819612

research-article2019
QIXXXX10.1177/1077800418819612Qualitative InquiryWargo

Research Article
Qualitative Inquiry

Be(com)ing “In-Resonance-With”
1­–7
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Research: Improvising a Postintentional sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1077800418819612
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418819612

Phenomenology Through Sound and journals.sagepub.com/home/qix

Sonic Composition

Jon M. Wargo1

Abstract
Scholarship in postqualitative research has long examined the constructs of orientation and experimentation. How do
we come to know and name experience? How do we value its matter as a form of mattering. Combining perspectives
from phenomenology, feminist new materialisms, and sound studies, this article traces the intra-active encounters of
the Museum of Contemporary Art–Detroit’s (MoCAD) performance of John Cage’s “How to Get Started.” Reading
postphenomenological inquiry as improvisation, the article underscores that phenomenological ontologies are always
already a be(com)ing, and that qualitative research more broadly is inherently an act of being “in-resonance-with.”

Keywords
postintentional phenomenology, sound, sonic composition, qualitative research, methodology

**11**
6 . . . 10 . . . 1 . . . 7 . . . numbers slide across a 10 × 10 foot
screen. A spotlight frames a chair on an open black box
stage. Spliced by speech, Detroit community members, per-
formers in this collaborative sonic experiment, speak off-
the-cuff about an array of personal thoughts and concerns.
Art. Culture. Work. Sex. At first listen, the Museum of
Contemporary Art–Detroit’s (MoCAD) homage to John
Cage’s “How to Get Started” is a sonorous story. A cacoph-
ony of voiceovers and ambient sounds from the audience
are back-dropped by the tick of a clock counting down the
remaining seconds of monologue. Another number appears.
A new story begins. The acoustic layering of ideas, how-
ever, is more than a multimodal narrative. It is a perfor-
mance of sound/bodies/materialities. It is, as I conceive of it
here, an apparatus for theorizing sound and sonic experi-
ence through the lens of postintentional phenomenology.
“How to Get Started,” however, is not the primary focus
that I wish to breathe life into. Rather, I use it here as a per-
formative hermeneutic, a tool to question what role sound,
feminist new materialisms, and philosophies of improvisa-
tion may provide the qualitative researcher in thinking with
postintentional phenomenology.
**2**
Scholarship in postqualitative research has long examined
the construct of orientation and experimentation (Ahmed,
2006; Vagle, 2014). What does it means to be (re)oriented?
How is it we come to know and name experience? What
value is its matter as a form of mattering? John Cage, cele-
brated American composer, musician, and performance art-
ist, had similar questions. The ruminations and initial
inklings of the experiment “How to Get Started” were com-
pleted near the end of Cage’s life. Originating as a thought
experiment to question the construct of improvisation, Cage
was curious how the musician could overcome emotion,
style, personality, hierarchy, intuition, habit, and, perhaps
most important for our focus here, intention in the process
of sonic improvisation.
As a novice postintentional phenomenologist, I see my
primary job in thinking with the posts- as a way to write my
1
Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jon M. Wargo, Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Campion
Hall 116, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA.
Email: wargoj@bc.edu
2 Qualitative Inquiry 00(0)
way through what Vagle and Hofsess (2016) call “explo-
sions.” Exploring sound in MoCAD’s “How to Get Started”
with a postintentional phenomenological lens registers
sound not as a hearing “of,” in the Husserlian (1983) sense
of intentionality, but a witness to the withness of experi-
ence. In short, I see postintentional phenomenology as a
“third” phenomenology. A (re)examination of the polyph-
ony of aural experience, postintentional phenomenology
extends Ihde’s (2007) now classic text, Listening and Voice:
Phenomenologies of Sound.
Taking seriously that improvisation is a strategy for
showing the passage from a “there” to a renovated “here,”
the article uses a “stacked stories” (Burnett & Merchant,
