A review of The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience, by Francisco J. Varela, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch, 1991. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 308pp. ISBN 0262720213. $30.00 USD.

How might one situate oneself in and respond to research literature in a way that does not assume traditional humanist research paradigms? In response, I engage in poetic inquiry through my readings of certain scholarly articles published in the field of postqualitative inquiry. I present two of them here, based on two articles that strike a rhythm in me; evocations are created and my voice merges with the existing voices in creating further lines of flight. The poetry helps me attune to inquiry and in turn inquiry is revealed as a sensitive attunement to the rhythms of life.

No abstract

How might technology mediate the transition from primary creative expression to secondary creative contributions? In this paper, we address this question by expanding upon recent conceptualizations of primary and secondary creativity (Runco & Beghetto, 2019) and offer a new way to understand how technology can support creative learning and creative expression. We open by providing a conceptual overview of how technology can serve as a mediator between primary and secondary creativity. We then provide a concrete example of how material artifacts of students’ creative expression (primary creativity) were digitized into artifacts, and in turn, transformed again into material creative contributions in the form of narrative volumes (secondary creativity). We also discuss how technology can be used to mediate continuous creative contributions beyond primary and secondary creativity and how creativity researchers can (re)conceptualize the role technology can play in supporting indefinite cycles of creative learning and expression from material to digital and back again.

In response to the call for this special issue, we draw upon Erin Manning’s (2013, 2016) theorizing of technique and technicity to reconsider schooling and inquiry practices through the chair. The chair is often taken for granted and narrowly conceived through the lens of neurotypicality. By beginning with technique and technicity, this work foregrounds affect, relation and process, rather than object, form and method, so as to dislodge the chair from the sedimented practices of schooling and inquiry. In the emergent fashion of research-creation, this article makes use of genealogy, narrative and theory to explore how the interplay of technique and technicity might engender different modes of chair-ing, and how these modes might speak to concerns of neurodiverse schooling and research methods.