Missing Middles: Toward a Feminist New Materialist Approach for Understanding Intergenerational Inter/Intra-Action

ABSTRACT Intergenerational programs challenge separations of age and difference. Re-turning data of preschool children and care home residents playing with playdoh together during an intergenerational program, this paper uses Barad’s agential realism to expand who, and crucially what, is involved in reconciling differences between generations. Turning the playdoh episode over and over, the people and things in-between ‘young’ and ‘old,’ in the middle, but missing from my original analysis are brought to the surface. I term these missing middles and argue that (re)attending to excluded aspects of intergenerational inter/intra-action is made possible through a feminist new materialist lens.

the idea that agency belongs to, or resides within, individual humans.Instead, agency is conceived as materializing through relations between human, nonhuman, material, and discursive aspects of the world.For feminist new materialists, such as Barad, emphasis on co-constituted agency expands who, and more specifically what, can be considered agentic.This has been coined a 'turn to matter' (Fox & Alldred, ,2019, p. 1).Rather than thinking about humans as separate, bounded, and autonomous, the relational ontology of these perspectives understands humans are entangled in, and co-constituted through, relations with other humans and things (Tudor & Barraclough, 2022).Given intergenerational practice also aims to disrupt separations (between humans of different ages) by emphasizing relations, this move away from atomized human subjects toward humannonhuman interconnectedness seems a suitable theoretical development.Barad's (2007) agential realism and associated diffractive methodology, explained further below, also recognize research practices shape the conditions of possibility for knowledge production.As a result, posthuman and feminist new materialist inquiry not only provides an alternative way to think about intergenerational programs by considering how entangled human and nonhuman processes constitute relations, but also for thinking about how intergenerational programs are researched.The following section elaborates on these two contributions by considering what this approach adds to current knowledge of intergenerational practice.

Taking a posthuman turn: What this adds
Proponents of posthuman theory acknowledge that privileging a certain understanding of the human can have exclusionary consequences (Truman, 2019).Age is one such category of exclusion which may be further explored within posthuman (Murris, 2021), and intergenerational research (Heydon, 2019).As Murris (2021, p. 63) explains, where dependency is considered in negative terms, children are seen as lesser than "fully human," competent adults.Similarly, older adults may be considered in a state of decline from middle adulthood (Ingold, 2020).Humanist intergenerational research risks reinforcing these assumptions by focusing exclusively on human participants and considering agency as possessed (to varying degrees) by individuals.As Heydon (2019) suggests, notions of participants' capacity are based on age, neoliberal ideals of productivity in early and later life, and developmental appropriateness.This extends to a dominance of developmental and a critical theories within intergenerational research.Yet, they argue, intergenerational practice, "can challenge taken-forgranted notions of human development." (p. 66).The logic of disrupting agerelated notions of competency and agency underpinning both posthumanism and intergenerational practice means they are compatible.
One example of this compatibility is Quinn and Blandon's (2020) posthuman analysis of an intergenerational music program involving preschool children and people living with dementia.Drawing on feminist new materialist scholarship, Quinn and Blandon (2020) critique the association of dementia with loss (of memory, capacity, or personhood) and validate the actions of people living with dementia by attending to their engagement with materiality.An example of this was an intergenerational encounter involving 'Greg,' a participant living with dementia, and a musical conducting baton.In combination with the music and joyful atmosphere, the baton animated Greg to dance around the room whilst he directed the group of residents and children playing instruments.For Quinn and Blandon (2020), acknowledging that material aspects of the interaction can "make things happen" (p.70) powerfully conveyed the possibilities for intergenerational learning "that exists in, with and through dementia" (p.78).This echoes the growing use of posthumanism within critical gerontology to explore material and affective aspects of aging (Andrews & Duff, 2019).This perspective is also particularly significant because, although unintentional, the desire for intergenerational practice to evidence outcomes for children and older adults may well reaffirm notions of lack or decline by insinuating they are in need of development or improvement.
