Author: Hannah Grout

Quotes from reading on the topic

“A form of self-narrative that places the self within a social context […] Autoethnographies compare the experiences of the author with those of other people” (Reed-Danahay, 1997)

“a qualitative research method which utilizes ethnographic methods to bring cultural interpretations to the autobiographical data of researchers with the intent of understanding self and its connection with others” (Chang, 2008)

“Autoethnography is an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyze personal experience in order to understand cultural experience […] Thus, as a method, autoethnography is both process and product” (Ellis and Bochner, 2010)

“while reflexivity – in the sense of thinking through the implications of the researcher’s person on the study – is important in all qualitative research designs […], in autoethnography, the interaction between the researcher’s multiple identities as a researcher and as a member of a social world constitutes a major part of the ‘observations’ that are then analyzed” (Hokkanen 2017, p. 26)

“self-reflection can lead to self-transformation through self-understanding” (Chang 2008, pp.57)

Self reflection

I carried out a quick version of auto ethnography, writing a brief reflective account of my own memories around the institutional bias of UAL’s collections. In this I wanted to play and experiment with this method, through a critical and questioning reflection on my experiences, and applying these to social/cultural contexts. In this way my approach could be categorised as “Confessional/self-critical” (Chang 2008, p. 39).

I have never been openly, actively challenged by students about the hegemony of the collections we hold or the objects that we have.

Am I not inviting this? What can I do to invite this? Do students not see the archive as a space that they expect to be represented in, and so don’t question this? How can I surface and change those expectations?

But sometimes students’ responses inadvertently (?) challenge me. A course of students is divided into groups; one group has predominantly Chinese members. This group chooses the only artefact in the collection that is of obvious Chinese origin (DU_121). They share the cultural meanings of this object in their project, and are excited to talk about this with tutors and their classmates. Their European classmates had hundreds of items that were culturally familiar to them, that they could have shared in this way. I was ashamed they did not have this choice.

How can we equalise this experience? How can there be an equity or parity for students when using our collections no matter their cultural background, considering the overwhelmingly legacy of material made by white, western, cis male creators? These students’ knowledge gave me insight into the item, which I can share with others when using this in the future – I need to remember to acknowledge them when I do, how do I do this?

My colleagues at UAL have challenged me. When I assumed that taking material related to their work within the university into the archive would be welcomed, they challenged me. They were not open, they were not grateful. They asked why. This forced me to evaluate my assumption that they would see it as an achievement – that to receive this attention was validating, to be seen as ‘worthy’ of preserving was flattering. Through these conversations I learnt that any relationship needed to be a partnership; that I should offer my skills to them on their own terms, so they could be in control of their narrative. Any knowledge we have should not be withheld from them unless they agreed to our terms.

How should I be approaching new acquisitions to our collections? How can these be partnerships with the creators? How can we move away from traditional archival ideas of ‘ownership’ to those of cocreation? My skills and experience have value, but this needs to be shared. How can I share these in my role?

References

Chang, H. (2008) Autoethnography as Method. California: Left Coast Press

Ellis, C. and Bochner, A. (2006) ‘Analyzing Analytic Autoethnography: An Autopsy’ Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35:4, pp. 429-449

Ellis, C. and Bochner, A. (2010) ‘Autoethnography: An Overview’, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12:1. Available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1101108

Hokkanen, S. (2017) ‘Analyzing personal embodied experiences: Autoethnography, feelings, and fieldwork’, Translation & Interpreting, 9:1, pp.24-35

Muncey, T. (2010) Creating Autoethnographies. London: Sage Publishers Ltd.

Reed-Danahay (1997) Auto/Ethnography: Rewriting the Self and the Social, Oxford: Berg.

Wall, S. (2006) ‘An Autoethnography on Learning About Autoethnography’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5:2, pp.146-160

Wall, S. (2008) ‘Easier Said than Done: Writing an Autoethnography’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7:1, pp. 38-53

“Anti-racism pedagogy doesn’t mean the erasure of painful history, but to embed the teaching and practices the encourage understanding and learning with historical context, multiple narratives and empathetic support” (Shades of Noir 2020, p. 133)

Related to my aim of gathering data on using objects critically and inclusively, another key topic in my reading is inclusive or critical teaching practices. The premise of my research question is how to ensure that structural biases aren’t enacted during teaching. This contributes to UAL’s “values of social justice […] through our teaching and research” (University of the Arts London 2015, p. 5), documented in UAL’s 2015-2022 strategy, UAL Anti Racism Action Plan, Equal Opportunities Policy and Disability Inclusion Toolkit.

A theoretical and practical understanding of social justice education explored by Hahn Tapper (2013) sees its purpose as being to:

1. explore students’ understandings of their individual and group identities
2. deepen students’ awareness of the existence of social inequalities
3. assist in developing students’ conception of the interconnection between social inequalities and social identities
4. examine the roles students play in both perpetuating and working against patterns of inequality
5. empower students to work toward societal transformation in and through their identities

(Hahn Tapper 2013, p. 427)

Two writers who are key to this movement are Freire and hooks, who both explored the idea of education as a tool for social justice.

Freire saw that education is the key to enacting social justice, and that this should be a primary pedagogical goal of all educational activities (Freire, 2005). In this, Freire discusses ideas of working collaboratively with learners and co-creation.  He saw that a teacher’s “efforts must coincide with those of the students to engage in critical thinking and the quest for mutual humanization […] they must be partners” (Freire, 2005 p.75). Hahn Tapper’s interpretation of Freire’s writing finds that “a teacher needs to create experiences with, and not for, students, integrating their experiences and voices into the educational experience itself” (2013, p.414) .

hooks is concerned with creating safe and communal learning spaces for students, she argues that “empowerment cannot happen if [teachers] refuse to be vulnerable while encouraging students to take risks [those] unwilling to share are exercising power in a manner that could be coercive” (hooks, 1994 p.21). In order to enact hooks’ ideas I recognise that my practice needs to develop a willingness to share my personal experiences and positionality with students., As hooks states, “I never ask students to do an in class writing assignment that I am not willing to do. My willingness to share, to put my thoughts and ideas out there, attests to the importance of putting thoughts out there, of moving past fear or shame. When we all take risks, we participate mutually in the work of creating a learning community” (hooks 2010, p. 21). For me, this openness starts with an acknowledgement of my role within UAL, and using this action research project to interrogate and deconstruct the role/position of the objects (archives and collections) that I use in my teaching.

