Sunteți pe pagina 1din 42

'85

. m w
<
James Haywood Rolling, Jr.

Arts-Based Research
PRIMER

PETER LANG
lYork - Wa.shington, D.C./B.a|timore - Bern
' Berlin ' Brussels 0 Vienna 0 Oxford
Library of Congress Cataloging-in—Publication Data
Rolling, James Haywood.
Arts-based research primer / James Haywood Rolling, Jr.
pages cm. — (Peter Lang primers)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Qualitative research—Methodology. 2. Arts and society. I. Title.
H62.R638 001 .4’2—dc23 2013005247
ISBN 978—1—4331—1649—0 (paperback)
ISBN 978—1-4539-1086—3 (e-book)

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek.


Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data is available
on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability
of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity
of the Council of Library Resources.

© 2013 Peter Lang Publishing, lnc., New York


29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006
www.peterlang.com

All rights reserved. _ I


Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm,
xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.

Printed in the United States of America


Contents

1. A Paradigm Analysis of Arts-Based


Research ............................... 1

2. A Flexible Theory-Building Architecture


for Arts-Based Research .................. 39

3. Arts-Based Research as Analytic


Research Practice ....................... 69

4. Arts-Based Research as Synthetic


Research Practice ....................... 87

5. Arts-Based Research as Critical-Activist


Research Practice . ........... . ........ .107

6. Arts-Based Research as Improvisatory


Research Practice . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . .131

References and Further Resources . . . . . . . .161


CHAPTER 0 N

A Paradigm
Analysis of Arts-
Based Research

Initial Sketches

Theory/ Theo'ria
The purpose of arts-based research (ABR), like all re-
A representative construction——
search, is theory-building. Theory—a word that has
or re-construction—of a its origin Via late Latin from the Greek word theor‘z'a—
phenomenon of life shaped as a involves the “contemplation” or “speculation” of
set of interrelated constructs natural laws and phenomena of life. Ultimately, a
represented in a distinguishable
theory is a representation of experience so that oth-
manner or form in order to
describe, explain, and/or interpret ers may also acknowledge and understand. Theory is
the variables and variability of an distinguished from the word praxis, which takes its
experience within the world. origin from the Greek language Via medieval Latin;
praxis literally means “doing,” from the word prat-
Praxis/Prattein tein. According to Aristotle, theorizing suggests a ra—
Praxis is the sum total of our tional exercise that occurs at rest from the moral and
moral and artistic activities; the artistic activities, or doings, of humankind. Theories
enactment, practice, embodiment,
are conveyed as representative constructs—or re—
or realization of our individual
and collective contemplation and constructions—of the experiential worlds of the re-
speculation regarding the searcher, both lived and speculative. Theoretical
experience of social life within reconstructions of experience may be conceptual,
the natural world. transcribed, or physically manufactured.
l ¡mmm (“w

I-he associated ((Hll epts, tleltnitions, .tssnmp


lions t hat t onst it nte .i t lit-i )l v eit her n.ttnr.tlly it,
here, or are otherwise Í.II)I'Í( .itetl, to act ¿lx enduring
tillers, lenses and/or tttotlels ¡Making sense ol lived
contexts. Borrowing lront lioth Kt't‘lillgt‘t‘l|()8(,)(-m(l
lloy (goio), a theory muy he succinctly (letineil ¿isa
set ofinterrelated cons/I'm Is rc/H'est'nictl in u «listin-
gm’shuhlt' manner or [om], the major /rmcliuu n/‘wliii'h
is to ilescriln', (WP/(lili, uml/nr interpret the i'uriulilt'sund
variability (¡fu phenomenon ur ('.\'/)('I'Í(’II('(’ wii/¡in the
world. While theories are built tip initiallyasabstrac-
tions representing our most basic at)prehensions(if
Heuristic Devices the worlds we live in, they also serve as heuristic de-
Interpretive tools enabling vices interpretive tools enabling advanced knowl-
deeper understanding of a edge of a phenomenon or experience through the
phenomenon or experience
further development and reinterpretation of initial
through the further
development and perceptions. A general understanding of how theo-
reinterpretation of initial ries are built will be addressed and expanded upon
perceptions. in the subsequent chapters.
When a theory is built and deployed as a heuris-
tic device, an abstract and internal sense of a person,
place, event or thing may then be filrthcr ideated—or
made visibly manifest—in the form of palpably re-
membered, written or otherwise recorded, and even
physically embodied bits of knowledge. The theories
stocking our shared warehouse of assorted ideas
about the human experience are assembled into de-
Ontology
velopmental bridges wherein each theory is made
A particular worldview; a
rationale about the nature practical and practicable, further shaping our per-
of one of the worlds we live sonal ontologies. An ontology is a rationale about
in, containing propositions the nature of one of the worlds we live in, containing
of what that world consists
propositions of what that world consists of and why.
of and why.
To characterize an ontology is to ask: “What is the
nature of the ‘knowable’? Or, what is the nature of
Worldview
An expressed orientation of ‘reality’?" (Guba, 1990, p. 18). An important way to
an individual or group of understand the limits of personal ontology is to
people that describes their think of it as a worldview, an acquired position that
knowledge or point-of-view, offers valuable perspectives of the human experi-
understood to be an
ence—while also obscuring some others.
acquired position that offers
valuable perspectives of the For example, within a cause-arid-effect world-
human experience—while view, theories are typically understood as parti"
also obscuring some others. tioned from action. A cause-and-effect worldview
A Paradigm Analysis of Arts-Based Research

proceeds from the assumption that ideas are either


linearly derived from action, or may be ultimately
converted into action—hut never the twain shall
meet. However, within an ontology that supports
the practice of arts-based research, theory and praxis
("o-construct one another in an ongoing cycle ofcuuse re-
Creative Worldview
sulting in effect, and effect regenerating cause. While
A creative woridView is an
this latter creative worldview values the creative
ontology that supports the
practice of arts—based
work of the artist or designer in society, it is also a
research, wherein theory position and perspective that is alien to many scien-
and praxis are viewed as co- tific researchers. Providing a means to ameliorate
constructing one another in
this blind spot was one of the primary motivators in
an ongoing cycle of cause
writing this text.
resulting in effect, and
effect regenerating cause.
Foremost, this Primer aims to reveal how the arts
Understands works of art as lend themselves to blended spaces of naturalistic in-
works of research. quiry, aiding artists and scientists alike in their con-
duct of research. The arts and design fields occupy a
Paradigm paradigm where actions in or upon a target area or
A body of beliefs and
concern spawn emergent ideas even as the doing is
values, laws, and practices
enacted—and where ideas remain less than fully
that govern a community of
practitioners characterized constituted until physically materialized or concep-
by its success in tually represented. Through the mediated interpre—
representing the prevailing tation of materials, languages, social contexts, or
understandings, shared
other data, “a way of experiencing...a particular cast
beliefs and research
solutions of that community
of mind [is brought] out into the world of objects
as a concisely defined [and expressed ideas], where men [and women] can
worldview. look at it” (Geertz, 1983, p. 99).

Objectives

The primary objective of this Primer is to dispel the


notion that arts-based research is not research.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The scien-
tific method is most useful for addressing hypothe—
sis-based questions—guesses about what will
happen given a particular set of controlled variables
and ultimately requiring experimentation to collect
replicable data as evidence that the hypothesis is
true. Frankly, social science researchers face major
limitations carrying the success of the scientific
method Within the physical sciences over to social
Lllrl'DlGl Une
ml“

research since “persons are more difficult to under-


stand, predict, and control than molecules” (Zeiger,
n.d., para. I).
What is fair to say is that arts-based research is
different from scientific research, whether quantita-
tive or qualitative, yielding distinct methodologies
for knowing. John W. (Ireswell (I994) distinguishes
Method between a research method as the means for “data
A Spent c n‘eans to r data collection and analysis,” and research methodology
co iecticr‘ and analysis “as the entire research process from problem identi-
d. hecause of its
fication to data analysis" (p. xvii). To characterize a
:- ateness for
a panticular kind
methodology is to continually revisit the question:
“How should the inquirer go about finding out
t'i‘ectzyeness in gathering a knowledge?” (Guba, 1990, p. I8). A secondary objec-
particular class of i
tive of this Primer is to mark the distinctions of arts- i
i.
researchable data.
based approaches to knowledge creation in the
Methodology address of urgent questions about critical aspects of lid:
A

A systematic approach to the human experience and our varying lifeworlds—


solving a problem; the in particular, those aspects that can neither be
entire research process from measured with exactitude nor generalized as univer-
problem identification to sally applicable or meaningful in all contexts.
data analysis.
The worldview of a researcher—whether scientif-
ically—based or arts-based—shapes the research 111'-
quiry at every level because it shapes a researcher’s
Epistemology epistemological foundation. An epistemology is an
An ontologically situated ontologically situated point of View on What counts
point of view on what as knowledge and “truth,” and is a strategy by
counts as knowledge and
which those beliefs may be justified (Strega, zoos, p. _Ï
"truth," and a strategy by
which those beliefs may be 201). To characterize an epistemology is to actively-5
justified. investigate: “What is the nature of the relationshí
between the knower (the inquirer) and the kn'o V
'
(or knowable)?” (Guba, I990, p. 18). Epistemol
constructed within an arts-based ontology.
worldview, tend to approach knowledge acquisi.
as occurring within a changing world where “
sons and phenomena do not always fang.”
rules. Research necessarily involvesares
'

tervention into that world—digging out I.


elements, casting models, and cons
semblies that shape the flux and chaos o. e
.

perceptions into a patterned reality we ca .,;.-:_ . ’


hend and correlate.

