Quote
Affect is the name we give to those forces—visceral forces beneath, alongside, or generally other than conscious knowing, vital forces insisting beyond emotion—that can serve to drive us toward movement, toward thought and extension, that can likewise suspend us (as if in neutral) across a barely registering accretion of force-relations, or that can even leave us overwhelmed by the world’s apparent intractability.
— Gregg, M., & Seigworth, G. J., 2010, p. 1
Affect names the more-than-representational forces of feeling, intensity, and inclination that course across bodies, environments, and technologies and, in doing so, modulate what bodies—human and nonhuman—can do. It is a concept for the dynamic capacities by which entities come to matter together, and for the intensities and atmospheres that modulate learning events, pedagogical encounters, and research processes. Posthumanist, postqualitative, and new materialist scholarship mobilizes affect to shift inquiry from what feelings are to what feeling-forces do in entangled ecologies of matter, meaning, and practice. This shift rearranges long-standing binaries of reason/emotion, mind/body, human/nonhuman, and individual/society by approaching sensing and feeling as relational, eventful, and distributed rather than as properties contained inside bounded selves.
Spinoza’s ethology provides a seminal anchor here, since he understands affect as the capacity to affect and be affected, where sad affects decrease a body’s capacities and joyful affects expand them; this is an ontological account of force and capacity rather than a psychology of inner states (Manning & Massumi, 2014). Spinoza lays important foundations by defining affectus as a transition in a body’s capacity to act that follows encounters with other bodies, while affectio names the states bodies exhibit in such encounters; that Spinozist vocabulary underwrites the posthuman emphasis on capacities, relations, and ethical practice oriented by what fosters fuller powers of thinking and acting (Spinoza, 1994; Deleuze, 1988). Deleuze and Guattari extend this by describing affect as pre-individual intensities that sweep across assemblages, or constellations of humans, nonhumans, discourses, infrastructures, and atmospheres, altering the potential for action, thought, and desire as they pass (1987). In this lineage, Massumi (2002) describes affect as autonomous from qualification, a register of sensation that is not owned by the subject and that exceeds capture by language or conscious intention, a surplus of life that moves ahead of representation and reflexive sense-making, the palpable surge of a situation through which feelings, meanings, and actions subsequently congeal.
Feminist new materialisms and critical posthumanities incorporate these insights into material-discursive ontologies; within these perspectives, affect is more than just technical term for preconscious feeling; it is a stake in reimagining how knowledge, power, and ethics are lived and researched. Barad conceptualizes matter and meaning as inseparable through the onto-epistemology of agential realism, and in this register, touching—sensing and feeling—is not contact between pre-existing entities, but an intra-action that co-constitutes bodies in and through their differentiating entanglements; sensing is what matter does, a collective responsiveness that precedes subject/object divisions (Barad, 2007). Braidotti situates affect as the energetics of becoming at the heart of an affirmative ethics, arguing that posthuman knowledge projects should cultivate relations that mobilize desire, imagination, and joyful affects to transform the negative and enlarge capacities for situated flourishing in more-than-human worlds (Braidotti, 2013, 2019). This affirmative orientation refigures critique not as demystification alone but as the composition of alternative arrangements that modulate affective capacities differently—another way of saying that pedagogy and research are ethico-political interventions in the affective textures of worlds.
Massumi’s emphasis on affect’s autonomy has energized accounts of the pre-personal, transindividual intensities that move across collectives and devices before they resolve into named emotions; by contrast, Ahmed foregrounds how histories of power and discourse sediment into the very “stickiness” of feeling, so that emotions do not simply reside “within” subjects but travel across bodies and signs, attaching to figures and spaces in ways that reproduce or contest social relations (Ahmed, 2004). Wetherell further insists that affect must be traced in practice as patterned, socially organized activity, cautioning against positing a realm of pure intensity divorced from meaning and structure; in this view, affects are unavoidably entangled with discourse, habit, classification, and situated action (Wetherell, 2012). Rather than resolving this tension, postqualitative work treats it as a productive provocation: researchers are invited to craft analytic and methodological attunements that can register both the unruly, eventful pull of intensities and the patterned, infrastructural conditions through which affects are routed, amplified, or dampened.
