Éducation et didactique

15-1 | 2021
Varia

Antidualisms in maker literacies research: process,

materialities, mappings
Pour un antidualisme de recherche sur le mouvement bricoleur en sciences de
l’éducation : processus, matérialités et cartographies

Amélie Lemieux

Electronic version
URL: https://journals.openedition.org/educationdidactique/7996
DOI: 10.4000/educationdidactique.7996
ISSN: 2111-4838

Publisher
Presses universitaires de Rennes

Printed version
Date of publication: 28 April 2021
Number of pages: 9-21
ISBN: 978-2-7535-8283-5
ISSN: 1956-3485

Electronic reference
Amélie Lemieux, “Antidualisms in maker literacies research: process, materialities, mappings”,
Éducation et didactique [Online], 15-1 | 2021, Online since 01 January 2023, connection on 02 January
2023. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/educationdidactique/7996 ; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/
educationdidactique.7996

All rights reserved

 ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER LITERACIES RESEARCH:
PROCESS, MATERIALITIES, MAPPINGS

Amélie Lemieux
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University.
Identifiant ORCID : 0000-0002-0701-4638

This article returns to the centrality of craft-making as a push to consider ontological antidualisms and further
considerations for materials, humans, nonhuman, and more-than-human bodies. The research seeks answers to the
question: (where) is theory enacted when human actors craft? Part of the answer to this question resides, as exemplified
in this paper, in recent methodological innovations that emphasise affective snapshots of mattering through cartography.
Building on a one-year study with seasoned teachers taking a graduate studies course on maker literacies in Halifax,
Nova Scotia, the author presents alternative methodologies for inquiry in maker research, speaking to relational
mattering. Insights into antidualisms, and breaking with binary thinking, are explored throughout this inquiry.

Keywords: literacy, teacher, teacher training, makerspace, posthumanism.

Pour un antidualisme de recherche sur le mouvement bricoleur en sciences de l’éducation :

processus, matérialités et cartographies
Le présent article porte sur le rôle de la fabrication matérielle, immanente au mouvement bricoleur, comme tremplin à
des questions d’ordre ontologique. Ces dernières mettent en lumière la notion d’antidualisme pour envisager les fonctions
des matériaux, des humains, des non-humains, et des corps plus qu’humains. Pour ce faire, nous réfléchissons à l’enjeu
suivant : (où) la théorie se concrétise-t-elle lorsque les acteurs humains s’adonnent à la fabrication matérielle ? Cette
étude s’appuie sur des données recueillies auprès d’enseignants inscrits à un cours sur le mouvement bricoleur du deuxième
cycle en littératie à Halifax en Nouvelle-Écosse, et propose des pistes de méthodologies innovantes qui mettent en lumière
des moments matério-discursifs grâce à des cartographies affectives. Une approche méthodologique novatrice axée sur la
relationalité im/matérielle y est proposée en vue d’effectuer de futures recherches sur le mouvement bricoleur. Cette étude
offre un aperçu d’une méthodologie antidualiste dissidente de la pensée binaire en sciences de l’éducation.

Mot-clés : littératie, enseignant, formation des enseignants, atelier de cocréation, posthumanisme.

This research is funded by a New Scholar’s Grant from Mount Saint Vincent University /
L’auteure a reçu une subvention Nouveaux Chercheurs de l’Université Mount Saint Vincent pour ce projet.

