This article engages with the research method of collective biography. We are particularly interested in what the question of difference brings to bear on the collective biography process. The aim of embodied writing in the collective biography process is “to tell the memory in such a way that it is vividly imaginable by others, such that those others can extend their own imaginable experience of being in the world through knowing the particularity of another” (Davies & Gannon). However, our own attempt to work with the method had us grappling with how to engage with a story that did not elicit understanding and identification but rather evoked, for some, a sense of incommensurable difference. By bringing together a poststructural concern with power relationships and a Deleuzian interest in engendering new synergies and possibilities, the article makes a theoretical contribution to new conceptual repertoires on the question of difference and its implications for feminist research.
AngI. (1997). Comment on Felski’s The Doxa of Difference: The uses of incommensurability. Signs, 23(1), 57-64.
2.
BignallS. (2007). Indigenous peoples and a Deleuzian theory of practice. In Hickey-MoodyA.MalinP. (Eds.), Deleuzian encounters: Studies in contemporary social issues (pp. 197-211). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
3.
BrownL.StregaS. (Eds.). (2005). Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholar’s Press.
4.
ColemanB. (2008). The becoming of bodies. Feminist Media Studies, 8(2), 163-179.
5.
DaviesB. (2009). Introduction. In DaviesB.GannonS. (Eds.), Pedagogical encounters (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
6.
DaviesB.GannonS. (2006). Doing collective biography: Investigating the production of subjectivity. New York, NY: Open University Press.
7.
DaviesB.GannonS. (2009). Pedagogical encounters. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
8.
DeleuzeG. (1993). A theory of the other. In BoundasC. (Ed.), A Deleuze reader (pp. 59-68, 264-265). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
9.
DeleuzeG. (1994). Ideas and the synthesis of difference. In PattonP. (Trans.), Difference and repetition (pp. 168-221). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
10.
EllwoodC. (2009). Listening to homeless young people. In DaviesB.GannonS. (Eds.), Pedagogical encounters (pp. 31-52). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
11.
GameA. (1997). Sociology’s emotions. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 34, 385-399.
12.
GannonS. (2009). Difference as ethical encounter. In DaviesB.GannonS. (Eds.), Pedagogical encounters (pp. 69-88). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
13.
GroszE. (1994) Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
14.
HaugF.AndresenS.Bünz-ElfferdingA.HauserK.LangU.LaudanM.. . .ThomasC. (1987). Female sexualization: A collective work of memory. London, UK: Verso Press.
15.
Hickey-MoodyA.MalinsP. (Eds) (2007) Deleuzian encounters: Studies in contemporary social issues. New York: Palgrave MacMillian.
16.
HubbardG.Backett-MilburnK.KemmerD. (2001). Working with emotion: Issues for the researcher in fieldwork and teamwork. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(2), 119-137.
17.
LatherP. (1988). Feminist perspectives on empowering research methodologies. Women’s Studies International Forum, 11, 569-581.
18.
LinckM. (2008). Deleuze’s difference. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 16, 509-532.
19.
LincolnY.DenzinN. (2000). The seventh moment: Out of the past. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Hand book of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1047-1065). London, UK: SAGE.
20.
LincolnY.DenzinN. (2005). Epilogue: The eighth and ninth moments—qualitative research in/and the fractured future. In, DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1115-1126). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
21.
MarkulaP. (2006) The Dancing Body without organs: Deleuze, Femininity and Performing Research. Qualitative Inquiry12(1), 3-27.
22.
Min HaT. (1989). Woman native other. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
23.
RenoldE.RingroseJ. (2008). Regulation and rupture: Mapping tween and teenage girls’ resistance to the heterosexual matrix. Feminist Theory, 9, 313-338.
24.
RingroseJ. (2010). Beyond discourse? Using Deleuze and Guattari’s schizoanalysis to explore affective assemblages, heterosexually striated space, and lines of flight online and at school. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43, 1-21.
25.
SpelmanE. (1988). Inessential woman: Problems of exclusion in feminist thought. New York, NY: Beacon.
26.
St. PierreE. (1997a). Circling the text: Nomadic writing practices. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 403-417.
27.
St. PierreE. (1997b). Methodology in the fold and the irruption of transgressive data. Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(2), 175-189.
28.
UsherR. (1997). A critique of the neglected epistemological assumptions of educational research. In ScottD.UsherR. (Eds.), Understanding educational research (pp. 9-32). New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
WilliamsJ. (2003). Gilles Deleuze’s “Difference and repetition”: A critical introduction and guide. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
30.
WyattJ.GaleK.GannonS.DaviesB. (2010). Deleuzian thought and collaborative writing: A play in four parts. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 730-741.
