Taproot, rhizome, disappointment, possibility: action research with(in) sociomaterial perspectives

ABSTRACT

Inspired by the question ‘how might we do Action Research differently?’, this article provides an introductory diffractive mapping of the concepts and empirical studies intersecting Action Research and sociomaterial theories. After tracing the roots of Action Research, I zigzag to describing how Action Research has grown differently in prior studies informed by sociomaterial theories. I use these theories to disrupt everyday assumptions about Action Research in education and to make thinking visible and unfamiliar. I offer up a series of short vignettes based on a recently completed Action Research project with French as a Second Language (FSL) teachers in Ontario, Canada. I collide these data events with various sociomaterial concepts to open new opportunities for analysis when engaging in Action Research. Specifically, I engage the phases of the Action Research cycle and more-than-human collaboration in a research project to highlight the ways in which these processes are created and unfold uniquely, and how rhizomatic thinking can further open trajectories for transformation within this work.

KEYWORDS:

• Sociomaterialism
• rhizome
• collaboration
• elementary classroom
• Deleuze

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. The primary root of a plant that grows vertically downward, producing smaller lateral roots.

2. Though there are important distinctions between AR and related approaches (e.g. Participatory [PAR], Critical [CAR], etc.), I refer to AR more generally to reflect the terminology used by sociomaterial scholars in and beyond education.

3. For those familiar with the ANT-ish term ‘actant,’ the use of ‘actor’ in this article may, ironically, seem to reinforce the anthropomorphism of nonhuman entities and the dominance of human beings over their material counterparts. However, I agree with Fenwick and Edwards (2010) that the distinction seems less prominent and less necessary in recent ANT scholarship as the ontological division between the terms is de-emphasized; this is particularly the case in the Deleuzian and sociomaterial thinking used here.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Social Studies and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) under File 767-2020-0401.