Affect, therefore, is a concept for the dynamic capacities by which entities—human and more-than-human—come to matter together, and for the intensities and atmospheres that modulate learning events, pedagogical encounters, and research processes. The term helps educational researchers track how classrooms hum, how platforms pulse, how curricula gather force, and how inquiry itself unfolds as world-making. Debates within affect studies matter for education because they shape how researchers conceptualize feeling in classrooms, studios, writing workshops, laboratories, and digital platforms. In educational contexts, this means affect is beyond a mere interior “emotion” a learner reports, or only an outcome variable to be measured; it is the very medium of pedagogy’s doing. Stewart describes “ordinary affects” as the surges and eddies of life that gather in scenes, objects, and atmospheres, where something throws itself together as a moment and a sensation; classrooms are thick with such condensations in the minor, fleeting encounters of a glance, a pause, an interface notification, a draft margin comment, a chair’s wobble, or the hum of a projector (Stewart, 2007). When researchers and instructors attend to these condensations, they can perceive how the tempo of a seminar, the aesthetic of a writing prompt, the latency of a learning management system, or the choreography of peer review modulates students’ capacities to think-feel otherwise. Hickey-Moody advances this insight into method, proposing “affect as method” to craft research and pedagogical practices that work with feeling, aesthetic encounter, and sensation to produce learning that cannot be reduced to representation or cognition alone (Hickey-Moody, 2013). In composition and writing-as-inquiry, such an approach reorients feedback, drafting, and conferencing toward the cultivation of atmospheres that amplify curiosity, courage, and collective invention; it treats the page, the screen, and the interface as part of the affective assemblage through which writing becomes.
Postqualitative methodology has taken affect seriously as part of its move beyond representationalism. St. Pierre’s call for post-qualitative inquiry invites researchers to suspend the assumption that data are representations of prior realities and to experiment with theories-methods that attend to how inquiry participates in the world’s becoming; in this invitation, affect figures as a register of immanent evaluation—a way the world signals emerging problems and possibilities through intensities that do not wait for coding frameworks to make sense (St. Pierre, 2011). Jackson and Mazzei’s practice of “thinking with theory” similarly encourages researchers to plug data, theory, and situation into one another in circuits that can amplify the signals of affect that run between utterances, silences, glitches, and material arrangements; the analytic task becomes less about categorizing emotions and more about tracing how capacities are differentially distributed and modulated across an assemblage (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012; Mazzei, 2013). MacLure describes the “wonder of data” in the spark that draws an inquirer to a phrase, an image, or a smell; in this moment, attraction itself is an analytic index that points to lively problems worth following, and wonder is an affective guide rather than a bias to be eliminated (MacLure, 2013).
Affect is also inseparable from digital pedagogy and the platforms that increasingly mediate educational life. Papacharissi shows how networked communication organizes publics, or multiple, overlapping, transient collectivities — loose formations of people, platforms, hashtags, posts, images, memes, and moods that momentarily cohere around an issue, event, or affective resonance, through affective flows and expressive practices; in classrooms, digital platforms do not simply deliver content, they orchestrate moods, pulses of attention, and shared intensities that shape learning and political imagination (Papacharissi, 2015). Paasonen and collaborators elaborate how networked affect takes form as rhythmic, glitchy, and sticky intensities in the everyday life of platforms, interfaces, and feeds; educators and researchers who attend to these rhythms can better understand how feelings are amplified, fatigued, or reoriented by notifications, metrics, and algorithmic curation (Paasonen, Hillis, & Petit, 2015). Haraway’s insistence on “staying with the trouble” underscores that such technosocial assemblages demand response-ability: classroom affect is never only “ours,” but a co-production with infrastructures, standards, devices, and more-than-human actors that require care-full design and worlding (Haraway, 2016).
Theoretical Tensions
Central debates and tensions travel with this concept as it is put to work in education. First, the affect/emotion distinction remains unsettled. Massumi differentiates affect as unqualified intensity from emotion as captured, named feeling, whereas Ahmed questions the utility of a hard separation, given that intensities are always already routed through histories and signs that shape who can feel what, where, and with what consequences (Massumi, 2002; Ahmed, 2004). This tension matters in classrooms, where the valorization of pre-personal intensity can obscure how race, gender, class, disability, and coloniality structure affective economies, while the focus on discursive articulation alone can miss how something is happening in the room that exceeds what anyone says. Blackman sharpens this point through accounts of affect as haunted by social and psychic histories that become embodied and atmospheric, arguing that method needs to be inventive enough to register these hauntings without re-centering the rational, sovereign subject (Blackman, 2012).
Second, operationalization poses a methodological problem and an opportunity. Wetherell cautions that the pursuit of affect as a pure beyond can slide into mystification, and she urges careful attention to how affective practices are patterned and learnable in social life (Wetherell, 2012). Gregg and Seigworth, by curating a field-defining anthology, invite pragmatics: researchers should assemble situated approaches that are adequate to the object of study, whether this involves ethnographic attunement, sensory methods, speculative prototyping, or diffractive reading/writing practices that treat analysis as an event that modulates the very intensities being studied (Gregg & Seigworth, 2010). In educational research, this has encouraged inventive methods such as in-situ notations of tempo and timbre during workshops, material-semiotic mapping of classroom assemblages, screen-capture diaries that trace micro-affects of interface friction and flow, and diffractive reading groups that cultivate response-ability through shared attention to how texts affect and are affected in collective study.
