WALKING ETHNOGRAPHY FOR THE COMPREHENSION OF CORPORAL AND MULTISENSORIAL INTERACTIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Abstract

Walking ethnography studies are increasingly present in the literature on the numerous mobility methodologies found in the social sciences and humanities that potentially expand our phenomenological interpretations of the embodied and emplaced dimensions of lived experience. In this study, the mobile investigations as ontologically and epistemologically co-generative in the embodied production of aesthetic meaning-making in nature were examined, aiming to comprehend relations with the human and more than human world and reflect on the potentialities and limits of this methodology in phenomenological research and practices in environmental education. Moreover, the process of (non) representation of these experiences has been problematized insofar as they are not restricted to language, but are essentially bodily and involve multiple dimensions and connections, simultaneously with the human world and the materialities of the more than human world.

Keywords:
hermeneutic phenomenology; environmental education; aesthetic experience of nature; walking ethnography; non-representational theory

Resumen

Se puede observar en la literatura un incremento en los mobile studies como una de las numerosas metodologías que se encuentran en las ciencias humanas y sociales que han considerado la movilidad como un elemento importante en la comprensión de la experiencia vivida y potencialmente expande nuestras interpretaciones fenomenologicas. En este estudio, las investigaciones en movimiento, como ontológicamente y epistemológicamente cogeneradores en la producción de sentido en la experiencia estética /afectiva en la naturaleza fueron examinados con el fin de entender la relación con el ser humano y más que humanos y reflexionar sobre el potencial y los límites de esta metodologia. Además, el tema de la (no) representación de estas experiencias fue interrogado ya que no se restringen a la lenguaje y si son esencialmente corporales e involucran múltiples dimensiones y conexiones, de simultaneamente con el mundo humano y las materialidades del mundo más que humano.

Palabras clave :
fenomenología hermenéutica; la educación ambiental; la experiencia estética de la naturaleza; el movimiento; la teoría no representacional

Introduction

1.1. Contextualization

This paper reports on a theoretical study based on in-depth reflection on the references it describes. The proposal stemmed from the researchers’ practical experiences and from Iared’s doctoral thesis (2015) which worked with the theoretical-methodological approach in question. It must be underscored that although the study originated from experience acquired in the process of the abovementioned research it presents reflections, questions and ideas that only emerged after the thesis had been defended and published and it is not a mere extraction of the thesis results. The aim here is to contribute towards environmental education practices and research by putting forward proposals based on philosophical orientations that favor a non-anthropocentric perspective.

In that light we will begin by conceptualizing the approaches. Following that comes a discussion of walking ethnography as an alternative data gathering technique for this kind of philosophical reference. Lastly there will be a review of the possibilities and challenges present in environmental education practice and research orientated by this reference framework.

1.2 Conceptualization

In the field of human sciences several contemporary movements are emerging among them corporeal turn (SHEETS-JOHNSTONE, 2009) new materialisms (COOLE, FROST, 2010) and post-humanism (BRAIDOTTI, 2013) which call into question the modern dichotomies: subject - object, body - mind, nature - culture, reality - imagination, humans - non-humans. Steil and Carvalho (2014) use the term ecological epistemologies to designate those orientations in various scientific fields that draw support from philosophy, anthropology, and sociology and that contribute to the construction of pedagogical research and practice in what is generally known as environmental education and which also value horizontality in the relations between humans and non-humans, in harmony with the tenets of the corporeal turn movement.

Authors who adhere to the corporeal turn proposal (BROWN; TOADVINE, 2003; PAYNE; WATTCHOW, 2009; PINK, 2009) reject the traditional cognitive theories whereby we learn through the transmission of representations, a term coined by Ingold (2010) who also questions those traditional theories. In the view of those authors, it is not a mind, situated in a body, thinking, attributing meanings to things and representing the world but, instead, it is our body that is the center and origin of our being and our being in the world. That is to say, it is a mind embodied or engaged which does not separate thinking from doing or feeling from being in motion (SHEETS-JOHNSTONE, 2009). In that line of philosophical thinking the body and mind are seen as inseparable and that leads to questioning other dichotomies such as subject - object, nature - culture, humans - non-humans. The corporeal turn movement also has a phenomenological proposal in regard to studies of the somaesthetics movement (SCHUSTERMAN, 2008). According to the respective concept, from the moment we are born we have visceral connections with the world of life in our aspect as creatures in/with/as ⁱ nature and meaning comes from our bodily perceptions, movements, emotions and feelings. Those visceral connections are a kind of aesthetics in themselves, but not aesthetics as the formal study of art but aesthetics that is a study of everything that has a strong connection with our body in its engagement with the world (INGOLD, 2011; JOHNSON, 2007; SHUSTERMAN, 2008; SULLIVAN, 2001). In that light somaesthetics refers to understanding those visceral connections with the world and human capacity to attribute meaning to experiences. It is a contemporary proposal that envisages an ontology in which our body is engaged in, with and as the world, in a meshwork of threads (INGOLD, 2011) all in constant flux and within which we change the world, just as the world transforms us.

