Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Posthuman theorizations of creativity direct attention to the material, affective, relational happenings as they emerge between networks of more-than-human bodies in interaction. This necessitates a rethinking of how creativity research is conducted, including the kinds of data collected and how they are analyzed. Drawing on two case studies exploring the relationship between empathy and creativity in theater devising workshops, this article outlines how a multimodal research design combined with an empathic approach to diffractive analysis provides the opportunity to look beyond the linguistic and textual to explore multi-sensory worlds and draw out the complexities of emerging affects. Adapting Karen Barad’s diffractive analysis, this empathic approach is embodied and involves experiencing-with data to generate new understandings and questions about posthuman creativity. Rather than speaking for others via observation, recognition, and evaluation, this follows Gilles Deleuze’ proposition that thinking should involve embodied encounter, which can disrupt thinking through relational becoming.

Keywords

empathy diffractive analysis posthuman research creativity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahmed

(2000). Strange encounters: Embodied others in post-coloniality. Routledge.

Ahmed

(2014). The cultural politics of emotion (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.

Barad

(2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.

Barrett

(2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Boler

(1999). Feeling power: Emotions and education. Routledge.

Bost

(2017). Identity and cross-cultural empathy: Writing to Sister Maryagnes Curran, O.S.F. Feminist Formations, 29(2), 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2017.0021

Braidotti

. (2019). A theoretical framework for the critical posthumanities. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(6), 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276418771486

Burnard

Colucci-Gray

Sinha

(2021). Transdisciplinarity: Letting arts and science teach together. Curriculum Perspectives, 41, 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-020-00128-y

Chappell

(2018). From wise humanising creativity to (posthumanising) creativity. In Snepvangers

Thomson

Harris

(Eds.), Creativity policy, partnerships and practice in education. Creativity, education and the arts (pp. 279–306). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96725-7_13

10.

Chappell

Hetherington

RuckKeene

Wren

Alexopoulos

Ben-Horin

Nikolopoulos

Robberstad

Sotiriou

Bogner

F. X.

(2019). Dialogue and materiality/embodiment in science/arts creative pedagogy: Their role and manifestation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 296–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.12.008

11.

Cheng

Lin

Liu

Hsu

Lim

Hung

Decety

(2007). Expertise modulates the perception of pain in others. Current Biology, 17, 1708–1713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.09.020

12.

Coleman

Ringrose

(Eds.). (2013). Deleuze and research methodologies. Edinburgh University Press.

13.

Deleuze

(1994). Difference and repetition. Columbia University Press.

14.

Deleuze

Guattari

(1987). A thousand plateaus ( Massumi

, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.

15.

Duncan

Feldman Barrett

(2007). Affect is a form of cognition: A neurobiological analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 21(6), 1184–1211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930701437931

16.

Engen

Singer

(2012). Empathy circuits. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23, 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.11.003

17.

Fox

Alldred

(2015). New materialist social inquiry: Designs, methods and the research-assemblage. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(4), 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.921458

18.

Gallagher

Wessels

Ntelioglou

B. W.

(2012). Verbatim theatre and social research: Turning towards the stories of others. Theatre Research in Canada/Recherches Théâtralesau Canada, 33(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.3138/tric.33.1.24

19.

Gauntlett

(2007). Creative explorations: New approaches to identities and audiences. Routledge.

20.

Haraway

(1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. elameMan_Meets_OncoMouse: Feminism and technoscience. Routledge.

21.

Harris

McConville

(2020). Devising creativity in Hong Kong: An affective performance methodology. In Harris

Holman Jones

(Eds.), Affective movements, methods and pedagogies (pp. 118–132). Routledge.

22.

Harris

D. A.

(2021). Creative agency. Palgrave.

23.

Hickey-Moody

(2015). Manifesto: The rhizomatics of practice as research. In Hickey-Moody

Page

(Eds.), Arts, pedagogy and cultural resistance (pp. 169–192). Rowman and Littlefield.

24.

Jackson

Mazzei

(2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. Routledge.

25.

Jackson

Mazzei

(2017). Thinking with theory: A new analytic for qualitative inquiry. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 717–737). SAGE.