Third, there is an important ethical-political debate about affirmative orientations. Braidotti proposes an affirmative ethics that builds with joyful affects to transform negative conditions, but Berlant warns that attachments we desire can be cruel in their effects, binding subjects to infrastructures of precarity and slow violence that exhaust capacities while promising nourishment (Braidotti, 2019; Berlant, 2011). In educational settings, both insights are necessary: writing studios that feel good can still reproduce inequities of voice and recognition, just as difficult, dissonant atmospheres can sometimes open capacities to think and act otherwise. Zembylas’s work on affect in education repeatedly shows how trauma, mourning, and “difficult knowledge” cannot be bypassed by positivity, and that ethical pedagogy requires cultivating spaces where complex affects can be held, metabolized, and politicized in ways that enlarge collective capacities rather than privatize pain (Zembylas, 2015).
New materialist and posthuman perspectives also widen what counts as an affective participant in education. Bennett’s account of vibrant matter invites educators to notice how desks, lighting, ventilation, and cables modulate classroom atmospheres, how a broken hinge or a flickering bulb can tilt a room’s capacities (Bennett, 2010). Anderson’s notion of affective atmospheres offers language for the vague yet consequential textures that gather around events—anticipation before a critique session, weariness at semester’s end, collective alertness during a dilemma—which can be designed-with rather than treated as ineffable background (Anderson, 2009). Haraway’s “becoming-with” and Barad’s intra-action together suggest that assignments, rubrics, comment banks, and even the grain of paper or the latency of cloud services actively co-compose the affective field of pedagogy and research; response-ability here means arranging assemblages that render each other capable, a phrase Haraway uses to name an ethic of co-composition (Haraway, 2016; Barad, 2007).
What does all this enable in educational research and practice, especially in writing-as-inquiry? First, it legitimates affect as knowledge-bearing, not in the sense of subjective report alone, but as world-disclosing force. When an instructor feels a snag in a workshop, that snag can be treated as a research event indicating that something in the assemblage—seating, prompt, peer dynamics, platform affordances, institutional time—has tightened capacities; inquiry then follows the snag by adjusting rhythms, surfaces, and relations to test how capacities can be loosened. Second, it reframes feedback and assessment as affective technologies. Margin comments, emoji reactions, and version histories do not merely convey information; they choreograph tempo, aspiration, and fear, and can be recomposed to cultivate courage and curiosity rather than vigilance and self-protection. Third, it expands method beyond representation: diffractive journals where students write-with texts and environments; sensory fieldnotes that register textures, sounds, and micro-gestures; collaborative annotation that tracks how ideas move bodies; and design experiments that reconfigure space and interface to study how atmospheres shift. Fullagar and Taylor’s work in postqualitative glossarial writing demonstrates how researchers can write “between-the-two” to enact, rather than only describe, the affective capacities of collective study, turning the research text into a site of response-ability and becoming (Taylor & Fullagar in A Glossary for Doing Postqualitative…, 2020s).
Affect is not innocent. Ahmed’s account of affective economies illustrates how fear and hate stick to bodies marked as other, shaping the everyday pedagogy of belonging and exclusion long before formal policies are invoked (Ahmed, 2004). In higher education, affective forces are routed through institutional infrastructures such as performance metrics, assessment policies, and accountability dashboards, which quietly modulate academic feeling toward competition, scarcity, and vigilance. Bozalek shows how such institutional arrangements intersect with pedagogical encounters, producing atmospheres of care or alienation that shape who can speak, write, or flourish in academic spaces (Bozalek, 2017; Bozalek et al., 2018). Similarly, Zembylas emphasizes that anger, grief, and trauma are not private states but shared affective intensities that require careful pedagogical holding and ethical response if higher education is to foster collective care rather than individual resilience (Zembylas, 2015). Posthumanist scholarship, in this light, asks how such infrastructures might be recomposed to support study, differential becoming, and collaborative imagination, rather than extraction and control.
If postqualitative research seeks to make and think with worlds rather than simply represent them, affect is both object and operator of that making. Researchers craft studies that are experimentally alive to intensities as they emerge, while also situating those intensities in the infrastructural and historical patterns that give them shape and consequence. The payoff is not a stabilized definition of affect but a repertoire of attunements and practices: inventing slow openings in fast platforms, composing rooms and prompts that amplify wonder without disavowing harm, writing and reading together in ways that render each other capable, and designing analytic pathways that treat feelings as forces that help us sense where pedagogy might go next. In this way, affect becomes a core concern for educational theory and method in posthumanist, postqualitative, and new materialist research—not as an add-on to cognition, but as the very milieu in which learning, authorship, and inquiry take form.