In turn the adepts of post-humanism thinking (BRAIDOTTI, 2013; HARAWAY, KUNZRU, TADEU, 2009, among others) construe the problems associated to our anthropocentric society and the distinction it makes between humans and non-humans and identify the challenge of the post-human condition as being that of fostering opportunities to establish new bonds and new aesthetic, ethical and political positionings in relation to all the living and non-living beings on the planet:

Once the centrality of anthropos is challenged, a number of boundaries between “Man” and his others go tumbling down, in a cascade effect that opens up unexpected perspectives. Thus, if the crisis of Humanism inaugurates the posthuman by empowering the sexualised and racialised human “others” to emancipate themselves from the dialectics of master-slave relations, the crisis of anthropos relinquishes the forces of the naturalised “others.” Animals, insects, plants and the environment, in fact the planet and the cosmos as a whole are called into play. The fact that our geological era is known as the “anthropocene”5 stresses both the technologically mediated power acquired by anthropos and its potentially lethal consequences for everyone else (Rabinow). “Man” is no longer the measure of all things. (BRAIDOTTI, 2014, p.163

Braidotti (2014) reports that many inter and trans-disciplinary research fields have been emerging in the scope of the posthumanism movement among which those of Animal Studies and Eco-criticism. Indeed, according to the report of the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association held in Chicago, USA in April 2015, many papers on that theme were presented in the Environmental Education Special Interest Group (SIG)ⁱⁱ. Other papers addressing the area of environmental education (BORGES, 2014; FAWCETT, 2013; FLOWERS, LIPSETT, BARRET, 2014; RUSSELL, 2005) have also been publishing material consistent with that approach in which the perspective of the more-than-human world is acknowledged to be of fundamental importance

Ingold’s (2012a) discourse also favors an ethic that takes all things as opposed to all objects into consideration; the concept of opposition as constructed by Heidegger referring to a consummated fact or some kind of inert material. Ingold declares that the thing is a happening and that we participate in that happening because there is no frontier that defines the location of our bodies in the world but, instead, an interlacing of threads and knots that constitute a meshwork. To illustrate his reasoning, Ingold (2012a) used the example of a kite which is a happening (thing) and not some kind of dead material (object) because a flying kite exists when a person, the kite and the wind interact and become a movement. That puts us in a non-anthropocentric position which deconstructs human superiority, in its aspect as the detainer of culture, and the nature-culture duality because Ingold (2000, 2011) attributes a place in the environment-world to the human being which is that of a “being immersed in the flow of life and dependent on the processes and movements that constitute our bodies and our lives” (STEIL. CARVALHO, 2012, p.11). The fact of being immersed in the world means acknowledging the mutual permeability between our bodies and the organisms of the world, respecting other singularities of existence and opposing the idea that we should appropriate the world to ourselves by means of culture (INGOLD, 2011). The same author opposes approaches that focus on human specificity, arguing that it only draws us away from the world, that is to say, it places us “outside” the world in order to describe it and represent it.

Steil and Carvalho (2012) remind us of an important intellectual shift Ingold proposes. In his first work. The perception of environment, Ingold (2000) gives a lengthy description of our connection with the world in our aspect as beings that inhabit the landscape. In his work Being Alive, Ingold (2011) views the environment as movement and dwelling, as a process, a meshwork. Understanding the body, to Ingold (2011), means understanding the body and the environment as being movement (INGOLD, 2011). To Sheets-Johnstone (2009), sensing and moving do not come together merely because they are parts of the same body, but because movement and perception are integrated and there is no separation of mental activity from a bodily activity; in other words, a prior mental/neurological process is not necessary to trigger the act of movement. That theory rejects the idea of a fragmented body that perceives an exterior world. In Ingold’s (2011) words:

To perceive the environment is not to look back on the things to be found in it, or to discern their congealed shapes and layouts, but to join with them in the material flows and movements contributing to their- and our- ongoing formation. (INGOLD, 2011, p.88)

Mobile studies and walking ethnography

To reflect on the phenomenological theoretical-methodological reference framework associated to environmental education research, Payne (2013) suggests an eco-phenomenological approach that includes the world beyond the human world in the investigations of the nature of human experience. That author argues that many authors in the fields of human sciences adopt an anthropocentric vision and the insertion of the eco prefix is designed to foster an expansion to embrace and acknowledge what lies beyond the humans (post-human). In consonance with that proposal, Abram (1996) offers a more ecological and corporal vision of the lived-through experience and recapitulates Merleau-Ponty’s (2006) idea of synesthesia whereby there is no fragmentation among the senses or between the spheres of feeling/sensing and attributing meaning.

Pink (2009) argues in favor of a sensory ethnography and he justifies that by stating that the multi-sensory aspect of experience has been omitted from ethnographic research. He suggests that researchers should make use of their sensory body in its entirety when compiling or interpreting research data and connect themselves to the same daily activities other people are engaged in. According to Pink (2009), sensory perception is not exclusively dialogued and our social interaction are not exclusively based on verbal communications and visual impressions. In other words, learning from the experience of others can be more effective and they can be better understood when the researchers are also living out the experience and not just hearing or reading mere “representations of those experiences” .In that same context Payne (2013 also questions the representation of data in environmental education research, declaring that the language of the texts and the numbers are anthropocentric forms of communication and fail to portray the ecosomaesthetic (bodily engagement/ embodied mind and multisensory) content of the experience of nature.

Following the line of that proposal, Ingold (2010) argues that knowledge is an action engaged in the world, meaning that what we learn from the world comes from our experience of existing and being in the world which he calls Education of Attention whereby we observe, identify and create on the basis of our incorporated living experience. Bringing that to the field of research, the phenomenon of experience requires an understanding based on the corporal engagement of the researcher (s) in the experience of those involved. Again according to Ingold (2011), that engagement occurs in the form of the movement or in the meshwork of the flow of life. Ingold and Vergunst (2008) focus on walking as a means to gaining a better understanding of the variety of meanings associated to the body engaged in the world.

