ArticlePDF Available

Inside the Research-Assemblage: New Materialism and the Micropolitics of Social Inquiry (Open access)

Authors:

Abstract

This paper explores social inquiry in terms of the 'research-assemblages' that produce knowledge from events. We use the precepts of new materialism (and specifically DeleuzoGuattarian assemblage ontology) to develop understanding of what happens when social events are researched. From this perspective, research is not at root an enterprise undertaken by human actors, but a machine-like assemblage of things, people, ideas, social collectivities and institutions. During social inquiry, the affect economies of an event-assemblage and a research-assemblage hybridise, generating a third assemblage with its own affective flow. This model of the research-assemblage reveals a micropolitics of social research that suggests a means to interrogate and effectively reverse-engineer different social research methodologies and methods, to analyse what they do, how they work and their micropolitical effects. It also suggests a means to forward-engineer research methods and designs to manipulate the kinds of knowledge produced when events are researched.
1.1
1.2
1.3
Inside the Research-Assemblage: New
Materialism and the Micropolitics of Social
Inquiry
by Nick J. Fox and Pam Alldred
University of Sheffield; Brunel University
Sociological Research Online, 20 (2), 6
<http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html>
DOI: 10.5153/sro.3578
Received: 16 Sep 2014 | Accepted: 4 Feb 2015 | Published: 31 May 2015
Abstract
This paper explores social inquiry in terms of the 'research-assemblages' that produce knowledge from events. We use the precepts of
new materialism (and specifically DeleuzoGuattarian assemblage ontology) to develop understanding of what happens when social
events are researched. From this perspective, research is not at root an enterprise undertaken by human actors, but a machine-like
assemblage of things, people, ideas, social collectivities and institutions. During social inquiry, the affect economies of an event-
assemblage and a research-assemblage hybridise, generating a third assemblage with its own affective flow. This model of the
research-assemblage reveals a micropolitics of social research that suggests a means to interrogate and effectively reverse-engineer
different social research methodologies and methods, to analyse what they do, how they work and their micropolitical effects. It also
suggests a means to forward-engineer research methods and designs to manipulate the kinds of knowledge produced when events are
researched.
Keywords: Research Methodology, New Materialism, Ontology, Assemblage, Affect,
Deleuze and Guattari
Introduction: New materialism and the ontology of the social
This paper explores social inquiry in terms of 'new materialist' ontology, and the 'research-assemblages'
that produce knowledge from events during social inquiry. Our objectives are first, to establish the ontological
precepts underpinning new materialism; second, to use these precepts to fully explore the implications of new
materialist ontology for the kinds of knowledge that social research can produce; and third, to consider the
opportunities afforded by a new materialist analysis of social inquiry for devising methods and designs whose
effects on knowledge production can be both fully recognised and strategically manipulated.
Social scientific assessments of how knowledge can be generated by social inquiry turn ultimately upon
the ontology that links events, researchers and research tools (Danermark et al. 2002: 18, Stanley and Wise
1993: 14). Differing understandings of these ontological inter-relationships are then reflected within
epistemological stances (Morgan 2007: 52): often broadly defined as realism and constructionism (Alvesson and
Skoldberg 2009, Barad 1996: 162-163), with practical implications for social research methodology and methods.
Proponents of realist positions aspire to a knowable reality independent of human concepts, while
constructionists argue – to greater or lesser extents – that what may be known is limited to the constructions of
reality produced within specific social and cultural contexts. Efforts continue to try to find resolution or common
ground between realist and constructionist positions (see for example, Lau and Morgan 2014; Thibodeaux 2014),
as these foundational questions about reality affect what can be said about the social world, and define the
relationship between researcher and researched, and the status of data gathered in empirical studies.
The 'new materialist' approach to social inquiry that we explore here, rather than attempting to resolve or
[1]
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 1 30/05/2015
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.1
2.2
mediate between these epistemological disputes, offers an alternative ontology that – according to its advocates
– 'cuts across' or is 'transversal to' the realist/constructionist dualism (Barad 1996: 165; van der Tuin and
Dolphijn 2010: 157). This is achieved by displacing the human researcher/observer from her/his central position
(and hence as key arbiter) in the interaction between the world of events and the processes of research. In this
new materialist ontology, the capacity of research to engage with events no longer revolves around the disputed
capacity of a human observer either to uncover the real mechanisms that produce the social or natural world (the
realist position), or to offer contextual understandings of it (the constructionist stance). Instead, as will be seen,
both events and research processes are considered as material, relational and interacting networks comprising
human and non-human components.
'New materialist' approaches have emerged from a variety of philosophical and social theoretical
positions, including feminism, biophilosophy, actor-network theory, quantum mechanical theory and
posthumanism (Ansell Pearson 1997; Barad 1996; Braidotti 2013; Grosz 1994; Latour 2005; Massumi 1996). Like
constructionism, new materialist social theory has concerned itself with the material workings of power, but with a
clear emphasis upon social production rather than social construction, and upon matter rather than textuality
(Coole and Frost 2010: 7; Taylor and Ivinson 2013: 666). Like realists, new materialist theorists concern
themselves with the contribution of science to social justice and liberation (Barad 1996: 164), but in materiality
they see multiplicity, mutability and becoming rather than singularity, stability and being (Braidotti 2006: 200;
Cheah 2010: 79).
Among the radical claims of new materialists are that materiality is relational and emergent, plural and
complex, uneven and contingent (Coole and Frost 2010: 29); that nature and culture are not to be regarded as
distinct realms – as both materially affect an ever-changing world (Barad 1996: 181; Braidotti 2013: 3; Haraway
1997: 209); and that the capacity for agency extends beyond human actors to the non-human and inanimate
(Braidotti 2013, DeLanda 2006; Latour 2005). Taken together, these distinctive features suggest that new
materialism may offer novel opportunities to address the concerns of those involved in analysing social research
data and applying it either to explain or to change the world: namely, the relationship between research data and
the object of inquiry. We will explore what a new materialist social ontology reveals about the processes and
micropolitics of social inquiry, about the relationships between events, research and knowledge, and the kinds of
knowledge that different research designs (methodologies) and methods can produce.
Our point of entry into an exploration of social inquiry from within new materialist ontology is by
considering research as assemblage, a concept that we will examine shortly. From a new materialist perspective,
a research-assemblage (Coleman and Ringrose 2013: 17; Fox and Alldred 2013: 784; Ringrose and Renold
2014: 774) will comprise the bodies, things and abstractions that get caught up in social inquiry, including the
events that are studied, and the researchers. But if research can be assembled it can also be dis-assembled, and
this paper will delve inside the research-assemblage, opening up the research process to micro-political
investigation, revealing the material interactions between researcher and researched. We will use this mode of
analysis to explore a range of quantitative and qualitative research methods and methodologies, to assess the
processes that go on within their different research-assemblages, and the micropolitics they produce. From this
we will reflect upon how a materialist ontology can inform the design of social inquiry methodologies, raising the
possibility of engineering research methods and methodologies by designing into them specific micropolitical
objectives. Before this, for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with a new materialist perspective, we summarise the
framework upon which this ontology is built.
New materialist ontology and social inquiry
Though materialism was a significant element of early sociology (Shalin 1990) the 'new' materialisms
that have emerged recently within the social sciences and humanities are discontinuous with that earlier tradition.
In part, the current 'turn to matter' has been informed by post-structuralist, feminist, post-colonialist and queer
theories, which rejected economic and structuralist determinism as inadequate satisfactorily to critique patriarchy,
rationalism, science and modernism, or to supply a critical and radical stance to underpin struggles for social
justice and plurality (Braidotti 2006: 24-25; Game 1991: 12). Other strands within new materialism include actor-
network theory, artificial intelligence, biophilosophy, evolutionary theory, Foucauldian genealogy, neuroscience,
philosophical posthumanism, quantum physics and Spinozist monism (Ansell Pearson 1997; Barad 1996; Best
1995; Braidotti 2006, 2013; Clough 2008; Coole and Frost 2010; Connolly 2011; Grosz 1994; Haraway 1991;
Latour 2005; Massumi 1996).