References
Affect: interconnections and methodological implications
In posthuman, postqualitative, and new materialist theory, affect is a connective tissue that modulates and is modulated by concepts such as assemblage, embodiment, agency, intra-action, atmosphere, materiality, Pedagogy, authorship, creativity, ethics, and Methodology. Deleuze and Guattari conceptualize affect as pre-individual intensity that courses across assemblages, altering what bodies and things can do in any given situation; in their account, assemblages are constellations of human and nonhuman bodies, discourses, infrastructures, and temporalities within which capacities are continually composed and recomposed (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). Massumi extends this insight by describing affect as autonomous from qualification, a surplus of sensation that moves ahead of representation and feeds back into the collective composition of an assemblage’s potentials; this is why the same classroom configuration can suddenly “tilt,” as intensities amplify or collapse capacities without anyone deciding so (Massumi, 2002). Because affect indexes shifts in capacity, it is inseparable from agency in a posthumanist sense. Barad reframes agency as an enactment that emerges through intra-action—the mutual constitution of entangled phenomena—so “who” or “what” acts is inseparable from the affective forces that co-constitute bodies, instruments, concepts, and settings; in this view, affect is not a property of a subject but a dynamic of worlding through which agency takes form (Barad, 2007).
Affect also folds directly into embodiment. Against interiorized, psychologized accounts of feeling, Braidotti situates affect in a monist ontology of the mindbody, where desire and joyful affects are engines of becoming and the ethical task is to configure relations that enlarge capacities—an affirmative ethics that treats embodied feeling as a vector for transformation rather than a residue to be controlled (Braidotti, 2013; Braidotti, 2019). Ahmed’s account of affective economies complements this by showing how feelings stick to bodies and signs as they circulate, sedimenting histories of race, gender, sexuality, and coloniality into the very textures of classrooms and corridors; in this circulation, ethics is not an add-on but a condition of affective life, because affects organize who can breathe, speak, hesitate, or risk in educational spaces (Ahmed, 2004). Anderson’s elaboration of atmosphere clarifies how such forces are not always locatable in individuals at all; atmospheres gather as vague yet consequential textures of anticipation, fatigue, relief, or dread that hover between bodies and spaces, demanding pedagogical and research practices that can register and recompose them (Anderson, 2009). Bennett’s “vibrant matter” and Haraway’s “becoming-with” bring materiality and cyborg entanglements to the fore; desks, cables, interfaces, rubrics, and servers participate in the affective choreography of education, and response-ability names the ethic of arranging multispecies and multitechnical relations that render one another capable (Bennett, 2010; Haraway, 2016).
These interconnections ramify across scholarly debates. Massumi’s emphasis on affect’s autonomy has energized accounts of pre-personal intensity, while Wetherell insists that affect is always patterned in practice and inseparable from discourse and social organization; together, these positions invite educational researchers to craft inquiries that can sense both the unruly eventfulness of intensity and the infrastructural grooves through which feelings are routed (Massumi, 2002; Wetherell, 2012). Ahmed’s critique warns that disentangling affect from meaning risks erasing how power organizes the very conditions of feeling, whereas Stewart’s attention to “ordinary affects” foregrounds how scenes, objects, and minor moments condense intensity into consequential inflections of everyday life; both orientations are crucial for tracing how small classroom adjustments can disproportionately shift what becomes possible (Ahmed, 2004; Stewart, 2007). Finally, Braidotti’s affirmative trajectory meets Berlant’s caution about “cruel optimism,” reminding educators that the attachments we cultivate can sustain or exhaust capacities depending on how they tether subjects to institutions and infrastructures; an ethics of affective pedagogy must hold both transformation and ambivalence at once (Braidotti, 2019; Berlant, 2011).
***Affect and the main research question on writing pedagogy with Large Language Models
For higher education instructors who teach writing as a mode of learning and inquiry, evolving relationships with Large Language Models are lived affectively in and through assemblages of people, platforms, prompts, drafts, metrics, and policies. Instructors’ experiences are not simply beliefs or stances; they are modulations of capacity that register as excitement, dread, curiosity, shame, relief, wonder, and fatigue as interfaces, institutional discourses, and classroom dynamics shift. Papacharissi’s account of networked publics clarifies that platforms orchestrate affective flows and tempos of attention; when an instructor explores an LLM’s “suggestion,” the rhythm of composing, the pacing of feedback, and the publicness of drafts are reorganized, producing intensities that can either open or constrict inquiry (Papacharissi, 2015). Paasonen and colleagues show how networked affect is glitchy and rhythmic; latency, token limits, refusal messages, and hallucinations introduce micro-surges of surprise or frustration that populate the writing studio’s everyday life, which in turn shape how instructors and students inhabit risk, play, and care in shared textual worlds (Paasonen, Hillis, & Petit, 2015).