Lorimer (2008) refers to “new studies of walking”, a generic term to designate the use of this technique in multidisciplinary forms of research and practice. Actually, over the last decade, there has been an increase in methodologies of the walking ethnography-type in the social and human sciences (PINK et al.,2010) as a strategy for exploring new understandings of lived through experiences; among them are: the shared walk (LEE; INGOLD, 2006), the natural go-along (KUSENBACH, 2003), the commented walks (WINKLER, 2002), walking interviews (EVANS; JONES, 2011), and mobile ethnographies (PORTER et al., 2010).

A bibliographic review of periodicals published in the education database ERIC up until 2014 using the search phrases “walking’, “movement”, “mobile investigation” and “sensory ethnography” yielded 22 articles addressing those topics, the earliest dating from 2003. It showed the current reality of the mobile studies field in the human and social sciences and how it has developed. Eight of the articles reported on theoretical studies and 14 on empirical studies. In regard to the empirical studies, the city has been exploited as the key-scenario in walking ethnographic investigations ((HORTON et al., 2014; PINK et al., 2010; YI’EN, 2013, among others), but there are some examples outside the urban environment such as ‘pilgrimage’ (SLAVIN, 2003), ‘botanical gardens’ (HITCHINGS; JONES, 2004), ‘rural landscapes’ (CATO; MYERS, 2011; WYLIE, 2005; PORTER et al., 2010) and ‘Cerrado’ (IARED, 2015). Appendix 01 presents the articles retrieved and the respective analyses.

Although each article addressed a different research topic, all of them were based on the premise that mobile studies make it possible embrace the sensory and affective dimensions of people in their ordinary leisure activity. That being so, what we propose to discuss here is the walking activity offers a more sensitive and more in-depth approach as a means to discover/unmask the nature of the aesthetic, multisensorial engaged experience in/with/as nature (IARED; OLIVEIRA; PAYNE, 2016). Doing that enables us to participate in the phenomenon being experiences and expands our prospects of accessing it by means of descriptions made in the interviews. In other words, “the walk is not just what a body does; it is what a body is” (INGOLD; VERGUNST, 2008, p. 02, That does not mean the method is capable of accessing all the elements of the lived through experience but it does offer an alternative way of expanding the data gathering capacity. In that vein Kusenbach (2003) and Iared and Oliveira (2017) recommend the use of a combination of different data gathering techniques and he argues that it is not a question of any one being better than the other but rather that they make it feasible to explore the different perspectives and angles that each technique provides.

The methodology as a support for environmental education research and practice

In recent years there has been increasing interest in those new environmental education methodologies that adopt the perspective of the ‘post’ movements (ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, 2005; HART, 2013). In that light, we consider that the theme of this paper is pertinent and timely for the progress of environmental education research and practice. By expanding and understanding the challenges associated to environmental education research and practice in the perspectives of the new ecological epistemologies, the commensurability of the theoretical-methodological framework becomes open to discussion.

Mobile investigations consider movement to be the pivot of our essence and of the materiality of the non-human beings. When we consider beings in movement we are not limiting ourselves to considering human beings alone we are also referring to the movement of non-human beings; the fauna living in an area, the flower buds that open, the fruits that appear at certain seasons, the sun in its movement from east to west, the water that percolates through the soil (COOPER, 2006). From that we can take it that perceiving means perceiving movements and perceiving while in movement (INGOLD, 2000). Considering that both the human and the more than human world possess materiality, that is, a perspective of their being in the world too, seems to us to be a horizontal positioning in relation to the existence of the non-humans.

Actually, when we speak of the formation of an environmental ethic, we are still attributing a centrality to human culture and failing to concern ourselves with the perspective of the non-humans insofar as we deduce that there is no such thing as non-human agency. We believe that working in accordance with these new movements represents a new ontological and epistemological possibility in the sense of deconstructing an anthropocentric society that has existed since the time of the most ancient civilizations, and in the sense of opposing the concept that the mental structures necessarily antecede the action.

One point of convergence among these contemporary movements is their representativeness and representation in the social sciences, referring here to non-representational theory (THRIFT, 2008), which construes the way we are “accessing” our data and traditionally representing them by means of numbers and texts, as a problem. Ingold (2012b) reminds us that even though experiences of fear, dreams and imagination are a problematical to map or classify that does not make them any less real or less important in the constitution of our being-in-the-world. According to this emergent theory those researchers who accept that proposal as valid seek for innovative methodologies and a data analysis and representation more conducive with the research question. Establishing an interface with environmental education, several authors (FAWCETT, 2013; PAYNE, 2005, 2009; RUSSELL, 2005; RUSSELL, FAWCETT, 2013) have been raising questions about some aspects: Is space allowed for other beings and things in the representations of environmental education research? How were respective the stories accessed or witnessed? How have they been represented?

Several studies (IARED, 2015; LORIMER, 2008; PAYNE, 2005; PINK, 2009; THRIFT, 2008) have underscored the considerable challenge of transcribing into words and/or numbers the affective and/or emotional responses of research participants and the challenge is all the greater when they involve the beyond-human world. The walking ethnography technique works with the perspective of the researcher’s immersion in the event being studied and the idea of “influencing” the research context is contested, as the researcher or researchers are considered as being participants themselves in the investigation. In that sense, the experience is not only described/observed, it is actually lived through and witnessed by all those involved. Payne (2013) uses the term econarratives to designate ways of describing the body/space/time experience in/of/with nature which are the means to achieving ecobecoming (being and perceiving oneself as nature). In that regard walking methodologies are alternatives that facilitate the identification and discussion of affective responses related to the fact of the body’s being immersed in the flow of movement with the world.