»\ l‘amdmm Analysis of Arts Haserl R!",(‘(ll( h r
JV

In their sussing out ol useful patterns to live by,


arts practices and social S('l(‘l](‘(‘ research practices
have never been tar afield. An arts-based research
ontology aeeepts universal laws as they may emerge,
yet it does not presume them and does not promote
the validity of outcomes. on their ability to be repli-
cated without significant variance in other con—
texts. Rather, an arts-based ontology accepts a
universe of variances and supports knowledge that
presents itself as a local interpretation of reality,
valid within its own context, yet fully subject to
reinterpretation or translation into other contexts.

Ways of Knowing the World

The idea that scientific knowledge is best is a power-


ful story, but it is only one story of many that may
be told about how humans have historically cre—
ated, recorded, and extended knowledge. There are
three working paradigms for addressing social, be-
havioral, and educational research problems: the
qualitative descriptive domain, the quantitative
classificatory and statistical domain, and the arts-
based domain privileging hybrid empirical, inter—
pretive, and naturalistic theory-building practices
described by Lincoln and Guba (1985). The latter do,—
main is the focus of this Primer. It is a domain gov—
erned by beliefs, values, laws, and practices different
from the sciences, allowing a different character of
research investigation that includes aesthetic
“power and elegance, creativity, openness . . . inde-
pendence . . . the [researcher’s] emotional and in-
tellectual commitment to the case itself, social
courage, and egalitarianism” (Guba, 1990, p. 74).
It is important to note that not all arts practition-
ers are intending to build new theories through
their research (although some arts praxis requires
research, some arts praxis turns unexpectedly into
research, and some arts praxis becomes the catalyst
for future research). Some arts practitioners are seek—
ing only to replicate prior patterns or theories, not
Paradigm Analysis of Arts-Based Research
M—MA m 7

throughout recorded history, the arts have been


used to build theories about the natural world and
as an avenue to address and explore some of the
most significant questions of human existence
within our complex of social worlds. It is research
that has preceded the establishment of the sciences.

An Alternative Hypothesis: The Arts-Based


Research Paradigm

Even in the most current scholarship attempting to


explore arts-based research in education, the con-
sensus of researchers is that “educational re-
searchers are still trying precisely to define what we
call arts-based educational research” (Taylor,
Wilder, St Helms, 2007, p. 8). I suggest that a concise
and effective characterization of a growing delta of
research methodologies, “always in the process of
creation” and demanding of “an understanding of
incompleteness and uncertainty” (Springgay, 2002,
p. 20), first requires a broad mapping of the contigu-
ous terrain. Consequently, this Primer is intended to
recognize and identify the opportunities afforded
by arts-based research approaches to address ques-
tions differently than scientific research will allow
(Leavy, 2009).
The greater the array of approaches in addressing
a given set of substantive problems, the more suc-
cessful a diverse community of research practition-
ers Will be in surrounding those problems and
generating a number of viable solutions. Just a quick
Quantitative Research scan of the qualitative and quantitative research
Measurements and paradigms recognizes that there are several ap-
C'ass'l'lcaüoÚïbased 0“ proaches for addressing questions about social be-
quantifiaqblueandta'tt'ae's Baenstd/aotr havior in the natural world, and that certain
addressing questions practices are natively situated within theory-build—
through methods that yield ing paradigms that lend themselves to better ad-
mathematical expressions of dressing certain kinds Of questions.
confiructs a“_d re'ationsl For example, the quantitative research paradigm
d. usually '.n terms of is hewn and refined through “scientific investigation
Ifferences m degree. . .
that includes both experiments and other system-
r , ¡Li {N

" “N

atit methods that emphasize c ontrol and quantified


measures" (Hwy, gum, p. ii; this research paradigm
is best at addressing questions through methods that
yield matliematical expressions of constructs and re-
lations, usually in terms of “differences in degree"
(Sullivan, 2010, p. 58 ). Measurement in fact becomes
parmnount, and “in order for something to be meas-
ured, only its tangible lor, observable] aspects canbe
apprehended, and thus the indices itselfofaphenom-
(711011 become more important than the phenomenon"
(Giorgi, 1970, p. 291, emphasis added). 9
Qualitative Research The qualitative research paradigm is shaped and ;
reshaped through the careful observation, documen- L
Íi
r.1)
rt

¡m

tation and revelation of things as they are, locatm'g


r 9
l/i
M

‘(i
Í)

the common qualities of extraordinary situations 5


()

(i)

«warm—A
.Avu yoo
hf‘ +ir\r\ and phenomena, and the “remarkable in everyday É
life” (Silverman, 2007, p. 23); this research paradigm 3'"
is best at addressing questions through methods that

.
yield thick, rich descriptions, usually in terms of “d1f'-
ferences in kind” (Sullivan, 2010, p. 58). f.

l
I will make the argument throughout the
Arts-Based Research mainder of this textbook that the arts-based
(ABR) search paradigm is neither Wholly quantitative nor
The .m‘tisystemic
qualitative, but instead carves out overlaps and ,1."
c tron of .nteractive
rows beneath both domains, thereby extendm'g I i
cai, synthetic, critical-
activrst, or improwsatory array of questions researchers may address and I

i
creatve co gnitive processes methods or terms they may use to explain th n
and art-sac practices toward enriching the gene pool of knowledge in terms ofH
treory—ouriding. Best at
ferences in ways of knowing. In order to be
addressing questions that
can neither be measured
understand What an arts-based research para ’ ¿l i:
With exactitude nor yields in the address of substantive questions,
generalized as universally Primer begins with a “paradigm analysis” ( - ;
applicable or meaningful in I997; Rolling, 2009). A paradigm is defined as
a'i contexts. Stems directly
body of beliefs and values, laws, and practicesw I
from a researcher’s artistic
practice or creative
govern a community of practitioners” (Car
worldview. 1997, p. 171). An analysis of an arts-based para.
for research allows it to be weighed eff
against other paradigms for theory-buil"
'

problem-solving.
Scientific historian Thomas S. Kuhn (I.
postulated that paradigms develop beca
success in representing the prevaih'ng un?"
A Paradigm Analysis of Arts—Based Research

ings, shared beliefs and research solutions of a com-


munity of practitioners. However, when “new infor-
mation can not be integrated into the existing
paradigm or when problems persist which cannot
be resolved,” a new paradigm is likely to arise to re-
place it (Carroll, 1997, p. 174). Kuhn’s insight implies
that even if the general (albeit irrelevant) question
of what research practices work best in the develop-
ment of the new knowledge continues to be asked,
new methods will continue to arise or resurface,
each worthy of fresh consideration. Hence, arts—
based research methodologies are not analyzed here
as an alternative to social science or experimental
scientific methods, or merely to be contrarian; they
are presented out of the recognition that we negoti—
ate bodies of knowledge in a complex world where
human beings build theories and life practices en-
acted along a full spectrum that includes both sci-
Empirical-Analytic Art- entific and artistic systems for comprehending the
making Model human experience.
Defines art as a system of Harold Pearse (I983, I992) has developed a
production, a cause and framework for identifying the prevailing art-making
effect intervention into a
systems (1'.e., systems of production, communication,
stock of empirical and
manipulable elements, or critical reflection), which are often posed to work
producing a stock of in opposition to one another. According to Pearse,
precious objects and forms, an empirical-analytic art-making model defines art
requiring a mastery over the as a system ofproduction, a cause and effect interven—
techniques necessary to
tion into a stock of empirical and manipulable ele—
shape them.
ments, a commodity-oriented process “that has as
its basic intent a cognitive interest in the control of
lnterpretive-
Hermeneutic objects in the world” (Pearse, 1983, p. 159). Within
Art-making Model this system, arts practices behave to produce a stock
Defines art as a system of of precious objects and forms, requiring a mastery
communication, the
over the techniques necessary to shape them.
expression of situated
knowledge about a person's An 1'nterpretive-hermeneutic art-making model
relationship with his or her defines art as a system ofcommunication, the expres-
social world, producing a sion of situated knowledge about a person’s rela—
stock of symbolic tionship with his or her social world (Pearse, 1983, p.
conveyances
160). Within this system, arts practices behave to
communicating the ways in
which we experience the
produce a stock of symbolic conveyances communi-
world and are sustained cating “the ways in Which we immediately experi-
within it. ence an intimacy with the living world, attending to
V.‘

Ct-Fap-ter one
“x

its myriad textures, sounds, flavors, and gestures”


((,‘anci'cnne & Snowher. 200}, p. 238).
Critical—Theoretic Art— A critical-tlicorctic art—making model draws
making Model upon critical theory literature and defines art asa
system ofc‘ritiull reflection, a relatiVist and liberatory
activity rendering invisible assumptions, values,
and norms newly Visible “in order to transform" i
and critique unjust social relations and empower
marginalized individuals and communities Withm'

-
the arts practitioner’s social world (Pearse, 1983, p, 1
r61). Within this system, arts practices behaveto
due almost SOCial
relations. alter the status quo.
The salient point here may already be obvious.
There is no one single definition or conceptionof‘ai
what art is, nor of what its effect upon the worldls’j‘
supposed to be. Consequently, neither is there one -"
single artistic method for research. This crucial un- -.
derstanding of the arts—based research paradigma”;
aided by a thought experiment involving the un‘por-Tl“
Null Hypothesis tant research concept of a “null hypothesis.” In gen-i
A hypothesis that is posed eral, a hypothesis is a conjecture, a proposed answer}?
to be accepted or rejected to a research question. For the sake of argument, let:
in favor of an alternative
us say the main question driving the writing of?
hypothesis.
Primer is: “What is art, and what kinds of knowled i
does it aid researchers in acquiring?” A good