Regarding the lived, affective, and embodied dimensions, Anderson’s atmospheres and Stewart’s ordinary affects help name how an LLM-enabled workshop feels different: the hum of machines, the half-second pause as a response generates, the glow of a revised paragraph that “lands,” or the collective sag when outputs feel generic. These condensations alter embodiment—not as private interiority, but as posthuman mindbody attunement that includes haptics, posture at the keyboard, eye movement across tokens, and the tactile rhythm of prompting and revising. Barad’s intra-action reframes “using a model” as co-composition: prompts, outputs, comment banks, and learning goals entangle such that the affective sense of authorship and responsibility is redistributed across a socio-technical apparatus; sensing a “good” exchange may be a matter of how the assemblage tunes capacities rather than an individual judgment alone (Barad, 2007).
With respect to core beliefs about authorship, creativity, and Learning, affect is the hinge on which reconfiguration turns. Braidotti’s affirmative ethics suggests that joyful affects—moments when an LLM catalyzes unanticipated lines of flight in a draft—can enlarge capacities and sustain creative experimentation, whereas Ahmed’s analysis reminds us that shame and fear can stick to AI use in ways that disproportionately burden students marked by race, class, language, or disability, who may be differently surveilled or presumed “inauthentic” (Braidotti, 2019; Ahmed, 2004). Instructors may experience “cruel optimism” when institutional mandates promise efficiency and academic integrity via detection, while day-to-day practice reveals that policing drains collective energy and narrows inquiry; Berlant’s insight invites a reframing toward arrangements that cultivate resilient curiosity and shared responsibility (Berlant, 2011). Haraway’s “becoming-with” and the cyborg imaginary reorient authorship from possession to composition-with machines, datasets, and communities; the affective task becomes learning to stay with the trouble of entangled authorship, crafting practices that render each other capable rather than purifying the human (Haraway, 2016).
New pedagogical practices and artifacts emerge as affective designs. Hickey-Moody’s “affect as method” translates into assignments that explicitly work with sensation and atmosphere: diffractive prompting exercises that have students write-with an LLM and a field site, feeling for where wonder or resistance intensifies; iterative studio protocols that tune tempo and turn-taking between peers and model to modulate courage and care; feedback ecologies where instructors’ and models’ comments are composed to amplify inventive risk rather than vigilance. Papacharissi’s insights support redesigning interactional frames so that the “publics” of drafting—peer cohorts, shared notebooks, model traces—are hospitable to exploration and error, while Paasonen’s rhythms suggest attending to cycles of exhaustion and exhilaration to avoid affective overclocking in AI-augmented writing (Papacharissi, 2015; Paasonen et al., 2015). Instructors’ meaning-making about LLMs then appears as affective practice: they learn to sense when to slow down, when to sidestep a seductive but flattening autocomplete, when to invite a counter-prompt, and how to narrate authorship as a situated, collective act.
Cyborgification of writer and text is palpably affective. The writerly body includes autocomplete, tokenizer, and context window; the text is both artifact and interface. Barad’s diffraction and Haraway’s becoming-with illuminate why instructors may feel at once augmented and displaced, exhilarated and uneasy: capacities are redistributed across an apparatus whose boundaries are fuzzy and whose histories are unevenly ethical (Barad, 2007; Haraway, 2016). Blackman’s attention to hauntings allows researchers to register how prior scandals about plagiarism, deficit framings of multilingual writers, or institutional austerity linger as atmospheres that color every AI exchange; these ghosts matter for how trust, shame, and possibility circulate (Blackman, 2012). In short, affect is not a byproduct of AI in writing pedagogy; it is the scene of relation through which this evolving practice becomes thinkable, doable, and ethical.
Methodological implications for postqualitative and educational research
Treating affect as a key concept reshapes what counts as Data, analysis, and valid inquiry in postqualitative and educational research. St. Pierre’s call to move “after” representation encourages researchers to treat data not as transparent mirrors of prior realities but as events in which the world and inquiry co-compose; in this frame, affective intensities—snags, surges, atmospheres—are not noise to be filtered but signals that help locate problems and possibilities worth following (St. Pierre, 2011). MacLure’s “wonder of data” legitimates attraction itself as an analytic index; when a line of transcript, a screen capture of a prompt exchange, or a photograph of a rearranged classroom glows in the researcher’s attention, that glow can guide diffractive analysis toward lively problems rather than pre-specified codes (MacLure, 2013). Jackson and Mazzei’s practice of “thinking with theory” provides a repertoire for plugging data, concepts, and situations into one another so that analysis becomes an intervention in affective circuits, capable of amplifying or rerouting capacities in the very assemblages being studied (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012; Mazzei, 2013).
