As the project developed, my engagement with theory became less about identifying frameworks to apply to collegial feedback practices and more about clarifying my epistemological position. In effect, how knowledge is understood, produced and justified within reflexive qualitative research. One theoretical influence was rhizomatic thinking.
My tutor suggested I look at Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizomatic theory in A Thousand Plateaus (1987), and after a quick search, I assumed it was because my project focused on non-hierarchical forms of learning and support. At a rudimentary comprehension (queried via ChatGPT), the rhizome felt like a convenient metaphor for regenerative peer-to-peer feedback – i.e., relational learning, no single point of authority and distributed leadership. In contrast, Deleuze’s description of the “arborescent” model, which is rooted, hierarchical and replicative, can be likened to more traditional line-management feedback structures, which I experienced as siloed and static rather than relational and developmental [1].
My first actual encounter with A Thousand Plateaus felt awful. I struggled with its lack of precision and heavy reliance on metaphor, initially interpreting this as unnecessary abstraction. It was only later, through serendipitous discussion with a friend whose doctoral research happened to focus on Deleuze, that I began to understand rhizomatic thinking less as a descriptive metaphor and more as an epistemological position meant to offer an alternative to positivism.
From this perspective, rhizomatic theory resists the idea that knowledge is objective, stable and fully knowable from a single frame of reference. Instead, knowledge is relational, partial and always in the process of becoming. Understanding emerges through building connections rather than through linear accumulation. This aligns with feminist and post-positivist critiques of objectivity, particularly Donna Haraway’s argument that all knowledge is “situated”, partial and produced from specific embodied positions rather than from a neutral or universal standpoint. Partiality, in this sense, is not a weakness but an epistemic condition (Haraway, 1988). This shift helped me articulate why reflexive qualitative analysis in particular cannot and should not aim for replication or definitive closure in the same way as positivist approaches.
This epistemological stance aligns closely with reflexive thematic analysis, which does not treat themes as inherent properties of data waiting to be uncovered. Rather, themes are constructed through the researcher’s engagement with the data, shaped by their positionality, judgement and interpretive decisions (Braun & Clarke, 2022). In this sense, qualitative analysis can be understood as an assemblage in the Deleuzian sense: a multiplicity of connections between data, researcher, theory and context, brought together to make sense of complexity. Assemblage here is not a fixed structure, but an ongoing process of connection and reconfiguration.
Rhizomatic thinking also offered a way to conceptualise professional and personal growth as relational rather than individual. Becoming, in this sense, is not something that happens in isolation but through connection with others. This has implications for how courses and institutions might support collegial learning: rather than directing development through hierarchical channels, they might focus on creating conditions that enable connections to form and multiply – a rhizome “ceaselessly establishing connections” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 28) across people, practices and ideas. This relational framing resonates with dialogic traditions in critical pedagogy, particularly conceptions of learning as co-intentional and grounded in dialogue rather than transmission (Freire, 1970). It also aligns with social theories of learning that position learning as participation rather than acquisition. In higher education contexts, Wenger’s concept of communities of practice is useful for understanding learning as emerging through shared practice, mutual engagement and evolving relationships (Wenger, 1998).
Concepts such as deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) further support this way of thinking, not as outcomes of this project but as conceptual possibilities. A shift in how collegial partnerships are recognised or valued by the university, for example, could disrupt or deterritorialse existing relational practices and allow new ones to stabilise or reterritorialise over time.
Finally, I came to understand Deleuze’s use of metaphor not as a pompous intellectual flex, but as a deliberate resistance to positivist epistemology. Metaphor is inexact by design: it requires interpretation, invites multiple readings and resists singular answers. In this way, rhizomatic thinking mirrors reflexive qualitative analysis itself — knowledge is not about being “right”, but about constructing interpretations that are well-reasoned, transparent and open to revision.
Footnotes
[1] This sentiment was also expressed in future participant interviews.
Bibliography
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2022) Thematic Analysis: A practical guide. London: SAGE.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Translated by B. Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Haraway, D. (1988) ‘Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective’, Feminist Studies, 14(3), pp. 575–599.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.