A text for Reading and Discussion by CAS Research Reading Group
April 20th 2017
Compiled by Yonat Nitzan-Green
2.4.2017 (View as PDF)
‘Stage 8. First of all you need to consider which modes of transport – that is, methodology and methods – you will use. This depends on the terrain. It is important to consider initially a wide range of options, to examine some useful examples, and perhaps try a few out (as pilot studies). You might adopt a methodology in which your practice, or aspects of it, may play a role in the investigation. You might need to use several methods – a multi-method strategy – in which two or more methods are used to address your research question. This is a kind of ‘triangulation’ of methods. Your research methods must be used rigorously in order to yield good quality evidence. This stage might require you to test out the ground before venturing onto it, to retrace your steps, to use more than one vehicle, to go off in different directions, to explore many kinds of terrain, to collect a range of data in order to begin to provide enough evidence to be in a position to address your research question. It is important to document your whole journey – you might keep a reflective journal to record your progress. It is important to carefully organize and manage the information you amass so non is lost on the way.’
From: Gray C. and Malins J., Visualizing Research, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004, p. 15.
‘Before I continue with my argument, let me first distinguish between method and methodology. Research methods are the techniques that are used by researchers. They may be qualitative or quantitative, and they include observations, interviews, surveys, and the wide range of measurements made in the sciences and social sciences. A research methodology is a stance that a researcher takes towards understanding or explaining the physical or social world. It can be distinguished by its theoretical framework or ideology, its explanatory mode or epistemology (Harding, 1989).’
From: Feldman A., ‘Conversation As Methodology In Collaborative Action Research’, 1999, p. 2.
‘According to the model of Technical Rationality – the view of professional knowledge which has most powerfully shaped both our thinking about the professions and the institutional relations of research, education, and practice – professional activity consists in instrumental problem solving made rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique.’ (p. 21).
‘Technical Rationality is the heritage of Positivism, the powerful philosophical doctrine that grew up in the nineteenth century as an account of the rise of science and technology and as a social movement aimed at applying the achievements of science and technology to the well-being of mankind. Technical Rationality is the Positivist epistemology of practice.’ (p. 31).
‘As Positivists became increasingly sophisticated in their efforts to explain and justify the exclusivity of scientific knowledge, they recognized to what extent observational statements where theory-laden, and found it necessary to ground empirical knowledge in irreducible elements of sensory experience. They began to see laws of nature not as facts inherent in nature but as constructs created to explain observed phenomena, and science became for them a hypothetico-deductive system. In order to account for his observations, the scientist constructed hypotheses, abstract models of an unseen world which could be tested only indirectly through deductions susceptible to confirmation or disconfirmation by experiment. The heart of scientific inquiry consisted in the use of crucial experiments to choose among competing theories of explanation. In the light of such Positivist doctrines as these, practice appeared as a puzzling anomaly. Practical knowledge exists, but it does not fit neatly into Positivist categories.’ (p. 33).
‘When we go about the spontaneous, intuitive performance of the actions of everyday life, we show ourselves to be knowledgeable in a special way. Often we cannot say what it is that we know. When we try to describe it we find ourselves at a loss, or we produce descriptions that are obviously inappropriate. Our knowing is ordinarily tacit, implicit in our patterns of action and in our feel for the stuff with which we are dealing. It seems right to say that our knowing is in our action.’ (p. 49).
From: Schon D., ‘From Technical Rationality to Reflection-in-Action’ in Perspectives in Learning, Eds. Roger Harrison, Fiona Reeve, Ann Hanson and Julia Clarke, London and New York: The Open University, Routledge, 2002.
‘In his explanation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms, John W. Creswell (1994) distinguishes between a research method as the means for “data collection and analysis,” and research methodology “as the entire research process from problem identification to data analysis” (p. xvii).’
‘”Art-based research methodologies are characteristically emergent, imagined, and derivative from an artist/researcher’s practice or art praxis inquiry models; they are capable of yielding outcomes taking researchers in directions the sciences cannot go.”’
From: Haywood Rolling J. JR., ‘A Paradigm Analysis of Arts-Based Research and Implications for Education’, The National Art Education Association, Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 2010, 51(2), 102-114.
‘Subjective approaches in artistic research are implicated in and give rise to a second feature of practice as research: its emergent methodologies. Martin Heidegger’s notion of “praxical knowledge” or what he theorised as the material basis of knowledge, provides a philosophical framework for understanding the acquisition of human knowledge as emergent. … Praxical knowledge implies that ideas and theory are ultimately the result of practice rather than vice versa.’
From: Practice as Research, Approaches to Creative Arts Enquiry, Eds. Barrett E. and Boldt B., London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2012, p. 6.
Artists thoughts, notes and responses will be posted on the CAS Research Group Blog in due course.
Artists present for discussion 20 April: David Dixon, Susan Francis, Dawn Evans, Maija Liepins, Bevis Fenner, Yonat Nitzan Green.
This is Text 4. The groups Reading List can be found here.