Current intergenerational research gives precedence to participant outcomes, such as improved wellbeing, learning, cognitive function, and attitude development, among others (Martins et al., 2019), including for people living with dementia (Galbraith et al., 2015;Gerritzen et al., 2019).However, there is space for intergenerational research to consider the processes enabling relations between those described as 'young' and 'old.'As Melville and Hatton-Yeo (2015) contend: Evaluation data often focus on outcomes without attention to the nature of interactions between generations and have ignored more fundamental questions pertaining to whether, and how, participants interact.(p.54) Shifting focus onto processes also highlights how outcome-oriented research tends to compartmentalize participants based on age (Mannion, 2016;Vanderbeck, 2007).Although this has practical uses within research, separating outcomes by age upholds the very generational binary of young/old which intergenerational practice serves to de-emphasize.Recent intergenerational research has started to account for this by adopting multi-generational approaches (L.K. Jenkins et al., 2021); exploring the influence of practitioners (Jarrott et al., 2021); and considering the importance of the environment (Kaplan et al., 2020).These approaches have expanded the field of view beyond 'young' and 'old.' Nonetheless, the tendency to consider practitioners, carers and the material environment as components outside the intergenerational relationship, facilitating participant outcomes, overlooks their relationality.As Sánchez et al. (2010) point out: It is the relationship (inter), not the subject (generation), that really matters here.Individuals participate in intergenerational relationships; however, they are not the nucleus in these relationships; the real essence is between individuals, but not when each one of them is separately considered.Here, a change of paradigm is needed.(p. 132) This paper argues that adopting a posthuman/ feminist new materialist perspective enables this change of paradigm and has the potential to collapse the separation between young/old within intergenerational research (Heydon, 2019).Barad's (2007) agential realist reconceptualization of agency as intra-active may be particularly useful.Rautio (2013Rautio ( , 2014) employs Barad's (2007) concept of intra-activity to suggest children and things co-emerge in and through their relations.Rather than children and things interacting -affecting each other in turn - Rautio (2014, pp. 461, 469) revealed "criss-crossing encounters" between spinning plastic box lids and similarly spinning children, which "mingled" with and "imitated" one another.These "momentary blurrings" (p.470) of child-matter revealed how human and non-human continually coconstituted each other through their entanglement.For Barad (2007), an entanglement is not merely the intertwining or linking of separate entities but a dynamic set of changing relations through which boundaries and properties are continually reconfigured.In this way, intra-active entanglements are de-individualized spaces in which agency is distributed across things and humans as they invite each other into play (Rautio, 2014).This divorces agency from something individuals and things have or do not have -whether it be child, older adult living with dementia, conducting baton or plastic box lid.
Additionally, for Barad (2007), even when things and humans, such as spinning children and plastic box lids, or Greg and a conducting baton, appear separate, they are in connection through the intra-action.This means they are never absolutely independent of one another.Instead, Barad (2007) describes the appearance of difference as an agential separation or cut, which enacts boundaries between things within the intra-active entanglement.As a result, an agential realist perspective concentrates on how differences (agential separations/ cuts) are made and remade in ways that matter (Barad, 2007).Intra-activity, therefore, is a term used to a) conceive of everything as always in relation and b) to reveal relationality as an enactment -an on-going (re) making of specific boundaries and properties.
If difference(s) are enacted within the intra-action (Barad, 2007), this provides possibilities for considering generational difference differently.For example, Martens (2016) highlights how generational categorizations emerge in material-discursive ways within intergenerational intra-actions.Exploring learning and care in an intergenerational family rock pooling outing, Martens (2016) noted the inseparability of matter and meaning in the ways that the material configuration of water level and rocks, and discussions about the tide, co-constituted distinctions between child/parent and learner/knower.This "focus on processes and practices" by which age differences come to matter (Martens, 2016, p. 449), reveals the theoretical potential of agential realism for concentrating intergenerational research on (material-discursive) aspects between generations, as Sánchez et al. (2010, p. 132) suggested, as well as considering how intergenerational inter/intra-actions happen, responding to Melville and Hatton-Yeo (2015).
In summary, taking a posthuman turn addresses Kuehne and Melville's (2014) call for feminist, critical and relational theory by: a) addressing unwarranted prior assumptions about age and agency that presume children and older adults' deficiency; b) overcoming a focus on outcomes at the expense of processes, c) intra-actively entangling, rather than compartmentalizing, aspects of intergenerational interaction to relationally attend to that which is excluded, and d) collapsing separations between young/old, human/nonhuman, matter/discourse to reconsider generational difference.However, the use of posthuman and feminist new materialist theory is still rare (Quinn & Blandon, 2020) and, as far as I am aware, confined to studies of intergenerational learning (see also, Burke et al., 2021;Heydon & Davies, 2019;Mannion, 2020;Mannion & Gilbert, 2015).As such, the re-analysis presented below further explores Karen Barad's agential realism to account for the people and things in-between generations often missing from humanist and outcomeoriented research -the missing middles.