What these positions have in common is a break with earlier reductionist materialism, dissolving
[2]
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 2 30/05/2015
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
micro/macro distinctions, and recognising that materiality and the world and human history are produced by a
range of material forces that include physical, biological, psychological, social and cultural (Barad 1996: 181;
Braidotti 2013: 3). By drawing nature and culture, mind and matter into a single arena, new materialisms radically
extend the scope of materialist analysis beyond traditional concerns with structural and 'macro' level social
phenomena (van der Tuin and Dolphijn 2010: 159), to address issues often regarded as 'micro-sociological',
because of their association with how thoughts, desires, feelings and abstract concepts contribute to social
production (Braidotti 2000: 159; DeLanda 2006; 5). These elisions also mean that new materialism cuts across
other social theory dualisms including structure/agency, reason/emotion, human/non-human, animate/inanimate
(Braidotti 2013: 4-5; Coole and Frost 2010: 26-27; van der Tuin and Dolphijn 2010: 157). Consequently, new
materialism 'foregrounds an appreciation of just what it means to exist as a material individual with biological
needs yet inhabiting a world of natural and artificial objects, well-honed micro-powers of governmentality, but no
less compelling effects of international economic structures' (Coole and Frost 2010: 28).
Beyond these commonalities, new materialist scholars have diverged in how they have conceptualised
materialist ontology. Thus, for example, Barad (1996: 181) retains a concept of agency but extends it beyond
human actors to the non-human and non-animate; actor-network theory (ANT) scholars speak of human and non-
human 'actants' that have in common a capacity for agency within a heterogeneous network comprising both
natural and cultural elements (Latour 2005: 54; Law 1992: 380); while Deleuze, Guattari and their followers
prefer to talk of affectivity (Deleuze 1988: 101; Massumi 1996). Barad (1996: 188) describes the 'intra-actions'
between matter and knowledge that produce phenomena, while Deleuze and Guattari (1988: 88), DeLanda
(2006) and Latour (2005) consider how the physical and cultural assemble together to produce bodies, social
formations and events. To achieve the objective of this paper to draw out features of new materialism that impact
upon the ontology of social inquiry, we will use the well-developed and widely-applied conceptual framework
deriving from Gilles Deleuze's (1988) reading of Spinoza, as developed and applied in the work of Deleuze and
Guattari (1984, 1988), by theorists such as Braidotti (2006), DeLanda (2006), Grosz (1994) and Thrift (2004), and
by social researchers such as Fox and Alldred (2013), Renold and Ringrose (2011) and Youdell and Armstrong
(2011), though we cross reference to other new materialist scholars where appropriate.
The DeleuzoGuattarian approach is predicated upon three propositions. Firstly, bodies and other
material, social and abstract entities should be regarded not as ontologically-prior essences occupying distinct
and delimited spaces, but as relational, gaining ontological status and integrity only through their relationship to
other similarly contingent and ephemeral bodies, things and ideas (Deleuze 1988: 123; Haraway 1991: 201).
Assemblages (Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 88) of these relations develop in unpredictable ways around actions
and events, 'in a kind of chaotic network of habitual and non-habitual connections, always in flux, always
reassembling in different ways' (Potts 2004: 19), and work like 'machines' (Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 4) that do
something, produce something. An important opportunity afforded by this understanding is that whatever is
assembled can be disassembled (Harman 2013: 119) to see how it works, a characteristic we will exploit fully in
this paper.
Second, all matter has an 'agential' capacity to affect, rather than being inert clay moulded by human
agency, consciousness and imagination (Barad 1996: 181; Coole and Frost 2010: 2). Consequently, the ontology
replaces a conventional conception of agency with the Spinozist notion of affect (Deleuze 1988: 101), meaning
simply the capacity to affect or be affected: in an assemblage, there is no 'subject' and no 'object' (Anderson
2010: 736). Rather, an affect is a 'becoming' (Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 256) that represents a change of state
or capacities of an entity (Massumi 1988: xvi) – this change may be physical, psychological, emotional or social.
Affects produce further affective capacities within assemblages (Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 400), and because
one affect can produce more than one capacity, social production is 'rhizomic' (ibid: 7) rather than linear: a
branching, reversing, coalescing and rupturing flow.
Affective flows render assemblages constantly in flux, with territorialising flows stabilising an
assemblage, while others de-stabilise or de-territorialise it (Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 88-89), fragmenting an
assemblage. Affects may also aggregate relations in assemblages, while other affects are non-aggregative or
'singular', affecting a single relation within an assemblage in a unique way. So, for example, naming a new pet
kitten 'Daisy' is a singular affect, while categorising it as tabby or tortoiseshell is aggregative. These fluxes
within and between assemblages create an 'economy' of affects (Clough 2004: 15) and are the process by which
lives, societies and history unfold, 'in a world which is constantly becoming' (Thrift 2004: 61).
The final proposition marks the radical divergence from the exclusive focus in earlier materialist
sociologies upon macro-structures, social institutions and economic relations noted earlier. Because thoughts,
[3]
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 3 30/05/2015
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
ideas, feelings, desires, and collective abstractions and 'constructions' can all materially affect and be affected by
other relations in an assemblage, they can be treated in exactly the same way as other (seemingly 'more
material') relations (Deleuze and Guattari 1988: 89; see also Barad 1996: 181). With this focus upon the
materiality of affects and of the actions, interactions, subjectivities and thoughts they produce, the net is cast far
more widely than in earlier materialisms (Coole and Frost 2010: 26), to address materiality across 'micro/macro'
and culture/nature divides.
The research-assemblage: affects, flows and micropolitics
These concepts – of assemblages, affective flows and economies, territorialisations and aggregations,
provide the means for us to launch our new materialist (henceforth, for conciseness, 'materialist') analysis of
social research. Conventionally, social inquiry (like other scientific inquiry) has been anthropocentric, regarding
the researcher as the prime mover in the research enterprise, whose reason, logic, theory and scientific
methodologies gradually impose order upon 'data' to supply an understanding, however imperfect, of the world
(and its social construction). By contrast, a materialist ontology of assemblages and affects treats the researcher
and the researched event, plus the many other relations involved in social inquiry such as the tools, technologies
and theories of scientific research, as elements in a research-assemblage productive of a variety of material
capabilities in its human and non-human relations. We take this concept of the research-assemblage as our
focus for what follows.
Deleuze and Guattari (1988: 4) described assemblages as 'machines' that link affects together to
produce or do something. With this in mind, a 'research-assemblage' can be defined in terms of the multiplicity of
affective relations in the research process, including the 'events' to be researched (these can be any instance of
bodies, things, settings or social formations, or of assemblages of these); research tools such as questionnaires,
interview schedules or other apparatus; recording and analysis technologies, computer software and hardware;
theoretical frameworks and hypotheses; research literatures and findings from earlier studies; the 'data'
generated by these methodologies, methods and techniques; and of course, researchers. To this list may be
added contextual relations such as the physical spaces and establishments where research takes place; the
frameworks, philosophies, cultures and traditions that surround scientific research; ethical principles and ethics
committees; research assessment exercises; and all the paraphernalia of academic research outputs: libraries,
journals, editors, peer reviewers and readers.
While it is thus possible to disassemble a research-assemblage to disclose its constituent relations, it is
far more productive for our analysis to seek out the affects that bind the assemblage together, and we will use
Deleuze and Guattari's machine metaphor as the basis for our analysis. To this end, we will treat the research
process as if it were a series of interconnected machines that do specified tasks such as data collection, data
analysis and so forth (Fox and Alldred 2014; Jackson and Mazzei 2013). Like physical machines that have been
constructed to work in a specified way and produce certain outputs, we will regard the relations within a
research-assemblage as engineered to achieve their objectives as a consequence of the particular affective
flows between event, instruments and researchers that a methodology or method requires. Thus, a 'data
collection machine' would take aspects of an event as its raw materials, and by the means specific to its design,
generates 'data'. An analysis machine processes data according to specific rules of logic, deduction or inference,
and frequently interprets it within a specific theoretical or conceptual framework to produce 'findings' in the form of
generalities or summaries. A reporting machine takes these outputs of data analysis and creates knowledge
products for dissemination: theory, policy and practice implications and so forth.
