Creative Entanglements: Riffing with Posthuman Arts-Based Inquir

This paper looks into evolving practices in arts-based research through the lens of Posthuman Arts-Based Inquiry (PABI) and its principle of experimental recombinatoriality, referred to here as “riffology.” By pushing back on anthropocentric assumptions, PABI brings in human, and nonhuman, forces alike, generating a more expansive approach to creativity and knowledge production. Drawing on DeleuzoGuattarian philosophy, new materialist perspectives, and post-qualitative research, we treat art-making as an ontological event rather than mere representation. In doing so, PABI challenges established boundaries within arts-based research, foregrounding shared agencies and ethical obligations that extend across human, technological, and ecological domains. Through practical examples and theoretical grounding, this paper demonstrates how PABI reimagines creative inquiry amid planetary crises, ultimately offering a posthuman critical pedagogy with the potential to transform both educational and societal landscapes. Keywords: Posthuman arts-based inquiry, posthuman critical pedagogy, DeleuzoGuattarian philosophy, assemblage theory, arts-based research (ABR), Anthropocene Introduction: In recent decades, dialogues surrounding the Anthropocene and posthumanism have prompted re-thinking of how we approach , research, and creativity, particularly the entanglements between human and nonhuman entities (Braidotti, 2013; Haraway, 2016). Traditional research methodologies, deeply rooted in humanist frameworks, are increasingly disrupted to accommodate the fluidities and complexities of our contemporary era. In response, arts-based research (ABR) has evolved as a set of methodologies that draw upon artistic processes across visual, performative, literary, and sonic domains to produce non-traditional forms of knowledge (Barone & Eisner, 2011; Leavy, 2017). However, much of ABR focus primarily on the human subject, emphasizing empathy, interpersonal meaning-making, and the amplification of personal narratives. Posthuman Arts-Based Inquiry (PABI) takes shape as a conceptual approach that broadens and reworks traditional ABR methods to respond to broader ontological and epistemological shifts that decenter the human subject. grounded in diverse theoretical traditions—including DeleuzGuattarian philosophy, new materialism, post-qualitative research, speculative realism, and remix culture—PABI underscores the complex, relational dynamics that disturb anthropocentric norms (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; DeLanda, 2016). Core concepts such as assemblage, becoming, and deterritorialization bring into relief the interconnectedness of all entities, disputing the idea that humans are the sole drivers of creativity and knowledge production (Haraway, 2016; McBrien, 2016). Within PABI, the generative impulses traditionally emphasized in ABR are redirected to include a broader range of entanglements among human, and nonhuman participants. For example, the concept of “riffology”—borrowed from remix culture—advocates an open-ended research approach, where researcher-artists engage with unfolding forces to create new ways of seeing and being (Wainwright & Stevens, 2017). These post-qualitative stances resonate with posthuman inquiry, which departs from linear, anthropocentric meaning-making toward exploring how multiple agencies interact and inform one another. This paper strives to map out the conceptual lineage of PABI and show how it reconfigures ABR toward more inclusive, posthuman horizons. By taking on the expansive framework of PABI, we not only incorporate machinic elements and hybrid ontologies but also integrate feminist new materialism, quantum views of matter (Barad, 2007), and ecosophical thought (Morton, 2013). These theoretical strands converge to fundamentally rethink creativity, representation, and knowledge production. PABI pushes the conversation to include diverse genealogies that further enrich and challenge anthropocentric assumptions. We start by mapping the long-standing legacy of ABR within educational and interdisciplinary contexts before unpacking how posthuman critiques of anthropocentrism invite new framings of art and research. We then consider the value of experimental recombinatoriality—what we term “riffing”—in encouraging innovative posthuman inquiry. Finally, we reflect on the consequences of adopting PABI amid planetary crises, proposing a posthuman critical pedagogy that centers on emergence, interconnectedness, and relational ethics. From Humanism to Posthumanism ABR originated from a broader qualitative shift in the social sciences that began in the mid-twentieth century and grew in influence toward the century’s end (Barone & Eisner, 2011). Researchers employ the arts—poetry, visual arts, dance, music—to represent experiences, elicit emotional resonance, and create empathetic connections between participants and audiences. Barone and Eisner (2011) describe ABR as an approach “enlarge[ing] human understanding” (pp. 8–9), with art functioning as a conduit to express subjective realities that might otherwise remain out of reach, or underrepresented in traditional