The following section outlines the original methodological approach I used to generate data of intergenerational play with playdoh, as well as the diffractive approach I use here to re-turn the data from an agential realist perspective (Barad, 2014).Re-turning the data does not simply reanalyze the playdoh encounter but enfolds original and agential realist analyses through one another to create a different, "thicker" understanding (Murris & Zhao, 2022, p. 112).

Original data collection and analysis
The data presented below was produced as part of my MSc research observing an intergenerational program in the Southwest of England during June and July 2019.The intergenerational program involved preschool children visiting care home residents living with dementia on a weekly basis.A typical visit lasted one hour and involved six to eight children and around five residents interacting during an organized activity, either in small groups or all together.Activities included playing with balloons or musical instruments, modeling playdoh, decorating biscuits, completing puzzles, and singing songs.
The aim of the original research was to explore the potential benefits for the preschool children.Research questions included: • How do preschool children experience the intergenerational program?
• What potential benefits are associated with preschool children's participation?
• What factors are perceived to help or hinder preschool children receiving benefits?
I observed ten intergenerational sessions, during which I wrote fieldnotes that were translated into vignettes, ranging between 250-1000 words each (n = 22).
Vignettes are story-like episodes which describe events in rich, descriptive detail (Fawcett & Watson, 2016).I produced vignettes of interactions which caught my attention or seemed significant for answering the research questions.Following the observations, I conducted group interviews with 11 of the 13 children whose parents had provided consent.Two children chose not to take part.Children were invited to 'take a journey on the Magic carpet,' a colorful rug placed in a quiet area of the preschool classroom and were shown a series of pictures of the route we walked to the care home.After guessing the destination, the children drew pictures about 'what happens here.'Responding to their drawings, I asked open-ended questions about their visits to the care home and the older people they'd met there.This adapted the 'Magic Carpet' activity from Clark and Moss (2005) Mosaic approach which enables children to communicate in various ways about being in a place.This data was supplemented by semi-structured interviews with three preschool staff and one volunteer, and survey responses from four parents which asked open-end questions about children's experiences and perceived benefits (see anonymized participant information in Table 1).Ethical approval was given by the University of Bristol School for Policy Studies.Alongside parental consent, consent was given by preschool and care home staff, and ten residents living with dementia following the guidance of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).This involved producing accessible information sheets, verbally explaining the research, and working with carers to engage residents appropriately (British Psychological Society, 2020).I also (re)established verbal assent from the children and residents upon each visit and monitored non-verbal cues regarding willingness to participate throughout (Dockett & Perry, 2011).Originally, the data was thematically analyzed using a realist interpretivist perspective.Aspects of this original analysis are presented below alongside an agential realist re-turning of the data (Barad, 2014).

Re-turning the data
Re-turning data requires a diffractive approach (Barad, 2014).Like ripples on a pond which amplify as they overlap, a diffractive approach overlaps ideas, disciplines, or modes of analysis to amplify their effects (Bozalek & Zembylas, 2017).In this way, diffractively re-turning the intergenerational event enables different patterns (of research knowledge) to emerge (Barad, 2014), with "each turn of the [analytical] kaleidoscope" (Ulmer, 2016(Ulmer, , p. 1382)).
The vignette re-turned below, named 'Playdoh Cookies,' tells of an event toward the end of the two-month observation period which involved children, residents and staff playing with playdoh.This vignette was chosen by virtue of its "glow"; its ability "to grasp us . . .[to] exert a kind of fascination and have a capacity to animate further thought' (MacLure, 2013, p. 228).The 'Playdoh cookies' vignette had become the story of my research.As I told it over and over again, the influence of practitioners and things in-between, in the middle of the children and residents became more evident.Yet, they were uncomfortably missing from my original analysis.As a result, this re-analysis was not merely about returning to the playdoh event and overwriting the original analysis, but about re-turning it (Barad, 2014) -turning it over and over to bring those missing middles to the surface.For Barad (2014, p. 184), diffractive re-turnings are about disrupting the linearity of knowledge-making practices and so I intentionally "start out in the middle" -both in terms of advancing from/with the original analysis and in bringing the focus to that which is inbetween.As a result, the re-turning presented below asked: • How do human and nonhuman things intra-actively co-constitute intergenerational relations within the 'Playdoh cookies' event?
