29. Research on Arts Education
Paper
Encounters with Mud: Purity and Danger
Gabrielle Ivinson1, Andrew Barnes2, Parlo Singh3
1Manchester Metropolitan Univeristy, United Kingdom; 2Eagleby South State Primary School, Logan, Australia; 3Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Presenting Author: Ivinson, Gabrielle;
Barnes, Andrew
Context and problematic
In an ‘Age of Uncertainty’ education is challenged to go above and beyond the usual way schools have functioned. This presentation takes us to an exceptional primary school in a peri-urban location in Australia that is carefully paying attention to community knowledge and the experiences of those in the immediate locale who live precarious lives and who are from diverse cultures including Aboriginal. The first and third authors have been researching with the headteacher for over a decade and have witnessed the ways teachers have been finding ways to attend to all kinds of matter, including mud. We focus on an event which we have called ‘Encounters with Mud: Purity and Danger’ in which two parents interact with their baby as part of a Curious Play Activity designed to bring communities members into the school grounds. The Curious Play Activity took place in an Indigenous garden, named the Buggeiri area of the school. This is a quiet place with water holes, native trees, animals, sand, a beehive and wooden seats arranged in a circle. We use the event to explore carnal knowledge, vibrant matter, creative immersion, and cultural resistance with a nod towards Mary Douglas’s (1966/2002) seminal work.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
We employ a diffractive methodology (Barad, 2007), which starts in the midst of things with a rich description of an event in the Buggeiri indigenous garden witnessed by the headteacher and the third author. The first diffraction is based on the headteacher’s notes written after the ‘Encounters with Mud’ event as he reflects and worries about the seemingly unequal attention given by the mother and father to their baby as she immerses herself in messy play with fake mud. The second diffraction opens up further musing about the role of fathers living precarious lives based on the third author’s and a co-researcher’s conversations with fathers attending the Curious Play activity. The child-mother, child-father interactions are next diffracted through Daniel’s Stern’s (2010) concept ‘Forms of Vitality’ and Jane Bennett’s (2010) ‘Vibrant Matters’ to speculate about the affective charge of matters such as mud, bodies and the aesthetics of play areas which include mess. This diffraction involves our collective academic reading and conversations among the three authors, which opens up issues of freedom and constraint alongside social class, poverty, gender and race. The fourth and final diffraction involves the first and third authors rifting off Mary Douglas’s text ‘Purity and Danger’ to think about social norms (Hegarty, 2007) the force of actions once framed within institutional contexts such as schools, and the potential for artful resistance by whom and where. The diffractions have been created with a commitment to an ethico-onto-epistemological (Barad, 2007) approach to research which recognises that stories are interventions that become actants in their own right and have the capacity to move others for good or ill. We tell diffractive stories in order to spread hope among the teaching profession in Europe and beyond strangled by neoliberal, capitalist and colonial policy contexts.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSignificance and implications for education
Along with other scholars working in the area of post-human, new material feminist studies our longitudinal research in this exceptional primary school is attempting to shift how research is undertaken and understood as we face an uncertain future where conventional research methods are inadequate. We start by standing in the midst of activates and stay long enough and with an open, attentive and non-judgemental presence. By working alongside teachers we describe events in order to surface that which is hidden and silenced by dominant education policy agendas emanating from global actors based in Europe (OECD, UNESCO, World Bank) and dominant social norms to hint at the forces of resistance that accompany any people or place where oppression is felt, and experienced through lack of jobs, resources or voice. Over a considerable period of time, the teachers in this exceptional school have been paying attention to these forces as deep seams of knowing by viewing children’s actions as nexus of forces that are generative and at times dangerous. By paying attention to the affective forces that bubble from the ‘trouble’ (Haraway 2016) and by working collectively we tilt the gaze and see/feel the strength that lies beside oppression to think differently about education. Our contribution is primarily methodological as it involves diffractive story telling, theoretical in that we draw on various scholars in our diffractions and obliquely related to the global education reform movement and standardising practices across OECD countries.
ReferencesBarad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant Matter: a political ecology of things. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Douglas, M. (1966/2002) Purity and Danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London and New York: Routledge Classics.
