Inspired by Claire Colebrook and Deleuze and Guattari, I aim to make the concept of posthumanism itself my “method.” The objective of such an inquiry is a growing self-critique of how posthumanism has, in part, been adopted in educational research. Concept as method puts the concept to play on, in this case, a feminist plane of thinking, to trace-and-map the problems and components from which the concept emerges; that is, it takes on its meanings and practices on this particular plane. Hereby, a reconfigured “face” of the concept of posthumanism takes the shape of the ultrasoundfetusimage.
AlaimoS.HekmanS (Eds.). (2008). Material feminisms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
2.
ÅsbergC.KoobakR.JohnsonE. (2011). Beyond the humanist imagination. NORA—Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 19, 218-230.
3.
BaradK. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
4.
BennettJ. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things(Printed in the United States). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
5.
BirnholzJ. C.FarrellE. E. (1984). Ultrasound images of human fetal development: Vast improvements in noninvasive imaging have recently created new opportunities for evaluating the health and growth of the fetus. American Scientist, 72, 608-613.
6.
BraidottiR. (1994). Nomadic subjects. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
7.
BraidottiR. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
8.
ButlerJ. (2004). Undoing gender. New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
CloughP. T. (with HalleyJean). (2007). The affective turn: Theorizing the social. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
10.
ColeD.FrostS. (Eds.). (2010). New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
11.
ColebrookC. (2010). Deleuze and the meaning of life. London, England: Continuum.
12.
ColebrookC. (2013). E-mail after a conference-symposium in Stockholm, Sweden, in June 2013: Developing feminist post-constructivist qualitative research methodologies in the educational sciences, organized by Hillevi Lenz Taguchi, Lisa A. Mazzei, and Anna Palmer (Discussions during and personal e-mail conversation after the invited conference-symposium). Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.
13.
ColebrookC. (2014a). Death of the posthuman: Essays on extinction (Vol. 1). Michigan Publishing – University of Michigan Library, Ann Arbor: Open Humanities Press.
14.
ColebrookC. (2014b). Sex after life: Essays on extinction (Vol. 2). Michigan Publishing – University of Michigan Library, Ann Arbor: Open Humanities Press.
15.
DeleuzeG. (1994). Difference and repetition. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
16.
DeleuzeGGuattariF. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (MassumiB., Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
17.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (1994). What is philosophy?London, England: Verso.
18.
DolphijnR.van der TuinI. (2013). New materialism: Interviews & cartographies. Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press.
19.
Fausto-SterlingA. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York, NY: Basic Books.
20.
GibbsVivienColeDavidSassanoAntonio. (2009). Ultrasound physics and technology: How, why and when. Edinburgh; New York: Churchill Livingstone.
21.
GriffinD. R. (1958). Listening in the dark: The acoustic orientation of bats and men. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.
22.
GroszE. (1994). Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
23.
GroszE. (2005). Time travels: Feminism, nature, power. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
24.
HarawayD. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge.
HarawayD. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
27.
HarrisG.ConnorL.BisitsA.HigginbothamN. (2004). “Seeing the baby”: Pleasures and dilemmas of ultrasound technologies for primiparous Australian women. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 18(1), 23-47.
28.
HekmanS. (2010). The material of knowledge: Feminist disclosures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
29.
HultmanK.Lenz TaguchiH. (2010). Challenging anthropocentric analysis of visual data: A relational materialist methodological approach to educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23, 525-542.
30.
IvinsonRenoldE. (2014). Subjectivity, affect and place: Thinking with Deleuze and Guattari’s body without organs to explore a young teen girl’s becomings in a post-industrial locale. Subjectivity, 6, 369-390.
31.
IvinsonG.RenoldE. (2016). Girls, camera, (intra)action: Mapping posthuman possibilities in a diffractive analysis of camera-girl assemblage in research on gender, corporeality and place. In TaylorCarol A.HughesChristina (Eds.), Posthuman research practices in education (pp. 168-185). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
32.
LatourB. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor network theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33.
LawJ. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London, England: Routledge.
34.
Lenz TaguchiH. (2010). Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education: Introducing an intra-active pedagogy. London, England: Routledge.
35.
Lenz TaguchiH. (2012). A diffractive and Deleuzian approach to analysing interview data. Feminist Theory, 13, 265-281.
36.
