Beyond reflexivity and representation: diffraction as a methodological sensitivity in science studies

References

• Ahmed, S. 2008. Open forum imaginary prohibitions: Some preliminary remarks on the founding gestures of the ‘new materialism’. European Journal of Women's Studies 15, no. 1: 23–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akrich, M. 1992. The description of technical objects. In Shaping technology / building society. Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W. Bijker, and J. Law, 205–24. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barad, K. 2001. Re(con)figuring space, time, and matter. In Feminist locations: Global and local: Theory and practice, ed. M. DeKoven, 75–109. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barad, K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28, no. 3: 801–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway. Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barad, K. 2011a. Erasers and erasures: Pinch’s unfortunate ‘uncertainty principle’. Social Studies of Science 41, no. 3: 443–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barad, K. 2011b. Nature’s queer performativity. Qui Parle 19, no. 2: 121–58.
   Google Scholar
• Barad, K. 2012a. On touching. differences. A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 23, no. 3: 206–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barad, K. 2012b. What is the measurement of nothingness? infinity, virtuality, justice. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz.
   Google Scholar
• Barad, K. 2014. Diffracting diffraction: cutting together-apart. parallax 20, no. 3: 168–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barad, K. 2017. Troubling time/s and ecologies of nothingness: Re-turning, re-membering, and facing the incalculable. New Formations 92: 56–86.
   Google Scholar
• Barad, K. 2019. After the end of the world: Entangled nuclear colonialisms, matters of force, and the material force of justice. Theory & Event 22, no. 3: 524–50.
   Google Scholar
• Barad, K., and D. Gandorfer. 2021. Political desirings: Yearning for mattering differently. Theory & Event 24, no. 1: 14–66.
   Google Scholar
• Bargetz, B., and S. Sanos. 2020. Feminist matters, critique and the future of the political. Feminist Theory 21, no. 4: 501–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barla, J. 2016. Technologies of failure, bodies of resistance: Science, technology, and the mechanics of materializing marked bodies. In Mattering. Feminism, science, and materialism, ed. V. Pitts-Taylor, 159–72. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barla, J. 2019. The techno-apparatus of bodily production. A new materialist theory of technology and the body. Bielefeld: transcript.
   Google Scholar
• Bloor, D. 1991. Knowledge and social imagery. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bohr, N. 1949. Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics. In Albert Einstein. Philosopher scientist, ed. P.A. Schilpp, 200–41. New York: MFJ Books.
   Google Scholar
• Bozalek, V., V. Mitchell, A. Dison, and M. Alperstein. 2016. A diffractive reading of dialogical feedback through the political ethics of care. Teaching in Higher Education 21, no. 7: 825–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozalek, V., and M. Zembylas. 2017. Diffraction or reflection? Sketching the contours of two methodologies in educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 30, no. 2: 111–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brody, J. 2020. Quantum entanglement. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bühlmann, V., F. Colman, and I. van der Tuin. 2017. Introduction to new materialist genealogies: New materialisms, novel mentalities, quantum literacy. Minnesota Review 2017, no. 88: 47–58.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M. 1986. Some elements for a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St brieuc Bay. In Power, action and belief. A new sociology of knowledge?, ed. J. Law, 196–229. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cassidy, D.C. 2009. Beyond uncertainty: heisenberg, quantum physics, and the bomb. New York: Bellevue Literary Press.
   Google Scholar
• de Freitas, E. 2017. Karen Barad’s quantum ontology and posthuman ethics: rethinking the concept of relationality. Qualitative Inquiry 23, no. 9: 741–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Einstein, A., and M. Born. 1971. The Born-Einstein letters: correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916 to 1955, with commentaries by Max Born. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Finlay, L., and B. Gough, eds. 2003. Reflexivity. A practical guide for researchers in health and social science. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Fortun, K. 2001. Advocacy after bhopal. environmentalism, disaster, new global orders. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gane, N. 2006. When we have never been human, what is to be done? Interview with Donna Haraway. Theory, Culture & Society 23, no. 7-8: 135–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geerts, E. 2016. Ethico-onto-epistem-ology. In New materialism Almanac, ed. D. Gauthier and Sam Skinner. https://newmaterialism.eu/almanac/e/ethico-onto-epistem-ology.html (last accessed 25.03.2021).