research outputs. In the humanist context, the goal of ABR is often to “create an expressive form” that encourages “empathetic participation” in the lives of others (Barone & Eisner, 2011, p. 8). Over the years, numerous iterations of ABR have emerged, each with its own conceptual underpinnings and practical emphasis. For example, a/r/tography (Springgay et al., 2007) weaves the roles of artist, researcher, and teacher, emphasizing the “in-between” spaces where creative practice interacts with teaching and scholarship. Poetic inquiry (Prendergast et al., 2009; Galvin & Prendergast, 2016) draws upon the affective power of poetry to express subtle human experiences and emotional truths. Despite their differences, these and other ABR methods maintain a human-centered viewpoint: an emphasis on individual viewpoint, empathy, and the expanding of human understanding through creative expression (Leavy, 2017). While humanistic ABR has led to a wide range of insights, it faces growing critique from posthuman scholarship (Braidotti, 2013; Haraway, 2016a). Posthumanism doesn’t entirely reject the significance of human-centered art-making but suggests that strictly anthropocentric frameworks can overlook the complex interconnections shaping our world. Thinkers like Rosi Braidotti (2013) challenge the Enlightenment-era notion of an individual, autonomous, rational subject, arguing it fails to match a planet where humans, animals, technologies, and environments are closely interwoven. Likewise, Karen Barad (2007) proposes an onto-epistemological stance on matter and meaning, holding that the lines between subject and object are continually being formed rather than assumed as fixed.Such shifts spur a new examination of how we grasp creativity, knowledge, and our ties to one another. In posthuman models, human agency is only one element among many agential forces including nonhuman animals, tech-based networks built environments, microorganisms, and planet-altering forces (Bennett, 2010). The so-called Anthropocene—or what Haraway (2016) reframes as the Chthulucene—amplifies our awareness of these entangled relationships by exposing the destructive consequences of human activity on global ecologies. As a result, posthuman scholarship serves not merely as an scholarly project but also as a call to action pressing us to take fully into account the more-than-human communities coexisting on our planet. Experimental Recombinatoriality and RiffologyPABI comes about as a methodological response to the question: How can we do arts-based research that properly accounts for the agency of nonhuman forces, while encouraging fresh forms of thought?The concept of experimental recombinatoriality, introduced by Wainwright and Stevens (2016), invites researchers to become “riffologists”—similar to DJs sampling music—by mixing diverse elements such as theory, art materials, and technology. This “plug in and play” ethos (Wainwright & Stevens, 2020) fits with posthuman approaches that emphasize relationality and emergence. Rather than using a fixed approach, PABI favors open systems in which human, nonhuman, and conceptual forces interact to produce surprising, innovative outcomes. Riffology therefore pushes back against the idea that the researcher is just an observer, highlighting researcher-as-participant in fluid networks of becoming. Its free-flowing and unplanned style to knowledge creation resonates with post-qualitative approaches, which critiques rigid methodologies and stable categories (St. Pierre, 2011). Postqualitative scholarship likewise questions the idea that data exist “out there” to be collected or that human experiences alone form the core of understanding. Instead, it reveals how phenomena, subjects, and objects continuously co-create each other . Working alongside with postqualitative perspectives, PABI provides a direct line of flight from conventional ABR: no longer centered mainly on expressing human experiences, it becomes an assemblage that actively generates new ways of thinking and being. Arts-Based Research Revisited: Expanding the Frame ABR has a long-standing tradition of resisting positivistic frameworks and championing embodied, emotive, and nuanced ways of knowing (Barone & Eisner, 2012; Leavy, 2017). Whether through stage-based performance or a collection of poetic reflections ABR has widened scholarly conversations by introducing the aesthetic, the emotional, and the sensory. By engaging multiple senses, ABR methodologies can create voices/realities on the margins and foster deeper empathy. As a result, ABR has been applied in educational research, social justice projects, therapy and counseling contexts, community engagement, and more (McNiff, 1998; Rolling, 2013). Still, some critiques of ABR note potential blind spots, particularly its deeply humanistic underpinnings. While empathy and personal expression are extremely important, they risk becoming anthropocentric if creation centers only on human experiences. By extension, arts-based studies that overlook nonhuman or inhuman participants—whether technologies, materials, ecologies, or other living systems —may unintentionally strengthen assumptions about human primacy. For example, an arts-based project