In a entangled collective assemblage, we create and invent data, we perform the data, and we become data through our engagement in materialities/charcoals/movements/rhythms/sounds . . . We challenge written language, by bodily surfacing haptic technology that interfaces through vibrations and sensations in with us/them/you. Our experimentation invites to think and do research differently by unfolding the conditions of what is not yet thought of to come in research.
BaradK. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
2.
BennettJ. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
3.
BrookP. (1968). The empty space. New York, NY: Touchstone.
4.
DeleuzeG. (1995). Negotiations 1972-1990 (JoughinM., Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
5.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (1987). A thousand plateaus. London, England: Athlone Press.
6.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (1994). What is philosophy? (TomlinsonH.BurchellG., Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
7.
GreggM.SeigworthG. J. (2010). The affect theory reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
8.
Hickey-MoodyA. (2013). Affect as method: Feelings, aesthetics and affirmative pedagogy. In ColemanR.RingroseJ. (Eds.), Deleuze and research methodologies (pp. 79-95). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
9.
IngoldT. (2007). Materials against materiality?Archaeological Dialogues, 14, 1-16. doi:10.1017/S1380203807002127
10.
IngoldT. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
IrwinL. R. (2013). Becoming A/r/tography. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 53, 189-216.
LatourB. (2004). How to talk about the body? The normative dimensions of science studies. Body & Society, 10, 205-230.
14.
LawJ. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London, England: Routledge.
15.
LedgerA. J.EllisS. K.WrightF. (2011). The question of documentation: Creative strategies in performance research. In KershawB.NicholsonH. (Eds.), Research methods in theatre and performance (pp. 162-185). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
16.
ManningE. (2009). Relationscapes: Movement, art, philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
ManningE. (2013). Always more than one: Individuation’s dance. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
18.
MarksL. U. (2000). The skin of the film: Intercultural cinema, embodiment and the senses. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
19.
MassumiB. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
OtterstadA. M. (2013). Hva skjer når inter-aksjoner skifter til intra-aksjoner? Å tenke forskjellig om begrepet relasjon i barnehagen [What happens when inter-action change to intra-action]. In GreveA.MørreaunetS.WingerN. (Eds.), Ytringer om likeverd, demokrati og relasjonsbygging i barnehagen (pp. 117-130). Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.
22.
PedwellC.WhiteheadA. (2012). Affecting feminism: Questions of feeling in feminist theory. Feminist Theory, 13, 115-129.
23.
PinkS. (2011). Multimodality, multisensoriality and ethnographic knowing: Social semiotics and the phenomenology of perception. Qualitative Research, 11, 261-276. doi:10.1177/1468794111399835
24.
ReinertsenA. B. (2013). Come on dear gal: On learning democracies; Mygazes, Mymethods, Mylanguages, Myforces, and Mychanges. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 13, 562-569. doi:10.1177/1532708613503783
25.
ReinertsenA. B.OtterstadA. M. (2013). Being data and datadream/ing pedagogies with pinter-a dream/dialogue/data/play about being ruthlessly honest about own motives eventually Max Stirner. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 13, 233-239. doi:10.1177/1532708613487865
26.
St. PierreE. A. (2013). The appearance of data. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 13, 223-227.
27.
ThriftN. J. (2010). Understanding the material practices of glamor. In GreggM.SeigworthG. J. (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 289-308). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
