My research methods where live workshops embedded into projects and interviews with print technicians and Academic staff involved. I identified the following ways of analysing the data collected:
- Field Notes and Observations: observing from both workshops, making notes.
- Analysing Interviews to find keywords or reoccurring themes: with Technical staff (Will), Academic staff (Noel), Line manager (Lucy or Tim):
- Creative Autoethnography: in collaboration with technical and their experience / crafting workshops in collaboration (is this right?) can a workshop count as creative autoethnography? this interests me but not sure I understand it.
Who do I really want information from, and how can I make sure I get it?
Will I find out anything I don’t already know?
Things I observed during the session:
“Field notes are encoded with author’s conscience, understandings and interpretations” (Coffey, 1996)
-The setup of the studio is different to the usual (clusters of tables for groups of 4 to 5) and the presence of the two screens indicate that the session will be different – one studio is cleared / other with screens. Students know about the print session but does this cause anxiety or excitement? They cluster in groups and wait.
-Students understand the type of image the screenprint makes once they see their peer’s work. You can show examples beforehand but until the print is done live, there is no deep learning. The “aha!” moment happens by observing peers. (peer to peer learning)
-Students have a go at pulling the squeegee, but technicians take charge (my arms hurt is a comment I hear). Not everyone is dressed appropriately and don’t want to approach the ink – this should have been clearer on my part on the briefing.
-The work being “revealed” (especially with the second layer) causes excitement in students, they observe and congratulate each other / not structured like a crit, there is an organic way of seeing each others work (peer to peer learning) – My favourite phrase of the day is “oh my good that looks sick”
-Students reflect on their work immediately and intuitively. comments like “I should have made that shape bigger” or “I like how that came out” . Students reflect on the process of paper stencils. some like the rough and ready nature of it and some don’t. Students mention they like having an “outcome” that is finished and not just a prototype.
Tjora (2006) talks about “bracket one’s own knowledge in a somewhat extreme manner and apply an “extra – naive” metaphor” – in this case Im mixing mundane naive observation with my experience of teaching to make my observations and use them to proceed with the APR. This observations are through the lens of my own biased experiences, and would not be complete without speaking to the students and staff present. Because I use print to teach and in my own practice, I am biased towards if the workshop is useful or went well.
Thematic analysis:
After the interviews there is a clear sense from staff wanting to collaborate, but the lack of course wide policy is an obstacle – the increase of student numbers is something that everyone is finding challenging.
Themes that emerged:
1.Large cohorts: numbers are not going down, so shifting the way we teach and deliver technical resources has to adapt. This includes how to expose more people to technical areas at the same time – doing in session workshops is a model that is worth looking at. How feasible is it?
2.Ambitious scale: larger student numbers can mean more ambitious ways of applying print – rather than think about how to solve bespoke projects, are there ways of writing projects that incorporate print at a large scale? collaboration between students (or even pathways) can shift the usage of print from bespoke and editions to scale and visibility
3.Management intervention (show don’t tell): shifting cultures in management can only happen through evidential examples – if we run workshops that show the ambition, there is a higher chance that changes can be considered.
My perspective:
From my point of view, There are things I would like to try out after this ARP. Ive opened my approach to teaching by wanting to do more collaborative projects with technical. Embedding technical into projects is something that I want to do more. One of the interesting things about UAL Foundation is that it is only 1 year long, making the turnaround faster and the delivery dynamic – we can re-evaluate every year and try things (if it doesn’t work, we can change it!)
References:
Tjora, A (2006). writing small discoveries: an exploration of fresh observer’s observations Qualitative research.
Jones, L. (2010). documenting classroom life: how can I write about what I am seeing? Qualitative research.