Skip to main content
Open Book Publishers

9. The case of Ramanujan: Investigating social and sociomathematical norms outside the mathematics classroom

Chapter of: Breaking Images: Iconoclastic Analyses of Mathematics and its Education(pp. 195–212)

Export Metadata

  • ONIX 3.1
  • ONIX 3.0
    • Thoth
    • Project MUSE
      Cannot generate record: No BIC or BISAC subject code
    • OAPEN
    • JSTOR
      Cannot generate record: No BISAC subject code
    • Google Books
      Cannot generate record: No BIC, BISAC or LCC subject code
    • OverDrive
      Cannot generate record: No priced EPUB or PDF URL
  • ONIX 2.1
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • OCLC KBART
  • BibTeX
  • CrossRef DOI deposit
    Cannot generate record: This work does not have any ISBNs
  • MARC 21 Record
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 Markup
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 XML
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
Metadata
Title9. The case of Ramanujan
SubtitleInvestigating social and sociomathematical norms outside the mathematics classroom
ContributorFelix Lensing(author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0407.09
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0407/chapters/10.11647/obp.0407.09
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightFelix Lensing
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2024-12-11
Long abstractEver since mathematics education research has ‘divorced’ from the discipline of mathematics and set out to become a discipline in its own right, there has been a constant debate about what can and should be understood by mathematics education research. In this chapter, I start from the assumption that mathematics education research necessarily takes a ‘reflexive stance’ towards its objects of study: mathematics education research is not simply engaged with mathematics, but rather with the engagement with mathematics. It investigates the complex interplay of bodily, cognitive, and social processes that are involved in the genesis of mathematical knowledge – especially (but by no means only) when this genesis occurs in educational contexts. Against this background, I will examine the particular role that the distinction between social and sociomathematical norms may play in the empirical study of the social aspects of this genesis. To do so, I will proceed in two steps: I will first detach the distinction between social and sociomathematical norms from its ‘conceptual tie’ to mathematics classroom practice. Then, I will use the famous correspondence between mathematicians Srinivasa Ramanujan and G. H. Hardy as an example to show how the distinction may offer a fresh perspective on mathematical practices outside the mathematics classroom.
Page rangepp. 195–212
Print length18 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Contributors

Felix Lensing

(author)
Research Assistant in the Department of Education and Psychology at Freie Universität Berlin
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0255-5416

Felix Lensing is a research assistant in the Department of Education and Psychology at the Free University Berlin in Germany. He is interested in questions concerning the foundations of research in mathematics education, the normative dimension of mathematics education research and practice, and the epistemology of mathematics.

References
  1. Berndt, B. C., & Rankin, R. A. (1997). Ramanujan: Letters and commentary. American Mathematical Society.
  2. Berndt, B. C., & Rankin, R. A. (2000). The books studied by Ramanujan in India. The American Mathematical Monthly, 107(7), 595–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.2000.12005244
  3. Calude, C. S., Calude, E., & Marcus, S. (2003). Passages of proof. ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0305213
  4. Chemla, K. (Ed.). (2015). The history of mathematical proof in ancient traditions. Cambridge University Press.
  5. Hardy, G. H., & Snow, C. P. (2004). A mathematician’s apology. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Hilbert, D. (1902). Mathematical problems. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 8(10), 437–479. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9904-1902-00923-3
  7. Høyrup, J. (2002). Lengths, widths, surfaces: A portrait of Old Babylonian algebra and its kin. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3685-4
  8. Kanigel, R. (1992). The man who knew infinity: A life of the genius Ramanujan. Washington Square.
  9. Kelsen, H. (1959). On the basic norm. California Law Review, 47(1), 107–110.
  10. Kleiner, I. (1991). Rigor and proof in mathematics: A historical perspective. Mathematics Magazine, 64(5), 291–314.
  11. Kline, M. (1990). Mathematical thought from ancient to modern times. Oxford University Press.
  12. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press.
  13. MacKenzie, D. (1999). Slaying the Kraken: The sociohistory of a mathematical proof. Social Studies of Science, 29(1), 7–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631299029001002
  14. Radford, L. (2013). Three key concepts of the theory of objectification: Knowledge, knowing, and learning. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.4471/redimat.2013.19
  15. Rao, S. K. (1998). Srinivasa Ramanujan: A mathematical genius. East West.
  16. Sfard, A. (2010). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499944
  17. Voigt, J. (1985). Patterns and routines in classroom interaction. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 6(1), 69–118.
  18. Voigt, J. (1995). Thematic patterns of interaction and sociomathematical norms. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 163–201). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203053140-9
  19. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.27.4.0458
  20. Yackel, E., Rasmussen, C., & King, K. (2000). Social and sociomathematical norms in an advanced undergraduate mathematics course. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(3), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(00)00051-1