Éducation & Didactique, 2021, vol. 15, no 1, p. 9-21 9

ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER LITERACIES RESEARCH: PROCESS, MATERIALITIES, MAPPINGS
Amélie Lemieux
INTRODUCTION: WORKING TOWARDS
ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER LITERACIES
This article builds on theoretical and empirical
positions to explore alternative methodologies for
maker education research and design. It investi-
gates the progressive dimensions of self in relation
to making and the world, with specific attention
to an expanded and pluriversal notion of engage-
ment in education research (Lemieux, 2020). Maker
education is best defined as an educational move-
ment, historically based on constructivism, nurtu-
ring learners’ creativity and innovation through
hands-on, DIY inquiry-based projects using tech-
nology, craft, or both (Peppler et al., 2016). With
the many research developments this movement
has generated, paired with the exponentially rapid
technological rise of Silicon Valley innovations
and maker-oriented curricula worldwide, studies
have also been concerned with both complexities
and affordances inherent to maker education. Such
complexities involve researching maker education
and its closely related cousin, Science, Technology,
Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM), from
inclusive, equitable and diverse perspectives in
maker education (Ireland et al., 2018; Joseph, 2020;
King, 2017; King & Pringle, 2018; Sengupta et al.,
2019; Sengupta-Irving & Vossoughi, 2019; Thomas,
Howard, & Shaffer, 2019; Vossoughi & Vakil, 2018).
Complexities also involve looking at maker activities,
such as digital composition and craft-oriented maker
compositions, from relational perspectives using
posthuman inquiry and affect-laden theories (e.g.,
Ehret et al., 2016; Keune & Peppler, 2019; Lemieux
& Rowsell, 2020a, 2020b; Marsh, 2017; McLean &
Rowsell, 2020; Pahl & Rowsell, 2020;Peppler et al.,
2020; Rowsell, 2020; Rowsell & Shillitoe, 2019;
Sheridan et al., 2020; Thiel & Dernikos, 2020). Much
of this work involves disrupting, dismantling, and
deconstructing binary frameworks (e.g., “engaged”
vs. “disengaged” learners, “productivity” vs. “passi-
vity,” “motivated” vs. “unmotivated” students), and
sheds light on larger considerations for dimensional
multiplicity in maker education. This article looks at
how postqualitative inquiry facilitates that dialogue
by working towards antidualisms in maker literacies
research drawing on a study where 20 teachers enrol-
led in a graduate literacy course were called to “think
with” (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012) materials and mate-
riality in maker education.
10
Drawing on postqualitative ways of knowing
through making, this article provides pathways to
understand antidualisms, which can be concep-
tualised as the conscious disruption of traditional
binaries in maker literacies. To do so, I explore the
following question: What happens when teachers, as
adult learners, share relational transactions with mate-
rials (i.e., sense-laden socio-material reciprocity) in
maker literacies research? Drawing on postqualitative
feminist scholarship (Dernikos et al., 2019; Lather,
2016; MacLure, 2013; Ringrose et al., 2019; St. Pierre
et al., 2016) and makerspace research geared towards
affect theory (Rowsell, 2020; Rowsell & Shillitoe,
2019), this article contributes to overarching conver-
sations by providing research insights that work
against dualisms in maker literacies research.
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT MAKER
LITERACIES RESEARCH FOR TEACHERS?
Located in educational spaces such as school
libraries and classrooms, makerspaces are commu-
nities of practice that focus on the development of
youth’s maker literacies (Marsh et al., 2017; Rowsell
et al., 2018; Wohlwend et al., 2017) through craft-,
technology, or hybrid inquiry-based learning. A
large part of antidualist work resides in exploring
what is already known in maker literacies research
for teachers to see how findings might or might not
travel across sites, and explore their ever-changing
pluridiversity. To foster maker literacies develop-
ment, studies have found how design, inclusion,
and civics were important features of engagement.
In applied maker research centred on the constructi-
vist concepts of effectiveness and productivity, Bower
et al. (2018) used reflections, focus groups, lesson
observations, video screen recordings, reflective jour-
nals, and post-questionnaires to report on Australian
primary teachers’ experiences with 3D design and
printing. The authors found that makerspace peda-
gogy facilitated higher levels of learners’ engagement
due to design-oriented learning. In a study presen-
ting teacher candidates’ maker research projects
from Finland, Norway, and the UK, Marsh, Arnseth,
and Kumpulainen (2018) found that makerspaces
in early childhood settings (e.g., nurseries and pre-
primary classes) created positive environments in
which teachers could develop civic engagement
and inclusive pedagogy. The two teachers from the
 ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER LITERACIES RESEARCH: PROCESS, MATERIALITIES, MAPPINGS
pre-primary Finland case study stated that teaching
maker literacies in their class was emancipatory for
their students. After reading Finnish literature on
beliefs around nature, students in the class created
their own “spirits of the forest” and composed digi-
tal stories about them. The project not only made
students feel that their voices were heard (e.g.,
they chose what they designed and how) but it also
heightened their appreciation for, and awareness
of, nature. The students then designed an exhibit of
their collective art, which was displayed in a public
library. The authors developed the human-oriented
concept of agency (individual and collective) in
students, highlighting that maker activities “trans-
formed the status of the children from a typical posi-
tion as a consumer of literature and library services
into active agents and makers who contributed to the
life of the library and its offerings to the community”
(Marsh et al., 2018, p. 11). Such observations have,
in turn, expanded the focus on the agential roles of
children in applied making and specifically makers-
paces across research sites.
Makerspace activities prompted maker citizen-
ship practices because students developed an unders-
tanding of one or more of the three key areas of
citizenship: rights, belonging, and participation. The
latter considerations are central to maker pedagogies
in higher education, for they emphasise civic engage-
ment and basic awareness of “what is,” i.e., the matte-
ring—or recognition of significance—that unfolds,
in what circumstances, and for what purpose. In
tune with discovering “what is” and “what might
be” (Ringrose & Coleman, 2013, p. 125), the drive
towards affective practices in maker education and
postqualitative inquiry is a viable way of conside-
ring antidualisms through the knowledge of how
materials influence educational research in maker
contexts, while still considering (and not erasing)
the concept of human identities—a crucial dimen-
sion to understanding the human intersectionali-
ties at play—that drive making. To acknowledge
the many “what might be’s” in maker education is
to acknowledge the pluridiverse complexities of
teacher-makers, realities that bring about multiple
novelties through teaching or making.
Recent scholarship has outlined the need to
pursue research on maker education in higher educa-
tion, especially in teacher education programmes
internationally (Cohen, 2017; Karppinen, et al., 2019;
Marshall & Harron, 2018; Ryu et al., 2019). More trai-
11
Amélie Lemieux
ning is needed for pre-service and in-service teachers
because, from a constructivist perspective, they often
lack the confidence, ability, and knowledge to engage
with technology-oriented activities (Blackley et al.,
2017; Cohen et al., 2018; Kjällander et al., 2018;
Otterborn et al., 2019). Testing design in inquiry-
based STEAM learning and promoting research-
based inquiry for teacher knowledge development
are examples that foster educators’ STEAM content
knowledge (Vossen et al., 2019). Though makers-