2016) approach to understand how improvisation elicits an
“in-resonance-with” across sites of sonic intra-action and
inquiry. A stacked stories approach is a baroque technique
that, like Deleuze and Guattari (1987), underscores how we
are always already in the middle of things. It is an apparatus
that attends to what Vagle (2014) terms a “whole-part-
whole” analysis (pp. 98-99). In other words, through recur-
sive stacked stories, I examine how postphenomenological
theories and philosophies make sense of what counts as
sound and self in qualitative inquiry.
Using Cage’s style of improvisation to (re)imagine the
organization of an academic essay, the article invokes a
“post-critical writing praxis” stance (Henderson, 2018) as a
response to Lather’s (2013) call to “imagine forward” (p.
634) in qualitative inquiry. It charts what an orientation of
“being-in-resonance-with” may entail for research concern-
ing the more (than) human and conceptualizes how we may
occupy knowledge differently. In concluding, I talk across
my own autobiographical experiences of MoCAD’s sono-
rous story to highlight what a being-in-resonance-with ori-
entation may entail.
**9**
(Re)Entering the resonances of MoCAD’s
“How to Get Started,” I become entranced
in thinking about each speaker’s book-
ended silences. Is the audience to assume
that when the timekeeper, a man stage
left of the podium, raises his flag, the
performance is “the performance?” 9. Is
this when time starts? Seconds before the
narrator divulges into staccato-styled
monologue, rain starts. A cadence that at
the time was barely audible is now ampli-
fied in this audio recording. Feet shuf-
fling. Wisps of an espresso bar. A rhythm
of intra-action emerges. Speaking about
high art, the orator is side-stepped by
the thunderous roar of the outside. He
closes his eyes, almost visibly angry,
trying to remember the next line in what
is an obvious rehearsed three-minute dia-
tribe about the urban city’s underground
art scene. Ping-pang. Pong. Pong. Pong.
Aluminum yells, almost mocking the man.
Start. 10. Scene. Stop.
**3**
Thinking With New Materialisms  Sound
Studies   Philosophies of Improvisation to
Posit a Postintentional Phenomenology of Sound
In line with the special issue’s focus on postintentional phe-
nomenology and hermeneutics, I assume that phenomeno-
logical ontologies are always already a be(coming) and that
qualitative research more broadly, is inherently an act of
be(com)ing “in-resonance-with.2” Combining perspectives
from phenomenology (Ahmed, 2006; Heidegger, 1953;
Vagle, 2014; van Manen, 2014), new materialisms (Barad,
2007; Bennett, 2004; Braidotti, 2013; Deleuze & Guattari,
1987; Deleuze & Parnet, 1987), and sound studies (Bull &
Back, 2003; Droumeva, 2015; Feld, 1982; Gershon, 2011,
2013; Schafer, 1994), I trace the intra-active encounters of
MoCAD’s performance of Cage’s “How to Get Started” to
read postphenomenological inquiry as improvisation.
I use postintentional phenomenology here, like Vagle
(2014), to signal my interests in chasing “lines of flight”
(Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) through disparate and at first
glance incommensurate philosophies and theories.3 Posting
intentionality, as Vagle and Hofsess (2016) suggest, insists
“that meanings run through relations and are constantly
being constructed, deconstructed, blurred, and disrupted”
(p. 342). By entangling feminist new materialisms with phi-
losophies of improvisation, I articulate an onto-epistemol-
ogy in researcher reflexivity.
My new materialist framing does not seek an ontological
speculation that omits the analysis of social forces that
mediate one’s access to the world (e.g., social identity
markers that are at times in tension with poststructural con-
structs such as power and discourse). As a queer researcher
and educator, I am all too aware of how material and corpo-
real realities become texts that others read and silence.
Rather, it operates as a queer partner-theory. As Ahmed
(2006) contends,
this turn toward the object within phenomenology (which as
we see is about some objects and not others) is not about the
characteristics of such objects, which we can define in terms of
type, the kind of objects they are, or their function, which
names not only the “tendency” of the objects, what they do, but
also what they allow us to do . . . (p. 33)
Wargo 3