Hegarty P. (2007) Getting dirty - Psychology's history of power. History of Psychology, 10, pp 75-91.
Harroway, D. J. (2016): Staying with the Trouble. Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Pres.
Stern, D. N. (2010) Forms of Vitality: Exploring Dynamic Experience in Psychology, the Arts. Psychotherapy, and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Research on Arts Education
Paper
Research on Materiality in the Entangelment of Arts Education Research and Educational programs in a University Context
Tobias Frenssen
UCLL, Belgium
Presenting Author: Frenssen, Tobias
Research question behind the research we will present:
How can materiality appear in the interaction between arts education teaching programmes (level 5-level 7) and arts education research in a university context through collaborative research?
Research-teaching nexus as topic:
Exchange between research departments and education departments is proving to be a challenge for many European universities. In literature the term research-teaching nexus is often used for this interaction.
Within our university, we conduct practical research on how we try to initiate this entanglement. Through an ethnographic methodology, we document and analyse this trajectory.
In existing research, the emphasis here is often on the interaction of individuals (researchers, students, teachers...)or the organization of the curriculum.
Within this presenation, the role of materiality in the research-teaching nexus will be presented.
The following cases will be discussed during the presentation:
-Student materials (educational department) used in the context of ongoing research (research department).
-materials from researchers (research department) used in the context of lessons (educational department).
-Space set up in the context of exchange between the two departments to achieve exchange through lessons, round tables, workshops, debates.
-Materials presented for student, teachers and researchers during shared seminars.
In the university's drawing, they are separate departments. In practice, they are materials, people and practices that are often shared.
Studies show that the research-teaching nexus is a complex concept in which the interpretation of practice and understanding can vary widely in concrete university contexts (Verburg, Elen, Lindblom-Ylänne 2007; Simons, Elen 2007).
The fact that artistic research in the context of European higher education is cause for debate adds to its complexity.
In the presentation, concrete case examples from our university will be discussed. In this way, overviews and classifications will be avoided. However, some concrete cases will speak for themselves.
In arts education research, as opposed to general educational research, the term research-teaching nexus is little to no subject of research.
In the presentation, the concrete cases will be analysed and will be related to existing literature. The cases in which education and research intertwine often have a collective character. This provides opportunities to discuss this etnographic research in a collective setting.
Objective:
The objective of the presentation is to give colleague researchers an insight into how this research was conducted. In addition, concrete materials from the research will prompt debate on the relationship between teaching and research in a university context.
European dimension:
The interaction between teaching and research is an important issue for universities in all corners of Europe. Both research and teaching are considered core tasks of higher education. Especially since the mid-1990s, much has been published on the relationship between the two key tasks (Tight 2016).
Theoretical framework:
-Research-teaching nexus in educational research
For example:
*Verburgh, A., & Elen, J. (2006, December). The influence of discipline and experience on
students’ perception of the relationship between teaching and research. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the Society of Research into Higher
Education, Brighton, UK.
*Maarten Simons & Jan Elen (2007): The ‘research–teaching nexus’ and
‘education through research’: an exploration of ambivalences, Studies in Higher Education, 32:5,
617-631
*Verburgh, A., Elen, J. & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. Investigating the myth of the relationship between teaching and research in higher education: A review of empirical research. Stud Philos Educ 26, 449–465 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9055-1
Materiality in higher education in new materialism research:
For example:
Taylor, C.A. & Bayley, A. 2020. Posthumanism and Higher Education: Reimagining Pedagogy, Practice and Research, London: Palgrave Macmillan
European dimension:
For Example:
Tight, M. (2016). Examining the research/teaching nexus. European Journal of Higher Education, 6(4), 293–311.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used1. General description of the research methodology:
The research approach behind the research presented can be situated within practice-oriented research. Practices from the university context are the entry point. Through ethnographic research methods, we document concrete cases from practice. We confront these data with insights from literature reviews. This literature review focus on the one hand on insights about the research-teaching nexus. Another literature review takes insights from New Metialism. These insights feed into the case studies, observations and data analysis
2. More detailled description:
The context in which the research method must be placed:
-practice-oriented research
-concrete case studie
-method: ethnographic research
-Data collection methods:
We collect data through various methodologies. We start from literature research to draw up a state of affairs with regard to materiality. This materiality is explored in one section of the literature review in relation to the research-teaching nexus. In the other part of the literature review, we focus on materiality from new materialism.
