The assemblage will be co-created as a useless proposition. In a sense, disabled bodies defy the neoliberal temporality of productivism. The useless relates to the development of modes of sociality that understand the acts of failure not as the lack of success but as a style. Paraphrasing Quentin Crisp, Jack Halberstam says "failure as a style also involves his “career” as a “naked civil servant,” someone who chooses not to work and someone for whom work cannot be life’s fulfilment" (Halberstam, 2011, p. 96). On the one hand, the Oxford dictionary defines 'prototyping' as a first or preliminary version of a device or vehicle from which other forms are developed; the first, original, or typical form of something; an archetype; ‘these objects are the prototypes of a category of rapidly spinning neutron stars’. This idea of the prototype is thus based on an ideal of enhancement towards the final form of a product.

What we prototype when we co-construct the assemblage is not only the materiality of the space but modalities of sociality or a-sociality (Edelman, 2004) that do not centre the human (understood as the neurotypical able white male) as the possessor of all agency. Instead, we think the agency is distributed through several ways of touching, feeling, smelling, seeing, tasting and hearing the materialities in hand. The task is not to tokenise these modes of perception but already begin with them to develop critical understandings of the ableism embedded in the university, other arts education environments and, why not, the neurotypical world itself.

This old Rolodex is an outdated device for storing data like addresses and phone numbers if one complies with a binary concept of data that is categorised by the human point of view. The idea of “collecting data” is problematic “because it points to an ontology that assumes data are separate from human being and so can be “collected.” (St. Pierre, 2019, p. 04).

Several authors engaged in post-qualitative research also argue that the concepts of ‘data’ used by qualitative inquiries do not consider that data are not static entities but have agency and thus affect the researcher. Mirka Koro-Ljungberg (2015, p. 54) writes that “this approach to data and analysis also introduces a return to the data object, questioning the subject’s dominance over data and the one-directionality of knowledge”. MacLure (2013, p. 663) calls for an understanding of data as “non-representational, non-interpretive, a-signifying, a-subjective, paradoxical and embroiled with matter”. This comprehension of data also comes highly influenced by post-structuralist though and the crisis of the concept of representation, especially tied to authors as Deleuze and Guattari (1987), Jacques Derrida and Jean-François Lyotard; and lately, to scholars recognized as the new materialism movement, as Karen Barad’s (2003, 2014) take on the queerness and contingency of matter. While “a general distrust of data (and data analysis) as inescapably modernist, formulaic, naïve, and pointless permeates the post-qualitative inquiry” (Ellingson; Sotirin, 2019, p. 03), we vouch for a mixed-method approach that does not discard data, while we understand that the idea of “collecting data” is problematic and it deploys a binary cut between the scientist and the object of (artistic)-research.