How Does a Collective Body Arrive, Move, and Learn? Becoming through Practice-Based Research as a Stringing-(Em)bodying Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A brief summary 

Your paper presents the findings of two practice-based research sessions. In these sessions, six individuals worked with string to explore concepts of becoming a collective body. You argue that through the types of entanglements facilitated by the work with string, you experienced the blurring of bodily boundaries. You work with the theories of new materialism to explore your work. You interweave the use of vignettes into your critical analysis. The concept and practice are both exciting and have the potential to present new knowledge on processes of becoming and group dynamics/identity. 

General concept comments 
Article: highlighting areas of weakness, the testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing 

By the time of the subheading ‘2. Arrival’, as a reader I am not clear as to the why of the paper. Why does writing about and working with a collective body matter (for this paper/this field/this set of theories/this approach to methodology)? What is the significance (to the aforementioned) of this paper/approach? Is there something in how you are working with Haraway’s (and Ingold’s?) concept(s) of knotting/knotted analytical practice through a process of becoming/sense-making with string? If so, might you rework this into the abstract and introduction? I see real potential in your ability to test the theories of new materialism and/or the formation of group identity through the string exercise and would encourage you to be bolder about how you frame your work within the wider field(s). 

There is an important tension to be teased out between the individual bodies and the collective body(ies). Within the introduction of the vignettes there is an opportunity to situate the individuated body and bodily experience within the larger group. The reader learns that the group consists of six bodies. The reader knows from earlier in the text that these are the bodies of PhD students and postdocs from two London HEIs. But, beyond that, the reader knows little about these bodies and the individuated experiences, intersectional identities that inform the formation of the collective body. Some more work on establishing the methodology of the work would be welcome. Are the vignettes written by one of the bodies, or are they a collective memory and collective writing exercise of the collective body? More clarity is required. In reference to the ‘We’ (We met in-person) to form a collective body the reader needs the context of who the ‘we’ is. 

A question that remains unresolved is, is it possible to achieve a collective body over the space of two sessions? How could you identify the limitations of the approach and areas of consideration for further research? 

The paper addresses new materialist ideas around space. However, it is not clear to the reader (until section ‘3. Doing’) what the space(s) is/are that you are working within. There is perhaps a missed opportunity in the vignette to engage with creative non-fiction and present an evocative and sensuous account of the body-making-space-making processes on way to establishing a collective body. 

How might you better contextualise the two sessions to indicate to the reader what the plan was (or the choices behind the lack of plan) and how the activity unfolded and why? How were decisions made (non-verbal ‘rule’)? What ethical consideration was given to the exercises? How was consent managed? How did the flow and fluidity of the collective body accommodate the will and comfort of the individual bodies? How were power dynamics managed, challenged, worked through? What extent did hierarchies, issues of social justice, and/or concerns around marginalisation factor into the work? You address some of this, in relation to care, on p. 7. I would recommend more on this earlier in the text. 

Towards the end of p.5, the article suggests that the blurring of bodily boundaries (without the use of string) would have been lost. This could be explored in more detail perhaps. How does the tension felt through the string not remind or reinforce one of their individual bodily boundaries? Is there more to be made of the transfer of kinetic energy through the string and the introduction of shared tension that served to connect? But to what extent does the string blur these boundaries? This point could be made more clearly. Consider the vignette on p. 6 ‘Move far from everyone / Be alone / Observe / Then close […] Help her / That string might be hurting her skin’ – does this not reinforce the idea of bounded bodies and separate entities? 

In section ‘4. Discussion’, you claim ‘there was a palpable sense that these bodily boundaries had become entangled, becoming blurred.’ I am not convinced your paper clearly demonstrates that. I get a strong sense that through play and an entanglement with string, you came to feel more comfortable about your individual body in relation to that of the group, and that you experienced connection through the string. But I do not get a clear sense that bodily boundaries were blurred and that bodies, themselves, became blurred and entangled. 

The string seems crucial to the experience of the collective body. Therefore, I am very interested by the potentiality of the string, or the detachment of the string from the collective body once it ends up in the centre of the space at the end of the session. Had boundaries been blurred, and space-making occurred, to any level that it could be argued parts of the collective body remained on and in the space/string? 

