Synchronicity

Good authors too who once knew better words,
Now only use four letter words
Writing prose, Anything Goes.

--Cole Porter

I have been hoping to blog about two things: our recent Masterclass in Theatrical Interpretation of Research Data and Carol Channing.

The Masterclass was a great success. Sharon Muiruri, the facilitator, was a real star and the participants, for the most part, really dug in and contributed to developing this emerging concept of using improv as an interpretive tool to interrogate research data. I had a few ah-ha! moments of my own, particularly in regards to the script development for our eventual film for the Gay and Pleasant Land? Project.

With little connection at all (ah, but with typical kipworld synchronicity you might say?), except that I have been rethinking corporeal theatre and how expressing life story metaphors and developing characterizations might be accomplished physically, I wanted to write my Carol Channing story. In a recent interview, Channing talked about Stanislavsky and ‘the spine of the character’ and how, astoundingly, she used Stanislavsky’s method to develop her title role in the musical, Hello, Dolly!

I was going to write my own personal recollection about meeting Channing in the green room of an American television talk show. Sitting cross-legged on the floor, she transformed into the character ‘Carol Channing’ right in front of us. This was accomplished with a wig, false eyelashes, crimson lipstick, some spit and a tin of Stein’s theatrical grease paint, much to the astonishment of all, including Mary Kay of Mary Kay Cosmetics who sat transfixed, yet horrified. I promise to tell the complete story at another time.

In the meantime, you may think that I have totally gone off the deep end and all ‘show biz’ on us here! This is not at all the case. I am still a social science researcher, I promise. Herein, however, lies the conundrum (and its synchronicities) behind what I would like to write about now.

Is Performative Social Science (PSS, for short) Art or Social Science? It isn’t either. It is a fusion of the Arts and Social Sciences, creating a new paradigm where tools from the Arts and Humanities are explored for their utility in enriching the ways in which we research social science subjects and/or disseminate or present our research to our audiences. This does not mean that we simply ‘put on a play’ (I have written about this elsewhere) or even make a film (and I need to constantly be wary of that pitfall myself these days in lieu of our Project's promised cinematic output).

It certainly isn’t taking academic prose (or interview transcriptions), leaving out a line or two here and there, and then rearranging it on the page in stanza format mimicking poetry, then passing it off as ‘poetic inquiry’. (Even worse: then calling ourselves poets.) It isn’t thinking that our lives (the ‘snowflake’ phenomenon) are so precious and unique that surely the world wants us to interpret our individuality (too often through the device of painful self revelation and angst). Usually to a captured audience, these academics perform their stories by crawling around the floor for an half hour or so and calling it dance or producing a monologue that seems never to have a conclusion.

Instead, let’s return to what we should already know quite well: academic research. I recall the standard rule-of-thumb suggestion that we make to postgrad students all of the time: ‘Find a research method that best fits the research question(s)’. This imperative applies to PSS as well. Within the vast richness of the Arts and Humanities, which lens, device, technique or tradition might deepen our research process or expand our dissemination plan? Do we automatically put on a play or make a film from our research data because we are so many frustrated actors or film directors, without ever asking which art form best fits the research question and the data that it has produced?

Many of us have turned to the arts for both inspiration and practical assistance in answer to our own frustrations with more standard research protocols and outputs. Perhaps our methods have become shop worn (routinely slotting vast amounts of data into ‘themes’ and then banging on about ‘rigour’ comes to mind as an example)? Perhaps the problem lies within our methodologies? Do we write too glibly about the ‘evocative’ without knowing what it is that is being evoked and how or, better yet, what our work might provoke instead? Do we falsely champion the ‘embodied’ without realising that through this binary by default we risk painting ourselves back into the Cartesian corner of mind/body duality that we are supposed to have abandoned in post-modern times? Yes, we turn elsewhere, rightfully so.

In addition, we have been encouraged to find ways to reach wider audiences by funders and, because of this, we have begun to look beyond academic journals or narrow academic subject groups (conference presentations or what I like to call ‘preaching to the choir’). Funders now want to know the benefits to society of our research and how it might affect society –the ‘outcomes’ of our efforts.

Performative Social Science, when it is at its best and humming along, is a synthesis that provides answers to many of these very requirements. Ideally, our audiences should be almost unaware of the seams where we have cobbled together in-depth, substantial scholarship with artistic endeavour. In my estimation, part of doing this 'performative social science' is the breaking down of the old boundaries, but also the old expectations and frameworks of what research is supposed to look like after it is ‘finished’. I am more and more convinced these days that any academic written texts reporting research should be 'supporting ancillary documents' to productions, not the final results or raison d’êtres of research efforts.

Nonetheless, we are researchers. We are not actors, directors, filmmakers, dancers, poets and so forth. There are vast opportunities and outlets (and frustrations and roadblocks) for those who wish to pursue those professions. We can learn a great deal from these folks who often needed to wait tables and do other menial jobs in order to pursue their dream profession. They may help us look at our own field through new lenses, but let’s not insult them by falsely assuming their hard-earned mantles.

In return, a word of caution to artists who might be drawn to working with researchers: the world of academia is not simply a new venue for you to put on a play, dance a dance or publish a poem. There are both constraints and opportunities in the academic world as well, which we are happy to share with you through our collaborations.

Through interfaces with techniques from the arts and humanities opportunities are presented to work with social science material and expand its means of production and dissemination to novel and creative levels. This requires the fusion mentioned earlier. This necessitates co-operation and collaboration. Communication and common ground are key to successful collaboration and fusion.

A closing word of caution: there are a few reptiles perched on the periphery of our pleasant pond. PSS, as the concept and its terminology become more familiar, runs the risk of providing a phrase or two for academics who would rather incorporate the language of what we are doing into their own outputs without really challenging either their own thinking or work. They subsume the language of PSS, but never really re-examine their own procedural techniques or output methods (and our developing terminology is, in this way, incorporated within standard academic journal writing rather than through any meaningful reinvention of research methods and dissemination). As Pollyanna I occasionally forget that there are a few academics lying in wait like lizards whose tongues dart out as soon as someone else's hard work and new ideas come into view from their lily pads. Let’s call them on this when they do so.

Most of all, however, we need to be careful not to implode PSS through an overblown sense of what we are about. In our enthusiasm, let’s not be too quick to anoint ourselves as poets, actors, dancers or magicians. When we do become one of those, I am sure others, more qualified to judge, will quickly let us know.

Anything goes? I don’t think so.

“It’s very difficult to keep the line between the past and the present, awfully difficult.” *

I am glad that I set the TV to record lots of programmes while I was away recently, particularly some movies that I would otherwise have missed. Last night I watched “Grey Gardens”, the HBO movie drama based upon the Maysles brothers 1975 documentary of the same name and winner of the 2010 Golden Globe for best motion picture made for television.

Following the film, I watched the documentary as well. A few things stood out for me: one being how much of the dialogue from the documentary is included in the film’s script. The second was how cleverly the actors took on the nuances of the characters, again based upon attention to the details provided in the documentary, but also by digging deep into archival material beforehand.

Jessica Lange, playing ‘Big’ Edie Beale, is just not acting by means of a fantastic ageing transformation accomplished by make-up. She has also done her homework. In one scene in the documentary, Edie removes and then replaces two horn combs from either side of her aged grey hair. In the drama, Lange does the very same bit of ‘stage business’. It is through this attention to personal detail that the character becomes believable and real. The comparisons between the two efforts go on; what is important here is to note how in-depth ‘research’ is being used to produce dramatic story telling.

These are details that take on importance for me in our writing of the script for our project, Gay and Pleasant Land?. At this juncture (where most of the research has been carried out and we are just beginning to use improvisation for script development), my viewing of these two films has added poignancy. Albert Maysles, one of the filmmakers, has stated that the characters are ‘just like anybody else, but more so’. Elsewhere, Michael Haneke (The White Ribbon) reports: ‘It’s very simple to get a cross section of society within a village; you get a microcosm of the social macrocosm’. Our film about being gay and living in a rural village should do exactly that. This is what we hope will give it its universality and connection with the audience.

Grey Gardens (both the drama and the documentary) has been compared to a Greek tragedy. Describing the mother and daughter relationship, Scott Frankel (composer of the musical version of Grey Gardens) has stated that "in this complicated relationship it is always the parent who both inflicts the severest wounds and also bandages them with the most tender care." A decision has been reached that our short film for Gay and Pleasant Land? should be character driven. By creating ‘composite’ characters based upon our research, our ‘docu-drama’ has a better chance at reaching those wide audiences and changing hearts and minds.

Our efforts here (as well as in other filmic work being carried out by myself and Trevor Hearing at Bournemouth University) begin to reshape our thinking about what documentary filmmaking is and how we might change it. No longer satisfied with the slick news reporting style of documentary making, we are beginning to look around the edges of production and reinvest the medium with the creativity it deserves. One such way is by looking at how dramatic interpretation (resulting in a renewed and active audience participation in interpretation) can revamp the medium. Concepts such as ‘beyond text’, death of the author (and yes, even ‘death of the subject’, at least in terms of camera focus) are all now in play in our creative experimentations.

The paradox of ‘death of the author’ became clear to me when watching Grey Gardens last night. Although I was involved and absorbed by the story of these two women, it became clear to me that I also had my own story to tell, one that reflected the setting of Grey Gardens, perhaps even some of its story. I questioned if the only story that any of us have to tell is our own? In blurring the relation between the writer and his characters, which am I? How transparent am I really then, in telling someone else’s story? What rings true for me in this case is that Grey Gardens moved me profoundly because I found my own story in it.

When I was 21 years old, I spent the summer living with a family in Chestnut Hill, a part of Philadelphia which was a 19th Century escape from the heat and disease of summer city dwelling. My roommate at Art College came from Chestnut Hill and took me to visit for a weekend at the end of spring term that year. We stayed for the whole summer.

The family in this case was Irish Catholic and, therefore, outsiders in Anglo-Saxon, upper-crust Chestnut Hill (in the 1920s locals burned down the only Catholic church in the area). The family’s two daughters were day students at Raven Hill, the same private school run by Catholic nuns that Grace Kelly (another upwardly-mobile Irish-Catholic Philadelphia family) attended.

The house was a huge Victorian pile with lots of rooms and a widow’s walk perched on top. It was painted shades of grey at the time and a bit dilapidated. The owners of the house and parents of the two Raven Hill girls, Anna and Charlie Meehan, were struggling financially. The house reflected this, with its former glory furnished with the Meehan's well worn fittings that had seen their day. There were lots of rooms, just like Grey Gardens, a big kitchen that surely servants had once laboured in, and floor to ceiling windows on the ground floor which opened onto a spacious verandah. A large standard poodle, Poley, bounded in and out of the door-like windows. Before the Meehans moved in, a small swimming pool had been added to the overgrown back garden, but was still useable.

The parties at the house were fantastic events and the girls had lots of college-aged friends who came around for them. Anna Meehan was ‘liberal’ in her permissiveness in terms of the girls’ behaviour, probably wrongly assuming that Catholic nuns had done their job and put enough of the fear of Jesus in them to keep them virginal. Charlie wasn’t around much because he was trying to get several failed or failing business back on track. Anna was director of a nursing home somewhere and seemed to provide the main source of income for the family. Their lifestyle was one of assume the position and it will follow you.

Anna had invented a background of Austrian Catholic roots and even given her daughters names of which the Von Trapp family would have approved. Adopted by a modest couple of Austrian lineage herself, Anna had used this fact to deny the truth that she was Irish Catholic by blood; this was only compounded by the other fact that Irish-American Charlie got her pregnant and so she ended up married to an Irishman after all.

After I had stayed a few weeks at the Meehan’s and feeling somewhat guilty as the long-term guest who had come to dinner, Charlie Meehan had a heart attack and died suddenly. The family was devastated. Anna, who had fought with Charlie constantly, was beside herself with the kind of grief only guilt can produce. Still, life must go on; the show must go on. This was a test of Anna’s will to survive all obstacles and she rose to the occasion. I offered to pay rent to stay at the house for the summer, and Anna agreed (quietly and in private, of course). After a lavish funeral and a week or two of mourning, the parties resumed. It was summer after all and the girls were teenagers. It made sense to carry on and show Chestnut Hill what they were made of.

It was my Grey Gardens summer. The house itself with it many rooms, many pretenses, its peeling paint and systems in need of repair was like the film Grey Gardens in the early years, some time after the husband left and the money to support their lifestyle dried up. Anna was ‘Big Edie’ with her silver grey hair, sometimes tied up in a bun, other times falling around her shoulders, her lack of grooming and the comfort of a chenille robe, except when business called her away. Anna was full of ambition, full of unfulfilled promise, wanting what she never had for herself for her daughters, whilst at the same time keeping them in check by vetting the boys allowed through the front door. A summer consisting of parties and a funeral, all produced through the mirage of a warped sense of the upper class and its supposed expectations of the newly arrived. We all know, of course, the newly arrived are never really welcome.

For me, it was a summer of love, a devastating platonic love for a sixteen year old boy whose mother came after me with a butcher’s knife. Position and pretense coupled with a romantic youth had convinced me in my naïveté that anything was possible, even this. The hard lesson learned that summer was that this in not the case, and never would be. This was a summer of beginnings, and an end.

* In the film, Little Edie dreamily tells this to David and Albert Maysles.

Call for Abstracts: Bournemouth Qualitative Conference

8th International Qualitative
Research Conference

6 – 8 September 2010

Talbot Campus
Bournemouth University

Call for Abstracts

http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/hsc/international-qualitative-research-conference-2010.html

Including:

Performative Social Science

http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/hsc/international-qualitative-research-science.html

PERFORM, INVOLVE, PARTICIPATE

Sometimes I feel like Susan Boyle...

Jeffrey is using his blog and autoethnography to navigate his PhD at Lancaster. He often asks me short, concise 'just the facts, ma'm' kinds of questions on the blog or in response to my postings.

I feel like Susan Boyle. She is answering questions such as 'What's your favorite meal? What's your favorite show tune?" in videos on her website. Yoko Ono answers 10-15 questions from 'readers' a week on Twitter. The era of the fast and furious, no-nonsense reply is upon us.

Jeffrey asks (Do you like that use of the newspaper-style breezy present tense?):

• Kip, I think you hit on the reason why autoethnography may be so contentious a method! From this vantage, how would you define this (especially for those who find it easy to confuse the two)?

'My personal story is simply one of the raw materials used to produce my product. What I construct stands alone for what it is (a story, a painting, an A/V production), but comes to life when it engages with the response that it instils in the reader/viewer/audience, “… those wonderful people out there in the dark!”' Rough talk and chocolate brownies

In the best autoethnography, I am always a minor character and/or a conduit to a time, place and other people. I become fictional through writing. I am the sorcerer who reminds the audience of themselves.

Reflexive writing is more like a diary; private thoughts that perhaps I share, perhaps I do not. They remind me of myself. I get to be Proust in private.

To do good research, it is myself that often that I need to get out of the way, so writing about my self may help me accomplish this.

A 'personal journey' PhD is often boring and usually takes about twice as much time anyway. If you already know the subject of your research, what is the point of investigating it?

Hubris is one of the best Greek words.

[Your supervisors should be discussing all of this with you. You can say I said so!]

... a roving and disconnected type of writing ...

'... the exposition of an idea through fragments, through a roving and disconnected type of writing, can sometimes better circumscribe its object than can a more linear approach'.
--Nicolas Bourriaud (2009) The Radicant

Relational Humanism in documentation and dissemination

‘We locate in a specifically relational humanism a new and significant means of realizing traditional visions of human well-being’ (Gergen 1997). Social science often has sought new ways of attaining greater "sensibility" to humanistic concerns; nonetheless, the status of new forms of production and dissemination as academic knowledge remains contested and ambiguous, and further development is required (Jones 2006).

Any large and diverse research project benefits from the documentation of its very development. Relational humanism in documentation and dissemination means that personal autonomy, dignity, liberty and responsibility are considered positive values for consideration throughout the on-going dialogue created by the research itself and its dissemination. It is through having a record of this very process that knowledge can be shared with others, creating a continuum on which the outcomes of a project's efforts can begin to flourish. The concern is with ambiguity, process, meaning, totality and history (Plummer 1983) through the continuity and “aliveness” of ideas. Humanising the process of documentation can be achieved by historically accurate ways: by listening to the stories of process and change within the research development itself. In turn, humanising the method of dissemination means consideration of any audience's part in the overall progression and building audience participation into the overall plan. A relational humanism urges us as theorists, human scientists and practitioners to seek ways – multiple ways - of generating integrative conversation.

Relational humanism thus appears not as ‘top-down’ concept but as a practical process of give-and-take by all of the players. Humanism also prompts us to imagine our potential audiences in ways which challenge us to re-imagine the commonweal, common good, or imagined community across disciplines and the intellectual freedom (Wakelin 2007) of our audiences themselves—a relational aesthetic (Bourriaud 2002; Jones 2006). Our considerations, through embodied perception, encourage us to walk around the edges of processes, to see beyond factuality to the humanism hidden on the other side. By extending our gaze beyond the usual, to new technologies and modes of presentation, we open doors to new understandings and resources (Jones 2006).

‘The precise meaning of relatedness, then, remains indeterminate and dependent upon further co-ordinations within relationship’ (Gergen 1997).

References

Bourriaud, N. (2002; English version) Relational Aesthetics. Dijon, France: Les Presses du Reel.

Gergen, K.J. (1997) Social Theory in Context: Relational Humanism. Draft copy for J. Greenwood (ed), The mark of the social. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Jones, K. (2006) ‘A Biographic Researcher in Pursuit of an Aesthetic: The use of arts-based (re)presentations in “performative” dissemination of life stories’. Qualitative Sociology Review, April 06.

Plummer, K. (1983) Documents of Life An Introduction to the Problems and Literature of a Humanistic Method. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Wakelin, D. (2007) Humanism, Reading, and English Literature 1430-1530.

Some simple thoughts, some more complex ones

Elana wrote and asked me what thoughts I had on social science and artistic vision (in her case, photography) and the merging of the two fields. Are there specific criteria that I hope to see reflected in the creation of ‘scientifically supportive imagery’?

I responded that I still find writing about the visual to be ironic, at best. I strongly believe that we can learn more by looking, reveal more by showing than through simple justification in text. Art and Science are both about discovery and creating a record of that discovery. Both are infused with the time and place in which they are practiced. The 'audience' for any work of art, any scientific discovery makes the ultimate interpretation. This is as it should be.

The visual image needs to be interrogated. Just like a criminal in a police station. We should never accept what we first see as the final truth, but realise that we are peeling an onion of multiple truths (and lies). Sociology, when done well, is a good detective story.

Some of the best 'social photography' today is done on cell/mobile phones and appears on flickr and Facebook. Photography does not always have to have a 'cause' or social issue in order to be about social life. There is much fodder for investigation in the ordinary.

Elana cited Howard Becker a lot. It reminded me of his piano playing. I want both Beckers/I want to be both. I suggested that Elana read this blog. I proposed that it is a non-course in performative social science, an educational process by subterfuge (see preceding blog item).

Next, an anthropological journal sent me a friend’s paper on the use of poetry in social science to review. I highly recommended publication of the paper; then I added:

When any breakthrough occurs in art (or social science or anthropology?), it is necessary in order for it to find its place on a continuum of time that other attempts are made to refine answers to a set of questions that change only slowly (Kubler, The Shape of Time, 1962). This effort in the refinement of the use of poetics in social science contributes to the development of the use of the arts in this arena by astutely placing the case in a solid social science framework. Not the artistic endeavor that will punctuate the historical continuum as a great work of art, rather, this contribution is the quieter and deeper foundation-building labour that is necessary for other great strides forward to make their mark and prosper in the first place.

The author only hints at the audience (or community) so necessary for the dialogic to exist within our relationships with works of art. Further attention to relational aesthetics (Bourriaud 2001) may very well help inform further development of the theoretical base for poetics in social science research. The intuitive aspects of a shared culture, coupled with a more universal response to injustices (and, therefore, an artistic expression of these emotive components), compete for resolution within more rigid ethical frameworks and well-tested methodologies in the discussion. My take is that by developing a trust in personal instinct and intuition and the naturally expressive and moral potential of these resources, social science research will become more comfortable within these new paradigms and more willing to jettison some of the baggage of its old ‘academic rigor’ and procedural ethics.

PM's apology to codebreaker Alan Turing: we were inhumane

• Enigma genius chemically castrated for being gay

• Admission comes 55 years after Turing took his life

Caroline Davies The Guardian, Friday 11 September 2009

Alan Turing, mathematician who helped crack German codes during the second world war. Photograph: Public Domain

Gordon Brown issued an unequivocal apology last night on behalf of the government to Alan Turing, the second world war codebreaker who took his own life 55 years ago after being sentenced to chemical castration for being gay.

Describing Turing's treatment as "horrifying" and "utterly unfair", Brown said the country owed the brilliant mathematician a huge debt. He was proud, he said, to offer an official apology. "We're sorry, you deserved so much better," Brown writes in a statement posted on the No 10 website.

Turing is most famous for his work in helping create the "bombe" that cracked messages enciphered with the German Enigma machines. He was convicted of gross indecency in 1952 after admitting a sexual relationship with a man.

He was given experimental chemical castration as a "treatment". His criminal record meant he was unable to continue his work for the UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) because his security privileges were withdrawn. Two years later he killed himself, aged 41.

Thousands have signed a Downing Street petition calling for an official apology, among them the novelist Ian McEwan, scientist Richard Dawkins, and gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

Paying tribute to Turing's contribution to "Britain's fight against the darkness of dictatorship", Brown described him as "a quite brilliant mathematician".

"Without his outstanding contribution, the history of world war two could well have been very different," he writes.

"The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely. In 1952, he was convicted of gross indecency – in effect, tried for being gay.

"His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison – was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones."

The petition, which yesterday had 30,805 signatures, was the idea of computer scientist John Graham-Cumming, who has also written to the Queen to request Turing be awarded a posthumous knighthood. Although an official apology is unusual, the act is seen as symbolic. Alan Turing is survived by three neices – Inagh, Shuna and Janet, from his brother's first marriage – and a nephew, John Dermot Turing, from his brother's second marriage, along with their associated family members.

Acknowledging the strength of feeling, Brown wrote: "Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can't put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him.

"Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction.

"This recognition of Alan's status as one of Britain's most famous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality and long overdue."

"But even more than that, Alan deserves recognition for his contribution to humankind … It is thanks to men and women who were totally committed to fighting fascism, people like Alan Turing, that the horrors of the Holocaust and of total war are part of Europe's history and not Europe's present.

"So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan's work I am very proud to say: we're sorry, you deserved so much better."

Though most famous for his codebreaking, Turing is often considered to be the father of modern computer science, having made highly significant contributions to the emerging field of artificial intelligence and computing. After the war he worked at many institutions, including the University of Manchester, where he worked on the Manchester mark 1, one of the first recognisable modern computers.

In 1999 Time Magazine named him as one of the 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century.

• This article was amended on Sunday 13 September 2009. We said that Alan Turing, the man often considered the father of modern computer science had no surviving family. In fact, his family includes three nieces, a nephew and his mother, and several children and spouses of this group. This has been corrected.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

Masterclass in Theatrical Improvisation of Research Data

Bournemouth University’s Centre for Qualitative Research

is excited to announce a two-day

Masterclass in Theatrical Improvisation

of Research Data

For researchers, film & theatre folk and citizens!

With Sharon Muiruri and Kip Jones

15^th & 16^th February, 2010

We are looking for a small group of people with some background in film, theatre or improvisation work or at least an interest in performance who are not shy about experimenting in front of each other! You don’t necessarily need to be a researcher or a performer; rather, we are more interested in a gathering of creative people with an interest in performance as a way of raising awareness. If you are fascinated by learning about improvisation and its potential as an interpretive tool for research, then this is a great opportunity to try something cutting edge in the research process. This is definitely a new way of thinking about the interpretation of research data through improvisation.

The fee for this Masterclass is £99.00 for two full days.

Contact: cqr@bournemouth.ac.uk or call Claire: +44 (0)1202 962179

More information

Method Meets Art

Method Meets Art
Arts-Based Research Practice
byPatricia Leavy

'This book presents the first comprehensive introduction to arts-based research (ABR) practices, which scholars in multiple disciplines are fruitfully using to reveal information and represent experiences that traditional methods cannot capture. Each of the six major ABR genres—narrative inquiry, poetry, music, performance, dance, and visual art—is covered in chapters that introduce key concepts and tools and present an exemplary research article by a leading ABR practitioner. Patricia Leavy discusses the kinds of research questions these innovative approaches can address and offers practical guidance for applying them in all phases of a research project, from design and data collection to analysis, interpretation, representation, and evaluation'.

'I am cited lavishly throughout this ground-breaking publication, so proceed with caution!' --Kip Jones