   Google Scholar
• Geerts, E., and D. Carstens. 2021. Pedagogies in the wild—Entanglements between Deleuzoguattarian philosophy and the new materialisms: Editorial. Matter: Journal for New Materialist Research 2, no. 1: I–XIV.
   Google Scholar
• Geerts, E., and I. van der Tuin. 2016. The feminist futures of reading diffractively: How Barad’s methodology replaces conflict-based readings of Beauvoir and Irigaray. Rhizomes 30. https://doi.org/10.20415/rhiz/030.e02.
   Google Scholar
• Geerts, E., and I. van der Tuin. 2021. Diffraction & reading diffractively. Matter. A Journal of New Materialist Research 2, no. 1: 173–77.
   Google Scholar
• Giraud, E.H. 2019. What comes after entanglement? Activism, anthropocentrism, and the ethics of exclusion. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. 1987. A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Australian Feminist Studies 2, no. 4: 1–42.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14, no. 3: 575–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. 1992. The promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others. In Cultural studies, ed. L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, and P.A. Treichler, 295–337. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium.FemaleMan©_Meets_Onco Mouse™. Feminism and technoscience. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. 2000. How like a life. An interview with Thyrza Nichols goodeve. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Harding, S. 1993. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is ‘strong objectivity’? In Feminist epistemologies, ed. L. Alcoff, and E. Potter, 49–82. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Heisenberg, W. 1927. Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik 43, no. 3-4: 172–98.
   Google Scholar
• Hickey-Moody, A., H. Palmer, and E. Sayers. 2016. Diffractive pedagogies: dancing across new materialist imaginaries. Gender and Education 28, no. 2: 213–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinton, P. 2013. The quantum dance and the world’s ‘extraordinary liveliness’: Refiguring corporeal ethics in Karen Barad’s agential realism. Somatechnics 3, no. 1: 169–89.
   Google Scholar
• Hollin, G., I. Forsyth, E. Giraud, and T. Potts. 2017. (Dis)entangling Barad: materialisms and ethics. Social Studies of Science 47, no. 6: 918–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoppe, K. 2017. Politik der Antwort. Zum Verhältnis von Ethik und Politik in Neuen Materialismen. Behemoth – A Journal on Civilisation 10, no. 1: 10–28.
   Google Scholar
• Hoppe, K. 2020. Responding as composing: Towards a postanthropocentric, feminist ethics for the Anthropocene. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 21, no. 2: 125–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lather, P., and A. St. Pierre. 2013. Post-qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 26, no. 6: 629–33.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 1991. We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2004. Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Law, J. 2004. After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Law, J. 2009. Actor-network theory and material semiotics. In The new Blackwell companion to social theory, ed. S.T. Bryan, 141–58. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Law, J., and M.E. Lien. 2018. Denaturalizing nature. In A world of many worlds, ed. M. de la Cadena, and M. Blaser, 131–71. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, T. 2015. New materialisms: Foucault and the ‘government of things’. Theory, Culture & Society 32, no. 4: 3–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenz-Meyer, D. 2014. Reassembling gender: on the immanent politics of gendering apparatuses of bodily production in science. Women: A Cultural Review 25, no. 1: 78–98.
   Google Scholar
• Lumsden, K. 2019. Reflexivity. Theory, method, and practice. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, M. 2014. Matters of fact, and the fact of matter. Human Studies 37, no. 1: 139–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauthner, N. 2019. Toward a posthumanist ethics of qualitative research in a big data era. American Behavioral Scientist 63, no. 6: 669–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehrabi, T. 2016. Making death matter: A feminist technoscience study of alzheimer's sciences in the laboratory. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press. Online source: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-132635 (last accessed 25.05.2021).