• In what ways are (generational) differences made to matter?

Observational vignette: playdoh cookies
In the vignette below, preschool children (Grace, Harry and Oliver), residents living with dementia (Owen and Henry) and staff (Lauren, Hazel and Frankie) play with, or disrupt the play with, playdoh.The scene unfolded as follows: Lauren tips out playdoh onto a coffee table placed in the middle of three armchairs, two of which are occupied by residents Owen and Henry.Grace, Harry and Oliver find free spots around the table and Hazel comes to help, sitting in the vacant armchair as the playdoh is distributed.The children play happily, using the tools to make shapes with the playdoh and then scrunching it up and starting again.Facilitating the interaction Hazel gets up to bring Owen's chair closer into the table and places a ball of green playdoh in his hands.She opens and closes his fingers so that he can feel the sensation of the playdoh.Grace and Harry, who are stood either side of Owen's chair, watch Hazel intently as she does this.Hazel sits back in the armchair and the children return their attention back to their playdoh.Harry asserts proudly to the group that he has made cookies and lofts a circular shaped piece of playdoh into the air to display it.Oliver has made a football and tries to roll it across the table to Grace, unsuccessfully.There is laughter and smiling.
The mood quickly shifts as Hazel notices Owen is chewing.Hazel realizes he must be eating the playdoh and calls the care home activity coordinator, Frankie.The concerned tone of Hazel's voice alerts the children and they fall silent, staring at Owen.The children watch, frozen, as Frankie's hand cups Owen's chin and they encourage him to spit it out.Owen spits out the playdoh and Frankie takes it away.There is a relaxing of the atmosphere.Owen apologizes profusely to the children, particularly to Harry, who acknowledges Owen's speech by making eye contact and giving a reassuring smile.Hazel also reassures Owen, suggesting that it is ok that he was confused.At this point I wonder, had Owen thought he was eating Harry's cookies?(Observation, 15/07/2019) Initially, this activity developed as expected.The playdoh is familiar to the children and once distributed across the table, it is worked creatively into different shapes.The play is disrupted by Owen eating the playdoh.Owen's behavior is considered the result of his dementia.
In what follows I consider aspects of analysis through the original lens of Generational Intelligence (GI) (Biggs & Lowenstein, 2011) and Barad's (2007) agential realism.I juxtapose these theories through three thematic headings: 1) Practices of knowing, 2) Generational difference and 3) Dementia diffracted.I refer to these as cuttings to highlight the activity involved in "cutting apart and piecing together" (Ulmer, 2016(Ulmer, , p. 1383) ) data and theory in the original and re-turned analyses.

Cutting 1: practices of knowing
Knowledge of ab/normal play matters within the playdoh event.Using an interpretivist approach, the original analysis put to work the notion of Generational Intelligence (Biggs & Lowenstein, 2011).GI makes a distinction between intelligence, as in information preexisting or acquired through the interaction -such as children's knowledge of how to play with (and not eat) playdoh -and an ability to act intelligently within the intergenerational space by taking into account the perspective of someone from another generation/age.The children's response to Owen of quiet concern and attentiveness may be interpreted as awareness of the residents' different generational position and an ability to react knowingly toward Owen as a result.The concept of GI enables knowledge of a generational other to be considered as a potential outcome for children.However, Barad (2007) suggests knowing is distributed rather than bound to the individual human.Knowledge, like agency, is not something individuals, such as children, have or do not have but is part of the ongoing materialization of the world.
An agential realist account of intelligibility considers knowing as an intraactive practice in which humans and nonhumans are engaged (Barad, 2007).Thinking about intelligibility as a practice of knowing, unbound from the human mind, considers the ongoing articulation of age and knowledge positions within the entanglement of bodies, playdoh and 'ab/normal' play (Martens, 2016).For instance, as Lauren, the preschool staff member, splits the playdoh between the children, she brings children's bodies into the play whilst leaving the residents both physically (materially) and symbolically (discursively) distant.However, she does not do this alone.The positioning of the coffee table, conveniently at children's height, the peripheral placement of armchairs and the material-discursive association of playdoh as a toya mass of colorful putty that children play with, but adults often do not -work in combination with Lauren to establish which generational bodies are involved in the play.
