9. The case of Ramanujan

Ever 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.