Non-representational theory questions the extent to which we access, understand and represent other forms of beings in the world, both human and non-human. We believe such theories contribute to the construction of an environmental ethic that is eco-centric and does not seek to mark the differences between humans and non-humans. By opting for that approach, we acknowledging that we are engaged with other (human and non-human) bodies in the world and not just sharing the same space; we are in a reciprocal, horizontal process of formation and self-comprehension.

Walking ethnography (INGOLD; VERGUNST 2008) and/or sensorial ethnography (PINK, 2009) are not merely research methods but can also be applied as bodily activities in the area of environmental education with the aim of motivating the perceptions of our body in its interlacing with the environment; a perception that is more attentive, sensitive, amazed and curious. Ingold’s (2010) educational perspective is concerned with the education of attention as opposed to transmission and representations and it refutes classic cognitive science, seeking to involve a more phenomenological and ecological approach that leads to visceral and corporeal forms of learning rather than the transmission of a stock of accumulated representations. In a recent publication, Ingold (2014) questions the duality of knowing and being. In both his works he argues that knowledge does not consist of a series of propositions regarding the world but instead, it is constructed on the basis of sensorial engagement with the environment. In other words, ‘getting to know’ means participating alongside persons and things in their practical living experiences. We learn on the basis of our experiences and not from the experiences of others.

We consider the education of attention perspective to have considerable transformation potential in the field of environmental education, because it construes the problematic importance of displacing our attention towards a perception of being immersed in the word alongside other beings and producing meaning together with them. In that sense, environmental education is capable of providing learning spaces immersed in those flows and in that interlacing with the world, making it possible for us to perceive our horizontality with other human and non-human beings; that can influence our ethical and political stances towards acquiring greater coherence with such relations.

Ingold (2000) and Vergunst (2011) question the use of technology in the perception of the environment, declaring that the mediation of photographic cameras, Global Positioning System and even the soles of our shoes keep us at a distance from an integrated connection with nature. The perception of temperature, the variety of smells and attention to detail are all mediated by the use of technological apparatus. Thus, we would indicate that activities can be elaborated directed at loosening our embrace, even if only for a few minutes, of such technology, devised for our comfort but which at the same time disconnects us from any corporal interaction with other elements in the environment. We have to incorporate those sensorial and mobile practices in courses and study disciplines stimulating the disuse of those accessories that we routinely use to work with sensorial aspects of environmental education activities.

In consonance with that proposal, in the course of her research Iared (2015) identified the occurrence of technological mediation in her aesthetic experience of walking in the Cerrado savannahs as having both positive and negative possibilities. The photographic cameras used in the Cerrado walks triggered attention to some details of the leaves and flowers, varieties of insects and so on but at the same time they led the participants to be fixated on visual aspects. Based on that observation Iared (2015) formulated a question to be investigated in subsequent research: what is the relation between the aesthetic experiencing of nature and the use of technological apparatus?

The research contexts identified in the literature review in the preceding item namely, urban areas and natural areas, are also significant in the field. Both natural areas and green urban areas should be considered for effective environmental education strategies and neither one should take priority over the other (IARED, 2015). One source of concern very much present in the field of environmental education today is where to offer educational living experiences given that most of the population is urban. Monbiot (2012) expresses concern about the lack of spaces for children to play in natural settings and classifies that situation as the second environmental crisis. Bögeholzl (2006), Louv (2008) and McClaren (2009) focused their studies on increasing urbanization and the lack of contact with nature, while Bögeholzl (2006) and Louv (2008) underscored the importance of living experiences in well preserved environments in forming attitudes and values. McClaren (2009), on the other hand, believes that we must get beyond the human being - nature dichotomy and a vision that only views the urban environment as a source of problems, arguing that we need to invest in environmental education in cities.

From the above we can see that both the conservation of natural areas and the management of green urban areas can offer possibilities for environmental education practices and they can contribute to offering experiences in/with/as nature. Our understanding is that environmental education research can contribute with the definition of pedagogical and curricular practices designed to overcome the traditional dichotomies (culture -nature, subject-object, body-mind, reason-emotion).

In addition, the studies reviewed here show that the walking activities usually occur outside of the school environment and we have identified the possibilities of working in the more informal moments of socialization (excursions in the urban parks or squares, visits to the zoo, the trajectory from home to school). The importance of that lies in the fact that they are spaces that foster relations between generations (fathers, mother, grandparents etc.) which to take place spontaneously in the daily routines and are of fundamental importance for forming individuals’ attitudes and values (FERRIGNO, 2003; IARED, 2015; PAYNE, 2010).

Incorporating those elements to the official curricula of schooling and non-schooling institutions is a subject that needs to be discussed in the sphere of institutions and personnel dedicated to education and especially educators involved in environmental education. That is consistent with Payne and Wattchow’s (2009) recommendations of slow (eco-) pedagogy which questions the value of pedagogical experiences, increasingly common in education, that seek to achieve superficial objectives in a fixed timeframe. Slow eco-pedagogy calls on us to reverse those principles not only in regard to a change in the educator’s posture but also in the curriculum. Usually environmental education activities in the school context, such as visits to natural areas or other educative spaces, are sporadic and rarely last more than 2 or 3 hours. If we consider that such aspects are essential to our activities as educators then, together with our institutions, we must foster a type of environmental education directed at offering moments for immersion in nature. That immersion does not necessarily have to occur in protected natural areas; they can, and should be stimulated to occur in urban green areas, rivers, in school yards, homes, zoos and botanical gardens.