Thinking about the affects in these research machines reveals a further interesting aspect of their
constitution. Unlike 'spontaneous' assemblages in daily life (for instance, a 'sexuality-assemblage' (Fox and
Alldred 2013) comprising bodies and body-parts, social institutions, places, clothing and other body adornments,
values, scripts and norms), research machines comprise few relations and affects, making them readily
amenable to reverse engineering in order to understand how they work. To offer a simple example: a sampling
frame can be unpicked to reveal a machine that works by means of a single affect targeted at the various events
available to social inquiry. This affect sorts events to be included in a study (for instance, teenagers) from those
to be excluded (those under 13 or over 19). In other research machines, the affects may be more complex: a
summary statistic such as chi-squared comprises a series of arithmetic operations (affects) that transform 'data'
into a single indicator of statistical significance. This means that by unpicking research machines, it will be
possible to assess how a change of data collection or analysis method, or of design (for instance, from survey to
ethnography) alters the affective flow in the research-assemblage, and hence what kind of 'knowledge' it
produces (Jackson and Mazzei 2013: 263). (It also means the affects in research machines can be 're-
engineered' to make them perform differently, a key point discussed later in the paper.)
[4]
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 4 30/05/2015
3.5
3.6
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
However the materialist ontology of social inquiry we are pursuing here allows us to push this analysis of
the research-assemblage and its constituent machines a step further. Identifying the affects in the research-
assemblage opens to scrutiny the micropolitics inherent in the research machines that do data collection, data
analysis and so on. These in turn allow us to explore the micropolitics of the research process, of what happens
when events are transformed into 'data', and who gains and who loses in the process (Gillies and Alldred 2012:
56). To give an example, in a randomised trial, controlling the experimental conditions and use of statistical
techniques together limit the affective capacities of 'confounding' relations found in 'real-world' settings,
empowering a researcher to model the 'uncontaminated' affect of an 'independent' upon a 'dependent' variable.
By contrast, in qualitative studies a 'naturalistic' approach limits the researcher affective capacities, while
enhancing the affectivity of respondents' accounts. The micropolitics of these research-assemblages differ
because of the affects that hold them together, and what they do to the relations in the assemblage.
Later in the paper, we will reverse-engineer methodologies and methods in just this way, to understand
how they work and what their micropolitics tell us about different research approaches. In order to achieve that
objective, it will be helpful to set out a more general appraisal of how a research-assemblage works, based on
the materialist analysis of relations, affects and micropolitical movements in research-assemblages discussed
earlier.
A model of research micropolitics
To develop from within the materialist perspective a model of what happens when an event – for
instance, the school trip described by Youdell and Armstrong (2011: 146) – is researched sociologically, let us
consider the event as an assemblage 'E' comprising a set of relations 'ABC' (in this example, the teachers and
students, the visit location and the route traversed, the picnic lunch, the educational objectives and so forth),
linked by affects that make this event do whatever it does. The aim of a research study will be to apply designs
and methods that can somehow identify the ABC relations within the E assemblage, explore the affects between
these relations, and from this offer an explanation of what E does within its particular social context.
However, as we have noted, a research study must also be considered both as an event in its own right,
and as an assemblage R. R will have its own set of relations 'XYZ', which are all the paraphernalia of academic
inquiry such as the researcher, methodologies, research instruments, theories and so on. As was discussed
earlier, these XYZ relations have been purposively assembled in order to engineer specific affective flows within
the research-assemblage, with the objective of taking the event-assemblage E or other similar events, and
producing a textual or other output that will form the research 'knowledge' of E. Most critically for this model of
research, if R is to document, analyse and eventually turn E into knowledge, this requires that the research-
assemblage must also be capable of being affected by the affects between relations ABC in the event being
studied. (This capacity to be affected is described variously in conventional social research texts, for instance as
the sensitivity and specificity that an instrument such as thermometer or a questionnaire needs in order for it to be
useful as a measure, or of the hermeneutic understanding ('verstehen') in a qualitative study that enables a
researcher to make sense of an event being studied.)
For the sake of precision, it should be considered that when E becomes the subject of the research
assemblage R, the consequent interaction between affects in E and R produces a third, hybrid assemblage,
which we will designate R/E, with its own affect economy that links relations A, B, C, X, Y and Z. This economy
will be distinct from those in either E or R, though it is the affects in R that will actually produce the research
outputs, 'knowledge' of the E assemblage, or the altered sensibilities in the researcher and the research's
audience that a constructionist would describe as 'social constructions' of E. It may also produce effects on E
itself, such as changes in behaviour due to a 'Hawthorne' effect from being observed, increased individual or
collective reflexivity, or impacts on the event (for instance, a custom or tradition) due to attention from outsiders.
This way of understanding the possible interactions between the affect economies of E and R within a
hybrid R/E assemblage enables a sophisticated understanding of the micropolitics of social research. This can be
apprehended by considering two opposing 'hazards' often discussed in social research. The first of these occurs
when the 'research' relations XYZ within R/E dominate the flow, asserting a powerful effect over the relations
ABC of the event-assemblage E. This may happen for various reasons: for instance when a sampling strategy
intentionally excludes key aspects of E; by controlling out naturalistic contexts; by imposing a theoretical
framework on data; by use of statistics to summarise or generalise; or by textual (mis)representation of E. In such
cases, R affects radically re-territorialise the affective flow between ABC relations, to the extent that the
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 5 30/05/2015
4.5
4.6
5.1
5.2
5.3
'knowledge' produced by R/E no longer reflects the flow within E, distorting its representation in research outputs.
This is the situation posited by radical social constructionists, who have argued that modernist research has
constructed rather than described its objects (for example in Foucault's (1981) and Kitzinger's (1987) studies of
sexuality).
The opposing hazard occurs when the XYZ relations in the research-assemblage have so little affective
capacity that the ABC relations are dominant within the R/E assemblage. Now the research process becomes a
machine whose outputs are trivial or anodyne rather than analytical; descriptive or journalistic rather than critical.
This may occur when affects in the research-assemblage are weak, for instance if the research design lacks a
powerful (affective) analytical machine or is theoretically uninformed; the research instruments do not possess
the capacity to differentiate the relations or affects in the event; or the reporting is literal rather than critical.
Occasionally, of course, this affective weakness is seen as an opportunity, for example in case studies that set
out to describe specific events; or in 'Delphi' methodologies that aim to gain consensus among experts and
thereby offer a definitive statement on current knowledge (for example, a study that draws on a wide range of
expert opinions in order to assess the current status of scientific consensus concerning the effects of the human
species upon global climate).
However, between these extremes there will be many research situations when neither ABC nor XYZ
affects overwhelmingly control the affective flow in the R/E assemblage. Yet in each and every situation, there
will be a dynamic tension between the affective flow of E and that of R, a tension that has consequences for the
knowledge and representations of the social world that research produces, and potentially for the social world
itself. Applying this materialist analysis supplies a means to explore the micropolitics of the research process,
understood in terms of affective interactions between event, research methodologies/methods and researcher.
Dis-assembling the research-assemblage
In the remainder of the paper, we will use this materialist understanding of the R/E assemblage to
explore in greater detail a range of research machines, their affect economies and the micropolitics of social
inquiry these machines produce. The utility and validity of many of these research-assemblages and machines
are contested within contemporary social inquiry, but rather than debating the traditional critiques, we have
applied our model of research-as-assemblage to make sense of what these designs and methods actually do,
and how they work. First we asked what a machine is designed to do, and what outputs it produces. From this,
we applied a more critical assessment, imposing the materialist ontology of assemblages and affects to reverse
engineer the machine and disclose the affective flows that make it work. We examined how the design of the
machine enhances certain affective flows and mitigates or closes down others. This is the affect economy
(Clough 2004: 15) of the machine, which enables it to work in a specific way, and which (as was discussed in the
previous section) produces the micropolitics of its interactions with the affect economy of the event studied, with
consequences for the knowledge produced, the researchers and the events themselves.
To clarify this analysis, we will apply (without specific critiques) this approach of reverse engineering or
disassembling research machines to three methods or techniques (sampling, the questionnaire, and thematic
qualitative analysis) and then two research methodologies often used in social inquiry: the survey and the
qualitative interview. This analysis will supply the basis for a more critical subsequent discussion of how social
inquiry is viewed from a materialist perspective. Analysis of many of the other techniques, methods and
methodologies used in social research are then presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Techniques and Methods
Sampling
A sampling machine performs a relatively simple task within a research-assemblage, selecting events
(respondents, institutions, occurrences) for inclusion in or exclusion from a study, based upon two sequential
affects. The first affect sets the choice of sampling approach (for example, representative sample, stratified
sample, convenience sample, theoretical sample) for the researcher to implement; the second affect includes or
excludes specific events, applying the appropriate means of selection (random inclusion for a representative
sample; purposive inclusion across a range of events for a theoretical sample, and so forth), as set by the first
affect. The affect economy in this machine acts upon study events, systematically including some in the sample
and excluding others. Micropolitically, this economy empowers a researcher to achieve the impossible (to assess
an entire population), by restricting the affects from the event population entering the research assemblage
according to specific, though arbitrary principles.