Author Response

1.     By the time of the subheading ‘2. Arrival’, as a reader I am not clear as to the why of the paper. Why does writing about and working with a collective body matter (for this paper/this field/this set of theories/this approach to methodology)? What is the significance (to the aforementioned) of this paper/approach? Is there something in how you are working with Haraway’s (and Ingold’s?) concept(s) of knotting/knotted analytical practice through a process of becoming/sense-making with string? If so, might you rework this into the abstract and introduction?

- You will see that the introduction section we have made extensive amendments, these should clarify ‘why’ and ‘significance’ as well as the theoretical positioning that we use, that address these points.

2.     There is an important tension to be teased out between the individual bodies and the collective body(ies). Within the introduction of the vignettes there is an opportunity to situate the individuated body and bodily experience within the larger group. The reader learns that the group consists of six bodies. The reader knows from earlier in the text that these are the bodies of PhD students and postdocs from two London HEIs. But, beyond that, the reader knows little about these bodies and the individuated experiences, intersectional identities that inform the formation of the collective body. Some more work on establishing the methodology of the work would be welcome. Are the vignettes written by one of the bodies, or are they a collective memory and collective writing exercise of the collective body? More clarity is required. In reference to the ‘We’ (We met in-person) to form a collective body the reader needs the context of who the ‘we’ is.

 - We agreed that minimising the intersectional identities enables the collective dynamic to feel stronger in this article. This is an ongoing praxis for our work. We will continue to consider how/ when it is necessary to include, in more detail, the individuals in relation to the collective. To create more clarity, we have noted this intention to the reader more explicitly in the introduction and conclusion. In addition, we have outlined more clearly the role of the vignettes in the text in the introduction (See lines 118-127, and in the addition to the conclusion).

3.     A question that remains unresolved is, is it possible to achieve a collective body over the space of two sessions? 3a. How could you identify the limitations of the approach and areas of consideration for further research?

We have amended the conclusion to encompass these two suggestions (see the additional red text in final paragraph).

4.     The paper addresses new materialist ideas around space. However, it is not clear to the reader (until section ‘3. Doing’) what the space(s) is/are that you are working within. There is perhaps a missed opportunity in the vignette to engage with creative non-fiction and present an evocative and sensuous account of the body-making-space-making processes on way to establishing a collective body.

 We have addressed this in the introduction a bit more. You will see more discussion on theoretical spaces we are working within, as well as literal/ figurative spaces.

5.     How might you better contextualise the two sessions to indicate to the reader what the plan was (or the choices behind the lack of plan) and how the activity unfolded and why? How were decisions made (non-verbal ‘rule’)? What ethical consideration was given to the exercises? How was consent managed? How did the flow and fluidity of the collective body accommodate the will and comfort of the individual bodies? How were power dynamics managed, challenged, worked through? What extent did hierarchies, issues of social justice, and/or concerns around marginalisation factor into the work? You address some of this, in relation to care, on p. 7. I would recommend more on this earlier in the text.

We added text to the introduction to contextualise more explicitly how we planned the sessions. You will see this throughout the additional text, which is indicated in red. We have also added a paragraph in the introduction on affirmative ethics as a way of considering the ethical dynamics of our investigation (see lines: 75-84 and 652 onwards). 

6.     Towards the end of p.5, the article suggests that the blurring of bodily boundaries (without the use of string) would have been lost. This could be explored in more detail perhaps. How does the tension felt through the string not remind or reinforce one of their individual bodily boundaries? Is there more to be made of the transfer of kinetic energy through the string and the introduction of shared tension that served to connect? But to what extent does the string blur these boundaries? This point could be made more clearly. Consider the vignette on p. 6 ‘Move far from everyone / Be alone / Observe / Then close […] Help her / That string might be hurting her skin’ – does this not reinforce the idea of bounded bodies and separate entities?

This is addressed from line 371 onwards, and more explicitly around the stringing embodying dynamic from line 538 too.

7.     In section ‘4. Discussion’, you claim ‘there was a palpable sense that these bodily boundaries had become entangled, becoming blurred.’ I am not convinced your paper clearly demonstrates that. I get a strong sense that through play and an entanglement with string, you came to feel more comfortable about your individual body in relation to that of the group, and that you experienced connection through the string. But I do not get a clear sense that bodily boundaries were blurred and that bodies, themselves, became blurred and entangled.