Final Remarks

In this study, we have endeavored to underscore the need to study and expand the methodological possibilities for environmental education research and practices that are aimed at understanding the phenomenon of the eco-aesthetic/multi-sensorial/inter-corporeal experience in a perspective whereby we are all bodies engaged in/with/as the world. It is a perspective gives rise to many questions: what are the possibilities and challenges associated to the proposed methodology? In what aspects is it capable of composing a comprehensive framework? Does the methodology embrace gender or ethnic considerations or consider social groups in situations of environmental vulnerability? What are the implications of applying the methodology in different (urban or natural) environment, taking into account differences among the participants involved? Which affective and sensorial responses are favored by the immersion of the body in the flow of movement with the human and non-human world? What are the techniques, possibilities/pathways for construing the problem of representing subjects’ feelings and emotions and their relations with the more-than-human world in the contexts to be investigated?

Furthermore, we argue that research in the field of environmental education should dedicate itself to obtaining an understanding of the educational processes associated to the relations between the individual/society and nature, in all their complexity. Dussel (2000) states that in so doing we are placing ourselves alongside the “victim - an analogy with Paulo Freire’s “oppressed”. In the case of the present research, the category of victims or oppressed extends beyond those human beings that western culture has historically devalued and the study concerns itself with the perspectives of other beings, both living and non-living. In the same vein, we argue that the ontology proposed in this article - the inseparability of mind, body and world - has great potential for transformation and breaking off with paradigms that are deeply rooted in anthropocentric societies.