For Barad (2007), it is not enough to identify practices of knowing, the effects of these practices and how they matter must be accounted for.In this way, age-related boundaries between those who play with the playdoh and those who do not contradict the presumed intention of using playdoh as an allage activity.Practices of knowing matter for limiting the possibilities of the playdoh activity to be intergenerational.Whereas the use of GI in the original analysis assumed children's progress along a linear knowledge path from lowto-high GI, an agential realist perspective shows how play becomes intelligible through the dynamic practices of the staff, children, and residents; the arrangement of furniture and bodies; and age-related perceptions of playing with playdoh.Knowing/ learning is not a stable outcome, but a process of intergenerational intra-action that matters for constituting generational difference.

Cutting 2: generational difference
In the playdoh vignette, generational differences between the children and Owen are continually negotiated.Hazel manipulating the playdoh with Owen includes him and re-works the generational boundaries previously established.Boundaries are not fixed or absolute (Barad, 2007).As the playdoh was squashed through fingers, there were "momentary blurrings" between Hazel, Owen, the playdoh and their replication of the children's activity (Rautio, 2014, p. 470).As they mingled and imitated one another (Rautio, 2014), the activity became one both preschool children and people living with dementia could participate in: an activity disrupting generational difference.
Yet, in interview conversations with the children following the playdoh event, Oliver reflected on generational differences.
'they [older people] think they can eat playdoh' (Oliver, child) Additionally, Charlie's drawing of a goldfish and chocolate bar initiated a discussion about residents not being allowed to have chocolate: Researcher: Why not?Charlie: because they might eat the packet too Researcher: Why do you think that?
Charlie: because Owen ate some playdoh and he spitted it out.
From a GI perspective, recognition of generational difference is necessary for developing intergenerational relationships (Biggs & Lowenstein, 2011).Therefore, the children's initial reaction of concern, despite understanding Owen's behavior was "not allowed" (Oliver), demonstrated a degree of empathy toward Owen.If the children had acted with little GI, they would not have been able to reflect on their own position as different from Owen's and react empathetically by not pointing out the 'mistake' until after leaving the care home.The analysis focused on what the children did and said to determine the potential outcome of generational empathy (Hayes, 2003).
Missing from this original analysis though were the material-discursive practices which resisted and reestablished generational distinctions.For instance, the materiality of the playdoh allowed it to be shaped, broken up, chewed and spat out like food.In fact, playdoh is food; it is made of flour, water and food coloring.From an agential realist perspective, playdoh-ascookie is constituted through material-discursive practices whereby playdoh 'is' cookie/food (due to its malleable and edible properties) and is understood as cookie/food for Harry and (presumably) Owen.Playdoh-as-cookie is not simply imagined by Harry but enacted through being eaten.Playdoh-ascookie becomes intergenerational in the fractional moment when Harry and Owen play with playdoh-as-cookie together.In this way, acknowledging that relationships between children and older adults are mediated by materials gives a fuller account of intergenerational activity (Heydon & Davies, 2019).This also positively reframes Owen's behavior and deficit conceptions of dementia by considering the possibility for resident-playdoh-practitionerchild to "make things happen" (Quinn & Blandon, 2020, p. 70).Recognizing the intra-active entanglement of materials, children and adults in intergenerational practice, "repeals the binary between child and adult" and reignites capacity beyond the confines of age, able-bodied/minded-ness and (in)animacy (Heydon & Davies, 2019, p. 67).However, the materiality of the playdoh also provides possibilities for the playdoh-as-cookie to be intergenerationally separating.
As Hazel and Frankie intervene to make Owen spit out the playdoh, the reestablished boundary between the playdoh-as-cookie and playdoh-as-toy reconstitutes generational distinctions.Possibilities for intergenerational play within the intra-action "do not sit still" (Barad, 2007, p. 177).Re-turning this episode, therefore, indicates intergenerational relations are not contingent on children's capacities to recognize generational positions and react empathetically, but on the intra-active re-working of differences involving those inbetween children and older adults, such as staff members, playdoh and material-discursive practices of play.The third cutting explores this further by considering dementia as an aspect in-between these generational groups but also missing from the original analysis -missing in the middle.