Thus, I am interested in thinking with postphenomenologi-
cal theories to reimagine sound and sonic experience as an
improvisatory phenomenon in qualitative research.
Phenomenological philosophy, from Husserl (1936/1970)
to Heidegger (1953) and Merleau-Ponty (1947/1964),
argues for intentionality, a theorization of how things
“come-to-be” in relations. Thus, what follows is a philo-
sophical improvisation, an invitation that welcomes theo-
ries to work at the interstices/edges/margins and explore
what type of affective bloom spaces may emerge.
Assuming that improvisation is not merely a theoretical
tool, but rather an onto-epistemological orientation of be(com)
ing-in-resonance-with, this article details how improvisation
is “the demands for a work” and “of a work” (Peters, 2009, p.
11). Postphenomenology is a queer partner theory for philoso-
phies of improvisation. As Abram (1996) explains,
(t)he sensing body is . . . an active and open form, continually
improvising its relation to things and to the world. The body’s
actions and engagements are never wholly determinate, since
they must ceaselessly adjust themselves to a world and a terrain
that is itself continually shifting. (p. 49)
there are multitudes of material circumstances that contribute to
each of its particular articulations, each unrepeatable and hence
unique, and each with a potential to affect us that can be revealed
only in the particular articulation that takes place within and
among each material situation and unique listener. (p. 155)
Sound, thus, highlights the materiality of sonic commu-
nication. It reflexively imparts a be(com)ing with. Sound
leads us to “theorize an entangled post-reflexivity that aims
to incite methodological movements and possibilities for
qualitative inquiry” (Vagle & Hofsess, 2016, p. 334). As
Voeglin (2010) explains, sound, when “listened to genera-
tively, does not describe a place or object, nor is it a place of
an object, it is neither adjective or noun. It is to be in motion,
to produce” (p. 14). I would add to Voeglin and argue that it
also means to be with. In this vein, the rhythmic realities of
being with sound, during a performance piece or simply
walking down the city street, are forms of becoming-in-
resonance-with, a simultaneous thinking/living/becoming
that requires reciprocity and active engagement with time/
space/matter/bodies.

Improvising then—across any domain—implies creation

from pre-existing material. Hence, as this article will
**6**
explain, examining a postintentional phenomenology as a
“becoming in-resonance-with”, is an opening up by the
multiplicity of crystallized creative gestures that impose
“limits on what can and cannot be done on the occasion of
the material’s subsequent reworking, whether improvised
or not” (Peters, 2009, p. 11).
If, however, in phenomenology, we are tasked with the
job of preserving or catching the beginning of experience
without erasing the origin of its creation, then what may
sound bring to conversations concerning postintentional
phenomenology? How do we hear experience without kill-
ing the improvisatory nature of qualitative inquiry? It is not
to theorize sound and the sonic as a material  discur-
sive decoding of linear time and discrete experience, but
rather to explore the rhizome of affective and affinitive con-
nections.4 In short, to witness the withness of experience
and (re)imagine sound’s place along the edges and margins
of qualitative inquiry.
Sound carries both semiotic and non-semiotic mes- Figure 1.  MoCAD’s How to Get Started.
sages about experience. Sound is a being/doing/making.
Sounds form systems of meaning. Be(com)ing-in-reso-
nance-with, as an affective hermeneutic, follows the
unfolding of intra-action and takes seriously what **5**
Goodman (2010) calls “the ontology of vibrational force,” Wargo’s Story: Improvising an Onto-
the idea that “everything in motion, is vibrating” (p. 83).5
In other words, phenomena, configured here across
Epistemology in Researcher Reflexivity
material  discursive planes, matter. “Since music is I was always enticed with John Cage. In the Fall semester of
vibration,” as Eidsheim argues, 2013, I used a YouTube video of his celebrated 4′33″ to talk
across the politics of what my prospective teachers and I
4 Qualitative Inquiry 00(0)