Concretely, data in affect-attuned research include interface logs and version histories as traces of tempo and turn-taking; fieldnotes of atmospheres that register sound, light, latency, and posture; annotated prompts and outputs that show where intensities spike or stall; policy emails and detection dashboards that circulate affective economies of fear and compliance; and sensory accounts from instructors and students that situate feeling within material-discursive conditions. Wetherell’s insistence on patterned practice reminds researchers to situate these intensities in organizational rhythms and discourses rather than fetishizing singular moments, while Ahmed’s stickiness cautions against treating feelings as free-floating when they are tethered to histories of power (Wetherell, 2012; Ahmed, 2004).
Analysis shifts from coding emotions to tracing modulations of capacity across assemblages. Researchers map how a change in prompt design alters the courage of a peer response; how a detection policy email depresses risk-taking for weeks; how a redesigned studio arrangement dissipates dread and invites play; how a latency spike derails flow and narrows curiosity. Anderson’s atmospheres guide attention to vague but consequential textures, and Bennett’s material vitality keeps objects and infrastructures in the analytic frame (Anderson, 2009; Bennett, 2010). Haraway’s response-ability reframes validity as the capacity of an inquiry to render participants more capable of sensing and composing better relations; this is an ethical criterion as much as an epistemic one (Haraway, 2016).
Writing and research practices align with these commitments. Hickey-Moody’s “affect as method” supports experimental formats—diffractive write-ups that juxtapose vignette, concept, and artifact to let readers feel shifts in capacity; “between-the-two” collaborative writing that enacts collective sensing; and situated reflexive accounts that register the researcher’s own affective participation without recentring the sovereign “I” (Hickey-Moody, 2013; Gale & Wyatt, 2010, as cited in the postqualitative glossary entries). Papacharissi’s affective publics suggest that dissemination itself is an intervention: publishing open prompt libraries, interface mock-ups, and assignment designs with commentary on their affective effects extends inquiry into shared pedagogical worlding (Papacharissi, 2015). Zembylas’s work on difficult knowledge urges the crafting of ethical protocols that can hold complex affects in research encounters—lingering with discomfort, mourning, and uncertainty—so that inquiry does not instrumentalize pain or bypass harm in the name of positivity (Zembylas, 2015). Berlant’s warning about cruel optimism invites methodological vigilance about attachments to neat solutions or silver-bullet tools; studies should track how desired fixes can sap capacities and propose alternatives that are modest and life-sustaining (Berlant, 2011).
Finally, validity in an affect-attuned, postqualitative key takes on pragmatic-ethical inflection: a good study composes findings that travel as practices, designs, and stories that, when taken up, measurably alter atmospheres and capacities in situated settings. In this sense, Methodology is inseparable from Pedagogy: to research affect in AI-enabled writing instruction is to prototype, test, and share ways of arranging people, models, spaces, and times that cultivate affirmative, just, and curious relations—rendering each other capable in cyborg classrooms that are already here (Haraway, 2016; Braidotti, 2019).
Methodological implications of affect for postqualitative and educational research
Treating affect as a central analytic and ontological register reconfigures what counts as data, what analysis does, and how validity is argued in postqualitative and educational inquiry. St. Pierre’s invitation to move “after” representationalism reframes data as events in which researcher, participants, theory, and setting co-compose realities rather than mirror them; in this register, affective intensities—hesitations, surges of energy, atmospheres of dread or relief—are not noise to be filtered but are themselves consequential phenomena that orient inquiry toward emergent problems and possibilities (St. Pierre, 2011). MacLure’s notion of the “wonder of data” legitimates attraction as an analytic index: when a phrase, scene, screenshot, or smell “glows,” this felt pull can be methodologically cultivated to guide diffractive analysis toward lively questions and away from pre-specified codebooks that would domesticate intensity into categories (MacLure, 2013). Jackson and Mazzei’s practice of “thinking with theory” operationalizes this shift by plugging data, concepts, and situation into circuits that amplify or reroute affective currents; analysis becomes an intervention that modulates capacities within the assemblage under study, not simply an act of representation at a distance (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012; Mazzei, 2013).
