Seth Keen

Had a thought the other night. I am writing in Scrivener. In the binder I write a title for each paragraph and each paragraph lives on its own. They can easily be moved around as separate paragraphs. When the writing is printed each title is in bold above each paragraph. This reminds me of the annotation that occurred using the Videodefunct system which uses the back-end of blog. Each shot has a title.

What would happen if this annotation applied to each paragraph is left in the final printed hardcopy exegesis?
What if, this annotation is used to create a blogged exegesis?

I set out with this application, Scrivener, to develop my writing practice similarly to the way I work with video in this research. Each paragraph is treated like a shot. One issue is the tendency to still write ideas, an argument from one paragraph to another. This makes it difficult to treat each paragraph as a separate idea – self-contained like a video shot.

The key here is to remember that they are different formats, that have different properties. For example, Miles talks about shots being able to be broken up easily into multiple parts compared to a sentence that is tied together with grammar. The formats have different properties.

But, can I write those paragraphs to be more self-contained? – i.e. not reliant as much on a group of paragraphs discussing an argument in a particular chronological/linear order. How will annotating help within the blog structure? Using the idea of blog titles, categories and tags to create an informal taxonomy, by annotating each paragraph. This means through the use of annotation and links these paragraphs as individual parts can be made to sit closer together in types of clouds. Even though they are not in a fixed linear order the user will have access to associated paragraphs related to the one that is chosen.

The paragraphs can be written around a theme or topic – i.e quality, immediacy etc – they are written to be self-contained and then are grouped together around that topic. This is happening in the case study approach to a degree.

If time allows I will look into this blog version and also aim to produce a written exegesis that includes the text annotation. One issue is I am not writing in the blogging software.

This reminds me of the writing in the book:

Shaviro, Steven. 2003. Connected, or, What it means to live in the network society, Electronic mediations ; v. 9. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Starting from the ‘destination’ is the key. I have been caught up for months on the ‘journey’, the iterative chronological development of the artefacts/projects to get to the major project. Scrivener points out empathically that a student is discouraged, as he states from ‘writing it up’. In this argument the process of working out the problem is not included in the exegesis. Instead the focus is on discussing the solution – what was produced to address the problem. Scrivener states:

..the student will be discouraged from reporting much of the problem-solving process, the often-faltering steps from problem identification to solution. Instead, the student will be encouraged to focus on describing the “know how” reified in the solution (i.e., the destination rather than the journey) and on demonstrating, rationally and empirically, that this knowledge solves the research problem.

Looking across the iterative development of the projects (mapping them out on the wall) is useful in terms of looking for themes and how they are developed chronologically, as part of the journey to find a solution. But, in the theorising of the projects as Scrivener suggests the process of working out a solution is not the important factor. Instead theorising problem-based research follows an argument – a retrospective explanation that justifies what was done, the iterative moves from one project to another to get to an end point.
Scrivener states:

What matters is the existence of a valid problem, the demonstration of its solution and the abstraction of the reusable “know how” embodied in it.

Looking at these three parts in more detail.

PROBLEM
First the problem needs to be justified – that there is a problem and a solution is required.
The problem is one that other people want to see solved in some way.
(The problem needs to be contextualised – shown that it one that is being examined by others in similar ways)
The researcher needs to demonstrate that they are able to frame a problem and find a solution to that problem.
Schon’s reflection-in-action concept demonstrates that the problem is evaluated and criticised as part of reframing the problem and negotiating the process of finding a solution.

SOLUTION
Demonstrate that the solution solves the problem that has been set.
Demonstrate that the solution has produced a new, useful type of artefact.

KNOWLEDGE
In relation to “know how” and abstraction, the objective here is to be able to describe the knowledge that is held in the artefact, independent of that artefact.
Being able to separate this knowledge out demonstrates that it can be used, applied to other purposes. A demonstration of that knowledge, being used more broadly.
In the end the objective is to show that knowledge as ‘being more important than the artefact’ itself.

Back to starting from the destination – starting in this case from the major and final artefact in this research. Identifying through that artefact firstly the problem and then the solution. This means looking at the different themes (qualities) that have been brought together to find a solution. The discussion should demonstrate how these qualities have been formed. The journey as a number of multiple weaving narratives is about how those qualities were developed through each of the artefacts – following the reflection-in-action process. Each artefact is analysed in relation to how it solves the research problem. The destination therefore sets the framework for the structure.