[5]
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 6 30/05/2015
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
The Questionnaire
The questionnaire is actually two separate machines: one for questionnaire construction, the other for its
administration. The affect in the first transforms variables to be measured (for example, political belief) into a
question that will serve as an indicator (for example: how did you vote at the last election?), sometimes with pre-
selected permissible responses. The affects in the second act on researcher and respondents, requiring a
question to be asked, an answer to be supplied, this answer to be recorded and possibly allocated to a pre-
coded category, and the instrument to be applied consecutively and independently to each respondent in turn,
generating completed questionnaires ready to be fed into an analysis machine. The affective economy of this
machine extracts information systematically from respondents to produce a dataset. Micropolitically, the machine
acts as a filter on the affect economies of events being studied, extracting only certain data, and categorising
them according to the affect economy of the instrument rather than that of the event itself.
Thematic Qualitative Analysis
Thematic analysis of qualitative data is a machine that (manually, or with software assistance) organises
and reduces non-numerical data, making it more manageable and amenable to systematic reporting. It entails
two affects: a pre-analysis code-generation affect that allocates a code to a range of similar textual occurrences
(for instance, to pieces of text that in some ways reference family finances); and an aggregative affect that takes
each piece of data in turn and codes it according to this scheme. The affect economy here acts on raw data
from a study to aggregate it, reduce variability, and open it to reporting. The micropolitics of the machine is to
reduce complexity in data and aggregate together disparate aspects of an event in ways defined by the analyst
(for instance, in terms of a conceptual or theoretical framework).
Research Methodologies
We now consider two common research designs, looking at each as a whole but also as constituted from
a number of machines, including those described in the previous thumb-nail sketches and those listed in Table 1.
The Survey
The survey is a social research design assemblage that typically produces a quantitative summary of
specific aspects of a study population, as defined by a research question. This is done by a series of research-
machines that a) draw a representative or stratified sample from a population; b) use methods such as
questionnaires to gather data on specified measures or indicators (often forcing responses into pre-specified
categories); c) submit these to descriptive or inferential statistical analysis; and d) report a summary of the
sample's features, often with an assessment of confidence to generalise these to a population.
The affect economy that makes the survey design work derives from the economies of its constituent
machines. Affects in the sampling machine supply a means to allocate events to the sample; those in the
questionnaire machine select and categorise those features of events to be studied and record them in a form
amenable to quantitative analysis; affects in the statistical analysis machine aggregate and manipulate the data
mathematically, reducing it to summary values and statistical assessments of probability that efface the
complexities and divergences in the events; the affects of the result-writing machine use these aggregated and
de-contextualised findings and present them in an effort to answer the study's research questions.
Micropolitically, all these machines are highly aggregative: as sampling and questionnaire machines
systematise research selection and data collection, they restrict which affects from the event can become part of
the R/E assemblage; the analysis machine aggregates the affective capacities of the event into numerical
metrics, simplifying and thereby reducing the granularity of the event-affects represented in the research outputs;
the writing machine imposes the constraints of a narrow research question on the affects in the event. In these
ways, a survey powerfully privileges a researcher perspective over the events it studies.
The Qualitative Interview
Here we examine qualitative interviewing as a research methodology designed to provide 'rich
descriptions' of a social event or events by interrogating accounts elicited from social actors. Within this research-
assemblage are a number of machines that: a) set and refine the research question; b) select a sample – usually
according to a purposive strategy to overcome the limitations of a relatively small sample size (Coyne 1997: 629);
c) use individual or group interviews (based on an interview schedule designed to inform the research question)
to gain in-depth data on interviewees' affective backgrouud, engagement with the issues being studied, and
reflections on these issues; d) undertake some kind of qualitative analysis, typically one that categorises data
[6]
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 7 30/05/2015
5.11
5.12
5.13
into themes either 'grounded' in the data or deriving from a pre-defined theoretical or conceptual framework, or
imposes some other structure upon the data; and e) report these data in a textual format that often includes
extracts from the interviews conducted.
The affect economy of this methodology is again provided by its constituent machines. The purposive
sampling machine selects subjects to interview based on expectations of their affective economies, and often
aims to maximise diversity rather than to ensure data is representative of a wider population. An interview
schedule is a simple affect that determines which elements of the subjects' affective engagements with the topic
can be reported, while the question/answer format underpinning the interview method also governs the material
gathered. The qualitative analysis machine (as described earlier) organises, aggregates and reduces the textual
material, enabling themes to be developed or explanatory constructs to be developed; writing produces a
second-order account of the events being studied, as interpreted first by interviewees and then by the
researcher, and illustrates the account with 'representative' or 'allusive' quotations from the interviewees.
The micropolitics of qualitative interviewing reflect the interactions between researcher, interviewees and
the events they describe. The researcher's questioning role and the answering role of subjects produce
inequality, while the choice of research question, sampling and interview schedule machines all impose a
framework on the affects admitted into the R/E assemblage. However, the interview format does enable
respondents to control the accounts they offer, and researchers may actively try to hand some power back to
interviewees, to 'give them a voice'. As noted earlier, the systematising and aggregating affects in the thematic
analysis machine privilege the analyst's account over those of respondents; this is reflected in how the data are
reported – typically within an imposed structure that establishes the researcher's unitary account of the event,
with interviewees' accounts used selectively to justify the researcher's answer to the research question.
These detailed descriptions of methods and designs demonstrate how we have moved from what a
machine does, to how its affects make it work, and finally what this means for the micropolitics of the hybrid R/E
assemblage. Tables 1 and 2 summarise other methods, techniques and designs that may be reverse engineered
in the same way. The first table is divided into research techniques, data collection and data analysis methods,
and aspects of data presentation. Table 2 analyses the principal research designs from across the spectrum of
social inquiry. Of course, social research is continually innovating new designs and methods, often highly
antagonistic to positivistic science, and these too are amenable to analysis, to reveal their unique affect
economies and micropolitics.
Table 1: Materialist assessment of social research methods and techniques
A) Techniques
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 8 30/05/2015
B) Data Collection Methods
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 9 30/05/2015
C) Analytical Methods
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 10 30/05/2015
D) Study Presentation
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 11 30/05/2015
Table 2: Materialist assessment of social research methodologies
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 12 30/05/2015
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 13 30/05/2015
6.1
6.2
6.3
Discussion: re-assembling social inquiry
Assessing this range of research methods, techniques and designs from a materialist perspective
suggests three features of research-assemblages and their micropolitics that bear on the concerns of this paper
with social research theory and practice. First, most research-assemblages possess just the few relations and
affects needed sequentially to perform simple tasks of interconnected machines. By breaking research-
assemblages down into their component parts, a materialist analysis can exploit this sparseness, to reverse
engineer research machines to disclose their affects and what they do, both de-mystifying the research process,
and allowing research designs and methods to be manipulated to serve particular ends.
Second, generally speaking, the affective flows in most of the research assemblages and machines
reviewed have in common that they produce simplicity where there was complexity, definition in place of
indeterminacy, and evenness where there was variability, with consequences for the knowledge social inquiry
produces. Earlier we noted (following Deleuze and Guattari) that affects come in two forms: an affect that
produces a change in one (rather than multiple) relations in an assemblage are 'singular' in their effects, while
'aggregative' affects clump relations together in some way. Scrutinising Tables 1 and 2, it is striking how many
research methods, techniques and designs have affective flows that aggregate event affects in one way or
another. From selecting which events to study, to which features of events to subject to attention, through
analytic methods that categorise or reduce data and frame it theoretically or conceptually, to reporting findings
and assessing their significance, affective flows in the research-assemblage act upon the affects of the events
being studied to produce research outputs that are aggregations, generalisations or summaries. From this
perspective, survey and interview methodologies reveal less divergence than might have been predicted from
the rival claims of their advocates.