paces are increasingly popular in P-12 and postse-
condary schools, there appears to be little formal
training for teachers who want to explore these spaces
(Rodriguez et al., 2018). I address some of challenges
through a maker research project with experienced
teachers in a graduate course, ultimately leading to
the theoretical considerations outlined in this article.
The study contributes to the growing body of maker-
place research and provide tangible evidence showing
how making is a rhizomatic, open-ended, and
process-focused activity. Participant map-making is
proposed to focus on maker process, allowing makers
to see that committing errors should be normalised in
maker education to alleviate maker-related anxieties.
Map-making helped makers visualise and value their
making process, highlighting the realisation that they,
along with their students, are likely to experience
early frustrations when engaging in new uncharted
territory. Frustration is a normal part of the making
process, though one that is frequently devalued and
punished in schooling systems. Normalising the
anxieties inherent to maker activities might help
teachers be more prepared to design their own maker
events in their classrooms, and bring learners to
conceptualise both anxieties and mistakes as normal
parts of the process rather than indicators of failure.
One way of attending to the normalisation of failure
involves critical attention to materialities and design,
as outlined in the next section.
TOWARDS ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER
EDUCATION FOR TEACHERS: CRITICAL
ACCOUNTS OF MATERIALITIES AND DESIGN
Rooted in posthumanism and agential realism
(Barad, 2007; Braidotti, 2013), recent maker lite-
racies scholarship has shown how materials play
a relational, distributed agency between humans,
nonhumans, and more-than-humans (i.e., humanoid,
ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER LITERACIES RESEARCH: PROCESS, MATERIALITIES, MAPPINGS
Amélie Lemieux
cyborg, or human-augmented technology)—highli-
ghting how makerspace projects, whether conduc-
ted with children or teachers, are always permeated
with unpredictability that form dynamic becomings1
and relationalities in maker research (Lemieux, 2021;
Lemieux & Rowsell, 2020a, 2020b, 2021; Peppler &
Keune, 2019; Sheridan et al., 2020). Maker literacies
research has shown how anchoring affect theory can
be. In studies investigating the stances of adolescents
who created self-portraits, affect theory played an
important role in shifting perspectives, moving across
modalities and dynamically responding to multimo-
dal design (Rowsell, 2020). As Rowsell and Shillitoe
(2019) have argued, making always involves design:
to consider design in maker processes inherently
involves design as an affective quality fo materiality
considerations that provide an expansive, non-dualis-
tic view of maker research. Postqualitative inquiries in
maker education often lead to interrogative and inqui-
sitive becomings in the form of questions like “can
materials choose humans to channel their existence?”
(Lemieux & Rowsell, 2020a, p. 7). These types of
considerations fuel the centrality of affect and disrupt
traditional and binary conceptions of learning.
Maker literacies are messy and sticky (Rowsell
et al., 2018), and findings highlighting youth’s crea-
tivity in maker education focus on craftivism with an
active recognition and awareness of bodies and affec-
tive intensities (Rowsell & Shillitoe, 2019)—that is,
the non-representational responsiveness and affecti-
vely-charged ontological processes of becoming-with.
Specifically, Rowsell and Shillitoe (2019) push us to
think about making as an activity that “calls to varying
degrees on affective states that surface as stories come
to be with people and materials” (p. 15), a disposi-
tion that prioritises process over product, and allows
for necessary tensions that materialise in “productive
puzzles” (Dutro, 2019, p. 76). Affective tensions can
occasionally be untangled through language, though
not always. For example, some affective states can
hardly be described by humans, while the expres-
sion of such states might flow easily for some and not
others, depending on situational circumstances.
Posthuman inquiry can privilege relational aesthe-
tics as long as there is central attention to matter,
at least in the arts and arts-informed education. To
this end, Anna Hickey-Moody (2016) explains how
artworks “hold power” as well as “affective potential”
(p. 264), and situates how art provokes synergies of
change through affective encounters. These notions
12
can be applied to making, a process where makers—
whether adolescent or adult—become part of these
synergies to produce societal change, especially when
partaking in maker design (Ingold, 2013). These
synergies result from a call to action towards making.
If design exists in the mind of the creator (Ingold,
2013), then following the same logic, makers are
de facto designers answering a call to materialise ideas
and affects into the world. To be a maker is to be
a designer, regardless of whether the title is granted
to or associated with the human who makes. These
situated affects, unfolding through time, are “minia-
ture universe[s]”, to use Hickey-Moody’s (2016)
term, that drive making as an activity. These making
activities extend beyond the realm of the linguistic,
the analytical, and the cartesian.
While it can be argued that “language has been
granted too much power” (Barad, 2018, p. 223),
and representationality can be problematic for many
reasons in postqualitative research (MacLure, 2013),
the tensions between these theoretical inclinations
are meant to be constantly tangled and untangled,
territorial and deterritorialized, modelled and remo-
delled. For example, craft is a catalyst for modali-
ties of personhood, and the concept of personhood
is constructed through different affects mobilised
through time, space, and place. Making involves a
series of mobilised ephemeral actions, and ever-chan-
ging moments (Burnett & Merchant, 2020). These
create fragile tensions. That is, gestures shift litera-
cies through people’s movements, and these actions
are either intentional or unintentional. Classrooms,
like the one where my graduate students engaged
in making and those where they teach, are layered
environments where more-than-human and human
forces clash daily. The disposition of fixed materials
(e.g., restricted windows, wooden brown doors with
commercial handles, projectors, white boards) and
movable objects (melamine desks, plastic chairs,
pencils, notepads, and so on) creates entanglements
where these materials collide with humans. In these
socio-material assemblages (Burnett & Merchant,
2020), literacies are situated and shaped by humans,
nonhumans, and more-than-humans, ever-chan-
ging dynamisms in posthumanism (Braidotti, 2013).
They are not simple, individualised performances
that are assessed through standardised testing. In
this sense, maker literacies are not only situational,
but always dependent on, and a result from, plural
authorship, in which meaning is always deconstruc-
 ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER LITERACIES RESEARCH: PROCESS, MATERIALITIES, MAPPINGS
ted, dismantled, rearranged, and territorial (Deleuze
& Guattari, 1980) in contextualised (meta)physical
learning flows. The theories and interpretations arti-
culated here not only build on those entanglements,
but also expand on previous scholarship on material
culture and teachers’ abilities to “make” in pedagogi-
cal settings, which provided insights into their incli-
nations towards materials (White & Lemieux, 2015).
Research avenues taken in this article are
influenced by posthumanism, drawing on the body
of research explored here. Of importance is a focus
on risk-taking in research (antimethodologies)
and on ways of disseminating research otherwise.
Such risk-taking, an academic restitution for ideas,
implies embracing modes that seek to disrupt tradi-
tional empirical structures (e.g., introduction, litera-
ture review, methods, results, conclusion), to instead
radically privilege data deconstruction and recons-