.
search question “is a question of the relationship r V;
Variable tween variables” (Hoy, 2010, p. 67). A variable is . i
Any property of a property of a researched subject, object, pheno
researched subject, object, non, or event that can change, be changed or H V
I

phenomenon, or event that


Proposing a hypothesis—defined as “a conje H“ ‘

can change, be changed, or


vary. statement that indicates the relationship between at a
two variables" (Hoy, 2010, p. 68)—is thus awayof
terrogating a question of the significance or m
tude of the connection between relatable pro
in our experiential worlds. Conjecturing a su
sion of hypotheses, each presumed to be valid:
new evidence is brought to bear, effectivelygui
query about the systemic nature of experien
ward a researchable solution.
At the initial stage of such research, a
esis states there is no significant rela'tio
tween two variables except that which}: I;
A
-
a.”
.—
¡o
-\ ï‘mmimm I‘\na.’ysis of Arts~Rased Research

chance; therefore. the null hypothesis to my main


question is that there is no significant relationship
between art or the creation and recording of new
knowledge. The purpose of a null hypothesis is to
provide a presumptive or default baseline standard
Alternative Hypothesis of comparison held as true until evidence of an al-
A hypotheSis that succeeds ternative hypothesis nullifies it. However, we never
the null hypotheSIs either as fully reject the null hypothesis as it may indeed ulti—
a negation or as variance
mately be verified based on future evidence brought
from the original
supposition as new to bear; conversely, an alternative hypothesis is ac-
evidence is brought to bear. cepted in favor of the null only for as long as evi-
dence supports its primacy as a solution. For
example, an alternative hypothesis that might be
conjectured in response to my proposed research
question is: Art is an analytical system for thinking and
learning through observation, experience, and/or exper-
iment, yielding the acquisition of knowledge character-
Formational Properties ized by its formational properties—manifested as an
of Art empirical mastery over the elements of, and the tech-
Manifested within an
niques for controlling, natural and manufactured mecli—
analytical approach to arts
ums and materials.
practice as an empirical
mastery over the elements But while the suggestion of a relationship be-
of, and the techniques for tween “art as an analytic system” and the casting of
controlling, natural and experiential knowledge into knowable forms initially
manufactured mediums and
serves our thought experiment as an alternative hy-
materials.
pothesis for an artistic method, like the variances in
“the definition of art” from one individual to an-
other, each conception of an artistic method is
merely a place-holder for the next. Hence, what
might be conceived as an alternative hypothesis from
my relative point of view—to be proven more sup-
portable through whatever evidence I might mar-
shal—is nonetheless equivalent to a null hypothesis
for another researcher who occupies an entirely dif-
ferent stance, perhaps viewing the initial proposed
relationship between variables as a non sequitur. Ul—
timately, if there is no agreement on a common defi-
nition of either art or what constitutes knowledge,
the baseline for comparison is also erased; the alter—
native hypothesis is effectively nullified.
For example, a substitute alternative hypothesis
for conceiving the relationship between art and the
«Iv .tlIHtI HI llt‘," lv tint-"lt‘ilyj' Hit,'{ltl lu- Ar! I’. a gym
llull. '.l"./i'III [ul I/IHII- III/.1 ill/(I [rum/Hp; e/,;,,~,v,,‘w,[y’
\Ii‘/«ÍIII_'." I/Ir m i/Ill‘.IIIIIII o/ ¡www/ML?" ’IN’N“ ¡VN/I’d by
lnlot nmtlonal l'IopI-Itle'. IÍ‘. III/mnmllmml /NU/N’IÍII". “uuu/(“.Im/uu self (wings.
ni AH
um”, «lint/3.: it’ll/I ÍÍH’ “¡ww/mu, (mumuniuflinn and
[ennui/Helium)” n/ 'rt'HI/m/Ii /(III‘.':II(I,.','("., ( ul/uml motifs

-
um! on heir/ml n mmiga/¡Iiiwh A third ¡alternative hy.
t

.lllt fin lllll>rl pot Iii-xr, ¡High! lH‘.‘ AllI”.(I(I'I'II'((l/(HI/V1.81Syi‘N’I’nfflf


.M'Ittllll'lr .lll-Ill inn! IliI’H/xi/Ig oml [eon/mg throng/I l/H‘ inlerrogalion (¡Ista-
't‘ltill‘llt.'i‘l.llll v." at Mmmm Ins (¡un sm ¡ul slim (mes, )r'ie/rliug I/I(’ interrogation of
lfltlttwmll t lllllll.ll num:
know/mleer/1mm Ieri/mlliy ¡Is Irons/urinationalproper-
llllll .llt l‘t‘lvlhll
will “¡Liphnu
lies moui/es/ml (is u persistent ¡(num lasm, the will to
stir up ( onimt'ersy (un! (/ier/¡I the m ( opted social order
Transformationa| so as (o I'ei/irml pub/ii (II/('Hlioll, and cm avant-garcia
Properties of Art [ervor to change things as they are. ln any of these
Mitttltmtt-tl Wllltlll .t ( llllt .il propositions, each alternative hypothesis is also
.lt ll\’|‘-l .tltlllthlt ll to ¡mln
equivalent to the null it, from another researcher’s
¡»Millie .i'. .i ¡wlmlulwnl
stance, the properties ol the two variables as pre-
It (uuu Liam, the Wlll to ‘.lll
up “mmm/Muy and (limitth sented~4he definition of art and its manifestation
the at t (mimi '.()( ml (Mim ‘.() ¿IS research are ontologically predetermined as
an to tt‘(l|l(‘(l [)lll)l|( having no relationship to one another.

y
.lllt‘lllltHl and < halide llllltt)’. That there are multiple realities and conflicting
as they/«m»
hypotheses for the significance of art in relation to
research is entirely in keeping with a paradigm that "
proposes the proli/erulion o/‘alternative ways ofknow- É
ing over the proving o/"c‘ertaintics. This distinction is
not surprising given that arts-based inquiry is"
grounded in an ontology that recognizes arts prac‘
tices as a twin peak alongside scientific practicesol
the landscape of human achievement. The facfll"
of arts practices for altering the “methodologic
turf” of neighboring scientifically—based practices L
an affinity that like-1y arises from a noteworthy ‘
torical peculiarity (Barone, 2006, p. 5). Renais v
thinkers who postulated a scientific method
drawing readily upon many arts-based empiri‘
techniques successfully developed for the obs
tion and documentation of our experience of
shadow, the human anatomy, and the na _
world. Then as now, arts-based methodologies
the boundaries between the arts and the SCI"
(Cahnmann-Taylor, 2008, p. 3); they are pr
'\ ‘¡ww‘"w‘wl'\l“‘ '\’-lri!\rH-“s ul Ar’i‘fiwH—(Estiil HIYKe’rvarr 3‘

M.
be adept at reshaping, eroding and shifting the
foundations on either side of the qualitative—quan—
titatiye divide because they arguably belong to a
paradigm from which the scientific first emerged.
Similar to William l’inar’s effort to reconceptual—
ize curriculum as “ongoing, if complicated ( oriver-
sation” more compatible to life and the constitution
of knowledge in a postmodern society with a messy
plurality of inaugurations and transactions of
meaning (Pinar, 2004, p. 188), this Primer is in—
tended to complicate our conceptions of research. A
multi—modal array of artistic methods situated as a
species of research effectively contradicts the asser-
tion that research is solely a species of science. It also
yields the alternative hypothesis that perhaps best
serves as the tent pole for the remainder of this text-
book’s investigation: Art is a reflexive system for think-
ing and learning improvisationally, yielding the
acquisition ofknowledge alternately exemplified by for-
mational, informational, and transformational proper-
ties—manifested as a heterogeneous continuum of
experiential learningpossibilities.

The Pre-History of Arts-based Research

Artistic methods for organizing and conveying new


knowledge as valued forms, documented informa-
tion, or social transformations predate scientific
methods by millennia, likely dating back to Lower
Paleolithic mark-making (Hodgson, 2000); artistic
methods arguably became a rudimentary form of re—
search at the moment early humans acquired the
ability to reflect upon their marks so as to revisit or
reinterpret prior meanings. I am using VVilson’s
(1997) framing of “re-search” practices as those which
“search again, to take a closer second look” at that
which offers “evidence about the way things were in
the past, how they are presently, and even about
how they might be in the future” (p. I). This history
of inquiry is shared commonly by both the Western
world and all non-Western worlds, albeit differently.
m
I rom the \Vestern point of View, it is instructive
to take heed otlohn l len ry’s (¿002) caution to avoid
the assumption that the concept of “science” as we
hold it today was the same held hy those who con-
trihuted to what we identify as the “Scientific Revo-
lution" in Western liu rope (pp. 1—5). Instead, from
the 14th to approximately the mid-roth century,
the prevailing concept of inquiry was “something
called ‘natural philosophy’, which aimed to de-
scribe and explain the entire system of the world”
(Henry, 2002, p. 4). This study of the workings of
nature and the physical universe was exemplified in
the development of areas of inquiry such as chem-
istry, astronomy, physics, anatomy, botany, zoology,
geology, and mineralogy.
Natural Philosophy Natural philosophy research practices were in-
The prevailing concept of tended to harness the constituent elements and
ianIry in the West from forces of nature and the universe through their cat-
the 14th to approximately
egorization, measurement, and control—capturing
the mid—t 9th century. The
study of the nature and
them for humanity’s benefit. This development of
the physical universe, methods to control nature’s constitutive elements
considered to be a pre- and define the laws governing the natural world was
cursor to modern science. analogous to the methods developed and technical
skills applied in Renaissance Visual arts, sculpture,
and architecture (Berger, I972). In this vein, as ex- 3i
emplified by artist-researchers like Leonardo Da 1
Vinci, Western art-making served as “an instrument
of knowledge” (Claude Levi-Strauss quoted m'
Berger, 1972, p. 86), and an advertisement of the