on climate change might showcase human stories but overlook the roles of glaciers, coral reefs, or microbial life that also shape the planetary crisis. Posthuman critiques thus call for for a broader perspective that recognizes the entangled presence and influence of nonhumans in research. By challenging long-entrenched anthropocentric values, posthuman thought broadens ABR’s reach beyond human stories and toward a more far-reaching understanding of how life forms, technologies, and ecosystems guide artistic processes. Emergence of Posthuman Arts-Based Inquiry (PABI) PABI takes ABR one step beyond: rather than focusing on broadening human understanding, it aims to resituate the human within a larger relational web. Drawing on DeleuzoGuattarian thought, PABI positions art as an assemblage of affects, percepts, concepts, and materials that generate new realities rather than simply representing existing ones (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994). In concert with new materialist perspectives (Barad, 2007; Bennett, 2010), PABI researchers attend to how matter, bodies, technologies, and discourses co-constitute the phenomena under study. This approach insists that neither “the human” nor “the artistic process” stands as an isolated entity. Instead, creativity emerges from vibrant interrelations among diverse actants, including but not limited to the researcher-artist. In turning toward the posthuman, PABI deviates from linear narratives of meaning-making. The open and improvisational dimension of the approach cultivates dynamic engagements with materials and theories. For example, a PABI project investigating oceanic pollution might involve not only painting or sculpture but also data sets on microplastics, wave patterns, maritime technologies, and the generative presence of sea life. By assembling this array of forces, the inquiry yields an understanding—an “onto-epistemological moment” (Barad, 2007)—that extends beyond purely human concerns, taking into account the multiplicities at play.  Posthuman Critical Pedagogy Within the educational sphere, PABI directly bolsters a posthuman critical pedagogy (Braidotti, 2013). This perspective contests the hierarchical frameworks in which humans occupy the apex of cognitive or moral worth and works to embrace nonhuman elements into the conceptualization of learning. A posthuman pedagogical stance might, for instance, ask students to collaborate with more-than-human entities—like local flora, technological mediators, or intangible digital networks—to co-produce knowledge, rather than simply studying these entities as passive objects. Haraway’s (2016) emphasis on “making kin” connects with the idea that arts-based practices can forge new alliances and affiliations that disrupt anthropocentrism. The classroom or studio environment thereby transforms into an assemblage that continuously configures and reconfigures participants’ relationships with the world. In this sense, the educator becomes a facilitator of emergent relations, attuning to how the distributed agencies of the classroom—human students, nonhuman tools, transient affects, architectural space—converge into unique learning events. Such a stance profoundly reimagines teacher-student roles, disciplinary boundaries, and outcomes by valuing the emergent complexity of learning. Planetary Stakes: The Anthropocene Context Another dimension of PABI is its potential to respond to the urgent socio-ecological crises of the Anthropocene. Many arts-based projects have engaged with climate change, extinction, and environmental justice; PABI, however, underscores that these issues are jointly shaped by a panoply of agents, beyond the category of “human” alone (McBrien, 2016). By recasting the Earth as a vibrant participant rather than a passive backdrop, PABI research can catalyze innovative forms of art-making that bring forward entangled vulnerabilities. Artists might, for instance, explore the voices or agencies of rivers, coral reefs, or methane-capturing technologies, not as inert subjects to be represented but as collaborators in a shared creative process. Timothy Morton (2013) invokes the concept of “hyperobjects” to describe phenomena like climate change and plastic pollution that exceed human grasp yet permeate everyday life. PABI thus encourages an aesthetic strategy that grapples with scale, complexity, and the expansive temporalities of these hyperobjects, providing fresh perspectives on the Anthropocene. PABI builds on the strengths of arts-based research—its sense-driven methods, its capacity for insight, and its generative potential—and amplifies them through a posthuman lens. By reworking how knowledge is formed and who or what participates in that formation, PABI opens new avenues for creative engagement with the world’s urgencies. It positions ABR as a site of ongoing experimentation, not just with artistic tools but also with the very conceptual frameworks we adopt to understand ourselves and our planetary entanglements. Anthropocentric Conditions and Shifts in Perspective Anthropocentrism—that is, situating the human subject at the core of inquiry—has been critiqued within diverse philosophical, scientific, and cultural