truction, as well as inductive ways of being with
the data (Kuby, Spector & Thiel, 2018). This work
nurtures the concept of antidualisms in maker educa-
tion research, which I define as the social justice radi-
calness inherent to making for making’s sake, and
researching with the aims of rendering this process
alive beyond the traditional literacy frameworks.
Posthuman feminist consciousness and work fore-
grounding PhEMaterialisms (Ringrose et al., 2019) are
useful here. A PhEMaterialist perspective is concerned
with dissolving binary logic, attending to what data
produce, considering the politics of ethics, as well
as critically looking at positionalities within educa-
tion research (Ringrose & Niccolini, 2019). This
approach is particularly useful in antidualist research,
for it generates ways of reconceptualising notions, like
maker education activities (and the affects these acti-
vities provoke and generate), as becomings.
Working with materials in maker education, I
co-researched how materials exerted a relational
autonomy between humans, nonhumans, and more-
than-humans, and simultaneously operated as entan-
gled matter (Lemieux & Rowsell, 2020a, 2020b,
2021; Sheridan et al., 2020). In so doing, I had to
revisit both Deleuze and Guattari’s (1980) Mille
Plateaux and Massumi’s subsequent translation2, not
only as a comparative reading act, but as a clarifying
one. While I can dissociate the languages and the
authors’ voices in each language (that is, when
reading the translated English version, I am engaging
with Massumi’s (1987) interpretation and rendition of
Deleuze and Guattari and not the “original voices” in
13
Amélie Lemieux
French), this unfolding assemblage matters because
the entanglements between voice-text-researcher-
reading-writing-thinking is mediated by two texts
instead of one, thus diffracting matter and territo-
rialising it at the same time. In other words, I adopt
a diffracted view of these concepts, paired with a
PhEmaterialist outlook that Ringrose, Warfield and
Zarabadi (2019) offer, to get at the nuanced intra-
actions of in-service teachers making projects that
matter to them and their students. Mattering is
concerned with phenomena that acquire meaning
and materialise through agential possibilities that
are ever-changing, unpredictable, yet dynamically
networked (Barad, 2007). These complexities shed
light on the nature of antidualisms; where knowing
involves being, at times and sporadically, conscious
of mattering, and whereby mattering is an infinite,
unfolding process of materialisation of phenomena.
An antidualist approach acknowledges this positio-
nality in entering reading and writing as scholarship
activities; to revisit texts and their translations is to
recognise (re-cognise, or to continuously engage in
knowing) pluriperspectives in literacies research.
Because qualitative research has academically
conditioned researchers to produce sense-making,
I engaged in silencing the impulse to define and
explain data with such wording as ’the data makes
sense.’ As part of my praxis for writing this text, I
replaced many seemingly representational words
(e.g., capture, track, interpret) with more flexible,
open-ended ones that reflect mattering. I watched
things unfold as I wrote the article. This helped me
shift my thinking of theory as I decentred myself
when conceptualising how to convey research with
these considerations in mind. Part of this process is
accounting for an “entanglement, a knot of forces and
intensities that operate on a plane of immanence…
an enactment among researcher-data-participants-
theory-analysis” (Mazzei, 2013, p. 736). Decentring
the reflexive and assumed human-centric “eye/I”
was also instrumental in that process (Lenz Taguchi,
2013; Ringrose & Zarabadi, 2018) as it required
staying entangled and close to that which is imbued
with meaning, to that which matters. Foregrounding
that perception is a very human condition that needs
to be constantly decentred or dampened, and one
way to write with ontological responsibility includes
providing data multiplicity. Viewing transcripts ↔
researcher ↔ discussion ↔ data ↔ participants as
forces colliding (Mazzei, 2013), the driving ethos
ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER LITERACIES RESEARCH: PROCESS, MATERIALITIES, MAPPINGS
Amélie Lemieux
for this inquiry was embracing the unpredictable
in research while attempting to both comfort and
disrupt the unknown. Looking and pausing with
data, taking breaks from theory, walking around my
neighbourhood to think with ideas—such actions
push researchers to be vulnerable in posthuman
inquiry. Documenting this process through pictures
(Figure 1) is an attempt to portray the atmosphere
inherent to a process of thinking with theory and
which is often hidden or effaced by the editorial
process of writing and analysing data.
After taking this photo, I took a walk in the rain
towards Spring Garden Road in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Six days passed between the moment I took this
picture and the time I wrote this paragraph. Fifteen
more days passed before I reworked the sentences.
Figure 1. Writing and thinking with theory
This brief acknowledgement of process and time, long
embraced by reflexivity in methods, is suspended
in spaces, places, and materials. Moving away from
interpreting interview transcripts as data and working
towards what agential realism (Barad, 2007) affords,
the following sections find ways to account for affec-
tive rushes, surges, and fluctuating waves through
more-than-representations through the materia-
lity of paper or the word processing software. In so
doing, photographs are intertwined with conver-
sation excerpts and snapshots of a MakerMap, as
ways to bend the stillness of publication and extend
thinking with research methods. While the map-
making3 process followed a tighter framework in the
mapping continuum developed with literacy collea-
gues elsewhere (Lemieux et al., 2020), the following
14
postqualitative assemblage focuses on rethinking
methodologies to present maker processes and the
in-betweens of what happens when teachers make, in
ways that question structural thought, logical predic-
tion, and determinism.
THINKING WITH THEORY AND GEARING
TOWARDS A NON-METHOD IN MAKER
RESEARCH
Antimethodologies align with research that articu-
lates the disruption of traditional qualitative metho-
dologies centred on the human cogito and subject/
object binaries (St. Pierre, 2016). Working towards
antidualisms implies resisting traditional humanis-
tic methodologies that “strangle” us, St. Pierre main-
tains, by radically acknowledging how qualitative
research, through its structural organisation, has not
given space to—or rather has dismissed—the value of
postqualitative inquiry. According to St. Pierre, philo-
sophical considerations should precede any type of
postqualitative inquiry, for to omit this is to “reduce
inquiry to conventional empirical scientific method
that is saturated through and through with the huma-
nist subject and, in large part, with logical empiricism,
which denies the speculative, exactly what these new
turns ask us to engage” (p. 28). These “new” turns call
postqualitative researchers to engage with the specu-
lative, as is exemplified here with maker research.
Embracing antidualisms does not disqualify nor
reject the integration of key research aspects (e.g.,
location, situatedness, initial map-making, demo-
graphics, and ethnographic-laden information). To
provide more context, this research project took
place in fall 2018 in a graduate literacy course that I
taught at Mount Saint Vincent University, in Canada.
Half of the 20 students were primary in-service
teachers, and the other half ranged from learning
centre specialists to secondary school teachers and
international students pursuing a graduate degree
in literacy education. Their coursework comprised
of readings on maker literacies, and the research
portion of the course spanned over five weeks. In
groups of two to three, they were asked to design an
Activity Development Plan, produce a maker project,
and share their work with their peers at the end of
the course. The objective was for each teacher to
