The purpose of this book
This book wants to be part of the conversation that began in the 1990s about the onto-epistemological, methodological, and ethical foundations of social and educational research, under the umbrella of the post-qualitative turns. According to St. Pierre (2011, p. 615), these turns âannounce a radical break with the humanist, modernist, imperialist, representationalist, objectivist, rationalist, epistemological, ontological, and methodological assumptions of Western Enlightenment thought and practiceâ. This movement celebrates the methodological differences and complexity of qualitative research and advocates for greater openness, imagination and risk-taking, especially to carry out research based on âpost-theoriesâ (new materialism, new empiricism, posthumanism). These new ontologies demand methodological displacements, incidents, conceptual leaps, and landslides, as well as theoretical links. In conventional qualitative humanistic research (St. Pierre, 2011) the methodological references and methods that connect them to reality are often considered relatively simple and concrete, compared to more complex or abstract entities that help to generate knowledge, concepts and arguments differently. This framework allows us to think about the meaning of research from another perspective, with other foundations and purposes. But above all, it enables us to argue that research is not just about following a pre-fixed path, in which methods are applied, to give an account of results foreseen in the initial questions (HernĂĄndez-HernĂĄndez & Revelles Benavente, 2019, p. 27).
As Lather (2007), Koro-Ljungberg et al., (2009), Jackson & Mazzei (2012) and Koro-Ljungberg (2015) have argued, theories (what guides and supports research) and methodologies are interconnected to enable functional relationships. Moreover, we can consider them as political movements against normative science, especially among those academics interested in emerging ontologies and surprising methodologies. When methodologies are considered immanent, changing, and transforming (Deleuze & Guattari, 1980/1987) â and bearers of unknown and unforeseen elements â research practices seem to bring academics closer to openness and imagination. Publications linked to this line of thought try to review, expand, and critically examine the state of normative qualitative research insofar as it has been configured as a space of thought that tends to evade all doubt.
In 2018 we discussed some of these insights in a paper (Sancho-Gil & HernĂĄndez-HernĂĄndez, 2018) presented in the European Conference of Educational Research at the network of Educational Ethnography, which led to this publication. In this presentation we considered four themes crossed and affected by the notion of becoming, which emerge from the ESBRINA research group1 ethnographic studies (Domingo et al., 2014; HernĂĄndez-HernĂĄndez, 2017; HernĂĄndez et al., 2012; HernĂĄndez-HernĂĄndez & Sancho-Gil, 2017; HernĂĄndez-HernĂĄndez & Sancho-Gil, 2015). These issues are particularly challenging and promising for unveiling the complexities of the multiple layers of institutional cultures. And to question our ontological, epistemological, methodological, and ethical frames in ethnographic research.
The first concerned the ever-expanding nature of the ethnographic sites. In the 21st century, the challenge of going beyond the tangible aspects of culture, considering values and what Clifford Geertz (1973) termed as the âethosâ of the culture, is now greater than ever. It is necessary to overcome the narrow focus on ethnography in one place.
The second, to the intra-action between virtual and âanalogicalâ sites. Something that has given way to notions such as âdigital ethnographyâ (Murthy, 2008), âvirtual ethnographyâ (Hine, 2000), âcyberethnographyâ (Robinson & Schulz, 2009, 2011), âinternet ethnographyâ (boyd, 2010; Sade-Beck, 2004), âethnography on the internetâ (Beaulieu, 2004), âethnography of virtual spacesâ (Blomberg & Burrel, 2009), âethnographic research on the internetâ (Garcia et al., 2009), âinternet-related ethnographyâ (Postill & Pink, 2012) and ânetnographyâ (Kozinets, 2010).
The third one related to the on-growing multimodal nature of information and research evidences. So, the traditional vision of fieldnotes as written (alphabetic) notes (Walford, 2009) is being challenged by the multimodal turn (Dicks et al., 2006; HernĂĄndez-HernĂĄndez & Sancho-Gil, 2018). A trend strongly driven by the proliferation of digital media that is generating new problems to manage and interpret information. Since, according to boyd (2010, np), âweâve entered an era where data is cheap, but making sense of it is not.â
Finally, we referred to the post-qualitative, the new empiricism and the new materialism turns (Lather & St. Pierre, 2013; Barad, 2003), which sustain that theories which guide and support research and methodologies are interconnected to enable conceptual and practical relationships. When methodologies are considered as immanent, changing and transforming (Deleuze & Guattari, 1980/1987) â and carrying unknown and unexpected elements, as we saw in a recent research project on how teachers learn (HernĂĄndez et al., 2020) â we are able to review, expand and examine research perspectives.
This framework allows us to think about the meaning of research, and particularly of Ethnography in Education, from other perspectives, with other foundations and purposes. But, above all, it allows us to open our imagination by thinking of research as something other than a pre-determined path, in which methods are applied to account for the results already foreseen in the initial questions. That is why we invite possible readers to be open to things that question and expand our positionalities (HernĂĄndez-HernĂĄndez & Sancho-Gil, 2015), which are always strategically provisional, and which open up ways for us to continue learning together.
By trying to be part of this conversation, this book examines ethnography in education to disrupt/de-territorialize it. It proposes to experiment with research differently through the concept and experience of âbecomingâ. This perspective on ethnography could constitute an expansion of the concept/territory of ethnography.
A âbecomingâ approach to ethnography in education could affect observations and interviews that, while guided by the research questions, are not-pre-given from protocols. For instance, in addition to what is documented and what happens in the conversation is the sensation of connecting relations and affect/becoming that come together in the assemblage (e.g. research questions, multimodal fieldnotes, interviews, researcher positionality) (Masny, 2014).
The post-qualitative movement entails the invitation to carry out ethnography in education that does not separate ontology, epistemology, methodology and ethics. This pays attention to the entanglement between the human, the non-human and the matter. This proposal suggests one assumes ethnography not to be a pre-defined journey, but rather one that opens itself to the possibility of surprise at what happens as the research flow unfolds, concerning the studied phenomenon.
This post-qualitative perspective becomes articulated and agitated around the concept of âbecomingâ, based on the meaning that Deleuze & Guattari (1980/1987) give it and that Barad (2014, pp. 181â182) develops when she refers to what happens in a research process.
In an important sense, this story in its ongoing (re)patterning is (re)(con)figuring me. âIâ am neither outside nor inside; âIâ am of the diffraction pattern. Or rather, this âIâ that is not âmeâ alone and never was, that is always already multiply dispersed and diffracted throughout spacetime(mattering), including in this paper, in its ongoing being-becoming is of the diffraction pattern.
This orientation towards of âbecomingâ generates when, as Lather (2013) points out, researchers, following qualitative research, re-imagine and carry out studies that could produce different knowledge. This research cannot be described in an orderly manner in textbooks or manuals. There are no methodological approaches or instruments that can be learned without a problem. From this movement, one begins to approach research differently, because one adopts an onto-episte-methodology and an ethic that assumes that â[i]ndividuals do not exist as fixed or permanent entities separate from their surroundings but as ongoing relations of becoming in a world that is also always becomingâ (Atkinson, 2015, p. 44).