In her model for embedding equality and diversity in the curriculum, Hanesworth (2015) places great emphasis on self-reflection in both students and staff:

“Self reflection (students)
The creation of environments (physical and virtual) and learning experiences in which students are able to reflect on their own identities, biases and backgrounds and how these impact on their learning and living experiences.”

“Self reflection (staff)
The consideration of our own identities, biases and backgrounds (academic and otherwise) in the creation of curricula and teaching experiences in order to develop our understanding of how these impact on student learning experiences and how we should adapt our teaching appropriately.“

(Hanesworth 2015, p. 16)

References:

Bhagat, D. and O’Neill, P. (2011) Inclusive Practices, Inclusive pedagogies; Learning from Widening Participation Research in Art and Design Higher Education. Available at: https://ukadia.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Inclusive_Practices_Inclusive_Pedagogies.pdf (accessed 17 December 2021).

Freire, P. (2000) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc. Available at: https://envs.ucsc.edu/internships/internship-readings/freire-pedagogy-of-the-oppressed.pdf (accessed 16 November 2021).

Hahn Tapper, A. (2013) ‘A Pedagogy of Social Justice Education: Social Identity Theory, Intersectionality, and Empowerment’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 30:4, pp. 411-445.

Hanesworth, P. (2015) Embedding equality and diversity in the curriculum: a model for learning and teaching practitioners. Available at: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/eedc_model_for_learning_and_teaching_practitioners_1568037305.pdf (accessed 16 November 2021).

hooks, B. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge: New York and London. Available at:  https://sites.utexas.edu/lsjcs/files/2018/02/Teaching-to-Transcend.pdf (accessed 16 November 2021).

hooks, b. (1997) Bell Hooks: Cultural Critisicm & Transformation [transcript]. Available at: https://www.mediaed.org/transcripts/Bell-Hooks-Transcript.pdf (accessed 17 December 2021).

hooks, B. (2010). Teaching critical thinking: Practical wisdom. New York: Routledge.

Richards, A. and Finnigan, T. (2015) Embedding Equality and Diversity in
the Curriculum: An Art and Design Practitioner’s Guide. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/embedding-equality-and-diversity-curriculum-discipline-specific-guides (accessed 17 December 2021).

Shades of Noir (2020) Inclusive Practice: Alchemy – Transformation in Social Justice Teaching. Available at: https://issuu.com/shadesofnoir/docs/inclusivepractice (accessed 17 December 2021).

University of the Arts London (2018) Decolonising the Arts Curriculum, Zine 1

University of the Arts London (2019) Decolonising the Arts Curriculum, Zine 2

University of the Arts London (2015) UAL Strategy 2015-2022. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/12838/UAL-Strategy-2015-22.pdf (accessed 16 November 2021).

University of the Arts London (2021) Anti-Racism Action Plan. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0032/296537/UAL-Anti-racism-action-plan-summary-2021.pdf (accessed 16 November 2021).

University of the Arts (2021) London Disability Toolkit. Available at:https://canvas.arts.ac.uk/sites/explore/SitePage/45680/disability-inclusion-toolkit (accessed 16 November 2021).

University of the Arts London (2021) Equality Objectives and Reports. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/public-information/equality-objectives-and-reports (accessed 16 November 2021).

“Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data. It minimally organises and describes your data set […] and interprets various aspects of the research topic” (Braun and Clarke 2006, p. 79)

I have been researching thematic analysis as a method of analysing data from my focus group.

“The first step in developing an effective analysis plan is to establish clear analytic objectives” (Guest, MacQueen and Namey, 2012, p.22). In analysing the focus group data, my primary analytic purpose is to identify and explore how my colleagues approach the use of objects in their teaching practice, specifically considering the cultural biases these objects may have.

Braun and Clarke (2006) set out a six-step framework for thematic analysis, which I will broadly be following:

• Phase 1: familiarize yourself with your data.
• Phase 2: generating initial codes
• Phase 3: searching for themes
• Phase 4: reviewing themes
• Phase 5: defining and naming themes
• Phase 6: producing the report

Within this framework, there are various approaches to thematic analysis, “what is important is that the theoretical framework and methods match what the researcher wants to know, and that they acknowledge these decisions, and recognise them as decisions” (Braun and Clarke 2006, p. 80).

The first of the decisions is whether to use inductive or deductive (or theoretical) analysis. A “‘theoretical’ thematic analysis would tend to be driven by the researcher’s theoretical or analytic interest in the area, and is thus more explicitly analyst-driven” (Braun and Clarke 2006, p.84). Whereas an inductive approach means the “themes identified are strongly linked to the data themselves” (Patton, 1990). Both approaches must also acknowledge that the researcher “cannot free themselves of their theoretical and epistemological commitments, and data are not coded in an epistemological vacuum” (Braun and Clarke 2006, p.84). Based on my project aims, I have chosen to take a deductive approach. This decision is based on my having a pre-existing research focus that I want to explore and capture. So in my analysis I will concentrate on “each segment of data that [is] relevant to or captured something interesting about [my] research question” (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017, p. 3355).

A second approach I needed to decided on is whether to identify themes at a semantic or latent level. In a semantic approach “the themes are identified within the explicit or surface meanings of the data and the analyst is not looking for anything beyond what a participant has said or what has been written” (Braun and Clarke 2006, p.84). Contrasted to analysis at the latent level, which “goes beyond the semantic content of the data, and starts to identify or examine the underlying ideas” (Braun and Clarke 2006, p.84). In my research I am interested in the explicit meanings of what a participant has said, so I will be analysing the data at the semantic level.

However, in this process, successful semantic analysis still involves interpretation of the data, in ” an attempt to theorise the significance of the patterns and their broader meanings and implications” (Patton, 1990). As Braun and Clarke state, “analytic narrative needs to go beyond description of the data, and make an argument in relation to your research question” (2006, p.93). This means that my analysis won’t simply be a description of the semantic content, but must relate to my own understanding and interpretation of the data in relation to context etc., in order to find meaning in it.

