Profiles

Lena Aronsson. Foto: Niklas Björling/Stockholms universitet.

Lena Aronsson

Doktorand

Visa sidan på svenska
Works at Department of Child and Youth Studies
Telephone 08-120 762 82
Email lena.aronsson@buv.su.se
Visiting address Svante Arrhenius väg 21A
Room 329
Postal address Barn- och ungdomsvetenskapliga institutionen 106 91 Stockholm

About me

Doctoral student

Section for Early Childhood Education

Research

Doctoral project

Research project: Doctoral project Lena Aronsson

Supervisor: Hillevi Lenz Taguchi
Supervisor: Annika Andersson, PhD, Lunds university/Humanities Lab​

Research area: Early Childhood Education

Publications

Aronsson, L. (2006). Bedömning i förskolan. I: Olofsson, M. (red.) Symposium 2006 - Bedömning, flerspråkighet och lärande. Stockholm: HLS Förlag.

Aronsson, L. (2016). Min sjukdom är fler än en, men färre än många: Att följa Annemarie Mols begrepp multipla verkligheter genom olika praktiker som gör och uppför sjukdom. Tidskrift för Genusvetenskap, 37(3), 114-126.

Aronsson, L., & Lenz Taguchi, H. (2018). Mapping a collaborative cartography of the encounters between the neurosciences and early childhood education practices. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 39(2), 242-257.

Aronsson, L. (2018). Transversality by text-messaging, co-creating skateboards and using a destabilising grammar in writing. Murmurations: Journal of Transformative Systemic Practice, 1(2), 80-95.

Publications

A selection from Stockholm University publication database
  • 2019. Lena Aronsson. Policy Futures in Education

    Connecting neuroscience and education is a desire in contemporary society, related to the recur- ring calls for education to become more evidence-based. Research in educational neuroscience strives towards such interdisciplinary knowledge production and to an enhanced interaction between neuroscience research and educational practice. However, various problems and difficul- ties in achieving these collaborations are often reported. Discrepancies, hierarchies, misconcep- tions and communication problems can be described as creating a ‘discourse of difficulty’. The aim of this paper is to trace the specific difficulties that have created this discourse, and to problematize these difficulties in ways that enable new conceptions of what might be entailed by interaction and mutual knowledge development between the fields of neuroscience and education, and between academic theory and educational practice. The most significant difficulty is caused by a binary understanding of the concept of difference in relation to understanding the fields. Instead of understanding the fields in opposition to each other, I will suggest an understanding that implies difference emerging in each of the collaborating fields as the self-differing effects of the encounter. In the concluding discussion, I will argue that an understanding of the concept of difference as a process of mutual transformation can be essential for reciprocity and bi-directionality in collabo- rations. Instead of producing contradictions and hierarchies between scientific fields and between theory and practice, such an understanding of difference might facilitate an investigation of the polarizations that always position something as of lesser value, and ultimately, creates the gaps that collaborations want to bridge.

  • 2018. Lena Aronsson, Hillevi Lenz Taguchi. Discourse. Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 39 (2), 242-257

    This paper takes its starting point in a shared problem of concern, formulated in terms of what might be produced – or not – as effects of encounters between neuroscientific research and preschool practices. The aim is to show what emerged in collaborative encounters, in what is theorized and practised as Deleuzo–Guattarian-inspired cartography mapping exercises. During regularly scheduled staff ‘reflection meetings’, an invited doctoral student enacted, participated, and documented these encounters with preschool staff at three preschools in the same area outside Stockholm, Sweden. Two major lines of articulation, converging around a core problem, were collaboratively constructed and put on this ‘map’. These were then actively put to play to be disrupted and deterritorialized, making ways for new diverging lines and potential reconfigured forms of literacy practices.

  • 2018. Lena Aronsson.

    Starting from Deleuze and Guattari‘s remark that concepts are unstable and moving assemblages of components, producing rather than representing, this article asks what the concept of transversal/-ity might be and do. The question originated from a doctoral course on Deleuzian research methodologies and transversal writing, and is basically the way I, as a confused first-year doctoral student, tried to grasp the concept. In this paper, I return to and reuse my notes from the course and a text message conversation with a colleague in which we experimented with the transversality concept in order to compose a meaningful account. By putting to work a grammatical investigation of the concept of transversality, I ask what it is, what it can be, and what it will do. Guided by a destabilising grammar, the possible practices of transversality are unfolded from the co-constitution of my notes and various texts, events, and phenomena. Finally, I reflect upon the usefulness of this exercise, in relation to the aim of composing a meaningful account and the obligation to justify scientific knowledge pro duction. These practices of destabilising by grammar, connecting texts and experiences, and reflecting on meaning-making are both the methodology of the paper and, at the same time, the result. Hence, research processes can sometimes be vague and uncertain, but still worth a try.

  • 2016. Lena Aronsson. Tidskrift för Genusvetenskap 37 (3), 115-126

    What is a disease? Can we name it in a coherent way, precisely defined and is it only one? Or is the disease as many as those who are ill, or all of the practices where it appears? A few years ago I was diagnosed with autoimmune hepatitis, which could be a rather serious illness. I experienced bodily changes, had alarming liver values and got side effects from medication, but - ill? To handle the discrepancy, I tried to keep apart "having a serious illness" and "being sick".

    Drawing on Mol's concept Multiple Realities I describe how the disease is performed in various practices and my attempts to become comprehensible when coordinating these practices. At the clinic, in the laboratory, in treatment and in my body the disease is enacted as simultaneous versions. It is not the same disease although it has the same name. One version is available as numerical values in a diagram, in another as questions from a doctor to a patient or as text on a web page. The bodily version is almost invisible to me, but is related to gender, class and other categorizations - that affect relationships and interpretations in all practices. The different versions of the disease consists of human and non-human actors; not just me and the doctor but also tablets, conversations, syringes, computers, edema and compression stockings, Thus, reality does not exist in advance.

    With my disease as an example I discuss what multiple versions of reality can offer beyond what multiple perspectives on the same reality can. Moving away from structures and discursive perspectives to reality as multiple enacted versions, there will be less importance in agreeing on understanding or interpretation. Instead we focus on coordinating, informing and intervening. 

Show all publications by Lena Aronsson at Stockholm University

Last updated: September 3, 2019

Bookmark and share Tell a friend