leave the class with a maker toolkit and examples
of activities and lesson plans to explore with their
 ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER LITERACIES RESEARCH: PROCESS, MATERIALITIES, MAPPINGS
own students. Teachers had the liberty to engage in
material, digital, or hybrid making. Material making
is defined as the process of crafting with found,
recycled, or store-bought materials, while digital
making can only be produced through software ↔
hardware play. I refer to hybrid making as the playful
back and forth entanglements between the tangible
(material) and the intangible (digital).
The making process included drawing a map
based on a previously researched mapping metho-
dology seeking to record moment-by-moment reac-
tions to a phenomenon (Lemieux, 2020; 2021), this
one being making. These maps are geared towards
non-descriptive phenomenology (Valentine et al.,
2018) with an emphasis on participants’ processes
of making to convey matter related to their feelings,
ideas, and reflections towards making as a pedago-
gical activity. Vagle (2018) explains that pheno-
menology and post-structural inquiry are closer to
each other than they appear, and these maps build
on post-intentional phenomenology momentum
through reported states of making. Therefore, these
maps are simulations of the post-intentional pheno-
menological experiences that they represent to exem-
plify presence and absence of felt experiences as
recorded by the students in this group. While there
can be clashes between postqualitative inquiry and
phenomenology, there is much value in considering
how postqualitative frameworks have inherited the
ghosts of humanism (Dernikos et al., 2019) and it is
our responsibility to account for these tensions.
THINKING WHILE/AS MAKING
Drawing on the glowing-ness salient instead of
data moments (MacLure, 2013; Ringrose & Renold,
2014), that is, what affectively radiates and emanates
from data, and recognising that there is indeed a flui-
dity in determining the researcher’s affect from that
of the classroom’s, what ensues in the next section
is an engagement with the entanglements between
data ↔ participants ↔ researchers ↔ transcripts ↔
writing. One way of converying this work towards
antidualisms was to weave in transcript excerpts as
captions for the pictures of teachers making (shown
below) and the captions for one of their maps. Thus,
shape and form are seen as expressions of craft
gestures (Ingold & Hallam, 2014), and the colla-
borative movements below (Figures 2-6) exemplify
15
Amélie Lemieux
small “eclosions”—that is, moments where making
“bloomed” in the makerspace. It was important to
record stills of the research project in order to convey
process and to capture atmospheres en devenir. The
purpose of proceeding this way echoes Ingold and
Hallam’s (2014) rationale for making things, which
“often feels like telling stories, and as with all stories,
though you may pick up the thread and eventually
cast it off, the thread itself has no discernible begin-
ning or end” (p. 13). This open disposition further
speaks to concrete pedagogical and research applica-
tions of the intersections between literacies and the
arts (Barton, 2018; Barton et al., 2018; Chabanne,
2018; Richard & Lacelle, 2020; Rowsell, 2018).
The exploration of processes shown through the
multiplicity of data below (Lenz Taguchi, 2013) is
meant to be read as a non-linear story informed by
relational entanglements. As such, the transcript
excerpts come from two of the teachers pictured
below, and the map was produced by a third teacher.
This is a deliberate attempt to engage in mattering
rather than sense-making, and conveying the entan-
glements between teachers ↔ pictures ↔ maps ↔
craft ↔ researcher ↔ readership. Thinking with
these entanglements in the larger assemblage, what
comes next is not meant to identify who-said-what
nor who-did-what (this would defeat the purpose),
but rather to inter-act and intra-act with how making
came to be in that classroom. The figure captions are
excerpts from interviews conducted with the teachers
who participated in this specific maker activity.
Figure 2.
“Just like offering more choice in how you assess them
and maybe, you know, doing the interview instead of
doing like paper and pencil or getting them to build or
make or other ways to show what they’ve been learning.”
ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER LITERACIES RESEARCH: PROCESS, MATERIALITIES, MAPPINGS
Amélie Lemieux
Figure 3.
“Like I personally always like building stuff with my
hands but it’s not something that I do very often because I
don’t have necessarily like a job that has a lot of
hands-on and creative parts and even at home, I think it’s
’cause like I have kids and it’s busy, like I don’t create. So
then when I do get opportunities to create I find myself
really enjoying them and thinking I should do this more.”
Figure 4.
“Usually just to kind of explore more like what you
enjoyed or like you know what I mean, instead of just
going, oh, I enjoyed it kind of seeing the process and what
parts, like it just helps you dig deeper into what you
really got out of the project I guess like for me. Like
exploring like my feelings and my thoughts around
certain things… So being able to look at my thoughts
throughout the process most of them are positive. But it’s
getting that extra stuff with reflection I guess.”
RUMINATING WITH ENTANGLEMENTS
Making, as an activity oriented towards crafting,
extends the finite realm (Ingold & Hallam, 2014)
where threads and stories have no beginning nor
16
ends. The multiplicity of examples shown above
reveal maker processes through the entanglements
of photographs, mapping, and transcribed conversa-
tions. Rather than pointing to what this weaving of
data tells, this article highlights relational snapshots
of what happens in the making process (Lemieux,
2021; Lemieux & Rowsell, 2020a, 2020b, 2021). One
of the takeaways—seen throughout the project and
across groups—is teachers’ ruminations on what it
feels like to make, with spurs of puzzlement, satis-
faction, reworking, time consumption, excitement,
enjoyment, and anxiety. These entanglements guide
humans to take the pulse of what happens in maker
literacies research and, more importantly, what they
produce. Similarly to Bower et al. (2018), this project
draws on the importance of providing teachers with
opportunities to do hands-on making, and enough
time to speculatively experiment and be uncomfor-
table with making, especially with thoughtful consi-
deration for maker processes and affectively-oriented
awareness of what entanglements with materials
produce. These dispositions, necessarily, clash with
the stress-inducing time structure of the traditional
classroom and suggest how a focus on matter and
mattering help people alleviate maker-related anxie-
ties. Researchers need more ways to invite specu-
lative philosophies in education research. Such
postqualitative practices might shed light on the
intra-actions embedded in making while giving parti-
cipants an opportunity to think with theory. In turn,
research projects with teachers that focus on learning
and practice development highly benefit from being
conceptualised as complex and dynamic situations
(Strom & Viesca, 2020). This article provides some
answers to this emerging gap in the field, following
the example of in-service teachers who were asked
to engage with maker education theories and craft
material, hybrid, and digital artefacts while attending
to maker experiences through mapping.
The experience of leaving the mattering of
data, thoughts, and processes from this study up to
readers’ felt interpretations, and the intentional break
from traditional qualitative data representation, have
informed some alternative possibilities for dissemi-
nation. Fluid forms of sharing scholarship, such
as Dernikos, Ferguson and Siegel’s (2019) conver-
sations intertwined with iMessage icons or Kuby’s
(2018) propositions on font and layout play in
posthuman research, open up possibilities for post-
qualitative research where theoretical tensions might
 ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER LITERACIES RESEARCH: PROCESS, MATERIALITIES, MAPPINGS