There is a line to be aware of here however, for, as while thematic analysis is more than simply description, it also “is generally not used to engage in data interpretation and transformation to the point of developing theory” (Kiger and Varpio 2020, P.4)

I have developed an action plan for work on my thematic analysis, based on Braun and Clarke’s six step framework:

• Familiarise myself with the transcript by re-reading and and tidying up the automated transcription (spelling, punctuation etc.) using recording of the focus group.
• Identify initial codes (highlight on transcript, and copy and paste text to new document). I will do this by “identifying and recording one or more passages of text […] that, in some sense, exemplify the same theoretical or descriptive idea” (Gibbs 2018, p.54)
• Group initial codes into themes. The thematic cue I will primarily be focussing on to establish themes is ‘repetition’ (possibly also reflecting on ‘silence/missing data’ in my later interpretation (Guest, MacQueen and Namey, 2012, p.66)).
• Review and refine themes – consider codes in relation to themes, consider themes in relation to data set. Review, edit, remove etc. as required. Establish final names.
• Write report including findings – i.e. tell the story of my data. This will involve questioning/interpreting the themes – “What does this theme mean? What are the assumptions underpinning it? What are the implications of this theme? What conditions are likely to have given rise to it? Why do people talk about this thing in this particular way (as opposed to other ways)? and What is the overall story the different themes reveal about the topic?” (Braun and Clarke 2006, p. 24)

References

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’ Qualitative Research in Psychology 3:2, pp. 77-101.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2020) Thematic Analysis. Available at: https://study.sagepub.com/thematicanalysis (accessed 20 December 2021).

Gibbs, G. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Second ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd Available at: https://www-doi-org.arts.idm.oclc.org/10.4135/9781526441867 (accessed 20 December 2021)

Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M. & Namey, E. E. (2012) Applied thematic analysis. London: Sage Publications, Inc. Available at: https://www-doi-org.arts.idm.oclc.org/10.4135/9781483384436 (accessed 20 December 2021).

Kiger, M. and Varpio, L. (2020) ‘Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131’, Medical Teacher. Available at: https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/18/18247/Kiger_and_Varpio__2020__Thematic_analysis_of_qualitative_data_AMEE_Guide_No_131.pdf (accessed 20 December 2021).

Lochmiller, C. R. (2021) ‘Conducting Thematic Analysis with Qualitative Data’ The Qualitative Report, 26:6, pp.2029-2044. Available at: https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5008 (accessed 21 December 2021)

Maguire, M. and Delahunt, B. (2017) ‘Doing a Thematic Analysis: A Practical, Step-by-Step
Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars’ AISHE-J 3, pp. 3351-33514

Onwuegbuzie, A. et al. (2009) ‘A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8:3, pp.1-21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800301 (accessed 21 December 2021)

Patton, M.Q. (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage

Sage Research Methods Datasets (2019) Thematic Analysis of Focus Groups With Consumers and Carers of Mental Illness. Available at: https://methods.sagepub.com/base/download/DatasetStudentGuide/thematic-analysis-mental-illness (accessed 21 December 2021)

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practice handbook. London: Sage.

Sutton, J. and Austin, Z. (2015) ‘Qualitative Research: Data Collection, Analysis, and Management’, Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 68:3, pp. 226-231.

Engaging in ‘internal feedback’ (Nichol and McCallum, 2021) I wrote some feedback for each of my peers in the tutorial, and used this as catalyst to focus and inspire my own work. These reflections have motivated me to consider/implement the following:

• Avoid the use of subjective terms, but if these are used I should clarify what I mean by these.
• Be clear about any effects or outcomes from the research, and acknowledge these as a result of the research.
• Read into participant bias (a term introduced to me by my peer in this tutorial, which will be relevant to my research).
• Decide/clarify what output of my project will be.
• Be careful when constructing the presentation to balance the amount of information given in each section according to its importance/value to overall narrative.
• Present data, analysis, other information etc. in a clear and simple way, with explanations of terms and concepts where needed.
• Decide on method of presentation that is simple and easy to follow – PowerPoint slides may be best method.
• Providing images that represent themes/ideas is visually engaging and interesting, I will consider how I might integrate this into my presentation.
• Ensure I include my own reflections at each stage

I also received some direct feedback from my peers and tutor, largely relating to the structure of my presentation and the type of information I include on the slides, that I will be applying when I create my final presentation.

References

Nicol, D. and McCallum, S. (2021) ‘Making internal feedback explicit: exploiting the multiple comparisons that occur during peer review’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/d’oi/pdf/10.1080/02602938.2021.1924620?needAccess=true (accessed 27 December 2021)

I approached ten colleagues to participate in my focus group, these colleagues work in archives or collections across UAL in varying roles, for example Curators, Librarians and Archivists. These staff represented collections across all six of UAL’s colleges. Seven of them agreed to participate, and six were able to attend the focus group on the date and time arranged. On the day, two were unable to attend due to illness and personal reasons. I therefore conducted the two-hour focus group with four participants online via Microsoft Teams.

Initial reflections on conducting a focus group (crudely broken into negative and positive reflections):

‘Negatives’

• The group was difficult to organise, e.g. ascertaining participant availability, time consuming to organise and communicate with participants.
• Time consuming to conduct (2 hour focus group)
• Small group of participants, so a small data sample
• I only had time to directly ask a few of my prepared questions (however, a focus group is primarily about discussion between group so should be less focussed on questions)

‘Positives’

• This form of discussion encouraged deeper and wider responses to questions than another method would have, e.g. a questionnaire
• The discussion format enabled new topics or thoughts to be introduced and explored
• Formant appeared to develop an openness and honesty – could see this increasing in participants throughout
• Participants seemed to personally enjoy and appreciate the time and space to discuss their practice

During the focus group I was making notes of ideas and phrases that caught my attention. These are some of the themes that came out from my note taking:

• Object ambiguity as a leveler vs. familiarity enabling cultural knowledge exchange
• Practicality, pressure and performance – what is ‘success’?
• Methods of conveying information
• Importance, or not, of staff knowledge of objects
• Using objects to disrupt
• Asking for (uncompensated) labour from colleagues and students of colour
• Use of trigger/content warnings
• Policies being undermined by practices

“to ‘analyse’ is to examine something in detail in order to discover its meaning […] to break something down into components or essential features”

(Gray and Malins 2004, p.123)

For our third and final workshop we looked at data analysis

The visualisation of the analytic filtering of data (below) was useful to me in understanding how to refine my primary research (focus group) and secondary research (reading) into an ‘explanatory narrative’ (Kara 2015, p.112).

