The present research examined whether high school students ethically justify bullying behaviour within a school context. Ten students, purposefully selected because of their specific roles within the bully/victim paradigm, participated in semi-structured interviews. Data analysis using the constant comparative method associated with grounded theory revealed complex social structures that existed within the purposefully selected sample. These structures are dynamic and demand compliance by students. The consequences for dissent are social isolation and exclusion. A student's categorisation within the bully/victim paradigm may be determined by their ability to comply with the requirements of the complex constructs in the school social environment.

This article takes off from a project entitled Get Up and Move! which used walking as a methodology to envisage research in higher education beyond the human and outside individual, instrumental and competitive codings. The Get Up and Move! project activated new research possibilities for walking as an attentive, situated, emplaced and embodied practice of posthuman thinking, doing and becoming; it experimented with walking’s posthuman generativity as a relational and processual methodology; and it aimed to be inventive, experimental, less elitist, and more inclusive. The project’s posthuman orientation was inspired by Donna Haraway’s (2016) concept of sympoiesis as a human-nonhuman doing-making-thinking-creating together, which is outlined in the first two parts of the article. This remainder of the article conceptually entangles this initial framing with/in a further process of concept-ing, which designates a theoretical-creative-speculative doing with the concept to unfold its ongoing potentialities and push its inventive mobilities. The concept we do our concept-ing with is the concept of the gift. Working from Mauss’s theorisation of the gift, we practice concept-ing as a means to trace new movements, possibilities and imaginaries for walking sympoietically. Our concept-ings pursue van der Tuin and Verhoeff’s (2022, 3) suggestion that concepts are “productive and experimental ‘doings,’ enmeshed in practice rather than fixed, retrospective labels for things.”

This article uses the figuration of the volcano to demonstrate the disruptive and irruptive power of post-qualitative research. The article’s volcanic irruptions aim to keep data on the move, to show how data continually and slowly proliferate in rhizomatic, nomadic, and unforeseen ways via different, ongoing experimentations, instantiating the processual research practices of knowledge-ing. This article includes, and celebrates, empirical materials collectively produced as part of a collaborative research project entitled Get Up and Move!, which enacted posthumanist, feminist materialist research practices. We were curious about how we might activate the volcano to disrupt traditional modes of data collection, analysis, and dissemination rituals through research-creation events. By concept-ing with the volcano, through the creation of volcanic calligrams, we intra-act with data, as data erupt and irrupt in powerful, agentic, and surprising ways.

The words ‘criticality’, ‘critical’, and ‘critique’ can often summon up painful, exposing, and difficult experiences. In a higher education system shaped by hierarchical cultures, abuses of power, performative metrics and competitiveness, many of us are often positioned as (and internalise a sense of ourselves as) lacking. This imputed sense of ‘lack’ begins early in our educational careers and its affective impress often stays with us. As PhD students, we are required to subject ourselves to critique in order to pass confirmation processes; as article authors, our work stands or falls at the critical hands of journal reviewers and editors who, as gatekeepers, decide which of us is ‘accepted’ or ‘rejected’. We write as four members of the larger Get Up and Move! Collective, using the special issue call from CriSTaL to explore criticality, critical, critique, to revisit our own contested entanglements in/with criticality in higher education. We deploy the methodological approaches of compositing and composting to ponder the inimical conditions, negative behaviours, and ill-judged peer review comments that give rise to damaging modes of critique. From our work in the Collective, we consider what a more capacious, kindly, and caring criticality might look, feel, and be like. The article ends with A Post-Critical Manifesto for Ethical-Relational- Creative Reviewing, which outlines a praxis for doing criticality differently.