The reproducibility of experiments and their results is one of the most powerful cornerstones in natural science research. Undoubtedly, such experimental activities have produced significant progress in a variety of fields. The link between, on the one hand, technological advances and, on the other hand, their origin from knowledge obtained through reproducible experiments, has contributed to objectivity and truth claims of natural science. However, already 100 years ago Niels Bohr stated that ‘we are part of that nature we seek to understand’ (quoted in Barad 2007: p. 26), and thus highlights that the researcher and her interpretation of what is observed cannot be separated from the 'phenomenon' that constitutes the result. Similarly, Sandra Harding (1992) argues for, what she calls, strong objectivity within which researcher’s bias are included, in contrast to a supposed value-neutral objectivity. In qualitative research in general, the researcher's inherent bias is usually handled in no other way than based on a positioning in the theoretical framework of the conducted research. But, that is not enough. In an ongoing research project, we investigate how high school and university students, teachers and their intra-actions (Barad 2007) with each other and material equipment are understood in relation to gender and moreover, how emotions affect handling during experimental activities. Empirical collection includes observations and interviews. In order for us researchers to be made aware of our pre-understandings and values in relation to our research object and how this might affect our interpretations, we have interviewed each other about our experiences of laboratory work from school to higher studies and what feelings such activities gave rise to. We have analyzed the interviews using the theoretical framework diffractive reading (Barad 2007, 2014). The analysis contribute s to making our respective subject positions visible, whose similarities and differences become important knowledge when analyzing and interpreting our data material. The approach during the diffractive analysis and some of the results will be presented during the symposium.

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. London: Duke University Press. Barad, K. (2014). Diffracting diffraction: Cutting together-apart. Parallax, 20(3), 168–187. doi:10.1080/13534645.2014.927623 Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is strong objectivity? The Centennial Review, Vol. 36, No. 3 (FALL 1992), pp. 437-470