Data (or research) poetry

I was initially quite skeptical of the activity to create data poetry, however I actually found the exercise interesting and enjoyed the process of refining down key themes from the data to ‘pleasing’ words or quotes and then arranging these in a creative way. My group’s interpretation of this task (image below) was quite direct, using quotes in the order they appeared to tell the narrative of the data in a straightforward way.

However even with this simple approach I was amazed by how these lines really captured the whole narrative of the data in a clear way. I reflected that this seems like a creative way to distill the information into something that is immediately accessible for a research audience (Ndlovu, 2018). I am now quite keen to use this method on my data (this would be my focus group transcript), and would be interested in trying a more experimental approach.

Thematic coding

The other activity in this workshop which I found helpful was on thematic analysis – especially as I knew I would be using this method in my research. We used a couple of basic steps to do some quick analysis of a transcript – familiarising ourselves with the data and identifying themes (repetitions, metaphors, transitions, similarities and
differences, missing/excluded data, anomalies etc.). My group came up with the themes seen in the image below.

I found this a useful exercise as a first introduction to this research method, as it helped to demystify the process for me. It was also a useful insight into what can be achieved with quick analysis. Although we didn’t get to the stage of analysing the themes and developing theories about the data, to some extent the identification and interpretation of the themes themselves began to tell the narrative of the data.

Both of these data analysis activities have helped me to feel more aware of what the analysis process involves, and provided a potential new method for me to use with my data.

References

Gray, C. and Malins, J. (2004) ‘Interpreting the map: methods of evaluation and analysis’, Visualizing Research: A guide to the research process in art and design. Farnham: Ashgate.

Kara, H. (2015) ‘Analysing data’ in Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A practical guide. Bristol: Policy Press.

Lahman, M., Richard, V. and Teman, E. (2018) ‘ish: How to Write Poemish
(Research) Poetry’, Qualitative Inquiry 00:0, pp. 1-13.

Ndlovu, D. (2018) How poetry can represent research. Available at: https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blog/how-poetry-can-represent-research/ (accessed 27 December 2021)

Presenting my work-in-progress presentation – my work and findings on the project so far – I received some formative feedback from peers and tutor.

Questions posed regarding project :

1. Is there something you are hoping to find?
2. Will you propose change to your own teaching based on what your colleagues say?
3. What is your intervention?

Responses to these:

1. I am open to any findings through this process. Broadly I am looking for some answers as to how I can make my teaching more inclusive for students when I use objects that are not representative of the UAL student body. To do this I hope to come across ideas, practices and possibilities in my reading a research that I can pull together to enact change.
2. This process is very much about developing my own teaching.
3. I am still considering what my intervention will be, I want to be lead to some degree by what my findings are. Possible outcomes are: an activist toolkit for staff; plan for a staff development workshop; an action plan for changes to my teaching practice.

Feedback for formatting and content of presentation, and my actions in response:

• Include definition of object based learning (OBL)
  • I will add a definition of OBL to my context slide, and make sure to explain terms etc in my presentation script without assuming knowledge
• Include some quotes on your rationale slide 
  • I will use notes from my reading to find and include quotes from UAL publications e.g. anti-racism action plan

My research question includes an inherent assumption – that there are structural biases in the archives and collections at UAL.

While the scope of my project does not include exploring this subject in its full complexity, this idea is the basis and background to my question. Therefore some foundational reading and consolidation of this idea was required – with this being a topic I have previously researched ad written on (Grout, 2019). In my reading I aimed to develop this and inform my research with ideas and potential solutions from the critical archive studies sphere.

Archive theorists and practitioners have discussed the ways in which archives are are tools of oppression since the early 2000s (Schwartz and Cook), and more recently are also confronting the ways in which they can also be used as tools for liberation. Caswell, Punzalan and Sangwand broadly define critical archival studies as approaches which ” (1)  explain  what  is  unjust  with  the  current  state  of  archival research and practice, (2) posit practical goals for how such research and practice can and should change, and/or (3) provide the norms for such critique” (2017, p.2).

These discussions have intersected with other social movements, such as: critical race studies (Williams and Drake, 2017; Lowry, 2019; ) feminism (Cifor and Wood, 2017; Moravec, 2017; Caswell and Cifor, 2016; ), queer theory (Watts, 2018; ) and disability studies (Brilmyer, 2018; Brownlee-Chapman et. al, 2018; ) to interrogate the role of archives and (re)present them as a tool for social justice. This research has emphasised the need to address imbalances of power, to support the plurality of voices, to create open and collaborative spaces and to generate ‘radical empathy’ (Caswell and Cifor, 2016). 

A critical approach to using archives and collections is central to this work, reflecting on and historical legacies and critiquing current practices. It is within this space that my research project sits.

Key findings/ideas

To support my research, my reading around this topic reviews the way in which archives (and other heritage institutions) are using their collections and their practice as a tool for social justice. To summarise my finding form a literature review, Punzalan and Caswell argue that social justice is most apparent in the following areas:

1. Inclusion of underrepresented and marginalized sectors of society
2. Reinterpretation and expansion of archival concepts
3. Development of community archives
4. Rethinking archival education and training
5. Efforts to document human rights violations

(Punzalan and Caswell 2016, p3)

Including underrepresented sectors of society refers to practices such as addressing ‘absences’ in the archive by collecting new material to fill in the gaps in holdings. As well as acknowledging the absences, and using these silences as a space for discussion.

Reinterpretation and expansion of archival concepts may relate to practices which re-presents existing material, based on new research or (re)interpretations, as well as fore fronting previously under-used material. And challenging the fundamental archive principles that favour dominant cultural perspectives.

Developing community archives refers to collecting at a grassroots level (Nyhan, 2015), which expands the understanding of who has the power to manage and control archival material.

For Caswell et al (2012), the rethinking of archival education (and training) includes concrete steps such as recruitment of students from marginalised communities, culturally sensitive classroom environments, pluralist approaches to diverse ontologies and epistemologies, and an ongoing analysis of power inside and outside of the classroom.

Finally, the role of records in seeking justice for victims of oppression must be acknowledged, with the purpose of archives as actively confronting power.