Lenz TaguchiH. (2013). Images of thinking in feminist materialisms: Ontological divergences and the production of researcher subjectivities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 706-716.
37.
Lenz TaguchiH. (2016a). Deleuzio-Guattarian Rhizomatics: Mapping the desiring forces and connections between educational practices and the neurosciences. In TaylorCarol A.HughesChristina (Eds.), Posthuman research practices in education (pp. 37-57). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
38.
Lenz TaguchiH. (2016b). “The concept as method”: Tracing-and-mapping the problem of the neuro(n) in the field of education. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16, 213-223.
39.
Lenz TaguchiH.PalmerA. (2014). Reading a Deleuzio-Guattarian cartography of young girls’ “schoolrelated” ill-/wellbeing. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 764-771.
40.
Lenz TaguchiH.PalmerA.GustafssonL. (2016). Individuating “sparks” and “flickers” of “a life” in dance practices with preschoolers: The “monstrous child” of Colebrook’s queer vitalism. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37, 705-716. doi:10.1080/01596306.2015.1075710
41.
LykkeN. (2011). The timeliness of post-constructionism. NORA—Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 18, 131-136.
42.
Mitchell L.M.GeorgesE. (1997). Cross-cultural cyborgs: Greek and Canadian women’s discourses on fetal ultrasound. I. Feminist Studies, 23, 373-401.
43.
MolA. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University press.
44.
OakleyA. (1984). The trap of medicalized motherhood. New Society, 34, 639-641.
45.
OlkowskiD. (2016). The cogito and the limits of neo-materialism and naturalized objectivity. Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge, 30. doi:10.20415/rhiz/030.e10
46.
PedersenH. (2014). Guest editor’s introduction: “Posthumanistisk pedagogisk forskning: Några ingångar.” [Posthumanist education research: Some entrypoints.] Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige, 19(2-3), 83-89.
47.
RenoldE.IvinsonG. (2014). Horse-girl assemblage: Towards a post-human cartography of girls’ desires in an ex-mining valleys community. Discourse, 35, 361-376.
48.
Roeder KennethD. (1959). Review of Listening in the dark: Acoustic orientation of bats and men, by Donald R. Griffin. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 34, 325.
49.
St. Pierre ElizabethA. (2011). Post qualitative research: The critique and the coming after. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of qualitative inquiry (4th ed., pp. 611-635). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
50.
St. Pierre ElizabethA. (2016a). The empirical and the new empiricisms. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16, 111-124.
51.
St. Pierre ElizabethA. (2016b). Rethinking the empirical in the posthuman. In TaylorCarol A.HughesChristina (Eds.), Posthuman research practices in education (pp. 25-36). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
52.
Smith DanielW. (2003). Deleuze and Derrida, immanence and transcendence: Two directions in recent French thought. In PattonPaulProteviJohn (Eds.), Between Deleuze & Derrida (pp. 46-66). London, England: Continuum.
53.
StengersI. (2007, May12). Diderot’s egg: Divorcing materialism from eliminativism. Radical Philosophy conference, Materials and Materialisms, London, England. Retrieved from http://philpapers.org/rec/STEDED-3
54.
StengersI. (2008). Experimenting with refrains: Subjectivity and the challenge of escaping modern dualism. Subjectivity, 22, 38-59. doi:10.1057/sub.2008.6
55.
StengersI. (2010). Cosmopolitics I. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
56.
StengersI. (2016, June2-3). Keynote address at DAST 2016. Conference in Aarhus University.
57.
StrathernM. (2002). On space and depth, in complexities. In John Law & Annemarie Mol (Eds.), Complexities: Social practices of knowledge practices (pp. 88-116). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
58.
TaylorC. (2016). Edu-crafting a Cacophonous Ecology: Posthumanist Research Practices for Education. In TaylorCarol A.HughesChristina (Eds.), Posthuman research practices in education (pp. 5-24). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
59.
TaylorC.HughesC. (Eds.) (2016). Posthuman research practices in education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
60.
ThorpeW. H. (1958). Review of the bookListening in the dark, by GriffinDonald R. (Ed.). Science, New Series. 128(3327), 766.
61.
van der TuinI.DolphijnR. (2010). The Transversality of New Materialism. Women: a cultural review, 21, pp. 153-171.
62.
WolfeC. (2010). What is posthumanism?Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