power of Western civilization to map and to mete
out an ordered reality. .g’
In non-Western worlds, art-making has
been an instrument of knowledge, whether m in a- ‘1'"
marks upon the world, making representational

aesthetic interventions that signal a person, o


artifact, action, event or phenomenon as 111117

society and civilization render Visual na


things cherished and tales oft-remem'v- '- -'
'
‘\ “.iimiitiiii Analysis of Arts Based Risisc-iarcb

th rough the arts we sing melody and verse of Virtues


celc-*brated and cautions warned; we dramati7e and
depict stories of mainings shared in com mon: we
raise up heroes and cast down demons shaped in
wood, stone, and clay; we write ourselves into histo—
ries and her—stories; we dance the unrestrained
Positivism
rhythm of our triumphs and sway beneath the
A philosophy of research
weight of our tragedies; we dream of new possibili~
establishing that
hypothetical assertions can ties in abstracts through the night.
be positively verified In these ways, for time immemorial the arts have
through scientific data— been employed as a practical means to better inform
gathering and quantifiable
ourselves about the things that matter the most to
analysis.
us as a network of societies. In fact, the arts not only
re-search the human experience, they enhance and
Logical Positivism
A family of philosophies
reconstitute human information, refining the car—
characterized by an goes of meaning our collected data carries in tow.
extremely positive Hence, the arts have been the precursor to scientific,
evaluation of science and or logical positivist, research practices. The post—
scientific methods. Solves
positivism of contemporary arts-based research is
problems conjectu ring
thus the reemergence of what may be termed pre-
hypotheses based within
the limits of that which is positivism. This important idea will be elaborated
already known. further in this chapter.

The Recent History of Arts-based Research

Arts—based research methods and outcomes are


rooted in diverse arts practices and arts-informed
worldviews. Several authors have the distinction of
being standard-bearers in the contemporary dis-
course on arts-based research. In The Art and .S‘cierzcc‘
ofPortraz'ture (I997), sociologist Sara Lawrence-Light-
Social Science foot and arts educatorJessica Hoffman Davis boldly
Portraiture
pioneered a Vision for a qualitative research method
A qualitative research
method pioneered by
“that blurs the boundaries of aesthetics and em-
sociologist Sara Lawrence- piricism in an effort to capture the complexity dy-
Li'ghtfoot and arts educator namics, and subtlety of human experience and
Jessica Hoffman Davis that organizational life” (p. xv).
integrates the systematic
In delineating the methodology they have
rigor and evocative
resonance, blurring the
named social science portraiture, Lawrence-Lightfoot
boundaries between and Davis (1997) begin with the compelling notion of
aesthetics and empiricism. creating “life drawings” of individual personalities
mprer One

and organirational cultures that were as “probing,


lax cred. and interpretiVe" as an\' artist's subject (p. 4).
\ et then ettoit to detine a method of research that in-
tegiates s\'steiiiatic rigor and evocative resonance is
dchherateh tempered h\‘ the caveat that artists and
scientists must hoth continue to recognize “the 11m'—
its ot‘ their media. their inability to capture and pres-
ent the total reality” (1 awrence—l,ightfoot 8:: Davis,
1m)“. p. si. Social science portraiture 1's also character-
ised by the intent to supersede the denseness and
opacitV of t he walls within the corridors of academia _
hy producing analyses and texts inviting dialogue
about important public concerns, texts that are con-
revitalized to speak to comm on folk who do not iden-
tif_\‘ as resutrchers.

Rather than Viewing context as a source of distor-


tion. [portrt'n‘tists] see it as a resource for under-
standing. The narrative, then, is always embedded
in a particular context, including physical set-
tings. cultural rituals, norms, and values, and hls'-
torical periods. The context is rich in cues about
how the actors or subjects negotiate and under-
stand their experience. (Lawrence-Lightfoot SI
Davis, 1997, p. I2)

Along with this adherence to context in rese us


portraiture also features a unique and admit r int-""4
focus on illuminating evidence of the social
in the conduct of inquiry, noting that our view
our social world is easily distorted when in the all A
common preoccupation with identifying e av
pathology, it “magnifies what is wrong and ay
evidence of promise and potential” (La
Lightfoot & Davis, 1997, p. 9). Nonetheless, the It
Phenomenology of social science portraiture as a method o ' ' o u
A phrlosoplw as well as a parent in the inherent niurkiness of statement
method or research into the “ln summary, portraiture is a method framed
understahdrng of "lived
traditions and values of the phenomenologi;
experiences, " study-mg a
gmail number of subjects adigm, sharing many of the techniques, St
'

through extenswe and and goals of ethnography” (Lawrence-lag,


prolonged engagement Davis, I997, p. 13). Phenomenology and e
A Maradigm
Analysis of Arts—Based Research m l7

phy are vastly different approaches for conducting


Ethnography
qualitative research, and yet portraiture is suppos-
A qualitative research
method for the description edly a hybrid of both. This is difficult to compre-
of the customs of individual hend. What is much easier to comprehend is that
people and cultures, aiming portraiture is either an arts-based or arts-informed
to describe the nature of its research methodology, depending upon the period
subjects often through
of immersion of the researcher.
participant observation,
interviews, and Arts-informed research usually remains firmly
questionnaires. rooted in the characteristics of the qualitative para—
digm, but even the nomenclature of social science
Arts-Informed Research portraiture clearly overlaps the arts-based research
Approaches to research paradigm. Arts-based research is a thoroughly prac—
informed by the aesthetic
tice-based approach to research and much more
characteristics of works of
art and/0r design, artistic akin to a long~distance swim (Irwin 8t Springgay,
methods, or a specific artist 2008; Macleod & Holdridge, 2006); in contrast,
but not stemming directly arts—informed research is more like a free-dive. How—
from a researcher’s artistic ever, these free—dives are an important starting point
practice or creative
for the retrieval of arts—derived forms and processes
worldview.
embedded throughout the sediment of our social
structures, with the intent to infuse them into the
scholarly work of creative and critical researchers
(Knowles St Cole, 2008).
In fact, arts-informed research does not necessar-
ily stem from a researcher’s artistic practice or cre—
ative worldview at all, often reflecting instead a
researcher who has been inspired by an artist, artis-
tic methods, or the aesthetic significance of a body
of artwork in their aim to represent their own quali—
tative research in a novel form or format (Eisner,
1997). Arts-informed research is distinguished from
firmly practice-based research in that it is much
more concerned with “how form accesses and
shapes [research] content” than in building a re-
search study upon the theoretical foundation of
arts-based practice (Newton, 2005, p. 92). The com-
mitment of a practice-based research methodol-
ogy—whether in or of or through the arts—requires
a sustained adherence to a creative worldview
wherein works of art are also works of research, the
dredging up of “processes, products, proclivities,
and contexts" that support the activity of making
art for scholarship’s sake (Sullivan, 2010, p. 77).
L napter
ln his book ,«rlrt I’mc‘tic‘e us Research: Inquiry in Vii:
sua] Art, Graeme Sullivan (ZOIO) undertakes to br Í
new ground by presenting a theoretical framew r.
for understanding Visual arts practice as research,»
guing that the imaginative and intellectual 0' 8"
done by artists has a social significance that is"
“grossly undervalued” (p. xix). In Sullivan’s View,t
Visual arts are a form of inquiry employing meth',
ologies that stand apart from the social sciences -
cept, notably, for the systematic and rigor ’3
construction of knowledge both hold in common.
Sullivan’s text is limited by its focus on the .¿
ation of new knowledge through visual means, f
cusing on the theories, practices, and contexts
by studio artists. Nevertheless, he has deve10'
and diagramed a useful “Framework for Visual * . .. tr

Research” with braided domains of inquiry he a p

Empiricist (Framework lines as: empiricist, or exploratory research metha‘aeï.


for Visual Arts Research)
and practices, with a substantive focus on prodi-
Exploratory research
ing social structures; interpretiVist, or dialectical
methods and practices, with
a substantive focus on
search methods and practices, With a substan-"EÉ -
producing social structures. focus on facilitating social agency; and critical?
positional research methods and practices, Wi
lnterpretivist substantive focus on instigating social action(
(Framework for Visual van, 2010, p. 102).
Arts Research)
While Sullivan cites his indebtedness to]
Dialectical research methods
and practices, with a
substantive focus on
facilitating social agency.

Critical (Framework for


Visual Arts Research)
Positional research methods
framework by Canadian curriculum th -
and practices, with a
substantive focus on (I978)—who also draws upon Habe
instigating social action.
more specifically outlined thean
analytic, interpretive-hermeneutic, an;

earlier in this chapter.


In Irwin and de Cosson’s-
Rendering Self Through Arts,,.-ba5z~
Irwin shapes a research m,e"lt§
A Paradigm Analysis of Arts-Based Researr h 1',

blended subjectivity of the artist, rc-searr her, and


A/r/tography teacher. Irwin (2004) defines ('1/r/tography as a (re-
A research methodology ative analytic form of representation that privileges
conceived of as an both text and image, and explains the appropriate-
interstitial space wherein
ness of the acronym a/r/t in the following terms:
definitions and
understandings combining
artist, researcher, and Art is the visual reorganization of experiem (' that
teacher practices are renders complex the apparently simple or simpli-
interrogated and ruptured fies the apparently complex. Research is the en-
in a critical exchange.
hancement of meaning revealed through ongoing
interpretations of complex relationships that are
continually created, recreated, and transformed.
Teaching is performative knowing in meaningful
relationships with learners. (Irwin, 2004, p. gr)

Following from this, a/r/tography as a method-


ology 1's conceived of as “an interstitial space”
wherein definitions and understandings pertaining
to art, research, and teaching are “interrogated and
ruptured" in “a critical exchange that is reflective,
responsive, and relational, which is continuously in
a state of reconstruction and becoming something
else altogether” (Irwin 8t Springgay, 2008, p. I06).
Works of a/r/tography are intended to function as
rhizomatic assemblages privileging the dynamics
that are activated “in-between” when “meanings re-
side in the simultaneous use of language, images,
materials, situations, space, and time” (Irwin 8:
Springgay, 2008, p. 106).
The most obvious limitation of a/r/tography is
that its conception as a singular although pluralistic
methodology works to limit discourse on the varia-
tions of a larger arts-based research paradigm.
A/r/tography does not attempt to accommodate or
account for the many possible arts-based method-
ologies outside of itself. Even if it can transform into
the “as yet unnamable” methodology (Derrida,
1978, p. 293), a/r/tography’s discourse about arts-
based research is insistently about a/r/tography at
its nucleus. Ironically, for all its purported flexibil-
ity, a/r/tography often appears stuck on itself. What
then is a researcher to do if a question demands the
m K ’ One
-~..