Aggregation influences how events are presented in research reports, tending toward a loss of detail or
granularity in what is been described. Whether it is through a descriptive statistic such as a mean or a confidence
interval, or a thematic presentation of qualitative data, aggregations have the effect of excluding the outliers and
aberrations that in social life may be extremely significant; the social world thus presented seems more bland
and less exceptional than it might to those immersed within it. On occasions, the aggregative character of
research is subverted, enabling singular flows within event-assemblages. Examples include case study designs
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 14 30/05/2015
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
that offer detailed descriptions of events and their contexts; analyses that seek out aberrant events or utterances
rather than the 'representative' illustrations often favoured by researchers when reporting data; and studies that
set out to change the world rather than simply understanding it, including emancipatory or transgressive action
research that involve participants in a research setting in undertaking research themselves in order to improve
some aspect of their world (Fox 2003), feminist/queer research that sets out to challenge and disrupt patriarchal
and heteronormative orthodoxies (Braidotti 2013; Gillies and Alldred 2012), and 'schizoanalytic' and 'diffractive'
research designs inspired by DeleuzoGuattarian and Baradian theory (Renold and Ringrose 2011; Taguchi and
Palmer 2013) that aim to trouble received wisdom and produce new possibilities within the settings researched.
Third, these kinds of aggregating affect economies within research machines and assemblages (that
variously corral events and their characteristics into categories, codes and themes) territorialise affects in the E
assemblage, shifting the micropolitics of the research-assemblage and the hybridised R/E assemblage firmly
toward the researcher's agenda. This is unsurprising; after all research machines have been designed to enable
researchers to do research, though this assessment rejects any argument that research is in some way a
'neutral' event. A materialist analysis of the interactions between event, research process and researcher
supplies a nuanced view of the micropolitics of research-assemblages: by analysing the affects in the hybrid R/E
assemblage, it is possible to assess in what ways, and to what extent, event affects have been territorialised (or
de-territorialised) by the affect economy of the research process, and which machines and designs have done
this.
One outcome of such a micropolitical analysis of research is a refinement of a strict constructionist
perspective on research, which has tended to regard knowledge of the world produced by social inquiry as highly
contingent upon the conditions of its production by researchers (Thibodeaux 2014: 830), or constitutive of the
objects it describes. So, for instance, in the progressive territorialisations by psychological sciences of non-
normative sexualities (Alldred and Fox 2015), Rose (1998: 55) argued that 'evidence, results, arguments,
laboratories, status and much else' contributed to the construction of differing 'truths' about LGBT sexualities as
pathology, then deviance, then diversity. Up to a point, a materialist analysis would assent to this assessment: as
has been seen, an aggregating and territorialising research-assemblage will dominate the affective flow in a
hybrid R/E assemblage, reshaping the ABC affects of the event in the research's image. However, the materialist
analysis differs in two key ways.
Firstly, as was noted earlier, the ABC affects of an event cannot be entirely erased from an R/E
assemblage: except in intentionally fraudulent or fictitious research reports, or where the machines in a
research-assemblage are wildly inappropriate ('invalid' or 'unreliable'), something of the event's affective flow will
inevitably remain in the research outputs. Pulling apart a research-assemblage to interrogate its machines and
their affects can certainly disclose these flawed processes, but more generally, it can specify and evaluate
precisely what aggregations and territorialisations a research-assemblage has wrought upon its subject-matter,
and hence the extent to which research outputs provide useful knowledge of events.
Secondly, if disseminated into the social arena, these outputs (for example, a particular scientific
understanding of non-normative sexuality) may indeed feed into the event-assemblage upon which they are
based, potentially altering the latter's affective flows and what it can do – for instance, by producing guilt in
people involved in a 'taboo' sexual practice. However, from an assemblage perspective, the aggregated and
territorialised output of a research-assemblage is only one among the many relations that contribute to an event-
assemblage, and only if the research-assemblage's affective capacity is exceptionally powerful (for example, a
religious, political or scientific dogma) might an event's affect economy be fully overwhelmed. Furthermore,
analysis of the affect economies within a research-assemblage can enable precise assessment of the extent to
which it has re-constituted an event in its own image. Though powerful cultural forces (including scientific
orthodoxies) always have the potential to influence the affect economy of a research-assemblage, social inquiry
is not doomed to inevitably and uncritically recapitulate these social and cultural forces.
If this nuanced understanding of the relational micropolitics within event/research hybrid assemblages
offers a different assessment of research knowledge from constructionist suggestions that social inquiry
inevitably produces contingent, ideological knowledge of the events it investigates, there is also clear water
between a materialist analysis of the social world (and research's capacity to reveal it) and a realist perspective.
We have shown how affects in the research assemblage inevitably must interact with those in the event-
assemblage if research is to be other than merely descriptive, denying the possibility of unmediated translation of
an observed event into research knowledge of it (see Barad (1996) for a comprehensive critique of
correspondence theories of truth). At the same time, the materialist understanding of events as relational –
[7]
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 15 30/05/2015
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
comprising affects that interact ceaselessly to produce new capacities – suggests a social ontology of flux and
becoming rather than of being and stability.
While the opportunity afforded by materialist ontology to peer inside the machines and assemblages of
social inquiry has permitted us to assess the research process micropolitically by unpacking its affect economy,
perhaps of greater significance is the potential also to manipulate these micropolitics. We can, if we so wish,
design and re-engineer research-assemblages and machines (the data collection machine, the validity machine,
the analysis machine and so on) to include or exclude specified aggregative and territorialising effects, thereby
innovating creative research-assemblages that produce specific capacities in researchers, data and the events
studied.
Though this could be simply a charter for removing as many aggregating affects as possible from social
inquiry (for instance, a sampling frame that takes uniqueness as its criterion; adopting a descriptive approach to
data analysis), we would suggest there is potential for a more sophisticated response. Alongside such efforts to
develop less aggregating and territorialising research-assemblages, the capacity afforded by a materialist
perspective upon research to critically assess the affects that make research machines work suggests a potential
rehabilitation for a range of methodologies sometimes seen (typically by naturalistic researchers) as highly
territorialising: surveys, experiments and quasi-experiments. At the same time, proponents of such designs must
temper their enthusiasm with an explicit commitment to review reflexively and account for the aggregations and
territorialisations they produce in R/E hybrid assemblages and hence in their findings (Gillies and Alldred 2012:
57). These can be acknowledged and their impacts predicted, probabilistically if not absolutely.
This may also supply a new justification for applying a mix of methods within studies, some highly
aggregative but analytically powerful, others less analytical but intentionally non- or even dis-aggregative. For
instance, a study might combine a (minimally-aggregative) descriptive case study that produces a rich picture of
the concerns and values of research participants in a setting with an intervention (highly aggregative) that
attempts to alter aspects of the setting to address these concerns and values. A subsequent evaluation might
combine aggregative quantitative measures with opportunities for participants to offer their own unmediated
assessments of any improvements, and use the research outputs to challenge policy or improve their living
environment. Mixing methods and methodologies in this way does not mean that the aggregations of particular
methods are somehow 'cancelled out'. But because researchers can estimate precisely what aggregations their
methods entail, the consequences for knowledge-production can be accurately predicted and acknowledged
when reporting findings and drawing conclusions.
In this paper we have taken the precepts of new materialism and run with them, to explore what they
mean for social inquiry. What then of the suggestion that new materialism resolves the contradictory perspectives
on knowledge production between realism and constructionism (Coole and Frost 2010: 26-27)? It would be a
neat coda to the paper to argue that our analysis has revealed a new resolution of this dualism. But we would
suggest that this is not an appropriate conclusion; instead, what a new materialist perspective on social inquiry
has done is to change the terms of reference for the discussion. Rather than trying to answer an anthropocentric
question of belief or scepticism about the possibility of gaining knowledge of the world independent of human
culture, what our analysis has done is to look at what research actually does. We have used the 'turn to matter'
and a DeleuzoGuattarian materialism of assemblages and affects to disclose the micropolitical workings of the
research-assemblage as it hybridises with an event-assemblage. We have thereby offered a means to assess
the effects of every element of the research process on both events and on the knowledge that research
produces.
Materialist analysis of research-assemblage micropolitics, we would simply conclude, supplies an
innovative take on the ontology of social research that opens up possibilities for how research is designed and
undertaken, what capacities the research assemblage produces in researchers, research tools, audiences and
events, and how a range of methodologies and methods may be critically applied and combined in the pursuit of
useful understanding of the world and human culture.