Scrivener, S 2000, ‘Reflection in and on action and practice in creative-production doctoral projects in art and design.’, Working papers in Art and Design, vol. 1, . p 5-6

Ok, so I have gone through the projects/artefacts following the chunks process. Now, I am looking at taking a step back in terms of working towards a structure and analytical framework for the writing up the projects in the exegesis. Returning to the article, ‘Content, structure and orientations of the practice-led exegesis’, the authors raise some interesting points in relation to a discussion on how the ‘researcher’s creations’ are theorised in the exegesis. They point out this analysis links back to the ‘practical contexts’ and ‘orientating concepts sections’. I am interested in avoiding to much frontloading by reducing these sections, which means some of these sections need to be integrated into the analysis of the projects. Therefore, I need to keep this in mind as I bring the chunks together to define the structure.

They also discuss the issue of integrating aspects of the ‘context model’ and ‘commentary model’ (p.6) approaches towards writing up the projects. The context model relies heavily on using a pre-existing theoretical framework to discuss the creative works produced sometimes to a point that bypasses any discussion on what is made. In contrast, the commentary model can become too introspective and lose site of contextualising the research practice – i.e. The writing/analysis is done in a silo. What is more important, focusing on connecting the practice externally or writing from a personal internal perspective? The Schon model of the reflective practitioner I would argue follows the internal, more personal perspective. Thinking about the reflective practitioner model in relation to my own research, external factors here include the affordances and constraints that are inhibiting finding a solution to the problem. Examples in this research could also be things like analysing other practices like videoblogging to get ideas to move the design inquiry onwards. Others, conducting interviews with other practitioners and presenting the artefacts at public forums for critique and feedback.

The authors advocate a ‘connective model’ that brings the two together. They argue that a researcher could draw from both of these models and set a particular perspective towards the approach taken towards the writing. A poly-vocal approach of different writing styles that addresses the issue of contextualising by having the ‘practical contexts’ and ‘orientating concepts sections’ up the front before the internally focused ‘researcher’s creations’ section further into the exegesis.

In this analysis of ‘messy problems’ as supporting material for honours students research, a similar issue of the context model emerges, in regards to the theory drowning the practice. The theory takes over and becomes primary, the practice/artefacts secondary. Following a hermeneutic framing, in this proposed model, an understanding of practice and how it contributes to knowledge is taken from the personal – what is known and understood, as stated ‘a horizon of understanding’. For example, the analysis of this research problem may be conducted from the tacit knowledge I have built up over the years around documentary production, in relation to what I know. But, how is this progressing the practitioner as a key objective of practice-led research? Instead the author argues here that there has to be an extension beyond what the researcher already knows, which is achieved by engaging in two-way dialogue with the problem that is being investigated. The exegesis and the analysis of the artefacts produced becomes within this approach a dialogue between the two models above ‘context’ and ‘commentary’. This is not applying the theory to the practice. Instead it is about what can potentially emerge out of bringing the known understanding of the practitioner together with theoretical concepts being referred to, as a type of ‘conversation.’ I see the practice and the tacit knowledge taking the primary role in this approach. The practitioner refers to theoretical concepts in order to understand in more depth the problem they are researching, along with using theory to extend and progress their own practice. The practitioner in this approach, controls the use of theory for his or her own means.

Then there is how this could work in the writing. In ‘Helping doctoral students write pedagogies for supervision’ in the chapter ‘Reconsidering the personal’ (p 59-80) the authors provide some examples of how writing in the first person integrates theory from a ‘reflexive’ position. Reflexive in this context is about using in the approach towards the writing, the same critiquing and questioning that is used in this case, the research practice as the principal mode of data collection. Theory in this writing does not take a primary position. Instead, the writer engages in a conversation with ideas from the theory and dictates how that conversation will be shaped. (p. 72) In the example provided the writer, writes out a very personal analysis from a first person perspective, first to develop thinking and ideas around what is occurring in a real world situation (a project, field research some type of creative practice) . This writing and thinking is then translated into a conversation type framing, with some specific theory that both contextualises what is occurring and develops the researchers understanding of the situation being explored.