Cutting 3: dementia diffracted
The focus on children within the original analysis meant that dementia was not considered beyond its impact upon children's outcomes.This replicated a compartmentalized perspective critiqued above.Additionally, in writing the playdoh vignette my assumptions negatively aligned Owen's actions with dementia.An alternative view is that dementia does not reside in Owen's body (Höppner & Urban, 2018), but materializes in connection with it, his eating of the playdoh, the staff's, children's and my comments, and materialdiscursive configurations of playdoh-as-cookie/toy.Perceiving dementia in this way diffracts it into the intergenerational space.
Considering dementia as diffracted reveals the multiple realities of dementia (Moser, 2008), that produce ripples in the activity.As Heydon and Davies (2019, p. 68) summarize of their own diffractive analysis of intergenerational art making: The diffraction is already there and trying to make itself seen: the ripple of children and elders sharing time, chalk, space and artistic practice; the ripple of the educators who are uncomfortable . . . the ripple of the researchers who are there.All of us making waves together.
The diffraction of dementia makes visible the intra-active processes through which dementia is made to matter in the uncomfortableness of Hazel and Frankie and in my own research practices.Dementia matters for providing, and disrupting, the possibilities for intergenerational play with playdoh-ascookie.It matters for enacting an agential separation between Owen and others.It matters for what explanations are provided about Owen's behavior, and it matters for how intergenerational relations within this event are understood.What an agential realist analysis also does then, is political work "to diffract the usual pattern of interferences through which Alzheimer's gets enacted" (Moser, 2008, p. 108) and disrupt the dominance of biomedical and humanist ideas about dementia as (a lack of capacity) residing within Owen's brain/body.Therefore, re-turning this vignette is not about reflecting on how my research position contributed to associations between dementia and loss/lack, but about diffracting dementia to make it matter differently.

Discussion: (re)attending to the missing middle
Furthering the use of a posthuman/feminist new materialist approach beyond intergenerational learning, this paper has attempted to confront the humanist and binary logics which underpin much intergenerational practice research.Utilizing the agential realist concepts of intra-activity and diffraction (Barad, 2007), re-turning the playdoh vignette "takes up re-attending the excluded middle" (Rautio, 2013, p. 395), and addresses aspects in-between children and residents (Sánchez et al., 2010).Presenting the original analysis alongside the agential realist exploration demonstrates that different understandings are generated when considering the complex questions of how participants inter/intra-acted (Melville & Hatton-Yeo, 2015), rather than what outcomes were gained by the children.
Re-turning the playdoh event rethought practices of knowing, generational difference and dementia as enacted within the intergenerational intra-action (Barad, 2007).For young children and people living with dementia especially, considering knowledge and agency as distributed rather than bound to the individual mind casts doubt on deficit perspectives currently limiting understandings of intergenerational practice (Heydon, 2019;Quinn & Blandon, 2020).Reconceptualizing generational difference also challenged an individualistic, age-specific view of intergenerational relations and highlighted how differences are continually (re)constituted within intergenerational intraaction.Importantly, the reworking of these differences enabled and constrained possibilities for intergenerational play.Intergenerational possibilities do not sit still (Barad, 2007).Adopting an agential realist perspective, therefore, shifts attention away from assessing how well generational differences are understood, as in the original analysis, toward the material-discursive boundary-making processes, or agential cuts, which constitute generational dis/ connection (Martens, 2016).This enables intergenerational researchers to take notice of how differences matter (Barad, 2007), rather than what differences are -in this case regarding dementia.Considering dementia as diffracted acknowledged dementia is not simply located in the brain but entangled in, and transformed through, the playdoh event and how I documented it.
In this way, what theories we use to understand intergenerational practice matters.Presenting the original analysis and re-turning together acknowledges research/ers co-constitutively materialize intergenerational relations in particular ways, producing particular patterns of difference.As intergenerational researchers we are accountable for what our research practices do, what they make matter and what is missing or excluded from mattering (Barad, 2007).There is power at play behind the cuts we make that separate concepts, objects and bodies from one another (Ringrose et al., 2019).Therefore, this re-analysis is limited by the agential cuts already made during the production of the data, given that this was not originally framed within feminist new materialist thinking.This restricts access to other aspects and relations truly missing from the data.The research is also constrained by the (agential) separation of other posthuman and feminist new materialist theories from Barad's agential realism, which provides possibilities for future intergenerational research to explore these theoretical perspectives further.This is especially important if intergenerational research is to truly echo the relational nature and unifying intentions of intergenerational practice itself.
*Named in data presented below