Notes
Ontology concerns propositions about the fundamental nature of things and the kinds of things that exist,
while epistemology addresses how these things can be known by an observer.
1
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 16 30/05/2015
For some readers, the recognition that agency extends beyond humans will be reminiscent of the
emphasis in Actor-Network Theory (ANT) upon non-human 'actants' that contribute to social production alongside
human agents. This convergence between ANT and Deleuze and Guattari's materialism is also evident in
Latour's (2005) understanding of the social as relational and assembled, and Law's (1992) discussion of a
heterogeneous network of forces deriving from both the natural and social worlds.
Our terms 'singular' and 'aggregative' replace the somewhat obscure DeleuzoGuattarian terms
'molecular' and 'molar' that derive from physical chemistry.
The machinic analysis offers a materialist understanding both of research's design and its failings.
Research machines do not work perfectly – they break down, misfire, go into reverse or self-destruct. This can
occur because of legitimate but faulty/inappropriate affects in the machine (for instance, a statistic not suited to a
particular type of data, or an inexperienced or insensitive interviewer), or due to extraneous sources such as
reticent or disruptive research-participants, unpredictable factors in the physical or cultural environment of a
study, or unprofessional or fraudulent behaviour by researchers.
For this exercise, we exclude the subjective biases, prejudices or commitments of researchers and other
'extraneous' affects from our analysis of the research-assemblage. In practice, these will also contribute to the
R/E assemblage and its micropolitics.
A second level of coding may be undertaken to further reduce the variability in the data, but this again
comprises just two affects: one that develops the aggregation/coding scheme, and a second that aggregates the
(coded) data into an even more limited number of categories or themes. Sometimes code-generation will overlap
aggregation, with codes generated 'on the hoof' as new categories emerge from the data.
Our analysis of the interactions between event- and research-assemblages is cognate with Barad's
(1996) ontology of events and observers, but without recourse to quantum mechanical theory.
References
ALLDRED, P. and Fox, NJ (2015) 'From "Lesbian and Gay Psychology" to a Critical Psychology of Sexualities',
in Parker, I. (ed.) Handbook of Critical Psychology. London: Routledge.
ALVESSON, M. and Skoldberg, K. (2009) Reflexive Methodology (2 edition). London: Sage.
ANDERSON, B. (2010) 'Becoming and being hopeful: towards a theory of affect', Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space, Vol. 24, No. 5, p. 733-752.
ANSELL PEARSON, K. (1999) Germinal Life. London: Routledge.
BARAD, K. (1996) 'Meeting the universe halfway: realism and social constructivism without contradiction', in
Nelson, L.H. and Nelson, J. (eds.) Feminism, Science and the Philosophy of Science, p. 161-194.
Dordrecht; Kluwer.
BARAD, K. (2003) 'Performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter', Signs, Vol. 28, No. 3,
p. 801-831.
BEST, S. (1995) 'Sexualizing space', in Grosz, E. and Probyn, E. (eds.), Sexy Bodies, p. 181-194. London:
Routledge.
BRAIDOTTI, R. (2000) 'Teratologies', in Buchanan I and Colebrook C (eds.) Deleuze and Feminist Theory, p.
156-172. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
BRAIDOTTI, R. (2006) Transpositions. Cambridge: Polity.
BRAIDOTTI, R. (2013). The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity.
2
3
4
5
6
7
nd
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 17 30/05/2015
CHEAH, P. (2010) 'Non-dialectical materialism', in Coole, D.H. and Frost, S. (eds.) New Materialisms: Ontology,
Agency, and Politics, p. 70-91. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
CLOUGH, P.T. (2004) 'Future matters: technoscience, global politics, and cultural criticism', Social Text, Vol. 22,
No. 3, p. 1-23.
CLOUGH, P.T. (2008) 'The affective turn: political economy, biomedia and bodies', Theory, Culture & Society,
Vol. 25, No. 1, p. 1-22.
COLEMAN, R. and RINGROSE, J. (2013) 'Introduction', in Coleman, R. and Ringrose, J. (eds.) Deleuze and
Research Methodologies, p. 1-22. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
CONNOLLY, W.E. (2011) 'The complexity of intention', Critical Inquiry, Vol. 37, No. 4, p. 791-98.
COOLE, D.H. and FROST, S. (2010) 'Introducing the new materialisms', in Coole, D.H. and Frost, S. (eds.) New
Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. p. 1-45.
COYNE, I.T. (1997) 'Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling: merging or clear
boundaries?' Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 26, No. 3, p. 623-630.
DANERMARK, B., Ekstrom, M., Jaokobsen, L. and Karlsson, J. (2002) Explaining Society. Critical Realism in the
Social Sciences. London: Routledge.
DELANDA, M. (2006) A New Philosophy of Society. London: Continuum.
DELEUZE, G. (1988) Spinoza: Practical Philosophy. San Francisco: City Lights.
DELEUZE, G. and Guattari, F. (1984) Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: Athlone.
DELEUZE, G. and Guattari, F. (1988) A Thousand Plateaus, London: Athlone.
FOUCAULT, M. (1981) The History of Sexuality Vol.1: The Will to Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Pelican.
FOX, N.J. (2003) 'Practice-based evidence: towards collaborative and transgressive research', Sociology, Vol.
37, p. 81-102.
FOX, N.J. and Alldred, P. (2013) 'The sexuality-assemblage: desire, affect, anti-humanism', Sociological Review,
Vol. 61, No. 4, p. 769-789.
FOX, N.J. and Alldred, P. (2014) 'New materialist social inquiry: designs, methods and the research-
assemblage', International Journal of Social Research Methodology, DOI:
10.1080/13645579.2014.921458
GAME, A. (1991) Undoing the Social. Buckingham: Open University Press.
GILLIES, V. and Alldred, P. (2012) 'The ethics of intention: research as a political tool', in Miller, T., Birch, M.,
Mauthner, M. and Jessop, J. (eds.) Ethics in Qualitative Research, p. 43-60. London: Sage.
GROSZ, E. (1994) Volatile Bodies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
HARAWAY, D. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.
HARAWAY, D. (1997) Modest Witness@Second_Millennium. London: Routledge.
HARMAN, G. (2013) 'Conclusions: assembly theory and its future', in Acuto, M. and Curtis, S. (eds.)
Reassembling International Theory, p. 118-130. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
JACKSON, A.Y. and Mazzei, L.A. (2013) 'Plugging one text into another: thinking with theory in qualitative
research', Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 19, No. 4, p. 261-271.
KITZINGER, C. (1987) The Social Construction of Lesbianism. London: Sage.
LATOUR, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LAU, R. and Morgan, J. (2014) 'Integrating discourse, construction and objectivity: a contemporary realist
approach, Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 3, p. 573-589.
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 18 30/05/2015
LAW, R. (1992) 'Notes on the theory of the actor-network: ordering, strategy and heterogeneity', Systems
Practice, Vol. 5, No. 4, p. 379-93.
MASSUMI, B. (1988) 'Translator's foreword and notes', in Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. A Thousand Plateaus, p.
ix-xix. London: Athlone.
MASSUMI, B. (1996) 'The autonomy of affect', in Patton, P. (ed.) Deleuze: a Critical Reader, p. 217-239. Oxford:
Blackwell.
MORGAN, D.L. (2007) 'Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained', Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol. 1,
No. 1, p. 48-76.
POTTS, A. (2004) 'Deleuze on Viagra (or, what can a Viagra-body do?)', Body & Society, Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 17-
36.
RENOLD, E. and Ringrose, J. (2011) 'Schizoid subjectivities? Re-theorizing teen girls? sexual cultures in an era
of "sexualization" ', Journal of Sociology, Vol. 47, No. 4, p. 389-409.
RINGROSE, J. and Renold, R. (2014) ' "F**k rape!": Exploring affective intensities in a feminist research
assemblage', Qualitative Inquiry, Vol 20, No. 6, p. 772-780.
ROSE, N. (1998) Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power, and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
SHALIN, D.N. (1990) 'The impact of transcendental idealism on early German and American sociology', Current
Perspectives in Social Theory, Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 1-29.
STANLEY, L. and Wise, S. (1993) Breaking Out Again (2 Edition). London: Routledge.
TAGUCHI, H.L. and Palmer, A. (2013) 'A more 'livable' school? A diffractive analysis of the performative
enactments of girls' ill-/well-being with(in) school environments', Gender and Education, Vol. 25, No. 6, p.