References:
Hamilton, J & Jaaniste, L 2009, ‘Content, structure and orientations of the practice-led exegesis, Art.Media.Design : Writing Intersections, viewed October 20 2010, .
Kamler, B & Thomson, P 2006, Helping doctoral students write pedagogies for supervision, Taylor & Francis Ltd, Hoboken. (extract ‘Chunks, moves and choreography’ p 90-94)
Adrian Miles, Messy object of Study, Labsome research workshop http://labsome.rmit.edu.au/courseware/3/MessyobjectofStudy.html, 2010.

I decided I needed to look further into Schon’s reflection-in-action concept as an ‘epistemology of practice’, in order to define more of a framework for analysing the projects/artefacts I had produced.

1. Look for similarities and differences compared to previous experience.

Finding a solution to a specific issue in terms of moving an experiment onwards Schon argues is about making the unfamiliar – familiar. This is turning the unfamiliar into something that is recognisable from previous experience and built up knowledge, a process of looking at both similarities and differences, in comparison to what is already known. Schon states:

‘the inquirer may reflect on the similarities and differences he has perceived or enacted. He may do this by consciously comparing the two situations or by describing the present situation in the light of a tacit reference to the other.’ p.67

This is a really useful first take for reflecting on the progression that occurs in the production of an artefact in relation to dealing with ongoing issues and moving an experiment along.

The next phase is to test out what has been recognised, through experiments.

Exploratory experiment (invigorate an action to see what happens next)

Schon describes this type of experiment as being ‘probing, playful’. p. 70 if something occurs that is useful then this can be an indication of some sort of success.

Move-testing experiment (invigorate a specific action to create something that is intended)

According to Schon if the experiment produces what was intended it is ‘affirmed’ – the opposite ‘negated’. p. 71 the reflection would examine which way the experiment has gone and how the result affects the next move.

Hypothesis-testing experiment (weeds out other hypotheses – clarifies the reframing)

The rigor of the experimenting I see as being tied up in this final tier of the experimentation process (hypothesis-testing). Schon argues that these three modes of experimentation work together – there can also be mixed versions of all of these three. A hypothesis experiment may be seen as being tied to finding the answer to a question by applying a number of hypotheses and then looking at what works to determine which hypothesis will be used to reframe the research problem and progress the practice inquiry.

2. Reflecting on an exploratory experiment would be about whether through play and probing something useful occurred, or instead a dead end was produced.

3. Reflecting on a move-testing experiment is simply about whether a deliberate, specific experiment worked (affirmed) or failed (negated).

4. Reflecting on a hypothesis-testing experiment would involve identifying how a hypothesis has shifted and changed as part of reframing the research problem. what conversation is occurring in the process of working through a situation? (The ‘back talk’).
How has a situation been altered in order to comprehend what is going on?

5. Overall, I think it is about reflecting on resistance – what is getting in the way, what is problematic in the hypothesis that is being used. It is this reflection which indicates what has been learnt.

Schön, DA 1987, Educating the reflective practitioner, Jossey-Bass higher education series, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (p 26-31) (p. 64-79)

I am in the process of writing up chunks on each project as it was developed iteratively. I think this process of browsing across the data is useful as a first type of pass over the creative works. In this process the evaluation of the steps through each project seems to be based around a framework of probing and scrutiny. Looking back at the process so far I am interested in seeing if there is type of framework emerging through this evaluation. I seem to be asking myself the following questions.

Why I decided to do what I did? (the motivations behind the practice inquiries)
What did I discover?
What did I learn?

Looking more closely at the reflecting on reflection-in-action process, I think this evaluation of the projects needs to consider the following as part of looking at Scrivener’s article ‘Reflection in and on action and practice in creative-production doctoral projects in art and design’. In here Scrivener writes a really useful overview of Schon’s concept on ‘reflection-in-action’.

How has the problem been framed?
What are the issues with that framing? (a critique of that framing)
How has the problem been reframed?
How has this kept the practice inquiry moving along? (invigorated action)
What type of experiments emerged out of that reframing?
What type of changes occurred due to those experiments?
How did the situations that emerged ‘back talk’?
What knowledge is being utilsed to deal with the issues that arise as part of those experiments?
How have the issues/problems been solved in terms of utlising knowledge that I already have?

Types of experiments: (the aim is to make something (a situation) better. The idea is to clarify (‘affirm’) the next step in the practice inquiry.