could define as chil- curator welcomes us to the installation, only now gaining
“Rhythm is a middle force
dren’s and/or young consent from those around her to be audio recorded, and
6 that occupies the distance
adult literature. This participate in the performance. I lean over and ask my col-
between events, hinting that
curricular intervention league, “Where’s my institutional review board (IRB)
there is no empty space or void
was successful. In the form?” The first narrator moves to the chair, the heat of the
waiting to be filled by human
same way that most spotlight emanates off the stage. I shuffle my way out of my
perception. It resides between
walked away from black fleece quarter-zip, wipe my forehead with a bar nap-
actualized sensed perception
Cage’s composition kin, and settle in.
and the abstract virtual sphere
unnerved, entrenched Detroit.DetroitArt.ArtisDetroit. This is the sequence of
that encompasses it. It is the
in thinking that silence story that the first presenter shares. I sit there, small
vibration prior to becoming
was unsatisfactory for a Moleskine in hand, jotting notes down about feelings,
sensed sensory action, the
score, my students rhythms, intentions. Despite the shared simulation of
power that unearths ‘what
reconsidered how it is “improvisation,” this man is rehearsed. There is apprehen-
risks remain hidden’ from the
we define childhood sion when the random digit is presented to him, a small gasp
cracks in our perception”
and adolescence and eeks out of the microphone as he mentally finds what he
(Ikoniadou, 2014, p. 13)
how our own arche- wanted to talk about during this minute sequence. Quiet. As
types concerning child- the audio overlays previous minute monologues, the narra-
hood histories (mis)shape what our students should and tor (outside of MoCAD’s ambient sound) is the sole inter-
should not read. locutor heard. I feel unease as my boyfriend’s legs start to
Notwithstanding, as my interests in sound grew (see shift. He checks his phone. Airplane mode. He looks over
Wargo, 2017, 2018; Brownell & Wargo, 2017), so too did and asks, “Wait, are you recording this?” I nod in response.
my vision concerning the responsibility of the sonorous in “So,” he continues, “we can’t leave early?” Three. The last
qualitative inquiry. Thus, when MoCAD was selected as a number in the first speaker brings him to a close
destination to tour Cage’s “How to Get Started” perfor- <clapclapCLAPCLAPclapclapclappp>.
mance piece, I attended. Scanning the Facebook event invi- An interlude occurs between speakers. A middle that
tation, I “liked” it <cliCK>, archived it as something I hints at a distance between narrated events. This acoustic
could go back to <SCROoollll> and then placed it in my territory of sustained silence provides no empty space seek-
iCal <beep>. ing to be filled by cognitive perception. Rather, it is its own
Situated against the cacophony of Woodward Avenue in performance. Murmurs muffle small glances. Participants
Detroit, Michigan, MoCAD eagerly invited spectators and lis- sidestep out of the aisle. It is, as Breuer and Roth (2003)
teners in on a Sunday afternoon. With other listeners in tow, I describe, an epistemic window or “I-witnessing” of an event.
brought my boyfriend to “earwitness” Schafer, R. M. (1994) The audience becomes-in-resonance-with the goal and
the pop-up sound installation. We sat in the back. Arriving vision of Cage as its own improvisation is a coda to narrated
early, I was privy to sound check, hearing about the who would movements of talk. The second narrator makes her way to
participate and the call and response that the sound director the stage. An artist and local resident. The storied moments
would signal when time was up and how another number that are heard now
would emerge on the screen. Two more friends arrived on the collapse my memory
“Deleuze’s distinction between
scene during sound check. One sat next to me and the other sat as I am jolted by a
diversity and difference is cited
directly behind. Pleasantries were exchanged, and I was asked refrain of laughter.
in an attempt to show that the
by one whether I could “sit still and be quiet” during a perfor- Dicks. A natural
former represents the mere
mance that was upward of two hours. I find this reflection comedian, the stu-
appearance of difference play-
interesting, as it still sits with me even now, writing about the dent finds solace with
ing across an underlying same-
event some 10 months after. How does my own timbre and the audience as she
ness – pseudoimprovisation
body “sound” to others? In what ways is my “voice” written, plays up her age. “I
– whereas the latter describes
or perhaps revised when I am first introduced? mean, I’m just a stu-
the same eternally recurring
As time presses on, more arrive and the small black box dent . . . ” she
willing of difference. That is to
studio, bookended by changing installations transforms into proclaims, somehow
say, the same interruption of
an atmosphere of sound. Rows of black chairs against a yearning to locate
continuous time in the name of