Huylitliuii\[,iii‘|[1\[M‘NV‘] lt‘\t‘\lllll lllt‘lllt‘tlUlogv

otlici than .I l to.~:i.ipli\,oncthat cinpltnsmethods

\ct nnnanicd‘
ln lu‘l lHH‘l‘x \li'tllml Hum lrf' lll'\ lx’ilsr'ilRr'sr‘rm‘h
l‘m.!¡“'.|‘.ll1ul.1lun \ (num) attempts to introduce
and present c\aniplcs ot s1\ major genres ofm-ts
practice as research: narrative inqnin', poetry.
ninsn. pcitoiniance. dance. and Visual art. l.eavy ‘
(noon) states her aim to liridge what she sees as the
art science di\'ide. arguing that art and science i
“hear intrinsic siniilaritics in their attempts to illu-
minate aspects of the human condition" (p. 2). Ul-
tiinatel_\'. l ea\'\"s (good) View is limited l)_\‘ a point of
View that understands art—based metliodologies not
as part of a research paradigm unto itself, but merely
as tools available to he “used h_\' qualitati\-'e re-
searchersacross the disciplines during all phases of
social research, including data collection. analysis,
interpretation, and representation" (pp. 2—3). Most
useful is l.c;i\"\"s_‘ lending credence to the “hybrid,
practice—lmsed form of methodology" that is apt to
he generated within the arts—lmsed research para-
digm (Sinner et al.. 2000, p. 12.24).
In Arts-[msm] Rvsnn'clz in Influential): Foundations
[Or [’mcticc, edited hy Melisa t.‘ahnmann-Taylor and
Richard Siegesnnmd (2008), the assembled authors
outline various cases of literary, visual, and perform-
ing arts-based inquiry, practices which defined as
“arts for scholarship's sake” (p. l). Early in this text,
(,‘ahnnmnn—‘lm'lor (2008) cz-iutions that arts—based
researchers have done little to legitimize their meth- l
ods and approaches to inquiry by defining them “as
an either—or proposition to more traditional, scien‘ j
titic research parmligms” (p. 4). A different quality
of arts—lmsed research practice stems from full im‘
mersion in an arts practice wherever its locus, since
practices in the “literary, visual, and performing
arts” each in their own way “offer ways to stretcht
rescuircher’s capacities for creativity and knowing?
((ZahnmannJlhylor, 2008, p. 4).
The editors of this text also argue “against art
a separate, isolated form of human experience
A Paradigm Analysis of Arts—Based Research m. 21

stands apart from how we understand and make


sense of the world,” highlighting arts practices as ra-
tional, structured inquiry (Siegesmund & Cahn-
mann—Taylor, 2008, p. 242). Like Leavy, they issue a
call for hybridity in general research practices “that
might include both scientific methods as well as
arts-based methods” (Siegesmund 8r (,‘ahnmann-
Taylor, 2008, p. 232). The major limitation of their
text is in not offering a flexible architecture for the-
ory—building to guide researchers in structuring
such hybrid pathways and models.
In their new book Arts Based Research, Tom
Barone and Elliot Eisner (2012) preface their writing
with the claim that the term arts—based research
“originated at an educational event at Stanford Uni-
versity in I993" (p. ix). This claim itself is the great-
est limitation of this text given that the concept of
arts—based inquiry or of studies of the human condi-
tion informed by aesthetic practices has arguably
occupied a lead role in the generation of our stores
of collective knowledge, both preceding and aiding
the inception of the scientific revolution. Despite
their dubious contemporization of age-old inquiry
practices, Barone and Eisner do accurately identity
the historical conundrum inherent in that “before
the 18th-century period of the Enlightenment in
the Western world, no substantial differences be-
tween the arts and sciences were recognized” (p.
x)—a reference to the many centuries when natural
philosophy investigations dominated the Western
European effort to understand the universe. They
also bring important light to a critical distortion re-
garding the empirical nature of research:

As proponents and practitioners of arts based re—


search, We find it ironic that what is regarded as
empirical focuses upon studies in which numbers
are used to convey meaning . . . It seems to us that,
in general, we have our conceptions upside down.
Indeed, it is interesting to note that the word empir—
ical is rooted in the Greek word empz’rikos, which
means experience. What is hard to experience is a
Chapter One

si"
set of numbers. What is comparatively easy to ex-
perience is a set of qualities. (Barone & Eisner, 2012, ¿.3
p. xi, emphasis in original) 'ï.‘

At base, Barone and Eisner’s conception of arts-45


based research is encumbered by a limited defini- '
tion of what art is and does, or how it may
applied in the service of knowledge. This compels:
me to disagree with Elliot Eisner’s (2008) charactervff"
ization of arts-based research as a “soft-form” '
qualitative research (p. 19). The tendency to empha-g'
size form over process, or to conflate the two, is;
mischaracterization that stems from an empiric
analytic worldview that defines and delimits
conception of art primarily as a system for the

,
duction of expressed forms (Pearse, 1983). V

'
v

Barone and Eisner devote a great deal of territ ¡1:37


throughout their book to distinguishng betw
the non-discursive and emotive nature of the art g};
contrast to the logical nature of the propositr"
discourse. But this is a mistake, trapping the d
tion of arts-based research into unnecessary
fines, presented merely as a non-discursive me
representing qualitative research through the.
“pictures, or music, or dance, or all of those m H
bination” (Barone & Eisner, 2012, p. I). The '
this conception is that art, or aesthetically. CL.
meaning and knowledge, is in fact flexible e
to be alternately and alternatively discursivg
non—discursive. .
Upon closer examination, propositi "a
that are understood to be either true arm-f9

tive human experience as our most}


pressions, those steeped in unu; «L
characteristics. The arts can ruepp'Ies.-,
claims; but they can also represenfl ' 7‘“
ambiguity. Any given arts pra?
sesses the flexibility either tojb:“ ‘
early and logically, or to d
indicate and adumbrate the; l» 25
leaving ample room. for int:
i
r‘.‘ -\'\il\ mx o? ¡Mix Rii‘xi‘il How.¡rx J

.
lierent qualities of reality. or “facts.” are nonetheless
represented. lhis tlex‘iliility identities boundary
lines for the .‘Ii'tsulmxetl researr h paradigm that How
beyond the qualitative social sciences.

Toward a Working Hypothesis of the ABR


Paradigm

l\1any a researcher—especially those exploring qual-


itative or Inixed Inethods representations of human
experience in the natural world while eschewing
wholly reductive, quantifying models—has stum—
bled unawares into this other paradigmatic world.
The ABR paradigm has ten identifying characteris-
tics that can be drawn out into the open by correlat-
ing ten fundamental ideas about arts—based research
laid out by Barone and Eisner (2012) with several ax—
Naturalistic Inquiry ioms and characteristics about naturalistic inquiry
A postpositivist response to advanced by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Naturalistic
the inadequacy of positivism inquiry is defined in contrast to logical positivism,
toward understanding the
“a family of philosophies characterized by an ex-
immense complexity of
variables in human nature tremely positive evaluation of science and the
and social behavior that scientific method” (Reese, I980, p. 450). Positivist
demand rich descriptions, approaches to research seek to solve problems con—
explanations, or ongoing jecturing hypotheses based “within the limits” of
critiques rather than true or
that which is “already known” (Sullivan, 2010, p.
false solutions.
31). Historically, outcomes of positivist inquiry have
been “expressed as a difference in degree or quan-
tity” in comparison “to other things we knew" (Sul—
livan, 2010, p. 31).
Postpositivist (inquiry Naturalistic inquiry is presented as a post—
practice)
positivist response to the inadequacy of positivism
The study of the complex
“in its application to the study of human behavior
and intangible qualities of
human behavior that
where the immense complexity of human nature
accepts an ontology of and the elusive and intangible quality of social
realism and the utility of phenomena contrast strikingly with the order and
experimental methodology, regularity of the natural world” (Cohen, \;I¿1nion. \c‘
but rejects the belief in
Morrison, 2000, p. 9). Hence, naturalistic inquiry
absolute truths and
unwavering adherence to
does not pretend to be a science, but is argued to
objectivity. serve as a means for surrounding research problems
that demand elaborate descriptions, explanations,
banter One

or L ritiques rather than true or false solutions (Sul-


limar]. 2oiol. I will extend this argument, propos-
ing that whether or Hot ever lwtore‘ identified by
name, the ten succeeding ( hamt teristics of natura-
Prepositivist (inquiry listic inquiry were also ¿1 prepositivist historical
practice) realit’\'———e\‘idence of social practit es for the acquisi-
tion of knowledge that preceded the scientific
method and which can now be redeemed to the
general discourse on knowledge creation as in-
tended through this I’rinzer’s discussion of arts-
based research.