Once affect is taken seriously as a force that modulates what bodies—human and nonhuman—can do, the archive of data expands. Researchers treat sensory fieldnotes that register light, temperature, latency, and posture as consequential traces; interface logs and version histories become temporal maps of tempo and turn-taking in writing; photographs and floor plans index spatial arrangements that co-compose atmospheres; institutional emails and dashboard metrics are read as affective technologies that circulate fear, vigilance, or relief; and participant accounts of feeling are situated alongside these material-semiotic traces as part of a single assemblage rather than privileged as subjective “reports” (Anderson, 2009; Bennett, 2010; Papacharissi, 2015). Ahmed’s analysis of affective economies, however, keeps methodologically in view that feelings “stick” to bodies and signs according to histories of power; this means data about affect cannot be treated as free-floating intensities, but must be situated in racialized, gendered, classed, and colonial infrastructures that route and amplify particular feelings and mute others (Ahmed, 2004). Wetherell similarly argues that affect is patterned practice: data should be collected and analyzed with an eye to how intensities are socially organized and learned in everyday routines and institutional arrangements, rather than posited as ineffable beyonds (Wetherell, 2012).
Analysis shifts from coding “emotions” to tracing modulations of capacity across assemblages. Deleuze and Guattari’s understanding of affect as pre-individual intensity allows analysts to ask how a given configuration of desks, prompts, platforms, and policies increases or decreases the ability to think, risk, and relate, and to map where capacities shift when one element is recomposed (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). Barad’s theorization of intra-action reframes causal claims: agency is an enactment of the apparatus, so analysis accounts for how affect is co-produced by people, concepts, instruments, and settings, rather than attributed to individuals (Barad, 2007). Anderson’s “affective atmospheres” help method name the vague yet consequential textures—anticipation before peer review, fatigue during metrics season—that hover between bodies, and that can be reconfigured through design experiments in space, timing, and interface (Anderson, 2009). Bennett’s vibrant materialism keeps objects—cables, chairs, rubrics, servers—in the analytic foreground as actors in affective choreographies (Bennett, 2010). Haraway’s response-ability adds an evaluative criterion: analyses are accountable to whether they render participants more capable of composing better relations in situated worlds; validity is partially an ethical-pragmatic achievement (Haraway, 2016).
Such orientations demand specific writing and research practices. Hickey-Moody proposes “affect as method,” which in educational research translates into aesthetic-sensory techniques such as thick, situated vignettes that let readers feel the modulations of capacity; speculative and diffractive writing that entangles empirical scenes with concepts in ways that show, rather than merely tell, how affect courses through pedagogy; and multimodal artifacts (screenshots, diagrams, prompt-output traces) that open the analysis to non-discursive registers (Hickey-Moody, 2013). Jackson and Mazzei’s “plugging in” supports iterative, theory-saturated memoing where concepts are treated as companions that transform the data-event, rather than as lenses applied after the fact (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012; Mazzei, 2013). MacLure validates methodological attentiveness to the researcher’s own bodily responses—not as confessional reflexivity, but as a sensor for where the assemblage is doing something that warrants following (MacLure, 2013). Papacharissi and Paasonen, Hillis, and Petit together suggest that dissemination itself is an intervention: open publication of prompt libraries, interface mock-ups, and studio protocols with commentary on their affective effects extends method into shared worlding, where findings travel as re-usable practices that can demonstrably shift atmospheres and capacities in other sites (Papacharissi, 2015; Paasonen, Hillis, & Petit, 2015). Zembylas’s work on difficult knowledge adds protocols for holding complex affects—lingering with ambivalence, mourning, or rage—so that research neither instrumentalizes pain nor bypasses harm in the name of upbeat innovation (Zembylas, 2015).
Concrete examples of affect observed, enacted, or theorized
One widely cited example comes from Stewart’s “ordinary affects,” where scenes are rendered as condensations of intensity that “throw themselves together” as moments and sensations; while not confined to classrooms, this descriptive practice has influenced educational researchers who craft thick, sensuous vignettes to make palpable how minor gestures—a pause before speaking, a shared glance at a screen, the scratch of a chair—recalibrate a room’s capacities for thought and relation (Stewart, 2007). The methodological lesson is that description is not ornamental but analytic: by composing scenes that let readers feel the tilt of an assemblage, the text itself enacts affect as method.
In higher education, Bozalek develops the idea of a Pedagogy of response-ability, showing how affect circulates through collaborative academic practices such as cross-institutional initiatives and collective modes of scholarly engagement. Drawing on Barad’s intra-action and Haraway’s Response-ability, she demonstrates how affective forces such as care, discomfort, joy, and hesitation are not personal states but relational capacities that emerge between participants, texts, and institutional conditions. In these events, affect shapes who is able to speak, how writing takes form, and which possibilities for becoming a scholar can be actualized. Methodologically, Bozalek’s work exemplifies how tracing affect (Expanded) demands attention not only to discourse and representation but also to spaces, objects, and atmospheres that tune participants’ capacities for engagement, thereby transforming higher education practices (Bozalek, 2017; Bozalek et al., 2018). Rather than treating feedback as the transfer of information, the retreat is understood as an assemblage of texts, bodies, spaces, and temporalities that tunes participants’ capacities to affect and be affected. The affective charge of careful listening, slowed time, and collaborative rewriting cultivates what Bozalek calls a “response-able pedagogy,” where inquiry is less about producing critique and more about rendering each other capable of becoming otherwise. Methodologically, this case illustrates how Affect is not an add-on to pedagogy but inheres in the very relational and material infrastructures that make educational co-becoming possible.