We have addressed this further in the “Doing” section of the article, see lines 371.

8.     The string seems crucial to the experience of the collective body. Therefore, I am very interested by the potentiality of the string, or the detachment of the string from the collective body once it ends up in the centre of the space at the end of the session. Had boundaries been blurred, and space-making occurred, to any level that it could be argued parts of the collective body remained on and in the space/string?

-8 This has now been addressed in the Discussion section of the paper, see line 538 onward.

Thank you again for your considered response. We enjoyed further development and integration of your comments.

Best wishes, Seeders.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an ambitious and engaging article.  It is innovative in its form and content. I have written a number of comments on the attached document, that I think will help in the process of revision. 

The paper has the potential to influence the nature of scholarship in the field of practice-based research. However, at the moment, I don't get a clear sense of who this article is for, or of the problem the research seeks to address.  I suggest the authors state what problem they were trying to solve in developing their research more clearly/simply - perhaps pointing towards specific beneficiaries. What are readers meant to do with this research? How might they implement its findings in their own practice or research. 

The writing is mostly clear. However, I think the authors could do more to evidence their claims. At the moment, the auto-ethnographic reflections are quite separate from the discussion of critical ideas. I wondered if these could be interwoven, so that a clearer relationship between critical claims and reflective experience could be developed. 

The discussion is engaging and thought provoking; however, I sometimes felt that critical frameworks were left underdeveloped. It sometimes felt like authors were picking and choosing critical perspectives as it suited them, rather than using the reflective accounts to evidence/interrogate the validity of the critical literature (and vice versa).  (See comments on attached doc.)  I also thought that the use of the term 'body' needed to be introduced in more detail earlier in the article. What is a body? What is collective body? How do definitions of embodiment inform the social interaction/praxis employed in the project?  

I would have liked to see an account of the ethical framework developed for shaping the workshop and gathering reflections. A short account of how the paper was collectively authored would be useful.  (And maybe interesting in relation to the broader discussion of the article.)

This article has very strong potential for shaping practice and scholarship in practice research in the humanities. I think it would be inspiring for PGRs to read. However, I think the article needs a bit more scaffolding and a clearer approach to evidencing claims through collective personal reflection.  Most importantly,  I wanted a clearer sense of how the findings might be implemented in other research contexts. The abstract and conclusion should state the problem addressed by the research and the value of the findings. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your considered and thorough review. We spent some time reflecting on the points you have made, and have input amendments that we hope effectively respond to your feedback. We have listed in bullets for clarity:

Comment 1:        The paper has the potential to influence the nature of scholarship in the field of practice-based research. However, at the moment, I don't get a clear sense of who this article is for, or of the problem the research seeks to address.  I suggest the authors state what problem they were trying to solve in developing their research more clearly/simply - perhaps pointing towards specific beneficiaries. What are readers meant to do with this research? How might they implement its findings in their own practice or research.

We have more clearly articulated this in the re-written introduction section, see lines 101-108.

 Comment 2: The writing is mostly clear. However, I think the authors could do more to evidence their claims. At the moment, the auto-ethnographic reflections are quite separate from the discussion of critical ideas. I wondered if these could be interwoven, so that a clearer relationship between critical claims and reflective experience could be developed.

We have more clearly described the interweaving in of the autoethnographic reflections in the introduction of the text as well as re-order and change some of the reflection on this throughout the paper.

Comment 3: The discussion is engaging and thought provoking; however, I sometimes felt that critical frameworks were left underdeveloped. It sometimes felt like authors were picking and choosing critical perspectives as it suited them, rather than using the reflective accounts to evidence/interrogate the validity of the critical literature (and vice versa).  (See comments on attached doc.)  I also thought that the use of the term 'body' needed to be introduced in more detail earlier in the article. What is a body? What is collective body? How do definitions of embodiment inform the social interaction/praxis employed in the project? 

We have addressed this in much more depth throughout the paper. The critical frameworks are mapped out in the introduction section and woven throughout the paper. The questions of “what is a body? What is a collective body?” are considered specifically in the paragraph starting at line 52 and 372.  