Exploratory experiment (invigorate an action to see what happens next)
Move-testing experiment (invigorate an action to create something intended)
Hypothesis-testing experiment (weeds out other hypotheses – clarifies the reframing)

Moving iteratively from project to project the framework could look like this:

Motivations:
How did the previous inquiry (artifact/s lead to the current project? (issues with the framing)
How is the current project reframing the problem? (Why did the framing need to be shifted)
What type of experiment process will be used? (probe – design proposition to move the practice inquiry along – action)

What did I discover?
What was produced? (images; description of artifact/s)
What happened? (situations and ‘back talk’/issues/changes)

What was learnt?
What exisiting tacit knowledge did I utilise to resond to situations and issue?
How was that tacit knowledge altered and progressed?
What additional knowledge did I need to learn to keep the practice inquiry (experiment) moving?

Progression of the inquiry into the research problem
How do these artifacts demonstrate the validity of the research problem?
How do they demonstrate approaches towards a solution?
How can the knowledge being learnt be reused in other situations? (this may be more overall at the ending rather than for each project/experiment)

Transition to the next artifact
What do I need to address next to move the practice inquiry onwards?

Putting this into practice in the chunking process it possibly looks overly complex at this point. But, already I am looking much more iteratively at the move from each artifact to artifact. For example, why a prototype was abandoned as part of moving the practice inquiry onwards. These are content prototypes that are like small test that are very incomplete. They just end and the next artifact moves in another direction.

Scrivener, S 2000, ‘Reflection in and on action and practice in creative-production doctoral projects in art and design.’, Working papers in Art and Design, vol. 1, . p 5-6

Adding to the sticky note visual I decided I also needed to get the projects up on the wall as they occurred and look at the themes that developed over time as trajectories of development in the inquiry. It is great to be able to see what happened up there on the wall!

I think it is like a paper edit this chunking process. In documentary when you get all the rushes you look through all the material carefully and make notes about what may be useful before the edits gets underway. In a way you are looking for the gold, the must have moments. The must have material and then other material that supports those moments. Some of my email response to my supervisors in regards to the process I am going through presently:

I think I have learnt a bit from the QUT model in terms of the situating concepts and practical contexts sections. As well as having some type of outline for a practice-led exegesis. And laying out the research on the wall with this as a structure has really helped point some things out…it is proving useful, working on getting more of a visual image of the whole exegesis through this process. This happens in documentary edits too – the building of a rough cut to see how the whole is taking shape.

…I agree as you both point out that the meat has to come from the creative works. I am beginning to understand more through other reading the notion of the knowledge contribution being bound up in the artefacts. Understanding what type of knowledge can be extracted from the artifacts through a process of reflecting on what occurred and what happened iteratively from one to the other is helping me move beyond the description approach.

So, now I am back onto writing out ‘chunks’ mainly across the projects as a first step towards working out the flow of the argument. From: Kamler, B & Thomson, P 2006, Helping doctoral students write pedagogies for supervision, Taylor & Francis Ltd, Hoboken. (extract ‘Chunks, moves and choreography’ p 90-94)

‘chunks of writing and more provisional groupings around key ideas, data and methodologies…’; write about the problem being researched, the field of knowledge production…’’chunks have substance. They are not a few pages in length. They are substantive texts that probe, test, argue and interpret specific aspects of the research.’

I need to do this first and not be held by structure – the QUT model is useful for pulling out potential chunks but at the same time it is good to have some freedom in this process with the choreography of those chunks worked out as the next step. The trick here is not to get into to much detail (pages) and keep the process moving on to cover the whole exegesis. The other issue also seems to be taking a more critical, probing type position – maybe this will develop more as I sort out the first pass at this chunk process?

So, this in a way is a writing and once this is mapped out and I can signpost the argument in a structure that is not tied to just working with chapter nos…The situating concepts and practical contexts sections I do not see as being necessarily large as a lot of this will be built into the writing happening on the creative works.