Amélie Lemieux

Figure 5.

“When I think about my MakerMap I kind of think about, well my MakerMap was mostly emotional which I thought was
interesting in the end. But I think it, like there were parts of it that were uncomfortable but the whole time when I was experien-
cing that I was thinking about how this is what we ask kids to do every day. You know, we ask them to take risks in their
learning and do all these things that are uncomfortable for them and we sort of like push them when we don’t, sometimes we don’t
understand why it’s uncomfortable for them, I think, but then going through this, I’m like, oh, this is what it feels like. I guess it
kind of puts you in your student’s shoes in a way and it sort of gave me perspective on like how they would feel in the classroom.”

Figure 6.

“I think it’s just kind of looking more deeply at like what we think, or maybe more broadly at what we think literacy is. Like
that’s kind of been in the back of my mind, this throughout a couple of classes now but it’s just like thinking about it diffe-
rently and not so much like, oh, if you can read and write you’re a literate person, you know. Like thinking about it in terms
of, like all this stuff we’ve been talking about like gaming and like the way kids can navigate through things that we, like I
have no idea about, you know. Like that makes them so much, like they get so much from that that they might not get from
reading and writing. So if you’re only exposing them to one thing, it’s kind of a disservice to them, I think.”

17
ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER LITERACIES RESEARCH: PROCESS, MATERIALITIES, MAPPINGS
Amélie Lemieux
emerge but also reconcile. Makerspace research and
projects on mapping would benefit from that flui-
dity and space to think with theory (Jackson &
Mazzei, 2012), for these dynamic forms of disse-
mination contribute to de-territorializing research
frameworks. For example, a posthuman rende-
ring of the plural nature and purposes of makers-
paces (libraries, museums, faculty discipline-focused
makerspaces, school-based makerspaces) would be
a valuable area of investigation to further unders-
tand the implications of making for learning. Such
a perspective, then, does not seek to mark an onto-
logical gap between thinking, making, and produ-
cing. Theory becomes indiscernible from the form
through which it is expressed and, reciprocally,
making becomes thinking with the organs and orga-
nisms that allow the assemblages of making to come
to life. The deconstructing of data in this form gives
way to the legitimacy of the entanglements between
words ↔ reader ↔ reviewer ↔ author ↔ readership.
If we go beyond the restrictive conventions of text to
look at the possibilities of posthuman dissemination
(Kuby, 2018; MacLure, 2016), looking at data from
a distance might allow research to breathe, to live
on its own, thus opening expanding possibilities for
understandings of that which matters in maker lite-
racies research.
NOTES
1. The Deleuzoguattarian notion of becoming is best descri-
bed as an everchanging, developing way of being with that
resembles a relational constellation of influencing parts.
Becoming involves deterritorializations and reterritoriali-
zation of pieces of assemblages, constantly in flux.
2. A note on Deleuze and Guattari’s Mille Plateaux as inter-
preted by Massumi in his A Thousand Plateaus transla-
tion: seeing as postqualitative reflexive inquiry requires an
awareness of one’s own linguistic capacities at the rheto-
rical level, readers should be aware that my background
in Translation Studies influence my intra-actions (Barad,
2007) with Massumi’s translation and the “original” text. I
see both texts as complimentary, as opposed to seeing them
as equivalents or as mutually exclusive interpretations.
3. The initial map-making process involved teachers noting
down their reactions as they were making, attributing a
level of intensity to each reaction, naming their reactions
in larger thematic categories the researcher has previously
developed based on over ten years of research (White &
18
Lemieux, 2017; Lemieux, 2020, 2021). The categories
could be negociated and renamed, and were not super-
vised by the researcher (no arbitration of reaction-cate-
gory evaluation was conducted), and the participants had
full control of the process outcome. Each bubble contai-
ned a reaction, each category was colour-coded, and each
reaction was summarized in a bubble. The bubble size was
determined by the participants’ attribution of the level of
intensity towards each reaction.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum
physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Barad, K. (2018). Posthuman performativity: Toward an
understanding of how matter comes to matter. In C.
Asberg & R. Braidotti (Eds.), A Feminist Companion
to the Posthumanities (p. 223-239). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Barton, G.M. (2018). Developing literacy and the arts in
schools. New York: Routledge.
Barton, G., Lemieux, A., & Chabanne, J.-C. (2018).
Exploring the arts and literacy in curriculum: A cross-
cultural comparison of Australia, Canada and France.
Australian Art Education, 39(1), 50-68.
Blackley, S., Sheffield, R., Maynard, N., Koul, R., &
Walker, R. (2017). Makerspace and reflective practice:
Advancing pre-service teachers in STEM education.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 22-37.
Bower, M., Stevenson, M., Falloon, G., Forbes, A., &
Hatzigianni, M. (2018). Makerspaces in primary school
settings—Advancing 21st century and STEM capabili-
ties using 3D design and 3D printing. Sydney, Australia:
Macquarie University.
Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. London: Polity.
Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2020). Literacy-as-event:
Accounting for relationality in literacy research.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,
41(1), 45-56.
Chabanne, J.-C. (2018). Enseigner la littérature en dialogue
avec les arts : Confrontations, échanges et articulations
entre approches didactiques. Namur: Presses universi-
taires de Namur.
Cohen, J.D. (2017). Maker principles and technologies
in teacher education: A national survey. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 25(1), 5-30.
Cohen, J.D., Jones, W.M., & Smith, S. (2018). Preservice
and early career teachers’ preconceptions and miscon-
ceptions about making in education. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 34(1), 31-42.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1980). Mille plateaux: Capitalisme
and schizophrénie. Paris : Éditions de Minuit.
 ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER LITERACIES RESEARCH: PROCESS, MATERIALITIES, MAPPINGS
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus:
Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, trans.).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Dernikos, B.P., Ferguson, D. E., & Siegel, M. (2019). The
possibilities for ’humanizing’ posthumanist inqui-
ries: An intra-active conversation. Cultural Studies ↔
Critical Methodologies, 1-14.
Dutro, E. (2019). Visceral literacies, political intensities:
Affect as critical potential in literacy research and
practice. In C. Ehret & K.M. Leander (Eds.), Affect in
Literacy Learning and Teaching: Pedagogies, Politics and
Coming to Know. New York: Routledge.
Ehret, C., Hollett, T., & Jocius, R. (2016). The matter of
new media making: An intra-action analysis of adoles-
cents making a digital book trailer. Journal of Literacy
Research, 48(3), 346-377.
Hickey-Moody, A. (2016). A Femifesta for posthuman
art education: Visions and becomings. In C.A. Taylor
et al. (Eds.), Posthuman Research Practices in Education
(p. 258-266). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art
and architecture. New York: Routledge.
Ingold, T., & Hallam, E. (2014). Making and growing: An
introduction. In E. Hallam & T. Ingold (Eds.), Making
and growing: Anthropological studies of organisms and
artefacts (p. 13-30). Farnham: Ashgate.
Ireland, D.T., Freeman, K.E., Winston-Proctor, C.E.,
DeLaine, K.D., McDonald Lowe, S., & Woodson,
K.M. (2018). (Un)hidden figures: A synthesis of
research examining the intersectional experiences of
Black women and girls in STEM education. Review of
Research in Education, 42(1), 226-254.
Jackson, A.Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2012). Thinking with theory
in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple pers-
pectives. New York: Routledge.
Joseph, N.M. (2020). Understanding the intersections
of race, gender, and gifted education: An antology by
and about talented Black girls and women in STEM.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Karppinen, S., Kallunki, V., & Komulainen, K. (2019).
Interdisciplinary craft designing and invention peda-
gogy in teacher education: Student teachers creating
smart textiles. International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, 29(1), 57-74.
King, N.S. (2017). When teachers get it right: Voices of
Black girls’ informal STEM learning experiences.
Journal of Multicultural Affairs, 2(1).
King, N.S., & Pringle, R.M. (2018). Black girls speak
STEM: Counterstories of informal and formal learning
experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
56(5), 539-569.
Keune, A., & Peppler, K.A. (2019). Materials-to-develop-
with: The making of a makerspace. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 50(1), 280-293.
Kjällander, S., Åkerfeldt, A., Mannila, L., & Parnes, P.
(2018). Makerspaces across settings: Didactic design
for programming in formal and informal teacher
19
Amélie Lemieux
education in the Nordic Countries. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 34(1), 18-30.
Kuby, C.R. (2018). (Re)thinking and (re)imagining
social(ing) with a more-than-human ontology given
the limits of (re)(con)straining language. Cultural
Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 1-18.
Kuby, C.R., Spector, K., & Thiel, J.J. (2018). Posthumanism
and literacy education: Knowing/becoming/doing litera-
cies. New York: Routledge.
Lather, P. (2016). Top ten+ list: (Re)thinking ontology in
(post)qualitative research. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical
Methodologies, 16(2), 125-131.
Lenz Taguchi, H. (2013). Images of thinking in feminist
materialisms: Ontological divergences and the produc-
tion of researcher subjectivities. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 706-716.
Lemieux, A. (2020). De/constructing literacies:
Considerations for engagement. New York: Peter Lang.
Lemieux, A. (2021). What does making produce?
Posthuman insights into documenting relationalities in
maker education for teachers. Professional Development
in Education. DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2021.1886155
.Lemieux, A., & Rowsell, J. (2020a). On the relational
autonomy of materials: Entanglements in maker lite-
racies research. Literacy, 54(3), 144-152.
Lemieux, A., & Rowsell, J. (2020b). ’This documentary
actually makes Welland look good’: Exploring posthu-
manism in a high school documentary film project.
In K. Toohey, S. Smythe, D. Dagenais & M. Forte
(Eds.), Transforming Language and Literacy Education:
New Materialism, Posthumanism, and Ontoethics
(p. 120-135). New York: Routledge.
Lemieux, A., & Rowsell, J. (2021). Crafting stories and
cracking codes in a Canadian elementary school. In
C. McLean & J. Rowsell (Eds.), Maker Literacies and
Maker Identities in the Digital Age: Learning and Playing
through Modes and Media (p. 187-205). New York:
Routledge.
Lemieux, A., Smith, A., McLean, C., & Rowsell, J. (2020).
Visualizing mapping as pedagogy for literacy futures.
Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 35(2), 36-58.
MacLure, M. (2013). Researching without representation?
Language and materiality in postqualitative metho-
dology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 26(6), 658-667.
MacLure, M. (2016). The refrain of the a-grammatical
child: Finding another language in/for qualitative
research. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies,
16(2), 172-182.
Marsh, J. (2017). The internet of toys: A posthuman
and multimodal analysis of connected play. Teachers
College Record, 119. 120305.
Marsh, J., Arnseth, H.C., & Kumpulainen, K. (2018).
Maker literacies and maker citizenship in the MakEY
(Makerspaces in the Early Years) project. Multimodal