black screen are now an affective field in which the audi- herself in opposition
an origination of a future past
ence is immersed. Pamphlets are handed out by barbacks to the art curator
that is always new: the same dif-
<cling-clang-cling-cling-CLANG>. Glasses are filled. and historian who
ference rather than a different
They sing as MoCAD staff serve draft beer and wine to preceded her. Seven.
sameness (diversity)” (Peters,
guests only now taking their seats. “<wisp.WISP.>” “This The stories continued
2009, p. 5).
thing on?” A voice asks from the front of the stage. The to be stacked. The
Wargo 5
sound operator is now looping five well-timed minute mono-
logues together. The narrator stumbles upon the next num-
ber, catching herself to pause so the audience can once again
laugh quietly and hear her “bag full of dicks” artist state-
ment. She continues. “And I mean,” she started, “I have
nothing against that. But, I’m just not like that. I’m not gay.”
I am silent. What was once a belly laugh becomes a blow
that affectively disconnects me from the axis of participant/
observer. I look to my boyfriend who plays it off <eye
roll>. Suddenly, sound became a marker for affinity. A figu-
rative deafness to a world whose magnitude is larger than
this context. Does silence signal complicity? The speaker’s
segment stops. The narrator exits the stage. Some clap, I
leave.
**8**
Sound’s Story: The Fragility of Becoming-In-
Resonance-With
Figure 2.  Sound’s Story
**9**
Attuning Toward a (Re)Imagining of Data
Analysis: Be(com)ing “In-Resonance-With”
Sound
The stories, stacked together with gaps, contradictions, and
discontinuities between them, turn up the volume on taken-
for-granted dimensions of postphenomenological research.
They operate here as sonic solicitations, phenomenological
cleavages that think with queer partner theories to interro-
gate our own subjective intentionalities. Refracted through
my own stories, the inaudible (seen here solely as a percep-
tion of silence) is produced and improvised in the moment.
It, like the intended messages delivered through “How to
Get Started” is an invitation to become in-resonance-with
the other stories, productions, meanings, and materials
associated with what art/music/place (and who goes to see
particular styles of art/music/etc.) are. It also, however,
highlights the fallibility of speech and the sonic. A looking
back that highlights ontological tensions in describing/writ-
ing/making who “we” were then in the here of “we.”
Sound is a diffractive agent. It becomes semiotic, with
its own messages dictating who can be part of the “we” that
is voiced. This attentiveness to sound as a material archive,
however, is not a new. As Kane (2015) writes, “Not only do
listeners hear in sound morphological resemblances to other
sounds, they hear in sound analogies to other practices and
predicates in their culture” (p. 15). Thus, when considering
the audible margins, edges, and in-betweens of postinten-
tional phenomenology, we should take heed of how this
immanence—an ontology of sonic vibration—sets in
motion new ways of understanding experience, replacing
the subjective with the affective.
Outside of the sonic narratives shared as part of
MoCAD’s experiment “How to Get Started,” the fragile and
fugitive materialities of sound continue to implicate my
own understandings of how we come to know the action
and affects of being-in-resonance-with phenomena in pos-
tintentional phenomenology. If we (re)consider reflexivity
as an act of onto-epistemological improvisation, then the
sonic and material experience are core to our own under-
standings of how we know inquiry, and I would argue how
we know ourselves, more broadly. The material  dis-
cursive is a reciprocal witness. As a queer cisgender
researcher, I have come to see reflexivity as an action that is
not temporally fixed, but fluid. My voice, whether written
or recorded becomes a sonic artifact of multiple transgres-
sions. Sound as space/time/matter unfolds into a continuum
constructed across the digital and analog. It asks whom I
can hear and who can hear me in the construction of the “I.”
Being-in-resonance-with is expressive of the bodies/materi-
als/doings of thinking with the “posts” in postintentional
phenomenology. Sound not only interpolates what we know
(epistemology) but also constitutes us as more (than) human
beings (ontology).7 It is, as Koro-Ljungberg, MacLure, and
Ulmer (2017) contend, expressive of “data’s” onto-episte-
mological status. It attends to the ethico-aesthetic material
of being “with.”
**7**
After shuffles and playbacks of audio,
the speaker’s profession, the what of
who she is and why she is on stage, comes
to fruition. An artist. Seven. The num-
ber flashes across the screen. She starts
up, this time replaying a story of going
through airport security in France with
pieces from a clay installation that are
6 Qualitative Inquiry 00(0)
phallic in size and nature. “And then,”
she continued, “I thought to myself,
what do you do with a bag full of dicks?”
Unknowingly, I laugh, loudly. My sounds
take center stage. For some reason, per-
haps because I’ve sat in a folding chair