“archivization produces as much as it records” (Derrida 1995, p.17)

“collecting institutions award a social value to specific objects and thus prescribe historical consciousness” (Darian-Smith and Hamilton 1994, p.4)

References

Brilmyer, G. (2018) ‘Archival assemblages: applying disability studies’ political/relational model to archival description’, Archival Science 18, pp.95–118. Available at: http://gracenbrilmyer.com/Brilmyer-Archival%20Assemblages-2018.pdf (accessed 17 December 2021).

Brownlee-Chapman, C. et. al (2018) ‘Between speaking out in public and being person-centred: collaboratively designing an inclusive archive of learning disability history’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 24:8, pp.889-903. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13527258.2017.1378901 (accessed 16 December 2021).

Caswell, M, Broman, G. Kirmer, J., Martin, L. and Sowry, N. (2012) ‘ Implementing a Social Justice Framework in an Introduction to Archives Course: Lessons from Both Sides of the Classroom’, InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies 8:2.

Caswell, M. and Cifor, M. (2016) From Human Rights to Feminist Ethics: Radical Empathy in the Archives. Available: https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13557/14916 (accessed 2 December 2021)

Caswell, M. Punzalan, R. and Sangwand, T. (2017) Critical Archival Studies: An Introduction. Available at: https://journals.litwinbooks.com/index.php/jclis/article/view/50/30 (accessed 2 December 2021)

Cifor, M. and Wood. S (2017) ‘Critical Feminism in the Archives’, Critical Archival Studies 1:2. Available at: https://journals.litwinbooks.com/index.php/jclis/article/view/27/26 (accessed 17 November 2021)

Darian-Smith, K. and Hamilton, P. (1994) Memory and history in twentieth century Australia. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Derrida, J. (1995) ‘Archive fever: a freudian impression’, Diacritics,25(2), pp.9–63. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/465144?origin=crossref&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents (accessed 17 December 2021)

Drake, J. (2019) ‘Diversity’s discontents: in search of an archive of the oppressed’, Archives and Manuscripts, 47:2, pp. 270-279.

Grout, H (2019) ‘Archiving critically: exploring the communication of cultural biases’ Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 4:1, pp.71-75 Available at: https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article/view/120/214 (accessed 17 December 2021)

Hardiman, R. (2014) ‘Under the influence: the impact of philosophy on archives and records management’ in Brown, C. (ed.) Archives and recordkeeping: theory into practice. London: Facet Publishing, pp.171–276.

Lowry, J. (2019) ‘Radical empathy, the imaginary and affect in (post)colonial records: how to break out of international stalemates on displaced archives’, Archival Science 19, pp. 185–203. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10502-019-09305-z (accessed 17 December 2021)

Moravec, M. (2017) ‘Feminist Research Practices and Digital Archives’,  Australian Feminist Studies, 32:91-92, pp, 186-201. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08164649.2017.1357006 (accessed 16 November 2021)

Nyhan, J. (2015) ‘Community archives in the UK: an overview’ Available at: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10072044/1/Nyhan%20eng%20chapter%20Archiwaspoleczne.Modelewspolpracyzpanstwem.pdf (accessed 17 December 2021)

Paquet Kinsley, R. (2016) ‘Inclusion in museums: a matter of social justice’,
Museum Management and Curatorship, 31:5, pp. 474-490. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2016.1211960 (accessed 17 December 2021)

Punzalan, R. and Caswell, M. (2016) ‘Critical Directions for Archival Approaches to Social Justice’. The Library Quarterly, 86:1. pp. 25-42. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/684145 (accessed 17 December 2021)

Schwartz, J. and Cook, T. (2002) ‘Archives, Records, and Power: The Making of Modern Memory’, Archival Science 2, pp. 1-19. Available at: https://journalofburmesescholarship.org/pprs/SchwartzCook-Archives.pdf (accessed 17 November 2021)

Watts, G. (2018) ‘Queer Lives in the Archives: Intelligibility and Forms of Memory’, disClosure: A Journal of Social Theory, 27:18. pp. 103-111. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1438&context=disclosure (accessed 17 November 2021)

Williams, S. and Drake, J. (2017) ‘Power to the People: Documenting Police Violence in Cleveland’, Critical Archival Studies 1:2. Available at: https://journals.litwinbooks.com/index.php/jclis/article/view/33/25 (accessed 17 December 2021).

“object-based learning is a mode of education which involves the active integration of objects into the learning environment […] objects can inspire, inform, engage and motivate learners at all stages of their education” (Chatterjee, 2015).

My position as an Archivist, working with archives and collections, means that inherently my teaching practice is object-based. 

Object-based learning (OBL) is seen as a valuable and significant pedagogical tool in HE – especially art and design education. Research around this places emphasis on the physicality of engaging with objects, using them “to inspire discussion, group work and lateral thinking – all essential key, transferable, skills in higher education” (Chatterjee 2010, p.179).

The benefits of OBL are seen as:

• providing a direct link with a topic or ‘the past’ and enhancing people’s interest in and understanding of a topic/subject
• encouraging learners to use all their senses – especially touch, sight and smell
• helping to develop the important skill of drawing conclusions based on an examination of evidence, together with an understanding of the limitations and reliability of evidence.
• generating group and class discussion
• promoting the value of archives/collections and encouraging learners to engage with these

(University College London, 2021)

• Nurturing an appreciation for cultural differences.
• Enhancing observation skills.
• Cultivating focused attention through slow looking.
• Fostering communication skills and teamwork.
• Promoting dialogue and collaboration among students.
• Encouraging creative problem-solving.
• Creating respect for different points of view.
• Building connections between the academic course and material culture.
• Increasing students’ self-awareness as learners.

(University of Miami, 2021)

Foundational to my research project, my enquiry accepts the benefits and value of OBL. Some further reading that substantiates and supports the practice of OBL can be found in my references – such as Chatterjee (2010, 2015), Willcocks (2015, 2017), Prown (1982) and Hardie (2015).

Beyond this, an idea that I have been drawn to in my reading is around whether the ‘objects’ in OBL are actually central to learning, or if these should be decentered in favour of focussing on the emotion and engagement of the students interacting with them. This approach challenges Western ideas of permanence, and questions the value of the object over an engagement with ideas and spiritual values, seeing that emotions also have a social and cultural history (Meecham 2016, p.79).

