
One central aspect of diffraction is to make an affirmative reading (van der Tuin, 2011). As
relations are not meetings between separate entities, texts and other objects of study are
instead already intraacting together with each other and with the researcher. Barad (2007)
points out that attention to the fine details is needed. The close reading is about reading one
text together with and through another, making different transdisciplinary practices talk to
each other, "in dynamic relationality to the other" (Barad, 2007, p. 93). New materialist
theorist Braidotti (2010a) adds that ”The focus is not on representation or citation, but on
the affective traces, on what is left over, what remains, what has somehow caught and
stuck around, the drags and the sentiments of the reading and the cognitive process” (p.
414). The affective traces is in this paper considered as joint with the affirmative aspect.
Through diffraction new ideas and concepts must be created. The creation of new concepts
is central for Deleuze and Guattari’s (1994) work. They argue that philosophy is not about
”contemplation, reflection, or communication” (p. 6) – it is about creation. Notice how
Haraway’s critique toward the reflective practice here is returning. Creating new concepts,
consequently means to disrupt the ideas of other philosophers and even to be forever
disloyal to one’s favourite philosophers (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994). To conclude,
diffraction is an affirmative strategy using multiple realities in order to create new concepts
and philosophies.
Materials
The material used in this paper is litterature from new materialist theory and post-
qualitative research. In order to describe the background and theoretical situation of
3
diffraction as a methodology, the philosophies of Barad and Haraway are used. Further,
articles that uses diffraction in education is discussed.
Results
This paper argues that diffraction is a fruitful methodology that also could find its way to
the field philosophy of education. The focus on creativity (instead of critique) is about
making an affirmative pragmatic reading instead of merely classifying and criticizing
ideas. Diffraction is often performed in an transdisciplinary way and since the focus is on
creating new ideas, it matters less where the inspiration comes from. One analysis might be
developed with theories from an unexpected source. Even if theories do not share common
ontological or epistemological starting points, they can still affirmatively contribute to each
other’s development.
Diffraction has already been used in educational settings. Mazzei (2014) uses the
diffractive analysis as an alternative to coding data. Instead of focusing on what the
researcher does with the data, the focus is on being open towards what the data does to the
researcher. Hence, this diffractive analysis takes into consideration the intraactive forces of
data and researcher. Lenz Taguchi is also engaged with post-qualitative research,
rethinking methodology using different – though related – methodologies such as the
Barad/Haraway influenced diffraction (Lenz Tagichi, 2012) or the Deleuzio-Guattarian
inspired cartography (Lenz Taguchi & Palmer, 2014). In the latter article, Lenz Taguchi
and Palmer (2014) analyses young girls’ ill/well-being using a multiplicity of data.
Narrative data about a girl taking the subway to school is placed next to an excerpt from an
article in a daily newspaper, and an interview with a psychoterapist. As if this was not
enough, Lenz Taguchi and Palmer (2014) write "When reading these kind of data into each
other, a memory story, told by one of the researchers, emerged as follows:" and after that
the reader is presented with the memory story. Hence, the data is affecting the researchers,
and they acknowledge this event. When being affected by the data, a memory was written
down and added to the data, hence expanding the data. Here we can see the use of an
affirmative, affective approach towards analyzing, but also how to deal with a multiplicity
of data. For philosophy of education, it means to read texts affirmatively, and being open
to the affective traces they leave. Diffraction’s focus on affirmativity and multiplicity
makes possible new creative ways to analyse and view philosophical data beyond texts.
For example, in my ongoing dissertation work doing philosophical perspectives on
educational relations, both the above mentioned memory stories, as well as film fragments
are used.
Significance
Using a diffractive methodology when performing philosophy of education is to pick up, as
Biesta (2014) calls it, beginnings from a multiplicity of inputs and create pragmatic
philosophies for education. In this paper, the theoretical ground that diffraction stands on is
discussed, as well as the diffractive methodology and some concrete examples of how
diffraction and post-qualitative research has been used in education. Three aspects of
diffraction that also can be used in philosophy of education is discerned: affirmativity,
muliplicity and creativity. They all goes well in line with Biesta’s plead for taking on his
beginnings, but also characterizes a methodology that supports Biesta’s own
methodological approach in creating these beginnings. The "risk" Biesta mentions is when
thinking diffractively not a risk of being roughly criticized, rather a risk of being dealt with
along with multiplicities, in an affirmative and creative way.