References

• ABRAM, D. The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human world. New York, NY: Pantheon, 1996.
• BÖGEHOLZ, S. Nature experience and its importance for environmental knowledge, values and action: recent German empirical contributions. Environmental Education Research, v. 12, n. 1- p. 65-84, 2006.
• BORGES, M.G. Formas de aprender em um mundo mais que humano: emaranhados de pessoas, coisas e instituições na ambientalização do contexto escolar. Thesis (Ph.D. in Education), Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 197 f., 2014.
• BRAIDOTTI, R. Working towards the Posthumanities. Trans-Humanities, v. 7, n. 1, p. 155-176, 2014.
• ______. The posthuman. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2013.
• BROWN, C.; TOADVINE, T. (Eds). Eco-phenomenology: Back to earth itself. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2003.
• CATO, M.S.; MYERS, J. Education as Re-Embedding: Stroud Communiversity, Walking the Land and the Enduring Spell of the Sensuous. Sustainability,v. 3, p.51-68, 2011.
• COOLE D, FROST S. (eds). New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010.
• DUSSEL, E. Ética da Libertação na idade da globalização e da exclusão. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2000.
• ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH. Special issue: Transitions in thought and practice: links, divergences and contradictions in postcritical inquiry. v. 11, n. 4, 2005.
• EVANS, J.; JONES, P. The walking interview: Methodology, mobility and place. Applied Geography, v.31, p. 849- 858, 2011.
• FAWCETT, L. Three degrees of separation: Accounting for naturecultures in environmental education research. In: STEVENSON, R.B. et al. International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education. New York: Routledge Publishers, 2013, p.409-423.
• FERRIGNO, J.C. Co-educação entre gerações. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes; São Paulo, SP: SESC, 2003.
• FLOWERS, M., LIPSETT, L., BARRETT, M.J. Animism, Creativity, and a Tree: Shifting into Nature Connection through Attention to Subtle Energies and Contemplative Art Practice. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, v.19, p. 111-126, 2014.
• FREIRE, P. Pedagogia do Oprimido. 17. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1987.
• HARAWAY, D.; KUNZRU, H.; TADEU, T. Antropologia do ciborgue: as vertigens do pós-humano. [A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century]. Tomaz Tadeu (Trad.). 2 ed. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica, 2009.
• HART, P. Preconceptions and positionings: can we see ourselves within our own terrain? In: STEVENSON, R.B. et al. International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education. New York: Routledge Publishers, 2013, p. 507-510.
• ______. Transitions in thought and practice: links, divergences, and contradictions in post-critical inquiry. Environmental Education Research, v. 11, n. 4, p. 391-400.
• HITCHINGS, R.; JONES, V. Living with plants and the exploration of botanical encounter within human geographic research practice. Ethics, Place & Environment: A Journal of Philosophy & Geography, v.7, n. 1-2, p.3-18, 2004.
• HORTON, J.; CHRISTENSEN, P.; KRAFTL, P.; HADFIELD-HILL, S. Walking … just walking’: how children and young people’s everyday pedestrian practices matter. Social & Cultural Geography, v.15, n.1, 2014, p. 94-115.
• IARED, V.G. A experiência estética no cerrado para a formação de valores estéticos e éticos na educação ambiental. 2015, 173p. Thesis (Ph,D. in Sciences). Centro de Ciências Biológicas e Saúde, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, 2015.
• IARED, V.G.; OLIVEIRA, H.T. Walking ethnography and interviews in the analysis of aesthetic experiences in the Cerrado. Educação e Pesquisa. Available at: < http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ep/2017nahead/en_1517-9702-ep-S1678-4634201706161972.pdf> Accessed in: 12 Oct. 2017.
  » http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ep/2017nahead/en_1517-9702-ep-S1678-4634201706161972.pdf
• IARED, V.G.; OLIVEIRA, H.T.; PAYNE, P. The aesthetic experience of nature and hermeneutic phenomenology. The Journal of Environmental Education, n.03, v. 47, 2016, p.191-201.
• INGOLD, T. That’s enough about ethnography! Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theor, v.4, n.1, p. 383-395, 2014.
• ______. Trazendo as coisas de volta à vida: emaranhados criativos num mundo de materiais. Horizontes Antropológicos, v. 18, n 37, p. 25-44, 2012a.
• ______. Caminhando com dragões: em direção ao lado selvagem. In: STEIL, C. A.; CARVALHO, I. C. M. (Orgs.). Cultura, percepção e ambiente. Diálogos com Tim Ingold. 1. ed. São Paulo: Terceiro Nome e CAPES, 2012b, p. 15-30.
• ______. Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London, UK: Routledge, 2011.
• ______. Da transmissão de representações à educação da atenção. Educação, v. 33, n. 1, p. 6-25, 2010.
• ______. The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London, UK: Routledge, 2000.
• INGOLD, T.; VERGUNST, J.L. (Eds). Ways of walking: ethnography and practice of Foot. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2008.
• JOHSON, M. The meaning of the body: aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2007.
• KUSENBACH, M. ‘Street phenomenology: The go-along as ethnographic research tool’, Ethnography, v.4, p. 455-485, 2003.
• LEE, J.; INGOLD, T. Fieldwork on foot: perceiving, routing, socializing. In: COLLINS, P.; COLEMAN, S. (Eds). Locating the Field. Space, Place and Context in Anthropology. Oxford: Berg Publishers, 2006, p. 67-86.
• LORIMER, J. Moving Image Methodologies For More-Than-Human Geographies. In: Environment, Politics and Development Working Paper Series Department of Geography, King’s College London, p. 1-44, 2008. Disponível em: <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/geography/research/epd/working.html>. Acesso em: jul. 2014.
  » http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/geography/research/epd/working.html
• LOUV, R. Last Child in the Woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Revised and Updated ed. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2008. 390 p.
• McCLAREN, M. The Place of the City in Environmental Education. In: McKENZIE, M. et al. Fields of green: restorying culture, environment, and education. Hampton Press, Inc. 2009. p. 301-306.
• MERLEAU-PONTY, M. Fenomenologia da percepção. 5. ed. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2006.
• MONBIOT,G. Housebroken. The Guardian, 19 Nov. 2012. Available at: http://www.monbiot.com/2012/11/19/housebroken/ Consulted in: February 2013.
  » http://www.monbiot.com/2012/11/19/housebroken/
• PAYNE, P. G. (Un)timely ecophenomelogical framings of environmental education research. In: STEVENSON, R.B. et al. International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education. New York: Routledge Publishers, 2013, p. 424-437.
• ______. Moral spaces, the struggle for an intergenerational environmental ethics and the social ecology of families: An ‘other’ form of environmental education, Environmental Education Research, v. 16, n. 2, pp. 209-231, 2010.
• ______. Framing research: Conceptualization, contextualization, representation and legitimization. Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental, v. 4, n.2, p. 49-77, 2009.
• ______. `Ways of doing’ learning, teaching and researching, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, v. 10, p. 108-124, 2005.
• PAYNE, P.; WATTCHOW, B. Phenomenological deconstruction, slow pedagogy and the corporeal turn in wild environmental/outdoor education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, v.14, p. 15-32, 2009.
• PINK, S. Doing Sensory Ethnography. London, UK: SAGE, 2009.
• PINK, S.; HUBBARD, P.; O’NEILL, M. & RADLEY, A. Walking across disciplines: from ethnography to arts practice. Visual Studies, v.25, n.1, p.1 - 7, 2010.
• PORTER, G; HAMPSHIRE, K.; ABANE, A.; MUNTHALI, A.; ROBSON, E.; MASHIRI, M.;MAPONYA, G. Where dogs, ghosts and lions roam: learning from mobile ethnographies on the journey from school. Children’s Geographies, v.8, n.2, p.91-105, 2010.
• RUSSELL, C. “Whoever does not write is written”: The role of “nature” in post-post approaches to environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, v. 11, n.5, p. 433-443, 2005.
• RUSSELL, C.; FAWCETT, L. Moving margins in environmental education. In: STEVENSON, R.B. et al. International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education. New York: Routledge Publishers, 2013, p. 365-374.
• SHEETS-JOHNSTONE, M. The corporeal turn: an interdisciplinary reader. Exeter: Imprint Press, 2009.
• SHUSTERMAN, R. Body consciousness: A philosophy of mindfulness and somaesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
• SLAVIN, S. Walking as Spiritual Practice: The Pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. Body & Society,v.9, n.3, 2003,p. 1-18.
• STEIL, C.A; CARVALHO, I.C.M. Epistemologias ecológicas: delimitando um conceito. Mana, v. 20, n.1, p. 163-183, 2014.
• ______. Diálogos com Tim Ingold: diferentes aportes no âmbito da antropologia fenomenológica. In: STEIL, C. A.; CARVALHO, I. C. M. (Orgs.). Cultura, percepção e ambiente. Diálogos com Tim Ingold. 1. ed. São Paulo: Terceiro Nome e CAPES, 2012, p. 54-74.
• SULLIVAN, S. Living across and through skins: transactional bodies, pragmatism and feminism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001.
• THRIFT, N. Non-Representational Theory: space, politics, affect. New York and London: Routledge, 2008.
• VERGUNST, J. Technology and technique in a useful ethnography of movement. Mobilities, v. 6, n.2, p. 203-219, 2011.
• WINKLER, J. Working on the experience of passing environments: On commented walks. In: WINKLER, J. (Ed.) Space, Sound and Time: A Choice of Articles on Soundscape Studies and Aesthetics of Environment 1990-2005, 2002. Disponível em: http://www.iacsa.eu/jw/winkler_space-sound-time_10-09-19.pdf Acesso em: 03 de jul. 2015.
  » http://www.iacsa.eu/jw/winkler_space-sound-time_10-09-19.pdf
• WYLIE, J. A single day’s walking: narrating self and landscape on the South West Coast Path. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, v.30, n.2, 2005, p.234-247.
• YI’EN, C. Telling Stories of the City: Walking Ethnography, Affective Materialities, and Mobile Encounters. Space and Culture, v. XX, n.X, 2013, p.1-14.