that cccrreeEaaaks, I am taken. Friends
to my left and right sigh out audible
gasps as my belly-bellow marks the scene.
“Shhh!” they direct me. My audible excla-
mation marks a crescendo in the narra-
tor’s style. She finds resolve in what
she is discussing and continues, almost
thanking me for my response to her call
of dick clay pots. The timekeeper sig-
nals ten seconds. Claire (for some rea-
son, I am naming her Claire here) quickly
brings the story to a close.
**10**
My goal in this article was to chart new theoretical and
methodological possibilities for qualitative inquiry, and
postintentional phenomenology, more specifically.
Theoretically, I suggested that attuning to postintentional
phenomenology as an intra-active encounter of be(com)
ing-in-resonance-with elides more simple notions of wit-
nessing phenomena. Methodologically, and through a
series of stacked stories, I added to the improvisational
sensibilities and possibilities of (re)orienting qualitative
researchers. I connected with affective stimuli and opened
my body up to be(com)ing-in-resonance-with new territo-
ries for the researcher, the researched, and the research pro-
cess. In closing then, I want to explore how poststructuralist
theories, Deleuzoguattarian perspectives, and feminist new
materialisms more specifically, may (re)educate the senses
to educational moments of sonic experience and intention-
ality. How will our be(com)ings reflect the broadening
sense of improvisational doings and matterings as they
come to be delicately connected to all other experiences
and phenomena? What other theories, experiences, and
lines of flight emerge from those who listen but might not
hear in the traditional and often ableist sense of the word?
What types of productive theoretical work can take place
when we think with and in the margins of seemingly irrec-
oncilable fields? It is in and through these questions and
spaces, productions that I believe attune toward bodies and
the inaudible “I” in postintentional phenomenology, that
new and noteworthy sites of inquiry emerge.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. Despite language operating here to mediate experience,
I use a variety of stylistic functions and textual liber-
ties to breathe life into more (than) human phenomena.
Mirroring the Museum of Contemporary Art–Detroit’s
sonic experiment, I use numerals and shifts in font to
present an improvised, and sometimes disjointed, narra-
tive. This, partnered by remixed visuals and spliced audio
files is but one attempt to incite dissonance, to illustrate a
becoming-in-resonance-with.
2. Rather than thinking with the Husserlian preposition “of,”
when exploring the research assemblage (Law, 2004), I use
“with” to consider how we are always already entangled with
research experiences/phenomena/materialities.
3. When “post-ing” intentionality, I like Vagle’s (2015) work
“along the hyphen, the jagged edges of phenomenology
poststructuralist ideas, where stories are in flux, where we
enter into middles instead of beginnings and ends (Deleuze &
Guattari, 1987), [and] where it becomes difficult to determine
the narrator and narrate” (p. 597).
4. I use material  discursive throughout the chapter to high-
light how the nature of materials and discourse are insepa-
rable. “Discourse,” as Barad (2003) contends “is not what is
said; it is that which constrains and enables what can be said.
Discursive practices define what counts as meaning state-
ments . . . Discursive practices produce, rather than merely
describe” (p. 819).
5. I use intra-actions (mutually constitutive relationship
between humans and nonhumans) rather than interaction to
highlight the ontological force sound has as a materialdiscur-
sive experience.
6. Composed in 1952, 4′33″ is a three-movement composi-
tion for any instrument or combination of instruments
where the score instructs the performer(s) not to play their
instrument(s) during duration. The piece plays with what
archetypes concerning what “music” is as the sounds of the
environment are solely those that the listeners hear while it
is being performed.
7. This article does not wholly reject the human, but rather
shifts the volume on particular poststructural interludes and
more classic phenomenological theories and philosophies.
References
Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and lan-
guage in a more-than human world. New York, NY: Vintage
Books.
Ahmed, S. (2006). Queer phenomenology: Orientations, objects,
others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an under-
standing of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of
women in culture and society, 28(3), 801-831.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics
and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Wargo 7
Bennett, J. (2004). The force of things: Steps toward an ecology of
matter. Political Theory, 32, 347-372.
Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Breuer, F., & Roth, W. M. (2003). Subjectivity and reflexivity
in the social sciences: Epistemic windows and methodical
consequences. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 4(2).