4
References
Barad, Karen (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how
matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801–831.
Barad, Karen (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the
entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Biesta, Gert (2006). Beyond learning. Democratic education for a human future. Boulder,
Co: Paradigm Publishers.
Biesta, Gert (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics,
democracy. Boulder, C: Paradigm Publishers.
Biesta, Gert (2014). The beautiful risk of education. Boulder, Paradigm Publishers.
Blaise, Mindy (2013). Situating Hong Kong pet-dog-child figures within colonialist flows
and disjunctures. Global Studies of Childhood, 3(4), 380–394.
Braidotti, Rosi (2010a). Nomadism: Against methodological nationalism. Policy Futures in
Education, 8, 408–418.
Deleuze, Gilles & Guattari, Félix (1994 [1991]). What is philosophy? London/New York:
Verso.
Dolphijn, Rick & van der Tuin, Iris (2012). New materialism. Interviews and
cartographies. Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press.
Fenwick, Tara, & Edwards, Richard (2010). Actor-Network Theory in Education. London:
Routledge.
Haraway, Donna (1992). The promise of monsters: A regenerative politics for
inappropriate/d others. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson & P.A. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural
studies, (pp. 295–337). New York: Routledge.
Haraway, Donna (1997). Modest−witness@second−millennium.FemaleMan−
meets−OncoMouse: Feminism and technoscience. London: Routledge.
Jackson, Alecia Youngblood (2013). Posthumanist data analysis of mangling practices.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (Special Issue ”Post-
Qualitative Research”, P. Lather & E. St. Pierre [Eds.]), 26(6), 741–748.
Lather, Patti & St. Pierre, Elizabeth (2013). Post-qualitative research., International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (Special Issue ”Post-Qualitative Research”,
P. Lather & E. St. Pierre [Eds.]), 26(6), 629–633.
Lather, Patti (2013). Methodology-21: What do we do in the afterward? International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (Special Issue ”Post-Qualitative Research”,
P. Lather & E. St. Pierre [Eds.]), 26(6), 634–645.
Lenz Taguchi, Hillevi (2010). Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood
education. Introducing an intra-active pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge.
5
Lenz Taguchi, Hillevi (2012). A diffractive and Deleuzean approach to analyzing
interview data. Journal of Feminist Theory 13(3), 265–281.
Lenz Taguchi, Hillevi & Palmer, Anna (2014). Reading a Deleuzio-Guattarian cartography
of young girls’ ”school related” ill/well-being. Qualitative Inquiry 20, 764–771.
MacLure, Maggie (2013). Research without representation? Language and materiality in
post-qualitative methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
(Special Issue ”Post-Qualitative Research”, P. Lather & E. St. Pierre [Eds.]), 26(6),
658–667.
Mazzei, Lisa & McCoy, Kate (2010). Thinking with Deleuze in qualitative research.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (Special Issue ”Thinking with
Deleuze in qualitative research”, L. Mazzei & K. McCoy [Eds.])
Mazzei, Lisa (2013). A voice without organs: Interviewing in posthumanist research.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (Special Issue ”Post-
Qualitative Research”, P. Lather & E. St. Pierre [Eds.]), 26(6), 732–740.
Mazzei, Lisa (2014). Beyond an easy sense: A diffractive analysis. Qualitative Inquiry 20,
742–746.
Mol, Annemarie (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Pedersen, Helena (2010). Animals in schools. Processes and strategies in human-animal
education. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Pedersen, Helena (2013). Follow the Judas’ sheep: Materializing post-qualitative
methodology in zooethnographic space. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education (Special Issue ”Post-Qualitative Research”, P. Lather & E. St. Pierre [Eds.]),
26(6), 717–731.
St. Pierre, Elizabeth (2013). The post continue: becoming. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education (Special Issue ”Post-Qualitative Research”, P. Lather
& E. St. Pierre [Eds.]), 26(6), 646–657.
van der Tuin, Iris (2011). ”A different starting point, a different metaphysics”: Reading
Bergson and Barad diffractively. Hypatia 13(1), 22–42.
Åsberg, Cecilia, Hultman, Martin & Lee, Francis (Eds.). (2012). Posthumanistiska
nyckeltexter. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
6