spheres, particularly in light of the ecological upheavals of the Anthropocene (Haraway, 2016a; Morton, 2013). The advent of posthumanism and new materialism into academic discourse has brought attention to the agency and vitality of matter, destabilizing the long-held assumption that humans occupy a privileged vantage. Consequently, many have begun to question how knowledge production might transform if we regard animals, plants, machines, and geological phenomena as co-collaborators or co-agents rather than passive contexts or resources. Within the arts, anthropocentric perspectives often take shape as a focus on human experiences, expressions, and emotions—understandable given the anthropological impetus behind many creative traditions. Nevertheless, emerging art practices increasingly take up interaction with environmental or technological landscapes that move the spotlight from purely human stories to broader constellations of relationship. Examples include bioart projects that involve bacterial cultures or living organisms as active creative participants, or new media arts that highlight the co-creative role of algorithms, machine learning, and digital networks. Posthuman theoretical frames legitimize these expanded forms of creativity, stressing that “art” can be generated from more-than-human interactions (jagodzinski, 2017). Forces of Deterritorialization DeleuzoGuattarian concepts such as deterritorialization and assemblage help explain how art and research might push against anthropocentrism (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). Deterritorialization involves breaking away from habitual territory—be it conceptual, cultural, or physical—and moving toward new ways of relating. Within a PABI context, deterritorialization might describe how a group of researchers and participants forms a short-term collaborative group that includes not only human bodies but also the environment, digital technologies, and immaterial forces such as mood or memory. This process unsettles straightforward anthropocentric notions of artistic agency, uncovering it as distributed and emergent. For example, a collaborative dance project looking into climate anxiety could bring together the physical environment (e.g., beach shorelines, rising tides), wearable technologies that respond to dancers’ biometric data, and real-time audience feedback transmitted via social media. Under a traditional arts-based research view, these elements might be seen as external frameworks serving the central thematic of human expression. In a PABI lens, however, these elements are acknowledged as co-contributors that transform the nature of the dancing, the performance, and the knowledge produced. The movement is not strictly about the dancers’ emotional states; it is co-emerging from the interplay of bodies, tides, sensor data, spontaneous choreography, and fleeting crowd responses. Relational Ethics and the Nonhuman Another facet of this decentering involves a deepening focus on relational ethics. Posthuman scholarship calls for a moral stance that views all entities as interwoven, spurring thoughtful consideration on how our creative or research activities affect various agents (Barad, 2007). In a PABI project, for instance, ethical considerations might involve looking into whether specific technologies or materials might unintentionally perpetuate unfair labor, or how site-specific art installations could disrupt nearby ecosystems. Rather than casting the researcher as a detached organizer, a posthuman view situates them within a web of responsibilities and interdependencies. Donna Haraway’s (2016) idea of “staying with the troubles” fits well here, suggesting that researchers should remain receptive to the unease and unpredictability that come with recognizing these interconnections. By doing so, we release the reassuring but false notion that the researcher can remain neutral or completely in charge. This ethical orientation opens a path for more substantial collaborations across species and across academic and non-academic fields (e.g., scientists, environmental activists, philosophers, local communities). As a result, PABI serves not only as a way of knowing (epistemic) but also as a way of engaging and responding (ethical-political). Planetary Futures If the Anthropocene marks the geologic era most shaped by human activity, it also calls for urgent rethinking of how cultural, aesthetic, and academic endeavors might be transformed to address planetary challenges (McBrien, 2016). By decentering humans in arts-based inquiry, PABI fosters a multi-perspectival engagement with ecological crisis, whether that involves foregrounding the voices of marginalized human communities or acknowledging the agencies of ocean currents, arctic glaciers, or pollinating insects. In the context of “hyperobjects” (Morton, 2013) such as global warming or microplastics in oceans, posthuman approaches help us conceptualize phenomena that are both intimately close and impossibly vast. In this sense, PABI serves a philosophical imperative to catalyze new lines of flight—new ways of imagining futures that do not revolve around human exceptionalism (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). While