As we become more and more algorithmic subjects, algorithms shape the news we access, our political and social views, how and what we buy, as well as the emotional tenor of our lives. Tracking how algorithms work on and with our senses and activate our bodies in different ways requires experimental approaches. To explore affect, algorithms, and method, we work/think/play via two reassemblages of algorithmic tools borrowed from the corporate and art worlds: Moodlens and the Listening Machine. Our algorithmic play with educational reformers’ images and tweets suggests a strategy for fattening our methods and theories to respond to ever-increasing data flows and thinking additively, fractally, and exponentially.
BraidottiR. (2013). The posthuman. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
9.
CloughP. E. (2009). The new empiricism: Affect and sociological method. European Journal of Social Theory, 12, 43-61.
10.
CloughP. E. (2010). Afterword: The future of affect studies. Body & Society, 16, 222-230.
11.
CloughP. E.GregoryK.HaberB.ScannellR. J. (2015). The datalogical turn. In VanniniP. (Ed.), Non-representational methodologies: Re-envisioning research (pp. 146-164). New York, NY: Routledge.
FriedrichD.WalterM.ColmenaresE. (2015). Making all children count: Teach for all and the universalizing appeal of data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1797
GehlR. W. (2011). The archive and the processor: The internal logic of Web 2.0. New Media & Society, 13, 1228-1244.
29.
GershonW. (2013). Vibrational affect: Sound theory and practice in qualitative research. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 13, 257-262.
30.
Hickey-MoodyA. (2012). Youth, arts and education: Reassembling subjectivity through affect. New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
Hickey-MoodyA. (2013). Affect as method: Feelings, aesthetics and affective pedagogy. In ColemanR.RingroseJ. (Eds.), Deleuze and research methodologies (pp. 79-95). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
32.
HillisK.PaasonenS.PetitM. (Eds.). (2015). Networked affect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
HochschildA. R. (2016). Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the American right. New York, NY: The New Press.
34.
IllouszE. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
35.
IvinsonG.RenoldE. (2013). Subjectivity, affect and place: Thinking with Deleuze and Guattari’s body without organs to explore a young teen girl’s becomings in a post-industrial locale. Subjectivity, 6, 369-390.
36.
JacksonA. Y.MazzeiL. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
JohanssonL. (2015). Post-qualitative lines of flight and the confabulative conversation: A methodological ethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29, 445-466.
JuelskjærM.StaunæsD.RatnerH. (2013). Return of the Freudian Couch: Managing affectivity through technologies of comfort. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 1132-1152.
41.
KarppiT.KähkönenL.MannevuoM.PajalaM.SihvonenT. (2016). Affective capitalism: Investments and investigations. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 16(4), 1-13.
KnudsenB. T.StageC. (Eds.). (2015). Affective methodologies: Developing cultural research strategies for the study of affect. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
44.
LatherP. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. The Sociological Quarterly, 34, 673-693.
45.
LatherP.St. PierreE. (2013). Post-qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 629-633.
LeanderK.BoldtG. (2013). Rereading “a pedagogy of multiliteracies”: Bodies, texts, and emergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45, 22-46.
48.
Lenz TaguchiH. (2016). The concept as method: Tracing and-and-mapping the problem of the neuro(n) in the field of education. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16, 213-223.
49.
MacLureM. (2013). Classification or wonder? Coding as an analytic practice in qualitative research. In ColemanR.RingroseJ. (Eds.), Deleuze and research methodologies (pp. 164-184). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
50.
MarksL. U. (2003). Touch: Sensuous theory and multisensory media. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
51.
Mass Observation. (2015). Mass observation: Recording everyday life in Britain. Available from http://www.massobs.org.uk/
52.
MassumiB. (2015). Ontopower: War, powers, and the state of perception. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
RenoldE. (2017). “Feel what I feel”: Making da(r)ta with teen girls for creative activisms on how sexual violence matters. Journal of Gender Studies, 1-18. doi:10.1080/09589236.2017.1296352. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09589236.2017.1296352
62.
RenoldE.IvinsonG. (2014). Horse-girl assemblages: Towards a post-human cartography of girls’ desire in an ex-mining valleys community. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35, 361-376.
63.
RingroseJ. (2010). Beyond discourse? Using Deleuze and Guattari’s schizoanalysis to explore affective assemblages, heterosexually striated space, and lines of flight online and at school. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43, 598-618.
64.
RingroseJ. (2013). Postfeminist education: Girls and the sexual politics of schooling. London, England: Routledge.
65.
Roberts-HolmesG. (2015). The “datafication” of early years pedagogy: “If the teaching is good, the data should be good and if there’s bad teaching, there is bad data.”Journal of Education Policy, 30, 302-315.
66.
RotasN. (2014). Sustaining the unsustainable: Wearable technologies as informing running-practice in urban schools. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 5, 18-33.
67.
St. PierreE. A. (2011). Post qualitative research: The critique and the coming after. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 611-625). Thousand Oakes, CA: SAGE.
68.
SampsonT. (2016). Various joyful encounters with the dystopias of affective capitalism. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 16, 51-74.
69.
SedgwickE. K. (2003). Touching feeling: Affect, performativity, pedagogy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
SpringgayS. (2011). The ethico-aesthetics of affect and a sensational pedagogy. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 9(11), 66-82.
74.
SpringgayS.RotasN. (2015). How do you make a classroom operate like a work of art? Deleuzeguattarian methodologies of research-creation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28, 552-572.
75.
SpringgayS.ZaliwskaZ. (2016). Learning to be affected: Matters of pedagogy in the artists’ soup kitchen. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49, 273-283.
76.
StewartK. (2007). Ordinary affects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
77.
TaubmanP. M. (2009). Teaching by numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of standards and accountability in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
78.
TaylorE. (2010a). From finger-painting to fingerprinting: The use of biometric technology in UK schools. Education Law Journal, 4, 276-288.
79.
TaylorE. (2010b). I spy with my little eye: The use of CCTV in schools and the impact on privacy. Sociological Review, 58, 381-405.
80.
TaylorE. (2017). Teaching us to be “smart”? The use of RFID in schools and the habituation of young people to everyday surveillance. In TaylorE.RooneyT. (Eds.), Surveillance futures: Social and ethical implications of new technologies for children and young people (pp. 67-78). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
81.
ThielJ. (2015). Shrinking in, spilling out, and living through: Affective energy as multimodal literacies. In JohnsonL.EnriquezG.KontovourkiS. (Eds.), Literacies and the body: Theories and research on teaching, learning, and embodiment (pp. 90-104). New York, NY: Routledge.
82.
ThriftN. (2011). Lifeworld Inc—And what to do about it. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29, 5-26.