Notes

• i
  The term is printed without spacing the components to emphasize the idea that we are all intimately bound up with nature.
• ii
  For further information on that event consult: http://www.aera.net/EventsMeetings/AnnualMeeting/PreviousAnnualMeetings/2015AnnualMeeting/tabid/15930/Default.aspx

Appendix 01. Articles and types of study retrieved in the bibliographic review of the ERIC database for 2014 using the search phrases “walking”, “movement”, “mobile investigation” and “sensory ethnography”.

Article Type of Study/ Context BAIRNER, A. Urban walking and the pedagogies of the street. Sport, Education and Society, v. 16, n. 3, p.371-384, 2011. Theoretical/not applicable CATO, M. S.; MYERS, J. Education as Re-Embedding: Stroud Communiversity, Walking the Land and the Enduring Spell of the Sensuous. Sustainability , v. 3, p. 51-68, 2011. Empirical/traditional communities EDENSOR, T. Walking in rhythms: place, regulation, style and the flow of experience. Visual Studies , v. 25, n. 1, 2010, p. 69-79. Theoretical/not applicable EVANS, J.; JONES, P. The walking interview: Methodology, mobility and place. Applied Geography , v. 31, p. 849- 858, 2011. Empirical/urban environment HITCHINGS, R.; JONES, V. Living with plants and the exploration of botanical encounter within human geographic research practice. Ethics, Place & Environment: A Journal of Philosophy & Geography , v. 7, n. 1-2, p. 3-18, 2004. Empirical/ urban environment HORTON, J.; CHRISTENSEN, P.; KRAFTL, P.; HADFIELD-HILL, S. Walking … just walking’: how children and young people’s everyday pedestrian practices matter. Social & Cultural Geography , v. 15, n. 1, p. 94-115, 2014. Empirical/urban environment INGOLD, T. Ways of mind-walking: reading, writing, painting. Visual Studies, v. 5, n. 1, p. 15-23, 2010. Empirical/traditional communities INGOLD, T. Worlds of sense and sensing the world: a response to Sarah Pink and David Howes. Social Anthropology , v. 19, n. 3, p. 313-317, 2011. Theoretical JAMES, J. J.; BIXLER, R. D. Children’s Role in Meaning Making Through Their Participation in an Environmental Education Program. Journal of Environmental Education, v. 39, n. 4, p. 44-59, 2008. Empirical/urban environment KUSENBACH, M. Street phenomenology: The go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, v. 4, p. 455-485, 2003. Theoretical/not applicable LORIMER, J. Moving Image Methodologies For More-Than-Human Geographies. Environment, Politics and Development Working Paper Series , Department of Geography, King’s College London, p. 1-44, 2008. Disponível em: <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/geography/research/epd/working.html>. Acesso em: jul. 2014. Empical/ not applicable MYERS, M. Walking Again Lively: Towards an Ambulant and Conversive Methodology of Performance and Research. Mobilities , v. 6, n. 2, p. 183-201, 2011. Empirical/urban environment O’NEILL, M. ; HUBBARD, P. Walking, sensing, belonging: ethno-mimesis as performative praxis. Visual Studies, v. 25, n. 1, p. 46-58, 2010. Empirical/urban environment PINK, S. An urban tour: The sensory sociality of ethnographic place-making. Ethnography, v. 9, n. 2, p. 175-196, 2008. Theoretical/not applicable PINK, S. Mobilising Visual Ethnography: Making Routes, Making Place and Making Images. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, v. 9, n. 3, p. 1-17, 2008. Empirical/urban environment PINK, S. Walking with video. Visual Studies, v. 22, n. 3, p. 240-252, 2007. Theoretical/not applicable PINK, S.; HUBBARD, P.; O’NEILL, M.; RADLEY, A. Walking across disciplines: from ethnography to arts practice. Visual Studies , v. 25, n. 1, p. 1-7, 2010. Theoretical/not applicable PORTER, G.; HAMPSHIRE, K.; ABANE, A.; MUNTHALI, A.; ROBSON, E.; MASHIRI, M.;MAPONYA, G. Where dogs, ghosts and lions roam: learning from mobile ethnographies on the journey from school. Children’s Geographies, v. 8, n. 2, p. 91-105, 2010. Empirical/ rural environment SLAVIN, S. Walking as Spiritual Practice: The Pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. Body & Society , v. 9, n. 3, p. 1-18, 2003. Empirical/natural environment VERGUNST, J. L. Taking a Trip and Taking Care in Everyday Life. In: INGOLD, T.; VERGUNST, J. L. (Eds). Ways of walking: Ethnography and practice on foot . Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2008. p. 105-122. Theoretical/not applicable WYLIE, J. A single day’s walking: narrating self and landscape on the South West Coast Path. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers , v. 30, n. 2, p. 234-247, 2005. Empirical/natural environment YI’EN, C. Telling Stories of the City: Walking Ethnography, Affective Materialities, and Mobile Encounters. Space and Culture , v. XX, n. X, p. 1-14, 2013. Empirical/urban environment