it does not promise an immediate solution to the planet’s ills, PABI positions creative inquiry as a generative force for reconceptualizing the relationship between the arts, the sciences, and the environment. It does so by honoring the emergent forces that shape reality from the microbial to the cosmic, from the digital to the corporeal.Taken together, these shifts away from anthropocentrism and toward a posthuman awareness emphasize the relevance of PABI in contemporary discourses. It rearranges old assumptions about where knowledge resides, how it is produced, and whose voices matter in the telling. As we proceed, we will examine more closely the methodological and conceptual tools PABI draws on to guide research processes that remain open, improvisational, and collaborative—hallmarks of experimental recombinatoriality and the riffological approach. The Practice of Riffology: Experimental Methodologies in PABI Because PABI is grounded in posthuman theory, capturing what is “out there” isn’t its primary goal. Instead, the research-creation process becomes a space where ontological changes unfold (Deleuze & Guattari, 1991/1994). For example, a PABI project might not set out to portray or document the challenges of coral reefs; rather, it brings the reef’s organisms, rhythms, and vulnerabilities into conversation with humans, materials, and ideas. The reef shifts from being a passive subject to an active participant. On the ground, the outcome might depart from a straightforward documentary-style painting, becoming instead an interactive installation that weaves together underwater sound recordings, data visualizations of coral bleaching, touchable sculptures modeled after reef formations, and real-time observations from marine scientists.Within this framework, knowledge emerges as an event—a convergence of intensities—rather than an external discovery. This perspective corresponds with the new materialist view that matter itself possesses agency (Barad, 2007; Bennett, 2010). Accordingly, riffology in PABI highlights how artistic encounters can spark new connections, emotions, and ideas, prompting us toward fresh ethical and political possibilities. Post-Qualitative Synergies The synergy between PABI and post-qualitative research cannot be overstated, as both question the assumption that the core task of research is to represent “data” in a fixed form. Instead, they highlight the open-endedness of inquiry, where new questions constantly arise, reshaping the research act (St. Pierre, 2011). In a post-qualitative orientation, coding schemes and categories used to analyze data are not fixed in advance but often emerge—or even dissolve—through the creative process. Similarly, PABI’s riffological approach views methodological frameworks as flexible architectures that adapt to the contingencies of a research event. For instance, in a post-qualitative/PABI project centered on the nexus of mental health and urban ecology, participants might be invited to create ephemeral sculptures from found materials in abandoned city lots. The researcher could also track the environmental conditions—temperatures, wind patterns, soil health—and integrate these with participants’ bodily movements or emotional states. Rather than using a rigid procedure to measure “outcomes,” the project might generate a shifting assemblage of audio recordings, site-specific sculptures, emotional reflections, and theoretical readings. These different elements become entangled, shaping the emergent knowledge in ways that no single dimension could predefine. Riffology and Transdisciplinary Assemblages One notable characteristic of PABI is its openness to transdisciplinary collaborations (Leavy, 2017). While ABR is already multidisciplinary in nature, PABI’s posthuman outlook expands these boundaries further by incorporating ecology, biology, artificial intelligence, geology, and other fields that foreground nonhuman processes. Riffology easily works with these inputs, inviting participants from diverse domains to “sample” each other’s ideas, techniques, and knowledge. Such cross-pollination frequently yields unexpected insights or experimental forms. This transdisciplinary impetus has major pedagogical implications. In an educational setting, a PABI workshop might bring together art students, engineering majors, environmental science researchers, and local community activists to investigate a specific issue like urban waste management. Their different knowledge bases serve as the palette for collective riffing, combining data visualization, found-object sculpture, industrial design prototypes, and community storytelling sessions. The posthuman viewpoint emphasizes that a city’s waste is not just a byproduct of human consumption but also a web of objects, machines, microbes, and biochemical processes mingling in landfills and watersheds. By centering these nonhuman agencies, the group co-develops a far-reaching artistic intervention that crosses the usual borders of art or social science. Ultimately, riffology embodies the open-ended, improvisational nature of PABI. It is a methodology of continuous invention, where the “rules” are contingent on the emergent properties of each project. While