The poststructural characteristic of the ABR para-


digm understands our physical world as a common
(1)
(l

construction with as many ways to represent it as


(i)
i

world IS
VJ
r)

there are experiences of it, with each representative


(l)
o
/

‘1

-fiñ r
unth as many
construction that attempts to model some con-

'
represent it as there stituent attribute in itself the casting of a Whole
'ences ot it, With new partially rendered world. Thus, the poststruc-
turality of the ABR paradigm perceives “multiple
l
each representative
construction casting a
constructed realities that can be studied holisti-.
whole new partially
rendered world.
cally” given that they are intimately intercon-v;
nected and each indicative of the larger shared?
human experience—even as these constructions"
each “inevitably diverge” in their representation
distinct points of View (Lincoln & Guba, 1985,
ldeation
37). This aligns with Barone & Eisner’s (20125
*ne VIS'ble manifestation of
an initial theory, in the form proposition that “Humans have invented a vari
o." palpably remembered, of forms of representation to describe and und
written or otherwise stand the world in as many ways as it can be re
recorded, and even
sented” (p. 164). éí.
pnySIcally embodied
knowledge. Hence, all structures of meaning are arguably: '
flux, and all representation of meaning is
Reinterpretation mately adaptable. As a result, every ideation
The continuing adaptation embody and/or further signify, and every m”
of every ideation we model, or medium through which we represe
embody and/or further interpret aggregated knowledge is subject to l
Signify, and every mark,
ther reinterpretation—even as social regulan" fl
model, or medium through
which we represent or
interpret aggregated
knowledge. likewise continue to emerge.
.\ “pivot-innit "\lliii\-’"sl‘s oi Air‘s Biased Res/ma“ h /',

l‘he postparmliginati(' ( harm teristir of the .\li'l,) para-


Postparadigmatic

A a “martialistir of ARR
digm reflects the postmodern and premodern
condition wherein earlier paradigms (ontinue to
(l

wherem earlier invarlunia


are not reiet ted or exist as. . .governing perspe< tivos for some people"
hierarchied but continue to (l’ears‘e, [002, p. 249). 'l his is in contrast to the motl—
eXist as governing
ern condition that gave rise to l;uro<entri< st ientitii
berspectives, available to be
philosophy and ()(‘cidental standard—hearing by re-
networked and drawn upon
in the conduct of mqurry. jecting the knowledge paradigms that governed
other peoples as evidence of their hei rig mere an th ro-
pological fodder—either Oriental, perceived as the
remains of declining, subordinate, and an nexable
civilizations, or else “primitives,” not yet fully peo-
ple, and disposable (Nandy, 1983). This also aligns
with Barone and Eisner’s (zoiz) proposition that
“Each form of representation imposes its own con-
straints and provides its own affordances” (p. r66).
Hence, no single knowledge paradigm is hierar-
chically preeminent, and all constructs across para-
digms are networkable in the conduct of inquiry.
The awareness of a plurality of knowledge para-
digms coexisting within the ABR paradigm requires
the adoption of a “naturalistic ontology” wherein
assumed realities and knowledge constructs “can-
not be understood in isolation from their contexts”
and wherein it is understood that “contextual value
structures are at least partly determinative of what
will be found” by the inquiring researcher (Lincoln
St Guba, 1985, p. 39).

Proliferative The proliferative characteristic of the ABR paradigm


A characteristic of ABR refers to when inquiry generates turbulence. ambi—
wherein inquiry generates
guity, the miscegenation of categories. and an ex-
turbulence, ambiguity, the
panding discourse that proliferates possibility.
miscegenation of
categories, and an variation, and multimodal understandings. "l‘his
expanding discourse that aligns with Barone and Eisner’s (2012) proposition
proliferates possibility, that “The purpose of arts based research is to raise
variation, and multimodal
significant questions and engender conversations
understandings.
rather than to proffer final meaning” (p. 166).
Hence, the generation of an ongoing continuum
of working hypotheses is favored over concluding
an inquiry with a single context—free generalization
¡w Í
llllíj’lir

-“

it...in.il.iii;1i-i It‘liii-'.('HI‘..III\’[LilliiIllitl‘(it‘s(.'.l.eej
i “um.” I. (It) ' ,) I'm. I’m-n ¡mm-(I ¡ur his «'al‘gumem.‘
\‘i ".i notion}: IIVIH HÍH'HI'. .i'. the Hil‘ill resuitofre. p
M...“ i. (M, la, ym) I un “In and (min: (‘ite (Iron. _.
Inn Ii, null“): “tIi.il IIH‘H' .IH‘ .‘ilwuys hu tors thatare .‘
lllllilltt‘ to the hu .¡Iv ()I seiii-s of events [being re.
num llull lli.iI III.II\(‘ it useless to try to generalize.
tiieieliuni" (liinoln N (.‘uhu, ¡085, P- '23). Never.
ilieless, iipnn Iinlliei' l‘(‘“(‘('li()ll.‘ 7

.llltllIIH‘I\ (l/(' in ¿a position to appreciate such


Lu ¡mx .iml Like HH'III into account. And, as them-
«Inner ¡nun-x. Ii‘oni situation to situation, “his task
is todescrilie and interpret the effect anew,” thatis,
in terms oI the uniqueness found in each newsitu-
.ition . . . For, “when we give proper weight to local
conditions, any generuIi/zation is a working hy-
pothesis, not a conclusion.” (Lincoln St Guba,
1085, pp. 123—124, quoting (Ironbach, 1975)

Working Hypothesis Maintaining a working hypothesis is akin 91":


~\\ ‘ “Mmmm pint tuo common practice within an artist’s studio, whet
\‘.> " .1'1 x! x \ttidio, ti
experiments and exploration never quite conclu,,
nox 'u‘. I-fxtx‘ti‘ievx
¿ü eeeoxes evwiiments but typically serve as either a prompt or a cue for
“3 ex" t"t-.‘.~"t‘r‘ {tut \t‘IVC
gaging with new particulars in similar fashion.
N¡‘\ i ' a L‘rompt or a tile
i‘Í v\\ this way, theory is converted to practice whilep
:‘M‘qmï:rm unth new tice is converted to theory.
“e
' .xx. ti' \ :" xviiltii fashion.

Prestructural The prestructural characteristic of the ABR;


-\ unuaptenstnc of ABR digm refers to the precedence of perceptii
wherein perception
measurement. Perception utilizes and le‘
,e'eteties measurement, a
ies.“MHz-mtmn of the kinds
“tacit (intuitive, felt) knowledge" (Lince i
oi Knowledge that are 1985, p. 40). While perception inquires AA
intuitwe or felt; pertains to nature of this I sense?,” measurement in?"
meanings and relationships much is there of this I sense?" Resear-
not yet able or necessary to
pertaining to meanings and relati‘o '
be quantified.
quantifiable or needful of measuñ
methods “more adaptable to dealfim’“ ' in.
(and less aggregatable) realities”
1985, p. 40). This aligns With Bear-troy?
(2012) proposition that “Arts bs.a.sfg ‘
A "J'Jti'llflm Analysts of Arts-Based Paseanmw 27

capture meanings [and relationships] that measure-


ment cannot” (p. 167).
Hence, the fullest perception of a subject, object,
phenomena, or event being researched requires an
appreciation of variable qualities and nuances acting
in relation ship—separate from or as a precursor to as-
signing numerical degrees of relationship. Prestruc-
tural meaning is the meaning that precedes any final
“inscription of forms of representation,” equally
open to being sensed and interpreted through num—
bers, language, images, music—or even expressions
of the physical body itself through drama, dance,
and other forms of embodied performance (Sieges-
mund & Cahnmann-Taylor, 2008, p. 233). By the
term prestructurality, I am referring to what “semi—
oticians refer to as the experiential store” (Sieges-
mund ¿t Cahnmann-Taylor, 2008, p. 233). John
Dewey (1934/1989) recognized the bank of human
experience as the site of felt, intuitive meaning in
consciousness that is the precursor to symbolic
thought (cited in Siegesmund 8: Cahnmann-Taylor,
2008, p. 233).
By legitimizing tacit knowledge exposing “more
directly the nature of the transaction between inves—
tigator” and his or her initial percepts, ABR method-
ologies lend themselves to metacognitive study of
the inquiry-shaping interaction between what we
believe we know and the pre-symbolic abstracts of
the world we first begin to perceive (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985, p. 4o).

Pluralistic The pluralistic characteristic of the ABR paradigm


A characteristic of ABR refers to how texts of idiosyncratic and common
wherein texts of meaning are continuously negotiated, exchanged,
idiosy'ncratic and common
rem‘terpreted, and blended in William James’s oft-
meaning are continuously
negotiated’, exchanged, quoted “theater of simultaneous possibilities”
reinterprleted, and blended (1890/1952, p. 187). This aligns with Barone and Eis-
. m"W,,l'llIa'm James's oft- ner’s (2012) proposition that “As the methodology
"theater of for the conduct of [social] research . . . expands, a
“ ‘Áposfsibiht'ies. "
greater array of aptitudes w11'l encounter forms that
are most suited to them” (p. 168).
('7 liapter One

Hence, “(elvery [wolman is his [or her] own


metliodologist" (Mills, 1959, p. 123). In other words,
there is plenty of room at the inn for the artist, the
designer, the teacher, and the intrepid scientist in the
conduct of ABR; all may bring their own tools to the
workbench. By valuing the use of “him- or herself as
well as other humans as the primary data—gathering
instruments,” the researcher properly recognizes that
“all instruments are value—based and interact with
local values but only the human is in a position to
identify and take into account (to some extent) those
resulting biases" (Lincoln ¿St Guba, 1985, pp. 39-40).