This led me to exploring the idea of social objects, where one “[looks] at an object not for its artistic or historical significance but for its ability to spark conversation […] Social objects are transactional, facilitating exchanges among those who encounter them” (Simon, 2010). In this “the artefact becomes a medium of exchange, a familiar point of contact that links the diversity of experiences and lives” (Crooke, 2016).

Meecham argues that “those charged with teaching within institutions committed to widening global participation recognise that there is more to do than merely re-present objects in museums in ways that tell other more inclusive stories” (2016 pp. 67-68). As my research question is concerned with using objects critically and inclusively, Meecham’s idea is especially pertinent and represents a key aim in my research of trying to uncover new ways of using objects.

References

Barton, G. and Willcocks, J. (2017) ‘Object-based self-enquiry: a multi-and trans-disciplinary pedagogy for transformational learning’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 2(3), pp.229–245. Available at: https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article/view/75 (accessed 16 November 2021).

Chatterjee, H. J. (2010). ‘Object-Based Learning in Higher Education: The pedagogical power of museums.’ University Museums and Collections Journal, 3: 179-181. Available at: https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/9349/chatterjee.pdf (accessed 16 November 2021).

Chatterjee, H., Hannah, L., and Thomson, L. (2015) ‘An introduction to object-based learning and multisensory engagement’ in Chatterjee, H. J. and Hannan, L. (eds.) Engaging the senses: object-based learning in higher education. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, pp.1-19.

Crooke, E (2016) ‘Artefacts as Agents for Change: Commemoration and Exchange via Material Culture’, Irish Political Studies 31(1), pp.86-100.

Daniels, R. et al (2014) Academic uses of archives, museum and special collections 2009-2013, University of the Arts London. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/15227/ArchivesSpecialCollectionsReport_Interactive.pdf (accessed 18 December 2021).

Hardie, K. (2015) Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching. Available at: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/kirsten_hardie_final_1568037367.pdf (accessed 16 November 2021).

Lelkes, J. (2019) ‘How inclusive is object-based learning?’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 4(1), (2019) pp. 76-82. Available at: https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article/view/110/215 (accessed 16 November 2021).

Meecham, P. (2015) ‘Talking about things: internationalisation of the curriculum through object-based learning’ in Chatterjee, H. J. and Hannan, L. (eds.) Engaging the senses: object-based learning in higher education. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, pp.57–74.

Prown, J.D. (1982) ‘Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method’, Winterthur Portfolio, 17 (1), pp. 1-19. Available at: https://blogs.ubc.ca/qualresearch/files/2010/09/Mind-in-Matter.pdf (accessed 16 November 2021).

Simon, N. (2010) The participatory museum.  Available at: http://www.participatorymuseum.org/read/ (accessed 16 November 2021).

University College London (2021) Teaching & Object-Based Learning. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/culture/schools/teaching-object-based-learning (accessed 16 November 2021).

University of Miami (2021) Object-Based Learning. Available at: https://academictechnologies.it.miami.edu/explore-technologies/technology-summaries/object-based-learning/index.html (accessed 16 November 2021).

Winston-Silk, J. (2019) ‘Deaccessioning and reimagining: a novel approach to object-based learning’ Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 4:1 pp.51-57. Available at: https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article/view/130 (accessed 16 November 2021).

Willcocks, J. (2015) ‘The power of concrete experience: museum collections, touch and meaning making in art and design pedagogy’ in Chatterjee, H.J. and Hannan, L. (eds.) (2015) Engaging the senses: object-based learning in higher education. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, pp.43–56

The research tool I prepared for peer review was a focus group plan (below).

In reading around this research method, I compiled a lot of information related to framing and facilitating the discussion to ensure participant comfort, openness and understanding. Therefore in my plan I made a note of the ideas I would want to cover in my introduction and closing. This included a few intentions I had not considered before, such as providing a way for participants to continue the conversation with me after the focus group if they wanted to (extending the invite and providing my email address).

Based on my reading, when writing my questions I wanted to keep these open and not have too many to get through so that I could allow fuller discussion of each. After some free-writing of questions, I saw that these naturally grouped into three areas. I refined them down and divided them into sections (or a topic guide).

Draft interview schedule (or topic guide)

Objects

• Do you consider objects to be neutral?

Your practice

• How do you use objects in your teaching? In context (of collection) or anonymously?
• How do you choose which objects to use?
• Do you consider the perspective of the archive/collection?

Student engagement

• What are your observations of how students engage with objects in your sessions?
• Have students ever challenged your use/choices of objects?

Having this topic guide will give me the flexibility to cover all three themes, but not necessarily require each questions to be asked specifically if the discussion moves on or if there are timing restrictions. As flexibility and facilitating open discussion is a key aspect of the focus group.

Peer feedback

Feedback I received on these questions from my tutor and peers included:

• “Q1 is quite a tough opener […] From what I understood of FGs, i thought you scaffolded towards trickier Qs […] So Q1 could be reworded: ‘Objects are not neutral: Discuss‘”
• “Does your student engagement section need to be a bit longer maybe? Like how do you introduce objects? Do you share your object choices with others?“
• “your questions are very open at the moment and few […] perhaps bring your group closer in by asking more detail?“

Further feedback included:

• Participants have been chosen because of expertise, but there is a need to consider my assumption that they will come to the focus group already having opinions on this topic.
• Be more explicit in questions about bias, participants may feel like they are being ‘set up’ if this isn’t openly presented.
• Add more questions – detail can can encourage discussion more than (current) neutral questions.
• State explicitly that I am interested in reviewing the practice of colleagues – e.g. build this into the introduction.

Based on this peer review, and further reading around this method, I have developed my focus group plan and interview questions (below).

The development of my interview schedule included: adding more questions; rewording existing questions to be clearer about their intention; adding more detail to questions; including follow up questions to encourage further discussion; reordering the themes so that the more challenging/complex ideas come later in the discussion.

Revised interview schedule (or topic guide)

Practice

• How do you choose which objects to use in a teaching session or for an event?
  • Do you ever discuss your object choices with others – colleagues, or students?

• How much does the object’s context (the wider the archive or collection it is from) affect your choice of the individual object?

• How do you introduce or present the objects to students when you use them?
  • What type of information (if any) do you provide them with?

• Do you think that your positionality, your background and experiences, affects the way you think about the collections?

• Would you say that you adopt any critical practices in your teaching?
  • Could you talk a bit about those?
  • Do you feel supported in your role, e.g. by the university, to adopt critical practices?

