Notes on: Ulmer, J. (2016) Diffraction as a Method of Critical Policy Analysis. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48 (13): 1381 – 94. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.1211001 Dave Harris Diffraction 'aligns with many elements of critical politics analysis'. We enact diffraction as in Barad through Bennett and Anzaldúa, to examine teacher leadership and educational policy. Critical policy analysis involves critical theories and is less narrow and atheoretical [than its strawman? opposite — 'objectivist policy research', which apparently pursues causal analysis and simple rationality]. Instead policy-making is dynamic and complex, allowing for unintended outputs, the result of historical and social contexts and power. It has been studied before using different lenses ['multifocal']. Material feminisms in qualitative research have added to this, since qualitative researchers have also tried to read theory in a new way, especially diffraction — 'conducting multiple theoretical readings upon a singular set of data' (1382), 'an analytical kaleidoscope' to multiply analyses. Now we need to systematically explore a connection. Diffraction is rooted in Haraway and Barad, borrowed from physics. Qualitative scholars however see diffraction as 'changing movement, or a produced effect' mapping the effects of difference for Haraway, making a difference for Barad. Multiple analysis is performed upon a singular set of data through theoretical readings, for example Lenz Taguchi [and lots of others]. This study looks at dissertation data through multiple theories, including Bennett and Anzaldúa [same bit as in Barad]. The first aim was to conduct a policy analysis, how US teacher leaders were using digital technologies to influence educational policy. Initially, the analysis 'remained without theory', requiring subsequent diffractive analysis — how multiple political borders were crossed and how organisations function within ecologies or organisational networks. The interviews are selected, nine in-depth phone and video then email, active participants were chosen, identified by reading blogs and snowball sampling. Backgrounds varied, but all had been active in various policy organisations helping teachers to become leaders. We turn to Bennett and 'cultural theorist' Anzaldúa, using the notion of a vibrant political ecology. Anzaldúa refers to multiple and intersectional identities. Their work is first briefly described and then quotations are extracted to 'provide theoretical lenses through which data are read' — each quotation is followed by an analysis of the data 'in relation to that particular passage' the pattern of quotations interspersed with analyses 'creates a series of diffractive readings that entangle and disentangle data through theory' and this juxtaposition helps us grasp diffraction 'as a specific theoretical procedure'. [They seem to be just copying Barad's preferred forms of presentation?]. Bennett says interactions 'between human, viral, animal and technological bodies'are intense and this changes our view of democracy. She wants to focus especially on the agency are nonhuman things and environments and the interaction between ecosystem and political system. This offers us 'a lens' to theorise teacher leadership especially the intra-action of organisational structures, politics and digital technologies. Organisations and technologies are dynamically involved and entangled. Anzaldúa looks at intersectionality in borderlands, both physical and social. She also talks about liminality and those who pass between worlds. The first term seems to involve questioning old ideas and beliefs. Teacher leaders do this as they cross between classrooms and policy arenas, so we have another 'useful lens'. Although these writings are critical, they are not quite the same as new materialist concerns, and are best read as offering Chicana critical feminism, another possible perspective. We are not going to prefer either of these approaches, but just see how diffractive theory can enhance data analysis by providing 'multiple perspectives'. (1386). Bennett' s notion of vibrant political ecologies reduces ecosystems and political systems by seeing them as 'vibrant materiality'. We can draw an analogy with the field of teacher leadership which exist within a larger political system where each of the elements is 'entangled with the others' [not hierarchically organised or politically limited then? — Weak functionalism]. However local state and federal agencies all have their own 'policies histories and agendas'. Teacher leaders must develop both desire and knowledge about who are the influences and how policy is made [you need a sociology of organisations]. Organisations are distinct but there are signs of 'an interconnected community' or 'symbiotic partnerships' [which appear to be the same as particular official organisations and associations] this shows that leadership organisations 'are dependent upon one another for influence, ideas and membership' especially if they want to exercise collective influence. This makes them 'ecological in the sense that they collaborate as a means of adapting to rapidly changing policy environments'. The organisations produce and reproduce despite individuals who often move between them. There is also informal collaboration, which 'function as ideological pollinators'. We see this through the number of publications and communication strategies, and the possibility of a new career ladder for teacher leaders. This produces 'policy isomorphism'. There is also competition between the organisations for scarce resources. This in turn depends on influence and prestige, influence stems from recognition, which often involves an attempt to 'jockey for credit in shared initiatives (1388), or develop territorial disputes. We also interact with 'technological matter that takes on its own agency', 'nonhuman actants' like social and media platforms [although the digital writings 'serve as actants']. These possess vitality because 'words gain agency' as do 'discursive policy expressions'. Organisations are collective entities in 'vibrant motion' including tactical alliances among various organisations, what Bennett calls 'a public' [temporary strategic alliances]. Agendas stimulate different publics. Sometimes alliances dissolve or evolve, some are emergent while others have left a definite trace [all based on Bennett]. Not all democratic, although the notion of democracy must be navigated — who is allowed to have a voice. In the process of negotiating the roles, individuals cross borderlands [this is the old imposter syndrome stuff?]. Anzaldúa reminds us that teacher leadership straddles both teaching and leading and there are many other dividing lines. Teacher leaders operate in transitional borderlands and as a result 'have met both challenge and success'. Politics can seem unnatural and unfamiliar, and policymakers can be hostile, so can peers and administrators. In this sense, 'teacher leadership itself may be a transgressive act — it is an act that involves leading without authority' (1390). Colleagues can feel threatened, jobs at risk. Most saw their role is important, though in not handing over responsibility for the profession to complete outsiders. Idealism is tempered with realism about resistance to policy changes — most worked out how to cope with 'alliance and relationship building'. Communication is also important, and creating links and bridges. There is a guiding vision of the kind that Anzaldúa says is necessary for change to occur. We get a composite picture from Anzaldúa and Bennett if we diffract these writings to read our data. For example we can trouble dichotomies and binaries, including those that affect teacher leadership, and stress fluid relations and vibrancy instead, embrace complexity, identify connections, as when Barad says separate identities actually are related. So we have theories through which to reread data [summarised — ecosystems and borderlands]. New approaches to educational research and policy are required, and this approach addresses complexity and also helps to 'adopt re-envisioned views of critique, [moving] toward research aimed at interconnection and understanding' (1391) [the real payoff I suspect]. Get new methodological possibilities within qualitative analysis because the data themselves change when they shift from one theoretical and methodological arena to another — we see things differently '"depending on which question we pose what methodological strategies we use, and which theoretical fields we get involved in"' [quoting Palmer [fancy that!] We no longer have linear knowledge production and research, which St Pierre and Lather would approve of, and we can connect to fashionable materialist orientations. Doing this diffractive analysis helped the researchers address some of the more sensitive topics of identity and power relations, critical distance and discussion: this is got something to do with Barad on cutting together apart. It is not a traditional or conventional approach, which just tried to apply rationality and simplicity, but policy entering the real world means messiness. There also might be some gaps in policy, unaddressed needs. Overall we can now understand policy differently. back to social theory