Pu rposive The purposive characteristic of the ABR paradigm


A characteristic of ABR makes apparent the ways in which diverse arts prac-
wherein diverse arts
tices exceed mere self—expression and are purposed
practices exceed mere self—
to serve as important tools “for describing and un-
expression and are
intentionally purposed to derstanding the world or some aspect of it" (Barone
serve as important resources & Eisner, 2012, p. 169). This aligns with Barone and á
for the representative Eisner’s (2012) proposition that “For arts based re-
construction—or re- search to advance, those who prepare researchers A;
construction-of
will need to diversify the development of skill
experience.
among those who are being taught” (p. 169).
Hence, ABR methodologies tend towards induc-
tive and abductive data analysis because these
processes are more likely to identify and capture 7;;
“the mutually shaping influences that interact” m‘,;-g
those data (Lincoln &' Guba, 1985, p. 40). Barone;
and Eisner foresee fruitful collaborations across '
versity level education, communication, and arts
departments in the preparation of cohorts of
searchers to do the complex work of identifyi
Perspectival
what Lincoln and Guba (1985) qualify as the “mu!
A characteristic of ABR tiple realities” represented in a set of data (p. 4o)~ ‘
wherein no single
perspective (or aggregate of
perspectives) may ever be The perspectival characteristic of the ABR para
assumed to provide a
complete view of the
subject, object, phenomena,
or event that is functioning to provide a complete View of the subject, OÏ
as the site of an inquiry. phenomena, or event that is functioni-nggaas"
«\ Vanadium AMAR/HH mt Arts Based Researr h

of an inquiry. \uirneover, various and sometimes


competing value system s—including the scien—
tific—eare expected to. in form each perspective. This
aligns with Barone and Iiisner’s (2012) proposition
that “Arts based research is not only for arts educa-
tors or professional artists” (p. 160).
Hence, ABR methodologies acknowledge the ab-
sence of value-free inquiry through an active con—
sideration of the interactivity of pluralistic and
multiple perspectives and the values that inform
them, especially their “resonance and dissonance”
(Lincoln 8t Guba, 1985, p. 174). Ultimately, the ABR
paradigm also welcomes qualitative and quantita-
tive researchers into the fold because their values
and perspectives carry shades of other realities not
always shared or easily seen by arts educators or pro—
fessional artists.

Particularizing The particularizing characteristic of the ABR para-


A characteristic of ABR digm captures and makes use of the ways in which
wherein research findings research findings are “to some extent dependent
are not generalizable or
upon the particular interaction between investiga-
duplicable but are
dependent upon the
tor and [the reality being represented] that may not
particular interaction be duplicated elsewhere” (Lincoln ¿t Guba, r985, p.
between the investigator 42). This aligns with Barone and Eisner’s (2012)
and the reality being proposition that “In arts based research, generaliz-
represented.
1'ng from an n of 1 is an acceptable practice” (p. I70).
Hence, the particulars in the study of a single
case are intended to yield a treasure trove for reflex-
ive reporting and the construction of a series of hy—
potheses transferable to other sites of inquiry. In
recent writing, Elliot Eisner (2006) points out how
“in standard statistical studies, generalization is pos-
sible insofar as the sample selected from a popula-
tion was random, which makes it possible to infer
conditions or features to the population that are
found in the sample, within, of course, some meas-
ure of probability” (p. 14). Eisner goes on to illumi-
nate a notion that should be more obvious but is
more often obscured under the strict governance of
scientific and statistical data-gathering protocols:
M‘ x

Hut what (in you (in with an n of l? ( Tan generaliza-


tiuns he (leriurrl from a single (, ase or from a narra—
ti\ e that has not been suhiec t tr) quantification? My
answer to those quest ions is “yes.” What needs to be
done is to think of generalization in a way that is
quite different form its statistical parent. in fact we
generalize all the time and have done so even before
statistics became a refined in feren tial process. If you
think about generalization in the way in which a
great play—Death of a Salesman, for example—
makes it possible for you to locate in the lives of oth-
ers the travails that Willie Loman experienced as a
traveling salesman, you get some sense of the ways
in which an n of I can help you understand situa-
tions even though the initiating image was not sta-
Single-Case
tistically selected. (Eisner, 2006, pp. 14-15)
Research Design
Case study research,
wherein n = l, geared
Ergo, the case study, or single-case research de-
toward the intensive study sign, is argued to be an optimal mode of research,
ot an individual subject, one that is “adapted to a description of the multiple
object, phenomena, or realities encountered” at any given site of inquiry
event, The study of the
(Lincoln St Guba, 1985, p. 41).
multiple and variable
particulars of a single case.

Performatíve The performative characteristic of the ABR paradigm -


A characteristic of ABR wherein presents the wide array of mediums and modah'ties ¡.
the wide array of mediums and through which we make art, and raises to promm'ence ’
modalities through which we
the ways in which they also serve “to supplement, toAÏgï';
make and perform art also serve
to supplement, to enlarge, to enlarge, to expand, and to diversify” the tools aval? ¿u
expand, and to diversify the tools able for researchers to use (Barone & Eisner, 2012, p-
available for researchers to use. 170). This aligns well with the proposition that “The?
aim of arts based research is not to replace traditional?
research methods; it is to diversify the pantry
methods that researchers can use to address the pIOb‘.:~"
lems they care about" (Barone & Eisner, 2012, p. 170%}
Hence, there is something improvisatory :’
Emergent unscripted about ABR methodologies, Where
(research design)
“method of discovery” in the wake of an inquiry
An approach to inquiry, wherein
often just as significant a finding as any other 0
the researcher allows the
research design to emerge or come (Richardson, 1997, p. 88). Like a jazz perfil.
unfold into view rather than to ance, the performativity afforded Within the» ’
construct it preordinately. paradigm requires: firstly, an emergent approac l:
A Paradigm Analysis "Md
Arts—Based Research
_.____
31

inquiry, wherein the researcher allows the research


Negotiated Outcomes design “to emerge (flow, cascade, unfold) rather
(in research design)
than to construct it preordinately (a priori) because
An approach to inquiry, wherein
it is inconceivable that enough could be known
the researcher prefers to
negotiate meaning and ahead of time about the many multiple realities to
interpretations with human devise the design adequately” (Lincoln 8t Guba,
sources, including the self, from 1985, p. 41); secondly, negotiated outcomes, wherein
which the data have been drawn. the researcher “prefers to negotiate meaning and in—
terpretations with the human sources [including
Reconceptualized
Criteria for
the self] from which the data have chiefly been
Trustworthiness drawn because it is their constructions of reality
Alternative concepts of validity that the inquirer seeks to reconstruct” (Lincoln 8r
and reliability in research, based Guba, 1985, p. 41); and thirdly, reconceptualized crite-
not on universal replicability
ria for trustworthiness of the research based on “the
across all contexts but rather on
establishment of credibility, transferability, depend-
the establishment of local
credibility, transferability, ability, and confirmability" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985,
dependability, and confirmability. 139289-331).

Patterning
A characteristic of ABR wherein The patterning characteristic of the ABR paradigm
theory is grounded in and built
allows substantive theory to be grounded in and
from its data and likewise
responsive to its contextual values,
built from its data set, while likewise holding re-
composing an emergent sponsive to its contextual values—composing an
formational, expressive, and/or emergent aesthetic makeup that is not based prima-
critical aesthetic makeup. rily “on a priori generalizations” or theorizing (Lin—
coln St Guba, 1985, p. 41). This aligns with Barone
Grounded Theory
and Eisner’s (2012) preposition that “Utilizing the
A qualitative research method
expressive [or formational, or critical, i.e., the aes-
that appears to contradict the
structure of traditional scientific thetic] properties of a medium is one of the primary
methods, which begins with a ways in which arts based research contributes to
hypothesis. Using this method, human understanding” (p. 171).
data collection is the first step Hence, a theory constructed within the ABR par—
toward analysis and theory
adigm is “patterned; it is open—ended and can be ex-
building.
tended indefinitely; and it is discovered empirically
Pattern Model rather than expounded a priori” (Lincoln 8: Guba,
A model for describing, 1985, p. 206). Allowing the site of inquiry to gener-
explaining and interpreting the ate its own theoretical patterns draws upon the con-
data utilized in identifying the cept of grounded theory, “that is, theory that
relationships between variables
follows from data, rather than preceding them”
within a system during the
(Lincoln St Guba, 1985, p. 204). Grounded theory is
analysis and further exploration
m,‘_7d’ivi-'.d'uar“l, physical, or social argued to develop a pattern model of the system of
"" experience. relations between variables present at a site of in-
'
L hapter Ónev

quiry; in that model for describing, explaining and:


interpreting the data, “the pattern can be indefisf
nitely filled in and extended: as we obtain more and}
more knowledge it continues to fall into place in...“
this pattern, and the pattern itself has a place in at:
larger whole,” namely, the social research landscape
(Kaplan, 1964, pp. 159—160), 7
With this chapter’s working hypothesis for a
arts-based research paradigm positioned as conte
for all pursuant exposition, the subsequent chapter ,Ï
will aim to develop a flexible architecture for buil;
ing theories that expand our collective base of r;
search knowledge, each methodology featuring a“?
artistic method of inquiry. s

This first chapter has been presented as a prelimm’


introduction to the basic assertions and rationale ,1:
arts—based research practice and theory-building, a:
cessitating a review of supporting literature more
tensive than is typical for primers on more Wid
discussed research approaches.
a}

Glossary

A/r/tography—A research methodology conceived of as


terstitial space wherein definitions and understan’
combining artist, researcher, and teacher practices ,Ï'F‘L
rogated and ruptured in a critical exchange. 'L
Abduction-Involves the abductive reasoning of a
discerning likely conclusions through educated f“
about physical/material phenomena or social beha '
the absence of complete evidence or full explanati f;
Alternative Hypothesis—A hypothesis that succeeds
hypothesis either as a negation or as variance from t‘
inal supposition as new evidence is brought to bear;
Arts-Based Research (ABR)—The multisystemic appli "i" ’
interactive analytical, synthetic, critical-activist, or
visatory creative cognitive processes and artistic pra
ward theory-building. Best at addressing questions
neither be measured with exactitude nor generalize.)
MMA
Paradigm Analysis of Arts-Based Research m 33

versally applicable or meaningful in all contexts. Stems directly


from a researcher’s artistic practice or creative worldview.
Arts-Informed Research—Approaches to research informed by
the aesthetic characteristics of works of art and/or design,
artistic methods, or a specific artist but not stemming directly
from a researcher’s artistic: practice or creative worldview.
Creative Worldview—A creative worldview is an ontology
that supports the practice of arts-based research, wherein
theory and praxis are viewed as co-constructing one an—
other in an ongoing cycle of cause resulting in effect, and
effect regenerating cause. Understands works of art as
works of research.
Critical (Framework for Visual Arts Research)—Positional re-
search methods and practices, with a substantive focus on
instigating social action.
Critical-Theoretic Art-making Model—Defines art as a sys-
tem of critical reflection, a relativist and liberatory activity
rendering invisible assumptions, values, and norms newly
visible in order to alter the status quo, as well as transform
and critique unjust social relations.

Critical Theory—A philosophical examination or critique of so—


ciety and culture through the confrontation of dominant so—
ciocultural systems or through the reinterpretation of
literary texts and symbolic structures.
Deduction—Involves the deductive reasoning of a hypothesis,
deriving all possible conclusions that proceed from generally
accepted laws about physical/material phenomena or broad
assumptions about social behavior.
Emergent (research design)—An approach to inquiry, wherein
the researcher allows the research design to emerge or un-
fold into view rather than to construct it preordinately.
Empirical-Analytic Art-making Model—Defines art as a sys—
tem of production, a cause and effect intervention into a
stock of empirical and manipulable elements, producing a
stock of precious objects and forms, requiring a mastery
over the techniques necessary to shape them.
Empiricist (Framework for Visual Arts Research)-—Ex-
ploratory research methods and practices, with a substan-
tive focus on producing social structures.
Epistemology—An ontologically situated point of view on
what counts as knowledge and "truth," and a strategy by
which those beliefs may be justified.
m* Chapter One

Ethnography — ~/\ qrialitative resemrch method. for the descrip-


tion of the tustoms of individual people and cultures, aim-
ing to describe the nature of its subjects often through
participant observation, intervrews, and questionnaires.

Formational Properties of Art—Manifested within an analyt-


ical approach to arts practice as an empirical mastery over
the elements of, and the techniques for controlling, natural
and manufactured mediums and materials.

Grounded Theory—A qualitative research method that ap-


pears to contradict the structure of traditional scientific
methods, which begins with a hypothesis. Using this

.
method, data collection is the first step toward analysis and _
theory building.

Heuristic Devices—Interpretive tools enabling deeper under— Ï


standing of a phenomenon or experience through the fur— ¿I
ther development and reinterpretation of initial perceptions.

Hypothesis—A conjecture indicating a relationship between at _-.Ï


least two variables, warranting further investigation that Ï‘
addresses the problem of explaining that relationship and f"
what we may learn from it. "
ldeation—The visible manifestation of an initial theory, in thef
form of palpably remembered, written or otherwise;
recorded, and even physically embodied knowledge.

'
lnduction-lnvolves inductive reasoning of a hypothesis, infer-J]
ring some plausible conclusions from particular instances o
physical/material phenomena or specific social behaviors. ¿"-
Informational Properties of Art—I\/Ianifested within a s x
thetic approach to arts practice as self-expression, al 7"
with the invention, communication and reinterpretation
symbolic: languages, cultural motifs and archetypal ico,
graphies.
Interpretive—Hermeneutic Art-making Model—Defines
as a system of communication, the expression of situa;
knOW'edge about a person's relationship with his or her
stock of symbolic conveyances
Cial World' prOdUClng a
municating the ways in which we experience the worlds.
are sustained within it
lnterpretivist (Framework for Visual Arts Researc
alectical research methods and practices, with a subst’
focus on facilitating social agency. ‘
Logical Positivism—A family of philosophies characte’fi
an extremely positive evaluation of science and s
\ "II'._t\iitllll '\ii.il\.‘.I'. ul ¡\tl'. p).l'.l'll li'il'Ü'Hlli' ll

litt'lliiitl'. Uril‘uv't", titfilnll'iii,i

‘\:Vllillll litl‘ liliul . ul lliuil ‘vliis ti I, ¡"rw plainiri

Method /\ ain‘t Illl lltl‘tltt'. lui (lat i ."ii[l‘-' "at


¡('(lt‘lli)(‘(1lll'i"()'ll’.illlllllilllldlt‘iirï'x’.ii)!{Mili'r‘
ll( ii|.u liiirliil H".(\Illfil(1II“'.llflllrillfi tl'.»‘i‘,‘r' -*
()(llitt‘lllttl .i partii lllrll r lrt'fl, ul iw'J'arr liable 'liti

Methodology /\ ',V'.lt‘ltlrlll( upturn” li tr.) ',ril-/irir] -t {NH


lllt‘ (‘Iilltt‘ ¡(“d‘art ll l)l()((“»') ir()lll [irrililwni irlmitifiv itgtw r»
data analysis.

Natural Philosophy lilt‘[)lt‘lelllH}((itttt‘pl(tiIi'lv‘1t.'t"~/ii"


West from the l/lth to approxtmate‘ly the mid l’viuth i, en
tunes. lll(‘ study of the nature and the phyaigal tl,’,t.|"~;~“rw_"",
(onsidered to be a pre~< ursor to modern st ¡ente

Naturalistic Inquiry A postpositIVIst response to the marle-


qua(‘y of positivism toward understanding the ininmnw‘
complexity of variables in human nature and sot ml behave-r
that demand. rich descriptions, explanations, or ongornq cri-
tiques rather than true or false solutions.

Negotiated Outcomes (in research design)—- «An approach ta.


inquiry, wherein the researcher prefers to negotiate mean-
ing and interpretations with human sources, including the
self, from which the data have been drawn.

Null Hypothesis—A hypothesis that is posed to be accepted or


rejected in favor of an alternative hypotheSIs.

Ontology—A particular worldview; a rationale about the na-


ture of one of the worlds we live in, containing propositions
of what that world consists of and why.

Paradigm—A body of beliefs and values, laws, and practices


that govern a community of practitioners characterizec ex
its success in representing the prevailing understarnitrids
shared beliefs and research solutions of that communm as
a concisely defined worldview.

Particularizing—A characteristic of ABR wherein resean h t


ings are not generalizable or duplicable but are devours "
upon the particular interaction between the antes? ants
and the reality being represented.

Pattern Model—A model for describing, mplainind and internet


ing the data utilized in identilving the relationships hetxweh
variables within a system during the analysis and turthei e\—
ploration of individual, physical, or social (“pertence

Patterning—A characteristic of ABR wherein theon is


grounded in and built from its data and likemse responsn e
‘n ,,
.‘x
-\ *‘amdiqm Analysis of Arts—Based Researchwm

Prepositivist (inquiry practice)—Simi|ar to postpositivism in


construct, but pertaining to social practices for the acquisi—
tion of knowledge that preceded the sCIentific method.

Prestructural—A characteristic of ABR wherein perception pre-


cedes measurement, a legitimization of the kinds of knowl-
edge that are intuitive or felt; pertains to meanings and
relationships not yet able or necessary to be quantified.

Proliferative—A characteristic of ABR wherein inquiry gener—


ates turbulence, ambiguity, the miscegenation of cate-
gories, and an expanding discourse that proliferates
possibility, variation, and multimodal understandings.
Purposive—A characteristic of ABR wherein diverse arts prac-
tices exceed mere self—expression and are intentionally pur-
posed to serve as important resources for the representative
construction—pr re-construction—of experience.

Qualitative Research—ldentification of densely described dis-


tinctions based upon inferred characteristics or qualities of
data. Best at addressing questions through methods that yield
thick, rich descriptions, usually in terms of differences in kind.
Quantitative Research—Measurements and classifications
based on quantities and/or quantifiable data. Best at ad-
dressing questions through methods that yield mathemati—
cal expressions of constructs and relations, usually in terms
of differences in degree.

Reconceptualized Criteria for Trustworthiness—Alternative


concepts of validity and reliability in research, based not on
universal replicability across all contexts but rather on the
establishment of local credibility, transferability, dependabil-
ity, and confirmability.
Reinterpretation—The continuing adaptation of every ideation
we embody and/or further signify, and every mark, mode-'1
or medium through which we represent or interpret aggre—
gated knowledge.

Research (as Theory-Building Activity)—A researchers inter—


vention into a changing world where persons and phenom-
ena do not always follow the prescribed rules—digging out
connective elements, casting models, and constructing as-
semblies that shape the flux and chaos of each day’s per—
ceptions into a patterned reality we can comprehend and
correlate.
Single-Case Research Design—Case study research, wherein
n = 1, geared toward the intensive study of an individual
38 m/
HChapter One WN I

A
of
subject object, phenomenon, or event. The study
multiple and variable particulars of a Single case. "
Social Science Portraiture—A qualitative research method
oneered by sociologist Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot and arts
ucator Jessica Hoffman Davis that integrates the system
rigor and evocative resonance, blurring the boundaries
tween aesthetics and empiricism.
Theory/Theo—ria—A representative construction——or
struction—of a phenomenon of life sha
ped as a set of
terrelated constructs represented
in a distinguisha
plain, and/or in