Technologies and Interaction, 2(50), 1-19.
Marshall, J.A., & Harron, J.R. (2018). Making learners:
A framework for evaluating making in STEM. The
ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER LITERACIES RESEARCH: PROCESS, MATERIALITIES, MAPPINGS
Amélie Lemieux
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning,
12(2). DOI: 10.7771/1541-5015.1749.
Mazzei, L.A. (2013). A voice without organs: Interviewing
in posthumanist research, International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 732-740.
McLean, C.A., & Rowsell, J. (2020). Maker literacies and
maker identities in the digital age: Learning and playing
through modes and media. New York: Routledge.
Otterborn, A., Schönborn, K., & Hultén, M. (2019).
Surveying preschool teachers’ use of digital tablets:
General and technology education related findings.
International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 29(4), 717-737.
Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2020). Living literacies. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y.A. (2016). Makeology:
Makerspaces as learning environments (volumes 1 & 2).
New York: Routledge.
Peppler, K. E., Rowsell, J., & Keune, A. (2020). Advancing
posthumanist perspectives on technology-rich lear-
ning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4),
1240-1245.
Richard, M., & Lacelle, N. (2020). Croiser littératie, art,
et culture des jeunes. Montréal: Presses de l’Université
du Québec.
Ringrose, J., & Coleman, R. (2013). Looking and desiring
machines: A feminist Deleuzian mapping of bodies and
affects. In R. Coleman & J. Ringrose (Eds.), Deleuze
and research methodologies (p. 125-144). Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Ringrose, J., & Niccolini, A. (2019). PhEmaterialism.
In M. A. Peters & P. Heraud (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Educational Innovation. DOI:
10.1007/978-981-13-2262-4_96-1.
Ringrose, J., & Renold, E. (2014). “F*ck rape!” Exploring
affective intensities in a feminist research assemblage.
Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 772-780.
Ringrose, J., Warfield, K., & Zarabadi, S. (2019). (Eds.).
Feminist posthumanisms, new materialisms, and educa-
tion. New York: Routledge.
Ringrose, J., & Zarabadi, S. (2018). Deleuzo-Guattarian
decentering of the I/Eye. In K. Strom, T. Mills & A.
Ovens (Eds.), Decentring the researcher in intimate
scholarship: Critical posthuman methodological perspec-
tives in education (p. 207-217). Bingley, West Yorkshire:
Emerald.
Rodriguez, S.R., Harron, J.R., & DeGraff, M.W. (2018).
UTeach Maker: A micro-credentialing program for
preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in
Teacher Education, 34(1), 6-17.
Rowsell, J. (2018). The art and craft of literacy pedagogy:
Profiling community arts zone. New York: Routledge.
Rowsell, J. (2020). ’How emotional do I make it?’Making
a stance in multimodal compositions. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(6), 627-637.
Rowsell, J., Lemieux, A., Swartz, L., Burkitt, J., & Turcotte,
M. (2018). The stuff that heroes are made of: Elastic,
20
sticky, messy literacies in children’s transmedial
cultures. Language Arts, 96(1), 7-20.
Rowsell, J., & Shillitoe, M. (2019). The craftivists: Pushing
for affective, materially informed pedagogy. British
Journal of Educational Technology (online first), 1-16.
Ryu, M., Mentzer, N., & Knobloch, N. (2019). Preservice
teachers’ experiences of STEM integration: Challenges
and implications for integrated STEM teacher prepa-
ration. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 29(3), 493-512.
Sengupta, P., Shanahan, M.-C., & Kim, B. (2019). Critical,
transdisciplinary and embodied approaches in STEM
education. Cham: Springer.
Sengupta-Irving, T., & Vossoughi, S. (2019). Not in their
name: reinterpreting discourses of STEM learning
through the subjective experiences of minoritized
girls, Race Ethnicity and Education, 22(4), 479-501.
Sheridan, M.P., Lemieux, A., Do Nascimento, A., &
Arnseth, H.C. (2020). Intra-active entanglements:
What posthuman and new materialist frameworks
can offer the learning sciences. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 51(4), 1277-1291.
St. Pierre, E.A. (2016). Rethinking the empirical in the
posthuman. In C.A. Taylor & C. Hughes (Eds.),
Posthuman research practises in education (p. 25-36).
London: Palgrave.
St. Pierre, E.A., Jackson, A.Y., & Mazzei, L. (2016). New
empiricisms and new materialisms: Conditions for
new inquiry. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies,
16(2), 99-110.
Storm, K.J., & Viesca, K.M. (2020). Towards a
complex framework of teacher learning-prac-
tice, Professional Development in Education, DOI:
10.1080/19415257.2020.1827449.
Thiel, J.J., & Dernikos, B.P. (2020). Refusals, re-turns, and
retheorizations of affective literacies: A thrice-told data
tale. Journal of Literacy Research, 52(4), 482-506.
Thomas, S., Howard, N.R., & Schaffer, R. (2019). Closing
the gap: Digital equity strategies for the K-12 classroom.
Portland: International Society for Technology in
Education.
Vagle, M. D. (2018). Crafting phenomenological research
(second edition). New York: Routledge.
Valentine, K.D., Kopcha, T.D., Vagle, M.D. (2018).
Phenomenological methodologies in the field of educa-
tional communications and technology. TechTrends, 62,
462-472.
Vossen, T.E., Tigelaar, E.H., Henze, I., De Vries, M.J., &
Van Driel, J.H. (2019). Student and teacher percep-
tions of the functions of research in the context of a
design-oriented STEM module. International Journal
of Technology and Design Education. DOI : 10.1007/
s10798-019-09523-7.
Vossoughi, S., & Vakil, S. (2018). Toward what ends? A
critical analysis of militarism, equity, and STEM educa-
tion. In Education at War: The Fight for Students of Color
in America’s Public Schools (p. 117-140). Fordham
University Press.
 ANTIDUALISMS IN MAKER LITERACIES RESEARCH: PROCESS, MATERIALITIES, MAPPINGS

Amélie Lemieux

White, B., & Lemieux, A. (2015). Reflecting selves: White, B., & Lemieux, A. (2017). Mapping holistic lear-
Pre-service teacher identity development explored ning: An introduction to aesthetigrams. New York: Peter
through material culture. Learning Landscapes, 9(1), Lang.
267-283.

21