this can present challenges—lack of pre-structured guidelines, difficulty in standard evaluation—it also creates an arena of creative freedom that can yield radically transformative outcomes. By enacting posthuman principles through practice, PABI fosters a kind of research that is not just about new knowledge, but about new ways of being and relating in a world co-inhabited by uncountable forms of life and matter. Posthuman Critical Pedagogy: Learning Beyond the Human Critical pedagogy historically centers on human emancipation, consciousness-raising, and social justice (Freire, 2000). While these pursuits continue to be vital, posthuman scholars have pointed out that strict humanism can inadvertently discount other forms of life, matter, and intelligence. A posthuman critical pedagogy, therefore, does not ignore human oppression or experiences; rather, it extends the horizon of ethical and political consideration to include nonhumans (Braidotti, 2013). This move entails recognizing that learning unfolds not only through human-to-human interaction but also through ongoing, often unpredictable, entanglements with animal others, technological devices, natural phenomena, and so forth. PABI in Educational Contexts PABI provides concrete strategies for activating posthuman critical pedagogy across formal and informal learning environments. Instead of focusing only on human expression, educators might design art-based projects in which materials, spaces, and technologies are acknowledged as co-teachers. These examples illustrate how PABI, with its ethos of experimentation and entanglement, can empower educators and learners to go beyond anthropocentrism. The learning experience is recast as a process of becoming-with other agents, recognizing that knowledge and meaning are not exclusive to humans. Researcher Reflexivity and Ethical AccountabilityA posthuman pedagogy invites educators and researchers to broaden their understanding of reflexivity, an essential aspect of both critical pedagogy and qualitative research. Traditionally, reflexivity focuses on the researcher’s self-awareness of personal preconceptions and positionalities, but PABI pushes beyond this by also examining how nonhuman factors influence—and are influenced by —the work. This perspective invites questions like: How might the research site’s location affect local wildlife? How might specific materials alter the ecosystem’s balance? How do classroom technologies rework the socio-material environment? Looking at ethics more expansively can result in more mindful decisions, such as choosing earth-friendly art supplies or creating alliances that put environmental health first. Continuing this idea, Haraway’s (2016) call to “stay with the troubles” prompt educators and researchers to steer clear of quick solutions, instead treating complexity and unresolved tensions as continuous opportunities for exploration. Potential for Social-Ecological Transformation Lastly, PABI’s posthuman perspective does not dismiss the social justice foundations of critical pedagogy; rather, it builds on it. When grappling with challenges like climate disparity or limited resources, PABI fosters conversations that include both human stakeholders (often unevenly impacted) and nonhuman entities (ecosystems, animals, infrastructures). By doing this, it positions educational efforts in a global frame, underscoring the undeniable interdependence between human well-being and the rest of the biosphere. With this posthuman orientation, PABI enables collaborative processes that question the human-nonhuman divide. It offers a compelling framework for responding to contemporary crises in ways that are inclusive, imaginative, and transformative. Forceworking and the Production of Thought As researchers and artists shift from representation to creation, the concept of “forcework” helps describe how art actively intervenes in social and material contexts (Ziarek, 2004). In the realm of PABI, forcework refers to the harnessing of diverse agencies—human, nonhuman, conceptual, material—that come together around artistic processes. Unlike a conventional understanding of an “artwork” as an object for passive consumption, forcework underscores dynamic encounters that disrupt, reconfigure, and activate creative potentials. Deleuze and Guattari (1987) similarly emphasize that art does not merely reproduce the visible or audible; rather, it renders forces visible or audible, forging new intensities. This orientation is crucial in a posthuman context, where recognition of nonhuman influences requires that art be seen as co-constructed from a multiplicity of sources. In other words, the “work” is not just performed by the human artist but by the synergy of multiple forces—machines, ecosystems, cultural codes, weather patterns, affects, rhythms, and more. Affect, Percept, and Concept A key DeleuzoGuattarian insight is that art produces affects and percepts, while philosophy generates concepts (Deleuze & Guattari, 1991/1994). This posthuman approach to arts-based research merges these distinctions by bringing creative processes into contact with philosophical reflection, thus producing a “force of art” that also has conceptual power (Massumi, 