Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 595–602 | Cite as

Towards a geography of emotional analysis

  • Kathrin Otrel-Cass
Forum
First Online:

Abstract

This article is a forum response to a research article on self-reporting methods when studying discrete emotions in science education environments. Studying emotions in natural settings is a difficult task because of the complexity of deciphering verbal and non-verbal communication. In my response I present three main points that build on insights mainly from philosophy and anthropology. The three points are: first, the significance of connecting the visible and measurable with the invisible and intangible; second, what it means to think about the practices of knowing; and third, an argument to map out a geography of analysis that takes also into account who or what emotions are directed at.

Keywords

Visible and invisible Embodiment Stance Perceptions Emotions 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cowie, B., Moreland, J., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2013). Expanding notions of assessment for learning: Inside science and technology primary classrooms. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Darwin, C. (1998). The expression of the emotions in man and animals (Introduction, afterword and commentaries by Paul Ekman). Oxford: Oxford University Press (Original work published in 1872).Google Scholar
  4. Evans, J. (2002). Adults’ mathematical thinking and emotions: A study of numerate practice (Vol. 16). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Goodwin, M., Cekaite, A., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Emotion as stance. In M.-L. Sorjonen & A. Perkyla (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 16–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (2000). Emotion within situated activity. In N. Budwig, I. C. Uzgiris, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), Communication: An arena of development (pp. 33–53). Stamford, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  7. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Mahmoud, M., & Robinson, P. (2011). Interpreting hand-over-face gestures. Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6975, 248–255. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24571-8_27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible: followed by working notes. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Otrel-Cass, K., Cowie, B., Moreland, J., & Jones, A. (2009). Teachers and researchers working together: A subject specific planning framework as a boundary object. In P.- Masson & M. Pilo (Eds.), Partnership in education: Theoretical approach and case studies (pp. 128–152). Lille Cedex: The Book Edition. Com.Google Scholar
  12. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Roth, W.-M. (2008). Bricolage, métissage, hybridity, heterogeneity, diaspora: Concepts for thinking science education in the 21st century. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 891–916. doi: 10.1007/s11422-008-9113-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Learning and PhilosophyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options