I am racing to get my PhD writing back on track. Looking at a reference from JY - ‘The KJ-Technique: A Group Process for Establishing Priorities’. (The title of this entry is taken from this article). I decided to bring together the whole of the exegesis using sticky notes. Instead of a group process this is done solo. I referred to this source but really was just aiming to get a map of the exegesis up on the wall. The structure is influenced by some writing coming out of QUT on practice led research – ‘Content, structure and orientations of the practice-led exegesis’ and ‘Effective and the Evocative: Practice-led Research Approaches Across Art and Design’. This is the map of the exegesis. The next stage is to use a conversational approach advocated in the book, Helping doctoral students write pedagogies for supervision, to map the moves of the exegesis. This approach works off following the argument as a choreography guide. Once this in place I will have a pretty good idea of what the exegesis will look like. LV mentioned the other day how “visualising what the writing looks like…” is a really useful way to go before you begin. These moves could shift the structure here due to following the argument but for the moment it offers a starting point.

References:
Spool, JM 2004, ‘The KJ-Technique: A Group Process for Establishing Priorities’, User Interface Engineering, .
Hamilton, J & Jaaniste, L 2009, ‘Content, structure and orientations of the practice-led exegesis, Art.Media.Design : Writing Intersections, viewed October 20 2010, .
Hamilton, JG & Jaaniste, LO 2009, ‘The effective and the evocative : reflecting on practice-led research approaches in art and design’, Interventions in the Public Domain, viewed October 20, 2010, .
Kamler, B & Thomson, P 2006, Helping doctoral students write pedagogies for supervision, Taylor & Francis Ltd, Hoboken. (extract ‘Chunks, moves and choreography’ p 90-94)

In regards to what we have called the chunky moves task, which is related to an excerpt ‘Chunks, moves and choreography’ from the chapter ‘Choreographing the dissertation’ in the book. I got the book out and got some context around the excerpt in regards to the chapter and book itself. I found the chosen extract and book really useful. In specific relation to the extract I did just kind of list out my exegesis structure with not a lot of consideration towards the argument. This extract changed my approach towards defining the structure.

Particularly in regards to the idea of ‘flow’ presented in the extract. Looking at example in the chapter, I drafted out in a pseudo conversational tone (a mapping of the moves in the argument in reference to the text). A major point that emerged straight away is connecting the argument all the way through the exegesis across chapters. Approaching the structure from this perspective I found to be much more interesting and engaging than writing a simple chapter structure. It is certainly a lot harder.

Reading on to the section on ‘Finessing the argumentative text’ I learnt a lot from the idea of making sure interesting material is built into the exegesis/thesis up front. This is not holding the good stuff until to late into the exegesis as a whole. It even got me brainstorming ideas – like how the research is summarised in the section that lets the reader know what is coming – or even writing a shorter type version of the exegesis (a type of summary of the argument and projects) that is expanded on in the main body of the exegesis. Almost like a succinct presentation of the research in advance. This brainstorming pushed me to even consider other structures apart from the one I have planned to do all along as a way of testing that structure. But, also this started to get confusing as much as it was helpful so I went back to sticking with the structure I started with.

Kamler, B & Thomson, P 2006, Helping doctoral students write pedagogies for supervision, Taylor & Francis Ltd, Hoboken. (extract ‘Chunks, moves and choreography’ p 90-94)

I have been thinking again recently about the structure of the writing for my exegesis. If I think about this in relation to my media practice, I have moved narrative structure to being determined by the creation of an informal taxonomy. (This to a degree goes around traditional scripting beforehand and replaces montage temporal editing). There is a focus that drives the documentation using video – a single idea, like a video portrait of someone for example (an exploration of that person from multiple perspectives). That video content is then categorised into thematic areas. The categorisation is done by looking for patterns and connections across that material. Narrative trajctories appear within that material through the way that content is clustered together into different groups.

If this is transferred onto the exegesis. The projects (the video content) has been driven by a research problem. If the projects are the documentation then the next process is to look across those projects and find patterns and connections. The resulting concepts and ideas that emerge through that process become the content of the exegesis (self-contained chunks), which are created by looking for themes across the projects. These are then placed into different categories and groups. The lining up of those groups (the choreography of the narrative) becomes a linear narrative – a written hardcopy exegesis. This would be like a linear narrative version of the interactive video work.

The difference here is that with video content I do not need to make more content like I do from the projects to the chunks of writing as self-contained ideas (paragraphs even). In the writing/text version there is an extra stage of content production. This stage is the shift from a media work to a text-based written work on that work. The theorising of the media practice.