2002). In a PABI context, a single installation or performance may elicit potent affective resonances (e.g., awe, discomfort, surprise) and yield emergent concepts (e.g., rethinking boundaries between organic and synthetic life). This dynamic interplay is not limited to human cognition; the environment and materials actively shape how these affects and percepts take form. For instance, a sculptural piece composed of biodegradable plastics might “fail” or degrade more rapidly than anticipated under certain conditions, generating novel conceptual tensions about impermanence, sustainability, and the role of entropy in creative practice. Such an outcome attests to the entangled, vibrant matter at work (Bennett, 2010). Generating Thought Through Art In conventional academic discourse, knowledge production can be regarded as distinct from art-making, reducing art to an illustrative or decorative role. In PABI, however, the generation of thought through art is central (Braidotti, 2013). This orientation aligns with the idea that creative practice can spark new philosophical positions without having to “render” them into conventional academic language. The material and affective experiences of art themselves may constitute thought-in-action. For example, imagine a PABI project where participants generate wearable robotic sculptures that react to local air quality indices. As the air pollution levels change, the sculptures morph, emitting mechanical whirs, pulses of colored light, or shifts in shape. Observers experience a literal embodiment of the environment’s shifting chemical composition, sparking spontaneous reflections on how human health, industrial processes, and atmospheric conditions co-inhabit local space. These reflections are not mere add-ons but central to the conceptual yield of the art event: participants come away with a richer, multi-sensory understanding of pollution that cannot be fully captured by numeric data alone. By rendering that data “felt” and “seen,” the art does philosophical work, weaving affects, percepts, and conceptual lines of flight. Toward Posthuman Imaginaries By making possible g the co-production of forces, PABI seeks to shape posthuman imaginaries that upend and stretch our sense of collective possibility. Far from trivial, these imaginaries can inform policy debates, communal decisions, and ethical frameworks by pointing attention to non-traditional ways of organizing social and environmental life. In this sense, the forcework realized in PABI is not only aesthetic but also political, linking art’s capacity for igniting g imaginative leaps with the urgent need for systemic transformation in the face of planetary challenges (Haraway, 2016). Future Directions  Throughout this paper, we have argued for the conceptual and practical shift from conventional humanist ABR to what we term Posthuman Arts-Based Inquiry (PABI). Building upon and expanding upon the original impetus of ABR to cultivate richer, more empathic understandings of human experience, PABI tackles the growing recognition that we exist within a vast network of interlinked forces—both biotic and abiotic, organic and technological, individual and collective. DeleuzoGuattarian philosophy offers a conceptual scaffold for rethinking creativity as something that arises from assemblages of bodies, materials, spaces, and affects, rather than from singular human subjectivities (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). Meanwhile, new materialist and post-qualitative discourses emphasize how matter and meaning are intertwined, exposing the agency of nonhuman agents in processes of knowledge formation (Barad, 2007; Bennett, 2010; St. Pierre, 2011). We have highlighted the function of experimental recombinatoriality —“riffology”—as a hallmark methodology within PABI. This approach calls for open systems of inquiry where creativity unfolds from the interplay of participants, theoretical concepts, materials, site conditions, and nonhuman agencies. In line with postqualitative research, it challenges the fixity of standard methods, calling instead for fluid, adaptive engagements. In so doing, PABI disrupts anthropocentric assumptions, reminding us that art is not merely a human endeavor and that knowledge evolves through entangled events involving multiple actants. Reflecting on the Anthropocene Challenge One of the most pressing concerns for PABI is the Anthropocene, which highlights the magnitude to which human actions have irrevocably transformed planetary systems. While some question the anthropocentrism implicit in naming an epoch after “anthropos,” the term drives home the seriousness of human-induced global effects (McBrien, 2016). PABI responds by requiring that arts-based researchers adopt a planetary perspective, seeing themselves as enmeshed in flows of matter and energy that do not begin or end with the human. If the Anthropocene is characterized by climate breakdown, environmental degradation, and rampant extinction, PABI’s relational ethos inspire creative and research-driven interventions that draw attention to new forms of collective care and cross-species solidarity. As illustrated by Haraway (2016), the Chthulucene framework moves us away