 Comment 4: I would have liked to see an account of the ethical framework developed for shaping the workshop and gathering reflections. A short account of how the paper was collectively authored would be useful.  (And maybe interesting in relation to the broader discussion of the article.)

 We have added a paragraph in the introduction on affirmative ethics as a way of considering the ethical dynamics of our see lines 75-84 and 652 onwards. A short account of our writing process is provided in lines 593-599.

Comment 5: This article has very strong potential for shaping practice and scholarship in practice research in the humanities. I think it would be inspiring for PGRs to read. However, I think the article needs a bit more scaffolding and a clearer approach to evidencing claims through collective personal reflection.  Most importantly,  I wanted a clearer sense of how the findings might be implemented in other research contexts. The abstract and conclusion should state the problem addressed by the research and the value of the findings.

 We have addressed this through suggesting our intended audience in the introduction (lines 101-108) and conclusion (see the additional text in last paragraph).

Thank you again for your considered response. We enjoyed further development and integration of your comments.

Best wishes, Seeders.

Reviewer 3 Report

I love the essay, it is very original in its structure. I read it as a dialogue between a collective of bodies, and the writing in italics invite multiple voices to be part of the conversation. 

My suggestions are so straightforward:

-Abstract should be more specific and introducing the case study

- Especially in the first three pages, assume that the reader knows nothing about your work in the group, write a thick description about who are the people in the group? how many of them are there? what is their age group? what are their detailed backgrounds? how did they come together? how did they know each other? how often did they meet? where did they meet? How many times did they meet..etc..

- I loved the italics insertion, think about another way to introduce different voices in addition to italics, (different fonts, different spacing, different size..ect)

- I want to hear more about where the group is now in the conclusion, what is happening to them? where are they? what happen when the body leaves AND leave a writing trace, a picture trace..etc. 

Author Response

Comment 1: Abstract should be more specific and introducing the case study

We have added to the abstract to create more clarity about what the article offers. We have also indicated this article as a case study (see line 119).

Comment 2: Especially in the first three pages, assume that the reader knows nothing about your work in the group, write a thick description about who are the people in the group? how many of them are there? what is their age group? what are their detailed backgrounds? how did they come together? how did they know each other? how often did they meet? where did they meet? How many times did they meet..etc..- I loved the italics insertion, think about another way to introduce different voices in addition to italics, (different fonts, different spacing, different size..ect)

 We agreed that minimising the intersectional identities enables the collective dynamic to feel stronger in this article. This is an ongoing praxis for our work. We will continue to consider how/when it is necessary to include, in more detail, the individuals in relation to the collective. To create more clarity, we have noted this intention to the reader more explicitly in the re-written introduction. This is also why we didn’t differentiate in the italic reflections- our intention is to diffuse individuals into a collective voice (See lines 118-127, and in the addition to the conclusion).

Comment 3: I want to hear more about where the group is now in the conclusion, what is happening to them? where are they? what happen when the body leaves AND leave a writing trace, a picture trace..etc.

The conclusion now goes some way to address this, in that we suggest the discursive nature of our meetings is what guides our outputs. We indicate an intention for future directions the research might take.

Thank you again for your considered response. We enjoyed further development and integration of your comments.

Best wishes, Seeders.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations on the considerable changes made to your paper. It is evident the level of work undertaken and the attention paid to detail. The contextual work is clearer and it is easier, for this reader, to follow the evolution of your praxis and the embodied experiences it produced. 

The attention to new materialism and collectivism as a response/rejection of neoliberalism strikes me as important. The connection to the development of pedagogies also seems of interest, however, this area is not sufficiently developed or fleshed out in the paper. I would recommend a minor tweak to either remove the focus on developing pedagogies for HE or providing necessary attention to this component in the body of the text or the conclusion. It would be possible to make the discoveries or the potential for this work more explicit in the conclusion. 

The sections that come at the bottom of page 2 (final paragraph) and the top of page 3 (second full paragraph starting 'there are fifteen people...') feel incredibly important to providing the reader with necessary context for your work and who the collective we/body is. I would recommend moving this earlier in the paper and placing the two paragraphs immediately after one another. The paragraph that commences, 'This paper is written by and intended  for those.. (top of page 3) could come immediately after the description of who the we/collective/body is - after the paragraph on p. 3 that commences 'It is important to note, therefore, that in this paper we...'