• Is there anything you would like to do in your practice, related to addressing bias, but have been unable to do?
  • What is the reason you are unable to do this? (e.g. time, resources etc.)

Students

• How do students engage with different types of objects in your sessions?

• Have you noticed if the way you introduce, or present, objects has affected the way students interact with them?

• Have students ever raised ideas about an object that changed your opinion of it?
  • Did this change in opinion result in you altering your practice in any way?

• Have students ever challenged or questioned your use, or choice, of an object?
  • Has a colleague or other member of staff done this?

• Have you ever used an object in a session, and afterwards wished you hadn’t selected that one?
  • Why? Can you elaborate.
  • Did you do anything differently the next time?

Objects

• My question assumes that UAL’s collections are structurally biased because they represent dominant cultural perspectives – what are your thoughts on this?
• ‘Objects are not neutral’ – discuss.

References

Breen, R. L., (2006) ‘A Practical Guide to Focus-Group Research’ in Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30 (3) pp. 463-475. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03098260600927575 [Accessed 8 November 2021]

Citizens Advice (2015) How to run focus groups. Available at: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/CitizensAdvice/Equalities/How%20to%20run%20focus%20groups%20guide.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2021]

Denscombe, M. (2010) The Good Research Guide: For small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Krueger, R. A., (2002) Designing and Conducting Focus Group Interviews. Available at: https://www.eiu.edu/ihec/Krueger-FocusGroupInterviews.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2021]

University of Reading (no date) Methods Guides: How to run a focus group. Available at: https://sites.reading.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/42/2020/06/Focus-Groups-Guide-Final.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2021]

I had been thinking of my research method as a ‘focus group’ and/or ‘group interview’ interchangeably. However, reading around these research methods I realised that there is a distinction between the two, and that my research aligns with using a focus group as my method.

One of the resources I looked at (see references for further methods reading) is The Good Research Guide: For Small-scale Social Research Projects by Martyn Denscombe, focussing on chapter 10 (‘Interviews’) and Appendix 4 (‘Focus Groups’). This outlines three distinctive and crucial points about focus groups (which separate this method from group interviews):

• there is a focus to the session, with the group discussion being based on an item or experience about which all participants have similar knowledge
• particular emphasis is placed on the interaction within the group as a means for eliciting information
• the moderator’s role is to facilitate the group interaction

(Denscombe 2010, p. 352)

The focus of my research project is developing good practice around mitigating archival bias in object-based learning. My chosen participants share a similar professional context – all working with archives and collections, and using these in teaching at UAL – which provides the shared experience/similar knowledge required for a focus group.

By emphasising interaction between the participants, “sharing and comparing is especially useful for hearing and understanding a range of responses on a research topic” (Morgan 2006, p. 121). The reason for generating group interaction is to create data which allows me to understand the motives behind participant views and opinions; get a broad sense of how my topic is perceived and understood; gauge the level of agreement on a topic between participants and expose any contrasting views (Denscombe, 2010, p. 354).

My role as moderator of the focus group should be to facilitate and encourage participants to talk with one another. Rather than dictating the discussion, I will be decentering myself and allowing the group to talk amongst themselves. To achieve this, during the focus group I will be taking responsibility for:

• creating a comfortable atmosphere for the discussion;
• introducing the stimulus;
• keeping the discussion on track, focused on the topic;
• encouraging participation from all members;
• ensuring there is no abuse or intimidation

(Denscombe 2010, p. 353)

I plan to use a semi-structured approach to my focus group, and will have a prepared list of issues and open-ended questions. However, these will be flexible in terms of the order they are considered and I will encourage the group to develop these ideas, speak more generally and elaborate on points of interest (Denscombe 2010, p. 175).

Denscombe sets out that focus groups should have between 6-9 participants (others, such as Kleiber (2004), say up to 12) and be 1.5-2 hours long (2010, p. 354-355). I will be following this guidance for my project.

References

Alvesson, M. (2012) Views on Interviews: A Skeptical review. In Interpreting Interviews. London: Sage. Available at: https://methods-sagepub-com.arts.idm.oclc.org/book/interpreting-interviews/n2.xml

Bell, J. and Waters, S. (2014) Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Denscombe, M. (2010) The Good Research Guide: For small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Morgan, D.L. (2006) ‘Focus group’, in V. Jupp (ed.) The Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods. London: Sage.

Morgan, D. and Lobe, B. (2011) ‘Online Focus Groups’ in The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273809338_Online_Focus_Groups [Accessed 27 October 2021]

Kleiber, P. B., (2004) ‘Focus Groups: More Than a Method of Qualitative Enquiry’ in deMarrais K. and Lapan, S. (ed.) Foundations for Research: Methods of Enquiry in Education and the Social Sciences . Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., pp. 87-102.

Krueger, R.A., and Casey, M. A. (2009) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (4th edition), Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. (2013). ‘Why Use Focus Group Interviews in Educational and Psychological Research?’ In Focus group interviews in Education and Psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

I presented my draft research question and action plan to my tutor and a small group of peers.

Feedback from the group has lead to the development of my project, with the key changes being to my research methods:

1. I will remove the student questionnaire from my project
2. I will add autoethnography as a second research method

I had wanted to gather the opinions of students on my topic, as I believe that their views and experiences are important to the development of good practice. I feel that my research being, in some way, a collaboration with students where we co-create a better pedagogy is important, and this could be a valuable aspect to my continuing practice. However my tutor proposed that, based on the nature of my question, as practitioners my colleagues would be best placed to contribute my research at this stage and should be prioritised. I also reflected that feedback from student participants may be most valuable when I had delivered an intervention. Due to the scope and scale of this project, my final presentation will include plans for this, but I won’t have had a chance to deliver it. Therefore, student contributions could form the next phase of evaluation and development in the action research cycle (McNiff and Whitehead 2006, p. 9), but this will be outside of the scope of my SiP.

This prioritisation of my colleagues’ experiences also raised the suggestion by my tutor that I could be a site of research, using autoethnography as “an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyze (graphy) personal experience (auto)” (Ellis, Adams and Bochner 2011, p. 1.). Using this method will enable me to evaluate my own practice and experiences, exploring the paradigm shifts in my thinking.