Article	Type of Study/ Context
BAIRNER, A. Urban walking and the pedagogies of the street. Sport, Education and Society, v. 16, n. 3, p.371-384, 2011.	Theoretical/not applicable
CATO, M. S.; MYERS, J. Education as Re-Embedding: Stroud Communiversity, Walking the Land and the Enduring Spell of the Sensuous. Sustainability , v. 3, p. 51-68, 2011.	Empirical/traditional communities
EDENSOR, T. Walking in rhythms: place, regulation, style and the flow of experience. Visual Studies , v. 25, n. 1, 2010, p. 69-79.	Theoretical/not applicable
EVANS, J.; JONES, P. The walking interview: Methodology, mobility and place. Applied Geography , v. 31, p. 849- 858, 2011.	Empirical/urban environment
HITCHINGS, R.; JONES, V. Living with plants and the exploration of botanical encounter within human geographic research practice. Ethics, Place & Environment: A Journal of Philosophy & Geography , v. 7, n. 1-2, p. 3-18, 2004.	Empirical/ urban environment
HORTON, J.; CHRISTENSEN, P.; KRAFTL, P.; HADFIELD-HILL, S. Walking … just walking’: how children and young people’s everyday pedestrian practices matter. Social & Cultural Geography , v. 15, n. 1, p. 94-115, 2014.	Empirical/urban environment
INGOLD, T. Ways of mind-walking: reading, writing, painting. Visual Studies, v. 5, n. 1, p. 15-23, 2010.	Empirical/traditional communities
INGOLD, T. Worlds of sense and sensing the world: a response to Sarah Pink and David Howes. Social Anthropology , v. 19, n. 3, p. 313-317, 2011.	Theoretical
JAMES, J. J.; BIXLER, R. D. Children’s Role in Meaning Making Through Their Participation in an Environmental Education Program. Journal of Environmental Education, v. 39, n. 4, p. 44-59, 2008.	Empirical/urban environment
KUSENBACH, M. Street phenomenology: The go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, v. 4, p. 455-485, 2003.	Theoretical/not applicable
LORIMER, J. Moving Image Methodologies For More-Than-Human Geographies. Environment, Politics and Development Working Paper Series , Department of Geography, King’s College London, p. 1-44, 2008. Disponível em: <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/geography/research/epd/working.html>. Acesso em: jul. 2014.	Empical/ not applicable
MYERS, M. Walking Again Lively: Towards an Ambulant and Conversive Methodology of Performance and Research. Mobilities , v. 6, n. 2, p. 183-201, 2011.	Empirical/urban environment
O’NEILL, M. ; HUBBARD, P. Walking, sensing, belonging: ethno-mimesis as performative praxis. Visual Studies, v. 25, n. 1, p. 46-58, 2010.	Empirical/urban environment
PINK, S. An urban tour: The sensory sociality of ethnographic place-making. Ethnography, v. 9, n. 2, p. 175-196, 2008.	Theoretical/not applicable
PINK, S. Mobilising Visual Ethnography: Making Routes, Making Place and Making Images. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, v. 9, n. 3, p. 1-17, 2008.	Empirical/urban environment
PINK, S. Walking with video. Visual Studies, v. 22, n. 3, p. 240-252, 2007.	Theoretical/not applicable
PINK, S.; HUBBARD, P.; O’NEILL, M.; RADLEY, A. Walking across disciplines: from ethnography to arts practice. Visual Studies , v. 25, n. 1, p. 1-7, 2010.	Theoretical/not applicable
PORTER, G.; HAMPSHIRE, K.; ABANE, A.; MUNTHALI, A.; ROBSON, E.; MASHIRI, M.;MAPONYA, G. Where dogs, ghosts and lions roam: learning from mobile ethnographies on the journey from school. Children’s Geographies, v. 8, n. 2, p. 91-105, 2010.	Empirical/ rural environment
SLAVIN, S. Walking as Spiritual Practice: The Pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. Body & Society , v. 9, n. 3, p. 1-18, 2003.	Empirical/natural environment
VERGUNST, J. L. Taking a Trip and Taking Care in Everyday Life. In: INGOLD, T.; VERGUNST, J. L. (Eds). Ways of walking: Ethnography and practice on foot . Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2008. p. 105-122.	Theoretical/not applicable
WYLIE, J. A single day’s walking: narrating self and landscape on the South West Coast Path. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers , v. 30, n. 2, p. 234-247, 2005.	Empirical/natural environment
YI’EN, C. Telling Stories of the City: Walking Ethnography, Affective Materialities, and Mobile Encounters. Space and Culture , v. XX, n. X, p. 1-14, 2013.	Empirical/urban environment

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Jul-Sep 2017

History

• Received
  11 July 2016
• Accepted
  25 July 2017