Consider the use of tense on page six, specifically regarding use of 'pass' the string. Should it be passes? 

I wonder if it is possible to consider how this work advances the arguments presented by Haraway and the cat's cradle? To what extent does this way of working, with these methodologies, differ from other types of group bonding activity or other types of collective group efforts? You make an important reference to the fact that the string served as a medium through which the embarrassment of physical touch and intimacy could be mitigated to a certain extent. To what extent could you develop this point to demonstrate the potential and necessity of the string? To what extent could you explore the limitations of this medium to the formation of one collective body? I think here of the connectivity of bodies linked together in chain gangs, or the scrum in rugby, human towers in gymnastic displays, the wall in football, or examples from playground games (specifically games like Horse in the South Korean context) where physical connectivity leads to groups of individuals moving and thinking as 'one' body. How might you place your praxis in the context of similar embodied forms of knowledge/working to demonstrate the originality and significance of your work?

The revisions better articulate the ebb and flow between individual experiences and the collective experience. However, I am left unconvinced by some of your conclusions. Specifically, I am not convinced that the statements made about how the string cut through post-colonial residue or resisting patriarchal structures are fully explored in the body of the article. There is a slight danger that the conclusion of the paper suggests that the movement facilitated by the string was both neutral and egalitarian, that it originated organically and either without an explicit set of politics or deliberately as an activist practice. However, I am not convinced these points are successfully evidenced or explored in the paper. It would appear that there is something more nuanced and complex at play in how the string interacts with the individuals and the collective.   

There is real exciting potential in exploring the politics of the string-body/bodies relationship and how movement and embodied experience was instigated, how it flowed and how it was curtailed (the section on the knee injury and the passing reflection on disability discourse makes some effort to do this). This might provide very fertile ground from which to explore the political potential of a pedagogy built on establishing collective bodies. However, in its current form, the critical politics of the piece remain in need of greater development to strengthen the significance of the paper.   

The quality of English Language is solid. There are some minor areas in need of focus (listed in the comments above). 

Author Response

Hello,
Thank you again for your responses, these have given us a lot to think about both in the context of this article and also for approaches to future work. Though we were unable to explicitly address all of your points in this text, we hope that the following considerations show our critical navigation to considering your feedback. The additional text in the article have been highlighted in blue for your convenience.

Point 1: We have extracted the mention of pedagogies in recognition that this is an area that deserves more attention and consideration, which we look forward to working toward in future projects.

Point 2: We have made these corrections.

Points 3 and 4: For the reviewer: We have added some more developments on cat’s cradle in lines 373-383. This answers to the potential and necessity of the string. We have developed some limitations in the conclusion too. We have also removed some of the claims made about the ‘residue’ and have clarified where and in what ways this activity has offered a resistance to other structures. We don’t believe that we have suggested this activity is a neutral endeavour.  Though we appreciate the scope of potential in a comparative analysis on other one-body practices, we wish to keep the nature of this text light and limb-like, moving; we are oriented toward giving a embodied and sensorial account of a collective, affective and material praxis that is alive in the encounter. This is a praxis which also emerges from the process of collective writing and edit, as well as in the reader, through the process of reading the text, which is important. In other words, our intention is to use this text as a rehearsal for practice-based-research writing that is grounded in the aliveness of collective praxis — evidence of an assemblage of the sensory and the embodied.

We have added the above text into the article for the reader (lines 135) but thought it was worth articulating here too. We believe that this acknowledges the purpose of the text as not needing to be situated in comparison to other bodies, for now. The limitations hopefully match the critical recognitions of this purpose. We hope that our additions satisfactorily respond to your observations and within themselves, offer a critical positioning of the role of the text in this practice. 

Point 5: We have started to touch on these considerations but the scope of this paper is interested in establishing a methodology for working together in a materially centred dynamic. The critical politics of the paper are situated in the relationship between bodies and material agencies as a starting point for our collective engagement. We feel that the paper is sufficiently critically rigorous at this point; however, we value and recognise the points raised by the reviewer and see these as future trajectories of the group. We have established these considerations in the conclusion to make this clearer for the reader.

Thank you again for your considerations and thought-provoking review.

With best wishes,

Seeders