Zembylas theorizes and documents pedagogies of “difficult knowledge” in conflict and peace education, developing methods for attending to trauma, mourning, and anger as shared atmospheres that require carefully staged temporalities, rituals, and narrative practices; the work illustrates how method becomes an ethics of holding and transforming affective life in classrooms (Zembylas, 2015). Hickey-Moody, addressing affective pedagogy, operationalizes “affect as method” by designing arts-based tasks that mobilize sensation and aesthetic encounter to produce learning that cannot be reduced to representational content; the methodological implication is to treat artifacts—films, installations, soundscapes—as both data and interventions (Hickey-Moody, 2013).
A practice-oriented illustration from the present research context makes these implications tangible. Imagine a semester-long writing studio in which instructors and students co-compose essays with a Large Language Model. Data are gathered as a living archive of prompt-output exchanges, timestamps that capture tempo, screen recordings of drafting sessions, photographs of room layouts across weeks, and fieldnotes that register atmospheres—collective quiet during a model’s generation delay, laughter at an unexpected metaphor, a palpable slump when the model returns generic prose. Analysis proceeds by mapping how specific design changes modulate affective capacities: in week four, the instructor replaces individual prompting with paired “call-and-response” prompting, alternating human and model lines; the version histories show increased turn density and the vignettes capture a rise in speculative play, while reflections note decreased anxiety about authorship.
Plugging the scene above into Barad’s intra-action, the researcher reframes “student use” as apparatus enactment, locating agency in the human–model–prompt–policy–room configuration; thinking with Ahmed, the analysis also notes that a contemporaneous institutional email about AI detection precipitated two weeks of tightened prose and risk-avoidant prompts among multilingual writers, evidencing how fear stuck to particular bodies. The write-up is diffractive: each empirical fragment is juxtaposed with conceptual companions (e.g., Anderson on atmosphere to interpret pre-presentation hush; Bennett to include the recalcitrant HDMI cable that repeatedly derailed flow; Papacharissi to situate peer-notebook sharing as an emergent affective public), so that the text itself performs the argument that affect is the scene of pedagogy and inquiry (Anderson, 2009; Bennett, 2010; Papacharissi, 2015; Barad, 2007; Ahmed, 2004).
Critiques, limitations, and controversies
Substantive critiques of the affect turn in the social sciences should be taken as methodological guardrails rather than reasons for abandonment. Ahmed argues that the frequently asserted distinction between affect and emotion can obscure how feeling is already saturated with meaning and history; by positing affect as pre- or non-discursive, scholars risk bypassing how race, gender, sexuality, and coloniality organize the very conditions of feeling, thus depoliticizing analysis (Ahmed, 2004). Hemmings offers a historical critique of the field’s self-narration, suggesting that the affect turn sometimes constructs a straw person of “the linguistic turn” to establish novelty, while neglecting feminist and queer predecessors who already theorized embodied, affective, and material dimensions; methodologically, she urges more careful citation and continuity (Hemmings, 2005). Wetherell contends that the rhetoric of affect’s ineffability has enabled a mystifying style that is empirically thin; she proposes instead that researchers trace affect as socially organized practice, insisting on methodological specificity in how patterns of feeling are learned, stabilized, and changed (Wetherell, 2012).
Leys offers a pointed critique of what she reads as an anti-intentionalist stance in some affect theory, arguing that efforts to cordon off affect from cognition and meaning are conceptually unstable and methodologically unworkable, as interpretations and appraisals are constitutive of how feelings arise and matter (Leys, 2011). Berlant warns against an affirmative celebration of affect that overlooks how attachments can be “cruel,” binding subjects to infrastructures that sap capacities while promising sustenance; in educational research, this cautions against equating felt positivity with ethical pedagogy or methodological success (Berlant, 2011). Blackman highlights how affect is haunted by social and psychic histories—possession, suggestion, contagion—that trouble simplistic accounts of transmission; methods must be inventive enough to register such hauntings without re-centering the sovereign subject (Blackman, 2012).
Together, these critiques recommend several methodological disciplines: situate intensities in histories of power and discourse; resist the temptation to invoke ineffability in place of specification; remain accountable to patterned practice and organizational infrastructures; and hold affirmative aims alongside an analysis of ambivalent or exhausting attachments. An affect-attuned postqualitative methodology that heeds these cautions can be both sensuous and rigorous, inventive and accountable.