26.

jagodzinski

(2015). Affirmations and limitations of Rancière’s aesthetics: Questions for art and its education in the anthropocene. In Snaza

Weaver

(Eds.), Posthumanism and research education (pp. 121–132). Routledge.

27.

Jeffrey

(2017). Communicating with a human voice: Developing a relational model of empathy. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 47, 266–270. https://doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2017.312

28.

Kotze

Perold-Bull

Costandius

Alexander

(2018). Posthumanist and new materialist perspectives as navigational tool in Art Education Research: A diffractive analysis. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.14426/cristal.v6i1.124

29.

Lupton

(2018). How do data come to matter? Living and becoming with personal data. Big Data & Society, 5, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718786314

30.

MacLure

(2013). The wonder of data. Cultural Studies? Critical Methodologies, 13(4), 228–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708613487863

31.

Manning

(2009). Relationscapes: Movement, art, philosophy. MIT Press.

32.

Marks

(2000). Signs of the time: Deleuze, Pierce, and the documentary image. In Flaxman

(Ed.), The Brain is the screen: Deleuze and the philosophy of cinema (pp. 193–214). University of Minnesota Press.

33.

Marshall

Hooker

(2016). Empathy and affect: What can empathied bodies do? Medical Humanities, 42, 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2015-010818

34.

Neumann

D. L.

Chan

R. C. K.

Boyle

G. J.

Wang

Westbury

H. R.

(2015). Measures of empathy: Self-report, behavioral, and neuroscientific approaches. In Boyle

G. J.

Saklofske

D. H.

Matthews

(Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 257–289). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00010-3

35.

Pacini-Ketchabaw

Taylor

Blaise

(2016). Decentring the human in multispecies ethnographies. In Taylor

C. A.

Hughes

(Eds.), Posthuman research practices in education. Palgrave Macmillan.

36.

Paget

(1987). Verbatim theatre: Oral history and documentary techniques. New Theatre Quarterly, 3(12), 317–336. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266464X00002463

37.

Pedwell

(2014). Affective relations: The transnational politics of empathy. Palgrave Macmillan.

38.

Roudavski

McCormack

(2016). Post-anthropocentric creativity. Digital Creativity, 27(1), 3–6.

39.

Rousell

(2017). Mapping the data event: A posthumanist approach to art|education|research in a regional university. In Knight

Cutcher

(Eds.), Arts, research, education: Connections and directions (pp. 203–220). Springer.

40.

Slaby

(2014). Empathy’s blind spot. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 17, 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9543-3

41.

Slaby

Muehlhoff

(2019). Affect. In Slaby

von Scheve

(Eds.), Affective societies (pp. 27–41). Routledge.

42.

Springgay

Truman

S. E.

(2018). On the need for methods beyond proceduralism: Speculative middles, (in) tensions, and response-ability in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(3), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417704464

43.

St. Pierre

E. A

. (2015). Practices for the “new” in the new empiricisms, the new materialisms, and post qualitative inquiry. In Denzin

Giardina

M. D.

(Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and the politics of research (pp. 75–96). Left Coast Press.

44.

Sullivan

(2008). Afterward. In Springgay

Irwin

Leggo

(Eds.), Being with a/r/tography (pp. 233–243). Rotterdam/Sense Publishers.

45.

Taguchi

H. L.

(2012). A diffractive and Deleuzian approach to analysing interview data. Feminist Theory, 13(3), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700112456001

46.

Tousignant

Eugéne

Jackson

(2017). A developmental perspective on the neural bases of human empathy. Infant Behavior& Development, 48, 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2015.11.006

47.

Vagg

Harris

Hunkin

(2021). A culture of care in higher education empathy, affect and COVID-19. In Harris

Markham

(Eds.), Massive/micro autoethnography: Creative learning in COVID times. Palgrave Macmillan.

48.

van der Tuin

. (2011). A different starting point, a different metaphysics: Reading Bergson and Barad diffractively. Hypatia, 26(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01114.x

49.

van der Tuin

Dolphijn

. (2010). The transversality of new materialism. Women: A Cultural Review, 21, 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09574042.2010.488377

50.

Zaki

Bolger

Ochsner

(2008). It takes two: The interpersonal nature of empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 19, 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02099.x

Experiencing-With Data: Exploring Posthuman Creativity Through Rhizomatic Empathy

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References