Brownell, C. J., & Wargo, J. M. (2017) (Re)educating the senses
to community literacies: Prospective teachers using sonic
cartography to listen for culture. Multicultural Education
Review, 9(3), 201-214.
Bull, M., & Back, L. (Eds.). (2003). The auditory culture reader.
Oxford, UK: Berg.
Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2016). Boxes of poison: Baroque
technique as antidote to simple views of literacy. Journal of
Literacy Research, 48, 258-279.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism
and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1980).
Deleuze, G., & Parnet, C. (1987). Dialogues. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Droumeva, M. (2015). Curating everyday life: Approaches to docu-
menting everyday soundscapes. M/C Journal, 18(4). Retrieved
from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/
article/view/1009
Eidsheim, N. S. (2015). Sensing sound: Singing and listening as
vibrational practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Feld, S. (1982). Sound and sentiment: Birds, weeping, poetics,
and song in Kaluli expression. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Gershon, W. S. (2011). Embodied knowledge: Sounds as educa-
tional systems [Special issue: Sensual curriculum]. Journal of
Curriculum Theorizing, 27(2), 66-81.
Gershon, W. S. (2013). Vibrational affect: Sound theory and
practice in qualitative research. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical
Methodologies, 13, 257-262.
Goodman, S. (2010). Sonic warfare: Sound, affect, and the ecol-
ogy of fear. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heidegger, M. (1953). Being and time. Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Henderson, J. (2018). Post-critical writing praxis as a qualitative
researcher. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 31(6), 535-544.
Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and tran-
scendental phenomenology (D. Carr, Trans.). Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press. (Original work published 1936)
Husserl, E. (1983). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology
and to a phenomenological philosophy (F. Kersten, Trans.).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ihde, D. (2007). Listening and voice: Phenomenologies of sound.
Albany: The State University of New York Press.
Ikoniadou, E. (2014). The rhythmic event: Art, media, and the
sonic. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kane, B. (2015). Sound studies without auditory culture: A cri-
tique of the ontological turn. Sound Studies, 1, 2-21.
Koro-Ljungberg, M., MacLure, M., & Ulmer, J. (2017). D. . . a.
. . t. . . a. . ., data++, data and some problematics. In N.
Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualita-
tive research (pp. 462-484). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lather, P. (2013). Methodology-21: What do we do in the
afterward? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 26(6), 634-645.
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). Primacy of perception: And other essays
on phenomenological psychology, the philosophy of art, his-
tory and politics (Edie, J., Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University Press. (Original work published 1947)
Peters, G. (2009). The philosophy of improvisation. Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago Press.
Schafer, R. M. (1994). The soundscape: Our sonic environment
and the turning of the world. VT: Inner Traditions/Bear & Co.
Vagle, M. D. (2014). Crafting phenomenological research.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Vagle, M. D. (2015). Curriculum as post-intentional phenomeno-
logical text: Working along the edges and margins of phenom-
enology using post-structuralist ideas. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 47, 594-612.
Vagle, M. D., & Hofsess, B. A. (2016). Entangling a post-reflex-
ivity through post-intentional phenomenology. Qualitative
Inquiry, 22(5) 334-344.
van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice. Walnut
Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Voeglin, S. (2010). Listening to noise and silence: Towards a phi-
losophy of sound art. New York. NY: Continuum International
Publishing Group.
Wargo, J. M. (2017). Rhythmic rituals and emergent listening:
Intra-activity, sonic sounds, and digital composing with young
children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(3), 392-408.
Wargo, J. M. (2018). Soundingoutmysilence: Reading a lgbtq
youth’s sonic cartography as multimodal (counter)storytell-
ing. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 62(1), 13-23.
Author Biography
Jon M. Wargo is an assistant professor of Teacher Education,
Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction in the Lynch School
of Education at Boston College. Interested in how writing moves,
his research uses feminist, queer, and post-structural modes of
inquiry to explore how children and youth use literacies, and tech-
nologies of composition in particular, to design more just social
futures.