In my reading around research methods, this has raised the question of whether my project has now become a ‘mixed methods’ approach, as I will be using two forms of research (focus group and autoethnography). Many understandings of this approach, such as Creswell (2014), see it as using quantitative and qualitative approaches within a single project, which does not align with my research methods. However others see it is as more of a philosophical or theoretical approach, which can combine qualitative approaches. For example Kara (2015) speaks of ‘bricolage’ a technique for combining qualitative methods. Furthermore, it is generally seen to have an “emphasis on practical approaches to research problems” (Denscombe 2010 p. 138), which aligns with my action research methodology. Considering that a mixed methods approach generally requires a focus on the link between the research methods used, this is an area I will continue to research and consider as I continue with my project.

References

Creswell, J.W. (2014) A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. London: SAGE Publications, Inc

Denscombe, M. (2010) The Good Research Guide: For small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Ellis, C., Adams, T. E.and Bochner, P. A. (2011). ‘Autoethnography: An Overview’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12 (1). Available at: https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095 (accessed 25 October 2021)

Kara, H. (2015) Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Bristol: Policy Press.

McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2006). All you need to know about Action Research. London: SAGE Publications, Inc

A write-up of the notes that I have been making to get started with my research project.

Topic

The topic, or research interest, for my project was established earlier this year. The original articulation of this, in my portfolio for the Teaching and Learning module, was along the lines of:

“For my self-initiated project, I want to examine and understand to what extent archival biases are communicated to students in my teaching, what my practice does to challenge this, and what more I can do to unpack these biases and support social justice through object-based learning”

Using McNiff’s guidance on action research, I identified the “area of practice to be investigated” (2021) as how using archives in my teaching may be perpetuating the structural biases of UAL’s collections.

I chose this topic because it:

• Aligns with my professional practice and interest in critical archive theory
• Is relevant to my academic practice in inclusive teaching and learning
• Supports UAL’s social justice action plan

Purpose

Prompted by Bell’s advice to consider “why you want to carry out this research” (2010, p. 30), and using Denscombe’s guidance on types of question, I identified that the purpose of my enquiry as “developing good practice” (2009, p.12).

Noting down ideas around this purpose, I fleshed out potential ‘good practice’ outcomes:

• Develop methods to address archival bias and structural bias of UAL
• Develop tools for social justice using object-based learning

Question

Considering Punch’s advice of “putting questions before methods” (2016, p.47) and “narrowing the focus of the proposed research” (p. 49) I embarked on a process of trying to narrow down my research focus to a specific question.

This exercise resulted in the production of a series of draft questions:

• How can I use archives and collection objects in my teaching to challenge archival bias?
• How can I use object-based learning to challenge archival bias?
• How can object-based learning be used as a tool for social justice?
• How does the use of archive objects in teaching convey biases?
• Do objects need to be removed from their archival/collection context to be unbiased and used in teaching?
• How can I use archive objects in my teaching to challenge the structural biases of UAL’s collections?
• Are the structural biases of UAL’s archives and collections transmitted in my teaching by using object-based learning?

From these, I came to my current focus and draft question:

How can I use object-based learning in my teaching without enacting the structural biases of UAL’s archives and collections?

Method

I identified that my colleagues at UAL and students who participated in my teaching could provide me with information to help answer my question.

From my colleagues, I considered gathering data on their:

• Professional views and experiences of this topic
• Potential professional practice in addressing this (something akin to a review of the work already going on)
• Opinions of what else is needed or could be done

From students, I considered gathering data on their:

• Experience of being taught using archive objects
• Opinion on whether they felt represented in the archives of UAL
• Thoughts on whether the archives at UAL challenged or supported institutional values that they identified with

Data gathered from this research would inform the design of my intervention.

Due to the nature of my question, my research would be qualitative. Researching and considering different methods for this, I suggested:

1. A focus group (or group interview) would be the most appropriate method for gathering data from colleagues on my topic, as this method suits “the exploration of more complex and subtle phenomena” (Denscombe 2010, 173). Vaughn, Schumm and Sinagub (2013) outline some further the advantages of the focus group:

• Enables direct contact with participants, so “the researcher can elicit substantive information about participants thoughts and feelings on the topic of interest in relatively little time” (p.4)
• Encourages dynamic and interactive discussion, where “focus group interviews encourage interaction […] between the participants themselves” (p. 5)
• In a group setting participants are more likely to express their opinions than in individual interviews, as “the group format offers support for individual participants and encourages greater openness in their responses” (p. 6)
• The group exchange of ideas allows “individuals to form opinions about the designated topic through interaction with others” (p. 6)

2. An anonymous online questionnaire would be the most appropriate method for gathering data from students.

• As I don’t have regular access to a specific cohort of students, this would be a practical way of gathering data as they are “relatively easy to arrange” (Denscombe 2010, p. 169).
• “Questionnaires are economical” (Denscombe 2010, p. 169). I anticipated that a low participation rate may be challenge in my research, so this method would enable me to send a high volume of requests.
• An online survey gives participants an undefined amount of time to consider their answers, which may elicit more reflective responses (than other methods, such as interview).
• Anonymity encourages honest and open responses, without the hesitancy of feeling the need to say what is expected.

Action plan

Using the methods I had identified, I produced an initial draft outline of my project:

• Conduct a focus group with colleagues
• Design intervention based on data gathered from colleagues (toolkit or set of guidance for staff, or workshop design)
• Deliver this intervention
• Gather feedback from students who participated
• Evaluate feedback and develop the intervention

However, I realised that the scope of this was too large for my project – the timeframe was unrealistic.

So, I refined this outline down to a second draft, which I presented to my tutor and peers in a tutorial:

• Conduct online focus group with colleagues
• Gather feedback from students (who have previously participated in sessions I delivered) via an online survey
• Design an intervention based on data gathered (toolkit or set of guidance for staff, or workshop design)

See next blog for feedback from my tutorial, reflections on this and development of my action plan.

References

Bell, J. (2010) Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social science. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Denscombe, M. (2009) Ground Rules for Social Research: Guidelines for Good Practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Denscombe, M. (2010) The Good Research Guide: For small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

McNiff, J. (2021) Booklet. Available at: https://www.jeanmcniff.com/ar-booklet.asp (accessed 25 October 2021)

Punch, K. (2016) Developing Effective Research Proposals. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S. and Sinagub, J. (2013) Why Use Focus Group Interviews in Educational and Psychological Research? Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.