The mutual constitution of sensuous and discursive understanding in scientific practice: An autoethnographic lens on academic writing

Abstract

The research process and production of scientific knowledge has traditionally been understood to be based on abstract analysis and intellectual capacity rather than physical and emotional resources, promoting an understanding of academic practice as a detached, non-emotional and objective activity. Lately, several researchers have bemoaned this lack of recognition of the bodiliness of our work. In this study, we attempt to address this gap by exploring and conceptualizing some of the ways in which the embodied dimensions of academic research practices are intertwined with the articulation of ideas in the writing of scientific texts. In order to pursue our aim, we draw on experiences explicated through an autoethnographic approach, including the generation of personal narratives and in-depth conversations with 18 researchers from different universities in Europe and the US. The article contributes to the sociology of science and academic literacy literature, by conceptualizing the interconnectedness between sensuous and discursive understandings in this context. With the advancement of this theoretical approach, we illuminate how scientific practice is bound up with emotional, embodied, material, social, political and institutional forces. We also challenge the dichotomy between 'knowledge work' or theoretical tasks on the one hand, and 'body work' or physical labor on the other.

Dancing with the D-man: Exploring reflexive practices of relational leadership in ballet and ice hockey

“…An overview of our research material is provided in Table 1. Our view of understanding research as both a relational endeavour and an embodied process (Esse´n and V€ arlander, 2013) offered us a solution for this challenging question. This study's analytical method loosely followed a pair-interview method (Gilmore and Kenny, 2015), in which the research material is collectively discussed and analysed by asking detailed and in-depth questions regarding the research phenomenon.…”

‘Oh, was that “experiential learning”?!’ Spaces, synergies and surprises with Kolb’s learning cycle

“…The embodied dimensions of organizational life are starting to receive more attention in organization and management studies (Cunliffe and Coupland, 2011;Essén and Värlander, 2013;Ladkin, 2013). However, as several scholars have recently argued, there has been a relative silence on the role of the body in discussions of organizational and management learning (Küpers, 2008;Strati, 2007;Yakhlef, 2010), and experiential learning in particular (Fenwick, 2003;Michelson, 1998).…”

The knowing body as a floating body

“…The university provides an apt research context since academia plays a significant role in disseminating management ideals (Gray, 2007; Hay, 2013; Katila and Meriläinen, 2002; Swan, 2005). Moreover, knowing lies at the heart of the mission and practice of academia, and the embodied nature of academic activities – such as teaching, writing, analysis, travelling and attending conferences – has been well demonstrated (Bell and King, 2010; Cunliffe and Coupland, 2011; Essen and Värlander, 2012; Parker and Weik, 2014; Pullen, 2006; Sinclair, 2005; Swan, 2005). Academic work also commonly encompasses – whether willingly or unwittingly – all life spheres, as many of these activities are not anchored to time and space.…”