671-687.
TAYLOR, C.A. and Ivinson, G. (2013) 'Material feminisms: new directions for education', Gender and Education,
Vol. 25, No. 6, p. 665-670.
THIBODEAUX, J. (2014) 'Three versions of constructionism and their reliance on social conditions in social
problems research', Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 4, p. 829-837.
THRIFT, N. (2004) 'Intensities of feeling: towards a spatial politics of affect', Geografiska Annaler Series B
Human Geography, Vol. 86, No. 1, p. 57-78.
VAN DER TUIN, I. and Dolphijn, R. (2010) 'The transversality of new materialism', Women: A Cultural Review,
Vol. 21, No. 2, p. 153-171.
YOUDELL, D. and Armstrong, F. (2011) 'A politics beyond subjects: the affective choreographies and smooth
spaces of schooling', Emotion, Space and Society, Vol. 4, No. 3, p. 144-150.
nd
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/2/6.html 19 30/05/2015
... This affective analysis of research supplies the opportunity to begin to answer some of the questions for DM that we posed in the previous section. The concepts of affects, capacities, and micropolitics enable the entanglements within applied research apparatuses/assemblages to be unpacked further: to assess what all kinds of research designs, methods, and techniques actually do, how they turn the events they study into recommendations for practice or policy guidelines, and who gains and who loses in the process (Fox and Alldred, 2015a). This can reveal how and to what extent social inquiry (measuring, observing, and experimenting) affects what data are produced and the entanglement between research-assemblage and the researched event-assemblage. ...
... This can be achieved because a researchassemblage can be decomposed into a series of simpler research machines, each of which perform specific tasks within a research process -such as data collection, data analysis, or ethical review. Each machine has a specific affect-economy that makes it work (Fox and Alldred, 2015a;Warfield, 2017: 67). Thus, a 'data collection machine' takes aspects of an event as its raw materials, and by the means specific to its design (interview, survey, etc.), generates 'data'. ...
... Micropolitical analyses can be conducted on the individual research machines that comprise research designs. This enables great precision in assessing how a researchassemblage transforms the affects in the event it studies, with each constituent machine evaluated to identify its effects on the data it generates (Fox and Alldred, 2015a). For instance, affects in a thematic analysis machine will summarise qualitative data by artificially reducing its complexity and aggregating disparate events together. ...
Article
Full-text available
This article offers a critical assessment of the challenges for policy- and practice-oriented social research of ‘diffractive methodology’ (DM): a post-representational approach to data analysis gaining interest among social researchers. Diffractive analyses read data from empirical research alongside other materials – including researchers’ perspectives, memories, experiences, and emotions – to provide novel insights on events. While this analytical approach acknowledges the situatedness of all research data, it raises issues concerning the applicability of findings for policy or practice. In addition, it does not elucidate in what ways and to what extent the diffractions employed during analysis have influenced the findings. To explore these questions, we diffract DM itself, by reading it alongside a DeleuzoGuattarian analysis of research-as-assemblage. This supplies a richer understanding of the entanglements between research and its subject-matter, and suggests how diffractive analysis may be used in conjunction with other methods in practice- and policy-oriented research.
... Inspired by St. Pierre (2018) to apply postqualitative elements in the analysis and the discussion of our findings, we refer to the posthuman relational ontology and the theory of assemblages. Assemblage theory, based on the work of Deleuze andGuattari (1977, 2004; see also Deleuze, 1988), and later developed by DeLanda (2006DeLanda ( , 2013DeLanda ( , 2016, has been increasingly referenced as a methodology for critical research (Baker & McGuirk, 2017;Fox & Alldred, 2015Bazzul & Kayumova, 2016). In our application of assemblage theory we cite DeLanda (2016) frequently due to the excellent summary DeLanda provides of the extensive writings by Deleuze and Guattari, who developed the key elements of assemblage theory. ...
... We also conceptualise the situation of teachers and students as assemblages and consider how the dynamism of the climate emergency and the reactions of school leadership generate manifestations of deterritorialisation and re-territorialisation for the affected individuals (Fox & Alldred, 2015, p. 401). Fox and Alldred (2015) state that 'power resides in the affective flows between relations in assemblages' (p. 402), and research itself must be understood as a territorialising assemblage that 'shapes the knowledge it produces according to the particular flows of affect produced by its methodology and methods' (p. ...
Article
Anthropogenic climate change and the necessary transformation of society to mitigate its consequences constitutes an unprecedented educational challenge. Responding to the climate emergency and to society’s awakening climate activism generates a complex situation for school leadership in particular. Here, we report findings from our research with climate activist students and teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand. We argue that school leadership plays a crucial role in enabling student and teacher agency and the development of effective Climate Change Education in schools. We utilise assemblage thinking, situating this within the new materialisms, to conceptualise schools and their leadership as dynamic assemblages, and we discuss teacher and student experiences as actors across such assemblages. We conclude that deterritorialisation and decoding of educational institutions and their leadership practices can promote and enable education to become a driver of the cultural transformation of society that the climate emergency mandates.
... I am using emergent listening (Davies 2016) as a strategy against myself and internalized research practices. This disposition forces the research assemblage (Fox & Alldred 2015) that I am entangled with, to listen, and not to interrupt. The research assemblage is also committed to what Karin Murris (2016) proposes as ontoepistemic injustice, that produces children, and many others, as incapable of producing knowledge. ...
Article
Full-text available
This is part 3 of 6 of the dossier What do we talk about when we talk about queer death?, edited by M. Petricola. The contributions collected in this article sit at the crossroads between thanatology, critical animal studies, and the posthumanities and tackle questions such as: how can queer death studies deconstruct our perception of non-human deaths? How can we rethink hu- man death from a non-anthropocentric perspective? And how can queer death studies approach the COVID-19 pandemic? The present article includes the following contributions: – Beccaro C. and Tuckett M., The life cycle of the agaonidae wasp: death, queerness, and the shattering of the human; – Langhi R., Corpses are remains: queering human/animal boundaries across death; – Véliz S., Tilting points of reference: how nonhuman death narratives unsettle research; – Varino S., (Un)doing viral time: queer temporalities of living & dying in pandemic times; – Pevere M., Recalcitrant by nature: queering death through biological art practice Keywords:
... This includes direct experience with managing PICC lines in clinical settings and working in a context where PICCs are routinely provided, including to PWUD with complex health needs. In keeping with expectations within NM to consider the researcher within the "research assemblage " ( Fox & Alldred, 2015a, 2015b and post-qualitative debates about the limits of method, data, and representation ( Fullagar, 2017 ;St. Pierre, 2019 ), we have included coded empirical data and insights gained during the entire research process. ...
Article
Background People who use drugs (PWUD), and especially those who inject drugs, are at increased risk of acquiring bloodborne infections (e.g., HIV and HCV), experiencing drug-related harms (e.g., abscesses and overdose), and being hospitalized and requiring inpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy delivered through a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). The use of PICC lines with PWUD is understood to be a source of tension in hospital settings but has not been well researched. Drawing on theoretical and analytic insights from ”new materialism,” we consider the assemblage of sociomaterial elements that inform the use of PICCs. Methods This paper draws on n = 50 interviews conducted across two related qualitative research projects within a program of research about the impact of substance use on hospital admissions from the perspective of healthcare providers (HCPs) and people living with HIV/HCV who use drugs. This paper focuses on data about PICC lines collected in both studies. Results The decision to provide, maintain, or remove a PICC is based on a complex assemblage of factors (e.g., infections, bodies, drugs, memories, relations, spaces, temporalities, and contingencies) beyond whether parenteral intravenous antibiotic therapy is clinically indicated. HCPs expressed concerns about the risk posed by past, current, and future drug use, and contact with non-clinical spaces (e.g., patient's homes and the surrounding community), with some opting for second-line treatments and removing PICCs. The majority of PWUD described being subjected to threats of discharge and increased monitoring despite being too ill to use their PICC lines during past hospital admissions. A subset of PWUD reported using their PICC lines to inject drugs as a harm reduction strategy, and a subset of HCPs reported providing harm reduction-centred care. Conclusion Our analysis has implications for theorizing the role of PICC lines in the care of PWUD and identifies practical guidance for engaging them in productive and non-judgemental discussions about the risks of injecting into a PICC line, how to do it safely, and about medically supported alternatives.