   Google Scholar
• Merten, K., ed. 2020. Diffractive reading. New materialism, theory and critique. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Mol, A. 2002. The body multiple. Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mol, A., I. Moser, and J. Pols, eds. 2010. Care in practice. tinkering in clinics, homes and farms. Bielefeld: transcript.
   Google Scholar
• Moreau, P.A., E. Toninelli, T. Gregory, R. S. Aspden, P. A. Morris, and M. J. Padgett. 2019. Imaging bell-type nonlocal behavior. Science Advances 5, no. 7. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaaw2563/ (last accessed 25.11.2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murris, K., and V. Bozalek. 2019. Diffracting diffractive readings of texts as methodology: some propositions. Educational Philosophy and Theory 51, no. 14: 1504–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, N. 2020. Anthropologist as transducer in a field of affects. In Knowing knots. methodologies and Ecologies in research-creation, ed. N. Loveless, 97–125. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, A. 1995. The mangle of practice. Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pinch, T. 2011. Review essay: Karen Bard, quantum mechanics, and the paradox of mutual exclusivity. Social Studies of Science 41, no. 3: 431–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinch, T., and W.E. Bijker. 1984. The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science 14, no. 3: 399–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouse, J. 1996. Engaging science: How to understand Its practices philosophically. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rouse, J. 2002. How scientific practices matter. Reclaiming philosophical naturalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schatzki, T., K. Knorr-Cetina, and E. von Savigny, eds. 2000. The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitz, S. 2014. Karen Barad: agentieller Realismus als Rahmenwerk für die Science & Technology Studies. In Schlüsselwerke der Science & Technology Studies, ed. D. Lengersdorf, and M. Wieser, 279–91. Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sellberg, K., and P. Hinton. 2015. Introduction: The possibilities of feminist quantum thinking. rhizomes 30. Online source: http://www.rhizomes.net/issue30/intro.html/ (last accessed 14.11.2020).
   Google Scholar
• Seth, S. 2013. Quantum physics. In The Oxford handbook of the history of physics, ed. J. Buchwald, and R. Fox, 814–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thiele, K. 2014. Ethos of diffraction: New paradigms for a (post)humanist ethics. Parallax 20, no. 3: 202–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treusch, P. 2020. Robotic knitting. Re-crafting human-robot collaboration through careful coboting. Bielefeld: transcript.
   Google Scholar
• Trinh, T.M. 1988. Not you/like you: Post-colonial women and the interlocking questions of identity and difference. In Dangerous liaisons: gender, nation, and postcolonial perspectives, ed. A. McClintock, A. Mufti, and E. Shohat, 415–19. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trinh, T.M. 2010. Elsewhere, within here. Immigration, refugeeism and the boundary event. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• van der Tuin, I. 2011. “A different starting point, a different metaphysics”: Reading Bergson and Barad diffractively. Hypatia 26, no. 1: 22–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Tuin, I. 2014. Diffraction as a methodology for feminist onto-epistemology: On encountering chantal chawaf and posthuman interpellation. parallax 20, no. 3: 231–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Tuin, I. 2019. Deleuze and diffraction. In Posthuman ecologies. Complexity and process after Deleuze, ed. R. Braidotti, and S. Bignall, 17–40. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Verran, H. 2014. Anthropology as ontology is comparison as ontology. Theorizing the contemporary. Fieldsights. Online source. https://culanth.org/fieldsights/anthropology-as-ontology-is-comparison-as-ontology/ (last accessed 20.11.2020).
   Google Scholar
• Viveiros de Castro, E. 2014. Cannibal metaphysics. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whitaker, E., and P. Atkinson. 2019. Reflexivity. In SAGE research methods foundations, ed. P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, A. Cernat, J.W. Sakshaug, and R.A. Williams. https://www.doi.org/10. 4135/9781526421036819785, (last accessed 25.03.2021).
   Google Scholar
• Winner, L. 1980. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109, no. 1: 121–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolgar, S. 1986. On the alleged distinction between discourse and praxis. Social Studies of Science 16, no. 2: 309–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zienkowski, J. 2017. Reflexivity in the transdisciplinary field of critical discourse studies. Palgrave Communications 3: 17007. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar