Exploration 3 - Narrative Inquiry

 

Exploration 1 – Critical Action Research

            After reading Smith (2013), Klein (2012) and Keifer-Boyd (2014), I gained a general understanding of what action research is. Before doing the readings, I had a limited understanding of the environments or surroundings that action research could take place in. I thought it was a method that only teachers could use, within an educational setting. Luckily, it did not turn out to be that way. Based on the readings and my understanding of them, action research is much more inclusive in the way it can be used by a wide range of people such as teachers, artists, teacher-artists, scholars, researchers, etc. It contains multiple methods of inquiry such as arts-based research, narrative inquiry, a/r/tography, etc. It is a methodology that brings the unconscious details of everyday practice environments to consciousness through the multiple methods that emphasize on reflexivity. All the methods action research can be conducted through are reflexive and dialogical practices. What these methods produce are always becoming and are socially constructed within the milieu that the researcher and the participants take place. I understand action research as a methodology that focuses on the present moment of the researcher’s practice(s). It is concerned with the process and requires imagination and vision for future possibilities. Kind of like envisioning the possible future outcomes of current practice(s). Additionally, the research questions of action research emerge from the organic environment where the researcher and the participants take place. Questions may also emerge from the ongoing practices of the researcher. Action research is also how the researcher works with the “problems” that come out as a result of various methods used. However, the essence of this method is that it is meant to have an “unfinished” outcome, so that it can be open to new perspectives and growth.

            Finally, (critical) action research is informed by issues that may need a change – in terms of social justice. Is it really essential to pose problem statement questions before conducting action research? Can the researcher let the process itself unravel the research question(s)? What separates action research from conducting surgery for example – in terms of identifying a problem and removing or changing it for the “better”?

Visualization practice

            It is five years ahead of now, and I am in a studio. It is somehow the only place that I can imagine myself conducting research. Even though these days I do not feel the need to own a studio to work in, I always imagine having one – in my ideal world. Just a space for me to dedicate to creative practice and thinking. I remember days spent in my studio back in my master’s studies where somedays I was just listening to music and daydreaming, even that was a form of investigation for me to create something later on. Coming back to my visualization: the studio does not fully belong to me, but to my participants as well. We are explorers who share an interest in gaming and artmaking, and most of the time, in both of those things at the same time. They are both my colleagues and friends from the university I conduct my action research in. We suggest each other new indie games and comics and talk about how their contents relate to wider areas such as contemporary art, power relations/politics, etc.

            Together, we are collaboratively experimenting on a big drawing paper attached to a wall. The studio has 2 wide walls, and has nothing on them, just plain white. There is not much stuff in the studio, it is quite minimal to prevent mental declutter. It is located on a university campus, where coffee shops are all nearby. There is one projection machine in the studio and a game console. What we are doing in the studio could be called arts-based research. One of us is playing a video game we all chose together, and the gaming process is being projected on the wall. Just like projecting a sketch or a photo on a blank canvas for painting, we are projecting the gaming process on a big drawing paper attached on the wall. We are taking turns to draw on the paper, while the gaming process is projected on the paper. While one of us is drawing and another one of us is gaming, the other two people are waiting for their turns. The aim is to do an “x-ray” of that specific gaming process with the medium of drawing. We chose to draw to have a more map-like sense of this x-ray idea. The questions in our minds are as such: What are the immediate effects of gaming on artmaking? How do the visual elements and the layout of the video game effect the process of drawing? How do we internalize the virtual space of the game, how do we make sense of it? Can the collaborative drawing process indicate a visual mapping of the gaming process? How does the way the game is played relate to wider issues such as power/political relations, artworld, education, etc.? What we focus on in this process is the collectivity of the drawing. It does not belong to just one person’s x-ray mapping of the game but is an overall sense of what the game is standing for – when we look at it from a wider perspective. Just like a video game is created by a team of people, we reflect its map collaboratively.

            I feel like I would choose ink as a metaphor for my art educator/researcher identity. Ink is almost impossible to erase, so you need to draw carefully if you want to have a polished final product. I do the opposite. I like not being able to erase the unpolished areas or the areas that go out of control sometimes. Instead, I play with them, transform them, or just let them stay the way they are just as if they are post notes. Ink is a material that I have deeply embedded in my artmaking process, although it symbolized much more than just artmaking. It is a material that helps me see everything all at once, as they are. It also symbolizes an endless process, erasing the need to exhibit it – whether at a conference or at a gallery space.