Article
Across phenomena and areas of inquiry, social psychology often emphasizes social categories as the unit of explanation. However, the primacy of categories often leads social psychologists to neglect contextual features that might shape people’s psychologies and behaviour, limiting social psychology theories and their real-world applications. In this Perspective, we urge researchers to move beyond categories and incorporate context more deeply into their theorizing. To make this call actionable, we introduce social constructionism, assemblage theory and dynamic systems as alternative frameworks and present examples of how these frameworks already inform social psychology research. The work featured is not an exhaustive review of research emphasizing context in psychological theorizing, but rather serves to highlight the importance of alternatives to category-based or pseudo-universal frameworks. Social science that considers context must focus on psychological, structural and material features (rather than classifications), their interconnections, and temporal dynamism. Social psychology often emphasizes social categories as the unit of explanation. In this Perspective, Cikara et al. argue that the primacy of categories leads to neglect of contextual features that shape behaviour; they describe alternative frameworks for incorporating context into social psychology theorizing.
Article
We analyze a corpus of 99 recent Spanish-language picturebooks based on converging recommendations of prestigious reading promotion institutions in different countries. Focusing on the books that feature non-human characters, we inquire into how animals and other creatures may open possibilities to present diverse and intercultural worlds narrating difference differently. Using critical content analysis with an intersectional lens, we give an overview of the predominant narratives about groups and societal organizations in recommended children’s books. Most of the books in this sample (re)produce a desire for a social homogeneity depicting communities of similar creatures threatened by those of a different kind and/or by the destabilization of hierarchical orders. We highlight a few books that open up possibilities to narrate shifting identities and social positionings as well as dynamics of exclusion and propose to look at the potential of non-representational stories for intercultural education.
Article
Full-text available
The launch of the Australian Football League Women's (AFLW) combined with the introduction of grassroots women's Australian football across the country have challenged the landscape of Australian sport and sport media in recent years. Many young women and gender diverse people have had the opportunity to participate in contact sports such as Australian football for the first time. With this, has come exposure to off-field spaces and cultures that they have previously been excluded from, such as post-sport pub culture and locker rooms. Through qualitative interviews with grassroots players in the Hunter Region, this paper explores how spaces can encourage and provide opportunity for women to challenge binary expectations through comradery and acceptance of masculine bodily displays in conjunction with the normalization of non-heterosexuality. We conceptualise the 'sport-sexuality-assemblage' as a way of accounting for the relations of desire for women and gender diverse people in a range of sport spaces.
Chapter
This chapter discusses the peculiarities of the Bosnian socialist and decolonial claims and postcolonial, postsocialist, and peripheral present. She examines the relevant literature claiming international socialism’s contribution to decolonization against the one maintaining that socialist modernity was also colonial. By proposing that different politics of location may be crucial in the perception of these two different types of understandings, the author discusses BiH in terms of its colonial past prior to WWII and the revolutionary potentials of the People’s Liberation ArmyPLA, the Women’s Antifascist Front, and the Non-aligned Movement. Critical of the current BiH’s ethnonationalist postsocialism and neocolonialism of the international community, she sees these three as historical interruptions of BiH colonial continuity urging for deeper coalitions fighting against capitalism and coloniality across the globe.
Chapter
This chapter combines fragments from the interviews with some former members of the Sarajevo and Tuzla plenums reflecting on the February 2014 protests through the lens of critical autoethnography, in which the author reflects on her own politicization as a member of an activist collective Banja Luka Social Center (BASOC). People from all over former Yugoslavia and the world, including activists, artists, union leaders, and political workers came to BASOC to speak about their struggles. The BASOC experience was crucial for developing a particular kind of counterpublic, friendship, and ethics addressing the neuralgic spots of Bosnian postsocialism, including memory politics, workers’ rights, and social justice and feminist politics for the generations to come.
Chapter
This chapter explores new forms of desirability in the context of PrEP availability and their implications for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM). Through a new materialist-informed reading of qualitative data collected from PrEP users and non-users in Toronto, Canada and health promotion campaigns, we explore how PrEP-mediated desirability is produced and deployed within a neoliberal milieu. For some GBMSM, PrEP is empowering and offers anxiety-free condomless sexual exploration. For others, PrEP remains aspirational, and a condition of their desirability. Between, there is considerable ambiguity, flexibility, and movement. Our analysis considers these emerging hierarchies of desirability within an assemblage of bodies, relations, affects, pills, evidence, technologies, discourses, and material conditions, which expands theorising about PrEP beyond a biomedical prevention technology.
Article
Full-text available
Drawing on three case studies from two UK ethnographic research projects in urban and rural working-class communities, this article explores young teen girls' negotiation of increasingly sex-saturated societies and cultures. Our analysis complicates contemporary debates around the 'sexualization' moral panic by troubling developmental and classed accounts of age-appropriate (hetero)sexuality. We explore how girls are regulated by, yet rework and resist expectations to perform as agentic sexual subjects across a range of spaces (e.g. streets, schools, homes, cyberspace). To conceptualize the blurring of generational and sexual binaries present in our data, we develop Deleuzian notions of 'becomings', 'assemblages' and 'schizoid subjectivities'. These concepts help us to map the anti-linear transitions and contradictory performances of young femininity as always in-movement; where girls negotiate discourses of sexual knowingness and innocence, often simultaneously, yet always within a wider context of socio-cultural gendered/classed regulations. © 2011 The Australian Sociological Association.
Chapter
In the concluding chapter of the book the philosopher Graham Harman looks back at the arguments made by the various contributors, and assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches. He argues that there are considerable tensions and contradictions within assemblage thinking, which may eventually lead to its transformation into another type of theory altogether, although not, perhaps, until it has had a transformative impact itself on existing theories. Harman lauds the contribution of assemblage thinking in the battle against abstraction and stasis — but he also argues that the next step is to recover the non-relational autonomy that assemblages employ to stabilize themselves.
Chapter
Book synopsis: New Materialisms rethinks the relevance of materialist philosophy in the midst of a world shaped by forces such as digital and biotechnologies, global warming, global capital, and population flows. Moving away from modes of inquiry that have prioritized the study of consciousness and subjectivity over matter, the essays in this collection show that any account of experience, agency, and political action demands renewed attention to the urgent issues of our own material existence and our environment. The editors propose “new materialisms” as a way to take matter seriously without falling into the conceptual dualism that posits an opposition between matter and thought, materialism and idealism, and body and mind. They locate new materialisms within post-humanist discourses, explaining that new materialist philosophies do not privilege human bodies, but rather view human bodies as one of many bodies, or agential materialities, in the world. By revealing how emerging accounts of matter, materiality, and corporeality are combining with developments in science and technology to demand radically new conceptions of nature, agency, and social and political relationships, New Materialisms makes a significant contribution to the recent resurgence of interest in phenomenology and materialist philosophy in the humanities.
Article
The ethics of intention: Research as a political tool Many feminists have criticized the traditional approach of Western scientific research, questioning in particular the premise that facts can be gathered objectively. This chapter argues that the epistemological shift from a reliance on the positivist paradigm of scientific truth necessitates a new scrutiny of the intentions underlying feminist research. While feminists take up a range of positions in relation to the implications of the critique of positivism for their research – which means that our aims can range from the production of more inclusive or less biased research to the rejection of this type of knowledge claim altogether – the questions raised about the politics or ethics of research can usefully inform feminist research of whatever hue. Once our faith in objective positivism is shaken, the goals of feminist research tend to be transformed from attempting to better understand or represent ...
Chapter
The morning after giving an invited lecture on the socially constructed nature of scientific knowledge, I had the privilege of watching as a STM (scanning tunneling microscope) operator zoomed in on a sample of graphite, and as we approached a scale of thousands of nanometers… hundreds of nanometers… tens of nanometers… down to fractions of a nanometer, individual carbon atoms were imaged before our very eyes. The experience was so sublime that it sent chills through my body — and I stood there, a theoretical physicist who, like most of my kind, rarely ventures into the basements of physics buildings experimental colleagues call “home”, conscious that this was one of those life moments when the amorphous jumble of history seems to crystallize in a single instant. How many times had I recounted for my students the evidence for the existence of atoms? And there they were — just the right size and grouped in a hexagonal structure with the interatomic spacings as predicted by theory! “If only Einstein, Rutherford, Bohr, and especially Mach, could have seen this!” I found myself exclaiming.