from mere doom-and-gloom scenarios toward “making kin,” or forging unexpected but deeply necessary alliances across species, cultures, and technologies. PABI’s exploratory approach complements this viewpoint by championing open-ended inquiry where new alliances can emerge organically. Collaborative projects that involve local communities, scientists, artists, and nonhumans can gestate novel solutions or at least provoke a deeper sense of accountability and imagination. In short, PABI fosters the kind of creative, multi-actor synergy essential for contending with the planetary crisis. Conclusions: Posthuman Arts-Based Inquiry deepens the tradition of arts-based research by reorienting its philosophical and practical orientation away from humanist assumptions and toward a more far reaching understanding of relational being. Its philosophical heart beats with DeleuzoGuattarian undertones, new materialist calls to entangle matter and meaning, and speculative realist provocations to let objects and forces speak. Its methodological soul dwells in riffology, a processual and improvisational practice that welcomes both predictable and wildly unpredictable co-creations from humans, objects, ecologies, and technologies. PABI is thus an invitation to expand the arena of creative inquiry, acknowledging that art-making, knowledge-production, and learning are collaborative events orchestrated by many agents—some conscious, some not, some organic, some not. It presses us to think morally and ethically about how we position ourselves within these entanglements and urges us to shape our inquiries and interventions with humility and openness. While many questions remain regarding the practicalities of implementing posthuman frameworks in conservative institutional contexts or bridging the gap between activism and academia, the potential for transformative learning and research is immense. By placing arts-based inquiry within posthuman sensibilities, we not only expand the scope of ABR but also reaffirm the critical importance of creative experimentation in times of planetary uncertainty. PABI positions itself at the frontier of transdisciplinary research, calling for a future in which art, science, philosophy, and activism converge in shared acts of becoming—together forging pathways that transcend anthropocentric limitations and open new vistas of relational knowledge. References Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press. Barone, T., & Eisner, E. W. (2011). Arts-based research. Sage. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press. Braidotti, R. (2013). Writing. In A. Parr (Ed.), The Deleuze dictionary (pp. 309–311). Edinburgh University Press. DeLanda, M. (2016). Assemblage theory. Edinburgh University Press. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus (B. Massumi, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1980) Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1991/1994). What is philosophy? (H. Tomlinson & G. Burchell, Trans.). Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1991) Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Continuum. Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the chthulucene. Duke University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/9780822373780 . jagodzinski, j. (2017). Betraying further: Arts-based education at the end of the world. In j. jagodzinski (Ed.), What is education?: After Deleuze and Guattari (pp. 267–309). Palgrave Macmillan. Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Press. Massumi, B. (2002). Parable for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/9780822383574 McBrien, J. (2016). Accumulating extinction: Planetary catastrophism in the necrocene. In J. Moore (Ed.), Anthropocene or capitalocene? Nature, history, and the crisis of capitalism (pp. 116–137). PM Press. Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world. University of Minnesota Press. Prendergast, M., Leggo, C., & Sameshima, P. (Eds.). (2009). Poetic inquiry: Vibrant voices in the social sciences. Sense. Rolling, J. H. (2013). Arts-based research primer. Peter Lang. Springgay, S., Irwin, R. L., Leggo, C., & Gouzouasis, P. (Eds.). (2007). Being with A/r/tography. Sense. St. Pierre, E. A. (2011). Post qualitative research: The critique and the coming after. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 611–625). Sage. Stevens, S., & Wainwright, R. (2016). [Onto]Riffology: Explorations into collaboration, assemblage and learning events. In M. Bernico & M. Kölke (Eds.), Ontic flows: From digital humanities to posthumanities (pp. 163–183). Atropos. Stevens, S., & Wainwright, R. (2020). The Anthropocene Project: Treachery in images. Art/Research International: A Transdisciplinary Journal. Wainwright, R., & Stevens, S. (2016). Experimental recombinatoriality and the invitation to riff. In M. Bernico & M. Kölke (Eds.), Ontic flows: From digital humanities to posthumanities (pp. 185–201). Atropos. Wainwright, R., & Stevens, S. (2017). MashUp at the Vancouver Art Gallery: “In review” [onto]Riffologically. Art/Research International: A Transdisciplinary Journal, 2(1), 166–184.  https://doi.org/10.18432/R2G04T Ziarek, K. (2004). The force of art. Stanford University Press