Meta/morphosis

References

1. Arlander, A. (2017), ‘Agential cuts and performance as research’, in A. Arlander, B. Barton, M. Dreyer-Lude and B. Spatz (eds), Performance as Research: Knowledge, Methods, Impact, 1st ed., New York: Routledge, pp. 133–51, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315157672.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Barad, K. M. (2007), Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bayley, A. (2018), Posthuman Pedagogies in Practice: Arts Based Approaches for Developing Participatory Futures, New York: Springer International Pub.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Braidotti, R. (2002) Metamorphoses: Towards a Feminist Theory of Becoming, Cambridge: Polity Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Butler, J. (1990), Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York: Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987), A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, 1st paperback ed., London: Bloomsbury.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Draycott, J. (2015), ‘Reconstructing the lived experience of disability in antiquity: A case study from Roman Egypt’, Greece and Rome, 62:2, pp. 189–205.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Erevelles, N., Grace, E. J. and Parekh, G. (2019), ‘Disability as meta curriculum: Ontologies, epistemologies, and transformative praxis’, Curriculum Inquiry, 49:4, pp. 357–72, https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2019.1664078.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Freire, P. (1970), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, new rev. ed., London: Penguin Books.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Haraway, D. (1992), ‘The promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others’, in L. Grossberg, C. Nelson and P. A. Treichler (eds), Cultural Studies, New York: Routledge, pp. 295–337, http://site.ebrary.com/id/10656191. Accessed 14 December 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Haraway, D. J. (2016), Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Ingold, T. (2013), Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture, London; New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Kesby, M. (2007), ‘Spatialising participatory approaches: The contribution of geography to a mature debate’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 39:12, pp. 2813–31, https://doi.org/10.1068/a38326.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Langer, S. K. (1979), Feeling and Form: A Theory of Art Developed from ‘Philosophy in a New Key’, London and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Murris, K. (2022), Karen Barad as Educator: Agential Realism and Education, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-19-0144-7. Accessed 14 December 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Nelson, R. (2013), Practice as Research in the Arts: Principles, Protocols, Pedagogies, Resistances, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Rosner-Siegel, J. A. (1982), ‘Amor, metamorphosis and magic: Ovid’s Medea (met. 7.1-424)’, The Classical Journal, 77:3, pp. 231–43.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Scott, J.-A. (2018), Embodied Performance as Applied Research, Art and Pedagogy, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Shildrick, M. (1999), ‘This body which is not one: Dealing with differences’, Body & Society, 5:2&3, pp. 77–92, https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X99005002005.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Shildrick, M. (2007a), ‘Contested pleasures: The sociopolitical economy of disability and sexuality’, Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 4:1, pp. 53–66, https://doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2007.4.1.53.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Shildrick, M. (2007b), ‘Dangerous discourses: Anxiety, desire, and disability’, Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 8:3, pp. 221–44, https://doi.org/10.1080/15240650701226490.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Sumara, D. J. and Carson, T. R. (1997), ‘Editor’s introduction: Reconceptualizing action research as a living practice’, Counterpoints, 67, pp. xiii–xxxv.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Taylor, C. A. (2016), ‘Edu-crafting a cacophonous ecology: Posthumanist research practices for education’, in C. A. Taylor and C. Hughes (eds), Posthuman Research Practices in Education, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 5–24.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Trentin, L. (2013), ‘Exploring visual impairment in ancient Rome’, in C. Laes, C. F. Goodey and M. L. Rose (eds), Disabilities in Roman Antiquity: Disparate Bodies, a Capite ad Calcem, Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, pp. 89–111.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Turner, V. (1977), ‘Process, system, and symbol: A new anthropological synthesis’, Daedalus, 106:3, pp. 61–80.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Vehmas, S. and Watson, N. (2014), ‘Moral wrongs, disadvantages, and disability: A critique of critical disability studies’, Disability & Society, 29:4, pp. 638–50, https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.831751.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Wenger, É. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, 18th printing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Winnicott, D. W. and Rodman, R. (1971), Playing and Reality, Rpt., London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Cicero, Orations.
31. Descartes, Meditations.
32. Lucretius, On the Nature of Things.
33. Ovid, Metamorphoses.
34. Pausanius, Description of Greece.
35. Virgil, Aeneid.