Literature review
In the first phase we start with a literature study. The aim was to develop a design structure about research-teaching nexus, materiality, new materialism
Case studies with students, teachers and researchers
For this we document and analyse different materials: (1) Research results from students that are used in the work of researchers (2) The materiality of a space designed to fascilitate interaction between students, teacher educators and researchers (3) Output materials from research that are used in educational programs. (4) Materials that inspire students, teachers and researchers during seminars.
-Data processing method:
The data from the literature study (phase 1) is handled according to the method of systematic review. We start from a set of key terms. These key terms are refined and adjusted through confrontation with literature. We process the data from the case study in university context (phase 2) through ethnographic research. The ethnographic methodology offers us the opportunity to analyze the complexity of materiality in the research-teaching nexus. The ethnographic approach is in line with the way we work with materiality in the university context.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsDuring this session, we want to put forward some university practices in which materiality plays a central role in the interaction between research and teaching.
We will show (1) student materials used in investigations.
We will show (2) materials from researchers used in the context of training.
We will show (3) material environments designed to fascinate the interaction between research and teaching in the university.
We will show (4) materials that are shared as a source for inspiration and debate with students, teachers and researchers during collective seminars.
Each time, we will (A) describe, (B) analyse the role of materiality and (C) provide links to literature.
Possible findings:
-That materiality can be an interesting entry point to install connection between teaching and research. Other possible bridges, such as human resources, finance, curricula are sometimes more delicate within universities, which can obstruct cooperation.
-There are sometimes incorrect assumptions about the other departments (education or research). These can be dispelled by shared subject matter practice.
-Staff with a shared profile, can make the bridge by sharing materials and contexts.
The investigation is ongoing. By the end of the academic year, these conclusions will be further refined.
References*Atkinson, D. (2017). The Force of Art, Disobedience and Learning: Building a Life. Korea: Insea.
*Atkinson, D. (2018). Art, disobedience and ethics - the adventure of pedagogy. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
*Charteris, J., Smardon, D., & Nelson, E. (2017). Innovative learning environments and new materialism: A conjunctural analysis of pedagogic spaces. ACCESS Special Issue of Educational Philosophy and Theory. 49(8), 808-821. Doi: 10.1080/00131857.2017.1298035. Available from http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/kzRuTZ6NqXZW2rZqSRvG/full
*Fuller, I., Mellor, A., & Entwistle, J. A. (2014). Combining research-based student fieldwork with staff research to reinforce teaching and learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 38(3), 383–400.
*Hernández-Hernández, Fernando. "Openness to the unforeseen in a nomadic research process on teachers’ learning experiences." In Becoming an Educational Ethnographer, 104–16. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York : Routledge, 2021.: Routledge, 2020.
*McKinley, J., McIntosh, S., Milligan, L. et al. Eyes on the enterprise: problematising the concept of a teaching-research nexus in UK higher education. High Educ 81, 1023–1041 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00595-2
*Simons, M. & Elen, J. (2007): The ‘research–teaching nexus’ and
‘education through research’: an exploration of ambivalences, Studies in Higher Education, 32:5,
617-631
*Taylor, C.A. & Bayley, A. 2020. Posthumanism and Higher Education: Reimagining Pedagogy, Practice and Research, London: Palgrave Macmillan
*Sojot, A.N. (2020). New Materialism and Educational Innovation. In: Peters, M., Heraud, R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Educational Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2262-4_112-1
*Verburgh, A., & Elen, J. (2006, December). The influence of discipline and experience on
students’ perception of the relationship between teaching and research. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the Society of Research into Higher
Education, Brighton, UK.
*Tight, M. (2016). Examining the research/teaching nexus. European Journal of Higher Education, 6(4), 293–311.
*Verburgh, A., Elen, J. & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. Investigating the myth of the relationship between teaching and research in higher education: A review of empirical research. Stud Philos Educ 26, 449–465 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9055-1
|
