Making Sense of Reflexivity: A Posthumanistic Account



This chapter provides a posthumanistic account in which we, two PhD students, work to make sense of our entanglements with reflexivity on our way to becoming academic researchers and writers. We question the concept of sensemaking as a cognitive process, and we look for ways in which sensemaking is unfolding from sociomaterial practices carried out in and around the work of academia. Considering sensemaking a material-discursive practice and applying duo-ethnographic and collaborative writing as a methodology, three practices – (1) conducting an article-based dissertation, (2) writing a research diary and (3) taking part in academic events – form the basis for analysis of our entanglements with reflexivity. We outline how the micro-entanglements of sociomateriality came to matter (in both senses of the word) to and for us as we engage with our becomingness as reflexive researchers and academic writers.



We wish to thank the reviewers, whose comments and suggestions helped us to improve this chapter further.


  1. Alvesson, M., Hardy, C., & Harley, B. (2008). Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual practices in organization and management theory. Journal of Management Studies, 45(3), 480–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bains, P. (2002). Subjectless subjectivities. In B. Massumi (Ed.), A shock to thought: Expressions after Deleuze and Guattari (pp. 10–116). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of the matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruni, A. (2005). Shadowing software and clinical records: On the ethnography of non-humans. Organization, 12(2), 357–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruni, A., Gherardi, S., & Parolin, L. (2007). Knowing in a system of fragmented knowledge. Mind, Culture and Activity, 14(1–2), 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke, K. (1965). Permanence and change: An anatomy of purpose. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  8. Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fox, N. J. (2013). Comparison of post-structuralist, critical realist and neo-materialist perspectives. Unpublished material. Retrieved from Accessed 13 Dec 2017.
  10. Fox, N. J., & Alldred, P. (2018). New materialism. In P. A. Atkinson, S. Delamont, M. A. Hardy, & M. Williams (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of research methods. London, UK: Sage.
  11. Gherardi, S. (2017). Sociomateriality in posthuman theory. In A. Hui, T. Schatzki, & E. Shove (Eds.), The nexus of practices: Connections, constellations and practitioners (pp. 38–51). London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Hammarström, M. (2010). On the concepts of transaction and intra-action. In The Third Nordic Pragmatism Conference, Uppsala, Sweden. Retrieved from Accessed 12 Jan 2018.
  13. Hultin, L., & Mähring, M. (2017). How practice makes sense in healthcare operations: Studying sensemaking as performative, material-discursive practice. Human Relations, 70(5), 566–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Norris, J., & Sawyer, R. D. (2004). Hidden and null curricula of sexual orientation: A dialogue on the Curreres of the absent presence and the present absence. In L. Coia, N. J. Brooks, S. J. Mayer, P. Pritchard, E. Heilman, M. L. Birch, & A. Mountain (Eds.), Democratic responses in an era of standardization: Papers from the 4th curriculum & pedagogy annual conference (pp. 139–159). Troy, NY: Educator’s International Press.Google Scholar
  16. Norris, J., Sawyer, R. D., & Lund, D. E. (Eds.). (2012). Duoethnography. Dialogic methods for social, health, and educational research. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Books.Google Scholar
  17. Orlikowski, W. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Orlikowski, W., & Scott, S. (2014). What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector. Organization Science, 25(3), 868–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2015). Exploring material-discursive practices. Journal of Management Studies, 52(5), 697–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2015). Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 36(1), S6–S32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sawyer, R. D., & Norris, J. (2009). Duoethnography: Articulations/(re)creation of meaning in the making. In W. Gershon (Ed.), Working together in qualitative research: A turn towards the collaborative (pp. 127–140). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  22. Sawyer, R. D., & Norris, J. (2013). Understanding qualitative research: Duoethnography. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Speedy, J., & Wyatt, J. (Eds.). (2014). Collaborative writing as inquiry. Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Weick, K. E. (1995). Making sense of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Unit of Nursing Science and Health ManagementUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.Community of Research in Education, Music, and the ArtsUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations